turn down the compressor thanks

>>68623163
fuck off candy claws is golden

listen to the dual mono instrumentals

>>68623271
the album is pretty good, but i can't stand the production

>>68623372
this

It's fucked

>>68623372
There is something about the production that's a bit inaccessible, but I think it evokes a unique mood. I wouldn't mind a remaster that made it more crisp like "nostalgia for infinity"

Top tracks: into the deep time, fell in love at the water, transitional bird

The chorus of transitional bird is almost like a drop it is perfect

Isn't it supposed to be lofi? What's the issue?

>>68623299
this, but play them in mono
>>68623372
correct

>>68623163
>>68623372
>>68623391
This people will defence other overcompressed music that is "approved" by preferable source, I guarantee that.
Plebs.

File: BzdYOT4.png (327KB, 443x750px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 443x750px

>>68623463

>>68623372
>tfw don't even know what people refer to as "production"
Are you talking about the muddy sound or what? I mean it's like a shoegaze album, it's supposed to sound that way

Check out the dual mono instrumental version then

>>68623372
it's because it's super compressed and is a constant wall of noise with bright high end. too much reverb as well

>>68623530
Production refers to the way the sound is mixed; which includes things like volume levels, over/under compression, oddly balanced frequencies, etc.

And yes, shoegaze is typically a wall of noise style of music, but the compression on this really takes away any volume dynamics. Plus as another anon pointed out, there's lots of reverb which causes frequency clashing, which is that muddy sound.

>>68624619
you dont understand what a producer is then. producer oversees the completion and quality of a release, if you have an issue with compression,frequencies and how its mixed; thats all done by the mixing engineer

File: 189.jpg (556KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 2448x3264px

>>68624619
>the compression on this really takes away any volume dynamics

fool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound

File: 137.jpg (31KB, 368x960px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 368x960px

>>68624619
and there are dynamics on the album incidentally you just suck at analyzing

>>68625295
>>68625350
Not the guy you're replying to but the album's dynamic range is extremely limited. It seems like it was completely brickwalled at the mastering stage to the point where you can actually hear the compressor kicking in at certain points on songs. And incidentally, a wall of sound production style doesn't excuse plain bad mastering.
Compare it to the mono instrumentals and you'll hear how much dynamic range has been lost during that process.

>>68625350
>I don't understand what compression is

>>68624985
That's a pretty rockist conception, and even in your Rolling Stone view of the recording process, the producer oversees the work of the engineers.

And he is right, that's what production is.

DUDE IT SOUND LIKE SHIT ON PURPOSE LMAO

>ITT people that either can't take or 'get' what is a conscious choice in mixing.

>>68626895
Fucking this. Loveless has a wall of sound going on at all times but is beautifully produced and retains dynamic range. Ceres just has shit production.

>>68626992
It's mixed fine, but it's not mastered well, but whatever it's likely their own decision to master it that way and it probably works out sounding fine.

>>68627058
It doesn't though. It sounds bad and too loud. It can be painful hearing it sometimes. Next you're gonna tell me Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory are produced/mixed/mastered properly.

>>68627107
>Next you're gonna tell me Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory are produced/mixed/mastered properly.

It's not about whether it's 'proper' it's about whether or not the artist wanted it to sound that way.

I'd rather use Raw Power as an instance of that, it's mastered 'incorrectly' but it fits the style of music.

>>68626895
>confusing mixing and mastering
>>68627058
>thinks artists have input in mastering

File: 6.jpg (56KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 720x960px

>>68625619
no i do, the issue here is refusal to accept what >>68626895 was on about.

death magnetic and various RHCP albums are examples of terrible mastering. bat out of hell by meaf loaf has terrible mastering. this however isn't super narrow and linear rock music, which is what dipshit mcgee over >>68627107 here doesn't seem to get.

>>68627222
>thinks artists have input in mastering
What kind of artist are you if you don't?

I know plenty of artists that do.

