Print

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

[cerberus]

hi holger; congrats on your latest re-production.

jeff dinces

[lagerfeldt]

Here's my list in reverse order:

Cerberus:
Kick is missing, phased out

ChrisJ:
Severely distorted

Patrik:
Not bad tone but way too low

NoWo:
Way too wide, anti-phase

Ged:
Too closed in, pumps but not loud

Hans:
Hollow and has annoying spike at the very top freqs

TotalSonic:
EQ issues makes it sound somewhat off

Old Sonic:
Not bad but pumps a bit and lacks some low end

Ed:
Top of the kick is smacking, but the rest is too closed in

ATOR:
Okay but lacks an open sound and pumps too much

Matt G:
Too compressed Sounds like it's already on the radio.. Multiband issues again? Just a guess

Lagerfeldt:
My own version. Somewhere around here I'll upload very soon.

MTGroove:
Some minor midrange problems and a bit of distortion but the theme sound comes thru effectively

Luke F:
Best balanced of the bunch. Theme comes thru and is track quite loud. The low end suffers though and there's some distortion. Forgot to trim the end.


Conclusion:
As a customer I'd go with MTGroove or Luke F, but I would request a couple of changes.

THANKS to everbody participating, personally I appreciate anybody taking out time to do stuff like this.

[UnderTow]

My comments in no particular order:

Ged Leitch: Too much mid and not enough body. It sounds too boxy for my taste.

Cereberus: Distorted and harsh. Not to my liking at all.

DjTeachMe: No idea who this is. Looses points for not using proper naming and has the sampling rate all wrong it seems. A total failure.

ChrisJ: Distorted. Sounds bad.

ATOR: Nice full sound. Nice ballance. Maybe lacking a tiny bit of mid but that would be nit picking. One of the favorites of the ones I have listened to so far.

OldSonicDJ: Nice warm low-end bit a bit too much top end making it a touch harsh.

C_Hans: Distorted and too much mid. Sounds boxy and unimpressive.

Ed Littman: Nice sound. Not too loud. Another favorite.

sb: Too hyped at the upper mid or high-end. A bit thin sounding.

MT Groove: Nice full sound. Loud yet not too distorted allthough there are some parts that seem on or just over the edge. This one at a more resonable level (for me) would be excellent. Another favorite.

My version: I just listened to what I did last night at 4am with quite a few beers in my system and I'm not impressed. Lol. I saw the no revision comment so thats just tough titties for me. Next time that will teach me to check before uploading. Anyway, it sounds thin and a bit slow.

I am curious to hear Lagerfeldt's version and I see alot of positive comments for Luke F's version. I must have missed it some how. I'll go and find it, listen and comment.


Alistair

[UnderTow]

Ok I listened to the other four:

Patrik T: Nice level. It could be two or three dB louder. The sound is ok but a little bright for my taste.

Luke F: Yes this is another favorite. I understand the comments. I still find that main synth a bit harsh.

Matt G: Too much pumping and a bit too bright.

NoWo: Too much stereo enhancement. It sounds like comb filtering. Not good.

My Favorites are Luke F and MT Groove but I would ask them both to trade-in some level for a slightly cleaner sound and maybe slight changes here and there.

Alistair

[Patrik T]

UnderTow wrote on Sat, 10 June 2006 18:44

Patrik T: Nice level. It could be two or three dB louder. The sound is ok but a little bright for my taste.

I've given this a thought. I think the brightness has a little to do with the clarity and separation I came up with, where others went for the more phased or combed sound.

It has also to do with Lavrys D.SAT, so now everyone knows how that saturating levelbooster sounds on this kind of material.  

[MT Groove]

I finally got to listen to everyone's entires.  Here's my opinions in no particular order.

Steve Berson (Totalsonic):  A bit "smiley faced" with the highs and lows emphasized.  Nice levels and definitley have the sound of quite a bit of analog processing with pleasing distortion.  Overall a bit bright for my taste but I like the sound.

HansP:  Smooth sound but a bit boxy sounding in the lower midrange.     The highs have been smoothed out quite nicely.  I dig it.

Ed Littman:  Very snappy and punchy kick.  Just a bit of harshness in the high mids but not offensive.  Nice levels.  Good sounding master overall.

