Attn dark red.... :)

[Synapsis]

Okay Dark Red...

This is new... I took your advice... I bussed the mid synths to a bus.. the bass to a bus, the drums to a bus, etc etc...

I applied EQ to the mids... it is a solid state EQ, I rolled off the bottom and top... I then applied an EQ to the high mids.. again rolling out bottoms mids, and high.. I left the high end open for the high hats.. etc....

I noticed something in the mastering... the RCOMP threshold was able to be pulled down quite a lot, without munting the sound too much.. Those raspy highs.. seem to be amiss.... The mix has a lot more punch.. and is clear to the top.... In my cans anyway..

How are your ears on this one...

 

[DarkRed]

Okay Dark Red...

This is new... I took your advice... I bussed the mid synths to a bus.. the bass to a bus, the drums to a bus, etc etc...

I applied EQ to the mids... it is a solid state EQ, I rolled off the bottom and top... I then applied an EQ to the high mids.. again rolling out bottoms mids, and high.. I left the high end open for the high hats.. etc....

I noticed something in the mastering... the RCOMP threshold was able to be pulled down quite a lot, without munting the sound too much.. Those raspy highs.. seem to be amiss.... The mix has a lot more punch.. and is clear to the top.... In my cans anyway..

How are your ears on this one...

I think you are making pretty steep mix quality improvements right now, cool to notice! The height dimension can be further improved which will reduce the somewhat heavy low end (although pretty big and soft). Also, in this particular mix there are some other more advanced to fix type of issues that tend to unhide when the basics are in place, what I notice is that pretty much of the quality comes from busses rather than from the individual tracks, it creates a cohesive sound but makes the stereo image somewhat boxed in, the delays then tend to muddy up the mix a little in this particular context. So, what I find you should be doing with this mix is to look through your panning across the whole mix and do this with air in mind, too much air is better than too little.

 

[Synapsis]

Thanks Dark Master , It was just an experiment.... I usually bus like minded frequency spectrum's to the collaboration department so they can have a yarn with each other, and 'glue' together, yet maintain a somewhat individual voice in there... I do not usually get involved in a great deal of panning.. as I guess I am in the mindset that a 'mono' mix in a club is all in the middle...

I will however, take your advice, as I have read a lot of your posts, and find your 'psychobabble' very informative, and also very resonant... Like the harmonic resonance of a bass note at 333Hz... and every pure harmonic that interrelates, and correlates to that frequency....

I do believe, that I will be experimenting with 333Hz next.. and seeing if I can create a harmonic resonance that peaks at the pure frequency when they are all combined...

I am glad to have made your acquaintance in this forum.... I sent that last track off to somebody.. I assume if they have the commercial equipment to drive that track it will come out okay??

 

[DarkRed]

Thanks Dark Master ,

I do not usually get involved in a great deal of panning.. as I guess I am in the mindset that a 'mono' mix in a club is all in the middle...

Np. Do what you want, but my recommendation is that you bury that thought entirely and think of all of us out there that find that when making stereo mixes it is in stereo the mix should sound good.

Here is what happens. A near default panned center 100%L 100%R type of stereo mix cannot compete against one that is carefully tuned to sound great in stereo, because by such default panning you have by default a worse separation and a worse stereo width, so when you A/B you are at risk of having to fake the stereo image in comparison, which does not sound as good. A really great stereo mix does not fall apart in mono, hence these mixes also work in whatever clubs that are playing the mix in mono. So I think that whole idea is much overrated. You can check things in mono when you record to ensure phase and a good set of frequencies across the both speakers, but early during recording you should be concerned about getting the recording sounding nice in stereo so that when you are done with the recording, the mixing engineer can ensure the recording is ready for mixing by noticing it is good enough in mono and awesome in stereo. At that point the mixing engineer has little reason to think of mono, he/she should be more concerned about preserving and further improving that stereo image, that is a much much wiser investment of his/her time. When the mastering engineer receives the mix to master, he/she then ensures the mix is ready for mastering and one of those steps is to ensure the mix does not collapse entirely in mono, but is good enough for the mastering engineer to be able to do a great job on it. That's about it. Separation is much more important than mono compatibility in a stereo mix. Mono needs to be optimal in mono mixes. Instead, use a correlation meter and sweep frequency ranges on the L and the R separately in isolation to ensure by ear that you do not have a very strange distribution of the frequency range between the two speakers.

