Alright Newbies, Ask A Question

[RKM]

again really interesting man, surely it's the same process making guitar tunes with similar levels or audio quality just jamming? (i'm not a shadow member of course, but i'm enjoying this thread and trying to ask questions i think new members/producers might find interesting), not sure i could fully tear myself away in the end from that strumming on an instrument vibe over working on computers, just makes it so much easier for me to grab melodies (although im sure i could apply that by writing there and working it into electronic music)

[nowaysj]

What about this though?
This basically speaks against the last post in every way.

Listen dude, we have to have a heart to heart here.

What is the problem? Like, why do you want to mix up at 0db? There is no upside to it at all, only downside, and it is the easiest thing in all of production to do right. It is like there is some battle against gain staging properly. Like, "I heard you can do x and y and z and prqs to fix it when you are at 0..."

Just gain stage properly.

I get it guys. It's not hard. I'm not saying I really really have to mix loud, I won't. I'm just interested that's all.

"You have to gain stage"
"This video says you don't have to"
"Why do you want to mix at 0db anyway just gain stage"

I can see the real point in an analog or 24 bit environment but I just want to know what you guys are saying - is the guy in the video wrong or not? Is seamless an idiot for clipping his channels and turning the master down or is that a thing you can do (without clipping)? Because I heard his tracks and well, I can't hear clipping.
I'm not saying I'm going to do what he does, I just want to know if the video tells the truth because this has always been hard for me to understand.

Thanks guys!

Is he an idiot for clipping his channels and turning his master down... yeah pretty much. Can you do that, yes. There are just several problems that can come from that, and saying don't worry about it and turn the master down is pretty idiotic.

There is nothing hard to understand. Just start with your speakers at the right volume, and your core sounds at the right volume, and you'll be avoiding an assortment of problems.

So all that we've said in this thread about this topic is like 10 times more complex and long winded than it needs to be. Just set it up right, and move on to making music. If you want to make it difficult for yourself, you are free to do so, but I'm not interested in explaining the difficulties and the techniques to avoid them.

[nowaysj]

again really interesting man, surely it's the same process making guitar tunes with similar levels or audio quality just jamming? (i'm not a shadow member of course, but i'm enjoying this thread and trying to ask questions i think new members/producers might find interesting), not sure i could fully tear myself away in the end from that strumming on an instrument vibe over working on computers, just makes it so much easier for me to grab melodies (although im sure i could apply that by writing there and working it into electronic music)

Well Leg up their says he writes with basic voices and then moves that stuff over to other instruments. I don't work that way, and it would contradict the core of what I find interesting in music. Reductive people that are like it is just a square wave, a square wave is a square wave either are so reductive that they aren't actually hearing reality, or are so reductive in their thinking that they can't actually create anything. Everything has a unique character, and excels at certain things, and is deficient in other things. So when I'm writing, maybe writing a melody, the particular feel of the attack phase, the way it opens up, might be what is interesting to me. The lines I write, and by extension the songs themselves, are about that. I couldn't just take the line, and move it to another voicing. I mean a could, but... that is not where it is at for me. I mean, when I do that, I work the other voicing to get something in there right, so that it tickles me in the right way.

But, yeah, I've spent a lot of time clicking away. You get a certain kind of results. If you really invest yourself in that you can make amazing music. It is just not for me. I really like playing, like physically playing. So I've wrestled with that for years, how to do that in a digital environment. Where I'm at now is really limited. Like very limited instrumentation, and very casual songs. I'm not putting a lot of effort into anything, you know. Just doing my thing and enjoying myself. Still learning so much.

[nowaysj]

Just read that, sounds like I'm digging at leg in there, just at a family party and keep getting called away, so that all was a bit nonsequitous.

Just was contrasting my process, my taste, from leg, showing that there are a lot of different ways to be into music, different aspects interest different people in different ways. It is all valid. What is important is finding what is valuable to you, in sound, in music, in process...

And if you are new or just starting out or haven't really caught that flame yet where you've found what it is that is interesting you, you have just got to keep looking, trying new ways of working, new tools, new processes. I'm convinced that given enough time everyone can make interesting music. My case is challenging that theory, but it is the hope

[legend4ry]

Fk u fgt.

Nah seriously, I am totally vibey off rhythms and melodic content.

I couldn't give a fuck if the sound design is decent. Obviously sometimes a sound will capture me and fuel the rest of the session but I pick sounds after i've got a structure, its really hard to explain but I just know what things should sound like when i start playing?

[nowaysj]

I am totally vibey off rhythms

See, so am I, but the rhythms within sounds, not between sounds.

And again this is not to suggest a superiority between ways, but it is interesting and informative to the shadow people to highlight two totally different ways of making music.

