Master Mi

@SnappleMan So, for the room adjustment of the speakers I guess I've got some luck. 1) The sound of the speakers (which are quite in centered position on one end of the room) goes into the long side of the room, where it might go a bit through the glass of a window and a balkony door - so, a pretty open room structure. 2) I've set up the speakers on angled absorber pads on my desk - pointing within a slight triangle slightly upwards to my ears (so, the bass reflex unit of studio monitors won't reflect directly and straightly towards the wall as well). 3) I've got wallpaper on walls and ceiling, carpeted floor and a carpet on the floor and a couch on one side in the middle of the room - which might absorb some of the roaming frequencies or reflections. And of course I've got some smaller studio monitor speakers with a far less dominant bass activity and more present mids than others who tend to put larger studio monitors in comparatively small rooms. I guess that could be a big advantage of a smaller studio monitor system with less bass response - because bass frequencies obviously tend to stay longer in the room within their long-wave reflections than mids or high frequencies. And even at close range (due to my room structure and doors I'm pretty much forced to sit less than one meter in front of them) and even with low volume they make a pretty decent sound where my former (much bigger) Adam T5V studio monitors had to be about 2 meters away and turned up much more to get an hint of imagination of certain details of the full sound spectrum (especially in the mid and high frequency range). So, for my room conditions I guess I can't get so much better results with most studio monitors within my price limit up to 600 bucks... ... except with Sonarworks maybe. But now I'm a bit curious. Just tell me - what kind of studio monitors do you own (and in which kind of room with which room size they are placed) - or to which studio monitors are you looking up to eagerly?

@PRYZM Sounds kinda impressive what I've read about Sonarworks and the pretty complex measuring method. But tell me one thing. The both graphs in your picture.... 1) Are these the two graphs of the frequency response of the sweet spot listening position vs the average frequency response of the different measure points in the room? 2) Or are those the two graphs of the frequency response before and after calibration? I guess it's rather 1) - because I've seen after calibration results that were much more impressive concerning a flat frequency response. But just to get sure about the meaning of the graphs in the picture... And just another question. After the measurement of the frequency response of the about 20 differents points of the room with the special microphone of Sonarworks - what happens afterwards? Is there some kind of a software equalizer within Sonarworks that adjusts the whole sound output of your PC into a more flat frequency response by taking the peaks and adding a similar, mirrored counter frequency on an imagined axis supposed to be the intended "flat frequency axis" to flatten the exceeding peaks?