What I do is that when I A/B the final master and conclude it is better sounding than my reference, bam I expand the panners on the master bus and now the competition is over. In other words, I ensure that when the final A/B shows my master beats the reference, I have a lot of room for further improvements, these however I rely 0% on. This forces me to work much harder on the basics and on implementing technique properly because it gives me a tighter more demanding window to work within. It also makes it so that I deal with the issues as soon as possible in the overall music creation process, which in my engineering philosophy is a very important thing.

Use limitations to your advantage.

 

[Synapsis]

Np. Do what you want, but my recommendation is that you bury that thought entirely and think of all of us out there that find that when making stereo mixes it is in stereo the mix should sound good.

Here is what happens. A near default panned center 100%L 100%R type of stereo mix cannot compete against one that is carefully tuned to sound great in stereo, because by such default panning you have by default a worse separation and a worse stereo width, so when you A/B you are at risk of having to fake the stereo image in comparison, which does not sound as good. A really great stereo mix does not fall apart in mono, hence these mixes also work in whatever clubs that are playing the mix in mono. So I think that whole idea is much overrated. You can check things in mono when you record to ensure phase and a good set of frequencies across the both speakers, but early during recording you should be concerned about getting the recording sounding nice in stereo so that when you are done with the recording, the mixing engineer can ensure the recording is ready for mixing by noticing it is good enough in mono and awesome in stereo. At that point the mixing engineer has little reason to think of mono, he/she should be more concerned about preserving and further improving that stereo image, that is a much much wiser investment of his/her time. When the mastering engineer receives the mix to master, he/she then ensures the mix is ready for mastering and one of those steps is to ensure the mix does not collapse entirely in mono, but is good enough for the mastering engineer to be able to do a great job on it. That's about it. Separation is much more important than mono compatibility in a stereo mix. Mono needs to be optimal in mono mixes. Instead, use a correlation meter and sweep frequency ranges on the L and the R separately in isolation to ensure by ear that you do not have a very strange distribution of the frequency range between the two speakers.

What I do is that when I A/B the final master and conclude it is better sounding than my reference, bam I expand the panners on the master bus and now the competition is over. In other words, I ensure that when the final A/B shows my master beats the reference, I have a lot of room for further improvements, these however I rely 0% on. This forces me to work much harder on the basics and on implementing technique properly because it gives me a tighter more demanding window to work within. It also makes it so that I deal with the issues as soon as possible in the overall music creation process, which in my engineering philosophy is a very important thing.

Use limitations to your advantage.

I will of course take your advice my friend... in fact... my next track is going to be called... Dark Red.... It may send out a frequency to our beloved universal neighbours

 

[DarkRed]

I will however, take your advice, as I have read a lot of your posts, and find your 'psychobabble' very informative, and also very resonant... Like the harmonic resonance of a bass note at 333Hz... and every pure harmonic that interrelates, and correlates to that frequency....

I do believe, that I will be experimenting with 333Hz next.. and seeing if I can create a harmonic resonance that peaks at the pure frequency when they are all combined...

I am glad to have made your acquaintance in this forum.... I sent that last track off to somebody.. I assume if they have the commercial equipment to drive that track it will come out okay??

Yeah, they can sort it out, cool please post the final when it is done, I am curious about the end result.

