a perfect soundcloud pattern means what

[feaker66]

i just listened to a pretty good colab song in soundcloud and noticed the pattern didn't deviate hardly at all throughout the entire song. It looked like a near perfect fence.

Is that a good thing? Was that done with a limiter or compressor on the whole song.

The song was one of a driving nature, but does one quiet down here and there for emphasis?

Just wondering cause my tracks have bigger spikes, and valleys, and voids etc?

Sincerely

Paul

[thekman]

Hey Paul-
It's most likely limiting with some sort of compression or normalization. These dynamic controls can help things sound more pro, but if they are over done the end result isn't good.
There are a lot of publishers that do not want any sort of mastering done to the tracks they receive. For requests like that I personally just use a limiter on my master bus without the other bells n whistles.
I hope that answers the question for you!
Cheers,
Kyle

[andygabrys]

well....this is kind of a stylistic thing..

IMO - unless its orchestral, or audiophile type recordings where not a lot of extra production was done - the trend these days is to have everything crazy loud and mostly in your face. which yes, means usually normalization to just below digital 0, then compression, eq, and limiting to taste and to match other current recordings in the same style.

many people (including big name engineers who also master like Yoad Nevo) have stated that we are too loud right now, we could all back it off a couple dB's and retain more dynamic in the music. But like Yoad stated himself in the WAVES mastering video, he's not going to be the first one to do it. cause the marketplace believes that they need that.

Kyle has a good point - it depends on the end user. a lot of library / publishers will stipulate that they want "no mastering of any kind" or peaking at -XdB. But that likely has to do with the fact that the music in question in this case is going to be finalized in a TV or film production and will be mastered as needed for the use of the film.

But for an artists music that is going on iTunes, it would probably be viewed as production deficient if it were 6 db in perceived volume quieter than another similar track.

And since many of these pieces that are submitted for TAXI listings are for genres where the client might have submissions from existing bands out there (i.e. not through TAXI, but that might be from personal relations) - that presents a quandary. To master or not to master?

Usually we think stuff that is louder and better.......hopefully the stuff that is loud still sounds incredible too. there is more to it than just smashing it with a limiter.

[ericmakesmusic]

Very well said Andy and I totally agree. Everything is loud these days, especially in the Pop music field. And it's been that way for over a decade. I've heard numerous engineers express that they feel music is too compressed, but they keep compressing their mixes because like you said, when it's played after another artists' song, you don't want your sounding too much softer. I'm just as guilty.

Very insightful Kyle. I didn't know that libraries ask for unmastered songs but that makes sense if they'll be mastering everything together. Still, like Andy, I think it needs to be loud to get in the door and then can be backed off if they request it.

Anyway, Paul, to your question, That overall compression/limiting/mastering process ends up evening out all the spikes so that you end up with a waveform that is more boxy (because all the spikes are being leveled out and then the entire waveform is increased to it's maximum. So, with songs with lots of dynamics (like pop songs) are mastered they end up looking like the waveform you described.

[mojobone]

Yeah when the waveform image looks like somebody cut all the peaks off ruler-flat, that's pretty much what they did; the usual culprit is called brickwall limiting, which, used alone, doesn't sound very nice, but if you compress in multiple stages, by small amounts, (and before catching just a few hot peaks with a brickwall limiter shaving off no more than 2-3dB) you can get your tracks super loud without too much distortion and damage while trading dynamic range for apparent loudness. It's pretty easy to overdo it and make a mess, but when you see those clipped peaks but don't hear any clipping, it's pretty impressive.

[andygabrys]

and for what its worth, a near "quote" from Chris Lord-Alge. Near cause I can't find the actual site I heard this on.

he tends to compress and eq "all the dynamics out of the song" and then "reintroduce dynamics" using fader rides.

You may love or hate his mixes, but its an interesting thing to do isn't it? and it explains a lot about contemporary production.

[cardell]

If dynamic range is sacrificed so easily, let's all go back to 8 bits.

...actually, 8 bit synths do sound kinda cool!!

Stuart

[Kolstad]

and for what its worth, a near "quote" from Chris Lord-Alge. Near cause I can't find the actual site I heard this on.

he tends to compress and eq "all the dynamics out of the song" and then "reintroduce dynamics" using fader rides.

You may love or hate his mixes, but its an interesting thing to do isn't it? and it explains a lot about contemporary production.

Yeah, it seems it's all about control now. I believe it's a broad cultural trend manifesting itself in the arts (art resembles life).

By compressing and EQing all dynamics out of the song, CLA can take control of those aspects in the mix. If we look at performances, the styling the lights ect. also attempts to control our reception of the music. Nothing is left to imagination, it's all controlled.

Sad part is that communication just doesn't work that way. More control just means less space for interpretation, which basically leads to less opportunity to connect with it. That puts the universal qualities of the music at risk, as far as I can tell, and seems counterproductive for inviting a broad audience into listening.

I like loud, but not always CLA kind of loud

[ericmakesmusic]

Sad part is that communication just doesn't work that way. More control just means less space for interpretation, which basically leads to less opportunity to connect with it.

That's a very thought provoking statement - that vagueness leads to greater connection. Never thought of that but it makes sense.

I think you've just given me something that's going to influence my songwriting going forward.

[Kolstad]

Sad part is that communication just doesn't work that way. More control just means less space for interpretation, which basically leads to less opportunity to connect with it.

That's a very thought provoking statement - that vagueness leads to greater connection. Never thought of that but it makes sense.

I think you've just given me something that's going to influence my songwriting going forward.

The basis for that idea is the work of the Italian writer Umberto Eco (particularly the book "The open work"). He's been very influential with tv/film directors and the litterate establishment for 20-30 years..

I'm glad if it helps you in any way..