Official Discussion Thread (Ghost Edit)

[LFP]

Well the idea is pretty cool, just don't forget to remind people about the deadline so they actually submit instead of forgetting about it, I feel like that's a far too common problem many comp albums run into.

[FLAOFEI]

So, just give up. I can't give up because the ones who signed up will think I hustled them.

A very good teacher once told me "Work smarter, not harder". He meant that as "Plan your time, and your effort. Prioritise! Work effectively! Stop procrastinating and get on with it!".

Another wise man (dad) once (or twice) told me "There is no such thing as raising the priority of something. There is only lowering the priority of other things.". One should always keep that in mind when starting new projects.

I do want to point out though that walking away from a project isn't necessaries giving up. If you aren't ready to put in the effort necessary, then continuing with a project won't make anybody happy. Although if ppl expect a label and you don't give them a label... You'r gonna have to prioritise that for yourself.
Either way, be honest to your self. If you want to do this, plz continue, but if you don't really feel like doing it, then don't.

I also want to point out that I'm not a hippie shouting about doing exactly what you want whenever you want. That would be silly. There are certain times you have to do certain things, whether you want to or not. I can't say this is one of them though.

[Freewave]

I think the word "Failure" likes me. I can't get my label right and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Not many people want to be in any of my compilation albums. WHY GOD HATES ME?!?!

Sometimes you just need to look at what a good fit for you is. Very few people are qualified to run event albums WELL and practically no one has run a Brony Music Label successfully either. The bigger reason i think is why you think you needed to do both and did you follow any of the guidelines I've spelled out in the past. It's not god hating you its likely poor planning and setting a goal that you can't feasibly reach. Sorry to say that...

If it makes you feel any better I'm an admin at mlr, run a few blogs, and have a healthy subscriber count and I have not attempted an event album on my own so far or a music label because there's a huge chance both would fail, even if i gave them my all. I'm also over twice your age, and maturity and experience have to be part of the equation. Most of the things I've done and planned in this community routinely miss my expectations of what i was aiming for and asking for people to assist in what you want to do is always an exercise in disappointment. Success is not the norm, it is the exception.

[ExoBassTix]

Also yesterday I had an audition at a Producer academy yesterday. Well that was one amazing experience. Normally they don't allow people under 18, but they do have exceptions for very talented, passionate underage people. That dude who showed me around in that small studio space (who was the only one there; very cool lad too) said he didn't have any doubt about me fitting on the academy :D

His story did help me see the difference between producing and producing. You have producers like Afrojack, Armin van Buuren, etc. but you also have producers like "that dude who made Katy Perry's Dark Horse"; the studio dudes so to say. You get the difference. The academy I went to yesterday trains you towards the latter kind of producer, the "traditional producer." I'm gonna see if I can have a looksee at another academy who trains you to become the former kind of producer, a "modern producer."

But seriously though. If I were just gonna take this 2-year course of becoming a traditional producer, I'd
1) not have to worry about not getting another delay for obligatory education (which I need now to attend the CCL and not go to school);
2) not even be 18 yet and get a certificate that says I'm perfectly able to run a studio and support bands and singers alike. And if that were to happen, it'd certainly be a lot of yes good. Normaly people (in general) start their professional training at around the age of 18-21. I'd be done already with certificate et al :D

So I just officially heard that I'M DEFINITELY GONNA DO THIS COURSE NEXT SCHOOL YEAR :D
HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[Stuntddude]

Freewave, I feel like that very quickly turned from an explanation of what he may be doing wrong, to an outlet for venting your personal frustrations about life.

[Freewave]

Freewave, I feel like that very quickly turned from an explanation of what he may be doing wrong, to an outlet for venting your personal frustrations about life.

I disagree and I think you're missing my point. A person shouldn't start event album or music labels without a plan in mind or the ability to carry them out and frankly he did. Am I frustrated with some of the things I try to do myself in this community? Absolutely, because it's easy for you to miss what you aim for and to count on people who sadly don't follow through when it's time to work. That's my advice, you can tl;dr or you can listen.

[Bronies Are Cool]

Freewave, I feel like that very quickly turned from an explanation of what he may be doing wrong, to an outlet for venting your personal frustrations about life.