>>68625619
You're right, you don't

>>68627260
>I know plenty of artists that do.
Name them
>What kind of artist are you if you don't?
Most artists don't really care/understand, beyond "make it louder" or "here label, we finished producing it, get it mastered"

>>68624985
the way i see it, the producer makes it sound a certain way. the mixing engineer just makes it sound good.

>>68627234
>this however isn't super narrow and linear rock music, which is what dipshit mcgee over >>68627107 here doesn't seem to get.
Yes precisely, it's not meant to have wide dynamics in the first place.

>>68627107
>Next you're gonna tell me Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory are produced/mixed/mastered properly.
It sounds fine. Have you never seen Oasis live?

>>68627284
It's like you're telling me you can't hear too much compression in the album. So you're retarded.

>>68627285
>Most artists don't really care/understand, beyond "make it louder" or "here label, we finished producing it, get it mastered"
Then they are not much of producers, or don't care very much about the final product.

>>68627390
Which is why I said there's little artist input.

Please keep up

>>68623163
it's nearly brickwall compressed, yes, but I think it works in the context of the music as a stylistic element

File: 16.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>68627387
see
>>68625295

File: Screenshot 2016-10-23 10.23.01.png (46KB, 957x455px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 957x455px

>>68625295
>>68627465
>Wall Of Sound production can't have dynamic range!
nice try

>>68627465
>fanboy detected
Either it sounds brickwalled or it doesn't you fucking catposting cringehomo. OP is right.

>>68627532
>Wall Of Sound production can't have dynamic range!
That isn't the point.

File: 27.jpg (387KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1600x1200px

>>68627532
it can, obviously
but this is candy claws, not the beach boys

>>68627543
don't yell at me cuz you don't want to learn
die!

>>68627591
>it can, obviously
>but this is candy claws, not the beach boys
So it's a fault of their artistry then.

>>68627588
Justifying poor mastering by saying it's just a Wall of Sound production?

Yes of course that's the point he's making.

>>68627310
>>68627234
Their live sound is irrelevant. Oasis wall of sound is messy and poorly executed. What you're saying is the wall of sound in Ceres is shit because Candy Claws wanted it to be shit? There's good and bad lofi, there are good and bad walls of sound. The one in Ceres is poorly executed.

It's absurd but that's part of the charm for me. I like listening to it on full blast and just letting it wash over me. It's amateurish but that kind of works in its favor somehow.

>>68628143
>what the band wanted to sound like is irrelevant!
lol
>Oasis wall of sound is messy and poorly executed.
How so?
>What you're saying is the wall of sound in Ceres is shit because Candy Claws wanted it to be shit?
Quote me where i said that

>>68623434
>play them in mono

How do

>>68627659
>Justifying poor mastering by saying it's just a Wall of Sound production?
It's not poor mastering if it's done with the explicit purpose of cutting the dynamic range to imitate Wall of Sound production.

It's not the exact same method but it produces a similar result.

>>68628482
>with the explicit purpose of
[citation needed]

>>68626895
this

>>68628512
why was it a mistake? because you don't like it, right?

>>68628551
Ooops you didn't answer the question. Try again?

I like this album and have recc'd it to friends who are really good at audio mastering and shit, have I looked like a complete pleb in the process :c

>>68628512
they released the dual mono instrumentals after to show how it sounded without compression. i'm not that guy but clearly it was a conscious decision made in tandem by the artists, producer, mixing engineer, and mastering engineer.

>>68628723
>dual mono
You mean stereo?

>>68628653
no. as someone who literally masters people's music for a living it's pretty creative and they pull it off well. i mean it's shoegaze, it's not supposed to have a ton of dynamic range (unless you're Slowdive)

>>68628736
i think you're actually brain damaged. dual mono is when none of the sounds are shared by both speakers. everything is either left panned or right panned. there's no phantom centre.

>>68628653
Not really. Most modern rock/pop albums have too-loud mastering. Especially indie releases who can't afford to be quieter than mainstream releases.

