First tune for 5 years

[barra]

I'm a disaster at finishing my music but I've made a big effort this time and would love some feedback. Moved recently from Logic to Ableton so I'm still trying to get my head around it.

https://barrygriffin.com/music/Matricia.mp3

[ryankm]

Good stuff. I wouldnt use mp3 though. I can hear that staticy digital compression going on an it sounds displeasing. I have tried many things over the years, but have found sampling audio straight in at high resolution will give the best results. Make sure there isn't any unknown filters though. A lot of sampling hardware has built in hi pass filter. That way all the enrgy goes into sampling a narrower band and your sound will appear sharper and more detailed, but you are missing the bottom end!

Like 10 min in that video below you can here the digital compression of the lead synthesizer... It sounds better compressed there in that video than the soundcloud version. Some things just do not compress well digitaly and you have to listen to the 24 bit 192khz files originaly... I did some experimentation with 768khz and 384khz... more samples = smoother playback and less digital processing. So it is all what you are use to hearing.

I'd like to know if there was a reluable way to compress something and not lose anything. For instance lll do a 24bit 192khz project and the FLAC always sounds better than the .ogg or mp3... Not enough bits especially if your sound is complex... Things will get cut out in compression or youll end up with that gargly digital compression sounding music... I hear it all the time.


Maybe try playing a 384khz 24 bit lossless project and rerecord it live at 48khz?... This mught be the best way to compress and avoid that compression garbly bit sound.


but now I noticed Soundcloud has this Dolby mastering button... I havent tried it yet. Send them the biggest fattest heaviest file you can and they should be able to compress your audio in a way that sounds good.

I like FLAC... it goes up to 384khz and 24 bit which for most devices that is the max that you can handle too. WAV can go higher, but youll be looking at a 4gb file versus 300mb file. And honestly you are going to have a hard time playing a 768khz wav file because nothing can use it. Now I did send a 768khz wav file to soundcloud and it came out all right, but i ended up deleting it because the content wasnt good enough. I was just trying to see if it would capture and compress my synthesizers in a better way than what I had been doing...

[madtheory]

The mp3 compression is fine. The "staticy digital compression" is far more likely to be slight aliasing in the soft synths, nothing to do with how you've rendered the file. It's a non-issue IMO. Stick with Nyquist for sampling rates! Anything over 48kHz is pointless for distributing to your audience/ friends.

I like this tune.

You have some interesting harmony happening here. With the current arrangement it clashes I think. I would take the line on the resonant bassy sound, and put that on the brassy sound to add to the line already on that. I would consider dropping the brass sound also, and moving its lines to the softer pad you have panned right. That's a lovely sound, with nice pitch modulation- it would make the odd harmony sound more atmospheric I think. The flutey/ square on the left works nicely there.

Then I would add a new bass, an octave lower, more droney, one not per bar. A very simplified version of what you have here, not paralleling the melody and having no rhythm (because the other parts are doing that). It would add a nice tension and enhance the interesting harmony.

The drum rhythm is also clashing- it kinda follows the rhythms in you melody and harmony lines, but has jarring jumps crossing over the phrases. Something steadier would work better- something you could tap your foot to, rather than dance to.

[ryankm]

The mp3 compression is fine. The "staticy digital compression" is far more likely to be slight aliasing in the soft synths, nothing to do with how you've rendered the file. It's a non-issue IMO. Stick with Nyquist for sampling rates! Anything over 48kHz is pointless for distributing to your audience/ friends.

I like this tune.

Yeah it is a good tune. Ive just had alot of problems with compression [anything below 96khz] and 192khz & 384khz having a better over all sound.

Ive had tracks that sounded fine, but when compressed to 44.1 or 48 sound like garbage. Make sure you are at least doing 24 bit... Is mp3 24bit or is that a 16 bit file?


What it comes down tonis I have never mad a mp3 that sounds good. The WAV or FLAC version always sounds better. Ive had better luck though with .ogg

[meatballfulton]

I liked it overall, but it goes on for too long without enough changing to hold this listener's interest...something I am 100% guilty of in my own music.

I agree with madtheory about the bass line. It's great in the intro but it's too busy and too repetitive to continue through the entire song. Just changing up the bass line every so often would help move the song along nicely. My main instrument is bass and I've spent years learning how to keep it simple so it doesn't compete for attention with the other parts but rather supports them in a way that makes the other parts sound better.

I don't know how you mixed it, but the bass sounds louder in the intro than in the outro and gets buried the more parts are added to the arrangement.