In terms of resonance, that is a multidimensional work, so you do for instance not work only with the harmonics of the multiples of 333 kHz, that is just a single dimension... Another dimension is the multiples of 42.5 kHz, which is 333 kHz divided by the Schumann resonance of earth. Another important resonance dimension relates to the cosmic resonance key, which is too dangerous to share on this forum. (at this time) Then there are galactic resonance dimensions, you can for instance tune your mix to resonate with not only the Milky Way but also the Andromeda galaxy (these two are in the process of merging, hence the beauty of these two resonance dimensions present in the mix). Beyond this you have the resonance dimension of the gravity center that these two galaxies are rotating and so on. Unfortunately one cannot decode all of these larger ones without the cosmic resonance key (might be possible though if you for instance are able to decode highly advanced crop circles and can figure it out from a different point of view entirely, but I have not discovered any such shortcuts), but when you have that you can unlock them. Beyond this you have more genre specific resonance dimensions, like a specific resonance dimension for current country music or a set of bands within country music. And you have resonances of rooms, for instance resonances of recording studios, churches, pyramids etc. The sky is the limit. It becomes a creative choice entirely what kind of resonances you choose to mix, applied on what type of content. The important part is to work actively on dynamically controlling it at whatever level of skills you currently have and with the gear you have or need to get.

Keep in mind though that eventhough you have these resonance frequencies present in the mix, that's just a part of it, then you also have to get the right amplification of each so that they harmonize among each other and with the contents of the mix, its tuning etc. Beyond that you have also not just the even multiples, but you have a whole range of dimensions when it comes to the multiples, the first ones like 2 and 1->X are just two of those resonance multiple dimensions. It would be best to have a plugin that just applies them all to a degree of choice, so that you could automate them with a single fader, would be nice.

I have in some post mentioned the importance of working with tension and release as a multi dimensional concept. When it comes to resonance that too is important to work with as a multi dimensional concept because that is what it is. Music is highly multi dimensional and when you approach it as if it is not, you get a lot of signal loss basically.

 

[Synapsis]

I was thinking something along the lines of this..though minded in the harmonic frequency spectrum... We got taught that say G has resonants of A and yada yada, all the way up to the top.... I will have to revisit the notes, though I am assuming, in that 333hz spectrum, there is hidden a galatcica' 'chorus'.. that includes all of those notes you may be referring to.. including the 42.5...

That last track has issues in the drums, around the 80hz I think... it was okay in phones, but hummed o my mates speakers with a sub.. I will have to cut it later

You are the Dark Master

 

[DarkRed]

I will of course take your advice my friend... in fact... my next track is going to be called... Dark Red.... It may send out a frequency to our beloved universal neighbours

Can't wait to hear what that will sound like, try to get your take on the concepts, see where it takes you. Creativity is king.

 

[DarkRed]

I was thinking something along the lines of this..though minded in the harmonic frequency spectrum... We got taught that say G has resonants of A and yada yada, all the way up to the top.... I will have to revisit the notes, though I am assuming, in that 333hz spectrum, there is hidden a galatcica' 'chorus'.. that includes all of those notes you may be referring to.. including the 42.5...

That last track has issues in the drums, around the 80hz I think... it was okay in phones, but hummed o my mates speakers with a sub.. I will have to cut it later

You are the Dark Master

I think you should throw yourself at it and start working really hard with the science of harmonizing a mix and the science behind harmonization riding/acceleration (the two form the tension and release). Unfortunately you are going to have some distortions locked into the mix due to the tuning, one could say that the tuning accuracy becomes like a wetness ratio of the harmonization work as a whole, but don't get distracted by that, because you are still introducing added resonance into the mix.

Guess what happens when you dig a little, the tension and release works on a multi dimensional hierarchy, you have for instance releases within tensions and stuff like that.

So nobody here is even close to tapping into any serious amounts of resonance, we are merely scratching the surface. But that is the fun part I think, to realize the depth of beauty yet to be discovered in music...

It is very important to have gear that allows serious amounts of resonance potential to be packaged into the final product. The signal capacity of your audio interface should be your highest priority. There is a reason why a guy like CLA says he uses the Apogee Symphony to get the signal he hears on his console captured to sound the same in digital format.

