Hi Bapho! I like when you write down your ideas/thoughts and we can read them in the screen to have an overall idea of everything and take notes exactly of the thing you teach (you used to present powerpoint/notepads/something). Please, if you can, take this in consideration for later episodes. Thank you Your biggest fan/student from the Caribbean
Totally. I watched this series again while on holiday, but I feel like I needed to take notes in order to absorb it better. My own laziness for not having a pad and pen in hand of course lol, but it'd be an amazing bonus (that i'd happily give a $ donation for) if all the info in the CTZ series was in a handy PDF with all the key points laid out.
@@djvoid1 Baphy has a written guide linked in the description, of the Ctz. I mean; I allready take notes; but, when Baphy stablishes in written form in the video, the main ideas that she is going to be adressing, its easier, and she points his arguments precisely.
\Thanks Baph, I just did an instabuy again at Modalics : )). That Interface won me over in less then a second. Great insights in to loudness stuff again. I got 2 products for around 80, so that's great deal imho.
Hi Baph, i've been curious about the comment in the PDF version of Clip to Zero that stated that you're no longer using spectral clippers and that you weren't going into why in that PDF. Any chance of a future video explaining why they fell out of favor for you?
Hi Wojciech! Beat Scholar also comes with a Standalone version and a built-in sampler. So you don't need any other program to start making beats with it.
genuinely interested: why is loudness prioritised so much? I never considered overall loudness as a compositional and stylistic choice - moreso things like dynamics, with loudness being more associated with distribution of the music rather than its content. Why is "loud" a stylistic choice? No hate, I'm genuinely interested and wanna understand.
Because electronic music still hasn't and probably never will end the loudness war. Your tracks need to be at a competitive loudness if you want your stuff played in DJ sets. I agree 100 percent that the musical content is more important though.
@@entity9588 ahhh the endless loudness war. I’ve seen far too many great tracks butchered in favour of increasing loudness. Sad that it’s a “be loud or go home” scenario. I guess it can be an interesting creative limitation in some cases. ‘’\_:)_/‘’
The original reason for "loudness wars" was radio airplay back in the day (50s, 60s). Humans are hard wired to think louder and brighter "sounds better" than something less loud and less bright. If a label wanted an artist to really stand out on the airwaves, they pushed their engineer(s) to make the track a little louder than everyone else. In recent times, the radio broadcasters all normalize per Euro and North American standards, and most of the major streaming platforms normalize. So the war is over, right? Except no, plenty of songs can still "sound louder" (and "brighter") than others even at normalized LUFS. Because engineers and producers have learned a lot of arrangement and sound design and mixing tricks since the 50s and 60s. But "sounding louder" isn't the real driver any more. Instead, the REAL driver is due to how most of our audience consumes music and listens to music. In the 60s and 70s, we listened to entire albums on really good home component systems and really large speakers (usually with woofer, midrange, and tweeters). And we did this in quiet living rooms and dens. But now? We listen _everywhere_ , and we listen on really small speakers. And there is a ton of ambient noise competing with the music itself. In a car: wind noise, engine noise, road noise. In restaurants and gyms: background conversation and kitchen/machine noises. Commuting on trains, walking down noisy streets. Even an office environment has HVAC wind noise and conversations all around you. Even at home, you're not listening on big powerful component systems and huge speakers. You're listening on _tiny_ speakers with maybe only one driver element. So all this ambient noise and bad playback systems mean that you cannot -hear- quieter sounds in a dynamic mix. Consumers themselves prefer fairly low-dynamic mixes so that _all_ the musical elements are _audible_ . And then of course on the live performance front for DJs, you simply have to be as "loud" as everyone else, or you'll mix out of some other artist's songs into one of your songs, and your song will "feel" wimpy and dark and thin and lifeless by comparison. Contrary to what Dan Worrall might say, it's not really an option to just turn up the channel trim on a DJ mixer, because in most club and festival environments a very underpowered system (for the space) is being pushed to its limits already, and there's no headroom left for you to simply "turn your quieter songs up".
@@Baphometrix a very thorough explanation thank you! As someone who loves detail laden music it pains me to hear it compressed to hell, but also it’s annoying when the details don’t pop out properly. My old mixes used to be incredibly dynamic - which worked for the systems I was hearing them on - but moving them to commercial devices made all the details disappear. It’s a careful balancing act and I appreciate the insight!
