Dude, with this answer you just totally negated what you stated as your point "2" which I quoted and argued against.Ninja-Matic wrote:Everyone learns what they learn by research or being taught by someone else. Research can simply mean trial and error. There are basic rules to adhere to when considering audio fidelity and dynamic range.Da hand wrote:Well, if you are using the line "it is correct because x so and so showed me / does it" as your only reply, then it seems like you do not understand the tools yourself very well. And I guess the "basement DJ" comment was an attempt to ruffle our feathers a bit?
If you are using an external mixer - like Deadmau5 does (and like everyone should) - then there is no reason to be using compressors and limiters on the master channel of your software. Compressing and limiting songs that are already compressed and limited very hard will only serve to degrade your sound. And while you may use the compressor and limiter to catch the peaks caused by your effects (to not go beyond 0dbfs), it is far better to leave yourself some headroom on the software's master channel instead and simply raise the volume on your external mixer.
Oh but there ARE reasons to use compressors and limiters - I compose my sets live on stage - also - you need to consider that not every song is mastered for every sound system at every club you play in - this is why we do something called "sound checks" before shows. So you can get peak performance and fidelity based on the setup of the particular venue you decide to play at.
I was always under the impression that headroom is perfectly acceptable. This is not news to me.
Most venues I play at will have some type of sound engineer on hand and my feed is usually well below 0db - the compression and limiting are left to the venue's engineer.
It is different everywhere I go - but as stated - there are ways to enhance the audio to give it a smoother polish depending on the venue and their sound system. "PLUG AND PLAY" has never been my way to go.
I do break down and master individual instruments/percussion ahead of time to limit CPU usage during live shows - but there is a mild bit of processing still done with plugins that emulate the more CPU-intensive Waves that I use in my home studio.
What REALLY sucks - is that simply moving from studio to real-world sound systems - you're losing a LOT of fidelity right there. A lot of the hard work that goes into perfecting every track is lost during the transition from studio to car stereo, club, home systems, etc. None of those systems are designed to reproduce audio like proper studio monitors.
Simply bouncing to 44.1/16 is a major hit in fidelity.
If there is a way to help increase the overall quality during live performances - then I'll use it - whether I found a trick myself or was taught a trick by someone else.
The funny thing is - you're all giving your own ideas on what YOU think others should do - but then saying that just because XYZ works for someone else means you suck because you have no brain of your own.
Irony != awesomeness.
I am all for learning from others, but it is to "learn" why they do it and not simply to copy without knowing why. A statement saying "do it simply because person x does it" with no further explanation as to why this person x does it, implies copying and not learning. In my example, I gave reasons for my way of thinking.
As to fidelity, you only loose as much as you allow to be lost. If you are playing a Live set - your own tracks, then it is the limits that you set that will determine the quality of what comes out on the sound system - especially when playing on a very good sound system. What is preventing you from playing the files / projects at their peak quality - quality of gear? time? space?