Posts: 559
Threads: 77
Joined: Aug 2016
@Roy. Sure, man, lol. I wanted you to debate with him why the toms should be closer in the middle. You're the one who holds the banner, not me
. I just agreed with you.
@Franz. Yeah, but it still doesn't address my question. Loudness range and dynamics range are 2 different things as per my understanding of the both. The LUFS (loudness unit relative to full scale) does not indicate dynamics range; it only indicates how loud it is "relatively" to human perception and electrical intensity (in our case, current/voltage, I assume). There is no where in the definition of LUFS that says one can use it to measure dynamic range. There is a way but using Peak-to RMS, not LUFS. Peak-toRMS makes more sense to me to use to measure dynamics range. Even the range has a lot of room to wiggle, from 10dBs-5dBs depending on genre. But this is only the technical point of view.
I will still try your advice and suggestions if they make sense to me. I am not saying your opinion of my mix is wrong; it might well be over compressed and out of balance, but not bc it's 3.8 or whatever, bc LUFS is a wrong measurement to use, or, at the very least, not a right instrument to rely on.
Posts: 113
Threads: 48
Joined: Mar 2019
06-05-2024, 05:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2024, 05:12 PM by Franz.)
@Roy
Ahh,... I just checked a few tables (after listening) and this confirms my impression of your relative flatness of your mix: you have a Loudness Range of 5.6 LU = a maximum dynamic range of 5.6 dB which is not is huge but correct nonetheless.
Posts: 1,745
Threads: 20
Joined: Oct 2016
I hold no banner. I admittedly suck. Though I have so for a longer time than most.
I've glossed over the loudness issue for the most part. I will just say that I've never cared for how loud a track is. That feels like an old school issue. I will say that I've heard mixes become worse in an attempt to be 'louder' I get the pursuit as a mixer/on in audio to figure out how to make things loud. I think there is a benefit there. But I've never thought a mix was better because it was loud. If anything I've thought that good mixes were ruined trying to push the envelope.
Posts: 113
Threads: 48
Joined: Mar 2019
@Roy
@SonicTramp
I think we can humbly put the “mixing/mastering” subject back at the center of our discussions. It's about mixing a piece of music. That's all. Loudness War, LUfs, etc... just disturb the subject. Sorry for heading in that direction.
We forget. The important thing is the feeling a piece of music gives. We can talk about it and then we can debate it musically and technically. I think there is always something to learn. The vocation of Cambridge MT, right?
Franz
Posts: 1,745
Threads: 20
Joined: Oct 2016
I'm absolutely on that page. I think mastering has crept too much into the general discussion for most mixes. In my defense I've come from an era where mastering was a separate stage.
Posts: 113
Threads: 48
Joined: Mar 2019
Hey SonicTramp
So, as I responded to Roy on his page, let's drop all this sterile discussion about measurements. Let's return to the central subject which is mixing a piece of music. I advise you to only concentrate on this musical aspect and forget all reasoning about dynamic control. This is of no use in developing a mix. It is above all a technical notion (creation of the sound space, use of plugins, etc.) but also with musical notions. All this art is in this knowledge...
Franz
Posts: 559
Threads: 77
Joined: Aug 2016
@Franz. Sure, man. I didn't know enough to even bring it up. My set up is so simple and have none of those fancy meters to even know. I was just winging the mix (like I always do) until you said something about it. But I do get the gist of your advice tho I think it's easy said than done. Not all of us are in the same level. Yours may well be way above mine and what you think is easy may not be the same with me. Maybe you're over the technical notion part and on to the musical part, but I am still trying to work out the processors; that's where I am at.
Anywayz, I came back and did another redo. But with more intents and purposes, I suppose. There will be no lack of trying on this end
.
Posts: 113
Threads: 48
Joined: Mar 2019
Hey SonicTramp !
So, overall I think your V4 sounds good. She is full of life and gives off good energy. You are completely on topic. Sold !
The vocals and backing vocals are a delicate part to deal with in this title. You could bring the choirs a little closer to the main vocals so that it forms a whole and not a distinction between vocals and behind the choir, something that is done quite often traditionally. This is important for example in the last part of the title, where, after the main vocals, it is the choir which restarts the whole thing. At this point it (the choir) should be louder (in volume). Also does a shunt" for the end of the title. Et voila.
The journey can be chaotic at the beginning but with an absolutely convincing result for this version.
Cheers !
Franz
Posts: 559
Threads: 77
Joined: Aug 2016
@Franz. Thanks for the listen and approval
. Yeah, man, the mix is quite rough and static. I tried to get it to where, I guess, the real work begins, the last 20%, the polishing stuffs, the finer moves, etc. I will work on it more with your suggestions in mind. Thanks for the tips.
Posts: 1,736
Threads: 133
Joined: Jan 2016
I think we can all agree that the improvement from version 1 to the latest version, has been a huge and massive success. Even though there are some improvements that you maybe can make, I would consider this a done mix already just for the fact that you went from something like on version one to a massive improvement on version 4. All this left to say is a great work and what time you're going to get better and better at it and eventually down the line you can come back and remix this and you will see for yourself how much you have improved
