High quality tracks. Advice please!

Hi, I've been hoping to ask this question for such a long time, and it's just too hard to word properly. I hope someone understands and maybe can help.

Basically, what I want to know is, how to get my beats sounding professional/radio quality, and be as loud as possible.

I use an MPC 2500jj. I don't use any computer software in my setup. So far, to get maximum quality, I do things like this:

- Select drum samples - and I do this partly by selecing drums which are LOUDER than the rest, and seem better quality. I layer them so I have louder kicks for example (although I don't know if they are relatively 'loud' compared to professional songs)

-I record instruments/synth etc in, in record mode and I monitor the input so theres no clipping etc, I basically record in at what seems to be the maximum volume.

-After I've made the beat, I mix it, trying to keep the loudest things I want (usually bass and kicks) at around 100 on the level, and then mix the quieter instruments around that, once again in my attempt to have the beat as loud and HQ as possible.

-Then I think I have a nice loud crisp beat coming through my speakers, I'm happy with it and I think it sounds professional. I then playback the beat while recording through the MPC (with Main Out selected as the input)

- Once I have this file as a WAV (which I always have assumed is the best quality format), sometimes I will normalise the entire beat so it is maximum volume.

- I then transfer this WAV file onto the computer. Listen to it, sounds good. But Alas, I listen to a CD or even some upload on youtube, and almost 100% of the time my beat sounds quieter than the track I'm listening to.


So please, can anyone here who is willing to share their knowledge, suggest to me how to make sure that the beat I'm making will be good enough quality, so that if hypothetically it was to go on a professional CD, it would fit in.

Is there anything i've mentioned above that I'm doing wrong, or anything different I should be doing along the way?
Or is it to do with some kind of after work such as compression?


INFINITE THANKS to anyone who can help me out here, I need to up my game from having beats that sound pro in my beroom to having beats that sound professional to everyone.

I know that I'm basically asking a LOT. But any suggestions are appreciated.

E

Quality ad/da conversion along with some good eq'n and a decent mastering program such as izotope should get you in the game.

Maybe give a more detailed list of what you're using and that'll help us chime in with responses catered to helping you better.

Cool, yeah if you could expand a little that would be great, as I've NEVER used a computer or software in my setup, I know thats probably my downfall, do you think I'm losing that quality in the process of transferring a WAV to my PC? (doing that Via USB PORT)

Basically my setup is MPC 2500jj, I alternately hook it up with a yamaha stage keyboard, or a Microkorg. I use both of these to record all my sounds, (don't use MIDI), along with samples which i'll either record straight in from a CD in my laptop for example, or I'll transfer a wav of the original track straight to the MPC hard drive via USB.

I was aware straight away that the MPCs default drum samples were a bit whack so I've tried over time to get drum samples from the internet, along with a few sample kits I've bought from websites. I select the loudest samples from this collection. Like I said I find it hard to tell which samples are pro quality to begin with because I don't really know what to compare it to. All my work on the MPC might sound loud to me, but then that obviously depends on the levels on my monitors for example, and in the end it all confuses me.

And basically thats my whole setup, no computers as I'm not great with software, but I presumed that I should still be able to get a good quality track without having to use software. Some veery average beats that kids/beginners have uploaded to youtube for example, (no disrespect to anyone), seem to always sound louder without fail, than mine do, and I've been trying to make mine sound good quality for years!! (obviously not hard enough I'm sure you'll point out...), my point is that I didnt think these beginners would be doing any kind of extra EQing and mastering etc... maybe I am doing something else fundamentally wrong along the way?

Hope that's a good amount of info ... thnx

Basically, from what I see, you just don't have the tools to pull this off. You're bypassing a lot of things that help you get your stuff sounding pro level.

Plus you're up against katz that use s/w & h/w to take their sound to the next level. If you don't have the tools to compete at this level, how can you expect to sound like these katz anyway?

I started out on hardware almost 30 yrs ago, do you think I might have learned a lil something about sound quality along the way?

