Master Mi   Members

I've tested a few bigger and smaller studio monitors in a store (or/and at my home) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some time ago, I had the chance and the time to check out a few bigger and smaller studio monitors in a music store (or/and at my home) for many hours and noted my impressions and results of the tested models afterwards. Maybe it could help some of the newbies or all those who are still looking for some pretty good and affordable studio monitors. ... The studio monitor models I've tested intensely around 3 hours were the following ones: - Adam T5V (far too bass-heavy and too much/too sharp trebles) - Adam T7V (similar like T5V, but a bit more relaxed and balanced sound) - Adam A3X (were standing too close together to evaluate them properly, similar like Adam T7V, but with a slightly better sound definition) - Focal Shape studio monitors (guess these were the smaller Focal Shape 40 - nothing special about them, kinda average sound in contrast to the big opinions of the customers I've read online - I also remember that I didn't like something about the sound of these monitors compared to the sound of all other studio monitors there) - Presonus Eris E4.5 (really good, clean and balanced sounding studio monitors - just the bass seems to interfere a little bit too much with the lower mids, but they have some acoustic tuning options on the backside where you can shut down the bass a little bit) ... and here are my absolute winners of this contest: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - M-Audio BX8 D3 (I guess these were the new D3 generation and not the former D2 - despite the big size with the fuller bass range they still sounded very clean, rich in detailed, pretty relaxed, very balanced and with a pretty nice separation of bass, mid and higher frequencies) - Yamaha HS8 (excellent large-sized studio monitors with a quite perfect frequency balance and a high sound definition, despite the full bass you can also perceive the mids and trebles really well) - Presonus Eris 3.5 (not only some of the best smaller studio monitors in general, they can also keep up with the other bigger studio monitors pretty easily and sound as big like these, very clean/crystal clear high definition sound - you might fall in love with the very well-presented mids and trebles, very low level of inherent noises - only perceivable if you go with your ears pretty close to the tweeters, also excellent for listening at low volumes from a closer distance below 1 m, pretty nice acoustic tuning for trebles and bass, just for the lacking sub bass I'd recommend to add a little, separately controllable subwoofer like the Japanese Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 to the system to get at least from the moderate 80 Hz bass right down into the 40 Hz sub bass frequency range, kinda nothing will beat the price of around 100 bucks for both monitor speakers, the radically awesome design, the rather small weight or very low power usage of around 50 W for both studio monitors altogether, safe choice for untreated rooms) Yamaha MSP 3 (tested at my home >>> kinda similar like the Presonus Eris 3.5, but with a much more solid building quality and a bit greater frequency range within the bass and the top end frequencies (65 to 22000 Hz), maybe the best sound definition and separation of frequencies I've ever listened to, some of the most silent studio monitors I've ever listened to when it comes to inherent noises (you won't hear noises like these - even not from closer distances/sitting positions), also have some nice acoustic tuning features for trebles and bass, excellent for listening at low volumes from a closer distance below 1 m, likewise pretty low power usage of around 30 W per speaker) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if you have a special producer room which is treated with enough bass traps or things with good absorber materials (like a couch, wall units, a punching bag, thick wallpaper, carpets and/or floor covering), you might go for some larger monitors. If not, try out my recommened Presonus Eris E3.5 (or Yamaha MSP 3) studio monitors + Fostex PMSUBmini 2 subwoofer combo - with which you could also achieve an even better separation of frequencies, especially when it comes to the separation of mids and bass frequencies (similar like with a 3-way studio monitor system, although this studio monitor & subwoofer combo is technically rather some kind of an enhanced 2-way studio monitor system).

Since I only own my very first Playstation, my PS2 and PS3 as consoles and skipped the PS4, I plan to play the first episode together with my best friends and go straight for PS5 afterwards - because there might be a PS5 version for the FF7 remake episodes as well: https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/06/17/final-fantasy-vii-remake-ps5-playstation/

Yeah, it's really interesting to see or hear in which many different ways you can alternate soundtracks to get certain psychoacoustic effects for a different atmosphere or how you can merge different soundtracks with the help of vital transitions (to get the impression that it was always one coherent soundtrack). Besides... Since you have mentioned "music" in this context... There's already a Youtube video which contains some of the soundtracks of the first episode of the Final Fantasy 7 Remake. I guess these soundtracks could be the tracks which are on the mini soundtrack CD within the Deluxe and the 1st Class Edition of the remake.