 

[Synapsis]

I think you should throw yourself at it and start working really hard with the science of harmonizing a mix and the science behind harmonization riding/acceleration (the two form the tension and release). Unfortunately you are going to have some distortions locked into the mix due to the tuning, one could say that the tuning accuracy becomes like a wetness ratio of the harmonization work as a whole, but don't get distracted by that, because you are still introducing added resonance into the mix.

Guess what happens when you dig a little, the tension and release works on a multi dimensional hierarchy, you have for instance releases within tensions and stuff like that.

So nobody here is even close to tapping into any serious amounts of resonance, we are merely scratching the surface. But that is the fun part I think, to realize the depth of beauty yet to be discovered in music...

It is very important to have gear that allows serious amounts of resonance potential to be packaged into the final product. The signal capacity of your audio interface should be your highest priority. There is a reason why a guy like CLA says he uses the Apogee Symphony to get the signal he hears on his console captured to sound the same in digital format.

Oh, I have a very serious plan here... Apparently 330Hz is an E... 333Hz will need to be tuned in then... that is possible by fine tuning the synths... However, that basic 440Hz is default... Should I tune the entire DAW down to 333Hz? and then an 'A" would technically be an 'E"... Though I will have to get a precise sine wave signal generator for the base 333Hz... A key won't unlock a door unless it is precisely cut to the shape of the keyhole... Which can be micro metres... If then calculating the BPM to 333Hz, which is the Base or 'Bass' of the soundscape, what would that be? 41.5 Hz, could be too low for even a sub bass to work.. though 410Hz, or 4150Hz, could have enough resonance to lock in with the 330... and all the other harmonics associated with the Bass 'drone'.

Andromeda, well... this is an interesting concept... what frequency is Andromeda on, and how would one mix it with say 'Orion', or another constellation... There is also the pure harmonics associated with 333Hz 'E', which will be required to be tunes... Then there is the panning... say Andromeda, to the Milky Way, and how they are apart, yet can be panned to meet in the middle for a short time...

I will show you what I mean... I think that phasing frequency harmonics from the Bass 333Hz, at 666Hz, 1332, or even 1332, etc etc.... Anyway, I have a plan... lets see how it goes

 

[DarkRed]

Oh, I have a very serious plan here... Apparently 330Hz is an E... 333Hz will need to be tuned in then... that is possible by fine tuning the synths... However, that basic 440Hz is default... Should I tune the entire DAW down to 333Hz? and then an 'A" would technically be an 'E"... Though I will have to get a precise sine wave signal generator for the base 333Hz... A key won't unlock a door unless it is precisely cut to the shape of the keyhole... Which can be micro metres... If then calculating the BPM to 333Hz, which is the Base or 'Bass' of the soundscape, what would that be? 41.5 Hz, could be too low for even a sub bass to work.. though 410Hz, or 4150Hz, could have enough resonance to lock in with the 330... and all the other harmonics associated with the Bass 'drone'.

Andromeda, well... this is an interesting concept... what frequency is Andromeda on, and how would one mix it with say 'Orion', or another constellation... There is also the pure harmonics associated with 333Hz 'E', which will be required to be tunes... Then there is the panning... say Andromeda, to the Milky Way, and how they are apart, yet can be panned to meet in the middle for a short time...

I will show you what I mean... I think that phasing frequency harmonics from the Bass 333Hz, at 666Hz, 1332, or even 1332, etc etc.... Anyway, I have a plan... lets see how it goes

I would not primarily select the multiplier 1000, I would select the multiplier 2, and around this frequency focus on 325,20 Hz and 332,27 Hz.

