On this track I used Slate and TAPEDECK for some added warmt. Did I succseed? What do you experts think?

 

NOT A SUCCESS SIR, NO OFFENSE

it is just that your transients are messed up in an unacceptable way.
(im sure you could fix it though)
im talking about the tiny atomic level of the sound , it not messed up in overtly obvious way fine sir. (we all struggle with this )

I just picked a random songs that the transients are not messed up in that same way see if you can hear the difference in the transients fine sir.

so your on the right track and you actually really close to getting it almost perfect. dont get me wrong haha
it takes a while to get it but you will/.
( hint your track don't need to be as "loud")

 

Last edited: Nov 3, 2017

I would respectfully disagree with the above poster. While such loudness and "transients messing" would be unacceptable in rap/pop/pop-rock genre, I would say it is pretty common (and even required) in EDM genre.

 

Actually, it sounds pretty good to me.

 

Hi there,
first of all, i'm not an expert, whe have all ears,
it seems difficult to compare two, or 'cause, the level in youtube is -14 dbfs, if my memory
is correct. in your piece there's no voice and an mp3, well... it's like compare apple with apple pie ,o)
so...
it's sounds good to me too. i'ts compressed but the genre etc...
cheers from spain

 

Sounds like the Slate FG-X limiter. I liked how it sounded in the beginning, it was nice and open. But when the heavy kick comes in, it gets crushed in an ungodly way and all you hear is "pfft pfft pfft pfft" - instead of hearing the kick punching you each hit. Know what i mean?

If you pay attention to it next time, you will improve it a lot. Could be as easy as dialing back the attack time on your compression/limiting, or could be a pain in the ass, it depends. The bottom line is that this particular wav is pretty ruined, you need to start over and be thinking about your all-important kicks sounding good. If devices pile onto your music, it can easily get to a point where yeah it's loud and nice, but nobody wants to listen to it for longer than 20 secs now.

If you feel like sending your raw mix, I will give it a go and master with some analog for you.

Good luck man!

 

Last edited: Nov 3, 2017

sounds good to me. transient are allright imo, its a matter of style and genre and taste. in this edm section it is abso. common to have such transients. i thnik its good and warm und stil very shiny. u did great. i think it has a warm taste. thats what u wanted,right?

 

@R.S
It sounds fine for what it is. You could turn it down a bit and get more push out of it on large speakers. It is dominated by that kick but that is more of an orchestration/mixing issue than a mastering one. It sounds pretty flat and it is in the ballpark. It will do.

@MMJ2017

That Imagine Dragons is not an example of good mastering by any measuring stick.

It distorts and clips on the crescendos in all the most awful ways possible.

It is a catchy tune and I like it but as an example of preserved transient and punch it fails. I don't know if the damage was done in the mix stage of the mastering stage but it most definitely not an auditory eargasam of transient preservation. I don't know the other artists and I didn't listen so I can't really speak to that.

 

I understand what you are hearing, but that is a mixing choice related to tape saturation, liveliness, ( that i wouldn't have pushed that hard)
but is much different than digital clipping which is destructive toward transients hence dynamic information, stereo information, ambience information.
(you can use analog tube, tape, or transistor saturation AND clip with those as hard as you want and due to their nature is non destructive ( it is adding harmonics( personally i caution on being gentle with that)
where as digital clipping is destructive toward the waveform , actually hurting the sound.
this is my whole point.
you could want a almost white noise clipping, get it using analog harmonics as nasty as you want

but even the tiniest digital accidental clipping which is destructive is terrible ( fucks with playback converters fucks up rendering and ad/da

so no matter how "grimey" you want or need it there is a way to do it

for example i could make those kicks 15 db louder than they are now , while at same time having none the ambience destroyed none the transients destroyed in mastering. none the stereo and dynamic range information destroyed

for Christs sake listen to nine inch nails downward spiral from early 90's

so no matter what kind of "edm feeling" you need it is possible to get it, in such a way to be of good as finished master as any number 1 hit. (why settle for a lower standard than the best of that new year?)

course you can only do all this if you have a playback system able to differentiate such things

crappy monitors means you cannot tell the difference between analog clipping and digital destructive clipping ( due to the speakers not being detailed enough to hear what is actually there)(that is the reason why myself took so long to perfect these concepts through the years)
a method i use is to have high end in ear monitors ( siren series angie II in ears) and i alternate with my normal near field monitors (when i don't have access to large file monitors)

this gives me ability to take the room out of the equation while alternating between reference tracks and current project. and second the ability to see past limitations of near fields and imperfections of the room

 

Last edited: Nov 4, 2017

Look man, like I said 'I like the track' and its not a personal attack on you so stop acting petulant.

I am old enough that there was a time when digital recording equipment was science fiction to me, and I know the difference between a digital clip (a square wave at 0dBFS) and analog distortion which would never even get close 0dbFS even in modern gear that is +4dBu you never get a square wave like that at 1.74v. Even most stable capacitor with the best tolerances you can have has some walk and can not keep square (lets not even talk about valves here cause they can't even do square waves properly at anything near max voltage before they bend out of shape.) The only way you get a square wave like that if you clip at 0dBFS, which is only possible inside a digital device.

A comparison of digital over vs an analog over.


I appreciate the discourse and the opportunity to learn and all, but come one man if you are going to style yourself and an educator, don't resort to brow beating and pissing contests on esoteric stuff. We are all anonymous on the internet and trying to flex is counter productive.

 

sorry bro please forgive me!

 

Last edited: Nov 5, 2017

maybe it was my "fault" but i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say in my comment i was describing the difference between

gain stage clipping of individual tracks ( of the analog variety) VS clipping digitally at the very end on the 2 buss or master fader by a significant amount.

my point is that those 2 situations are very different and lead to different results.( clipping the 2 buss digitally is eating into where al the sounds mix together and the reverb the overlap of transients from vocals meet cymbals and drum its etc. it has destructive effect)


next im trying to say anyone can use the gain staging type of analog of harmonics to make their drums or anything feel loud or hard as they want then at the end they dont have to clip during mastering very much.
the top 40 songs i showed use what i am describing. all professional songs do also.

so however it ended up happening . you accidentally must have thought i was saying or meant something different, when what i was trying to do is offer a technique to the O.P in case they were interesting in trying it. ( or anyone reading this thread in the future)
i wasn't trying to step on your toes just trying to clarify what i was talking about.