Master Mi

Hm - but somehow the streaming quality on Youtube seems to be slightly better than on Soundcloud - and Soundcloud already allows just 128 kbit/s. You can often hear the slightly worse sound quality on Soundcloud by listening to the higher drum sections like cymbals (cymbals often sound a bit raspy, distorted, less defined and less full in their whole frequency spectrum). On Youtube cymbals still sound pretty clean - even the reverb of those. Just compare my solo drums track on these two streaming platforms: Soundcloud >>> https://soundcloud.com/master-mi/drum-grooves-lvl-2-composed-by-master-mi Youtube >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9MIzC_oe38 In addition to that I've converted some videogame remixes on Youtube into MP3 files - and most of them come up with an audio bitrate of 192 kbit/s. Don't know if this alone gives a small hint on the real streaming audio bitrate on Youtube. But just by listening to soundtracks on both platforms I get the impression Youtube seems to have a slightly better streaming audio quality than Soundcloud. But to get back to my question... What do you think? Is there a difference of the sound quality between uploading a video with 192 kbit/s audio stuff (if that would be the maximum audio bitrate Youtube allows) and a video with uncompressed wave audio stuff on Youtube or will these two options result in the same audio streaming quality - or.. will the upload with the just 192 kbit/s audio stuff get compressed once again a little bit which could lead into a slightly worse audio streaming quality after uploading the file (compared to the file before the upload)?

I'm not a too big fan of adapting my cosy living room for my speaker system (especially not with those unesthetic dark wall absorber mats) - I rather prefer buying a speaker system that really fits my room. Unfortunately the store won't get the whole new speaker system until late August 2018 - so it seems like I have to wait over 2 months to get my first chance to give ya a little review of this obviously pretty awesome small-size studio speaker system combo.

And that' s the reason why EBU R 128 can and should be used in music industry as well. Not just because of uniformly loud music all across the internet - but also because you don't have to bother with useless sound chirugy or use of compressors or limiters for mere loudness gaining anymore - just as it nearly was in the 70s and early 80s. If you master your tracks always at EBU R128 you won't have to watch the peaks all the time because there's always enough headroom that the peaks can come and flow. Even in some of my soundtracks with higher dymanics the peaks won't go easily over - 7 dB. The peaks have always enough headroom to breathe and sound natural.

Thanks for the answer. )) I had thought pretty much about this topic in the last time and I even talked to a mastering professional - and I guess you 're right. Although he seemed to be one of the new kind of mastering engineers who are more afraid of given away headroom than given away sound quality or a consistent loudness of audio programs he also said that you would do the loudness metering for each track intead of metering the whole CD in one shot. And it makes totally sense to me now - because later I had found out that the metered loudness is the AVERAGE loudness of the specific part in or maybe the whole track you have metered (and not something like the momentary loudness). So, if you start metering the track from 0:00 to 2:32 it will show you the average loudness of this part when finishing the metering at exactly 2:32. If you start metering the track from 0:32 to 0:50 it will show you the average loudness of this little part when finishing the metering at exactly 0:50. (That's where the strange measuring differences of the two methods I mentioned in the posting have come from.) And this also implicates that it wouldn't really make sense to meter the loudness over the length of the whole CD - because the differences of the loudness between each track could be too big (one track a bit too silent, another track a bit too loud could also result in the same average loudness if you meter the whole CD in one shot). But to factor in the different compression levels of the different tracks (could have been already caused in the production process of the tracks or maybe during the production of some nasty remastered versions) within different genres for my CD I still have to do something. EBU R128 (that's the loudness metering method at which I wanted to master the tracks of the CD) defines that the (average) loudness of the track should be at a target level of -23 LUFS (dB) +/- 1 LU (dB). So, I had a maximum range of 2 dB for the average loudness of each track to overcome the problem of different compression levels at different tracks on a CD. This could be quite enough. I guess the developers and audio engineers behind EBU R128 could have included this range of 2 dB for exactly these kinds of problems. But since I don't know if a range of 2 dB will be always enough for mastering CD and since I've mastered all my other track at slightly below - 23 LUFS or dB (rather between -23,1 dB to -23, 3 dB) I guess I will keep it this way for this special CD: 1) leaving the loudness ratio of the tracks to each other as it already is (according to my perception of hearing when I was adjusting the fitting volume/loudness of the tracks back then) 2) metering each track and writing down the average loudness of all tracks to get the track with the highest average loudness 3) adjusting the loudness of all tracks together by keeping the loudness ratio between all tracks until the track with the highest average loudness hits the - 23 LUFS (dB) mark (or rather the - 23,1 to 23,3 dB mark) and all other tracks will be below that (so, the track with the lowest average loudness might be around - 25 or - 26 dB)... I'm sure this could be a good way to keep it with all CD masterings with highly different and differently compressed tracks in the future. If I want to bring out a CD with just my own tracks it will be mastered easily at an average loudness of -23,1 to -23,3 dB of each track because I don't use any compressors or limiters in my soundtracks - so there won't arise problems like these.

