[Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume

Date	2013-07-06 00:51
From	"Partev Barr Sarkissian"
Subject	[Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume
	Used to use a dbx one-knob-squeezer as it used to be known as. Always kept it set below 1:2 ratio, or it would squash and you got pumping. Used it for vocals and snare drum, sometimes bass guitar. dbx 120 was popular for use as a side-chain, and it's stereo, they're not pricey to buy, but they are pricey to service ($220 for the VCA part to replace, plus labor, back in 2000-2002), used to service way too many of those. They're easy to use and they sound good,... just costly when they fail. Multi-band compression that comes with my Digital Performer effects inserts is something that works well, that in conjunction with a noise gate is really good for certain instruments, including percussions. Like my electronic music professors used to emphasize, "it's not just about where it lives in the sound place, it's also about where it lives in the frequency space". ==> And take regular breaks. Don't decided in one session. ==> Give it a few days and go back to the mix. <<<=== Yes! Another point made at that AES meeting I went to in May. Yes! I concur==> Which is also what reverb is good for (particularly when you've multitracked a recording session). As well as for defining the apparent spatial depth of the different instrumental layers. Good points Peiman, take good care of Chelsea and Hammersmith for me while I'm away, I expect it in good condition upon my return. And have a pint for me til I can get back to join you for one. Cheers, -Partev ============================================= --- peimankhosravi@gmail.com wrote: From: peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> To: "csound@lists.bath.ac.uk" <csound@lists.bath.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 00:11:33 +0100 And don't underestimate the power of side-chaining compressors and gates. It's your best friend for imposing pulse on sustained sounds, and of course 'ducking'. And stereo image can provide 'space' and transparency when different layers are fighting for spectral occupancy. And trust your ears rather than your eyes, which entails regular breaks and keeping the monitoring levels consistent, as well as getting to know the space in which you mix, and the acoustic context in which the mix will eventually be played. www.peimankhosravi.co.uk \|\| RSS Feed \|\| Concert News On 6 July 2013 00:03, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote: 2013/7/5 Partev Barr Sarkissian <encino_man@netscape.com> A number of mix and mastering engineers are using compression less and less these days. Some very slight reverb to give it what they call, "that overall sheen". Compression affects the EQ, highs can get lost if one isn't careful, and if you look at some of these cuts Surely only multiband compression affects the highs, right? I only ever use compression on vocals, to bring out the detail a bit. And almost never exceed a ration of 1:1.5/2. I try to avoid EQing for polishing the mix, unless it is on a nice neve desk or a really high end EQ. If the option is between crap EQ plug-in and no EQ, and if you have used really nice mics, then I would always choose no EQing. There is a trend these days for students to load an EQ plug-in by default, even before they've heard the track. I have to always tell them, even if they have heard it, there is no point in applying EQ for mastering when monitoring on headphones or low end monitors. Less is definitely more in this context. As for reverb, the only plug-in reverb I've ever trusted for mixing/mastering is altiverb. on a soundbite display, you'll see a lack of dynamics in a mix that is poorly compressed. Some mixer/massters opt for slight limiting, it moderates the ampitude without mucking up the EQ. Ironic, that I'm reading this email now, as I am listening to Alan Parsons Project on my headphones. Have had a few of encounters with him at NAMM and AES Convetions over the years, and have gotten a few good tips from him. But better than that is his "The Art and Science of Sound Recording" set of DVD's. It's a cornecopia of recording knowledge and wisdom. I highly recommend getting this for anyone who wants to go down this road in audio. Was at an AES monthly meeting in May, where the subject was mastering, a panel discussion with some younger locals mastering engineers. Along with some old timers in the crowd, it was a knowledge filled room. What I got out it is-- Mastering,... each project is different, each genre is different, each EQ curve is different. Common aspects- compression is bad,... if it kills the dynamics. Use this point in the process for dialing in the EQ to a gnats behind. Taylor it to the intended genre. Well, yes and no. One can be inventive and creative even in a subtle context. I'd much prefer an intelligent unconventional mix to a boring one. For instance, consider this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vptS5eTjedE), which is 'bad' in a conventional sense. Scrutinize every aspect of the mastering ==> And take regular breaks. Don't decided in one session. ==> Give it a few days and go back to the mix. <<<=== Yes! Another point made at that AES meeting I went to in May. process,... it's your last chance to do tweaks and final adjustments,... because,... "fix it in the mix" doesn't work, never has, probably never will. Balancing tracks,... it's all about blending. I hear that from teachers mixers and mastering engineers all the time. What you have and how you blend it. Which is also what reverb is good for (particularly when you've multitracked a recording session). As well as for defining the apparent spatial depth of the different instrumental layers. In EQ-ing "Don't over-do the bass,... don't use the 3k band, set it to unity, use the 10k filters, it brings out the transperency in the sound" and "when all else fails, EQ the hell out of it", is something Alan Parsons once told me. It was a general over simplification, cause then we got down to cases. Good advice I used on a film score and audio dialog and FX sound track I was working on at the time. It worked, the film got an award at a film competition. -PBS ====================================== --- zappfinger@gmail.com wrote: From: zappfinger <zappfinger@gmail.com> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) In pop music a common mastering scheme is to apply overall compression and overall (slight) reverb on the mix.. Richard -- View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/How-to-ballance-the-csound-tracks-by-volume-tp5725190p5725197.html Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599 Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" _____________________________________________________________ Netscape. Just the Net You Need. Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599 Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" Netscape. Just the Net You Need. Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