Finally, here's the promised brand-new version of my Lufia remix - after taking much longer for this one than I had expected. For this new version I have composed so many new things - I'm sure you'll really love this one if you already liked the last version of this track (if you want to compare I'll leave the short preview as well as the last version 1.5 for a few days on my Youtube channel). So, here is the new version 1.6: >>> >>> https://clyp.it/04kbvlt1 --------------------------------- Since I couldn't implement the whole information of the changes I've made in the Youtube upload description of this new version, here's the full text (I know it got a bit huge - but might contain some interesting stuff for video game music lovers or Lufia fans as well - I'll work on a shortened version of this one for the Youtube upload during the coming days): "Some time ago I had the strong urge to make a remix of the Battle #3 theme (the battle theme that starts when you fight the Sinistrals) from the Super NES game Lufia (in my country Germany the game's title is just "Lufia" - while in other Western countries it might have the title "Lufia II - Rise of the Sinistrals"). Since I've got a lot more knowledge and skills in composing and mixing during the last two years I think it was the perfect time to make a brand-new version of the former - kinda outdated - track version and take all the time I need until the remix was like the version developing in my mind. With my professionell studio headphones Sony MDR-7506 - as well as my new studio monitor speaker system, consisting of the pretty nice and faithful Presonus Eris 3.5 studio monitors and the awesome Japanese Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 subwoofer - I was able to go much more into detail and bring the soundtrack quality within the improved mixing on a completely new level. There are some really big changes I've made in this version 1.6 - far too many to explain them in every little detail. So, here are some of the essential alterations: 1) First of all, I've set up a brand-new mixing with a much cleaner sound, less impure reverberations and a wider stereo panorama. You can hear it already in the beginning of the battle against Gades - the rather thin sound of the previous version is finally history. Now the sound of the instruments is much stronger and all the instruments have some space to breathe a little without clashing too much or creating an annoyingly muddy soundscape. I also decided to make the basses much drier 'n' tighter - I think it was a good decision. 2) I worked much more with different velocity dynamics at certain instruments - especially in the clean electric guitar and drum section. 3) For the drums throughout the remix I've created much more variations and new, pretty cool transition parts where the drums take on a more dominant role in the soundtrack. 4) But this was just the less important stuff I've done. Since there are four Sinistrals you fight in the game I wanted to create four individual parts which would truly fit the characteristic traits of each Sinistral. 5) For the battle against Gades - the Sinistral of Destruction - I've created a pretty strong, bassy and straight forward musical part that sounds pretty heavy and hulking. Therefore, I used some different electric bass guitars which have to compete against the powerful drums and some rather unobtrusive electric lead guitar sections. 6) For the battle against Amon - the Sinistral of Chaos - I've made a much more fierce part with some heavy power chords which goes into an uptempo and more melodic part later on. For this intention I had also made some extraordinary guitar rhythms which are actually based on an electric piano VSTi I've combined with a selfmade preset of my pretty awesome Vandal: Virtual bass and guitar amplifier VST plugin - a pretty nice combination and good example for experimental, creative sound design. 7) For the battle against Erim - the Sinistral of Death - I've composed a completely new part which is much calmer, more melodic, ambient, really soulful and a little bit sad as well, within a progressive and rising musical structure. For getting into this calm new soundscape after the fierce battle part against Amon I've composed a little transition that works a lot with drums and bass elements and some special guitar techniques which slow down the tempo of the track within a few seconds. Then some smooth electric basses and a clean electric guitar kick in - the part where you can finally listen to the well-known lead melody of the Sinistral battle theme for the very first time in this remix. This musical passage expands progressively together with different ambient synth pads, a celtic harp, an acoustic guitar, rhythmic synthesizers and a whole choir (where I could finally compose some majestic chords for my pretty nice Vita Choirs VSTi). I tried to compose even a drum part for this section - but I overruled this purpose because it kinda destroyed the mystical atmosphere of this unique musical soundscape. My intention to create a bit different, less rocking and much more soulful, mystically melodic part for the battle against Erim was based on the really arcane entity of this female Sinistral, the extreme length of the whole soundtrack, which really needs at least one great break from the fast-paced rock/metal stuff and the fact, that Erim had also been the mysterious lady Iris in the story who helped the heroes several times on their journey. And she is not only a Sinistral of Death. She is also some kind of a Goddess of life and balance and develops some kind of compassion for humans within the story. In the Nintendo DS remake "Lufia: Curse Of The Sinistrals" the inner conflict of Erim/Iris between her nature of being a Sinistral of Death and her growing compassion for living and loving beings like humans gets even much deeper. There, in an altered ending on a New Game+ mode, in which she used the Dual Blade to revert time, Erim sacrifices her own life to save Maxim and Selan from dying on Doom Island (whereas the death of both is part of the inevitable, a bit sad ending in Lufia II - Rise of the Sinistrals) and sided with human friendship over Sinistral godhood. That sacrifice also impresses even the pretty much unknown fifth and obviously most powerful Sinistral - Arek the Absolute - who acts mostly in the background of the story as some kind of an observer. And there he mentions that her sacrifice will not be in vain. So, maybe you can now understand much better why I composed a special part for Erim in a way like this. 8)... After the battle against Erim a short musical part with an alternate lead melody ensues. It's still pretty atmospheric, but a little bit more propulsive. Related to the video material in my Youtube upload this musical part represents the last way to the final Sinistral Daos - the Sinistral of Terror - and his personal introduction where he starts to explain some of his intentions and where the music finally goes over into a melodic peak. 9) And then, suddenly - when Daos explains that there are two ways of looking at things, one side that believes in love and the good thing and the other side, that seeks destruction, some kind of an eternal duality of life - the music turns back into its vigorous metal temper with some powerful drums and heavy power chords. Then the track gets one more short break that slows down the pace of the soundtrack one last time - before it rises with a premonitory guitar triad, accompanied by some nice synth pads and - knowing that the final battle is inevitable - leads over in the final battle as well as in the final part of the soundtrack. 10) The final battle against Daos begins with a little forceful introduction - which comprises some heavy bass guitars, drums and some new electric lead guitars - and where Daos points out that he is the Master of Terror and that the heroes won't have a chance against him. As soon as the battle begins the music turns into a fierce and powerful metal track where lots of different instruments struggle for supremacy and clash like in an engulfing inferno of frequencies which finally ends with a raw electric lead guitar sound as some kind of the last breath of the decisive battle against the Sinistrals. For this part I've set a great value upon the playing techniques and different articulations of the 3 electric lead guitars I've used - which took up a pretty long time until it sounded like I wanted. Together with the basses and the rhythmic guitar stuff I aspired to make this final part of the battle against the Sinistrals sound kinda furious and badass - as if there's an high amount of sealed life energy that gets unleashed und breaks free within a fierce battle of two mighty opposing forces. In the end the great life force of the heroes - formed by inner strength, courage, friendship, compassion, love and a sense of justice for a better future - triumphed over the rather loveless, power-crazed and destructive force of the Sinistrals. 11) Apropos life force... Since many rock and metal tracks suffer from heavy compression in these days - which is often made to create a louder maximum output volume, but which reduces the dynamics, the definition and the clarity of the sound quality in the same way - I want to go a new path inside the rock and metal scene which - in the way I have also created this remix - works without using compressors, limiters and other sound surgery tools which mostly reduce the definition and clarity of the sound just for less defined din. So, I think about creating a new metal genre that could have the fitting name "Life Force" - a term that stands for drive and power on the one side, but also for life - which consists of breathing, evolving and vitally moving in the other side... just as music should sound in order to bring back an idea of life force in the minds of the listeners. It might still sound pretty big and bold for the current state of my musical progress - but I'll keep on this path, try to make further progress in music production and get much better and even more skilled in things like music theory, imagination and realization of complex compositions, mixing, creative sound design and a much more natural, instinctual understanding of music as a whole. And of course I'll also try to get much more life force inside me by eating raw natural food, getting a good amount of sleep, sunlight, natural impressions, by physical workout, living a down-to-earth life and by exploring and going the path of my soul. Yeah - mooooaar life force... for... nah, not for world domination... ;D ... mostly for staying sane and healthy, getting stronger, excited and passionate, feeling radically awesome and for getting into an extraordinary state of mind and emotions from which I can bring in this life force in my tracks and remixes as well. 12) Because of the new music structure, my new intentions and the extended length of the track I've also made a completely new video with fitting scenes of the final battles against the Sinistrals for my youtube upload to create an even more exciting audio-visual experience - especially for the fans of the game. At this point I want to give radically great thanks to my good ol' Youtube comrade lufiaevolution666 for allowing me to use scenes from his Let's Play of the German version of Lufia and getting the opportunity to enhance my Lufia remix visually. Here's a link if you want to watch the whole final part of his Let's Play of Lufia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27TxJW2SROg&list=PL0qWmcB4HVFa-lxLoj-Y62qffD3-fqCEl&index=58 I hope you enjoy the efforts, skills and passion I've put into the new version of my remix. Nevertheless I'll keep the fire radically burning and try to improve even more in the future. ))"

