Where does the great audio quality of tracks released on YouTube come from?
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
For example, I produced a track, then exported an mp3 or wav, but it is in no way comparable to the quality of the clips on YouTube.
Do the producers pass the track through some kind of equipment or what? In their clips there is such depth, etc.
I saw music on YouTube written in MilkyTracker and the audio in this video sounds awesome! But if I export audio from MilkyTracker, it will sound in no way comparable to that.
production
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
For example, I produced a track, then exported an mp3 or wav, but it is in no way comparable to the quality of the clips on YouTube.
Do the producers pass the track through some kind of equipment or what? In their clips there is such depth, etc.
I saw music on YouTube written in MilkyTracker and the audio in this video sounds awesome! But if I export audio from MilkyTracker, it will sound in no way comparable to that.
production
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
8
Superior audio engineering skills and superior musicianship.
– Todd Wilcox
Dec 7 at 14:57
They may also have better soundfonts than you. I've read that Waterflame has accumulated a huge soundfont collection over his years of composing (often EDM-like) music.
– Dekkadeci
Dec 7 at 16:46
Are you using any Mastering software?
– JacobIRR
Dec 7 at 17:52
1
Do you have examples of good sounding and bad sounding clips? I'd like to have a listen to see if it's really just about skilled use of MilkyTracker, or if I can hear compression or different soundfonts there.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:09
3
Have to flag this as too broad. The steps to get "great audio quality" on recordings are literally the subject of years of study at universities and colleges of music. It's also heavily opinion-based, because you're asking how to create great art, and that will always depend on the individual artist.
– Graham
Dec 8 at 0:53
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
For example, I produced a track, then exported an mp3 or wav, but it is in no way comparable to the quality of the clips on YouTube.
Do the producers pass the track through some kind of equipment or what? In their clips there is such depth, etc.
I saw music on YouTube written in MilkyTracker and the audio in this video sounds awesome! But if I export audio from MilkyTracker, it will sound in no way comparable to that.
production
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
For example, I produced a track, then exported an mp3 or wav, but it is in no way comparable to the quality of the clips on YouTube.
Do the producers pass the track through some kind of equipment or what? In their clips there is such depth, etc.
I saw music on YouTube written in MilkyTracker and the audio in this video sounds awesome! But if I export audio from MilkyTracker, it will sound in no way comparable to that.
production
production
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
edited Dec 7 at 21:52
Cassiterite
1032
1032
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
asked Dec 7 at 13:55
Lyuba Ivanova
1584
1584
8
Superior audio engineering skills and superior musicianship.
– Todd Wilcox
Dec 7 at 14:57
They may also have better soundfonts than you. I've read that Waterflame has accumulated a huge soundfont collection over his years of composing (often EDM-like) music.
– Dekkadeci
Dec 7 at 16:46
Are you using any Mastering software?
– JacobIRR
Dec 7 at 17:52
1
Do you have examples of good sounding and bad sounding clips? I'd like to have a listen to see if it's really just about skilled use of MilkyTracker, or if I can hear compression or different soundfonts there.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:09
3
Have to flag this as too broad. The steps to get "great audio quality" on recordings are literally the subject of years of study at universities and colleges of music. It's also heavily opinion-based, because you're asking how to create great art, and that will always depend on the individual artist.
– Graham
Dec 8 at 0:53
|
show 3 more comments
8
Superior audio engineering skills and superior musicianship.
– Todd Wilcox
Dec 7 at 14:57
They may also have better soundfonts than you. I've read that Waterflame has accumulated a huge soundfont collection over his years of composing (often EDM-like) music.
– Dekkadeci
Dec 7 at 16:46
Are you using any Mastering software?
– JacobIRR
Dec 7 at 17:52
1
Do you have examples of good sounding and bad sounding clips? I'd like to have a listen to see if it's really just about skilled use of MilkyTracker, or if I can hear compression or different soundfonts there.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:09
3
Have to flag this as too broad. The steps to get "great audio quality" on recordings are literally the subject of years of study at universities and colleges of music. It's also heavily opinion-based, because you're asking how to create great art, and that will always depend on the individual artist.