I've never listened to the first generation of M-Audio BX-8 studio monitors. But if they are nearly as good as the third generation of this studio monitors and if you are really used to work with them, totally keep them, master the skill of working with them and work with those monitors in the future as well. But just to correct one of my own statements a little bit. I wrote that using EQ plugins should be one of the last options (mostly for the reason you shouldn't overdo it because of the pretty strong phenomenon of inurement which can really be an issue during mixing over a longer period of time). But EQ plugins can also have a really useful function - the creation of depth in a stereo mix. With a gentle cutting of the higher frequencies of a certain sound source, for example, you can create the impression that the sound source comes more from the background or from the rear of the room (caused by a phenomenon called dissipation - so, higher frequencies will be damped much more over longer distances than lower frequencies). So, really use EQ plugins for cutting frequencies to get a really well-structured staging with different sound sources that might be perceived as closer in the imagination of the listener and sound sources that might be perceived as much more distant in the mix. Cutting lower frequencies on the other side might be also useful for cleaning up the mix in the lower section a little bit. But if you do it, do it smartly and only if it's really necessary.

This might be interesting for all those who want add more depth to the mix and separate the frequencies of the instruments, vocals and synths much more and in a much cleaner, more realistic way. Lots of you might already have mastered the skill of creating a vital and structured stereo panorama - the skill of placing instruments and other signal sources alongside the x-axis between the left and the right side to get a clean mix. But even with a well-structured panning of the sound sources between the left and the right side, the final soundtrack might still sound kinda flat. So, a much more difficult - and highly desirable - intention might be the creation of greater depth impressions in your mix. There are quite a few possibilities with which you can do this - which I will explain in the following part of this text. A - Recording your tracks with different microphone positions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a recording studio with 2 well-chosen microphone positions (one microphone on the more left side, the other one on the more right side - and both in the front of the room) it could be kinda easy for bands to get a good stereo recording with useful depth informations without doing too much in your DAW software afterwards. Somewhere I've read or heard that Michael Jackson, for example, created some depth impressions in his soundtracks already in the recording process by singing from various distances and positions within the room right into the microphones. So if you have a real band with real instruments and at least two good microphones for recording within a well-pepared room, you can create depth kinda easily with a different placement of the instruments which you want to record within the sensory fields of the microphones. If you place your playing instrument more to the left microphone, you will later hear it more on the left side and less on the right side of your speaker system. If you place your instrument more in the rear of the the room, a wide variety of different effects (including all kinds of room reflections) will make an impact on your recorded signal, which create the impression in your perception that the signal is coming more from the rear of the room. These are the effects you might want to reproduce with the tools in your DAW to create an impression of depth if you don't use microphones for recording (especially if you are just working with synths or VSTi samples). B - You commonly reproduce those depth effects with following settings or methods in your DAW: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Volume (sound pressure) level (gain staging) ------------------------------------------------------------ Louder signals might be perceived as closer signals, quieter signal might be perceived as more distant signals (at least you will get the impression, if a signal with a kinda constant sound pressure level is moving away from you or coming closer to you). So make sure, that there are many different (and fitting) volume levels between the single tracks in your final mix. 2) Frequencies (EQ adaptation) ---------------------------------------- Another effect called dissipation is the cause for bigger frequency changes of sound events coming from a larger distance. Especially the higher frequencies of sound events from larger distances will be damped much more than their lower frequencies (just imagine a thunderstorm coming from a far distance with a bit more dull sounding rolling thunder and a thunderstorm which is really close and nearly right above your head). I guess it's because higher frequencies (higher and more directional energy source) will get absorbed, damped and slowed down much faster from the particles of the atmosphere than less energetic and less directional lower frequencies. So, over longer distances you will hear more of the remaining lower frequencies (or to be more precise: you will hear less of the higher frequencies), so the sound event from a bigger distance might be perceived as duller or less brilliant. For this purpose you might create the effect of a bigger distance by putting an EQ plugin with a high shelf filter (for cutting the higher frequencies a little bit) on the desired sound event in your mix which you want to move more in the background. 3) Time difference between perceived (or received) direct sound and its first stronger audible reflections (initial time delay gap - can be adjusted with pre-delay setting of your reverb plugins) --------------------------------------------------- Just imagine a big wide hallway. On the one end you are standing, on the other end a drummer is performing a slow drum beat. Every time the drummer hits his percussion equipment, you will perceive the direct sound of this sound event first (because the direct way is the shortest way the sound with its approximate velocity of 340 m/s will take at normal air conditions at sea level on this planet). A short time (maybe just a few miliseconds) afterwards, the first stronger reflections from the walls, floor and ceiling (longer way than the direct sound) will get into your ears. And the bigger this time difference is, the bigger (longer, wider or higher) the room must be - caused by the longer way of the first audible reflections. If the drummer in the same hallway would play only 1 meter in front of you, there would be barely any time difference between direct sound and first audible reflections, because the distance between the sound event and the listener is way too small to sense the little time difference of maybe around 5 ms. So, if you increase the pre-delay from 5 to 50 ms, it might increase the illusion of more depth. But don't overdo this one, because the pre-delay should also fit the room size of your reverb plugin for creating a realistic spatial impression within the perception of the listener. 