Thanks for the hint. According to my ears the Presonus Eris 3.5 sound pretty flat, very clear and much less bassy than most of the other studio monitors I've checked out in the store and on Youtube-Videos. As I wrote about the sound they 're kinda close to the Yamaha HS series (or comparable with my Sony MDR-7506 headphones). The missing deep bass (and I think this is a good fact in this case) comes on a separate way from the just slightly turned up Fostex PM-SUBmini 2 subwoofer (another example of excellent Japanese technology) - so there 's much more place for clear mids at the monitors. I don't know how you would measure the frequency response of the studio reference monitors exactly by yourself (maybe by recording a mostly linear flat noise with a mostly linear studio microphone like Rode NT1 (not the NT1-A which has some elevations in higher and low-end frequencies) , play it with a frequency analyzer tool of your DAW and compare it to the orginal source?). But I've found a source with the possible frequency response of the Presonus Eris 3.5 (have to enlarge the pic by right mouse click & examining the graphic element to see the whole scale until over 10k Hz) >>> https://fr.audiofanzine.com/enceinte-active/presonus/eris-e3-5/medias/photos/#id:2090536 If you compare them to the frequency response of other famous studio monitors they seem to come off pretty well - even more in relation to their smaller size. Just have a look at the picture with the title "Frequency response (before calibration)". >>> https://sonarworks.com/blog/studio-monitor-test-and-calibration-5-speakers-in-a-bedroom-studio/ So, to me the Presonus Eris 3.5 look kinda well-balanced if you take the frequency response graphics - what's your opinion?

