High quality tracks. Advice please!

Shostakovich wrote:Ooops! Is that yours? Nice ride.

Thanks man!

Yeah, I purchased it early last year. I was torn between seriously upgrading to a full PT HD system or something, plus a digital board and a few other things.

But my heart was stuck on getting something I've always wanted, and it's fast as ****. Plus I look good in it and I love the attention it brings.

Sorry to interrupt guys , just wondering if you can help out a bit more...

I was disheartened at first by all the numbers that I didn't understand, but actually Shosta it was your signature that made me realise I should use this opportunity to learn... I went and did a lot of reading and I want to share with you my understanding and how Id try to put it into practice, please correct me if I've missed anything out or missed the point a long the way... here we go


1. Good/CD bit depth and sample rate determines the resolution of the sample/instrument that I am recording on to the MPC - if my drum samples have been sampled at 44.1kh/16 bit for example, I know theyre good to work with. In the same way, my MPC is sampling any instruments I record in at this same rate. The higher bit rate means that my songs will have a larger dynamic range (dB), so just like a HQ picture still has clarity when you enlarge it, I also know that the sounds I'm working with should sound good at higher volumes.

2. The 'master level' on the MPC determines what amplitude range I am working in. If I work at the MPC's maximum (0dB) then I am leaving no headroom for any more work, and because almost every transfer I make add noise, as well as effects and processing afterwards, I need to have that headroom free to work with.

3. 0VU from what I am working out, seems to be a standard measure of the average volume of sound, which tv and radio will want to broadcast at or above,(?) although I'm a bit confused here. In digital equipment in the EU, -18dBfs is most commonly the level you need to work at to achieve 0VU, hence I should be working (both recording in and outputting?) at -18 on the master level.

4. Good mixing, as well as compression and EQ, will allow me to make the song sound bigger and give it the perceived volume I want. This could not be done healthily would it not be for those extra bits of headroom.

5. The best compression and EQing can be done with software. When I have my completed beat on the MPC, I can with suitable A/D conversion, record the tracks onto my computer, and go from there, (still making sure that after editing my track isn't really going above -6dBfs).

6. For this, I may need quality A/D conversion, such as a soundcard. But I am wondering, if the MPC is an A/D converter itself, then if I record in and save the song to my MPC as a WAV, why is this going to be any less quality a track than using an A/D converter connected my computer? (besides other computer advantages)


Right that's as far as I've got really, I'm a little confused about a couple of things, so just a few quick questions (hope this isn't too tiresome..) Is 0VU the standard level I should always be working towards? Is that more or less going to indicate if it is a suitable level for commercial use?

Is there any difference with regards to dBfs that I'm working at, between inputting and outputting? Or do i just generally do all my work on the MPC, recording, mixing, outputting to computer etc, at -18dBfs?

If a HQ soundcard/PT system offers a high dynamic range, does that simply mean that it samples at a high rate? In that case, isnt the MPCs sampling/conversion rate good enough for CD quality?

And finally and quite importantly, can you explain more to me about metering? Is that a VU meter? Where along the line in my setup would I place the meter.. would it be to monitor the output level of the mix? And also, what would the difference be between metering at 0Vu, and simply knowing that I'm working at the equivelant -18dBfs?

I hope I've got some of this right , but I'm prepared to be told I've got some theory wrong ... once again, infinate thank you's to anyone who can help me out. I completely own up to my ignorance of technical theory here - this is a really good opportunity for me to get on track. Thanks. 1

Dreadful wrote:1. Good/CD bit depth and sample rate determines the resolution of the sample/instrument that I am recording on to the MPC - if my drum samples have been sampled at 44.1kh/16 bit for example, I know theyre good to work with. In the same way, my MPC is sampling any instruments I record in at this same rate.

The higher bit rate means that my songs will have a larger dynamic range (dB), so just like a HQ picture still has clarity when you enlarge it, I also know that the sounds I'm working with should sound good at higher volumes.

You're right, but think about it for a minute...which mpc samples at a higher sampling rate other than 16 bit/44.1khz?