4) Proportion between direct sound (dry signal) volume and reflections/reverberation (wet signal) volume ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Imagine a classic side-scroller for the NES - like "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link", for example. Link is just standing in the middle of the north castle where princess Zelda sleeps because of a magic spell. Suddenly, one of those small fairies enters the castle to bring back the flute to Link, the magic flute he lost in the desert some time ago. But the fairy is kinda playful and plays the flute straight in front of Link's face. Just see Link's face as the listener or receiver (you), the flute as the sound source and try to imagine a full circle around the flute (360 degrees) that always contains two angles - one angle that shows the amount of direct sound (dry signal) hitting Link's face, and the other angle, which takes up the rest of the full circle and shows the other part of the sound which will turn into reflections that will hit Link's face or ears shortly afterwards. So, by playing the flute straight in front of Link's face, the angle (and also the amount) of the direct sound (the dry signal) might be almost a half circle (maybe just 120 degrees). The rest of the flute sound will go above his head or behind the fairy, will immediately turn into different kinds of reflections on the walls, the floor and the ceiling of the castle and might come back as a various mix of perceived reflections (the wet signal) to Link's face. Link is kinda pissed off and tells the fairy to play the flute somewhere else, but not straight in front of him. So, the fairy flies around 50 meters away towards one end of the castle and plays the flute again. Now, the angle and amount of the direct sound (dry signal) hitting Link's face will be much smaller from the farther distance, and the angle and amount of the sound turning into audible reflections (wet signal) for Link will be much greater. You can also adapt this little example to a three-dimensional room (so, the former full circle around the flute will become a full sphere around the flute, the former two-dimensional angles will become solid angles, Link's two-dimensional head will become a three-dimensional head and the two-dimensional NES castle might become a three-dimensional Wii U castle). So the proportion of the dry signal volume and the wet signal volume at a sound source can also create an imagination of distance and depth within the perception of the listener. You can simply use a reverb plugin on your sound source with which you can set the proportion of the dry and the wet signal. If you add more of the dry signal to the sound source, the sound source might be perceived as closer. If you add more of the wet signal to the sound source, the sound source might be perceived as farther away or coming more from the rear of the room. Just keep in mind that the room size setting of your reverb plugins only creates an imagination of space around the listener (for example, a smaller or bigger castle) - but it won't create a feeling of depth or distance between the sound source and the listener. C - Using a 2-channel surround plugin to place your sound sources in a simulated room -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a pretty interesting, easy imaginable and very precise tool with which you can place all of your sound sources freely in a two-dimensional interface of a simulated room (x-axis contains the information between left and right setting, y-axis contains information between close/front and far/rear setting). I already have such kind of a 2-channel surround mode in my DAW software Samplitude Pro X4 Suite - but I never really dared to use this one for my remixes because I didn't have the comprehension of creating an imagination of depth and its benefits for the clearness of the mix back then. But these days, I'm gradually figuring out how to use this one for making much cleaner and more structured mixes with a much more spatial impression. The good thing is that you won't need a surround speaker system for this purpose - but the surround-like stereo mix you create with this 2-channel surround mode is decoded in a way that makes it fully compatible with stereo speaker systems and real surround speaker systems, according to the manual. So, all the spatial information (changes in position, loudness, frequencies and reverberation) of the placed sound sources in this virtual room will be fully reproduced on just two speakers (your studio monitors) or your headphones as well. I'm not fully sure how this system works in every detail. But I guess they might have used two well-placed recording microphones in the front of a bigger room with a certain distance to each other (just for the stereo imaging), measured the signal changes caused by various sound sources at different positions in the room (from close positions in front of the microphones, but also from more distant positions), created some kind of an algorithm for the signal changes and finally made a filter from this algorithm. And with the help of this imaginable filter (it's still my assumption that it might be a filter) you could reproduce all the room information and signal changes for all possible positions in this simulated room kinda easily, much more precisely (without calculating too much for the exact distance, the correct pre-delay or the proper damping or cutting of the frequencies for creating depth - instead of this time-consuming procedure you can easily drag the sound source with the mouse on the interface to the exact position in the simulated room) and in a pretty realistic way (less irritating information that could impair the impression of depth). So, if you place an instrument more in the rear of the simulated room, the perceived volume of the sound source will decrease, the perceived frequencies will change and the reverberation will also change - and all this complex stuff already goes by dragging the symbol for the sound source with the mouse through the virtual room at the really useful 2-channel surround mode interface. Of course you can also do automations with the positions of the sound sources, double the signal sources, vary their distance to each other for a different stereo width or shift these sound sources parallely or freely around the x- and y-axis through the simulated room. But this should be just a small impression of the many things you can do in such a 2-channel surround mode. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope, my reflections about these things might help some of the newcomers and all those who wanted to know much more about this topic in a way even I as a former ecology student (who became kinda desperate with the higher level of mathematics and physics back then because building up knowledge mostly based on ready-made formulas might be not the best way of truly understanding natural phenomenons and other essential things of life) could finally understand some of those very complex things much better. Please correct me, if I should be wrong with certain assumptions or augment my writing, if there might be some further important things deserved to be added to this topic.

