Sorry can't let this go. Euphorizer you keep going on about this being a totally subjective thing - this hearing thing we all do, but although there is an element of subjectivity we are kind of all bound to certain tendencies and characteristics when the brain decodes sound. The human hearing frequency response can be shown using Fletcher Munson Curves, which show human frequency response in different environments. They show that we are much less sensitive to low frequencies, most responsive to mids, and fairly responsive to highs when music is played at low volumes and that sensitivity starts becoming more uniform in louder environments. Now baring this in mind what platform does hardstyle mostly get consumed ? It's mostly consumed on small ear-buds, or home systems.
Now if the people that are mastering these tracks are only mastering a track to standards to be played out in a live scenario they are depriving the home listener (where the music is mostly consumed) then the product, we could assume, would have less bass content due to the human hearing system being more responsive to these frequencies at high levels of dB SPL and there not being any need to boost them for lower volume listening. But this won't be the case as these people will probably know what they're doing and are trying to make a finished master which can translate on both the dance floor and for the regular home user. If this is not being done for the home listener then you have to ask where's the problem. Is it the mix down, the fact that tracks are only mastered to be played out live or does it boil down to the sound design ? << which ultimately boils down to completing a competent coherent mix down.
As you stated there's this big distorted kick which dominates so much of the freq spectrum. If this is the case when you start to include lots of other elements which occupy the same frequencies shit's going to get messy, and one of the things in modern hardstyle is that producers are trying to fire hundreds of sounds into a track to "show off" their sound design/scaping capabilities at the risk of compromising a tight mix. Now if there's a lot of shit occupying a certain frequency band (and hasn't been mixed particularly well) and this goes through the mastering process and this band of frequencies is then compressed, it's going to sound pish. Obviously there's people who have been doing this for years and know what they're doing but it's kind of obvious that if there is a lot of clutter in a mix it really doesn't sit well sonically. Even when you listen to older hardstyle when they were restricted to using a certain amount of channels and thus elements it sounds fuller, less noisy due to the sole fact there's less sounds competing for space. You stated earlier other EDM genres don't sound great to home users (by EDM i'm kinda going to have a stab that you're talking about things like Big-Room and Electro House in other words genres which in recent years have spawned the EDM craze) could this not be because of the "lets shove lots of wooshes, synth fills, big all encompassing leads etc, into one track" attitude to producing music nowadays as opposed to the masterer just not giving a fuck about the home listener ?
I said this earlier, someone who masters a track is generally trying to bring the music up to an acceptable standard to be played out on all sound systems. Mastering is the final stage of quality assurance that your track is going to be loud enough (hopefully without sacrificing dynamics) and will sound polished. It does not fix a bad mix, it does not fix the human hearing phenomenon of masking and doe not amend the fact that f you launch a hundred and one things into a very limited frequency spectrum you are going to be able to make everything out with perfect clarity. A lot of what was said is not about subjectivity but of what actually happens in the hearing system.
Something that's been bothering me: Harderstyles mastering.
Forum rules
Kick questions/feedback in these topics ONLY:
* Kick feedback (Get feedback on the kick you made and help others)
* General/how-to kick topic (How to create a certain kick, questions, troubleshooting, etc)
* How is this sound made (Questions, troubleshooting, etc about how to create a certain sound)
Kick questions/feedback in these topics ONLY:
* Kick feedback (Get feedback on the kick you made and help others)
* General/how-to kick topic (How to create a certain kick, questions, troubleshooting, etc)
* How is this sound made (Questions, troubleshooting, etc about how to create a certain sound)
-
Euphorizer
- Artist
- Posts: 1432
- Joined: 29 Mar 2012, 21:45
This is correct, except the last part. Maybe you're right (we don't have the statistics, so we would never know) that hardstyle gets mostly consumed at home, but I know for a fact that most big hardstyle producers arrange, mix and probably master their tracks to fit the dancefloor. When I won Tatanka's Eternal remix project I was literally told to change parts of my tracks arrangement because "it would not fit on the dancefloor".Sorry can't let this go. Euphorizer you keep going on about this being a totally subjective thing - this hearing thing we all do, but although there is an element of subjectivity we are kind of all bound to certain tendencies and characteristics when the brain decodes sound. The human hearing frequency response can be shown using Fletcher Munson Curves, which show human frequency response in different environments. They show that we are much less sensitive to low frequencies, most responsive to mids, and fairly responsive to highs when music is played at low volumes and that sensitivity starts becoming more uniform in louder environments. Now baring this in mind what platform does hardstyle mostly get consumed ? It's mostly consumed on small ear-buds, or home systems.