– Graham
Dec 8 at 0:53
8
8
Superior audio engineering skills and superior musicianship.
– Todd Wilcox
Dec 7 at 14:57
Superior audio engineering skills and superior musicianship.
– Todd Wilcox
Dec 7 at 14:57
They may also have better soundfonts than you. I've read that Waterflame has accumulated a huge soundfont collection over his years of composing (often EDM-like) music.
– Dekkadeci
Dec 7 at 16:46
They may also have better soundfonts than you. I've read that Waterflame has accumulated a huge soundfont collection over his years of composing (often EDM-like) music.
– Dekkadeci
Dec 7 at 16:46
Are you using any Mastering software?
– JacobIRR
Dec 7 at 17:52
Are you using any Mastering software?
– JacobIRR
Dec 7 at 17:52
1
1
Do you have examples of good sounding and bad sounding clips? I'd like to have a listen to see if it's really just about skilled use of MilkyTracker, or if I can hear compression or different soundfonts there.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:09
Do you have examples of good sounding and bad sounding clips? I'd like to have a listen to see if it's really just about skilled use of MilkyTracker, or if I can hear compression or different soundfonts there.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:09
3
3
Have to flag this as too broad. The steps to get "great audio quality" on recordings are literally the subject of years of study at universities and colleges of music. It's also heavily opinion-based, because you're asking how to create great art, and that will always depend on the individual artist.
– Graham
Dec 8 at 0:53
Have to flag this as too broad. The steps to get "great audio quality" on recordings are literally the subject of years of study at universities and colleges of music. It's also heavily opinion-based, because you're asking how to create great art, and that will always depend on the individual artist.
– Graham
Dec 8 at 0:53
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
MilkyTracker is just a tool, and like any tool, the quality of the tool is less important than the skill and knowledge of the person using it. You could give a carpenter terrible, rusty old tools and they would make something far better than I could even with the very best tools available.
These things take a lot of practice to get good at, but everyone starts out not knowing what they're doing, and it's incredibly satisfying to see yourself improve over time!
There's a lot that goes into a good sounding track. It's a chain of things all the way from the input sound source to the output track. And like any chain, it's overall quality is limited by its weakest link.
The quality of the singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is very important. Then there's the room it's recorded in. Does it add color, or is a neutral recording room that allows color to be added during the mix? What about the equipment used to record the sound? This means the choice of mic, the position of the mic, EQ, compression, and so on.
The mix itself is super important. A talented mix engineer adds so much to the recorded material. They're like the editor of a film. They can work magic, however what they can ultimately accomplish is limited by the quality of the recorded tracks or samples that they're working with.
Mastering is also important, although really only polishes a well crafted track, it's not going to create something great out of something mediocre.
The lovely thing is that everything you need these days can be obtained for far less than used to be the case. The very best equipment is obscenely expensive, but you can get good stuff at a fraction of the price. And in the right hands, you can get professional sounding results with (reasonably) inexpensive equipment.
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 This has exactly nothing to do with YouTube or any other hosting/distribution service. They simply regurgitate what they were given.
– AaronD
Dec 7 at 19:08
@Dean, i am going to disagree with this some of this. I think in the case of recording the tools do matter a bit. While you may be able to create a good recording with cheap, crappy Mics, in a room that doesn't sound great, recording a crappy musical instrument, it is going to be a challenge. To create a great recording the better tools you use, from the room, the instruments, the mics, preamps, anything else you run the sound through, and ultimately the recording medium is going to make the recording more professional and sound higher quality. you can still have all that and make a bad record
– b3ko
Dec 7 at 21:27
1
"MilkyTracker is just a tool" but it is not just another DAW. It's a tracker and it's MIDI-only. You say the quality of singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is important but MT doesn't allow recording of audio or even sampling. You also say the EQ and compression is important, but MT doesn't have this.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:05
@b3ko I don't think we disagree here. My point isn't that the quality of tools don't have an effect, it's that the quality is less important than the skill of the craftsman. All things being equal, a recording done using a U87 is going to sound better than a NT-2A. But if the NT-2A is being used by an experienced engineer they're going to be able to get a good enough recording with it. And if the U87 is being used by an amateur, it's probably still going to sound like an amateur recording.
