Posts by Lmz

Neither DAW sounds ‘better’. DAW’s are just tools and it’s how they are used that make the difference. I do think DAWs sound slightly different though. I bounce back and forth between Logic (sequencing) and Pro Tools (mixing) all the time. There’s the argument that they should be the same ‘sound’ because it’s digital but my ears aren’t convinced of that, at least in terms of realtime playback.

In the first examples you gave, check your pan law in cubase. Don’t match the number in PT though. Use your ears to find a setting that closely resembles the other. They probably won’t match. When I’m in Logic, I set the pan law to ‘0’ and for me that sounds a bit more like what I’d expect in PT (pan law in PT is at it’s standard of -3db).

In the second example, something is off because there shouldn’t be that much of a difference. Check out whatever audio settings/drivers you are using because there is a stark difference in frequency content. Also being EWQLSO, make sure you’re loading up the same mic position. Cubase example sounds like the stage mic and the PT sounds more like the close mic (possibly with the stage mic).

That’s a great interview to watch for those who haven’t seen it. You get a good insight to the personalities of these guys who’ve had some amazing careers.

soundroll said
I agree more with LIam. This site is for more small companies and projects, they look for fast and cheap way to get music for their projects, that’s why they buy from here.

That may be the way things started but AJ has picked in popularity and is now used with bigger companies/projects. Audiojungle should provide better licensing options to cover the wide array of music uses so the composer can be compensated fairly for their work(e.g. web only use, broadcast -local/national/worldwide, use within larger project provided for free/sale).

More adequate licensing options will also give the composer an insight into it’s use without asking the buyer to fill out additional information.

PRO is for music libraries. Adding PRO to AJ will involve quite a lot on Envato’s part since they would have to set themselves as a publisher worldwide with the many PRO/PRS. Easiest/best thing for AJ to consider at the moment is more adequate licensing terms broken down by usage.

Art-of-Sound said
Thanks for the replies. Probably I should have been more specific. My question refers to COPY RIGHTS. With non exclusive rights I still can post the track wherever I want, resell it etc. But if a client is interested to own the copyright of the track, what is the right price for that?

The only reasons I can think of that someone would want exclusive rights is to avoid paying any backend payments to you (which are supplied by your performing rights organization PRO if your work is broadcast in any way) and building a type of sonic branding by having music no one else has. There are ways of to offer both those things without giving up all of your rights.

If they want to avoid PRO, offer a license to them that is royalty free. You should base your rate for that aspect of your fee on how it is going to be broadcast. You’ll need to know if it’s local, national, or international. The UK has a mechanical rights society (now part of PRS) that outlines fees for different broadcasts if you want to look around to get an idea.

If they want exclusive rights so no one else can use that material, try to find out how long this project will be ‘active’. You could offer to a license to them for that certain period of time (say 2-3 years) where you won’t be selling it to other sources. If they need to keep that agreement active after that period of time, you can renegotiate things then.

Last idea, if they are going to be selling the work that your music is in, you could offer exclusive rights for a percentage of the product’s profits. This would be on top of whatever fee you charge to write and produce the track.

Sort of shotgun response of ideas there. Knowing a bit more details about what you are doing this for might get you some more pointed advice. But, whatever the reason for exclusive rights, there should be a decent amount of money involved.

AlumoAudio said
And on that note…

Perfect.

Pianojungle said

Lmz said
I think Noise-n-Music was referencing that human hearing roughly covers 20hz-22khz. So anything above that isn’t perceivable by human ears. A 44.1 sample rate extends way past the top of that range.

that’s not totally true actually a sample rate of 44.1 means that you can go up to frequencies of 22 (half of 44). It’s called the nyquist frequency. This is principle is used to prevent aliasing in audio track.

Good to know!

Basspartout said

Noise-n-Music said
This resolution completele covers potential of the human perception.

Haha, so far from the truth. 44.1 / 16 bit was not more or less than a compromise made by the industy in the 1980s. Although mots of listeners/consumers (and sound engineers!!) got used to it, it’s ridiculous to say that it covers human perception.

I think Noise-n-Music was referencing that human hearing roughly covers 20hz-22khz. So anything above that isn’t perceivable by human ears. A 44.1 sample rate extends way past the top of that range.

muscma01 said
Those are some really awesome opinions. Thanks for sharing them. I wonder though about as a marketing angle though of it? Do you think 24 bit has a “selling” advantage? I mean it’s hard for me to really be able to answer that because I rarely if ever know where my music ends up, and how it was used in a production. I guess my question is best answered by buyers because I don’t know what software they are using, and if it supports 24bit. Take a hypothetical example) Audio Jungle Announces stunning 24bit Category. In that hypothetical do you think a buyer might look at that and be like oh ya I have to check that out, or do you think it’s not really an issue. I wonder from a marketing angle if 24 bit, could be a buzz word like “in HD”.

