[Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume
Date | 2013-07-05 23:47 |
From | "Partev Barr Sarkissian" |
Subject | [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume |
book, I have a copy as well. Also, there's a good piece in the AES Journal, by Francis Rumsey, "Mastering for Today's Media". Regarding the chord progression, changing the tone color is a good compositional strategy that keeps things interesting. I will typically have more than one track that is playing the same repeating motif or chord progression, but each track has a different instrument or different tone color, and then I will alter between them or cross mix between them to keep things interesting. It's about blending and mixing. It's a big deal with my music partner and my former electronic music teacher. Unless you're into drone new age music. A harmonic progression, some percussions and a flute on top. -Partev ================================== --- anton.kholomiov@gmail.com wrote: From: Anton Kholomiov <anton.kholomiov@gmail.com> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk Subject: Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:09:52 +0400 One more question. When I'm making these background tracks it's always some long chord progression going on. I get the impression: it's too much sound on it. It fatigues the listener. But If I stop playing those chords harmonic
continuity is broken which is bad. Is it possible to process the total output so that sound is continuous but is not so overwhelming?
2013/7/5 Anton Kholomiov <anton.kholomiov@gmail.com>
Netscape. Just the Net You Need. |
Date | 2013-07-06 00:03 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume |
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.
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.
And take regular breaks. Don't decided in one session. Give it a few days and go back to the mix.
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.
|
Date | 2013-07-06 00:11 |
From | peiman khosravi |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: How to ballance the csound tracks by volume |
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. On 6 July 2013 00:03, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:
|