@timaeus222 Yeah, I've tried FL Studio some time ago because a friend of a friend wanted to talk to me about music production and he brought his FL studio on his notebook to me. But after some hours I didn't want to work with this program anymore and I showed him some production stuff on my DAW. After 10 years of working with FL Studio (!!!) he couldn't even tell me how to set up a normal MIDI track layer with the standard piano roll (because he just worked with that annoying pattern system all the time) - and I was really pissed off to look up all the stuff separately because I wasn't able to get into that program just by intuitive searching and exploring. And then I was like: "Never FL Studio again - if the game already starts like this you probably won't see the best ending." Even in those days back then when I was starting with music theory and music production I got pretty easy into DAWs like Cubase without too big knowledge about Digital Audio Workstations - just by intuition within a few minutes/hours I could set up some basic MIDI stuff. ...compared to FL Studio where I couldn't get in just by intuition after many hours and after working with my own DAW for over 4 years now. But if you are already used to the program and got all the necessary 3rd-party VST plugins, synthesizers and VSTIs you need for music production just keep with this program. Because in the end your skills and passion as a composer are often much more important that getting the very very best DAW with the best all-inclusive-high-end equipment on planet earth. But for newcomers I would recommend other DAWs like Cubase, Reason, Ableton - or my DAW Samplitude Pro X3 Suite. Although it's not that massively advertised in the music production mainstream media it's by far one of the best DAWs with the most comprehensive features, functions and equipment for professional music production out there. Just have a look at it and compare (contains main features of the Samplitude Pro X(1) series): >>> Here you have some informations about the latest Pro X3 (Suite) version: >>> https://www.magix.com/gb/music/samplitude/music-production-composition/#c711245 >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC2udZIzf5o

Hey, guys. I just want to know if streaming platforms like Youtube do a further compression on your uploaded sountrack content if you have already exported your video from your video cutting program with the best settings Youtube allows. The problem is >>> with my built-in video cutting program Movie Maker from Microsoft (in which I load my uncompressed WAVE audio file from my music project) I can only export videos (I use WMV format for videos) with a maximum audio bitrate of 192 kbit/s. Seems to be no problem because Youtube obviously allows only max. 192 kbit/s for the audio stuff in the video. Or is it still a disadvantage for the sound quality and does Youtube make a further compression on the uploaded 192 kbit/s stuff which would justify buying a more professional video editing software where you can export videos with uncompressed WAVE audio quality before you upload your soundtrack/video content?

I 've never really been a fan of Fruity Loops or FL Studio. Compared to other DAWs it doesn't seem have that great performance (seems to use a lot of hardware power - even on mid or high-end PC systems). It might contain some good synthesizers - but the VSTIs (software instruments) in the FL Studio repertoire seem to be not that realistic/useful. It's even lacking in some really useful metering systems which nearly every good DAW contains - even in its standard version. And they still seem to not have managed to remove that crappy pattern system as they promised. Compared to the normal track system the pattern system has no additional use and it's just annoying not to get straight to the track if you are a newcomer. Inconvenient, less intuitive software interface for beginners to get in, lacking in some higher quality VSTI stuff and in many points totally overrated - that 's FL Studio in my opinion, compared to ther DAWs. There are much better DAWs out there for the price of the FL studio All Plugins Bundle.

Thanks. )) I've already thought about some calm reverberating cymbal sounds at this point or some slow orchestral/industrial bass drum or snare percussion - but I'm not quite sure about this. Maybe a drum-free, mystically melodic part isn't that bad at all - but I'll try some percussion stuff before. One more question - what do you think about the rock/metal part from the beginning of this video until 0:30? Is there a bit too much hall or interference in the lower section and should it be a more dry, thick 'n tight or is it okay according to your ears and studio technology?