Professional, very energy-efficient 3-way studio monitor system for under 300 bucks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 3.5 >>> https://www.thomann.de/gb/presonus_eris_e3.5.htm?ref=intl&shp=eyJjb3VudHJ5IjoiZ2IiLCJjdXJyZW5jeSI6IjIiLCJsYW5ndWFnZSI6ImVuIn0%3D >>> 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 (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 almost 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 UR22 USB audio interface. The EQ settings of the speakers are set to normal (centered positions of the knobs). 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 - 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 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 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) speakers 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 3.5 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, fully present mids (which seems to be a pretty rare phenomenon at most studio monitor speakers) and a slighty warmer bass which - altogether - make a fuller, very detailed sound with a quite flat frequency response. They could also keep up with some of the smaller Genelec speakers - especially if you compare the larger Presonus Eris 4.5 studio monitor speakers with the Genelec 8010A speakers. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OjbZQoLviY But I decided to take the smaller Presonus Eris 3.5 speakers because I didn't want to risk the big speakers' roaring effect once again and I thought the smaller ones could be quite perfect for my little room. Another important point is that the mids of the Presonus Eris 3.5 speakers don't seem to interfere with the bass frequencies so much - compared to the Presonus Eris 4.5 speakers (which make a bit deeper and stronger bass) as you can hear in this video. >>> So, in the case of the Presonus Eris 3.5 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. 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 3.5 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 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.

It's not that I don't want to use AUX/effect sends at all - they offer indeed pretty nice possibilities for further sound design I would definitely use for certain tracks. But before I have to find out why AUX sends in some of my soundtracks within my DAW tend to use up much more of the CPU/DSP unit than mere inserts. At least it's good to know that you can use inserts for reverb as well if you don't want to edit the reverb separately.

So, you would say you can achieve similar results with reverb inserts and reverb sends in the end - but reverb sends allow a much more accurate mixing between dry and wet signal parts? Okay, so I don't have to rework all my tracks and remixes just because of this. I guess I'll keep it this way (at least for most purposes like just creating reverb and delay for an instrument without anything else) because AUX sends tend to consume much more CPU/DSP at my DAW in hybrid engine mode where I can use all the functions to the maximum. For example - with inserts at a complex track with some high-end plugins the DSP may go up to 70 % (at a normal remix with around 14 tracks and moderate plugins it might just be around 30 %) - but if I want to use just one AUX send the DSP can go up easily beyond the 100 % mark and create ASIO buffer problems (even with the highest ASIO buffer size of 2048 samples). I don't know what's the cause of this problem - but that's one reason I'll mostly stay with the inserts. -------- Some other points why I use sligthly different reverbs in tracks are following things: 1) Every reverb/delay of each type of instrument spreads a bit differently in one same room - so, the reverb/delay of a metallic instrument like a saxophon won't be exactly the same like the reverb/delay of a wooden flute or a contrabass. 2) With the help of different reverbs you can create a nice depth staggering (the impression that some instruments play more in the front of the room or stage while other instruments play more in the back/far away). 3) In most cases it doesn't make sense to use lots of reverb in the bass for example as if you do it for other parts of a track like clean guitar guitar melodies. As long as the bass has not an outstanding solo part in the track you rather want to make the bass as tight as possible that it won't bleed into other low frequencies too much.

Thanks for the detailed feedback and many practical hints. )) (EDIT: I could manage to create an infinite number of AUX/effect sends in my project within my DAW settings - so, technically I could create an effect send for each instrument/MIDI track.) But you would say that just for the sound quality it makes no big difference if you use reverb as an insert or use it as an AUX/effect send? It's because I got the impression that if you use an reverb insert on an instrument the sound of this combination gets more into the background or sounds farer away in my speaker. If I use reverb as an effect send the unprocessed original source instrument stays totally in the front (sounds close and assertive) while just the reverb goes into the back of the room. Maybe it's just an illusion shaped by an unequal mixing ratio between the wet and dry components of the effect send - compared to the reverb settings an insert. But I'm not quite sure about this.

