Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cerberus]

Pingu wrote on Mon, 15 May 2006 15:57

Do i win a prize for the most pathetic path.

fwiw, i know a very respected mix engineer with a current billboard top 10 single who responded to a disparaging comment i made last week about t-racks:
"the soft clipper is killer, i love that plug"

i did not ask him about har-bal.
not just a path, also a technique...an entire school of thought...

jeff dinces

[aivoryuk]

Okay here is my signal chain and my work ethic on the track.

First things first i listened to the track as my impression was that the all the bass energy was in the kick drum which was too upfront for my liking and was at the obscuring the bass guitar slightly.
the high hat was also slightly forward but at the same time did drive the track along.
guitars seemed a bit muddy
the vocals seemed fine to me.

one of the things I felt was impressive about it the track was the performance. It was pretty tight IMO
so although the piece had a few flaws techniqually I felt the performance of it was the most important thing to concentrate on.
I did do take where it was slightly more processed in terms of Eq but when comparing to the original I was totally happy.

so I did the version I uploaded and here are my settings In order.
First I did a manual gain change of -0.25dB on the point of where the vocal says 'Patronise me' in the first line. It seem to send the chain in to overdrive. You can notice on most of the masters
Waves Lowband Eq
86Hz -2 narrow q
43Hz +1.4 narrow q

URS Fultec (I know this is primarliy a mixing eq but i do like this for minor cuts/boots)
300Hz -1.5 narrow bandwidth
1Khz +1 fairly Narrow bandwidth

Dynamically I felt the track was good so i went out digitally into my Tc Electronics triple C in Fullband mode and used
ratio 1:12-1 (the lowest ration
attack 70 ms
release 500ms
Just to glue it to glue to make it more solid.

I then added level 3 DRG from the triple C which is my version of clipping and digitally out again recorded realtime in 16 bit
There is no peak limiting on my version

Overall I felt it came out ok as I had preserved the performance.
For the sake of a dB or 2 extra mid or whatever i felt it wasn't worth it


sorry for the bore and thanks for all the comments and thanks to ged for arranging this i really enjoyed it.

Ps Pingu: don't be soo hard on your chain i really enjoyed yours it was one of my faves

[PieterS]

My approach was "in the box" using my own software along with RML software in the SAWStudio environment.

The setup:

1)
Sonoris Equalizer in upsampling mode
* high pass @ 16 Hz 12 dB/oct slope
* +2.25 dB @ 47 Hz BW=1.3 oct
* -1.5 dB @ 94 Hz BW=2.0 oct
* -2.75 dB @ 840 Hz BW=1.6 oct
* +2.0 dB @ 2.3 KHz BW=2.1 oct
* -2.75 dB @ 16.3 KHz BW=2.5 oct

2)
Sonoris Compressor in opto mode
* ratio = 1.2
* threshold = -25.5 dB
* attack = 100 msec
* release = 200 msec
* knee1 = 20%
* make-up gain = 2.5 dB
* sidechain high pass filter @ 100 Hz

3)
RML Levelizer (brickwall limiter)
* gain = 11.1 dB
* ceiling = -0.26 dB

4)
Sonoris Dither
* TPDF type noise
* noiseshaping type 2

[Pingu]

aivoryuk wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 01:03

Ps Pingu: don't be soo hard on your chain i really enjoyed yours it was one of my faves

Cheers man.


As yours mine.

[OTR-jkl]

My entry sounds like crap. I knew better, but I did mine late at night (1am) after a long day AND at low volume (that was the killer)......and it shows....... Excuses I know, but it was then or never.

Analysis:
To my ear, this track is quite thin, highs are harsh and the mids are honky.

Goal:
Smooth the top but still leave some room up there, get rid of the boxiness in the mids, beef up the bottom and (obviously) boost the level - w/o spanking it. I wanted it tight yet still bouncy.

Chain:
Playback
- Samplitude (1st instance)
- Original file (44.1/16)

Process (within Samp1)
- PSP MasterQ (FAT On)
  HPF; 23Hz, Knee 0.67
  Lo shelf; -0.37dB @ 86Hz, Q=0.50
  +0.25dB @ 86Hz, Q=3.54
  -1.57 @ 167Hz, Q=1.54
  +0.35 @ 217Hz, Q=2.67
  -3.57 @ 489Hz, Q=3.26
  -0.95 @ 6.57kHz, Q=2.00
  -1.05 @ 9.5kHz, Q=1.52

- PSP MasterComp (mode: Soft, RMS)
  Ratio=1.4
  Thresh=-2.62
  Attack=657ms
  Rel=262ms
  Link=100%

D/A-A/D
ART DI/O loaded with a NOS Telefunken 12AX7; tube saturation at about 95%; not quite +4dB analog gain

Capture
- Samplitude (2nd instance)

Limit (within Samp2)
- PSP Vintage Warmer (mode: Single band)
  Drive=+5.30
  Knee=2.0
  Speed=55.0
  Rel=0.28
  Mix=100%
 
Dither
- Samp TPDF; bit depth set at 2.0


Conclusion:
Missed the mark. Bottom is still thin and the kick is not defined well. Top is a little too edgy. Mids not too bad but instead of boxy are now maybe a little canny. Level not too bad, could be slightly louder. Punch & bounce decent. Overall, not thick enough - especially in the upper bass/low mid region.