Insane - found a nice combo of a smaller 3-way-speaker system with subwoofer for my sharp-eared flat that might be good for mixing and music production purposes - though its smaller size. 1) Presonus Eris 3.5 Speakers >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/presonus_eris_e3.5.htm?ref=intl&shp=eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoiZ2IiLCJjdXJyZW5jeSI6IjIiLCJsYW5ndWFnZSI6ImVuIn0%3D >>> https://www.amazon.com/PreSonus-Eris-E3-5-Professional-Multimedia/dp/B075QVMBT9/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1526725108&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=presonus+eris+3.5&psc=1 and 2) Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/fostex_pm_submini_2.htm?ref=intl&shp=eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoiZ2IiLCJjdXJyZW5jeSI6IjIiLCJsYW5ndWFnZSI6ImVuIn0%3D I guess this could work even for ordinary flats with noise-sensitive people around - within a smaller studio environment where you still can hear a good amount of details with an hopefully flat frequency response at the right hardware settings. I ordered the stuff after checking lots of alternatives in the smaller studio size sections and will be able to test the new stuff in about two weeks - will leave ya a feedback if somebody is interested. What's your opinion about (or maybe your experience with) those two components for smaller studio environments? And what do you think sounds better and more natural with a good flat frequency response - Presonus Eris 3.5 or 4.5? I tend to go for Presonus Eris 3.5 because there the mids don't seem to mix up with the bass in the speakers so much - so it could be working excellently with the subwoofer as a separate bass unit. ))

Dudes - I've checked out the Adam T5V. They were awesome in the store to listen to (even in comparison with the A7X, T5V seem to make a deeper bass and a cleaner sound somehow) - and now at least I know that I've mixed my coming Lufia remix already very well with my headphones and my Logitech Z533 speaker system. I bought the Adam T5V studio monitors - but in my room I recognized that they are roaring so much that this would probably mean war with my neighborhood. The sound is really too heavy for my flat. So, I guess I'll bring them back and stick with my Logitech Z533 speaker system which has obviously the perfect size and sound for my production room in my flat. It's really annoying because I was really on fire to go for some high quality studio monitors. But maybe somebody has another tip for me what could be a good quality 3-way speaker system (high & mid speakers + subwoofer bass) that could be useful for production purposes in a medium-sized flat as well (primarily an energy-saving speaker system with good sound quality, flat frequency response, black/dark colour and a cool design) instead - at least something which has a bit smaller size than studio monitors and which doesn't roar that heavy... What do you guys think about a combination of: 1) Presonus Eris 3.5 Monitor Speakers >>> https://www.amazon.com/PreSonus-Eris-E3-5-Professional-Multimedia/dp/B075QVMBT9 >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o9GCtaimjU and 2) Yamaha NS SW 50 Subwoofer >>> https://www.amazon.com/YAMAHA-subwoofer-NS-SW050-B-Black/dp/B01LZRLF6E/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1526718076&sr=8-7&keywords=Yamaha+NS+50 Subwoofer could be a bit smaller - but wouldn't this be a great 3-way studio speaker as well (compared to my Logitech Z533) to hear most of the details in a mix within a small room and without my professional headphones?

Thanks for the many different points of view. Is somebody able to make a comparison (based on own listening experiences) between JBL LSR 305 and the Adam T5V or Adam A5X series?

So, you don't think that the Yamaha studio monitors (MSP series are the more professional versions - compared with the HS (Home Studio) versions)) are a bit too bright and high-pitched compared to the natural sound signals?

Thanks for the quick response. )) I edited the topic with some good studio monitor speakers in my momentarily closest range according to my current knowledge if you want to have a look at, too.