I got into a pretty interesting topic concerning mixing lately. There's obviously a big difference between using integrated VSTi effects and insert effects (blend original signal and effect together into a new sound) and using AUX/effect sends (adds an additional signal like just the reverb on a separate AUX bus track to the original signal). https://l2pnet.com/insert-effects-vs-send-effects-2/ 1) Integrated VSTi effects and insert effects ------------------------------------------------------- For my tracks I was used to create some MIDI stuff, add a virtual instrument or synthesizer for this track and mostly use some VSTi-integrated reverb and delay effects or some external reverb and delay VST plugin effects as an separate insert on the VST plugin slots within this track. The problem with this combination is that the original & pure sound of the VSTi/synthesizer loses its former power and blends together with the reverb/delay effects (although the reverb might be the most problematic effect in this case) into a new (and in this case less powerful, less assertive) sound. So, it 's not like "instrument + effect" - it 's much more like "instrument * effect" or "instrument x effect". With my new 3-way studio speaker system I can perceive this issue much clearer than before and I notice much better if the sound of an instrument or synthesizer gets too thin, gets lost in the reverb or shifts too much into the backround/depth of the room. It's not that you can't do it this way if you want to use some reverb in your tracks - but it doesn't seem to be the very best way of creating clean, assertive mixes on a professional production level. Nevertheless using reverb as an insert effect could be useful if you want to create a more spatial offset in depth in your soundtrack. However, it's a bit strange that I haven't got into the obviously very important topic of using AUX/effect sends for creating reverberating and highly assertive sounds at the same time - until now, after almost 5 years of music production. But after looking up a few things in my DAW manual some time ago I stumbled over this topic and tried it out. 2) AUX/effect sends ------------------------- If you want to use AUX/effect sends you have to create a new separate AUX bus track (like if you want to create an additional MIDI track in your mix - but instead you choose to create an additional AUX bus). On this AUX bus track you only use the desired effect (or even more than one effect at once - let's take a good reverb effect in this case) in one of the plugin slots and set up the plugin in the way you want to use it in your soundtrack. Several producers recommend to set up the plugin of the AUX track 100 % wet because the drier the effect gets the more it will mostly raise just the volume within the combinated interaction of VSTi/synthesizer and effect sends. Now you choose the track with the instrument or synthesizer with which you want to connect the AUX/effect send and try to set up the instrument as pure and raw as possible (especially turn off all reverb and delay effects, additional VST plugins and everything that makes the VSTi/synthesizer sound thinner, less assertive or moves the raw sound out into the room). Then you open your mixer and look for this instrument track, look for "AUX" within this instrument track and there you choose/activate the prepared AUX track with the desired effect in one of the free AUX slots. In my DAW I can draw a bar with my mouse below each of the AUX slots within the instrument tracks in the mixer view where you can regulate the volume of the additional effect send (don't worry about the volume of the instrument track, it makes no changes there - it just controls the volume of the effect sends on the AUX bus track there). So, if you play just the instrument track in solo mode afterwards you will hear the raw, unprocessed and highly assertive instrument sound. And if you play just the AUX bus track in solo mode you will just hear the separate effect of the instrument (so, just the reverb in this case). (If you turn up this AUX send effect on other instrument tracks in the mixer as well you will hear different effects (reverb from different instruments in this case) on the same AUX bus track.) With this method you can create really strong reverb effects without loosing the power and assertiveness of the raw source instrument/synthesizer. I am not quite sure how I should handle the panorama setting at the AUX bus track - I guess it would make sense to pan it the same way like the instrument. Maybe you can be a little creative there (for example if the reverb effects of two intruments who are pretty close in the mix interfere too much with each other you could take the reverb effect sends of one instrument more to the left/right side). If you plan to use an AUX/effect send on more than one instrument at the same time it could be problematic to deal with effects from different instruments at one AUX bus track with the same panorama. On the other side it will be pretty effortful, confusing and CPU/DSP-intensive to create individual AUX/effect sends for each instrument/MIDI track. And as it seems I can only put 10 different AUX/effect sends in the slots of the instrument tracks in my mixer. So, it might be useful to take the AUX/effect sends just for some instruments who really have to shine with effects (like reverb in this case) and be highly assertive at the same time (for example drums or leads). (EDIT: I could manage to create an infinite number of AUX/effect sends in my project within my DAW settings - so, technically I could create an effect send for each instrument/MIDI track.) What is your opinion about this topic and what kind of experiences do you have made with this?