Dreadful wrote:1. Good/CD bit depth and sample rate determines the resolution of the sample/instrument that I am recording on to the MPC - if my drum samples have been sampled at 44.1kh/16 bit for example, I know theyre good to work with.

The important thing to understand is that it extra wordlength (bits) give you more headroom.

In the same way, my MPC is sampling any instruments I record in at this same rate. The higher bit rate means that my songs will have a larger dynamic range (dB), so just like a HQ picture still has clarity when you enlarge it, I also know that the sounds I'm working with should sound good at higher volumes.

Yes. But let's use the correct terminology. Its bit "depth" and sample "rate". Bit rate is bit depth multiplied by the sample rate multiplied by the number of channels.

2. The 'master level' on the MPC determines what amplitude range I am working in. If I work at the MPC's maximum (0dB) then I am leaving no headroom for any more work, and because almost every transfer I make add noise, as well as effects and processing afterwards, I need to have that headroom free to work with.

The Master Level controls the output of the D/A converter on your MPC. It is unrelated to your recording level on the computer (should you start using one) What is important to remember, is that the recording of this output stays within a healthy range once it goes digital. I said -18dBFS because that's pretty much standard practice when multi tracking. However, if you are simply recording the stereo out, then you can go hotter. Just remember that any post processing will be more difficult with less headroom - ie. less room to manoeuvre.

3. 0VU from what I am working out, seems to be a standard measure of the average volume of sound, which tv and radio will want to broadcast at or above,(?) although I'm a bit confused here. In digital equipment in the EU, -18dBfs is most commonly the level you need to work at to achieve 0VU, hence I should be working (both recording in and outputting?) at -18 on the master level.

No, VU measurements are an AVERAGE level of the sound. TV uses peak program metering (PPM) which has faster ballistics allowing the user to have a clearer reading of the level of a signal. Lets not get into that now though .

They are all measurements of sound in different contexts:

a VU meter is what you would typically find on an analogue desk.



I'll try and simplify:

0VU is the level at which the sound is no longer a faithful representation of itself. ie, apart from amplitude, it is now being "distorted". Frequency is changed, any harmonics are distorted. This can be a good thing in the analogue world. Typically bringing what is referred to as warmth. This will depend on course of the kind of analogue gear you are using to process the signal.

dBFS metering is used for digital signal measurement. They are calibrated differently. So -18dBFS is 0 VU. The important thing to understand is that the two systems do NOT behave in the same way. Whereas analogue can be pushed, pushing above 0 dBFS will lead to nasty clipping which I'm sure you have experienced starting out.

4. Good mixing, as well as compression and EQ, will allow me to make the song sound bigger and give it the perceived volume I want. This could not be done healthily would it not be for those extra bits of headroom.

Good mixing would mean understanding that any increments in level will add to the overall mix buss. So starting at a reasonable level will give you more to work with. EQ and compression will also add to that. Compression will allow you to tame the transient peaks so that you can claw back even more headroom.

5. The best compression and EQing can be done with software.

Not necessarily.

When I have my completed beat on the MPC, I can with suitable A/D conversion, record the tracks onto my computer, and go from there, (still making sure that after editing my track isn't really going above -6dBfs).

Now you've got it!

6. For this, I may need quality A/D conversion, such as a soundcard. But I am wondering, if the MPC is an A/D converter itself, then if I record in and save the song to my MPC as a WAV, why is this going to be any less quality a track than using an A/D converter connected my computer? (besides other computer advantages)

Well this is where my ignorance comes in on your model MPC. If you can bounce or render the stereo mix in the MPC, then great. Multitracking will allow you to process each track further. Perhaps sculpting some elements with EQ, for example. This cn help your overall mix sound better. Computer processing plug ins are very powerful now. Much more versatile than anything they can cram into a box with pads and sell at the price they do.

Right that's as far as I've got really, I'm a little confused about a couple of things, so just a few quick questions (hope this isn't too tiresome..) Is 0VU the standard level I should always be working towards? Is that more or less going to indicate if it is a suitable level for commercial use?

Understanding VU will be useful if you plan on using a mixing desk before the converter. Otherwise, get to grips with full scale (dBFS).