Haha, just wanted to post the new one - but yeah... "The early bird catches the worm."... or something like that. Damn, I really like the huge amount of new scenes. I guess, they 've put lots of time, efforts and dedication straight in the game. ))

Today, somebody noted that (in his opinion) there is some bass issue going on below the 100 Hz section in my preview version of "Fighting Fantasies". He was writing about an uncontrolled bass roaming around below 100 Hz (... since the electric bass is pretty dry and submissive in the middle of the panorama, I guess he means the sound of the Industrial Percussion drums, I've panned hard to the left and hard to the right, which make that rumbling rolling thunder sound - which was kinda intended by myself to bring more action in the kinda dry lower section, but without creating a muddy soundscape). I mixed this track with the pretty accurate Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro (Black Edition) studio headphones, connected to an high-end headphone amp (Lake People G109-P) which seems to drive these high impedance properly through the whole frequency range. So, I'm sure I can hear really clearly, what's going on in the lower frequency section - and it sounded pretty full and nice to my ears - even on all other devices (like my little 3-way studio monitor system, my old hi-fi system and my HD MP3 player). Dunno, if he just wanted to troll me or if it might be a bad sound reproduction on my system or his system. So I wanted to ask the OC Remix community directly... What you think about this bass issue the guy mentioned - do you hear some of those annoying bass issues in this track on your studio monitor and/or headphone system like he obviously does on his system? And what do you think about the whole mixing and the composition of the preview in general?

Since the Samson SR850 seem to be a not too bad clone of the AKG studio headphones series and the customer feedbacks are kinda positive on these headphones, I guess you can't go too wrong with these. Although, I didn't find a real frequency response measurement of the SR850, I've still found something for the SR950 which are considered to be a bit more bass-heavy than the SR850. http://www.samsontech.com/site_media/support/manuals/SR950_OM_EN_1.2.pdf So, if you keep in mind that the SR850 might have a little less dominant bass, they might be really good - especially if they have a similar sound definition like the AKG studio headphone series. The frequency range from 10 Hz to 30000 Hz is also very good. http://www.samsontech.com/site_media/legacy_docs/SR850_OM_v1.pdf The only bigger thing that might bother you in the long term could be the headband which looks to be rather uncomfortable. But don't forget to give a little feeback of these headphones and how you like them in general. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coming the studio monitors... If you got the bigger M-Audio BX8-D3, you 've made a pretty well choice for mixing (even more if your room is prepared for the full spectrum of frequencies with some bass traps - if not, smaller studio monitors might be a better fitting option). It's because I've tested the M-Audio BX8-D3 and many other famous studio monitor models in the store, and - according to my own listening experience - they made some of the best results (in things like balanced/flat frequency response, definition and clearness of the reproduced sound, staging/panorama reproduction) together with the Yamaha HS8 und the smaller Presonus Eris 3.5. The studio monitor models I've tested intensely around 3 hours were the following ones: - Adam T5V (far too bass-heavy and too much/too sharp trebles) - Adam T7V (similar like T5V, but a bit more relaxed and balanced sound) - Adam A3X (were standing too close together to evaluate them properly, similar like Adam T7V, but with a slightly better sound definition) - Focal Shape studio monitors (guess these were the smaller Focal Shape 40 - nothing special about them, kinda average sound in contrast to the big opinions of the customers - I also remember that I didn't like something about the sound of these monitors compared to the sound of all other studio monitors there) - Presonus Eris E4.5 (really good, clean and balanced sounding studio monitors - just the bass seems to interfere a little bit too much with the lower mids, but they have some acoustic tuning options on the backside where you can shut down the bass a little bit) ... and here are my absolute winners of this contest: ----------------------------------------------------------------- - M-Audio BX8 D3 (I guess these were the new D3 generation and not the former D2 - despite the big size with the fuller bass range they still sounded very clean, rich in detailed, pretty relaxed, very balanced and with a pretty nice separation of bass, mid and higher frequencies) - Yamaha HS8 (excellent large-sized studio monitors with a quite perfect frequency balance and a high sound definition, despite the full bass you can also perceive the mids and trebles really well) - Presonus Eris 3.5 (not only some of the best smaller studio monitors in general, they can also keep up with the other bigger studio monitors pretty easily and sound as big like these, very clean/crystal clear high definition sound - you might fall in love with the very well-presented mids and trebles, very low level of inherent noises - only perceivable if you go with your ears pretty close to the tweeters, also excellent for listening at low volumes from a closer distance below 1 m, pretty nice acoustic tuning for trebles and bass, just for the lacking sub bass I'd recommend to add a little, separately controllable subwoofer like the Japanese Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 to the system to get at least from the moderate 80 Hz bass right down into the 40 Hz sub bass frequency range, kinda nothing will beat the price of around 100 bucks for both monitor speakers, the radically awesome design, the rather small weight or very low power usage of around 50 W for both studio monitors altogether, safe choice for untreated rooms) ------------------------------------------------------- So, if you have a special producer room which is treated with enough bass traps or things with good absorber materials (like a couch, wall units, a punching bag, thick wallpaper, carpets and/or floor covering), you should keep the bigger M-Audio studio monitors. If not, try out my mentioned Presonus Eris E3.5 studio monitors + Fostex PMSUBmini 2 subwoofer combo.

