thanks for posting this

 

Dank

 

great post.....thanx a lot

 

That chart is freakin brilliant!

 

Thanks for this post .... definitely insightful

 

pretty meh and a waste of time if you ask me, learning charts is something foster would do.

with proper metering you can see what frequency's instruments are/have?
I don't know what a chart is gonna make easier?

U guys have some kind of ocd that you pitch all you material permanent so you need to find out where it belonged?

also there is all kind of faulty information, Asio isn't less videlity only arguably more
Buffer sizes are not in mb's but samples.

I don't see why, so enlighten me

 

thank you so much for posting this wonderful informations :D

Long Live AudioSex2

 

Thank you, bookmarked

 

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

 

its is so over complicating things.

you have to work with spectrum analyzers to get used to the frequency response what area sounds like what to recognize it
take a track play it while making a tall narrow eq band you sweep through the frequencies to see what is happening for that particular audio track there

regarding eq you want to eq after you get your transient response for a track set perfect and even through the frequency response, next eq in broad strokes you never need to have deep cuts or thin boosts and cuts that means you didnt follow the step before eqing.

bandpassing should have at the very end of mixing not at the beginning

 

how to create depth in a mix?

 

no avenger

 

This is helpful, but it makes it sound too simple. Neither mixing nor mastering is so simple to make the best of it. However, it is very helpful for somebody doing home recording, or even semi-pro. Knowledge piles up. Work and pile up the knowledge. If you don't work, you won't have much knowledge. It's like every other work, I suppose.

 

I made an song with frequency's

 

" Many artists are now aware of streaming services being loudness normalized. However, until: (1) Apple music and iTunes on the computer and IOS becomes normalized by default; (2) the mysteries of YouTube get answered by Google themselves; (3) Spotify stops peak limiting and starts using such a high target level; (4) Tidal normalizes their MQA service; and (5) Cenelec upgrades their restrictions on mobile devices in Europe, then movement in the loudness area is still stalled, and the situation is still quite frustrating.

In general, my loudness practices have not changed. I always go for the best-sounding master. This means far more than just loudness—it means dynamics, sound quality, stereo separation, warmth, tonality, impact, and many other qualities. If the client complains about the master’s loudness, I discuss the normalization situation with them and, after discussion, either raise the master or leave it alone. More often than in previous years, we leave it alone. More often the client takes my word about the loudness. It’s a bit less of a struggle than before.

I do pay a bit more attention to the integrated LUFS measurement. That is, I check it. But my monitor gain and the perceived loudness of the album governs my decision whether I should raise the master before sending it to the client, NOT the integrated LUFS measure. I also do not conform to the “lowest common denominator.” My nominal loudness target is that of iTunes, −16 LUFS, which is lower than YouTube and lower than Spotify. However, the integrated LUFS is just a guide. In other words, for a popular music recording, I often use a consistent monitor gain of −9 or −10 dB. This is measured relative to 0 dB = 83 dB SPL C-weighted, Slow per channel with −20 dBFS narrow-band RMS pink noise; −9 monitor gain conforms roughly with a “K-14.” I sometimes find an integrated album level thatBob Katz 57

reads as low as −17 LUFS but that simply does not worry me if two things are the case:

1. The sound is loud enough to my ears at the −9 monitor gain, especially when mastering acoustic music that has the acoustic advantage. Most of my acoustic clients do not hear an issue in this case—only the clients who actively compare the loudness of their album against other acoustic releases that have been over-compressed.

2. The short-term loudness measures several dB above the integrated programme loudness. This is a very important key to the perceived loudness of the programme. In other words, even if the integrated loudness measures −17 LUFS, if the short-term loudness reads several dB higher than the integrated, this indicates dynamic movement. Short-term loudness is what the ear keys into. This raises our perception of the album loudness, even if there are soft passages as well. We should all credit Ian Shepherd as the first to make this discovery. But I had long ago realized that “something was up” with the integrated measurement, because my own masters, which are often more dynamic than the competition, sound louder than their integrated loudness would seem to indicate. In other words, the short-term to integrated loudness ratio of my material is higher than a lot of the competition, so my material competes quite well, especially after normalization.

The −17 LUFS average figure simply indicates that there are enough soft passages to offset the short-term passages in the integrated measure, not that the album is too low. "

Bob Katz.

 

how to create depth in a mix special in low frequency
thanks for your advice

 

Regarding mixing tips, I got a really interesting link from iZotope in my mailbox today. I just had to post it. Enjoy.

https://www.izotope.com/en/blog/music-production/mixing-while-producing-music-good-or-bad-idea.html

 

This was amazing post thanks for the information.