Is there any difference with regards to dBfs that I'm working at, between inputting and outputting? Or do i just generally do all my work on the MPC, recording, mixing, outputting to computer etc, at -18dBfs?

Input depends on whether your machine does 24-Bit. You may need to heat things up a bit for a 16-Bit sample. I would go digital where possible. Output will also depend on your converter. But most do 24 nowadays anyway. Your workflow is what you need to work out for yourself.

If a HQ soundcard/PT system offers a high dynamic range, does that simply mean that it samples at a high rate?

No. Sample rate and dynamic range are two different things. The dynamic range refers to amplitude. Exactly what we've been talking about here. Think about it on an XY level:



The horizontal axis is the rate. The vertical the amplitude.

In that case, isnt the MPCs sampling/conversion rate good enough for CD quality?

Absolutely. CD is 16-Bit 44.1kHz. The advantage of recording at 24-Bit, is the increase of headroom. You can mix at 24-Bit and reduce down to 16-Bit for a CD.

And finally and quite importantly, can you explain more to me about metering? Is that a VU meter? Where along the line in my setup would I place the meter.. would it be to monitor the output level of the mix? And also, what would the difference be between metering at 0Vu, and simply knowing that I'm working at the equivelant -18dBfs?

To be honest, metering will be important on your MPC during sampling but you can hear whether you've gone too hot. The sound will be clipping. On my SP (12-Bit) it's very easy to overload. On my 3K, less so (16-Bit). Metering will be more important when you come to record into your computer. I just went over this.

dabmeister wrote:
You're right, but think about it for a minute...which mpc samples at a higher sampling rate other than 16 bit/44.1khz?

Your MPC 4000+ samples at 24-Bit and SR up to 96kHZ.

Shostakovich wrote:

dabmeister wrote:
You're right, but think about it for a minute...which mpc samples at a higher sampling rate other than 16 bit/44.1khz?

Your MPC 4000+ samples at 24-Bit and SR up to 96kHZ.

, you messed that up g. I wanted to see if dread was on his game.

Nah, but I was trying to make a point. Yep, it's all about the headroom.

i wouldnt worry if your track is quieter, i'd be more concerned about getting your mix absolutely perfect. i gave up on the loudness thing ages ago.

if you listen to a track that sounds louder and punchier than your own track and its a track you really like, turn that tracks volume level down to the same level as your own track for reference, and take notice of how its mixed. do not compare to a track that is at a louder volume!

i wouldnt even bother with limiters/compressors on the master bus just to get your tracks sounding louder, its okay if your wanting to throw some stuff on soundcloud, and want to sound a little louder but if a tracks going to get cut most engineers would request you send them your track with nothing on the master.

its all about getting your mix absolutely spot on. some folk are smashing the **** out of there tracks with ozone and waves l2. it sounds terrible.

if i was getting a track released id put my trust in a good mastering engineer, there an important part of the entire process, and it'd be silly not to take note of there advice.

It's like painting on a blank canvas. Depending on the image you're trying to portray, with the right mixture of sounds and knowing how to EQ them, you can do a lot with just that alone.

dabmeister wrote: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.

I really do hate to see guys like you ragging on noobs for no other reason than to stroke your own ego. I know Im new here, but dont let that fool you.

The thread starter was courteous, explained him self in a manner easily understood (despite his lack of technical knowledge), and from his query there isnt actually that much he needs to be told to set him on the right path.

Most of what you say is pure nonsense. Not just in this thread, your and your car come up often which has been difficult for me to avoid as Ive read a fair amount of posts around here. When you equate headroom with volume (irrelevant drivel) and attempt to pass it off as knowledge and fact I cannot be silent. If you were saying what you say here on another forum you would be laughed out of the room. You spread disinformation and Noobs will obviously think you know what your talking about because of your large post count. A damn shame!...on both counts


THIS

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?

It was that statement that forced me to write this. What exactly did the poster say to be scolded by "mr experience'. Ill tell you something about 'experience' Its SAFE an BORING.

Can I suggest that from now after every post you make you add this

Dreadful wrote: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 !