– Dean
Dec 7 at 23:14
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
Quick answer - try running your output through a compressor.
Long answer - work on your composing, arranging and recording skills. Get years of experience. Then try running your output through a compressor.
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Besides mastering and other thing related to creating the source audio, you'll also want to make sure that you aren't applying lossy compression to your audio before it gets uploaded - this won't make a big difference in most cases but can't hurt to get in the habit of. Whatever video and audio container format you're using to upload, you should make sure the audio track is stored as PCM data or something lossless - that way, when it's uploaded to YouTube, it'll only ever get compressed lossily once, by YouTube. That way, anyone hearing the audio on YouTube will only hear something that's been lossily compressed one time.
Personally I like to use .mkv containers - there are several programs out there, like MKVMerge, that let you drag and drop files (such as .wav files) straight into an MKV container, so that you know no compression is going on behind the scenes. I typically render my video out with lossy compression, then drop the video into a .mkv, then a .wav, then upload the .mkv. It works perfectly on YouTube.
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Although this isn't bad advice, twice re-encoding with a gentle lossy codec is not going to have nearly as much influence on the way it sounds as mastering does. Never use 128 kb/s .mp3 or something like that, but 196 kb/s or more vorbis/aac/opus is for most purposes as good as lossless, even after 2× generation loss.
– leftaroundabout
Dec 7 at 21:11
@leftaroundabout thanks for the addition - that's a great point. I tend to err on the side of being super careful, but yeah, I'll edit my answer to include the fact that it won't necessarily make a huge difference.
– Random Davis
Dec 7 at 22:28
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
MilkyTracker is just a tool, and like any tool, the quality of the tool is less important than the skill and knowledge of the person using it. You could give a carpenter terrible, rusty old tools and they would make something far better than I could even with the very best tools available.
These things take a lot of practice to get good at, but everyone starts out not knowing what they're doing, and it's incredibly satisfying to see yourself improve over time!
There's a lot that goes into a good sounding track. It's a chain of things all the way from the input sound source to the output track. And like any chain, it's overall quality is limited by its weakest link.
The quality of the singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is very important. Then there's the room it's recorded in. Does it add color, or is a neutral recording room that allows color to be added during the mix? What about the equipment used to record the sound? This means the choice of mic, the position of the mic, EQ, compression, and so on.
The mix itself is super important. A talented mix engineer adds so much to the recorded material. They're like the editor of a film. They can work magic, however what they can ultimately accomplish is limited by the quality of the recorded tracks or samples that they're working with.
Mastering is also important, although really only polishes a well crafted track, it's not going to create something great out of something mediocre.
The lovely thing is that everything you need these days can be obtained for far less than used to be the case. The very best equipment is obscenely expensive, but you can get good stuff at a fraction of the price. And in the right hands, you can get professional sounding results with (reasonably) inexpensive equipment.
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 This has exactly nothing to do with YouTube or any other hosting/distribution service. They simply regurgitate what they were given.