It absolutely could be used as a selling angle. It would be higher definition so I assume the customer would automatically think that’s ‘better’. Wether it really makes a difference or not depends on what they are buying. I wouldn’t think it would be a major selling point though because the difference would most likely not be immediately perceivable. I do think some would buy into it though, even if it’s only a sort of placebo effect.

However, music is sold based on it’s content and not on fidelity. If two tracks have great content, I don’t see having ‘superior’ audio quality being a deciding factor to licensing the track as long as the competing track is of standard audio quality. It will come down to what the music’s purpose is, and musical content would decide that.

Pianojungle said
24 bit comes in very handy when you are recording at a lower volume so you loose less of the dynamics. But when you start compressing and limiting and stuff you loose the wide range of dynamics anyway.

Exactly. Higher bit rates are great for recording/tracking to capture dynamic range. If the final mix is going to be squashed to hell though, there won’t be any benefit from exporting the final mix at 24 bit over 16.

In my opinion, while TV’s and cinemas have been increasing there resolution and image quality, the fidelity of most music has been decreasing. Reason for that being the way a lot of people listen to music now, car radios and phone/mp3 players with earbuds. Car radios and earbuds are not the best place to listen to a piece of dynamic music given the amount noise around cars, and that earbuds are just terrible devices to play anything back on. So, mixes are mastered (or re-mastered) to have less and less dynamic range as well as filling up as much of the frequency range as possible. Doing this insures that no matter what device your listener choses, your track will be easily heard and that nothing gets lost in the mix. Now that music is mostly stored digitally, file compression formats (specifically mp3) also play a role and they do have some diminishing effect on resulting of the mix (losing higher frequencies and I think so lower ones as well). Those things combined are killing fidelity in most music genres.

So ‘HD’ audio formats probably won’t catch on until the listening environments/devices of average people changes for the better.

My 2 cents.

Cstudio23 said
AudioJungle has great potential. However, paying $14 for music to be used for advertising is devaluing the composing industry and yourselves. Seriously.
I buy some music from AudioJungle but not for advertising purposes. Some tracks are great and good enough, but the fee is terrible and unfair. [link removed] Obviously geographic locations might have their different rates. These rates are for the UK.
If you agree to $14 instead of £8,500 then this is the most likely outcome… 1) advertising agencies will view you as the cheap guy, and will be reluctant to pay you the proper rates for advertising music in the future; 2) composers who charge proper rates are at risk of losing out to cheap guys who want to give away their music to ‘get a good name on their CV’. (You’ll most likely not get a good name for yourself, see below…)

From advertising perspectives and the perspective of established composers, this is the reality. Business and economics dictates: “why should I spend lots of money, when this other composer is selling a quality and suitable track for $14?”

Have a look at the rate card. Why are fees valued at this way? Because, the value of advertising is huge. It pulls in customers, provides your front-end company image and helps you make lots of money from you product. If you were a sales employee hired by a company, would you say “ok, don’t pay me, because I want to have this great company name on my CV?”. What if you have children to feed, a house and mortgage, medical bills etc. Now think whether $14 for an advert shown on all broadcast mediums, which may add millions to the tunrover of a company, is a good deal. Tell you opinion to the composer who just lost out to a $14 worth composer, and is now worrying about putting food on the table for his family.

Don’t fall in to the trap of selling yourself short for the sake of “establishing a name for yourself/building your CV”. If a company thinks your music is good enough for their product on national television, they will pay the proper rate, whether you are a newcomer or established composer. If the music’s good enough, and fits, that is what matters. And that is why (if your music is great and fits) you can land a national television advert with your first placement. It happens and is fact. Composers must stick together and support each other. I know of composers who are blacklisted by other composer circles and publishers, because they are known to have sold cheaply on royalty free sites. I don’t think this should be the direction that royalty free sites takes. But it is happening. I know 1 composer who was so worried about this, he left AudioJungle sadly.

Envato: on behalf of all the quality authors on AudioJungle, the composers in the world and fairness, please alter the licensing to reflect advertising rates. The advertising money is budgeted for creative elements such as music and visuals by companies anyway. Would you rather it went towards fat cat bonuses or to the hard working composers and creators, who just helped the company earn lots of money?

Completely agree. There has been lots of discussion recently about this. I imagine the folks who made Audiojungle did not have a clue about the music business. I hope they are working this out but, as far as I know, any plans to make changes to licensing terms have not been addressed on the forums, or any other communication.

If they are working on it, I’m not sure what is taking so long. Research other similar sites that have fair licensing terms, use those findings to base yours off of, finalize and be done with it. Don’t want to research other sites? Try researching the rates of the UK’s MCPS:

I know I’m generalizing, but the information about how to have fair, competitive licensing is out there. If AJ isn’t interested in creating new licensing terms, they should at least put limits on the terms that are in place and anything outside of that can be directly negotiated with the composer.

It’s ridiculous to have a $14/$70 track used for broadcast.