I think your a lot more intelligent than your credited for (certainly much more than dabmiester thinks), and what lead me to think that was this sentence:

I do think about dynamics

and this

what I'm making will sound good quality to me, the problem seems to be the track's overall volume afterwards

Its really quite simple. You make a track you like but its just not as loud as stuff you buy or hear on youtube. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your question. In today's world loudness is a fact of the music industry. I haven't met an artists yet who loves their music being much lower in volume than the other guy.

You will need a PC or Mac. for mastering I would suggest a PC because its cheaper and you can get what almost every mastering engineer will use...Wavelab...Its up to you how you get it. Its not difficult to use. Its simply a stereo wav editor. You just drag the track on to the wavelab icon which will sit on your computers desktop, it will load in to the software and from there you play the song in real time as you add in THE LIMITER. You can hear what's happening as you do it. What's great about Wavelab is that it has excellent meters. You can load in a track you like and check what the meters say. Don't give a second thought to what they mean (for now) your objective is to get loud Just make sure that when you play your track and adjust the limiter the meters say roughly the same thing as the track you like

THE LIMITER

There are many to choose from, but heres a couple which are quite different but do the same thing.

Ozone has been mentioned. Ozone is good in that you may very well find a preset that instantly makes you loud and shiny. Its also good in that it has a chain of processors such as EQ, Mulyti band compressor which can control the bass, mid and top end of your mix separately, a limiter, that's the thing that gives you the XXXTRA volume and on Ozone its actually called loudness (i think?) and there's a few other processors which over time you will begin to understand but the one that goves you the big volum eis called a limiter. Its not as complicated as you may think at first. Its just like like having a rack of 5 or 6 hardware processors, but believe me, you would need to spend a lot on hardware to get anything like the quality you can from Ozone or other mastering software.

Sony Oxford Limiter: This is a just one processor which will make the track louder. http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugin ... imiter.htm

Check the video out. You will see and hear the track getting louder by about 7 decibels. What's happening here is the RMS volume is getting louder. Its not like the volume you have on your amp, hi fi, Ipod etc which is decibels (db). RMS is the volume we perceive (hear things at). So, a song that hits 0.00db (decibels) cannot go any louder... How can we possibly make it louder? [b]RMS can make us believe its louder.[/b] You unprocessed tracks RMS may read -17 (yeah dont worry about the - symbol in RMS)... But after we add the limiter (the loudness/RMS booster) it may read around -10...the lower the - number the louder the track will be. An RMS of around -9 is good. That's what your average pop song is around and its about the level a track can currently go without it sounding squashed to death..when that happens yu will hear the song begin to break up. it will start losing the plot basically. But Ive heard tracks that are as low as -4 and still sound good. As you increase the volume of your track you will know when you cant squeeze any more volume in to it.

On the web a lot of people will tell you no no no, yo cannot do it, leave it to a mastering engineer. Interesting that most Electronica released today is self mastered. Theres so little money in the game for niche artists they just cant afford to get tracks mastered. And anyway, your learning the ropes and why shouldn't your tracks you make now be the level of commercially available stuff. There's no big secret with loudness. Loudness is not something a mastering engineer can do sooo much better than your or I. Where they are useful is in corrective EQ...this makes your mix translate well to other peoples listening environments. But if you mix a track really well and it sounds good on your friends stereo, the car etc then you can be assured that when you add loudness it will still sound good.. Incidentally a really good mastering engineer doesn't shy away from making tracks loud. Beware of those mastering engineers that insist you give them a non compressed, non loud track which has basically zero processing on the mix. If any of them ever asks you that then ask them why Neve and SSL consoles beginning in the last 70's had compressors built in to the mix buss (thats the stereo master fader on the mixing desk) Even today almost any engineer/producer working on one of those mixers will switch that compressor on even whilst the track. Mixing in to the compressor has been around for decades and when peopel work like that it dictates how the mix sounds, how the different elements bounce off each other, how the guy mixing the track reacts, the hcnages he makes. It cannot just be removed. Today lots of musicains working with Daws slap a compressor on to the stereo buss as they write and mix. Nothing wrong with doing that at all. . BTW, A compressor is a bit like a limiter, but not so much in the volume area. A compressor holds the mix together, can make it more punchy. Anyway, Its very easy to make any zero processed track sound good. so beware of the non loud apologists who think their music is a dynamic as an orchestra when its nothing of the sort. You follow me?