– AaronD
Dec 7 at 19:08
@Dean, i am going to disagree with this some of this. I think in the case of recording the tools do matter a bit. While you may be able to create a good recording with cheap, crappy Mics, in a room that doesn't sound great, recording a crappy musical instrument, it is going to be a challenge. To create a great recording the better tools you use, from the room, the instruments, the mics, preamps, anything else you run the sound through, and ultimately the recording medium is going to make the recording more professional and sound higher quality. you can still have all that and make a bad record
– b3ko
Dec 7 at 21:27
1
"MilkyTracker is just a tool" but it is not just another DAW. It's a tracker and it's MIDI-only. You say the quality of singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is important but MT doesn't allow recording of audio or even sampling. You also say the EQ and compression is important, but MT doesn't have this.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:05
@b3ko I don't think we disagree here. My point isn't that the quality of tools don't have an effect, it's that the quality is less important than the skill of the craftsman. All things being equal, a recording done using a U87 is going to sound better than a NT-2A. But if the NT-2A is being used by an experienced engineer they're going to be able to get a good enough recording with it. And if the U87 is being used by an amateur, it's probably still going to sound like an amateur recording.
– Dean
Dec 7 at 23:14
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
MilkyTracker is just a tool, and like any tool, the quality of the tool is less important than the skill and knowledge of the person using it. You could give a carpenter terrible, rusty old tools and they would make something far better than I could even with the very best tools available.
These things take a lot of practice to get good at, but everyone starts out not knowing what they're doing, and it's incredibly satisfying to see yourself improve over time!
There's a lot that goes into a good sounding track. It's a chain of things all the way from the input sound source to the output track. And like any chain, it's overall quality is limited by its weakest link.
The quality of the singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is very important. Then there's the room it's recorded in. Does it add color, or is a neutral recording room that allows color to be added during the mix? What about the equipment used to record the sound? This means the choice of mic, the position of the mic, EQ, compression, and so on.
The mix itself is super important. A talented mix engineer adds so much to the recorded material. They're like the editor of a film. They can work magic, however what they can ultimately accomplish is limited by the quality of the recorded tracks or samples that they're working with.
Mastering is also important, although really only polishes a well crafted track, it's not going to create something great out of something mediocre.
The lovely thing is that everything you need these days can be obtained for far less than used to be the case. The very best equipment is obscenely expensive, but you can get good stuff at a fraction of the price. And in the right hands, you can get professional sounding results with (reasonably) inexpensive equipment.
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 This has exactly nothing to do with YouTube or any other hosting/distribution service. They simply regurgitate what they were given.
– AaronD
Dec 7 at 19:08
@Dean, i am going to disagree with this some of this. I think in the case of recording the tools do matter a bit. While you may be able to create a good recording with cheap, crappy Mics, in a room that doesn't sound great, recording a crappy musical instrument, it is going to be a challenge. To create a great recording the better tools you use, from the room, the instruments, the mics, preamps, anything else you run the sound through, and ultimately the recording medium is going to make the recording more professional and sound higher quality. you can still have all that and make a bad record
– b3ko
Dec 7 at 21:27
1
"MilkyTracker is just a tool" but it is not just another DAW. It's a tracker and it's MIDI-only. You say the quality of singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is important but MT doesn't allow recording of audio or even sampling. You also say the EQ and compression is important, but MT doesn't have this.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:05
@b3ko I don't think we disagree here. My point isn't that the quality of tools don't have an effect, it's that the quality is less important than the skill of the craftsman. All things being equal, a recording done using a U87 is going to sound better than a NT-2A. But if the NT-2A is being used by an experienced engineer they're going to be able to get a good enough recording with it. And if the U87 is being used by an amateur, it's probably still going to sound like an amateur recording.
– Dean
Dec 7 at 23:14
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
MilkyTracker is just a tool, and like any tool, the quality of the tool is less important than the skill and knowledge of the person using it. You could give a carpenter terrible, rusty old tools and they would make something far better than I could even with the very best tools available.
These things take a lot of practice to get good at, but everyone starts out not knowing what they're doing, and it's incredibly satisfying to see yourself improve over time!
There's a lot that goes into a good sounding track. It's a chain of things all the way from the input sound source to the output track. And like any chain, it's overall quality is limited by its weakest link.
The quality of the singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is very important. Then there's the room it's recorded in. Does it add color, or is a neutral recording room that allows color to be added during the mix? What about the equipment used to record the sound? This means the choice of mic, the position of the mic, EQ, compression, and so on.