You just gotta step your game up. At least use a mastering program like I suggested to help bring out more of the sonic eliments in your music.

also learn something about dynamics and the so called loudness war.

basicly: if your mix is the loudest there might be no dynamics left and it can sound bad.
music always needs some silence as an contrast to the loud elements.
and sometimes it is better to deemphasis some of the elements in your mix to give others more room to breath.

for example: most people think that the kickdrum and the bass both need to be as loud and as fat as they could get, but then often these two fight in the same dynamic spectrum instead of complimenting each other. this is when eq shaping and even sidechain compression comes into play. the compressor inside the mpc has no connection for sidechaining and so you can´t use it to duck the bass when the kickdrum hits. so even if you can make the entire beat on the mpc some tools are only available if you use outboard hardware or a daw. and even if you use the master eq and compresor on the mpc a specialized mastering plugin in a daw can often provide better control of the mastering process. other than that it is often better to make a mix good sounding and then let another person do the mastering since this is already an artform of its own.

peace, jo

Use an enginer to track you out and master. He is going to pissed that yo[url][/[url][/url]url]ur miss and highs are through the roof and the kicks are lacking.. he will then school you... and yes ozone!!! Ftw!

What you speak of is called post-production.

Most of that radio glitter is done with compression and eq. Its a trial and error technique and takes time to master. But your ears already recognize the Big Sound, so its gonna take practice to reach that level with what you got. And believe me, there are cats with less equipment that can pull it off. You know what you want, now materialize it.

Thats why I love the recording arts, because there's no wrong or right way to do stuff, as long as it sounds good at the end.

Yeah just remember that all the cds you hear are mastered by professionals typically. Mastering is literally an entirely different art of its own. If you really want to compare quality, bring down the volume of your cd quality stuff to that of your mix, then see if your quality is up to par. Then if you want to try and master your own stuff, go for it. I don't know how, but I've heard its another ballgame.

You need to separate 'loudness' from 'high quality' or 'pro', because loudness does not make a track better. Selecting sounds based on how loud they are is also a big mistake.

Ok thanks all, well because i've always been more music theory than technical, when I'm mixing on the MPC I do think about dynamics, and as you say loudness is very different to good quality, but the thing is that what I'm making will sound good quality to me, the problem seems to be the track's overall volume afterwards, even when I've thought I've recorded everything in at the maximum volume without clipping, so overall the 'quietness' of the track makes it sound less professional. But I know I'm not using the best wording here.

Actually I forgot to mention, I do own a hardware compressor and EQ, though out of stupidity probably, I havent got round to using them yet.

Can anyone maybe suggest what they would do or purchase next if they were in my position? I read all the comments, and I'm wondering whether I should just get an good external sound card and some DAW software and/or mastering software, and work from there? Or can you tell me what else I should be doing along the way to make sure I'm always working at maximum safe volume? Or do you think more of the answers come from post production?

Sorry if these are still stupid questions, but I'm trying once and for all to get my head round this. I learned about bitrates etc back in college years ago, but in honesty I find it hard to keep hold of that information and make it useful for me.

Thnx again all posters above !

Dreadful wrote:I'm wondering whether I should just get an good external sound card and some DAW software and/or mastering software, and work from there?

You seem to have the answer to your question right there. I remember being in this position and wondering what can I do to make my tracks sound radio ready. Though some will say this has no relevance, I like to check out specs on a s/c and compare them to other cards.

If a PT HD system gets you in the ballpark of 122-125 dB of dynamic range, then I wanted something that would get me close to that without breaking the bank.

My s/c's will not quite get those kind of numbers, but they're not that far from it neither (110-115 dB). TBH, I'd probably need to go either Apogee or RME to compete with a highend system like that.

You don't necessarily need to produce those kind of numbers, but the closer you get with these kind of specs, the better it is on your sound (more detailed & better headroom).

So it might be wise if the technical stuff played a part in you deciding which s/c to invest in for something that'll be around for the long haul.

And don't believe the stuff about this has no bearing on the sound itself. If anybody makes a claim to this, have them show you otherwise...talk is cheap.

