Dubstepforum.com

Filthzilla wrote:

invictus wrote:hey, just wanted to ask - what should I export my song into before the mastering? and also after the mastering (type/bitrate)

24bit WAV mate, you don't need to worry about the bitrate if it's a WAV.

Sure you do. If he exports at 24bit 48khz, it won't go too well for most. He will also need to downsample to 16bit 44.1khz and dither if he wants to go to MP3 or CD. Assuming he wants it for himself and is not planning to send away for mastering. For mastering, staying in 44.1khz 24bit is fine until you are finished, then you can downsample when you are done with mastering. Assuming you are working with 24/32 bit and 44.1k inside your DAW which you most likely will be unless you are recording outboard gear at higher quality like 48k or 96k.

OP:
http://www.dors.de/razorlame/index.php
http://lame.sourceforge.net/links.php

I would recommend against iTunes too, but http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/8837/i ... me-encoder

Sparxy wrote:I don't care enough to have a problem with you, I just think you're a bit of a twat

Okay fair enough. Not really sure where you got that from, I didn't realise I gave off that vibe.

I just thought it was a bit off of you to take something of mine that's personal and slag it off.

But whatever, I think this should end here because it doesn't worry me.

Btw, I think your tunes are cool and I like your sound... just a shame you didn't have a nice chunky bio for me to read.

Tune battle?

wub wrote:Tune battle?

YES!

Why didn't anyone tell the truth?
It's dubturbo.

I made this thread about a day ago and just came back to it to read all the madness...

Obviously I didn't explain myself clear enough. Some of my tracks have been over-processed due to my "over-mastering" and they come out reading over 1100 kbps on my winamp player and have been rejected by several mastering companies because the kbps is too high. Insult me all you want but I am no noob when it comes to producing, just a little rusty at fine mixing. There are clearly things I need to modify in the loudness and EQing of a track.

I heard someone say "Export it".... lol

KillerKat wrote:I made this thread about a day ago and just came back to it to read all the madness...

Obviously I didn't explain myself clear enough. Some of my tracks have been over-processed due to my "over-mastering" and they come out reading over 1100 kbps on my winamp player and have been rejected by several mastering companies because the kbps is too high. Insult me all you want but I am no noob when it comes to producing, just a little rusty at fine mixing. There are clearly things I need to modify in the loudness and EQing of a track.

I heard someone say "Export it".... lol

What DAW are you using? I only really have experience with FL studio but when you export, it gives you an option what quality you actually want to export it at. Whether it be 320kbs, 160kbs etc etc... Certain there isn't an option for 1100kbs though in FL lol.

I'm using Reason 5 at the moment and after an export, tracks are at 1411 kbps to be exact. The only options to choose from when exporting is the bit depth & sample rate (default sample rate is 44,100 hz), there are no options to choose the Kbps rate (seriously if there was do you really think I would need to ask??? Incredibly shallow on everyone's attempt to be a smart ass lol )

I am working to master tracks authentically, not to disguise a 160kbps or 1411kbps as a 320. And honestly, if you are not humble enough to properly address that inquiry, then you should seriously just ignore this thread because you are wasting your time with dunce-like comments.

KillerKat wrote:I'm using Reason 5 at the moment and after an export, tracks are at 1411 kbps to be exact. The only options to choose from when exporting is the bit depth & sample rate (default sample rate is 44,100 hz), there are no options to choose the Kbps rate (seriously if there was do you really think I would need to ask??? Incredibly shallow on everyone's attempt to be a smart ass lol )

I am working to master tracks authentically, not to disguise a 160kbps or 1411kbps as a 320. And honestly, if you are not humble enough to properly address that inquiry, then you should seriously just ignore this thread because you are wasting your time with dunce-like comments.

I'd imagine that 1411kbps is .WAV format...is there not an option to export in .mp3 format?

wub wrote:

KillerKat wrote:I'm using Reason 5 at the moment and after an export, tracks are at 1411 kbps to be exact. The only options to choose from when exporting is the bit depth & sample rate (default sample rate is 44,100 hz), there are no options to choose the Kbps rate (seriously if there was do you really think I would need to ask??? Incredibly shallow on everyone's attempt to be a smart ass lol )

I am working to master tracks authentically, not to disguise a 160kbps or 1411kbps as a 320. And honestly, if you are not humble enough to properly address that inquiry, then you should seriously just ignore this thread because you are wasting your time with dunce-like comments.

I'd imagine that 1411kbps is .WAV format...is there not an option to export in .mp3 format?

Not in Reason, not that I know of.

KillerKat wrote:

wub wrote:

KillerKat wrote:I'm using Reason 5 at the moment and after an export, tracks are at 1411 kbps to be exact. The only options to choose from when exporting is the bit depth & sample rate (default sample rate is 44,100 hz), there are no options to choose the Kbps rate (seriously if there was do you really think I would need to ask??? Incredibly shallow on everyone's attempt to be a smart ass lol )

I am working to master tracks authentically, not to disguise a 160kbps or 1411kbps as a 320. And honestly, if you are not humble enough to properly address that inquiry, then you should seriously just ignore this thread because you are wasting your time with dunce-like comments.

I'd imagine that 1411kbps is .WAV format...is there not an option to export in .mp3 format?

Not in Reason, not that I know of.

Ok, I'm not versed with Reason so can't help on that.

However, if you used an audio editing program such as Audacity (freeware), you can import a .WAV file and then export again as a .mp3 in a variety of bitrates.