No, this is where you are wrong again. If you listen to most hardstyle tracks there are at most 1 - 2 different sounds going on at the same time (with things like percussion being layered behind it). I agree that hardstyle is a very "in your face" type of genre, but if you actually look at it up close it isn't that cramped up with sounds.As you stated there's this big distorted kick which dominates so much of the freq spectrum. If this is the case when you start to include lots of other elements which occupy the same frequencies shit's going to get messy, and one of the things in modern hardstyle is that producers are trying to fire hundreds of sounds into a track to "show off" their sound design/scaping capabilities at the risk of compromising a tight mix.
This can hold true for any genre, and I am of the belief that hardstyle and hardcore (and various other hard dance genres) aren't more prone to fall victim to poor mixing, if that is what you're insinuating.Now if there's a lot of shit occupying a certain frequency band (and hasn't been mixed particularly well) and this goes through the mastering process and this band of frequencies is then compressed, it's going to sound pish.
Agreed.bviously there's people who have been doing this for years and know what they're doing but it's kind of obvious that if there is a lot of clutter in a mix it really doesn't sit well sonically.
Once again, what defines noise and what does not? To me, older hardstyle tracks more often than not sounds empty. It depends on how far back we go. Once again we fall back to subjectivity and comparing apples with oranges. Empty does not necessarily mean worse though, of course, but neither does more filled up mean bad either.Even when you listen to older hardstyle when they were restricted to using a certain amount of channels and thus elements it sounds fuller, less noisy due to the sole fact there's less sounds competing for space.
Pretty much any master in the beatport top 100 will have zero dynamics left in them. But since EDM is such a wide umbrella term I don't doubt for a second there are plenty of exceptions out there, especially within the more underground genres.You stated earlier other EDM genres don't sound great to home users (by EDM i'm kinda going to have a stab that you're talking about things like Big-Room and Electro House in other words genres which in recent years have spawned the EDM craze)
No, not really. Honestly, I think we have to stop here and think for a second. The ME does actually think of the average home listener. However, he (or she) does not think of people like you - i.e, people who are more than just a casual listener. This is what we refer to as the loudness war (I'm sure it is a lot more complicated than this though, I haven't bothered reading up too much about it considering I don't master things that much). We subconsciously perceive louder as better, so as thus the ME can't afford making track A seem more quiet than B, because then the average consumer will think less of track A. Please note that despite this statement I do of course think that music with dynamics kept in it sounds better. So does pretty much everyone, if they just stop and think about it for a second.could this not be because of the "lets shove lots of wooshes, synth fills, big all encompassing leads etc, into one track" attitude to producing music nowadays as opposed to the masterer just not giving a fuck about the home listener ?
I agree with this all through. What I originally disagreed with is statements claiming that most pro hardstyle tracks fall victim of this. But I've already explained myself on that, so no point in repeating myself.I said this earlier, someone who masters a track is generally trying to bring the music up to an acceptable standard to be played out on all sound systems. Mastering is the final stage of quality assurance that your track is going to be loud enough (hopefully without sacrificing dynamics) and will sound polished. It does not fix a bad mix, it does not fix the human hearing phenomenon of masking and doe not amend the fact that f you launch a hundred and one things into a very limited frequency spectrum you are going to be able to make everything out with perfect clarity.
Honestly, this thread derailed way too fast because you and Nitrax decided to blame the wrong things imo. What Nitrax originall complains about is just general modern mastering. It's not only hardstyle that his this type of mastering, so it's unfair to make it seem like this is a genre specific issue. But somehow you started thinking up that this was not a mastering issue, but rather a mixing/arrangement issue, which it most definitely isn't.