The mix itself is super important. A talented mix engineer adds so much to the recorded material. They're like the editor of a film. They can work magic, however what they can ultimately accomplish is limited by the quality of the recorded tracks or samples that they're working with.
Mastering is also important, although really only polishes a well crafted track, it's not going to create something great out of something mediocre.
The lovely thing is that everything you need these days can be obtained for far less than used to be the case. The very best equipment is obscenely expensive, but you can get good stuff at a fraction of the price. And in the right hands, you can get professional sounding results with (reasonably) inexpensive equipment.
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
MilkyTracker is just a tool, and like any tool, the quality of the tool is less important than the skill and knowledge of the person using it. You could give a carpenter terrible, rusty old tools and they would make something far better than I could even with the very best tools available.
These things take a lot of practice to get good at, but everyone starts out not knowing what they're doing, and it's incredibly satisfying to see yourself improve over time!
There's a lot that goes into a good sounding track. It's a chain of things all the way from the input sound source to the output track. And like any chain, it's overall quality is limited by its weakest link.
The quality of the singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is very important. Then there's the room it's recorded in. Does it add color, or is a neutral recording room that allows color to be added during the mix? What about the equipment used to record the sound? This means the choice of mic, the position of the mic, EQ, compression, and so on.
The mix itself is super important. A talented mix engineer adds so much to the recorded material. They're like the editor of a film. They can work magic, however what they can ultimately accomplish is limited by the quality of the recorded tracks or samples that they're working with.
Mastering is also important, although really only polishes a well crafted track, it's not going to create something great out of something mediocre.
The lovely thing is that everything you need these days can be obtained for far less than used to be the case. The very best equipment is obscenely expensive, but you can get good stuff at a fraction of the price. And in the right hands, you can get professional sounding results with (reasonably) inexpensive equipment.
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
answered Dec 7 at 17:52
Dean
2242
2242
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Dean is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
+1 This has exactly nothing to do with YouTube or any other hosting/distribution service. They simply regurgitate what they were given.
– AaronD
Dec 7 at 19:08
@Dean, i am going to disagree with this some of this. I think in the case of recording the tools do matter a bit. While you may be able to create a good recording with cheap, crappy Mics, in a room that doesn't sound great, recording a crappy musical instrument, it is going to be a challenge. To create a great recording the better tools you use, from the room, the instruments, the mics, preamps, anything else you run the sound through, and ultimately the recording medium is going to make the recording more professional and sound higher quality. you can still have all that and make a bad record
– b3ko
Dec 7 at 21:27
1
"MilkyTracker is just a tool" but it is not just another DAW. It's a tracker and it's MIDI-only. You say the quality of singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is important but MT doesn't allow recording of audio or even sampling. You also say the EQ and compression is important, but MT doesn't have this.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:05
@b3ko I don't think we disagree here. My point isn't that the quality of tools don't have an effect, it's that the quality is less important than the skill of the craftsman. All things being equal, a recording done using a U87 is going to sound better than a NT-2A. But if the NT-2A is being used by an experienced engineer they're going to be able to get a good enough recording with it. And if the U87 is being used by an amateur, it's probably still going to sound like an amateur recording.
– Dean
Dec 7 at 23:14
add a comment |
1
+1 This has exactly nothing to do with YouTube or any other hosting/distribution service. They simply regurgitate what they were given.