Yo, dudes. I already have some good professional producer headphones (Sony MDR 7506 and Beyerdynamic DT 880 Pro, connected to a Lake People G109-P headphone amp, meanwhile - I'll definitely keep up with those!) and I had at least a not too bad multimedia speaker system (Logitech Z533) some time ago. But then I was lookin' for a nice studio monitor speaker system, because it can be still a big difference concerning accurate listening and mixing experience. I've tested some studio monitors in a store before - but I wasn't really that satisfied with those because the bass was way to heavy or not defined enough. And in general it wasn't the crystal clear sound quality I had expected - except at some really big and expensive concert speakers I couldn't afford and for which I haven't had enough place (not to mention the possible electricity bill by using those things :D). I really had an eye for some Yamaha-NS-10-like studio monitors - 'cause some top producers would probably say that if a mix sounds great on these speakers, the mix would sound good on any other speaker systems. In the end I was looking for a speaker system with following features: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) truthful, flat (not EQ-ed) and crystal clear high definition sound 2) wanted to hear details you don't hear on every speaker system or headphones exactly (like if there's too much or too less reverb, if the bass is tight enough or if similar frequencies or their reverb effects bleed into each other) 3) should play a decently deep bass level where you don't miss relevant low frequencies 4) not too big in size - should fit on my desk, so a fitting size would be around >>> 20 cm * 25 cm * 20 cm (width/height/depth) at the maximum size 5) should be energy-saving speakers (around 100 to 150 W for both at the maximum level) 6) should have something like front bass ports ('cause the rear of the speakers would be directly at the wall or maybe a few centimeters away from the wall) 7) colour should be a mostly dark/black design ----------------------------------------------------------- Maybe you have some extensive experiences with this topic and a good advice for me and all the others who are concerned with the studio monitor or speaker system stuff. At my momentary level of knowledge and experience with studio monitors I would choose between following ones, if you have a bigger or specially for room acoustics treated producer room: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Neumann KH 120 A >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/neumann_kh_120_a.htm (very expensive, but really high-end German quality with one of the best sound quality and flattest frequency responses you might get at this size and price range, front bass ports, 100 W per speaker) 2) Genelec 8020 DPM >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/genelec_8020_dpm.htm (well-known high-end studio monitors made in Finland, highly impressing sound quality, accuracy und frequency range for its small size, kinda unstylish design for my taste, but might be really good for room acoustics, rear bass ports, 100 W per speaker) 3) Yamaha MSP 5 Studio >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/yamaha_msp_5_studio.htm (amazing successor series of the legendary Yamaha NS-10, pretty solid 'n' heavy stuff, top Japanese quality, might not have that accurate flat frequency response I was expecting from those according to their pretty unique sound response with obviously a little bit overemphasized mid and high frequencies and a bit lacking bass response (but totally tight, well-defined bass - no muddy, roaring or room-flooding bass - might be good for medium-sized, untreated rooms as well) compared to all the others, but overall crystal clear sound quality (Yamaha MSP series have some of the cleanest, most detailed and well-defined high definition sound I've ever listened to within a set of studio monitors), great spaciousness and stereo panorama reproduction, with well presented and very detailed mid and high frequencies you 'll get a very pleasant, smooth and airy sound feeling - kinda made for listening to atmospheric soundscapes, really low wattage, great frequency range from 50 to 40000 Hz for their compact size, design could be a bit more stylish, front bass ports, pretty energy-saving - only around 40 to 70 W per speaker) 4) Adam A5X >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/adam_a5x.htm (pretty expensive, but also high-end German quality with a kinda accurate flat frequency response, seem to be slightly boosted at bass frequencies and have some harsher high frequencies - unique, but more machine-like than natural sound, highest frequency range from 50 to 50000 Hz, not oversized and pretty stylish design, front bass ports, 100 W per speaker) 5) Presonus Eris E5 >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/presonus_eris_e5.htm (pretty solid newcomer from USA with great sound quality, kinda flat frequency response and a really unbeatable price of around 220 bucks for a pair, very stylish design, very compact size, front bass ports, around 80 W per speaker) 6) JBL LSR 305 MKII >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/jbl_lsr_305p_mkii.htm (decent stuff, nice frequency range from 43 to 24000 Hz, solid design, acceptable size and really nice price (I've also seen an offer of a 2-speakers bundle and 2 stands for only 249 Euros), unfortunately with rear bass ports, some users complain about minimal hissing noises and that you have to turn up the volume a bit more to hear everything you need, 82 W per speaker) 7) Adam T5V or T7V >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/adam_t5v.htm >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/adam_t7v.htm (were actually some of my favorite studio monitors back then 'cause of the top German quality, the good range into the lower bass sections until 45 or 39 Hz up to the higher frequencies until 25000 Hz, the nice price, the awesome design, the low wattage - but the size (depth around 30 cm!!!) and the rear bass ports could be a problem, might sound a little bit harsh, bass-heavy and machine-like, pretty hard to listen to at lower volumes, around 70 W per speaker) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you have a smaller music production