Most of all I liked your choice of timbres, the brassy part in the intro made me think of Keith Emerson and the vibe overall had me back in the 1970s...JMJ, TD, Kraftwerk, etc. which I have a weakness for.

+++++++++++++++

I'm listening on a laptop and any issues with compression artifacts aren't audible to me and most listeners won't hear any, either. I suppose if I fire this up on my living room stereo system with a $2K+ speaker system, I might hear something but it doesn't matter to me how pristine something sounds, it's whether the music is any good. Something many audiophile types forget about! If I refused to listen to "bad" recordings, my record collection would be maybe 20% of the size it is now

Yes, WAV, AIFF or lossless compression (FLAC, ALAC) always sounds best. But mp3 is what 90% of the world hears and it isn't that bad. When I was a kid, I had a $39 stereo record player that sounded like complete c**p compared to an average mp3 played through earbuds or a Bluetooth (more fidelity loss) speaker system. Today's inexpensive playback systems actually sound pretty good to me, although as always expensive ones sound a lot better

[madtheory]

Yeah it is a good tune. Ive just had alot of problems with compression [anything below 96khz] and 192khz & 384khz having a better over all sound.

That's because you have a plugin in your DAW that is producing aliasing. If nothing is broken, Nyquist-Shanon works every time.

[barra]

That's everyone for your replies, I really appreciate them!

I programmed the tune in Ableton and bounced to mp3 and aiff from there. 44.1kHz, 16bit with triangular dithering. Mp3 is CBR 320. I've only used ableton's effects. The synth is a Matrix 1000 and the bass is done using a Juno Alpha. My audio interface is a Firebox I bought maybe 15 years ago with my first pay check. The aiff is available here. If you have any more advice regarding the "staticy digital compression" based on this information, please let me know.

I agree very much with the feedback I've gotten regarding the composition itself and will attempt another version in a few weeks. To be honest I've lost perspective on it as a tune just now having listened to it for so many hours while working on it Towards the end I just wanted to get it finished in order to have something to show for the effort. madtheory I'm also from Ireland.

[meatballfulton]

What I usually do about loss of perspective is wrap it up and go back much later...like 6 months! Then it's easier to listen with a fresh ear.

[ryankm]

That's everyone for your replies, I really appreciate them!

I programmed the tune in Ableton and bounced to mp3 and aiff from there. 44.1kHz, 16bit with triangular dithering. Mp3 is CBR 320. I've only used ableton's effects. The synth is a Matrix 1000 and the bass is done using a Juno Alpha. My audio interface is a Firebox I bought maybe 15 years ago with my first pay check. The aiff is available here. If you have any more advice regarding the "staticy digital compression" based on this information, please let me know.


The aiff sounds way better.
I agree very much with the feedback I've gotten regarding the composition itself and will attempt another version in a few weeks. To be honest I've lost perspective on it as a tune just now having listened to it for so many hours while working on it Towards the end I just wanted to get it finished in order to have something to show for the effort. madtheory I'm also from Ireland.

get tape. I highly recommend it as a form of compression. Record something to tape. There is zero latency and you dont get staticy compression. I use to have a 4 track cassette and I recorded those all to digital and still listen to them. They sound great! It was Yamaha. And yamaha has really warm sounding filters. you usually cant go wrong. Now I have a half inch reel to reel and mackie 1642vlz pro... Which is superb. But thaf cheap little 60 dollar yamaha mt100 i ise to have was good simple and cheap. I'd get something solid downnon that. Port it over to digital and do some more over with audacity... 96khz - 384khz 32bit stuff.

[ryankm]

Yeah it is a good tune. Ive just had alot of problems with compression [anything below 96khz] and 192khz & 384khz having a better over all sound.

That's because you have a plugin in your DAW that is producing aliasing. If nothing is broken, Nyquist-Shanon works every time.

I don't use a DAW. Sometimes Ardour, but mostly Audacity. to much latency with DAW's... I just havent had good luck getting certian things to compress down from 192khz to say 48khz. And 384khz just flat out sounds better. you can fit more into it and it gets compressed by the amp and the chord running to the amp for a more analog feeling. You also do not have to amplify 384khz as much.

[madtheory]

Agree with meatballfulton about perspective

Towards the end I just wanted to get it finished in order to have something to show for the effort. madtheory I'm also from Ireland.

Hello! Nice to meet you. I thought you must be with a Gaeilge name like mine

I don't use a DAW.