Didn't mean to derail at all, but hey, harderstate!
I know the general modern EDM mastering and mixing is similar, but this topic wasn't about that - it was about harderstyles mastering. It's not that different, but that's what my point was about. I don't care about commercial EDM
Not trying to blame it on this type of music, but it's just what I was focusing on.
I think I'll try and make my point clearer by referring to two tracks by the same artist, so you can understand what kind of difference I'm about exactly.
Compare Audiofreq - Volition with Audiofreq - Legend, turn it up loud.
The difference should be very clear. Tell me which track sounds better to you, mix and master wise.
I know the general modern EDM mastering and mixing is similar, but this topic wasn't about that - it was about harderstyles mastering. It's not that different, but that's what my point was about. I don't care about commercial EDM
Not trying to blame it on this type of music, but it's just what I was focusing on.I think I'll try and make my point clearer by referring to two tracks by the same artist, so you can understand what kind of difference I'm about exactly.
Compare Audiofreq - Volition with Audiofreq - Legend, turn it up loud.
The difference should be very clear. Tell me which track sounds better to you, mix and master wise.
Spoiler
In my opinion, volition is an example of what is too loud and noisy. Legend on the other hand is less chaotic and has a cleaner sound, which is what I think is a good mix. The difference might be that either legend has not been mastered yet, or has just been mixed way better. Legend might be a bit less filled up, but that should not matter as it's still an energetic and melodic track, technically similar to volition in lots of ways.
So what, you think? Well, volition is one of his favorite tracks for me, but it would be so much more enjoyable to listen for me if the track wasn't mixed and/or mastered like this.
So what, you think? Well, volition is one of his favorite tracks for me, but it would be so much more enjoyable to listen for me if the track wasn't mixed and/or mastered like this.
In response to the OP.
There are many reasons why masters have gotten a lot louder.
The first was the transition away from vinyl. Because it was a physical medium and involved a needle balancing on a groove, the music could only be so loud and eq'd in a particular way so that the needle didn't skip.
Once we moved away from vinyl to pure digital audio, mastering engineers didn't need to think about these limits any more and could 'crush' (heh) the mixes to as loud as possible before reaching audible distortion.
Secondly, as technology has gotten better, so have the plugins and compression algorithms allowing greater loudness with less distortion.
Thirdly, to make room for more loudness, (some but not much) low frequencies have been sacrificed. But also, people have become less afraid of working with mid-range and high frequencies. If you listen to music from 10 or 20 years ago compared to now, we use MORE of the frequency spectrum now than we did back then. There hasn't been that much if a compromise however, because too low end in a vinyl master would mean that the needle would skip too.
Fourth, hardstyle producers 10 years ago use to use to have baselines and gated kicks that would have a lot of energy and movement around the 100-200z range. We've moved away from this with the distorted kicks and instead have an almost single tone (but not quite). It still takes up this region but its based on the harmonics derived from the fundamental note of a distorted kick with not as much movement as the older style. Because of this, on certain systems older tracks sound more rumbly and huge. Now producers focus more on the sub 100hz frequencies and work to get the harmonics right instead of the chaotic rumble in the 100hz-200hz region. Add to this that now distorted kicks take up a lot of mid range for an extended period of time rather than a transient punch, so the mixes need to be approached differently.
Fifth, techno is very different to hardstyle both musically and sonically. The entire ethos and point of the music genres are worlds apart and I find them incomparable. In techno they only use select parts of the frequency spectrum at a time and don't trying to have everything going on at once. Techno is more about the eb and flow of the track (or in reality the set) building towards something. Hardstyle (and by extension hardcore) is the complete opposite, hardstyle is about being in your face for the entire track being a completely exhilarating sonic experience. You are comparing 2 completely different foods to each other, one is very carefully prepared sashimi, the other is pizza. I don't think its proper to compare the two. That said, if you look at the Len Faki masters, they are extremely compressed.
Also I don't think your KRK's or AKG headphones are good enough to properly measure the low frequency content of music. A tiny 6" 50W woofer to check low frequencies? No thanks. I burst out laughing when you said you checked using your headphones.