room and/or don't want to treat your studio environment especially for room acoustic, I would definitely go for a less big set of studio monitors (because larger studio monitors in small, untreated rooms can make the perceived sound quality a lot worse (and kinda useless for mixing) than some of the better PC desktop speakers. In this case you should have look at these smaller studio monitors: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Yamaha MSP 3 >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/yamaha_msp3.htm (typical Japanese high-end studio monitors in their smallest version within the Yamaha MSP series, heavy and solid building quality, kinda useful frequency response for its highly compact size, for lacking lower bass a proper subwoofer should be added, very clean and well-defined sound quality within their still kinda outstanding frequency range from 65 to 22000 Hz, good spaciousness and stereo panorama reproduction for this size, really love the well presented and very detailed mid and high frequencies with the very pleasant, smooth and airy sound feeling - kinda made for listening to atmospheric soundscapes, won't annoy you with any kind of strange inherent noises, nice to listen to and mixing with even on lower volumes, front bass ports, some of the most energy-saving studio monitors with only about 20 to 30 W per speaker) 2) Adam A3X >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/adam_a3x.htm (solid high-end studio monitors made in Germany, largest frequency range for smaller studio monitors from 60 to 50000 Hz, typical Adam studio monitor sound - a little bit machine-like with kinda harsh higher frequencies and tight, pumping bass frequencies, pretty futuristic design, front bass ports, about 50 W per speaker) 3) Genelec 8010 AP >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/genelec_8010_ap.htm (perhaps the most space-saving high-end studio monitors, very detailed and accurate sound quality, sound much bigger than these small studio monitors are, for this small set of studio monitors the design seems much more agreeable than the similar design of the much bigger brothers from Genelec, rear bass ports, about 50 W per speaker) 4) Presonus Eris E3.5 or E4.5 >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/presonus_eris_e3.5.htm >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/presonus_eris_e45.htm (pretty good and well-defined sound quality for these 2 pairs of studio monitors, not too heavy, with sizes that might fit on nearly every desk, only a very low level of inherent noises on moderate volumes if you get with your ears close to the tweeters, for detailed mids and higher frequencies I'd go for the Presonus Eris E3.5, for a fuller and more flat sound I'd choose the Presonus Eris E4.5 (lower mids might interfere with bass a bit more in this case), both versions have different kinds of acoustic tuning settings, very stylish design, pleasant to listen to and mixing with even on lower volumes, unfortunately not biamped and only with rear bass ports, unbeatable price with only around 100 for the whole pair of Presonus Eris 3.5 or about 180 bucks for the whole pair of Presonus Eris 4.5, also some of the most energy-saving studio monitors with only about 25 W per speaker) If you are going to buy some of those smaller studio monitors, I would recommend to buy an additional smaller subwoofer which can generate a really clean, accurate, highly defined, tight and dry bass and sub-bass down to 40 Hz. By adding a subwoofer (and maybe by turning down the bass on the monitors in return to let the mids shine a bit more) you will also have a pretty decent 3-way speaker system with kinda clean und very well-separated basses, mids and treble. In this case I would totally recommend the pretty small, but kinda powerful and - with a wattage of only 50 W - highly energy-saving Japanese subwoofer Fostex PM-SUBmini 2: >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/fostex_pm_submini_2.htm ------------------------------------------- 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 also 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 ------------------------------------------------------------- Update: My own studio monitor equipment - a fairly professional, very energy-efficient 3-way studio monitor system for under 300 bucks --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A little bit unsatisfied with the roaring sound of my former, kinda big Adam T5V studio monitor speakers in my small room, I decided to get a smaller speaker system which could easily keep up with the high sound quality. After waiting a few months, I could finally check out my brand-new 3-way speaker system which consists of the following components: 1) Studio monitor speakers >>> Presonus Eris E3.5 >>> https://www.amazon.com/PreSonus-E3-5-3-5-Professional-Multimedia-Reference/dp/B075QVMBT9 2) Subwoofer >>> Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/fostex_pm_submini_2.htm?ref=intl&shp=eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoiZ2IiLCJjdXJyZW5jeSI6IjIiLCJsYW5ndWFnZSI6ImVuIn0%3D The beloved equipment is already prepared and adjusted - while the subwoofer just stands on its little feet on my floor covering in front of my feet (really love it to have some bass in the center just like in the mix), the speakers are placed on slightly angled absorber pads on my desk (at a distance of about 80 centimeters to each other and about 60 centimeters in front of me, slighty turned inwards and pointing in the direction of my ears). The system is set up in my living room which is around 4 meters long, about 6 meters deep (in this direction the sound of the speakers goes primarily) and over 2,5 meters high. The room itself is not specially prepared for musical purposes (for example with wall absorber mats or things like that) because I really like the bright Mediterranean colours and cosy atmosphere of this room - especially when it is flooded with sunlight. The whole speaker system is connected to my Steinberg UR44 audio interface. Formerly, I had set the EQ settings of the speakers to normal (centered positions of the knobs for the acoustic tuning) - but some time later I have decided to turn down the knob for the bass control from 50 % (centered position) to around 25 %. So, I