I like using sampled sounds, and just twisting and pulling at them, really changing them, and then within that process there are all kinds of odd rhythms, polyrhythms, accidental rhythms, broken rhythms that emerge WITHIN THE SOUND.

This is juxtaposed to programming or playing in a rhythm using discrete samples where each sample is a rhythmic event or note. Discrete samples is definitely the more common way of doing things, and most tools are geared towards working this way. I kind of have to work against tools, or like use tools beyond their abilities to break sounds in the way I like.

[skins345669]

I'm with J on this one, I tend to spend ages and ages building my sounds and textures first before I put melody lines together and arrange because I find it makes for a more organic interaction between different elements. It does, however, means that it takes aaaaaggeeeessss for a piece to come together.

[bouncingfish]

What about this though?
This basically speaks against the last post in every way.

Listen dude, we have to have a heart to heart here.

What is the problem? Like, why do you want to mix up at 0db? There is no upside to it at all, only downside, and it is the easiest thing in all of production to do right. It is like there is some battle against gain staging properly. Like, "I heard you can do x and y and z and prqs to fix it when you are at 0..."

Just gain stage properly.

I get it guys. It's not hard. I'm not saying I really really have to mix loud, I won't. I'm just interested that's all.

"You have to gain stage"
"This video says you don't have to"
"Why do you want to mix at 0db anyway just gain stage"

I can see the real point in an analog or 24 bit environment but I just want to know what you guys are saying - is the guy in the video wrong or not? Is seamless an idiot for clipping his channels and turning the master down or is that a thing you can do (without clipping)? Because I heard his tracks and well, I can't hear clipping.
I'm not saying I'm going to do what he does, I just want to know if the video tells the truth because this has always been hard for me to understand.

Thanks guys!

Is he an idiot for clipping his channels and turning his master down... yeah pretty much. Can you do that, yes. There are just several problems that can come from that, and saying don't worry about it and turn the master down is pretty idiotic.

There is nothing hard to understand. Just start with your speakers at the right volume, and your core sounds at the right volume, and you'll be avoiding an assortment of problems.

So all that we've said in this thread about this topic is like 10 times more complex and long winded than it needs to be. Just set it up right, and move on to making music. If you want to make it difficult for yourself, you are free to do so, but I'm not interested in explaining the difficulties and the techniques to avoid them.

Nice! An answer! This is what I was looking for from the beginning.



If someone would be interested in explaining, shortly, one or two of the problems that turning down master channels while having the individual channels low brings, I'd be interested in hearing that, just for funs sake.
For example, so far no one seems to have disagreed with seamless on the point that there wont be annoying clipping/distortion as long as the master isn't clipping. If that's not the problem, it would be kinda fun to know what the problem would be. Just for fun. Hypothetically.

[fragments]

Fk u fgt.

Nah seriously, I am totally vibey off rhythms and melodic content.

I couldn't give a fuck if the sound design is decent. Obviously sometimes a sound will capture me and fuel the rest of the session but I pick sounds after i've got a structure, its really hard to explain but I just know what things should sound like when i start playing?

For me melody informs timbre. That is all I can say. Like a really obvious example is dark song is going to get more detuning...where as if I do something upbeat I will avoid that kind of thing in sound design. I get what Leg is after here. I have a small go to library. ..pick sounds quickly and start composing a song. There is lots to be said for focusing on sound design but that aint me.

[fragments]

What about this though?
This basically speaks against the last post in every way.

Listen dude, we have to have a heart to heart here.

What is the problem? Like, why do you want to mix up at 0db? There is no upside to it at all, only downside, and it is the easiest thing in all of production to do right. It is like there is some battle against gain staging properly. Like, "I heard you can do x and y and z and prqs to fix it when you are at 0..."

Just gain stage properly.

I get it guys. It's not hard. I'm not saying I really really have to mix loud, I won't. I'm just interested that's all.

"You have to gain stage"
"This video says you don't have to"
"Why do you want to mix at 0db anyway just gain stage"

I can see the real point in an analog or 24 bit environment but I just want to know what you guys are saying - is the guy in the video wrong or not? Is seamless an idiot for clipping his channels and turning the master down or is that a thing you can do (without clipping)? Because I heard his tracks and well, I can't hear clipping.
I'm not saying I'm going to do what he does, I just want to know if the video tells the truth because this has always been hard for me to understand.

Thanks guys!

Is he an idiot for clipping his channels and turning his master down... yeah pretty much. Can you do that, yes. There are just several problems that can come from that, and saying don't worry about it and turn the master down is pretty idiotic.

There is nothing hard to understand. Just start with your speakers at the right volume, and your core sounds at the right volume, and you'll be avoiding an assortment of problems.

So all that we've said in this thread about this topic is like 10 times more complex and long winded than it needs to be. Just set it up right, and move on to making music. If you want to make it difficult for yourself, you are free to do so, but I'm not interested in explaining the difficulties and the techniques to avoid them.