Finally.... if a track is getting compressed to all bollocks and all the life sucked out of it, it means you hear MORE details and not LESS. Compression takes the quiet parts and makes them louder and takes the loud parts and makes them quieter evening out the overall volume in the track.
When I layer stuff in my tracks, I go for something you can feel, not something you can notice. Not everything I do needs to be in your face and blatant. I am trying more and more to get a cleaner mix down every time even with hundreds of little details.
That said, you don't need to like the style of mastering at all. I agree that the way that techno is mixed and produced can be softer to the ear and more pleasant to listen to. The new Plastikman album sounds absolutely superb.
But I do think you are over exaggerating the 'problem' and I don't really believe that things were better in the past.
There are many reasons why masters have gotten a lot louder.
The first was the transition away from vinyl. Because it was a physical medium and involved a needle balancing on a groove, the music could only be so loud and eq'd in a particular way so that the needle didn't skip.
Once we moved away from vinyl to pure digital audio, mastering engineers didn't need to think about these limits any more and could 'crush' (heh) the mixes to as loud as possible before reaching audible distortion.
Secondly, as technology has gotten better, so have the plugins and compression algorithms allowing greater loudness with less distortion.
Thirdly, to make room for more loudness, (some but not much) low frequencies have been sacrificed. But also, people have become less afraid of working with mid-range and high frequencies. If you listen to music from 10 or 20 years ago compared to now, we use MORE of the frequency spectrum now than we did back then. There hasn't been that much if a compromise however, because too low end in a vinyl master would mean that the needle would skip too.
Fourth, hardstyle producers 10 years ago use to use to have baselines and gated kicks that would have a lot of energy and movement around the 100-200z range. We've moved away from this with the distorted kicks and instead have an almost single tone (but not quite). It still takes up this region but its based on the harmonics derived from the fundamental note of a distorted kick with not as much movement as the older style. Because of this, on certain systems older tracks sound more rumbly and huge. Now producers focus more on the sub 100hz frequencies and work to get the harmonics right instead of the chaotic rumble in the 100hz-200hz region. Add to this that now distorted kicks take up a lot of mid range for an extended period of time rather than a transient punch, so the mixes need to be approached differently.
Fifth, techno is very different to hardstyle both musically and sonically. The entire ethos and point of the music genres are worlds apart and I find them incomparable. In techno they only use select parts of the frequency spectrum at a time and don't trying to have everything going on at once. Techno is more about the eb and flow of the track (or in reality the set) building towards something. Hardstyle (and by extension hardcore) is the complete opposite, hardstyle is about being in your face for the entire track being a completely exhilarating sonic experience. You are comparing 2 completely different foods to each other, one is very carefully prepared sashimi, the other is pizza. I don't think its proper to compare the two. That said, if you look at the Len Faki masters, they are extremely compressed.
Also I don't think your KRK's or AKG headphones are good enough to properly measure the low frequency content of music. A tiny 6" 50W woofer to check low frequencies? No thanks. I burst out laughing when you said you checked using your headphones.
Finally.... if a track is getting compressed to all bollocks and all the life sucked out of it, it means you hear MORE details and not LESS. Compression takes the quiet parts and makes them louder and takes the loud parts and makes them quieter evening out the overall volume in the track.
When I layer stuff in my tracks, I go for something you can feel, not something you can notice. Not everything I do needs to be in your face and blatant. I am trying more and more to get a cleaner mix down every time even with hundreds of little details.
That said, you don't need to like the style of mastering at all. I agree that the way that techno is mixed and produced can be softer to the ear and more pleasant to listen to. The new Plastikman album sounds absolutely superb.
But I do think you are over exaggerating the 'problem' and I don't really believe that things were better in the past.
Last edited by audiofreq on 09 Jul 2014, 17:17, edited 1 time in total.
The master for Volition is quieter and less compressed than the one for Legend.Nitrax wrote: Compare Audiofreq - Volition with Audiofreq - Legend, turn it up loud.
The difference should be very clear. Tell me which track sounds better to you, mix and master wise.