Regardless of if he was or wasn't, what he said is still very relevant to what he is responding to. Freewave is fine here.

[ph00tbag]

Freewave, I feel like that very quickly turned from an explanation of what he may be doing wrong, to an outlet for venting your personal frustrations about life.

What Freewave is getting at is really what a lot of successful people will reiterate. You will always fail more often than you will succeed. The key to success is not being afraid to fail, over and over again.

[Injustrial]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5heYzpwxus

My first live gig! This was done at a local music festival called LadehammerFestivalen, and outdoor festival dedicated to small local acts and new faces.

Now, as you probably noticed early on, there were some issues. Numerous ones, to be exact.

1: FEEDBACK! The stage was so small, that the speakers and monitor were pretty much right next to my mic. So much feedback in the beginning...

2: To solve the feedback problem, we decided to turn off the monitor. Only problem was: I then had no monitor. Which means I'm screaming pretty much blindly, and my vocals sound kinda spotty in some places as a direct result.

3: The sound keeps dipping in volume here and there. I have no idea why, but it might be the placement of the camera and mic.

4: The stage was so flimsy, every time we moved it would sway like a ship in storm. This led to our harddrives skipping a lot, making the music glitch out at times. My vocals can be heard stuttering as a result of the cables jiggling about. FUN!

But all things considered, I think this went well. Hope you enjoy it, I had a lot of fun up on stage that day.

[Callenby]

You will always fail more often than you will succeed. The key to success is not being afraid to fail, over and over again.

♫You got to lose to know how to win.♪

[Acsii]

So my Shure SRH750DJ's broke today... So I think I might be getting the AKG K702's :3

[Guthey]

So my Shure SRH750DJ's broke today... So I think I might be getting the AKG K702's :3

What is the difference between a pair of pretty good headphones and some pretty good speakers?

[eery]

Stereo field and real bass response.

[Viricide Filly]

Stereo + sub will always be better than a pair of restricting headphones that only try and give you a virtual experience of a real stereo.

[Guthey]

Stereo field and real bass response.

Looks like I have some reading to do.

[eery]

As I understand it anyways, and anybody feel free to correct me on any of this, lower frequencies need a larger space to travel. This obviously doesn't work in the short distance between your ears and the headphones. It's just an emulation of bass (Granted, for what it is, its usually still pretty well done, a feat of engineering and so on). This is also the reason that when you put your headphones down, they sound hi-passed.

With stereofield, its also because of distance from the ears to the speakers. Plus, the right ear is able to hear the left speaker and vice versa. This makes the ear able to pick up way more things going on, like in relation. Phasers for instance will sound very different on headphones or speakers.

probably wise to still read up on this stuff though, as I'm not even sure if I'm right :P

[Ricky Denzel]

I'm sorry for making a douche move, but I need participants to join in on my compilation album
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9838

[FLAOFEI]

Stereo + sub will always be better than a pair of restricting headphones that only try and give you a virtual experience of a real stereo.

About all this + sub... why have a separate sub? I never got the point of it, why not just get a stereo with bass speakers? I get that it saves both money and space... but what about paned bass? I know people say you can't tell the direction, but I disagree. You hear it, just not as clearly as with high pitched sounds...

As I understand it anyways, and anybody feel free to correct me on any of this, lower frequencies need a larger space to travel. This obviously doesn't work in the short distance between your ears and the headphones. It's just an emulation of bass (Granted, for what it is, its usually still pretty well done, a feat of engineering and so on). This is also the reason that when you put your headphones down, they sound hi-passed.