can hear the mid frequencies of the studio monitors even better in contrast to the bass frequencies of the subwoofer. The frequency range of the speakers is 80 - 20000 Hz - while the subwoofer has a frequency range of 40 - 150 Hz and a variable crossover frequency switch that can be adjusted between 60 and 150 Hz (used the lowest setting of 60 Hz to separate the moderate bass of the speakers and the deep bass of the subwoofer much better and to avoid unneccessary overlappings of frequencies with this setting). The speaker volume is turned up at around 50 %, while the subwoofer volume is only turned up at around 25 % - just to add only a small and decent amount of deep bass for getting the most faithful results of the sound within a kinda flat frequency response. With this setup I could achieve a really amazing sound experience for many different music genres - like electronic music, rock/metal, jazz and especially classical music. I'm really in love with these speakers because the sound is totally clean and highly defined. The bass, the mids and the treble are really well-balanced (nothing seems to stick out or sound too weak here) and well separated from each other. And in addition to that I can hear some more details I couldn't even hear with my 2nd best professional studio headphones (Sony MDR-7506) - for example, I can hear if there's just a bit too much reverb in the track or if some frequencies of different instruments are interfering with each other too much and create a muddy sound. Compared to my former (and much bigger) studio monitors Adam T5V which sounded totally awesome in the big music store room - but really roared in my small room where a clean sound with these speakers wasn't possible anymore (cause of this I brought them back in the store) - the sound of my new Presonus Eris E3.5 speakers perfectly fills my living room and makes a really nice and clean sound. Just by the sound they might be pretty close to the Yamaha HS speaker series - although the Presonus speakers have a bit less salient treble and top end frequencies, but fully present mids (which seems to be a pretty rare phenomenon at most studio monitor speakers) and a slighty warmer bass which - altogether - makes a fuller, very detailed sound with a quite flat frequency response in an untreated room. They could also keep up with some of the smaller Genelec speakers - especially if you compare the larger Presonus Eris E4.5 studio monitor speakers with the Genelec 8010A speakers. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OjbZQoLviY But I decided to take the smaller Presonus Eris E3.5 speakers because I didn't want to risk getting the roaring effects of the former bigger speakers in my room once again and I thought the smaller ones could be quite perfect for my little or medium-sized room. Another important point is that the mids of the Presonus Eris E3.5 speakers don't seem to interfere with the bass frequencies so much - compared to the Presonus Eris E4.5 speakers (which make a bit deeper and stronger bass) as you can hear in this video. >>> So, in the case of the Presonus Eris E3.5 speakers you really have some very clean treble and some well-defined mids which don't tend to bleed into the still pretty decent amount of lower frequencies. And the missing part of the lower frequencies comes on a separate way with the subwoofer Fostex PM-SUBmini 2. So, with this combination you probably have one of the best small home studio speaker systems you can set up in a small and totally unprepared room like this. In addition to the speakers' lower frequencies this subwoofer contributes a decent amount of deep bass until 40 Hz. Compared to the subwoofer unit of my former Logitech Z533 multimedia speaker system the Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 is not just an oversized roaring cube. It's not some kind of Magitek with which you can create heavy earthquakes and tear down whole buildings - but I guess this shouldn't be an ultimate goal of a composer. Instead this little subwoofer can shake your room if you turn its volume up to the maximum (of course you shouldn't do this in a flat with lots of nice and peaceful neighbours around - and, as I mentioned before, I recommend a setup with just 25 % of the maximal volume at the subwoofer and 50 % of the maximal volume at the speakers). But no matter how you set the volume of this awesome subwoofer, it always comes with a highly defined, radically crisp bass. You can easily listen to the high quality of the subwoofer bass if you turn off just the speakers while listening to a soundtrack with lots of lower frequencies while leaving just the subwoofer turned on. I'm sure you'll fall in love with this pretty smooth and clean bass. If you keep in mind that this combinated speaker system has also a very low power consumption (2 * 25 W for the speakers and around 50 W for the subwoofer - makes 100 W in total for the whole system) - especially compared to many other studio monitor speakers (which often surpass 100 W easily - even without a subwoofer) - it's also one of the best energy-saving high-quality home studio speaker systems you can get in the music stores at the moment. I also like the fact that both devices are really silent in the idle mode - you might only perceive some inherent noises if you get with your ears really close to the tweeters of the Presonus Eris E3.5. Another important thing I really like about this speaker system as a whole is the really awesome design. The black colour, the very stylish tweeters, woofers and control elements, as well as the neon blue LED of the Presonus Eris E3.5 speakers fit totally with the black design of the Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 subwoofer (which also contains a neon blue LED) - and of course the design of the whole system totally fits the rest of my dominantly black PC and studio environment. So, if you really look for an accurate, faithful and a very energy-saving, pretty stylish speaker system with which you can hear lots of details in the sound and which fits on an ordinary desk - no matter if you want to use it for a down-to-earth home studio, for playing video games or for other multimedia applications - you should give this really amazing studio monitor speaker & subwoofer combo definitely a try.