>>> Samplitude Music Studio (2019) - versatile & well-equipped semi-professional DAW for beginners and advanced music producers >>> Samplitude Pro (X3 Suite) - for expert music producers and professional audio engineers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since there's already a thread for the DAW FL Studio this might be interesting for everybody who wants to get into music production with a pretty powerful, well-equipped and still pretty low-priced semi-professionell DAW you can get for just 99 bucks. I'm talking about the new Samplitude Music Studio (2019) - the smaller brother of the Samplitude Pro (X3 Suite) version. I was working with previous Samplitude Music Studio versions years before I upgraded it to the professional version Samplitude Pro X3 suite later on. And since my beginning with the Samplitude Music Studio versions I was always a big fan of the included, very versatile and pretty realistically sampled VSTis (software instruments) which have been recorded with real instruments, a nice amount of different articulations (like legato/long notes, slides, staccatos, tremolos, fall-offs etc.), presets and effects (like drumming on a guitar body with the hands etc.) - dependening on the chosen VST instrument. You often have a huge amount of those virtual instruments (up to 20 and more in the newer versions) in the basic equipment of the Samplitude Music Studio with which you can produce music within a pretty wide variety of musical genres. Some of those intruments are actually a whole set of instruments (like Vita World Flutes oder Vita Folk or Vita Soundtrack Percussion) or even huger synthesizer sample stations (like Vita Analog Synths, DN-e1 or Revolta²) where each one contains hundreds of pretty nice synthesizers within different categories (like Leads, Chords, Basses, Synths, Pads, Voices, Winds, Drums or Effects). Besides the usual standard DAW functions, a really powerful and stable audio engine, some really useful metering devices or some good VST plugins that usually come with the Samplitude Pro (X/Suite) versions one of the biggest enhancements in Samplitude Music Studio 2019 is the possibility of using up to 32 different instruments (MIDI tracks) in a music project (former Music Studio versions were limited to 16 instruments - or to circumvent this you could bounce MIDI into audio tracks which was pretty annoying for your workflow if you had to change something afterwards). Now - with the 32 instrument (MIDI) tracks per music project - you can realize much more comprehensive projects even as a beginner and without working around that much. If you need up to 999 MIDI tracks for a music project, much more VST instruments, synthesizers, VST plugins or a really awesome virtual guitar amp called Vandal you can upgrade the Samplitude Music Studio into the professional Samplitude Pro X (Suite) versions later on if you want. Sometimes there are also really compelling special upgrade offers (like some months before where users of a Samplitude Music Studio version could upgrade to Samplitude Pro X3 Suite for just about 150 bucks - instead of about 600 or the usual price of nearly 1000 bucks). With each Samplitude Music Studio version you can also collect new Vita VST instruments (even if you buy some cheap older versions with some rare stuff and install all versions in the chronological order) you can accumulate a huge amount of good VST instruments which you can also keep if you upgrade the Samplitude Music Studio version to a Samplitude Pro X (Suite) version someday. I really like the logical structure of these DAWs - even without reading the whole manual and without having any experiences with DAWs in those days I was still able to discover lots of different functions just by exploring the task bar of the very smartly structured DAW interface and by trying out several things. I am also a big fan of the clear interface, the free adjustable working place (depending on your momentary needs concerning the current stage of your music production process) and of course the pretty stylish and badass looking carbon skin. The only negative things I could say about these DAWs are that it can crash sometimes if you have opened your browser and work with the DAW at the same time and that one or two of my virtual instruments tended to crash on my former AMD AM3 Phenom II X4 955 quad-core PC with 8 GB RAM (no problems with that on my newer Intel i7-6700 quad-core PC with 32 GB RAM). If you got interested in the latest version of Samplitude Music Studio (2019) as a beginning or advanced composer and music producer check out the following link for additional informations: >>> https://www.magix.com/us/music/samplitude-music-studio/#c844272 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you wanna go for the Samplitude Pro (X/Suite) versions as a more advanced or expert composer, music producer and audio engineer with a strong passion for sound design at a professional level someday check out this link for additional informations: >>> https://www.magix.com/us/music/samplitude/ Even if you can find out a lot of functions just by exploring and doing make sure you have some time to read in the digital manual with nearly 1000 pages to get into all the functions this DAW has to offer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There's also something like a very high priced ultimate version - the company's flagship so far - called Sequoia which contains some pretty luxurious (but not desperately necessary) music production tools (like audio to MIDI conversion - although there 's something similar in the Pro X Suite versions already), all the VST instruments and some enhanced features for broadcasting. But since I'm not a member of a highly successful band who can drop the money like bees may drop the honey I would never be thinking about paying nearly 3000 bucks for this one if I can do all the music production stuff already with the Samplitude Pro X Suite versions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If somebody wants to have some further informations or personal experiences from my side just let me know. And if somebody is interested in getting a version of Samplitude Music Studio or maybe Samplitude Pro X3 Suite I could also give some hints for using these DAWs with most of its functions here in this thread.