>>68628758
>i think you're actually brain damaged. dual mono is when none of the sounds are shared by both speakers. everything is either left panned or right panned. there's no phantom centre.
That is still stereo you dummy

>>68623463
Fuck off Pajeet

>>68628789
What is DUAL MONO? Isn't that just stereo? Yes, stereo does consist of two separate channels, a right and a left, but it often shares sounds between the two, placing them in the "middle" of the stereo spectrum. In dual mono, none of the sounds in the left channel are shared in the right, and vice versa. This results in two isolated channels with nothing in between. Each side can be listened to as its own version of the song, and this method can highlight various instruments often lost in a complete stereo mix.

>oh so it's stereo, rite???

>>68628789
http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/what-is-dual-mono-versus-stereo/

kill yourself my man, just stop listening to music. you don't deserve it.

>>68628848
>What is DUAL MONO? Isn't that just stereo? Yes,
End of story.

If you don't know what the difference between stereo and mono is, you probably have no business mastering other people's music

>>68628867
Are the two channels of the dual mono playing in tandem, rhythmically and melodically?

Then they are related, and this your link is incorrect

>>68628848
You're arguing with someone who doesn't know anything about producing, anyone with cursory experience in music production knows what it is.

>>68628906
I've produced and mastered more albums than you.

>>68628919
>I've produced and mastered more albums than you.
Name them.

>>68628967
Post your email and I'll send you a list of all 42 of them

>>68628977
just post them here friendo :)

>>68628997
I'll only abandon my anonymity if you do to

>>68628334
If they wanted to sound like they do live on studio they'd try and emulate it on the album. If the albums sounds like shit it's irrelevant how they sound live.

Also, I've done this compaarison before, but here it goes again. Search for the story of the making of Definitely Maybe. That shit baarely got released in conditions because it aounded so messy. Noel just stacked guitar track on top of guitar track trying to do a wall of sound, and ended up with a huge clusterfuck that drowns everything else in the mix in guitar noise. Now, this technic can be done successfuly. Siamese Dream has a wall of sound done with a similar technic, but every layer was carefully created and implementated in the mix. The result is a huge sounding, yet dynamic and detailed wall of sound. Compare this sound to Definitely Maybe, Morning Glory and specially Be Here Now and Machina I. You'll notice the difference. It doesn't matter how you originally want to sound if the end result is a poorly executed mess. Ceres falls on the latter. The album is pretty good, but the whole lo-fi muddy wall of sound is poorly executed.

>>68629472
Sorry for the spelling, typing on a phone is a bitch

>>68629472
>If they wanted to sound like they do live on studio they'd try and emulate it on the album
Which is what they did, with the exaggerated compression
>If the albums sounds like shit
Not relevant
>Search for the story of the making of...
Or rather, you need to post it yourself since it's your argument.
>Siamese Dream
Smashing Pumpkins were (at that time) a band with a specific sense of dynamics. Oasis were not. Apples and Oranges, and both band strived for a different sonic effect. If you had seen either of these bands live in the 90s you'd understand that.

>>68629472
Siamese Dream is a pretty special album and Butch Vig mixed the shit out of it. Don't compare one of the best albums of the 90s to some indie hipster nu-gaze tropical house shit.

>>68629545
>exagerated compression
So, they purposedly made it sound like shit? Coz that's how it sounds like.

The main point of the story is that almost before the deadline all they had is some messy, way too loud demos that had to be miraculously edited in order to sound good. That's what you get when you mindlessly mess around with walls of sound (or compression) without knowing what you're doing you end up with muddy, way too loud sounds. And I'm aware SP are a much more dynamic band, I'm referring to the wall of sounds specifically. It's a valid comparison since thwy both use similar technica and were influenced by shoegaze to some extent.

Also, their live sound is not relevant.

>>68629724
>in order to sound good
More like in order to sound listenable.

>>68629724
>I think it sounds like....
No relevant
>The main point of the story is
Link please
>Also, their live sound is not relevant.
If that's what they are replicating in the studio, then yes it does

>>68625295
can you rub the cat belly please thanks