stepping it up a gear

Since I know you're stuff fairly well I'll chime in here. Take all this as consructive criticism and nothing personal. also I'm fairly sure you've been working on these things lately judging by your most recent tracks.

1. I think you need to work on your groove/swing. You're using sounds that are associated with a genre that has very significant amounts of 16th note swing, so it sounds a bit flat and lifeless when you do tracks with these sounds but without the shuffle feel.

2. You suffer from club-kick syndrome where your kicks are too prominent throughout the whole frequency spectrum. I know you want the kick to cut through but I feel you're imagining what tracks sound like in a club with a pounding kick. This makes the tracks sound too banging and not groovy enough.

3. You need to focus more on your kick, snare and hats to provide the core rhythm and sound of the track. Sometimes they sound more like an afterthought in your stuff. And then you fill in the gaps with claves etc.
Get the track to sound full with kick,hat and snare and you'll find your stuff will have a whole load more presence, punch, and assertiveness.


4. I know it'd be a lot easier if you were to be told some advice regarding your mixdowns etc., but I think your main issues are in the composition right now. Stuff needs more fills, sweeps, reverb tails, etc. to keep it sounding interesting.

Try and listen to your stuff and if it sounds like it's on a loop, put something that evolves over it. This stops the track sounding repetitive.

Hope that helps.

seannash wrote: »

So lately ive been getting a bit frustrated with my tracks.
i like the actual songs but the execution and sound of them isnt as good as most of the stuff i hear by my favourite producers.

i honestly am trying everything i can think of to improve of but im really drawing a blank.i kinda feel like i have a certain way i make tracks and this is causing me to have this sub par sound.

id really like to break the habit of the routine of making tracks but i cant seem to do things any other way that improves the overall sound quality of my tracks.
i understand experience has a bit to do with it but maybe some people can share what tricks or techniques really push there productions into the pro sounding category.

Sean, Equipment HAS to play a part here.

I've rattled on about this a million times but if you're happy with your music then it's gear letting you down.

The two likely culprits are your D to A and Monitors.

No matter how good your Soft Synths etc are if they're being squeezed through an inferior D to A while you're mixing you aren't optimizing your work.

Monitoring is , in my experience, the thing most people get wrong. (when I say monitoring I mean the whole room/speakers system)

If you can't hear what you're at , you're guessing - which is no way to make a track , I think.

However, acknowledging you're not happy is in itself a progressive step.

Best of Luck!

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Sean, Equipment HAS to play a part here.

I've rattled on about this a million times but if you're happy with your music then it's gear letting you down.

The two likely culprits are your D to A and Monitors.

No matter how good your Soft Synths etc are if they're being squeezed through an inferior D to A while you're mixing you aren't optimizing your work.

Monitoring is , in my experience, the thing most people get wrong. (when I say monitoring I mean the whole room/speakers system)

If you can't hear what you're at , you're guessing - which is no way to make a track , I think.

However, acknowledging you're not happy is in itself a progressive step.

Best of Luck!

Lol, Paul. I've made myself very happy with some of the crappest gear in the universe - writing has little to do with it in real terms. Writing is a process of self actualization and can be made in very limited environments.

I mean.. look at Robert Johnson.

It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it

Neurojazz wrote: »

Lol, Paul. I've made myself very happy with some of the crappest gear in the universe - writing has little to do with it in real terms. Writing is a process of self actualization and can be made in very limited environments.

I mean.. look at Robert Johnson.

It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it

In fairness, Sean did say it was the sound of his tracks he wasn't happy with. He said he likes the actual songs.

I'd say good professional mastering is essential to get a good professional sound. If nothing else it gives somebody who doesn't know the track a chance to work on it in a different room with a different perspective. And mastering is a specialised skill.
Having said that, I think your tracks are really good.
Everyone always feels they have areas in which they need to improve. It's when that drive goes away you're in trouble.

seannash wrote: »

hey folks thanks for the replies.
okay so my setup currently is macbook pro running logic.
soundcard is RME hammerfall dsp and my monitors are the yamaha hs50(im really pleased with these actually)
i had genelec 8030as before and i really like them but as im on the move lately i could only afford the yamahas.that being said i reckon they are great and dont see them as being an issue when it comes to my tracks.