Since we've talked about the 70s already I can show you a cover of a soundtrack from the 80s called "I'm always here" - by Jimi Jamison which was also played as the misical intro theme of the Baywatch series. >>> https://soundcloud.com/master-mi/baywatch-opening-theme-master-mi-remix Or maybe check out the Youtube version (cause I think Youtube offers a slightly better audio steaming quality with an higher audio bitrate of 192 kbit/s (compared to the 128 kbit/s audio bitrate streaming "quality" of Soundcloud): >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xbQHulo8h4 If you want to listen to one of my video game remixes I'm working at I would recommend my remix of the soundtrack The Price Of Freedom from Crisis Core: Final Fantasy 7: >>> ...or maybe my Star Tropics remix called "The Fire Of The Southern Cross" - if you want to listen to some more tropically summerly South Sea Island beats. )) >>> All the soundtracks are mastered at the EBU R128 loudness standard.

But couldn't this already be an hint on how much compressed music can damage your sense of hearing - especially in the fine ability to distinguish between loud and less loud? I mean... I often get the chance to listen to soundtracks on my MP3 player at work - at least as long as I don't have to verbally communicate with my colleagues and if I can work on my own most of the time. And I've made an experiment today and a few times before. I was listening to music made without compressors/limters (my own soundtracks I'm working at) - and I was listening to other video game remixes where often compressors and limiters are used. I've listened to both kind of soundtracks at an adequate loudness level (to do this I had to listen to my soundtracks an my MP3 player on volume level 17 and to the other tracks on about volume level 9 - just for giving you an impression on how big the difference between mastering at EBU R128 standards and modern loudness war mastering relating to the volume/loudness levels can be). If I listen a whole day to my own soundtracks there won't be a significant difference in my sense of hearing at the end of the day. But if I listen just a few hours to other video game remixes where compressors and limiters are often used quite a lot and switch again to my soundtracks later on I often recognize that my sense of hearing has decreased a bit - just temporarily... but I won't hear all the details in my tracks for some time (maybe for some minutes until an half hour or so) afterwards and I don't perceive my own tracks as loud as if I would listen only to these the whole day. Besides - the dude in the video didn't do the mastering for EBU R128 loudness standards in a correct way. Since the metered loudness always means the average loudness of the part you have measured you always have go through the whole soundtrack before adjusting the master volume. So, if the loudness meter - after starting the metering at the beginning of the track - shows a loudness of - 20 LUFS (dB) at the end of the track you would have to lower the master volume for about 3 dB to get at least into the right (average) loudness levels for EBU R128 standards. And then you should also be concerned about the other important EBU R128 parameters like: - Max. Momentary in LUFS (refering to a time period of 400 milliseconds) - Max. Short-Term in LUFS (refering to a time period of 3 seconds) - Max. True Peak in dBTP (...although you won't really have to bother with this parameter if you keep an eye on all the other parameters before)

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.