Nice! An answer! This is what I was looking for from the beginning.



If someone would be interested in explaining, shortly, one or two of the problems that turning down master channels while having the individual channels low brings, I'd be interested in hearing that, just for funs sake.
For example, so far no one seems to have disagreed with seamless on the point that there wont be annoying clipping/distortion as long as the master isn't clipping. If that's not the problem, it would be kinda fun to know what the problem would be. Just for fun. Hypothetically.

I actually did cover this, but probably didn't make it obvious. Let's look at an example VST Synth > Distortion VST > Master and also VST Synth > Distortion VST > Parallel Reverb VST.

Two scenarios:

1. If the VST Synth is clipping inside itself this will possibly cause distortion despite 32 bit FP. If you don't gain stage inside the VST (ie turn it down) this distortion will go to the distortion unit (possibly causing clipping inside the dist. vst), to the master and the reverb send. Turning the master down will not stop this clipping. And then you've got an assload of clipping all over the place.

2. Clipping inside the distortion vst. Again, if not "gain staged" this distortion will go to the reverb send and the master. Only way to fix it is to stop the clipping is inside the vst turning down the master will not stop this distortion.


I think the idea of "true" (hate this word btw) is lost on people who have never worked with outboard gear. It can become a real issue very quickly in the analog world. The issue is turning down the master only turns down the gain of the final output, it doesn't change the signal amount anywhere else. So if you clip before you get to the 2 bus, you've got clipping. End of story. Only the DAW works in 32 bit floating point. The VSTs don't. Not 100% on the last bit, but pretty damn sure.

Not to beat a dead horse or be and ass, but think about the term gain staging. Staging. Stages. Attenuating the amount of signal at every "stage" of the chain.

This is why every synt and FX vst worth a damn as it's own volume knob that attenuates the signal inside the VST.

EDIT: Fully prepared to be proven wrong here : )

[nowaysj]

Haha, I was waiting for that.

[Aufnahmewindwuschel]

how can i translate russian to find some buttons?

[nowaysj]

You're going to have to translate that from German to English before you get an answer.

[Aufnahmewindwuschel]

hm i wish i had a real question

[nowaysj]

You're not a shadow person.

18 guests... WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE! Maybe they are bots.

[Aufnahmewindwuschel]

bots have souls too

[nowaysj]

Yes but do they have questions.

[legend4ry]

Fk u fgt.

Nah seriously, I am totally vibey off rhythms and melodic content.

I couldn't give a fuck if the sound design is decent. Obviously sometimes a sound will capture me and fuel the rest of the session but I pick sounds after i've got a structure, its really hard to explain but I just know what things should sound like when i start playing?

For me melody informs timbre. That is all I can say. Like a really obvious example is dark song is going to get more detuning...where as if I do something upbeat I will avoid that kind of thing in sound design. I get what Leg is after here. I have a small go to library. ..pick sounds quickly and start composing a song. There is lots to be said for focusing on sound design but that aint me.

I ain't even going to pussy foot around. I preset whore, I buy expensive kontakt libraries so I don't have to sit there tweaking knobs and just have everything available to me. I obviously know synthesis pretty well (subtractive, FM, Additive and a little physical modeling). I just don't have the effort or the time to sit around and make noises I also don't find it fun.

I guess its like back in the day buying a JV1080 and then getting hype for the dance music expansion. You just worked with the sounds you had and used the limited tweaking ability.

I don't think my sound choice is off point or anything so I don't see anything wrong with it haha.

[DrGatineau]

^ yeah but then where do you get bass presets? synths never have good bass presets. Except for like standard 303 acid presets, those are the only good ones. the rest are shit.

I have a similar viewpoint as you. Sometimes I enjoy sound design but honestly much of the time I'd rather just write music. I feel like I know subtractive synthesis inside & out but still can't make lots of sounds that I want to make (and they sure as hell don't come as presets lol).

[legend4ry]

Most of the time it comes down to wave forms and how the actual synth processes the sounds. For instance : The Novation V Station makes AMAAZINGGGG garage/log bass because the filters are really warm and full on the low end but its terrible at making soft pads.

Basslines for me are usually just processed sine waves, maybe squares - I usually use Fruity's 3xOSC which is literally a 3 oscilator synth with 6 wave forms and the option to import your own, its light weight and very simple but my lord does it create a beautiful sine tone!




If I want anything more advanced then I usually build it in sylenth which can pretty much do any sound I have in my head, its a very versatile synth - i'd even go as far as to say I don't understand why people still use massive, when 'lenth cheaper and better sounding.


https://soundcloud.com/legend4ry/wiley- ... e-download

I made the basses in that on lazerbass for Reaktor - Thats an awesome plugin for getting weird sounding basses.

I also have a bass guitar and amplitube!