In my opinion, volition is an example of what is too loud and noisy. Legend on the other hand is less chaotic and has a cleaner sound, which is what I think is a good mix. The difference might be that either legend has not been mastered yet, or has just been mixed way better. Legend might be a bit less filled up, but that should not matter as it's still an energetic and melodic track, technically similar to volition in lots of ways.
So what, you think? Well, volition is one of his favorite tracks for me, but it would be so much more enjoyable to listen for me if the track wasn't mixed and/or mastered like this.
I much prefer the mix/master for Legend too. But thats because since Volition I've learnt more about compression and and EQ'ing and working a mix down and managed to flex those muscles on later tracks like Elevation and Legend. I also mastered Legend myself.
So you're close, but no cigar. Consider the difference between the tracks to be that of my own artistic and technical development and not anything to do with the mastering.
Last edited by audiofreq on 09 Jul 2014, 16:48, edited 1 time in total.
And here was the man I would respond to the topic .
Sorry for OT, but what is your experience of mastering your own stuff? Would you sit down and start with it when having the mixdown finished (or several versions of it, if you would work that way) or would you rather wait a few days and rest the ears a bit from the track?
.Sorry for OT, but what is your experience of mastering your own stuff? Would you sit down and start with it when having the mixdown finished (or several versions of it, if you would work that way) or would you rather wait a few days and rest the ears a bit from the track?
I'm grumpier than you.
Do people even read these?
Do people even read these?
I prefer to let my ears rest for a few days and then mix/master a track. I don't try my ears after too long on hearing the same thing for days/weeks on end. Ears get tired like any other part of the body. Best not to push them too much and let them rest.SCH wrote:And here was the man I would respond to the topic
Sorry for OT, but what is your experience of mastering your own stuff? Would you sit down and start with it when having the mixdown finished (or several versions of it, if you would work that way) or would you rather wait a few days and rest the ears a bit from the track?
Sometimes I'll end up finishing another tune or two before I go back and master an earlier one.
More recently though, I've been working much harder on the mix down as I reach the end of the song so that I can get it all done in one go and just slap a limiter on the master bus and call it a day. I'm trusting myself a bit more, but I'm very adhoc however.
Legend, in my humble opinion is probably the best mix down I've managed to do so far without too much trying. I think Voltion took 11 different versions. Legend was 2.
I don't master.SCH wrote:And here was the man I would respond to the topic
Sorry for OT, but what is your experience of mastering your own stuff? Would you sit down and start with it when having the mixdown finished (or several versions of it, if you would work that way) or would you rather wait a few days and rest the ears a bit from the track?
I have read in more than one place that you shouldn't master your own stuff.
Also, aside from my most recent production (not public yet, which is to my ears my first work with release worthy production quality) I've never made a production with a mix good enough to be mastered, just wouldn't make sense to me. The mixdowns simple weren't there yet, so I haven't really tried.
EDIT: Oh, that question was for Sam
I had also hoped for a response, haha. I do feel stupid for getting it wrong, but at least I got a nice answer to help me out. I figured it might have been your own development, but I didn't think the difference would be so big, Volition is what, a year and two months old? Ah well.audiofreq wrote: The master for Volition is quieter and less compressed than the one for Legend.
I much prefer the mix/master for Legend too. But thats because since Volition I've learnt more about compression and and EQ'ing and working a mix down and managed to flex those muscles on later tracks like Elevation and Legend. I also mastered Legend myself.
So you're close, but no cigar. Consider the difference between the tracks to be that of my own artistic and technical development and not anything to do with the mastering.
Also, thanks for the huge response. All I was looking for with my initial post. Things get out of hand quickly here, but I think we're through now.
---
Also, I believe no one was called a narrow minded piece of shit. I don't think there's ever been a derailment.
Last edited by Nitrax on 09 Jul 2014, 17:32, edited 1 time in total.
I had an early version finished for Defqon 2013, but the final mix that was used on Audioception was completed September last year.Nitrax wrote:I had also hoped for a response, haha. I do feel stupid for getting it wrong, but at least I got a nice answer to help me out. I figured it might have been your own development, but I didn't think the difference would be so big, Volition is what, a year and two months old? Ah well.
Also, thanks for the huge response. All I was looking for with my initial post. Things get out of hand quickly here, but I think we're through now.