Here comes a physics lesson a la Flao. (I'm a huge physics nerd)

I see no reason why the bass in headphones wouldn't be the same as speakers, exept that it's a lot easier to make it louder in headphones.
Low frequency waves are less directional than high frequency waves, therefor they spread out fast, and their energy is spread out a lot. Since headphones are so close to your ears the sound reaches your ears before it loses a lot of energy. The reason headphones sound highpased when they are off is because the same reason, the bass difuses out and by the time it reaches your ears it's inaudible.
Secondly, headphones are enclosed, so they can trap pressure inside them. What we precive as sound is changes in air pressure over time, high frequencies are fast changes, and low frequencies are slower. Bass has bery long wavelengths, 20 Hz has 17m waves, so the waves fill the space in the headphones and then just raise the pressure. Then again, pretty much all frequencies do this... but it makes more difference for the bass since ot has a larger amplitude.
Since bass has such long wavelengths you don't need to worry about loseing stereodepth either. Since the wave is so long it wont interfear differently at the different ears.
The only downside to the bass in headphones is that you cant feel it, simply because it's to weak, and its only affecting your ears, to there is no way for hair on your arms to start vibrating :/
That's all I can think of anyway...

With the stereofield, on speakers left and right channels interfear with each other, and they do so differently at either ear since the ears have a distance between them. In headphones they never get a chance to interact, basicly the raw signals are fed straight into your ears. Think of the sound as waves with certain wavelengths for each frequency, now think of playing a sinewave at 442Hz, that's A5 in cocnert tuning (i think), through both speakers. With the speed of sound being about 340m/s and a frequency of 442Hz you get a wavelength of about 80 cm. Assuming someones head was 20 cm wide her left ear might be experienceing constructive interferance where peaks of the same polarity meet eachother and create peaks with the combined amplitude of both waves, while the other ear experiences destructive interferance where peaks of oposite polarity meet and cancel each other out. So theoreticly the left ear would hear a sound with double the amplitude while the right would hear nothing. That then changes as soon as you move your head in the slightest though, and since you never realy just plau one frequency, and even if you did, reflevtions would make sure you always hear something. The example was just to explain interferance, but the it assumes stuff like 2 identical sound sources, no reflections whatsoever, and a bunch of other stuff that would never happen in reality. In reality sounds still interfear, but with room reflections, other noises and thredimensionalinterferancepatterns, super complicated. And that's why it's so hard to make natural sounding headphones.

My personal opinion for headphones vs speakers is that headphones work just fine. They block outside noise, they have loud bass (even thouh you cant feel it ) and they basicly sennd the signal straight from the computer to your brain. Aditionaly a lot of listening is done on headphones, so why not make it sound the way you want on headphones?
that being sain, Id kill for a set of good, loud studio monitors. But that's mostly the same reasons as why I want hardware synths rather than vsts :/

[Acsii]

Stereo + sub will always be better than a pair of restricting headphones that only try and give you a virtual experience of a real stereo.

Actually headphones will give a truer representation of the stereo field/image as the two sides are isolated from each other. Whereas with speakers you pickup signal from both speakers with giving you false stereo. I for one use both as it is kind of required in my job, as I need to check for mic phasing problems but also need to make sure the sound is good with the liveliness of a room. This is why the studio I work at has a live end dead end control room, for that reason. So yea my opinion is if you can get a pair of good monitors and a pair of good reference headphones.

[Acsii]

Stereo + sub will always be better than a pair of restricting headphones that only try and give you a virtual experience of a real stereo.

About all this + sub... why have a separate sub? I never got the point of it, why not just get a stereo with bass speakers? I get that it saves both money and space... but what about paned bass? I know people say you can't tell the direction, but I disagree. You hear it, just not as clearly as with high pitched sounds...

As I understand it anyways, and anybody feel free to correct me on any of this, lower frequencies need a larger space to travel. This obviously doesn't work in the short distance between your ears and the headphones. It's just an emulation of bass (Granted, for what it is, its usually still pretty well done, a feat of engineering and so on). This is also the reason that when you put your headphones down, they sound hi-passed.