Thanks for the feedback. )) And yeah, the guitar articulations of the clean electric guitar I still have to program for each note (they 're only step-sequenced for this review, so some notes might sound a bit off - but I'm glad I removed the slides before :DD). The length of this part could be fitting - 'cause the whole track might go about 7 minutes and the rest of the track will contain some heavy rock/metal stuff. So this calm, mystical part could be an adequate break before the heavy musical final with the battle against Daos kicks in. I'm still unsure if I add some drums in this melodic section of the preview - but I feel that this part without drums and with lots of melodic synths and VSTIs instead has its own charme somehow.

As far as I'm not ready with the track yet I still wanted to show ya a small preview of the coming version. The track is already completely overworked compared to the last version (1.5) and this preview contains a little deep melodious break apart from the heavy rock/metal tunes within the rest of the track that will go something over 7 minutes. I'm still working on this part as well - but tell me how you like the rough conception of the calm break (before it will go in the heavy final part with the battle against Daos afterwards).

I prefer Youtube because of the better audio streaming quality (audio streaming bitrate of 128 kbit/s at Soundcloud vs 192 kbit/s at Youtube can make a noticeable difference in sound quality) and the possibility of underlining the audio material with some fitting video material (own gameplay scenes of video games for video game remixes, for example).

Haha, Americans can't get surprised that easily. They're already used to false flag attacks. ;D

C 'mon, guys - really nobody any kind of an idea? Maybe some further informations about my loudness metering unit and why I guess that method 2) is the right one. If I would start to messure the loudness right within a track for example it would show me a pretty higher max. loudness than if I messure the loudness of a track or another audio program right from the beginning to the end. And that's why I guess that I have to messure the loudness of a whole CD right from the beginning to the end, too. But I'm not quite sure if there might be another measuring technique for CD loudness mastering as well.

I've got a question concerning the right use of the loudness metering unit in my DAW (Samplitude Pro X3 Suite) for CD mastering. All soundtracks for my CD are already loaded into the music project file on track 1 one after another. The loudness ratio between all tracks is already set via object volume editing (couldn't build just on loudness metering there - had to do this by ear because of different music genres and different dynamic ranges of the soundtracks). And now I want to bring the loudest part of this CD mix at around - 23 dB. For this purpose do I have to: 1) ...check the loudness metering for each track anew from each track start to rise or lower the volume of all tracks together until the loudest part of the loudest track reaches -23 dB? or 2) ... let the loudness metering do its job by playing the whole CD (all soundtracks in a row) without pausing while checking the loudest part, memorize the highest loudness and rise or lower the volume of all tracks together until the loudest point of the whole CD loudness metering is set at -23 dB? It's really strange that it can make differences up to 2 dB of loudness in LUFS between these 2 methods. At method 2) the loudness differences according to the loudness metering unit seem to get smaller and nearly stable/unchanged after the first few tracks. If you meter each soundtrack track just from the beginning (method 1)) the loudness differences according to the loudness metering unit are much bigger and the loudness metering seems to react much more sensitive. Although I'm pretty sure method 2) is the right one for mastering the loudness of a CD I want to ask the OCRemix community about this phenomenon and the correct use of the loudness metering for this purpose.