Date	2013-07-06 18:25
From	peiman khosravi
Subject	Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume
	Good points Peiman, take good care of Chelsea and Hammersmith for me while I'm away, I expect it in good condition upon my return. And have a pint for me til I can get back to join you for one. Partev, west London is well safe for the time being. However, I'm buying a motorbike next week, which may change that a little! Best, P Cheers, -Partev ============================================= --- peimankhosravi@gmail.com wrote: From: peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> To: "csound@lists.bath.ac.uk" <csound@lists.bath.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 00:11:33 +0100 And don't underestimate the power of side-chaining compressors and gates. It's your best friend for imposing pulse on sustained sounds, and of course 'ducking'. And stereo image can provide 'space' and transparency when different layers are fighting for spectral occupancy. And trust your ears rather than your eyes, which entails regular breaks and keeping the monitoring levels consistent, as well as getting to know the space in which you mix, and the acoustic context in which the mix will eventually be played. www.peimankhosravi.co.uk \|\| RSS Feed \|\| Concert News On 6 July 2013 00:03, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote: 2013/7/5 Partev Barr Sarkissian <encino_man@netscape.com> A number of mix and mastering engineers are using compression less and less these days. Some very slight reverb to give it what they call, "that overall sheen". Compression affects the EQ, highs can get lost if one isn't careful, and if you look at some of these cuts Surely only multiband compression affects the highs, right? I only ever use compression on vocals, to bring out the detail a bit. And almost never exceed a ration of 1:1.5/2. I try to avoid EQing for polishing the mix, unless it is on a nice neve desk or a really high end EQ. If the option is between crap EQ plug-in and no EQ, and if you have used really nice mics, then I would always choose no EQing. There is a trend these days for students to load an EQ plug-in by default, even before they've heard the track. I have to always tell them, even if they have heard it, there is no point in applying EQ for mastering when monitoring on headphones or low end monitors. Less is definitely more in this context. As for reverb, the only plug-in reverb I've ever trusted for mixing/mastering is altiverb. on a soundbite display, you'll see a lack of dynamics in a mix that is poorly compressed. Some mixer/massters opt for slight limiting, it moderates the ampitude without mucking up the EQ. Ironic, that I'm reading this email now, as I am listening to Alan Parsons Project on my headphones. Have had a few of encounters with him at NAMM and AES Convetions over the years, and have gotten a few good tips from him. But better than that is his "The Art and Science of Sound Recording" set of DVD's. It's a cornecopia of recording knowledge and wisdom. I highly recommend getting this for anyone who wants to go down this road in audio. Was at an AES monthly meeting in May, where the subject was mastering, a panel discussion with some younger locals mastering engineers. Along with some old timers in the crowd, it was a knowledge filled room. What I got out it is-- Mastering,... each project is different, each genre is different, each EQ curve is different. Common aspects- compression is bad,... if it kills the dynamics. Use this point in the process for dialing in the EQ to a gnats behind. Taylor it to the intended genre. Well, yes and no. One can be inventive and creative even in a subtle context. I'd much prefer an intelligent unconventional mix to a boring one. For instance, consider this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vptS5eTjedE), which is 'bad' in a conventional sense. Scrutinize every aspect of the mastering ==> And take regular breaks. Don't decided in one session. ==> Give it a few days and go back to the mix. <<<=== Yes! Another point made at that AES meeting I went to in May. process,... it's your last chance to do tweaks and final adjustments,... because,... "fix it in the mix" doesn't work, never has, probably never will. Balancing tracks,... it's all about blending. I hear that from teachers mixers and mastering engineers all the time. What you have and how you blend it. Which is also what reverb is good for (particularly when you've multitracked a recording session). As well as for defining the apparent spatial depth of the different instrumental layers. In EQ-ing "Don't over-do the bass,... don't use the 3k band, set it to unity, use the 10k filters, it brings out the transperency in the sound" and "when all else fails, EQ the hell out of it", is something Alan Parsons once told me. It was a general over simplification, cause then we got down to cases. Good advice I used on a film score and audio dialog and FX sound track I was working on at the time. It worked, the film got an award at a film competition. -PBS ====================================== --- zappfinger@gmail.com wrote: From: zappfinger <zappfinger@gmail.com> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) In pop music a common mastering scheme is to apply overall compression and overall (slight) reverb on the mix.. Richard -- View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/How-to-ballance-the-csound-tracks-by-volume-tp5725190p5725197.html Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599 Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" _____________________________________________________________ Netscape. Just the Net You Need. Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599 Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" Netscape. Just the Net You Need. Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