– AaronD
Dec 7 at 19:08
@Dean, i am going to disagree with this some of this. I think in the case of recording the tools do matter a bit. While you may be able to create a good recording with cheap, crappy Mics, in a room that doesn't sound great, recording a crappy musical instrument, it is going to be a challenge. To create a great recording the better tools you use, from the room, the instruments, the mics, preamps, anything else you run the sound through, and ultimately the recording medium is going to make the recording more professional and sound higher quality. you can still have all that and make a bad record
– b3ko
Dec 7 at 21:27
1
"MilkyTracker is just a tool" but it is not just another DAW. It's a tracker and it's MIDI-only. You say the quality of singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is important but MT doesn't allow recording of audio or even sampling. You also say the EQ and compression is important, but MT doesn't have this.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:05
@b3ko I don't think we disagree here. My point isn't that the quality of tools don't have an effect, it's that the quality is less important than the skill of the craftsman. All things being equal, a recording done using a U87 is going to sound better than a NT-2A. But if the NT-2A is being used by an experienced engineer they're going to be able to get a good enough recording with it. And if the U87 is being used by an amateur, it's probably still going to sound like an amateur recording.
– Dean
Dec 7 at 23:14
1
1
+1 This has exactly nothing to do with YouTube or any other hosting/distribution service. They simply regurgitate what they were given.
– AaronD
Dec 7 at 19:08
+1 This has exactly nothing to do with YouTube or any other hosting/distribution service. They simply regurgitate what they were given.
– AaronD
Dec 7 at 19:08
@Dean, i am going to disagree with this some of this. I think in the case of recording the tools do matter a bit. While you may be able to create a good recording with cheap, crappy Mics, in a room that doesn't sound great, recording a crappy musical instrument, it is going to be a challenge. To create a great recording the better tools you use, from the room, the instruments, the mics, preamps, anything else you run the sound through, and ultimately the recording medium is going to make the recording more professional and sound higher quality. you can still have all that and make a bad record
– b3ko
Dec 7 at 21:27
@Dean, i am going to disagree with this some of this. I think in the case of recording the tools do matter a bit. While you may be able to create a good recording with cheap, crappy Mics, in a room that doesn't sound great, recording a crappy musical instrument, it is going to be a challenge. To create a great recording the better tools you use, from the room, the instruments, the mics, preamps, anything else you run the sound through, and ultimately the recording medium is going to make the recording more professional and sound higher quality. you can still have all that and make a bad record
– b3ko
Dec 7 at 21:27
1
1
"MilkyTracker is just a tool" but it is not just another DAW. It's a tracker and it's MIDI-only. You say the quality of singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is important but MT doesn't allow recording of audio or even sampling. You also say the EQ and compression is important, but MT doesn't have this.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:05
"MilkyTracker is just a tool" but it is not just another DAW. It's a tracker and it's MIDI-only. You say the quality of singer/instrument/thing-being-sampled is important but MT doesn't allow recording of audio or even sampling. You also say the EQ and compression is important, but MT doesn't have this.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:05
@b3ko I don't think we disagree here. My point isn't that the quality of tools don't have an effect, it's that the quality is less important than the skill of the craftsman. All things being equal, a recording done using a U87 is going to sound better than a NT-2A. But if the NT-2A is being used by an experienced engineer they're going to be able to get a good enough recording with it. And if the U87 is being used by an amateur, it's probably still going to sound like an amateur recording.
– Dean
Dec 7 at 23:14
@b3ko I don't think we disagree here. My point isn't that the quality of tools don't have an effect, it's that the quality is less important than the skill of the craftsman. All things being equal, a recording done using a U87 is going to sound better than a NT-2A. But if the NT-2A is being used by an experienced engineer they're going to be able to get a good enough recording with it. And if the U87 is being used by an amateur, it's probably still going to sound like an amateur recording.
– Dean
Dec 7 at 23:14
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
Quick answer - try running your output through a compressor.
Long answer - work on your composing, arranging and recording skills. Get years of experience. Then try running your output through a compressor.
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
Quick answer - try running your output through a compressor.
Long answer - work on your composing, arranging and recording skills. Get years of experience. Then try running your output through a compressor.
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
up vote
16
down vote
Quick answer - try running your output through a compressor.
Long answer - work on your composing, arranging and recording skills. Get years of experience. Then try running your output through a compressor.
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
Quick answer - try running your output through a compressor.
Long answer - work on your composing, arranging and recording skills. Get years of experience. Then try running your output through a compressor.