The RMEs have a great rep (though I've never used one myself) and the Logic stuff sounds good.

Where exactly do you feel the problem is?


With regard to monitors we obviously can all have different opinions.

However science does come into play here.

I can't of course comment on your room but I can say this about speakers.



I've spoken with Philip Newell who, with Keith Holland reviews speakers for Resolution Magazine and has written for many Magazines including Sound on Sound about Genelecs and Yamaha HS50s.

Newell has build the original Manor Studio and the legendary London Townhouse studios.

Coincidentally Resolution reviewed the bigger Genelec 8040s last month.
It's reasonable to expect the findings will be similar on the 8030s with the obvious reduction in power and a less extended bass end.

When I say 'review' it was a technical review i.e. they measured what the speakers do in an anechoic chamber.

The 8040s got a fairly good review as I'd expect. The mid and high ranges performed well, as is my experience. The mids can be a little shouty at times but this is a mid range price speaker so there will be compromises.

However as with any speaker with a Bass Port it got a mixed review for it's Low End. This is where science explains what you know to be the case.

On the positive side, the review said, the bass extension is very good on the Genelecs i.e. they 'reach' down further than many boxes that size.

However the downside with that, and most speakers with ports is that the bass 'definition' is badly compromised.

This can be graphically shown by the 'Waterfall' response of the speaker.
This represents how a speaker reacts to an impulse at each frequency .... a Ported speaker will often measure very badly in this way taking a long time for the speaker to return to 'stillness' up to around 100 ms + in our example .

Here's a pic of same , not of the Genelec I should clarify -



As you can see a speaker with a response like that CAN'T give you clear Bass End , EVER!
This is simply because no matter how 'tight' a low end you give it, what it will play to you is your input, plus up to 100 ms of what is an effect similar to 'reverb' .

What da feck good is that? Is it any wonder why getting the bass right is so hard?

That is one of the main reasons why I like speakers like the NS 10. It's a sealed box and whilst there may be other issues, impulse response isn't one of them.

With regard to the HS 50 it too has a Port and so the same problems as above.

Newell has words too on this as he and some others listened to a pair of HS50s recently. They haven't been measured yet.
This is the opinion of him and four other engineers present.

" The concensus of the listenig was that the HS50s had less bass, less punch, less overall loudness and a less workable mid-range than the NS10s. Nobody said that they would be happy to do serious mixes on them. "


Monitoring may still be a major issue why you can't get what you want.

Wow, a pro audio dealer telling you it's the gear you need to look at. Didn't see that coming.

What kind of production values we talking here sean?

seannash wrote: »

well not anyone in particular but just that stuff done by the tech house pros sounds alot crisper and brighter than my own stuff.there also is alot fo good seperation of the elements in there tracks compared to mine.

i pan but cant seem to get every element to stand out in its own space.

like i said before i dont think mastering is the problem.it will help but i think the problem is down to me

Certainly Mastering can play a part , but as anyone who has mastered a less than stellar mix (and I include myself in that !) ya can't turn shyt into chocolate ....

i pan but cant seem to get every element to stand out in its own space.

Clocking (not necessarily external) and D2A quality are critical in stereo width. FACT.

Are you coming over to the dark side Sean ?

You're coming to a point of realisation I think

I wonder if Paul is joking?

I hope so.

Neurojazz wrote: »

99.99% of the people here will never need to worry about clocking or anything like that to be honest.

No, you'd only be interested in such like if you were keen on learning, understanding and making things better.

So perhaps you're right

Neurojazz wrote: »

Use the problem instruments in dance music as examples etc... or it just looks like you don't know anything about the genres and the tools they use.

I don't know anything about dance music !

However it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The points I'm making are common to all music reproduction, namely the ability to hear is what allows you to make great mixes predictably.

The inability to hear what's going on accurately means you're guessing.

From Sean's problems descriptions that may be part of his issues.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I don't know anything about dance music !

Yep, dance musicians keywords:

N.A.S.A. vicks and a whistle.

If anyone gets that - or am i getting old

There used to be guys/gals walking around clubs with N.A.S.A. on bomber jackets and i never knew for ages.. was 'Nice And Safe Attitude'