Date	2013-07-07 16:52
From	Anton Kholomiov
Subject	Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume
	I should read those books on mastering basics to understand the advices. Finally I've made normalization by -3db (thanks to Michael) with audacity. For the second question. Indeed, it's too much sound when timbre is boring (too static or sine-wavy). I've cured the problem with randomization of some parameters. Sound becomes much more interesting. Anton 2013/7/6 peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> Good points Peiman, take good care of Chelsea and Hammersmith for me while I'm away, I expect it in good condition upon my return. And have a pint for me til I can get back to join you for one. Partev, west London is well safe for the time being. However, I'm buying a motorbike next week, which may change that a little! Best, P Cheers, -Partev ============================================= --- peimankhosravi@gmail.com wrote: From: peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> To: "csound@lists.bath.ac.uk" <csound@lists.bath.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 00:11:33 +0100 And don't underestimate the power of side-chaining compressors and gates. It's your best friend for imposing pulse on sustained sounds, and of course 'ducking'. And stereo image can provide 'space' and transparency when different layers are fighting for spectral occupancy. And trust your ears rather than your eyes, which entails regular breaks and keeping the monitoring levels consistent, as well as getting to know the space in which you mix, and the acoustic context in which the mix will eventually be played. www.peimankhosravi.co.uk \|\| RSS Feed \|\| Concert News On 6 July 2013 00:03, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote: 2013/7/5 Partev Barr Sarkissian <encino_man@netscape.com> A number of mix and mastering engineers are using compression less and less these days. Some very slight reverb to give it what they call, "that overall sheen". Compression affects the EQ, highs can get lost if one isn't careful, and if you look at some of these cuts Surely only multiband compression affects the highs, right? I only ever use compression on vocals, to bring out the detail a bit. And almost never exceed a ration of 1:1.5/2. I try to avoid EQing for polishing the mix, unless it is on a nice neve desk or a really high end EQ. If the option is between crap EQ plug-in and no EQ, and if you have used really nice mics, then I would always choose no EQing. There is a trend these days for students to load an EQ plug-in by default, even before they've heard the track. I have to always tell them, even if they have heard it, there is no point in applying EQ for mastering when monitoring on headphones or low end monitors. Less is definitely more in this context. As for reverb, the only plug-in reverb I've ever trusted for mixing/mastering is altiverb. on a soundbite display, you'll see a lack of dynamics in a mix that is poorly compressed. Some mixer/massters opt for slight limiting, it moderates the ampitude without mucking up the EQ. Ironic, that I'm reading this email now, as I am listening to Alan Parsons Project on my headphones. Have had a few of encounters with him at NAMM and AES Convetions over the years, and have gotten a few good tips from him. But better than that is his "The Art and Science of Sound Recording" set of DVD's. It's a cornecopia of recording knowledge and wisdom. I highly recommend getting this for anyone who wants to go down this road in audio. Was at an AES monthly meeting in May, where the subject was mastering, a panel discussion with some younger locals mastering engineers. Along with some old timers in the crowd, it was a knowledge filled room. What I got out it is-- Mastering,... each project is different, each genre is different, each EQ curve is different. Common aspects- compression is bad,... if it kills the dynamics. Use this point in the process for dialing in the EQ to a gnats behind. Taylor it to the intended genre. Well, yes and no. One can be inventive and creative even in a subtle context. I'd much prefer an intelligent unconventional mix to a boring one. For instance, consider this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vptS5eTjedE), which is 'bad' in a conventional sense. Scrutinize every aspect of the mastering ==> And take regular breaks. Don't decided in one session. ==> Give it a few days and go back to the mix. <<<=== Yes! Another point made at that AES meeting I went to in May. process,... it's your last chance to do tweaks and final adjustments,... because,... "fix it in the mix" doesn't work, never has, probably never will. Balancing tracks,... it's all about blending. I hear that from teachers mixers and mastering engineers all the time. What you have and how you blend it. Which is also what reverb is good for (particularly when you've multitracked a recording session). As well as for defining the apparent spatial depth of the different instrumental layers. In EQ-ing "Don't over-do the bass,... don't use the 3k band, set it to unity, use the 10k filters, it brings out the transperency in the sound" and "when all else fails, EQ the hell out of it", is something Alan Parsons once told me. It was a general over simplification, cause then we got down to cases. Good advice I used on a film score and audio dialog and FX sound track I was working on at the time. It worked, the film got an award at a film competition. -PBS ====================================== --- zappfinger@gmail.com wrote: From: zappfinger <zappfinger@gmail.com> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) In pop music a common mastering scheme is to apply overall compression and overall (slight) reverb on the mix.. Richard -- View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/How-to-ballance-the-csound-tracks-by-volume-tp5725190p5725197.html Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599 Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" _____________________________________________________________ Netscape. Just the Net You Need. Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599 Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" Netscape. Just the Net You Need. Netscape. Just the Net You Need.