The official release for Final Fantasy 7 Remake will obviously be delayed... from formerly 03.03.2020 to 10.04.2020. https://square-enix-games.com/en_GB/news/message-final-fantasy-vii-remake-development-team

Yeah, I'd always try to keep greater amounts of reverb in the lower frequency section (caused by ambienth synths or melodic acoustic instruments) on a lower level, especially if you already have some reverb in this frequency area 'cause of drums or maybe bass reverb (I mostly try to avoid bass reverb if I already use drums with a mighty reverb). So, you really need to perceive it as clearly as possible. Without good ears (remember my hint to train your ears to listen to soundtracks on lower volumes for most of the time) and - of course - good studio equipment, you'll have kinda unlucky cards. Your studio equipment should reproduce the sound on a high audio resolution (rich in detail) and as flat and truthful as possible (no sticking out frequencies that might overshadow the impression of the other frequencies - so, kinda balanced and linear reproducing studio equipment). But with good big 3-way studio monitors alone - in a room that is not fully treated with bass traps - you won't have big chances, because the roamning/reflecting bass waves will completely overshadow your impression of the rest of the track, especially the lovely mids and airy high frequencies... and even the bass you can't mix correctly, 'cause the most things you will hear, are just the layered reflections of the bass. So, you might get even better results with smaller studio monitors and a separately adjustable sub woofer in this case of an untreated room. The better (additional) solution in this case might be: You save some money for good pretty linear responding high-end studio headphones like the Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro... and a great headphone amp which can drive such high impedance headphones properly (amps like Lake People G109-P, for example). In this case, you will be much more able to listen to the things which are really going on in the lower frequency sections, as well as in all other sections. The good thing with good headphones is the fact that you won't get trouble with the nasty effects of room reflections. If the track sounds good on your headphones, your studio monitor system, your ordinary radio and your MP3 player, it shoud be fine. ... And just one more thing. Before you might go into the EQ correction too fast and maybe overdo it without noticing it - 'cause of the pretty strong phenomenon of inurement - try to set up a greater stereo panorama before and separate instruments/synths with a similar frequency range by a better placement of those instruments/synths in the room. It can already make the mix much clearer if you put some of those instruments/synths more on the left side and the other ones more to the right side and save greater amounts of reverb for only one or two instruments in the high-mid or higher frequency section of the mix. And - if you have those options an your VSTi and synths, try to separate some instruments/synths with different settings or automations of color/timbre (which is similar like EQ-ing, but a more natural/harmonic way of doing it) or use much more different MIDI velocity dynamic settings to make some instruments more soft/mellow/submissive and others more hard/sharp/assertive in their individual sound. If the soundtrack is still muddy after this, you should start think about your compostion in general (... about things like: How would sound experts set up the whole instrumentation and surroundings in a live orchestra?). And if even this can't solve the problems with the soundscape in your mix, then it's finally the point at which I would start thinking about EQ-ing some elements of your track.

That's it, dude... ... far more pleasing to listen to the new mixings of the tracks. The soundtracks sound much more organic and "breathing" now - so, radically keep it this way. )) Keep in mind, that - if you turn off all the compressor/limiter plugins of your single tracks and your master track - you have to set up a new mixing in most cases (since the compression effects like the perceived loudness of an instrument or synth can be quite different, depending on the level of compression for each track and - of course - depending on the instrument, VSTi or synth you used compressors/limiters on). Using compressors will also modify the sound (frequencies) of an instrument/synth a little bit. So, if want to get back the old sound of the compressed instrument or synth (related to the frequency spectrum of the perceived sound), but without the lowered dynamics, the annoying pressure on your ears and without the less defined "compression mud" caused by using compressors, you might have to use a good equalizer plugin on that instrument/synth and modify the frequency curve a little bit until it sounds similar like before. But to me, the new sound of the synths without the compressor plugins is really nice - nothing to change there from my point of perception. What I'm really interested in is the question how your track with the accordion will sound like without any compression effects (if you have even used a compressor on this soundtrack) - because using compressors on dynamic acoustic instruments (in my opinion) is an even greater sin than using it on electronic synths. Besides, how is that track connected to Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind ('cause you used the same track with a picture of the anime) - was there an original melody of you accordion version?