[Pingu]

OTR-jkl wrote on Wed, 17 May 2006 03:12

My entry sounds like crap. I knew better, but I did mine late at night (1am) after a long day AND at low volume (that was the killer)......and it shows....... Excuses I know, but it was then or never. Analysis: To my ear, this track is quite thin, highs are harsh and the mids are honky. Goal: Smooth the top but still leave some room up there, get rid of the boxiness in the mids, beef up the bottom and (obviously) boost the level - w/o spanking it. I wanted it tight yet still bouncy. Chain: Playback - Samplitude (1st instance) - Original file (44.1/16) Process (within Samp1) - PSP MasterQ (FAT On)   HPF; 23Hz, Knee 0.67   Lo shelf; -0.37dB @ 86Hz, Q=0.50   +0.25dB @ 86Hz, Q=3.54   -1.57 @ 167Hz, Q=1.54   +0.35 @ 217Hz, Q=2.67   -3.57 @ 489Hz, Q=3.26   -0.95 @ 6.57kHz, Q=2.00   -1.05 @ 9.5kHz, Q=1.52 - PSP MasterComp (mode: Soft, RMS)   Ratio=1.4   Thresh=-2.62   Attack=657ms   Rel=262ms   Link=100% D/A-A/D ART DI/O loaded with a NOS Telefunken 12AX7; tube saturation at about 95%; not quite +4dB analog gain Capture - Samplitude (2nd instance) Limit (within Samp2) - PSP Vintage Warmer (mode: Single band)   Drive=+5.30   Knee=2.0   Speed=55.0   Rel=0.28   Mix=100%   Dither - Samp TPDF; bit depth set at 2.0 Conclusion: Missed the mark. Bottom is still thin and the kick is not defined well. Top is a little too edgy. Mids not too bad but instead of boxy are now maybe a little canny. Level not too bad, could be slightly louder. Punch & bounce decent. Overall, not thick enough - especially in the upper bass/low mid region.

Wow thats intersting.

Thank you for posting.

FWIW i likes yours.

2 things i would appreciate a little elaboration on if you could.

1. Your attack time on the mastercomp.
Do you commonly set late attack times?
It might not be late for some but to me this seems late.

2. Could you please explain how exactly you are using two instance of Samp, and why.

Im presuming its cause you dont trust the bouncing 100 percent.

Also what driver are you using in order to achieve this.

I tried a while ago to do this with the 002 rack but couldn't figure it out.

Cheers.

[OTR-jkl]

Pingu wrote on Tue, 16 May 2006 14:23

FWIW i likes yours.

Thanks for the vote. I don't like it because I know I can do much better...

Quote:

1. Your attack time on the mastercomp. Do you commonly set late attack times? It might not be late for some but to me this seems late.

It varies. I try to keep the original transients intact as much as possible; only clamping down on them if needed. Since its still too bright & edgy, I probably should've used a faster attack. Remember though, I did this at low volume so I wasn't clearly hearing what was going on...

Quote:

2. Could you please explain how exactly you are using two instance of Samp, and why.

I'm using the 1st instance for playback and to add any VST plugs such as EQ & Comp. I route the output of Samp1 to Dig output - thru any outboard processing - back to Dig input. Samp2 (in Live Input mode) is used to add s/w limiting and capture the signal to the HD at the current Fs and at 32bit. Capturing is done by utiizing the MixInFile function. I then build the Master EDL from the captured 32bit files. Dither is added when Samp creates the image file from the Master EDL.

The Dig I/O card is set to Digital Input (external) clock source and the D/A-A/D acts as the master clock.

This method really is no different than if I were to use Wavelab or some other app for playback and Samp to capture. The main reasons I work this way are so that I can introduce h/w into the chain + it allows me to hear everything working together. There is a small amount of latency involved but it has no bearing on anything other than a slight delay in monitoring processor adjustments.

BTW, I totally trust Samp's bounces. I did the null check when I first started using it...

Quote:

Also what driver are you using in order to achieve this.

WDM drivers. I've tried w/ASIO & MME drivers but have never been able to make it work.

Did I explain well enough...?

[Pingu]

Yep.

Thanks heaps for that.


Probably why i cant get it to work is cause im using ASIO which i think im stuck with cause of the 002.



Thanks for the explanation.

[Bob Boyd]

Ed Littman wrote on Tue, 16 May 2006 01:27

here's my chain...... Wavelab 5 mytek stereo 96 DAC into dangerous S&M box Sum(mid), Minus(side) width set to +6 (first time I went that far) the Sum, went into the left side of the IBIS with the eq settings of +1db, 52hz tight q, +2db, 554hz wide q +3db, 148k wide q +2db 19k wide q I used the chandler ltd-2 lightly with fast attack & release & a bit of makeup gain. the Minus, went to the right side of the IBIS with the color source at 5 mainly for the guitars(thats alot) +3db, 220hz wide q +4 db 1769hz mid q +6 db 19k wide q (i know, to bright, but cought some problems at the end with the desser) I used the right side of the stc-8 for a bit of makeup gain (between the 2 compressors outputs i can vary the mix to taste) ADC- HEDD  no tape or tube effects trans x wide for the extra snap in the snare & kick (Bob, great minds think alike...) Algorithmix red eq +11.9 db, 112hz tight q ...very transparent eq's that can be pushed,got a little bass tone from that boost +1.2 db, 2.33 hz wide q Waves de esser @ 6979k +3db of master fader clipping inernal wavelab dither Ed

Really enjoyed reading through that Ed.  Good stuff!

[cerberus]

i have begun to put some of the data on a chart.  i think there are trends and commonalities we can spot that we all might learn from... but it will take me a while to sort through all this data, especially to unwind feargal's parallel processing.

does anyone who did all in-line processing think the parallel stuff is weird? ineffective? or just beyond the point of diminshing returns?

jeff dinces