Patrick T:  Conservative levels especially for this type of music. On the upside, it doesn't have the side effects of mega-slamming.  Nice balance but I would think most clients would want it hotter.

ChrisJ:  I guess I was warned before listening to it that it was gonna be LOUD!  I like loud but this is a bit over the top and has plenty of audible distortion.  However, I would like to have a copy of your Limtier algorithm cause there's no way I can get it that loud no matter how hard I try with what I have!  

Oldsonic:  Nice sound.  Good overall balance.  I like this one as well.

ATOR:  Hot Levels.  Good overall balance given the levels.  A tiny bit of pumping on certain parts.  Nice sonding master overall!

Theory In Motion:  Wrong Sample Rate, Bit Depth and Speed.  I tried to slow it back down to the correct pitch to have a listen.  But, it defeats the purpose.

Nowo:  Quite a bit of distortion.  Also hearing some weird frequency filtering throughout.  Stereo image increased but seems there was a lot of side effects to it.

Luke F:  Very Hot levels as well.  Good overall balance.  Tiny bit of distortion, but not offensive.  I really like this one as well!

Undertow:  Has a certain "boxed in" sound.  Lost punch.  

MattG:  A bit of audible distortion.  High mids are a bit harsh.  However still a very good sounding master.

Ged Leitch:  A bit too much of the deep bass rolled off? Less distortion than many, but I did notice just a tiny bit of compression pumping. However, it's overall a pleasing sound.

Cerberus:  Definitely different sounding.  Quite a bit of distortion and sounds like a lot of processing occurred. Lost punch.  


I hope I didn't miss anyone's entry.  These are just my humble opinions.  Take them with a grain of salt.  Thanks to everyone who took the time to review mine.  I appreciate the comments and suggestions very much. Once again, this excercise  was fun and very educational.  I'm very amazed to see so many different approach to the same song.      

[Matt_G]

lagerfeldt wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 01:30

Matt G: Too compressed Sounds like it's already on the radio.. Multiband issues again? Just a guess

Hi Holger,

I didn't reply to your comments from WUMP II (Waitin' On The RoundUp) but seeing as though you've mentioned it twice now, I feel I should say something. I don't use multiband compression at all in my mastering chain. With "Waitin On The Roundup" the only multiband I had in the chain was the L3 but it only had a threshold of -0.5 & this was with the "Ultramaximizer" not the adjustable "Multimaximizer" & the crossover points are "Linear Phase" so I hardly think this had any audible problems.

As for "DJ Teach Me" I didn't use any multiband processing of any kind. May I ask why you say this? what are you hearing that leads you to these conclusions?

As for the "too compressed, already sounds like it's on the radio" remark. I was not the loudest entry & certainly not the most distorted. That aside, your brief was to make it loud & I quote...

Quote:

Loudness is an issue with most music of this type, so while it should be well balanced it will require a fairly loud RMS value. The objective is to make it sound great on clubs, but also playable at home or on the radio.

and then you also said...

Quote:

But the biggest factor in my opinion is the extreme competitiveness in the club genre. Most professional DJs get somewhere between 30 and 100 new singles each week, some they buy, most they get as promotion. If the first 25 seconds don't sound loud and in their face, there's a risk that's the only 25 seconds they'll play of that song. Take into account that the club genres are considered short lived type of music without lastering appeal and quickly changing fashions (production, sound choice, tempo, etc.), the listening fatigue syndrome that plagues so many other genres is not a big issue here.

I know you didn't specify a particular RMS value to shoot for, but in my opinion, I did achieve the goals outlined in your brief. As for how it would sound on the radio, it depends on the station & how they load the tracks in. I didn't actually use any 'clipping' techniques or outrageous compression ratios, so it shouldn't bring out too much distortion providing the radio production assistant puts the track in at a reasonable level (not too hot). I used to work in radio production & I know first hand how the broadcasting chain interacts with the audio that feeds it. We used to have a pre/post transmitter button on the Klotz digital patch bay in our production suites & it is very interesting to hear the differences there.

Anyway, I'd like some more specific feedback on the "Multiband issues" you cite?

Cheers,

Matt

[ATOR]

Matt G wrote

in my opinion, I did achieve the goals outlined in your brief

You can't tell your client that, he's always right    even though what he said he wanted is not what you thought he wanted.