@@redeveredev In the DJ world, I think most of us (all of us?) would LOVE for everyone to start using a wider dynamic range. But... IMO it will never happen. Even if you could get every single DJ to agree to start producing music at -9 LUFS or -11 LUFS (integrated, across the span of your loudest drop sections), there's still the problem of all the modern club/festival music made up until this point. You'd be playing three songs from 2023 all nice and clean and dynamic, and then you'd mix into a banger from 2018 through 2022 and that banger would hit like a truck! And then the next 2023 song you mix into will sound dead and lifeless by comparison. You really hear the differences in spectral density when you are mixing two songs together or doing hard drop cuts from one song to the next. There's no small gap of silence to reset the listeners' ears and brains.
@@Baphometrix Yes something like Drum Sequencer RR would do nicely, but I just want the sequencer in a vst so I can pop it in front of Drum Machine in Bitwig. It would be even cooler if Bitwig made a native sequencer device. Sure I can put in the work using midi clips, ect and get more or less the same outcome but a simple visual approach in an easy to use contained/stand alone device is highly preferred on my end.
This is borderline fraudulent behavior. So far we have been paying under the premise that the payment would cover all software updates and they ought to announce before hand if they wish to change said payment plan.
@@comrade8600 I think he's talking about the Bitwig fiasco a few months back where they tried offering their spectral suite as a separate paid add-on when it was released, which upset a lot of people. To their credit they pretty quickly ended up making it available to all users and offered either a license extension or a refund to those who did buy it.
My hand is so fuckin cramped from how dense all of these lessons were. This was phenomenal & cleared so much stuff up. Thank you!!!!!!!! I love you
Hi Bapho! I like when you write down your ideas/thoughts and we can read them in the screen to have an overall idea of everything and take notes exactly of the thing you teach (you used to present powerpoint/notepads/something). Please, if you can, take this in consideration for later episodes.
Thank you
Your biggest fan/student from the Caribbean
Totally. I watched this series again while on holiday, but I feel like I needed to take notes in order to absorb it better. My own laziness for not having a pad and pen in hand of course lol, but it'd be an amazing bonus (that i'd happily give a $ donation for) if all the info in the CTZ series was in a handy PDF with all the key points laid out.
@@djvoid1 Baphy has a written guide linked in the description, of the Ctz.
I mean; I allready take notes;
but, when Baphy stablishes in written form in the video, the main ideas that she is going to be adressing, its easier, and she points his arguments precisely.
@@809rdl I completely missed that, thank you!
@@djvoid1 Good luck/lufs!
This is awesome! 💣💥
Love this. "Linearizing" drums is an excellent technique. But too many sounds can make you dizzy, so there is a balance.
\Thanks Baph, I just did an instabuy again at Modalics : )). That Interface won me over in less then a second. Great insights in to loudness stuff again. I got 2 products for around 80, so that's great deal imho.
you should make a video about layering some time, would really love to hear some CTZ specific advice on that
Thank You !!! be well my friend
Hi Baph, i've been curious about the comment in the PDF version of Clip to Zero that stated that you're no longer using spectral clippers and that you weren't going into why in that PDF. Any chance of a future video explaining why they fell out of favor for you?
do you mean like multiband clippers? Why would you want to?
@@SenfSenferson more like Newfangled Saturate, which Baph previously recommended
Thanks. Looks good, time for a play.
Big up!
Does Beat Scholar have to work with any other program? He interested me a lot.
Hi Wojciech! Beat Scholar also comes with a Standalone version and a built-in sampler. So you don't need any other program to start making beats with it.
Sounds like 3 sneakers in a dryer.
😆
😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Lol
genuinely interested: why is loudness prioritised so much? I never considered overall loudness as a compositional and stylistic choice - moreso things like dynamics, with loudness being more associated with distribution of the music rather than its content. Why is "loud" a stylistic choice? No hate, I'm genuinely interested and wanna understand.
Because electronic music still hasn't and probably never will end the loudness war. Your tracks need to be at a competitive loudness if you want your stuff played in DJ sets. I agree 100 percent that the musical content is more important though.