That's another effect, what compression in audio projects and listening to tracks at higher volumes over a longer period of time do to your ears - it will literally make them bleed and you as a composer kinda deaf. It's much easier to listen to dynamic and fully uncompressed soundtracks for a longer time withing getting temporarily deaf. So, the original soundtracks from the 80s (not the annoying and often also highly compressed remasters) are much more pleasing to listen to than many modern electronic, pop or metal productions which are often heavily compressed. I'd also train your ears to listen to your tracks at lower volumes to make mixing decisions, switch between headphones and studio monitors sometimes - and just for the final check you may listen to your track on a slightly higher volume. ----------------------------- So, for the tracks... I'd say that they are already pretty well mixed (except the compression I generelly don't like very much - but by listening to your tracks an a lower volume I can bear the compression effects more easily). From the view of the composition I'd say that "voidSearch" and SendingHelp" in their momentary state have the greatest potencial to become great soundtracks. But you should compose a few breaks, build-ups and more alternations to draw the attention of the listeners through the whole soundtrack - like if they were thrown into a magic audio river with lots of different exciting passages and say things like : "Alright, here comes the big one" several times.

To my ears it 's not a too big difference to the last version. But the new mix sounds a bit quieter from the overall loudness (which is good in this case) - but a bit more relaxed, dynamic, cleaner and a bit more pleasing to listen to. If you compared the loudness/peak measuring graphs of both soundtracks, you can see the differences. old version >>> new version >>> So, despite the kinda shitty 128 kbit/s streaming rate of Soundcloud... ... in the new version the drums seem to have more room to shine through the mix. In the old version, it seems that the drums and maybe also the rest of the track are more compressed/limited - perhaps via limiter as a master plugin. It's one of the reasons I don't use compression tools in my own tracks - because they lower the definition, the dynamics and sample quality into a kinda annoying direction of less defined sound mud... the more intensively you use those compression tools in your mix, the worse this compression/limiting effect might become.

I'm only a little bit used to the functions of FL Studio. But in relation to the mixing stuff in your question, I'd give the following advice: If you can't boost the volume of a certain track in your mix (like drums), you can still lower all the other tracks instead... with quite the same effect. Since mixing is much more about balancing (balancing out the volume/loudness of the tracks against each other) than boosting, I'd also recommend to begin mixing with a really safe headroom. So, I generally take the track which I think will be the loudest or most assertive one in the mix (mostly the drums track) and set the volume of this track in a way that its greatest peak in the track may be around -10 dB. From this point you can easily set all the other tracks of the whole mix. And if you compose another track later (maybe another drum element) which might have some few stronger/louder impulses/peaks, there shouldn't be too big problems with the headroom. Coming to the mixing quality of your track, I'd say it 's already pretty well-mixed.

After a very long time of not working on this remix, I've finally created a little preview for the coming update of my remix for the battle theme "Those who fight" from the game Final Fantasy 7. Here's the preview of the coming version 1.6: >>> >>> https://clyp.it/fgslop4q --------------------------------- I guess, the pretty nice trailer stuff for the highly anticipated Remake of Final Fantasy 7 fired me radically up and inspired me to work much more on this remix. I know... a remix of this size with around 12 minutes in length will need a lot of time (to work at) and lots of variation (to keep the attention of the listeners). But step by step, I will bring it on a higher level of composition skills and mixing/mastering quality. So, with the help of my Beyerdynamic 880 DT studio headphones, connected to my Lake People G109-P headphone amp, I was able to set up a much better mixing with a really wide stereo panorama and to create a much more dynamic remix part which you can listen to at the point when the typical peak of the battle theme kicks in. At this point, I've composed much more vivid orchestral drum elements, used a kinda powerful VSTi-based electric guitar for the legato bass line, put much more variation in the playing of the trumpets, changed some instruments against better samples and worked much more with the colour/tone as well as with the MIDI velocity dynamics of the VST-based instruments, for example. I also used some really fitting and well synchronized gameplay scenes as muted video material for this little preview to additionally support the unleashing of slumbering fighter emotions and to give an idea of the direction in which the remix (which will contain lots of different memorable gameplay/battle video scenes - instead of only a slideshow - in the next version) will go in the future. So, feel radically free to tell me how you like the new stuff within this little preview. ))

This posting should be for questions related to unknown instruments in soundtracks, movies etc. - or related to VSTis, synths and effects that might represent a certain instrument. To give an example, I just pose the first question. In the intro for the Remake of Final Fantasy 7 (as well as in the original game) you have a kinda interesting sound at 2:00 in the video of this link: ... In the video link for the original game it comes up at 1:22: ... Do you have an idea what this kinda rolling or swirling metallic sound in the higher frequency section is or which instrument it could represent? This sound is really interesting because I can't really remember to have listened to this one anywhere in the real world.