Ya that's a red herring, I should not have mentioned it. There was literally nothing wrong with the file originally posted. Subjectively it could be considered "harsh" because it is lacking a bit of bottom end. But that is an issue with the arrangement and choice of drum sounds. Not the sample rate. I took the AIFF and eq'd it, sounded warmer and more analogue so you are right, you are definitely hearing a problem that is actually there, but you are attributing it to the wrong cause. I bet if you did a blind test you would not hear a difference between one of your 384kHz files converted to 48kHz.

Sample rate only affects bandwidth, not loudness/ how much you need to amplify it.

Your soundcloud track is lo-fi. That's not a criticism, just an observation of the genre. It is warm and atmospheric, quite a different style to the OP. There is hiss and buzz, out of phase stereo guitar and aliasing on the bell tones. Structurally it lacks a narrative so personally I am not as drawn to it as I am to the OP's track. I am wondering if you are having a subjective difference of opinion about structure rather than sound? Again you are attributing the things you hear, that you don't like, to the wrong cause?

[ryankm]

In my exp. I'm just letting you know I have had better results with higher resolution stuff... Easier to use and manipulate. Innfact most players dont accually have the ability to put out that much data so it gets compressed on the fly.

Regardless.

The aiff is putting out more bits per second than the mp3.

[madtheory]

In my exp. I'm just letting you know I have had better results with higher resolution stuff... Easier to use and manipulate. Innfact most players dont accually have the ability to put out that much data so it gets compressed on the fly.

Regardless.

The aiff is putting out more bits per second than the mp3.

And I am just letting you know that there is a different way to approach the question.

It's got nothing to do with how much data the players put out- that is a category error. It's about dynamic range and bandwidth. A bad musician can get their instrument to put out high frequencies just as well as a good musician, maybe more so

Humans have a specific measurable range of levels we can hear and frequencies we can hear that is well understood. Our dynamic range is about 90dB and can scale up and down for loud or quiet environments to a limit of 120dB where physical damage happens. We literally do not have an earhole of the right size, or enough hair cells in the cochlea, to hear anything above 20kHz. So a sample rate that goes over about 50kHz is pointless, assuming nothing is broken in your digital gear.

MP3 compression uses that to remove information that is masked. It's not perception, it happens with the actual hair cells in the ear. Before it gets to the brain. You can literally connect a wire to the auditory nerve and observe this happening. They've done it with mammals, such as owls. All mammals hear the same way.

Ya the AIFF has a higher bitrate, but masking is a real thing for humans so we can remove the masked frequencies with no loss in quality with a 320kbps MP3.

In this track you are definitely hearing a problem that is actually there, but you are attributing it to the wrong cause.

[desmond]

I'm genuinely baffled by a person who can barely tolerate a 192KHz sampling rate (but double that is better) who also says to make something sound great you should record it to a four-track cassette first...

(I spent a lot of years recording stuff to a four-track cassette, and I have plenty of proof of just how bad it sounds..! )

Don't get mixed up with technical specs, big numbers, quality and precision of sound and personal tastes in sound character, because there's a lot of different things going on there...

madtheory is right that for 95% of cases, 44/48 is fine, and plugins that alias at those rates should have oversampling options anyway - you don't need to play back all tracks at silly rates and reduce the performance of the whole system just because one plugin you want to use doesn't have good algorithms...

[ryankm]

High Resolution for me is not about high freq., but bandwith. It works. I can send more detailed wider information more easily with minimal effort to the stereo with a 384khz flac container. Also when recording it draws in more sound from the mixer. It gets a more detailed picture of what is comming for me to manipulate. There is a more powerful suck. So when mixing. I can more easily bring something up that siunded good. Also like I said you send more information to the amp. I dont have to turn the amp up as loud or vice versa the computer amp. I have a 192khz digital recording for instance. I play it over a 192khz dac to 300 dollar amplifier I can hear the reverb fade from the lead guitar amp where in the 48khz or 96khz versions you can not. And that is playing the 192khz flac file. Forget the mp3 version. then it becomes garbage. Things dont translate over and even on my bluetooth speaker you can hear distortion. ugly distortion... ogg is the same way, but they figured out a way to make the distortion sound good.

ive never had to buy software either.

You have to record good music to make tape sound good, but if you like warm tones tape is still king. And 384khz flac of a tape 4 track cassette sounds better than any straight digital. I mean there are some interesting aspects in this track that you can here with the aiff that wouldnt come through with the same level of detail that a 4 track cassette would. But the mp3 doesnt translate this detail and ofbhe is making mp3's than he'd be better off with tape.