Here comes a physics lesson a la Flao. (I'm a huge physics nerd)

I see no reason why the bass in headphones wouldn't be the same as speakers, exept that it's a lot easier to make it louder in headphones.
Low frequency waves are less directional than high frequency waves, therefor they spread out fast, and their energy is spread out a lot. Since headphones are so close to your ears the sound reaches your ears before it loses a lot of energy. The reason headphones sound highpased when they are off is because the same reason, the bass difuses out and by the time it reaches your ears it's inaudible.
Secondly, headphones are enclosed, so they can trap pressure inside them. What we precive as sound is changes in air pressure over time, high frequencies are fast changes, and low frequencies are slower. Bass has bery long wavelengths, 20 Hz has 17m waves, so the waves fill the space in the headphones and then just raise the pressure. Then again, pretty much all frequencies do this... but it makes more difference for the bass since ot has a larger amplitude.
Since bass has such long wavelengths you don't need to worry about loseing stereodepth either. Since the wave is so long it wont interfear differently at the different ears.
The only downside to the bass in headphones is that you cant feel it, simply because it's to weak, and its only affecting your ears, to there is no way for hair on your arms to start vibrating :/
That's all I can think of anyway...

With the stereofield, on speakers left and right channels interfear with each other, and they do so differently at either ear since the ears have a distance between them. In headphones they never get a chance to interact, basicly the raw signals are fed straight into your ears. Think of the sound as waves with certain wavelengths for each frequency, now think of playing a sinewave at 442Hz, that's A5 in cocnert tuning (i think), through both speakers. With the speed of sound being about 340m/s and a frequency of 442Hz you get a wavelength of about 80 cm. Assuming someones head was 20 cm wide her left ear might be experienceing constructive interferance where peaks of the same polarity meet eachother and create peaks with the combined amplitude of both waves, while the other ear experiences destructive interferance where peaks of oposite polarity meet and cancel each other out. So theoreticly the left ear would hear a sound with double the amplitude while the right would hear nothing. That then changes as soon as you move your head in the slightest though, and since you never realy just plau one frequency, and even if you did, reflevtions would make sure you always hear something. The example was just to explain interferance, but the it assumes stuff like 2 identical sound sources, no reflections whatsoever, and a bunch of other stuff that would never happen in reality. In reality sounds still interfear, but with room reflections, other noises and thredimensionalinterferancepatterns, super complicated. And that's why it's so hard to make natural sounding headphones.

My personal opinion for headphones vs speakers is that headphones work just fine. They block outside noise, they have loud bass (even thouh you cant feel it ) and they basicly sennd the signal straight from the computer to your brain. Aditionaly a lot of listening is done on headphones, so why not make it sound the way you want on headphones?
that being sain, Id kill for a set of good, loud studio monitors. But that's mostly the same reasons as why I want hardware synths rather than vsts :/

Sub frequencies never technically pan completely, this is due to their large wave length.

[S.P.P]

As I understand it anyways, and anybody feel free to correct me on any of this, lower frequencies need a larger space to travel. This obviously doesn't work in the short distance between your ears and the headphones. It's just an emulation of bass (Granted, for what it is, its usually still pretty well done, a feat of engineering and so on). This is also the reason that when you put your headphones down, they sound hi-passed.

It's also due to the fact that monitors are bigger than headphones. The drivers in headphones simply struggle to move fast enough to provide bass response compared to speaker cones.

[eery]

As I understand it anyways, and anybody feel free to correct me on any of this, lower frequencies need a larger space to travel. This obviously doesn't work in the short distance between your ears and the headphones. It's just an emulation of bass (Granted, for what it is, its usually still pretty well done, a feat of engineering and so on). This is also the reason that when you put your headphones down, they sound hi-passed.

Here comes a physics lesson a la Flao. (I'm a huge physics nerd)

I see no reason why the bass in headphones wouldn't be the same as speakers, exept that it's a lot easier to make it louder in headphones.
Low frequency waves are less directional than high frequency waves, therefor they spread out fast, and their energy is spread out a lot. Since headphones are so close to your ears the sound reaches your ears before it loses a lot of energy. The reason headphones sound highpased when they are off is because the same reason, the bass difuses out and by the time it reaches your ears it's inaudible.
Secondly, headphones are enclosed, so they can trap pressure inside them. What we precive as sound is changes in air pressure over time, high frequencies are fast changes, and low frequencies are slower. Bass has bery long wavelengths, 20 Hz has 17m waves, so the waves fill the space in the headphones and then just raise the pressure. Then again, pretty much all frequencies do this... but it makes more difference for the bass since ot has a larger amplitude.
Since bass has such long wavelengths you don't need to worry about loseing stereodepth either. Since the wave is so long it wont interfear differently at the different ears.
The only downside to the bass in headphones is that you cant feel it, simply because it's to weak, and its only affecting your ears, to there is no way for hair on your arms to start vibrating :/
That's all I can think of anyway...

