Eternal Testament Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 First of all I use a very simple setup. My software is basic; it outputs in .wav at 16bit stereo 44.1. The problem I'm having is that the resulting wav is a bit muddy. Now, I've been trying for ages to sort that out by EQ using Cool Edit. But I just can't get it right. Check out my latest submission in the WIP's forum and you'll see what I mean. I need some serious help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Do you compose at 16bit, 44.1khz as well? Because if you are composing at something like 24bit, 48khz, then when you export the hats will sound waaay off. I just compose in 16/44, that way when you export it sounds exactly the same. It's gonna end up in 16/44 anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Testament Posted November 23, 2006 Author Share Posted November 23, 2006 My stuff is VERY basic. I'm only able to output in 16/44. This is why my track for the SSF2 remix project sounded shite compared to everyone elses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klm09 Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Do you compose at 16bit, 44.1khz as well? Because if you are composing at something like 24bit, 48khz, then when you export the hats will sound waaay off. I just compose in 16/44, that way when you export it sounds exactly the same. It's gonna end up in 16/44 anyway!You're hats sounding off after you export to 16bit/44khz is probably more likely due to the software you're using having a less-than-perfect algorithm doing the conversion. But if you're working with softsynths and 16 bit samples, working at a higher sample rate / bit rate is not going to make essentially any difference. If you're recording stuff, 24 bit is definately better if you can use it, because of the higher headroom, which in the end basically equates to less noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V___ Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 My stuff is VERY basic. I'm only able to output in 16/44. This is why my track for the SSF2 remix project sounded shite compared to everyone elses. You obviously didnt listen to my track... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souliarc Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 I really doubt EQ would help your problem. You can't EQ in something that isn't there in the first place :-/ You may be able to cut something, but boosting anything (like boosting to get your highs back) will only bring up the noise floor and more of the muddiness around it. It's just like if you have a bad recording. The responded frequencies are already set in stone and boosting or cutting anything in a bad recording is essentially raising the bad and/or leaving the bad. If the exporting has cut off some of your quality, that's just the limitation of that process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splunkle Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 If I remember my EQing correctly, mud can be lessened sometimes by cutting around 200-1000 Hz. That tends to reduce a whole lot of frequencies that interfere - however, some instruments sound like ass without those frequencies! The solution, of course, is to EQ everything individually, and put cuts on that range for everything that has a presence there that doesn't need it, and try to minimise the number of insturments playing at the same that use that range. Of course, while this solves many muds, it might not get rid of your mudiness! If that doesn't work, make sure you aren't over compressing, or limiting, or using a saturation-style plugin to much. Try hauling back on all your mixer volume levels. Mute all your insturments, and bring them back one at a time to see just when the mud starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoozer Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 First of all I use a very simple setup. My software is basic; it outputs in .wav at 16bit stereo 44.1. This is saying "My car drives 80mph." What brand? What model? What year? In other words, which sequencer, which plugins? Otherwise, it does not convey any information whatsoever. The problem I'm having is that the resulting wav is a bit muddy. Mud is because you're throwing a compressor over instruments that are doing stuff outside of their designated frequency range. Now, I've been trying for ages to sort that out by EQ using Cool Edit. But I just can't get it right. That's because you're solving at the wrong place. EQ starts during the mix, not after you've rendered your track. Check out my latest submission in the WIP's forum and you'll see what I mean.I need some serious help. You need to give us a link, otherwise nobody is going to do the effort to listen at all . Read this. http://www.futureproducers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29861 Do you compose at 16bit, 44.1khz as well? Because if you are composing at something like 24bit, 48khz, then when you export the hats will sound waaay off. That should only be the case if the plugin can't handle something else than 16/44. I just compose in 16/44, that way when you export it sounds exactly the same. It's gonna end up in 16/44 anyway! Let's not forget the obvious fact that people have done some very nice mixes with 16/44 since the birth of the compact disc - e.g. give or take 20 years or so. The current race for higher/more/better is because it's possible and because there's enough memory and processing speed. The mix won't automagically become better because sequencers process audio internally at 32 bits or more regardless of what your soundcard can handle. If you're recording stuff, 24 bit is definately better if you can use it, because of the higher headroom, which in the end basically equates to less noise. Exactly. However, this can be undone with a crappy soundcard . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Testament Posted November 25, 2006 Author Share Posted November 25, 2006 Ok. I use M2K/MG2 as my sequencer. I have no exteral hardware (midi controller etc.) I compose the track in M2K there then split the track into it's component parts (drums, synth etc.) and export each to .wav (44/16). I then edit and master each bit separately in cool edit (to be honest I have little idea of what I'm doing). I only discovered compression yesterday so until now I haven't used it. My aim is to achieve a good volume without sacrificing too much dynamic range. Akuma-Stage - Power Made Flesh - Version 2 This track is what I'm currently working on. However this was mastered as one solid wav, so I expect that's part of the problem. Mastering has always been my weakest point so any help would be greatly appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzumebachi Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Wait wait, MG2 as in MTV Music Generator 2? Are you fucking serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Oh, that explains everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Testament Posted November 27, 2006 Author Share Posted November 27, 2006 Wait wait, MG2 as in MTV Music Generator 2? Are you fucking serious? Hell YEAH!! Seriously, I pray for Cubase but until then M2K is all I got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzumebachi Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Isn't that a playstation 2 game? I know MTV Music Generator 1 was released on PC, but as far as I know MTV Music Generator 2 was not. So I'm assuming you're somehow recording the sound output from your PS2, which is probably where your problem is coming from. Also, since MG2 is mostly comprised of stock loops and phrases, you're pretty much guaranteed to have any submissions to OCR rejected. Same with people who use E-jay. It's a bad idea anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Testament Posted November 30, 2006 Author Share Posted November 30, 2006 It's known as Music 2000 in the UK, and it was released on PC. It's not so crap that it doesn't allow me to import my own samples. I use plenty that I've pilfered from the internet. Besides, it's my lack of mastering skills, not my software that's the main problem. I know full well that with a bit of nifty mastering you can make any old junk sound like gold, regardless of what it was composed on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splunkle Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 It's known as Music 2000 in the UK, and it was released on PC. It's not so crap that it doesn't allow me to import my own samples. I use plenty that I've pilfered from the internet.Besides, it's my lack of mastering skills, not my software that's the main problem. I know full well that with a bit of nifty mastering you can make any old junk sound like gold, regardless of what it was composed on. NO. OH DEAR LORD NO. Mastering isn't some magic process for turing shit into gold - at best, it will turn shit into slightly less odorous shit. Given gold though, it will polish that gold until it glistens! You can't polish shit though. Actually, this polish analougy is preety damn neat - I might use it in future. ANYWAYS. Its important that all your other steps in the production line are good! If its sounding muddy, just make everything less loud to start with! Then apply EQ to EVERY CHANNEL THAT IS MUDDY, NOT JUST THE MASTER CHANNEL. If this Music 2000 thing won't let you do that, then get yourself a half decent sequencer and go from there. =/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souliarc Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 You can't polish shit though. Actually, you might be able to polish shit if it's hardened by freezing or some other process, formed into a sandable surface, sanded, and then coated with a poly... OK i'm done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splunkle Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 There goes my wonderful metaphor. =[ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.