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
answered Dec 7 at 14:34
Laurence Payne
30.7k1455
30.7k1455
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Besides mastering and other thing related to creating the source audio, you'll also want to make sure that you aren't applying lossy compression to your audio before it gets uploaded - this won't make a big difference in most cases but can't hurt to get in the habit of. Whatever video and audio container format you're using to upload, you should make sure the audio track is stored as PCM data or something lossless - that way, when it's uploaded to YouTube, it'll only ever get compressed lossily once, by YouTube. That way, anyone hearing the audio on YouTube will only hear something that's been lossily compressed one time.
Personally I like to use .mkv containers - there are several programs out there, like MKVMerge, that let you drag and drop files (such as .wav files) straight into an MKV container, so that you know no compression is going on behind the scenes. I typically render my video out with lossy compression, then drop the video into a .mkv, then a .wav, then upload the .mkv. It works perfectly on YouTube.
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Although this isn't bad advice, twice re-encoding with a gentle lossy codec is not going to have nearly as much influence on the way it sounds as mastering does. Never use 128 kb/s .mp3 or something like that, but 196 kb/s or more vorbis/aac/opus is for most purposes as good as lossless, even after 2× generation loss.
– leftaroundabout
Dec 7 at 21:11
@leftaroundabout thanks for the addition - that's a great point. I tend to err on the side of being super careful, but yeah, I'll edit my answer to include the fact that it won't necessarily make a huge difference.
– Random Davis
Dec 7 at 22:28
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Besides mastering and other thing related to creating the source audio, you'll also want to make sure that you aren't applying lossy compression to your audio before it gets uploaded - this won't make a big difference in most cases but can't hurt to get in the habit of. Whatever video and audio container format you're using to upload, you should make sure the audio track is stored as PCM data or something lossless - that way, when it's uploaded to YouTube, it'll only ever get compressed lossily once, by YouTube. That way, anyone hearing the audio on YouTube will only hear something that's been lossily compressed one time.
Personally I like to use .mkv containers - there are several programs out there, like MKVMerge, that let you drag and drop files (such as .wav files) straight into an MKV container, so that you know no compression is going on behind the scenes. I typically render my video out with lossy compression, then drop the video into a .mkv, then a .wav, then upload the .mkv. It works perfectly on YouTube.
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Although this isn't bad advice, twice re-encoding with a gentle lossy codec is not going to have nearly as much influence on the way it sounds as mastering does. Never use 128 kb/s .mp3 or something like that, but 196 kb/s or more vorbis/aac/opus is for most purposes as good as lossless, even after 2× generation loss.
– leftaroundabout
Dec 7 at 21:11
@leftaroundabout thanks for the addition - that's a great point. I tend to err on the side of being super careful, but yeah, I'll edit my answer to include the fact that it won't necessarily make a huge difference.
– Random Davis
Dec 7 at 22:28
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Besides mastering and other thing related to creating the source audio, you'll also want to make sure that you aren't applying lossy compression to your audio before it gets uploaded - this won't make a big difference in most cases but can't hurt to get in the habit of. Whatever video and audio container format you're using to upload, you should make sure the audio track is stored as PCM data or something lossless - that way, when it's uploaded to YouTube, it'll only ever get compressed lossily once, by YouTube. That way, anyone hearing the audio on YouTube will only hear something that's been lossily compressed one time.
Personally I like to use .mkv containers - there are several programs out there, like MKVMerge, that let you drag and drop files (such as .wav files) straight into an MKV container, so that you know no compression is going on behind the scenes. I typically render my video out with lossy compression, then drop the video into a .mkv, then a .wav, then upload the .mkv. It works perfectly on YouTube.
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Besides mastering and other thing related to creating the source audio, you'll also want to make sure that you aren't applying lossy compression to your audio before it gets uploaded - this won't make a big difference in most cases but can't hurt to get in the habit of. Whatever video and audio container format you're using to upload, you should make sure the audio track is stored as PCM data or something lossless - that way, when it's uploaded to YouTube, it'll only ever get compressed lossily once, by YouTube. That way, anyone hearing the audio on YouTube will only hear something that's been lossily compressed one time.