I would start simple with the 333 kHz resonance dimension just do 2 multiplier on that in parallel across the whole frequency range (very narrow Q):

20,32 Hz
40,65 Hz
81,30 Hz
162,60 Hz
325,20 Hz
650,39 Hz
1300,78 Hz
2601,56 Hz
5203,13 Hz
10406,30 Hz
20812,50 Hz


Then I would add the 333 kHz / 7,8296 Hz resonance dimension with 2 multiplier on that in parallel across the whole frequency range (very narrow Q):

20,77 Hz
41,53 Hz
83,07 Hz
166,14 Hz
332,27 Hz
664,55 Hz
1329,09 Hz
2658,18 Hz
5316,36 Hz
10632,73 Hz
21265,45 Hz

You can then add a third resonance dimension based purely on the Schumann Resonance, with 2 multiplier on that in parallel across the whole frequency range (very narrow Q):

31,32 Hz
62,64 Hz
125,27 Hz
250,55 Hz
501,09 Hz
1002,19 Hz
2004,38 Hz
4008,76 Hz
8017,51 Hz
16035,02 Hz

Then I would balance the gain among these three and the mix, with the optimal resonance potential peaking in the primary chorus. Then do a proper A/B on it (please read my thread about how to do proper A/B) and adjust the balance until it says version B is better and then finally gain the combination to its maximum resonance potential. At that point you have just harmonized your master in a pretty advanced way by harmonically aligning the electromagnetic field of the mix to the electromagnetic context. Please do this and post the result. The effect should be that it e.g. feels lighter (because inside of the electromagnetic field of the mix the gravity is very lightly cancelled). You can make it even lighter by then focusing that into a reverb like the Bricasti in parallel (long reverb time) and a compressor behind it (long release time). The routing becomes three tracks in parallel, merging into a reverb that goes in parallel with the mix. First you balance the resonance dimensions (+ A/B), then you balance those against the reverb (+ A/B) and finally you balance the combination against the mix (+ A/B).

 

[Synapsis]

I would not primarily select the multiplier 1000, I would select the multiplier 2, and around this frequency focus on 325,20 Hz and 332,27 Hz.

I would start simple with the 333 kHz resonance dimension just do 2 multiplier on that in parallel across the whole frequency range (very narrow Q):

20,32 Hz
40,65 Hz
81,30 Hz
162,60 Hz
325,20 Hz
650,39 Hz
1300,78 Hz
2601,56 Hz
5203,13 Hz
10406,30 Hz
20812,50 Hz


Then I would add the 333 kHz / 7,8296 Hz resonance dimension with 2 multiplier on that in parallel across the whole frequency range (very narrow Q):

20,77 Hz
41,53 Hz
83,07 Hz
166,14 Hz
332,27 Hz
664,55 Hz
1329,09 Hz
2658,18 Hz
5316,36 Hz
10632,73 Hz
21265,45 Hz


Then I would balance the gain among these two and the mix, with the optimal resonance potential peaking in the primary chorus. Then do a proper A/B on it (please read my thread about how to do proper A/B) and adjust the balance until it says version B is better. At that point you have just harmonized your master in a pretty advanced way by harmonically aligning the electromagnetic field of the mix to the electromagnetic field of the sun and the electromagnetic field of earth inside of the sun's electromagnetic field. Please do this and post the result. The effect should be that it feels lighter and warmer.

OKAY, I have a sine wave and have a frequency metre, it is extremely hard to tune the 41.5 to the exact frequency.. i could have it oscillating between 41 and 42 perhaps.. I know, I will tune it at 415, and lower it back into its position.. I will adapt the frequency also as you have suggested

 

[DarkRed]

OKAY, I have a sine wave and have a frequency metre, it is extremely hard to tune the 41.5 to the exact frequency.. i could have it oscillating between 41 and 42 perhaps.. I know, I will tune it at 415, and lower it back into its position.. I will adapt the frequency also as you have suggested

You do not have to have it that precise although the more precise the better, as it is the harmonic peaks you are dialing in. An iZotope Ozone parametric EQ (or similar) plugin in linear phase mode with maximum narrow Q is enough. The workflow is to just quickly throw in those parametric EQs in parallel, select the preset that represents each resonance dimension and balance. It should not be a long process, just a very quick one with the focus on the A/B process to ensure it gives an improved result.

But do enjoy the moment when somebody asks you, where did you get those frequencies from?! Oh, they are just there to counter the earth's gravity within the sound field in three dimensions. LOL