Though I have to be honest, this is the first time I've heard of a mastering house rejecting a track because it's in .WAV format.

youre getting confused.

KBPS in terms of mp3s has nothing to do with the loudness or frequency content of the tune. Its an indication of the quality of the MP3 conversion.

What mastering houses reject a wav over an mp3? KBPS too high? That doesnt make any sense.

HAve you got an actual email from them? Maybe if yop post the information people can help.

Most mastering houses should request 24bit or higher 44khz wavs .

Bounce this, and then convert to 320kbps in audacity, foobar, or whatever you use for your own use if you want.

wub wrote:

KillerKat wrote:I'd imagine that 1411kbps is .WAV format...is there not an option to export in .mp3 format?

Yeah it is and 24something is 24bit wav, thats what foobar reports, not sure if its an entirely appropriate descitption anyway. Not 100% clued up on mp3s tbh. Bounce as mp3 in razorlame, job done. FLAC FTW anyway these days.

KillerKat wrote:I made this thread about a day ago and just came back to it to read all the madness...

Obviously I didn't explain myself clear enough. Some of my tracks have been over-processed due to my "over-mastering" and they come out reading over 1100 kbps on my winamp player and have been rejected by several mastering companies because the kbps is too high. Insult me all you want but I am no noob when it comes to producing, just a little rusty at fine mixing. There are clearly things I need to modify in the loudness and EQing of a track.

I heard someone say "Export it".... lol

I had to make a "smartass" reply to this one.

"I am no noob when it comes to producing" - Then tell me why do you want to convert a finished mixdown to a 320 mp3 and send it to mastering??
I think the mastering companies reject it because you send them an mp3!
I never heard a mastering company complain about the kbps.

Tips:
- no limiter / compressor or whatever on the master bus.
- keep peaks at -3db or even better -6db. This so the mastering engineer has headroom left to master.
- export at atleast 44100Hz 24bit .WAV <<<<<IMPORTANT!

I don't like it when people act like "they know it all" and "are no noobs" then asks a question that's totally telling the opposite.

paradigm x wrote:youre getting confused.

KBPS in terms of mp3s has nothing to do with the loudness or frequency content of the tune. Its an indication of the quality of the MP3 conversion.

What mastering houses reject a wav over an mp3? KBPS too high? That doesnt make any sense.

I said the exact same thing. I sent one to Joe Caithness @ Subsequent Studios (a link I've gotten from this forum) and this is what his email read after I sent him a Zshare link of a WAV form of one of my tracks:

Unfortunately, I can not work with this audio as it is too far pushed/compressed to create a master I would be happy to provide you with.

I had just assumed he meant he needed something below a 320 to turn it into a 320, but I guess that isn't the case if you say kbps doesn't have anything to do with loudness or frequency content.

I had to make a "smartass" reply to this one.

"I am no noob when it comes to producing" - Then tell me why do you want to convert a finished mixdown to a 320 mp3 and send it to mastering??
I think the mastering companies reject it because you send them an mp3!
I never heard a mastering company complain about the kbps.

Tips:
- no limiter / compressor or whatever on the master bus.
- keep peaks at -3db or even better -6db. This so the mastering engineer has headroom left to master.
- export at atleast 44100Hz 24bit .WAV <<<<<IMPORTANT!

I don't like it when people act like "they know it all" and "are no noobs" then asks a question that's totally telling the opposite.

I didn't send him an mp3 and I never said I was a "know it all", that is why I am here. I was a bit confused on what exactly a 320 was at first as I was told something completely different. But thanks for the tips anyways.

KillerKat wrote:I said the exact same thing. I sent one to Joe Caithness @ Subsequent Studios (a link I've gotten from this forum) and this is what his email read after I sent him a Zshare link of a WAV form of one of my tracks:

Unfortunately, I can not work with this audio as it is too far pushed/compressed to create a master I would be happy to provide you with.

I had just assumed he meant he needed something below a 320 to turn it into a 320, but I guess that isn't the case if you say kbps doesn't have anything to do with loudness or frequency content.

Did you have existing compressing on the track that you'd bounced out and sent him?

wub wrote:

KillerKat wrote:I said the exact same thing. I sent one to Joe Caithness @ Subsequent Studios (a link I've gotten from this forum) and this is what his email read after I sent him a Zshare link of a WAV form of one of my tracks:

Unfortunately, I can not work with this audio as it is too far pushed/compressed to create a master I would be happy to provide you with.

I had just assumed he meant he needed something below a 320 to turn it into a 320, but I guess that isn't the case if you say kbps doesn't have anything to do with loudness or frequency content.

Did you have existing compressing on the track that you'd bounced out and sent him?

I just got another reply from him about 5 minutes ago. It seems I have been confused about what a 320 is (it is basically mp3 quality). He explained to me that he needs 44.1 hz/24 bit export to leave him some headroom and that makes a little more sense.

I'm used to WAV's and not mp3 when it comes to producing so when a guy I was talking to @ work earlier this week told me I should send the mastering studio a balanced 320 kbps, I was thinking that was what he needed. But it's been sorted out now and things are much clearer

Boy, really had to take a barrage of machine gun fire for that one, huh? Well I learned my lesson, I'll definitely do more research before I ask questions here in the future !!

I think the responses in this thread were more as a result of your original wording than anything else

wub wrote:I think the responses in this thread were more as a result of your original wording than anything else

Yeah, you're right.