@@entity9588 ahhh the endless loudness war. I’ve seen far too many great tracks butchered in favour of increasing loudness. Sad that it’s a “be loud or go home” scenario. I guess it can be an interesting creative limitation in some cases. ‘’\_:)_/‘’
The original reason for "loudness wars" was radio airplay back in the day (50s, 60s). Humans are hard wired to think louder and brighter "sounds better" than something less loud and less bright. If a label wanted an artist to really stand out on the airwaves, they pushed their engineer(s) to make the track a little louder than everyone else.
In recent times, the radio broadcasters all normalize per Euro and North American standards, and most of the major streaming platforms normalize. So the war is over, right? Except no, plenty of songs can still "sound louder" (and "brighter") than others even at normalized LUFS. Because engineers and producers have learned a lot of arrangement and sound design and mixing tricks since the 50s and 60s.
But "sounding louder" isn't the real driver any more. Instead, the REAL driver is due to how most of our audience consumes music and listens to music. In the 60s and 70s, we listened to entire albums on really good home component systems and really large speakers (usually with woofer, midrange, and tweeters). And we did this in quiet living rooms and dens.
But now? We listen _everywhere_ , and we listen on really small speakers. And there is a ton of ambient noise competing with the music itself. In a car: wind noise, engine noise, road noise. In restaurants and gyms: background conversation and kitchen/machine noises. Commuting on trains, walking down noisy streets. Even an office environment has HVAC wind noise and conversations all around you. Even at home, you're not listening on big powerful component systems and huge speakers. You're listening on _tiny_ speakers with maybe only one driver element.
So all this ambient noise and bad playback systems mean that you cannot -hear- quieter sounds in a dynamic mix. Consumers themselves prefer fairly low-dynamic mixes so that _all_ the musical elements are _audible_ .
And then of course on the live performance front for DJs, you simply have to be as "loud" as everyone else, or you'll mix out of some other artist's songs into one of your songs, and your song will "feel" wimpy and dark and thin and lifeless by comparison. Contrary to what Dan Worrall might say, it's not really an option to just turn up the channel trim on a DJ mixer, because in most club and festival environments a very underpowered system (for the space) is being pushed to its limits already, and there's no headroom left for you to simply "turn your quieter songs up".
@@Baphometrix a very thorough explanation thank you! As someone who loves detail laden music it pains me to hear it compressed to hell, but also it’s annoying when the details don’t pop out properly. My old mixes used to be incredibly dynamic - which worked for the systems I was hearing them on - but moving them to commercial devices made all the details disappear. It’s a careful balancing act and I appreciate the insight!
@@redeveredev In the DJ world, I think most of us (all of us?) would LOVE for everyone to start using a wider dynamic range. But... IMO it will never happen. Even if you could get every single DJ to agree to start producing music at -9 LUFS or -11 LUFS (integrated, across the span of your loudest drop sections), there's still the problem of all the modern club/festival music made up until this point. You'd be playing three songs from 2023 all nice and clean and dynamic, and then you'd mix into a banger from 2018 through 2022 and that banger would hit like a truck! And then the next 2023 song you mix into will sound dead and lifeless by comparison. You really hear the differences in spectral density when you are mixing two songs together or doing hard drop cuts from one song to the next. There's no small gap of silence to reset the listeners' ears and brains.
It's cool but honestly I just want someone to take the sequencer in FXpansion Tremor, improve on it and make it a plugin. I'd buy that.
It's called the "Drum Sequencer" player device in Reason Rack 😉. Or any MIDI clip in Bitwig Studio 😉.
@@Baphometrix Yes something like Drum Sequencer RR would do nicely, but I just want the sequencer in a vst so I can pop it in front of Drum Machine in Bitwig. It would be even cooler if Bitwig made a native sequencer device.
Sure I can put in the work using midi clips, ect and get more or less the same outcome but a simple visual approach in an easy to use contained/stand alone device is highly preferred on my end.
this is useful for FL since its shit with poly
💪🏿💪🏿💪🏿
This is borderline fraudulent behavior. So far we have been paying under the premise that the payment would cover all software updates and they ought to announce before hand if they wish to change said payment plan.
what happened?
@@comrade8600 I think he's talking about the Bitwig fiasco a few months back where they tried offering their spectral suite as a separate paid add-on when it was released, which upset a lot of people. To their credit they pretty quickly ended up making it available to all users and offered either a license extension or a refund to those who did buy it.
@@Ostinat0 oh right! Thanks for clarifying. I read it as best scholar was being shady.
Old news