For me it's the hardest thing about mastering: interpreting what the client really wants.

[cerberus]

Matt_G wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 05:21

I didn't use any multiband processing of any kind. May I ask why you say this?

i think it's an old aerosmith/run dmc reference...

Quote:

As for the "too compressed, already sounds like it's on the radio" remark. I was not the loudest entry & certainly not the most distorted.

no, no... "keyboard malfunction"....only edited like a radio edit...  radios in clubs, in cars, on cans.

Quote:

I know you didn't specify a particular RMS value to shoot for...

we find out that out whenever lagerfeldt decides to bless us with his own master. then we can ask the burning question: is that a missed deadline or a zoom portastudio in your pocket?

jeff dinces

[Matt_G]

ATOR wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 20:10

Matt G wrote in my opinion, I did achieve the goals outlined in your brief You can't tell your client that, he's always right    even though what he said he wanted is not what you thought he wanted. For me it's the hardest thing about mastering: interpreting what the client really wants.

Yes this is funny & of course the client always get what they want, I never argue that with a real paying customer. If I know that a client is very particular about what they want, I ask them to sit in on the session. Then at least they can tell me what they like or dislike, they get what they want & leave satisfied. If it's a long distance client I get them to make a detailed email of what they want, including some reference suggestions & I adjust to suit. Alternatively I do a demo track for them for free, send it to them & if they like it they pay for a full session. But redoing masters doesn't really happen all that often. Most of my clients are happy with the first master.

Producers or mix engineers on the other hand often hear things in their mixes that they don't like after mastering & sometimes bring back revised mixes. I find myself having to remaster these revised mixes more then I have to redo a master with the same mix.

I must say, the more I get involved with these Wumps the more I see that they can't be compared to the real life situations where the client can sit in & explain in detail what they want. But that's not why I want to be involved with these things, I do it because I want to hear how other ME's tackle the same track & hopefully learn something from others.

It's got to be said though, with the previous WUMP & again with this WUMP, Holger has an unfair advantage over the rest of us who have submitted tracks first. He hasn't had 30-60mins to do his own master yet, but he has had time to listen to all of our submissions, read all our techniques, comment on all of the submissions (mostly negative feedback, nothing constructive or detailed) & all before releasing his own version. He is also very familiar with this track having worked on it before & when he does finally get around to submitting his track, it will be his revised version.

I think to be fair we should make him submit the 1st version that he did, the one that got officially released, the one that he wants to redo.

Matt

[UnderTow]

Matt_G wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 10:21

the L3 but it only had a threshold of -0.5 & this was with the "Ultramaximizer" not the adjustable "Multimaximizer" & the crossover points are "Linear Phase" so I hardly think this had any audible problems.

I did a quick and dirty limiting test a while back to see what happend with a simple sine wave fed through 3 different limiters. These were the results:

http://home.casema.nl/ajohnston/limiting/

Alistair

[Ged Leitch]

ok ok ok already!!!


Guys...


been away at the weekend havent had time to post but...


I'm picking up some negative vibes here from this WUMP III

Not about my entry BTW ( Was'nt 100% happy with it anyways)


But mainly, reactions to the comments.

Come now guys, were all grown ups, if *X* questions *Y* over
why he did this or that, then fine, learn from it and move on.
Or be stubborn as a mule and keep doing what your doing.

Personally, if someone like Holger or ED or Steve comments that my entry lacked bass etc i ain't gonna argue!

But obviously if you want to defend something you think needs defending then fair enough.

I just don't want people to take away any sort of *Negative* thing from these WUMPS, they are supposed to help us.

My faves in these WUMPS have got to be Matt G and ED Littman and Steve B.
These guys are delievring (in my opinion)
*Professional* masters of the songs, i immediatley know when I hit play and listen to their renders of the mixes in the first 10 secs i go ....."Thats It!!!" ..."Thats quality"

No disrespect whatsoever meant to you other dudes, you are all excellent guys and totally smoked me on WUMP III LOL!!!

Remember these are just my opinions!

As far as Matt G's version sounding too compressed  -
I don't get this?

To me, it sounded VERY Un-compressed, natural and distortion was almost non existant!
Ed's was definitley my fave, it's just so punchy.