I would wager a bet that if you had a computer and the software you would within a couple of days be able to make your tracks as loud as any commercial track.

One last bit of advice I can give you is erase from your mind everything dabmeister has told you. If it cant be gotten rid of please seek out a mind melter fast. The longer that drivel clouds up your sensory process the longer it will be before you are LOUD AND PROUD!

I tried to not be complicated

PS
Aiming for the loudest samples at the writing stage is irrelevant. Quality yes, but dont worry about how loud those samples are because that will just get in the way of the creative process. What do you do if you like the sample but you think its not loud enough...nah you cant work like that. Just make good music, mix it as good as you can, slap on that limiter and collect your Emmy

teanimin, the first thing you don't do is pass judgement based on somebody elses experiences or knowledge (in other words, sizing me up). Who are you to say that I don't know what the f**k I'm talking about nor know what the f**k I'm doing?

I'm proud to speak of any of my accomplishments and to share them openly on any forum (no ego stroking here buddy). But I'm not going to allow somebody to come in on this forum and say that I don't know what I talking about...then go behind me and try to sum up their on hypothesis about what I know, then try to break me down with that weak sh!t you obviously are spending so much time writing about.

In my own words...F**K all of this bit*h a$$ theoretical bs because discussing and pulling it off are two different things.

Mufucca's that talk this holy theory sh!t usually lack in other skilled areas so they need to make this big impression amongst others that they're mr. professor in the control room or whatever, and what they say or know is golden.

I don't try to impress in such a way because I'll be the first to admit, I don't know it all but I've had my share of reading, discussing, and practicing certain techniques through the 30 something years you obviously are bothered by. I consider myself a musician first, engineering is secondary (now you know, don't get it twisted).

And I can say that I've been blessed to aquire the things that I worked & slaved so hard for (which a kat of my stature is supposed to have anyway), but I'll be damn if I'm going to let a nobody tell me I don't deserve this or that and that I'm misleading folks and spreading the wrong information.

Dude...you gots to be tripping with what you just posted about me. Let's not let this happen again and I'll forget it even happened. But if it continues...I'll be ready fo yo a$$.

So with that said, go and make yourself useful or something and leave me alone.

Yo dreadful,

you dont need to have all those things in mind whenever transering a track from your mpc to whatever daw you choose as a audiorecorder and get a nice and loud track. Beacuse Mastering isn't all about getting the track loud. Its often about getting a selection of tracks sounding simular in the eq caracteristics. Ex. if your mix of one song is very heavy on bass and another is higher in the upper freq region, mastering will help you to compansate those tracks so they sound good with eachother.

One thing that could dramaticly alter your leveling and quality is to multitrack your beats/songs from your mpc.
when you multitrack you can record every sound/sample independently and eq/limit out the regions on the tracks from unheard frequencies.
like theFrequencies that aren't even heard by the human hearing =)
"these" regions do take away alot of headroom from your overall volume.
Low freq, around 20hz and below are more or less unheard so try reducing or filter out those ones.

then you will have more room for raising the volume without distorting it. maybe not mastering engineer louder, but it helps you raise the level of your track.

Teanimin:

From what I can tell, only one poster suggested sending his stuff off for mastering.

I suggested he understands how to track and mix before attempting to master. After all, you need to understand how to prepare and cook your ingredients before you can serve them up.

Suggesting mastering tools at this stage will just exacerbate OP's problem.

Shostakovich wrote:I suggested he understands how to track and mix before attempting to master. After all, you need to understand how to prepare and cook your ingredients before you can serve them up.

Well said! Track & mix = track saturation, eq, panning, added fx, balance, & the list goes on.

Bottom line is , you can have all the technical knowledge in the world about this bizz. But if you have no soul in you.. your music will still be wack. Music comes from the soul man. Music theory is for enginers. Making music is for artists. While you get all technical, my beats knock,bounce, and have that touch. I did that. The enginer just cleans up the reference signals. A real producer knows to give head room anyways. The first time they had a song mastered, they got an ass chewing by the enginer. Lesson learned.