Personally I like to use .mkv containers - there are several programs out there, like MKVMerge, that let you drag and drop files (such as .wav files) straight into an MKV container, so that you know no compression is going on behind the scenes. I typically render my video out with lossy compression, then drop the video into a .mkv, then a .wav, then upload the .mkv. It works perfectly on YouTube.
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 7 at 22:29
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
answered Dec 7 at 17:30
Random Davis
1413
1413
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Random Davis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Although this isn't bad advice, twice re-encoding with a gentle lossy codec is not going to have nearly as much influence on the way it sounds as mastering does. Never use 128 kb/s .mp3 or something like that, but 196 kb/s or more vorbis/aac/opus is for most purposes as good as lossless, even after 2× generation loss.
– leftaroundabout
Dec 7 at 21:11
@leftaroundabout thanks for the addition - that's a great point. I tend to err on the side of being super careful, but yeah, I'll edit my answer to include the fact that it won't necessarily make a huge difference.
– Random Davis
Dec 7 at 22:28
add a comment |
2
Although this isn't bad advice, twice re-encoding with a gentle lossy codec is not going to have nearly as much influence on the way it sounds as mastering does. Never use 128 kb/s .mp3 or something like that, but 196 kb/s or more vorbis/aac/opus is for most purposes as good as lossless, even after 2× generation loss.
– leftaroundabout
Dec 7 at 21:11
@leftaroundabout thanks for the addition - that's a great point. I tend to err on the side of being super careful, but yeah, I'll edit my answer to include the fact that it won't necessarily make a huge difference.
– Random Davis
Dec 7 at 22:28
2
2
Although this isn't bad advice, twice re-encoding with a gentle lossy codec is not going to have nearly as much influence on the way it sounds as mastering does. Never use 128 kb/s .mp3 or something like that, but 196 kb/s or more vorbis/aac/opus is for most purposes as good as lossless, even after 2× generation loss.
– leftaroundabout
Dec 7 at 21:11
Although this isn't bad advice, twice re-encoding with a gentle lossy codec is not going to have nearly as much influence on the way it sounds as mastering does. Never use 128 kb/s .mp3 or something like that, but 196 kb/s or more vorbis/aac/opus is for most purposes as good as lossless, even after 2× generation loss.
– leftaroundabout
Dec 7 at 21:11
@leftaroundabout thanks for the addition - that's a great point. I tend to err on the side of being super careful, but yeah, I'll edit my answer to include the fact that it won't necessarily make a huge difference.
– Random Davis
Dec 7 at 22:28
@leftaroundabout thanks for the addition - that's a great point. I tend to err on the side of being super careful, but yeah, I'll edit my answer to include the fact that it won't necessarily make a huge difference.
– Random Davis
Dec 7 at 22:28
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f77253%2fwhere-does-the-great-audio-quality-of-tracks-released-on-youtube-come-from%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
Superior audio engineering skills and superior musicianship.
– Todd Wilcox
Dec 7 at 14:57
They may also have better soundfonts than you. I've read that Waterflame has accumulated a huge soundfont collection over his years of composing (often EDM-like) music.
– Dekkadeci
Dec 7 at 16:46
Are you using any Mastering software?
– JacobIRR
Dec 7 at 17:52
1
Do you have examples of good sounding and bad sounding clips? I'd like to have a listen to see if it's really just about skilled use of MilkyTracker, or if I can hear compression or different soundfonts there.
– ONOZ
Dec 7 at 23:09
3
Have to flag this as too broad. The steps to get "great audio quality" on recordings are literally the subject of years of study at universities and colleges of music. It's also heavily opinion-based, because you're asking how to create great art, and that will always depend on the individual artist.
– Graham
Dec 8 at 0:53