I compared theirs to songs from similar styles like Basement Jaxx and others.
Theirs were actually better imo, more open, more punch.

Thing is ...imo...
they were the ones that managed to get the mix*There*
without making it sound like theres a dozen processors on it.

To me thats what alot of it is about, if not all!

And yeh i agree Holger has had an unfair advantage on this due to the familiarity with the track, and going over the deadline
Naughty Lagerfeldt!
But, i'd still love to hear his anyway!

Please ignore this if you guys think i'm spouting nonsense
but i'm just in from work catching up on the posts and wanted to comment.

Undertow - thanks for participating man!

Comments...

The *Sober* version -

I liked it, however,
although the level is great, the balance seems somewhat extreme.
For me there is no punch from the low end.
The upper mids circa 6K - 10K stick out too much.
Just my opinion Alastair!

Your welcome to join in on WUMP IV of course.



cheers,
Ged.

[UnderTow]

Ged Leitch wrote on Mon, 12 June 2006 00:25

As far as Matt G's version sounding too compressed  - I don't get this? To me, it sounded VERY Un-compressed, natural and distortion was almost non existant! Ed's was definitley my fave, it's just so punchy.

I think the comment was that it was pumping. (I havn't read back to check). Maybe there is less compression and the "pumping" is just the microdynamics of the original mix. Lol.

Quote:

Thing is ...imo... they were the ones that managed to get the mix*There* without making it sound like theres a dozen processors on it.

I want to listen to all the entries at one of the studios I work at. It is so hard to judge things properly here at home. I'll take your comments and others into account.

Quote:

And yeh i agree Holger has had an unfair advantage on this due to the familiarity with the track, and going over the deadline Naughty Lagerfeldt! But, i'd still love to hear his anyway!

Same here. Just read his comment about him becoming a father. Congratulations! I can imagine he has other things on his mind and schedule at the moment.

Quote:

Undertow - thanks for participating man! Comments... The *Sober* version - I liked it, however, although the level is great, the balance seems somewhat extreme. For me there is no punch from the low end. The upper mids circa 6K - 10K stick out too much. Just my opinion Alastair!

I can't really hear what is going on in the low-end properly here. I can just listen to overal tone and even that is seriously skewed. Never the less, after resetting the MasterComp as it should have been, (See technical notes thread) it has more body and is less harsh. In other words,  I agree with the comments you give.

Thanks for listening to the new version.

Quote:

Your welcome to join in on WUMP IV of course.

I would be more than happy to. I'm redoing the studio here starting with accoustics. That should make it a better environment for mastering.

I must say, I love this initiative. After taking part in this and reading the three threads, listening to the various versions and checking the technical details and reading the comments, I find it very educational. Thanks everyone!

Any idea when WUMP IV will be starting?

Alistair

[Ged Leitch]

Hmmm...Wump IV....

how about ....





tommorow!!!

[cerberus]

UnderTow wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 12:03

Matt_G wrote on Sun, 11 June 2006 10:21  the L3 but it only had a threshold of -0.5 & this was with the "Ultramaximizer" not the adjustable "Multimaximizer" & the crossover points are "Linear Phase" so I hardly think this had any audible problems. I did a quick and dirty limiting test a while back to see what happend with a simple sine wave fed through 3 different limiters. These were the results: http://home.casema.nl/ajohnston/limiting/

what would one expect from brickwall limiting a sine wave? such algorithms are intended for highly dynamic material.  i suspect that behavior in the time domain is more important to a designer of a brickwall limiter since most of the musical  material that would presumably trigger it would resemble an impulse much more than a pitched sound. so imo, that test seems far removed from a real world application.

i think the test results show us that elephant isn't an effective brickwall peak limiter in the strict sense, or it would only affect samples that exceed a threshold but not affect other samples at all....that would definately distort a sine wave into some other shape.

since elephant doesn't perform as a true brickwall peak limiter in the frequency domain, i think it probably can't perform like a one in the time domain either. although it seems to make similar artifacts when the process was run at low internal sample rates.  at higher internal rates, elephant seemed to attenuate the gain of the entire signal equally. nothing fancy or unusual seems to be demonstrated. imo, nothing looks out of order.  

(mac user here, no elephants for us; but what is it actually? voxengo's website doesn't clear that up for me.)

jeff dinces