Hm, thx for the hint. They must have changed it recently - some time before it was 320kbit/s and some time before this you could upload and stream wave data content... with a free account. But seems to be a general problem in the last years of western capitalism. Lots of those halfhearted businessmen and private investors obviously try to buy up good content platforms (like formerly free music platforms, mail providers etc.) and want to drag max. profits outta this and every poop that accidentally sniffs its first fresh air... from the "Fresh Air Company". So, I guess one of the best free audiovisual content platforms that doesn't change its essential rules for a very long time is still Youtube. There seems to be still a good audio bitrate of about 192 kbit/s, you can implement (for example) gameplay videos into your musical videogame remix content and its always nice to get some feedback there (compared to simpler, more unknown and now pretty expensive platforms like Clyp).

Besides, I've also found 2 other great remixes of this theme some time ago. The first one was made by Joyfuldreamer: The second one was made by Lame Genie:

Hey, thanks for the offer. And yeah - I've made a little classic remix of Dave 's Theme (one of my favourite theme) from Maniac Mansion some time ago that goes over into a driving rock remix. Guess you mean this one here >>> Therefore I combined a short self-written piano intro with an arrangement which is pretty close to the original. I guess I used the Ngmmdave.mid file from above as a base for creating the remix. Hope you enjoy this one as fans of the game. I'll probably keep working on this track in the future.

Yeah - the bass with reverb (plugins) topic makes a good point. In a less technological world of an ancient orchestra you would - if the sound is halling so much that you can't hear single sound events clearly anymore - probably change the surroundings until you have found an opera house or open air location where the hall/echo reflexions won't blend the frequencies of the individual instruments into sound mud anymore. What I wanted to say is that: 1) Natural beings have often sharper senses than beings that lost their connection to nature over generations. It's mostly a matter of species-appropriate nutrition, natural and healthy development (or degradation at the non-natural way) of the body and vital life force that makes the big difference. And the more people (or even animals) get restrained from vital nature the more they' ll lose their potencial, vitality, their fine senses (neurological development) and their health. And lots of humans of the modern age got very far away from nature with all the painful consequences. 2) Lots of essential knowledge of former times died literally out in the core of the society and has been replaced by mere (commercial) informations of big companies and profit-over-life structures that often dumb down the people's minds and bend truth into lies for their financial sake. You can say that - for example the pretty wise Greek doctor Hippokrates of Cos - had more essential knowledge about health than most pharma-schooled doctors - guided by pharma-sponsored universities - have nowadays. That's something like a wisdom-versus between "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food." (in this case a pretty grounded old school teaching) and "Just take these pills to win the war against those dangerous enemies in your body" (in this case a pretty contrary, small-minded new school teaching). It's not always like this. But it's an example that new teachings don't have to be always better than old teachings - especially if mindless greed becomes more important than the devout quest for truth. 3) It can be really fatal if technological advancement & possibilities surpass the knowledge und sanity of the users. And not every trend or technological achievement is a good one. Just to come back to the music stuff... Let's face what dynamic compression in the age of loudness war has done to the sound quality of modern music. It might not blow your head off if you listen to the soundtracks with the mastering standards of today. I kinda like lots of modern tracks - but mostly because of the composition & interesting sound design, not because of the unnecessary dynamic compression and kinda deadly sound surgery (nah, no bad jokes about surgeons and the quest for the lost limbs, livers or lives at this point). If you compare the music standards of the 80s with the music industry standards of today you might hear a perceptible decrease at the hi-fi sound quality over the years. ...just because the salesmen, marketing agents and even some producers in the music industry started the unhealthy, mindless trend of competing in loudness instead of competing in musical content, interesting compositions and sound quality. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcKDMBuGodU

But the orchestra exists much longer than microphones, EQs or digital music production. So they had to solve the frequency issue with the things they had there (right choice of instruments, fitting octaves/pitch, fitting articulations, greater use of volume and timing of each sound event, right "panning"/deployment of the musicians/players of the instruments) if they played the orchestra live for the public. I don't think that those ancient orchestras and ensemble sounded bad without this high tech stuff - maybe rather the opposite. But I think that the people in those days could have had sharper senses, sharper minds and probably a greater knowledge of acoustic sound design within the technological possibilities the had in those days.