A happy New Year's Day begins with a bombing (mission) trailer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, that's a really nice start in the new year. Yesterday, I just worked on my remix for the legendary Final Fantasy 7 battle theme "Those who fight" with a good friend for some hours and we tried out a few innovations in thinks like composition and sound design - straight into the beginning of the New Year (of course we also watched some old New Year's Eve videos from my beginning pyrotechnics-dynamite-building days with my really rad technical instructions for this stuff - where we nearly pissed ourselves with laughter ^^) ... ... and at the same day, the New Year's Day, so... today, the newest trailer of the wishfully anticipated remake of Final Fantasy 7 arises from the depths of the internet. The trailer represents the radically revised and slightly extended intro of the original game from 1997. Of course, I was totally blown away by the whole atmosphere, by all the graphical details and the really (amazingly) bombastic sound effects which I could radically absorb into my world with the help of my pretty well-resourced and dearly beloved home recording studio. Unfortunately, they seemed to have removed the "trailer" of the intro (was obviously not an official one - just a part from a new demo gameplay streaming that has been leaked and uploaded by a few people). Maybe this whole streaming of the new demo might remain on Youtube for a while. I think... The remake of Final Fantasy 7 will be probably much larger and more meaningful than most of the die-hard fans of the original game could ever have dreamed of. ))

What was your great fear in this case - that the former Active Time Battle system could become too active? I mean - despite my passion for former Final Fantasy games - I really like the newer, more active fighting stuff and gameplay you could find in Crisis Core: Final Fantasy 7 or in the Dissidia: Final Fantasy games. And with the new slow motion feature implemented in the new Final Fantasy 7 Remake with which you you can slow down and enjoy special scenes if you want or need to, it totally meets my deepest desires for a modern RPG containing an old, but legendary story. ))

For everybody who thinks that he/she could have missed some of the early announcements or trailers for the great Final Fantasy 7 Remake, I've added this little trailer compilation in the main posting: >>>

A new trailer for the Final Fantasy 7 Remake was released a few days ago. Here it goes - with English language (which - I think - has the best and most fitting voice acting) and English subtitles as well:

Thanks for the really useful information. )) Guess, you 're totally right - never touch a running system. If you already have a decent studio equipment that works really well and you also have a good audio interface with all the necessary connectivity options you need, you can feel blessed, take a deep breath of joy... ... and concentrate much more on the main things >>> creative compositions, professional sound design, great mixings or simply experiencing and enjoying the great world of audio. Sometimes you really have to be aware that your home studio won't turn into some kind of a shitty replacement car that makes a lot of extra noises after tuning, but mostly draws a lot of time and money or which even pollutes the fresh air of creativity you once enjoyed when riding your bike in a much more natural and down-to-earth environment. I guess, it's already a pretty awesome thing, that you can afford such really good studio equipment as a normal civilian nowadays and compose your own soundtracks and remixes with a DAW system. It would have been much harder or nearly impossible to get even nearly such great stuff at this affordable cost range around 30 years ago.