Dreadful wrote: the problem seems to be the track's overall volume afterwards, even when I've thought I've recorded everything in at the maximum volume without clipping
Actually I forgot to mention, I do own a hardware compressor and EQ, though out of stupidity probably, I havent got round to using them yet.

Can anyone maybe suggest what they would do or purchase next if they were in my position? I read all the comments, and I'm wondering whether I should just get an good external sound card and some DAW software and/or mastering software, and work from there? Or can you tell me what else I should be doing along the way to make sure I'm always working at maximum safe volume? Or do you think more of the answers come from post production?

NO NO NO!

Why are you even considering mastering when you clearly have no understanding of digital recording or mixing? You can't solve the problem by throwing money at it.

around 100 on the level

...means NOTHING outside Akai talk. Get yourself some proper metering. In a 24-Bit system, you do NOT need to go hot. You should be tracking at -18dBFS (0VU) or thereabouts. Your overall mix should sum at around -6dBFS prior to mastering. Only then will you have enough headroom to make decisions about post production. If you fill all those bits during the tracking and mixing, what's left?

Sorry if these are still stupid questions, but I'm trying once and for all to get my head round this. I learned about bitrates etc back in college years ago, but in honesty I find it hard to keep hold of that information and make it useful for me.

They aren't stupid questions. Ignoring the theory is though.

Only when you fully understand your system's limitations will your skills begin to grow.

dabmeister wrote:
If a PT HD system gets you in the ballpark of 122-125 dB of dynamic range, then I wanted something that would get me close to that without breaking the bank.

My s/c's will not quite get those kind of numbers, but they're not that far from it neither (110-115 dB). TBH, I'd probably need to go either Apogee or RME to compete with a highend system like that.

Dynamic range is defined by available bit depth. Nothing to do with different soundcards with 24-Bit functionality. A good convertor is defined by its clock design and jitter reduction.

And don't believe the stuff about this has no bearing on the sound itself. If anybody makes a claim to this, have them show you otherwise...talk is cheap.

Agreed - or I wouldn't use my Apogee. But a good soundcard will not help OP achieve a better mix. If OP can't drive a Buick, there's no point in him upgrading to a Camaro like the one in your avatar.

It is a Camaro right?

Shostakovich wrote:Dynamic range is defined by available bit depth. Nothing to do with different soundcards with 24-Bit functionality. A good convertor is defined by its clock design and jitter reduction.

Agreed, but all 24 bit converters aren't created equal either. Theoretically & in a perfect world, 24 bit would yeild 144 dB dynamic range. But because of differences in the make of different converters, this is where premium is seperated from budget. So a better designed ad/da converter should yield better performance numbers than those of lesser quality right?

dabmeister wrote:And don't believe the stuff about this has no bearing on the sound itself. If anybody makes a claim to this, have them show you otherwise...talk is cheap.

Shostakovich wrote:Agreed - or I wouldn't use my Apogee. But a good soundcard will not help OP achieve a better mix. If OP can't drive a Buick, there's no point in him upgrading to a Camaro like the one in your avatar.

It is a Camaro right?

LOL...nah man, try Corvette (2008). It's the apogee/rme of sports cars.

dabmeister wrote:
Agreed, but all 24 bit converters aren't created equal either. Theoretically & in a perfect world, 24 bit would yeild 144 dB dynamic range. But because of differences in the make of different converters, this is where premium is seperated from budget. So a better designed ad/da converter should yield better performance numbers than those of lesser quality right?

Quoting 144dB, as you point out, is futile. Even with top of the range stuff (like my Rosetta), its more like 20 Bits being filled (round about 122dB). I don't think anyone can hear a difference of 6-10dB at such a low level - if we could, then we'd hear dither and that wouldn't be right!

What differentiates the good from the bad is clock and filter design. That's expensive to get right and requires r & d budgets to constantly improve it. That's why Apogee / Prism / Crane Song sell expensive gear. Their overheads demand it.

Shostakovich wrote:It is a Camaro right?

LOL...nah man, try Corvette (2008). It's the apogee/rme of sports cars.

Ooops! Is that yours? Nice ride.