With the stereofield, on speakers left and right channels interfear with each other, and they do so differently at either ear since the ears have a distance between them. In headphones they never get a chance to interact, basicly the raw signals are fed straight into your ears. Think of the sound as waves with certain wavelengths for each frequency, now think of playing a sinewave at 442Hz, that's A5 in cocnert tuning (i think), through both speakers. With the speed of sound being about 340m/s and a frequency of 442Hz you get a wavelength of about 80 cm. Assuming someones head was 20 cm wide her left ear might be experienceing constructive interferance where peaks of the same polarity meet eachother and create peaks with the combined amplitude of both waves, while the other ear experiences destructive interferance where peaks of oposite polarity meet and cancel each other out. So theoreticly the left ear would hear a sound with double the amplitude while the right would hear nothing. That then changes as soon as you move your head in the slightest though, and since you never realy just plau one frequency, and even if you did, reflevtions would make sure you always hear something. The example was just to explain interferance, but the it assumes stuff like 2 identical sound sources, no reflections whatsoever, and a bunch of other stuff that would never happen in reality. In reality sounds still interfear, but with room reflections, other noises and thredimensionalinterferancepatterns, super complicated. And that's why it's so hard to make natural sounding headphones.

My personal opinion for headphones vs speakers is that headphones work just fine. They block outside noise, they have loud bass (even thouh you cant feel it :cry: ) and they basicly sennd the signal straight from the computer to your brain. Aditionaly a lot of listening is done on headphones, so why not make it sound the way you want on headphones?
that being sain, Id kill for a set of good, loud studio monitors. But that's mostly the same reasons as why I want hardware synths rather than vsts :/

Cool stuff! Thanks for sharing!

[Stuntddude]

I'm not missing the point at all. I see what you were saying in the first part of your post and I agree. But I think once you gets into grand statements like this is just how life is and people are fundamentally disappointing, it's no longer being specifically helpful and is more just venting.

Which is fair enough anyways, and I don't meant to imply you shouldn't have posted it.

[Stuntddude]

It's also due to the fact that monitors are bigger than headphones. The drivers in headphones simply struggle to move fast enough to provide bass response compared to speaker cones.

Huh? As I understand it, this isn't quite the problem - the drivers have to move far, far faster to recreate higher frequencies than to recreate lower frequencies. AFAIK the problem comes from the fact that, in short, it's very difficult to create one driver that will recreate the whole frequency spectrum of hearing because of a number of limiting factors. In open speakers, this is generally solved by having multiple separate drivers for different frequency bands (e.g. you might have a tweeter for higher frequencies, a whatever-you-call-it for midrange, and a subwoofer for bass). In headphones, as FLAOFEI mentioned, it takes less energy to make bass sound loud, so the problem generally isn't as bad, but because you have very limited space to work in designing headphones (as opposed to being able to get away with massive several-kilogram boxes), in cases where you do need multiple drivers in headphones for whatever reason, it's more difficult to fit them in and make it work.

If anyone knows something I got wrong there, please correct me.

As for my two cents... obviously you should try to make your music sound good on all kinds of devices, but I'd have to say I think it's much more harmful to mix only on speakers than it is to mix only on headphones. If you mix for headphones, generally the worst you're going to get in speakers is a song that sounds relatively center-panned with maybe some phasing issues. But a lot of people who mix exclusively on speakers have an obnoxious habit of panning major song elements hard to the left or hard to the right, which may sound fine on open speakers, but is really, really uncomfortable on headphones! It's like knowing that a fly is hovering an inch away from your ear because you can hear it in one ear but not the other. I've too often had to stop listening to a piece of music altogether because it was just too uncomfortable with the panning giving me that fly-in-the-ear sensation.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

That makes me happy ^.^

In other news, the flat complex I live in got broken into a couple days back. They didn't get into my flat and I'm fine but it's still kinda concerning, it's kinda easy to forget that Brisbane is way less safe than my hometown is :p