I'm not a too big fan of mere software solutions when it comes to optimizing the sound reproduction of your studio equipment - especially not for optimizing the sound of the speakers because you have lots of different parameters (especially room reflections/sonic wave reverberations) that will influence the measurement and distort the results. I guess, it would be nearly impossible for a software in the year 2019 to calculate all the parameters of your production environment correctly backwards to eliminate the room reflections from the true sound of the speakers to get really the results of the speaker sound with a linear frequency response you want. But even under this circumstances Sonarworks seems to make a fairly good job in improving the sound quality of your speakers a bit (obviously just by reducing the heavy and more reverberating bass waves of larger speakers in a way where the mids and high frequencies get to your ears in a much more present and cleaner way) - though, I can't really evaluate if this will make your mixing decisions better in the end. >>> (comparison of the studio monitors with and without Sonarworks at 7:51) Much more useful could Sonarworks be for calibrating your studio headphones ('cause there you won't have the problem with heavily influencing room reflections). And I tried it out by downloading the trial version of Sonarworks Reference 4 with which I created 2 presets - one for my Sony MDR-7506 and a second one for my Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro. I have to admit that I was kinda impressed after calibrating both studio headphones (could use some presets for both headphone models) and - despite the really different construction of the headphones - both sounded quite similar (which seems to make some points for Sonarworks) - except the fact that the Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro can technically still reproduce a much fuller and deeper sub-bass than the Sony MDR-7506. After this, I checked some of my own soundtracks and remixes with one headphone model by switching the Sonarworks calibration on and off. And all of my tested soundtracks and remixes sounded even better with the calibration - really like the deep low-end frequencies, as well as the really smooth & relaxed frequency response in the upper frequency section and along the whole frequency range in general with the calibrated headphones. But this also means, that my mixing decisions with the not calibrated headphones are already kinda good. So, would Sonarworks make a big difference for my mixing decisions via headphones? 1) with the Sony MDR-7506 >>> maybe... 2) with the Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro >>> rather not... I really respect the sound results you can achieve with the calibration via Sonarworks. But I'm actually not a too big fan of those software solutions, where you always have to change your presets after changing the studio equipment you 're listening to. And it's often so, that more permanently running software on your system means a rising chance of problems like slowdowns, incompatibilities or even crashes on your system. So, I guess I'll stick with a far-sighted hardware solution like... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) rather using smaller, but very clean sounding studio monitors for your room than getting too large monitors in an inappropriate production room and create an individually adjustable 3-way system by adding a fitting subwoofer 2) getting a high-end studio headphone system as a second reference for better mixing decisions

I'm just thinking about if it might be useful to upgrade an 24-bit USB 2.0 audio interface to a newer version within the same product line with 32-bit and USB 3.1 functions. At the moment I own the Steinberg UR44, which is a really awesome interface (just one year old - and my absolute favourite audio interface in my price range back then) with a great sound quality and lots of connectivity options: >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/steinberg_ur44.htm?ref=intl&shp=eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoiZ2IiLCJjdXJyZW5jeSI6IjIiLCJsYW5ndWFnZSI6ImVuIn0%3D And now I'm thinking about getting the UR44C of the brand-new product line with the same connectivity options, but with 32-bit & USB 3.1 functions: >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/steinberg_ur44c.htm What do you think - would I have some meaningful benefits from this upgrade or isn't it worth the investment? A good friend would buy my old interface for around 200 bucks - so it wouldn't be a complete waste of money and resources in this case. But... 1) Does the "32-bit" any impact on the quality of the sound reproduction if you just listen to a soundtrack with this interface - or is it just the recording with a microphone or an electric guitar that might sound a bit more accurate and better defined (even this could be useful because I'm planning to buy my first electric guitar - which might be a Yamaha Pacifica - in the coming year)? What exactly does the "32 bit" (audio depth) mean? It doesn't seem to be similar to the sampling rate and of course not to the bit rate - but it oviously has something to do with the audio-quality, right? 2) I have some USB 3.0 connections at my PC - so, will you get some greater benefits in your music production activities from the faster USB connection? Will this affect the loading speed of your projects? Will it lower the CPU or DSP usage in your DAW? Will it lower the latency? Or can you easily use more instruments plugins and effects in your music projects without putting the engine stability in danger with this USB 3.0/3.1 connection? So, does somebody in this group have some own experiences with upgrading his/her studio equipment from a 24-bit/USB 2.0 audio interface to a 32-bit/USB 3.1 audio interface - and would you recommend such an investment for me or anybody else in this group?

There 's also a new Japanese commercial with real actors (not directly related to the storyline) for the FF7 remake. And finally it got an English translation - at least partially. It's obviously some kind of a reminiscence that should make the REUNION feeling go viral. But furthermore it shows that even Japanese commercials like this are made with love, dedication and the typical Japanese humor.

Finally, I've completely updated and edited this thread with a much better choice of high-end studio monitors. I've also added some very good smaller studio monitor models for smaller or untreated rooms. And in addition to some smaller changes I've made in the main text of this thread, I also found some good new features on a great Youtube channel for very helpful comparisons of several studio monitor speakers. If you want to compare the sound and frequency response of several studio monitor speakers a bit more with your own ears and eyes, there's a pretty useful Youtube channel at which the uploader called Digital Stereophony makes kinda professional comparisons between lots of studio monitors and/or hi-fi speakers within a series of different soundtracks. In his newer uploads he has also added the original source sound of the soundtracks for a better comparison of the speakers - and further on, he has added the frequency response graphs of the speakers at the end of his newer videos. According to his own writings these are the frequency response graphs of the speakers in a semi-treated room. So, if you are still looking for some studio monitors, feel free to have a detailed look at his speaker sound comparisons. >>> https://www.youtube.com/user/skubny/videos