Print

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

[Ged Leitch]

You know what to do guys...

this time lets not get too defensive, each opinion is valid IMO



and thanks for participating again!

You guys rule!

[lagerfeldt]

Whaddya mean??? I'm not defensive!!! Back off dude!!!

Heh heh  

Can't believe WUMPs are coming in so quick succession, I'll skip this one

[Ged Leitch]

lagerfeldt wrote on Sun, 18 June 2006 02:46

Whaddya mean??? I'm not defensive!!! Back off dude!!! Heh heh   Can't believe WUMPs are coming in so quick succession, I'll skip this one

Hehheh not you Holger!

just in directed to the "general" participants

[cerberus]

participants should realize that we are in a public forum; a harsh critique could resonate far past the room we're sitting in now; perhaps be re-interpreted out of context at a later date.  i realized this during wump2.

if it's ok with everyone, i'll have only nice things to say about other 's masters, just like i did in wump3.

but if you hate mine... go ahead and rip it up.  last time all the comments were very specific and therefore helpful for me. at the same time, i hope my clients or future prospective clients don't google that thread to read how my entry sucked.

jeff dinces

[Pingu]

WUMP 4

My comments are based by listening to the masters at various listening levels but mostly done by abing at an ear matched level between the original and the master.
I would say that all entries are “better” than the original with the exception of 2, which I would ask a revision for.
All have done a great job and I would have a hell of a time deciding which master to pick if it were up to me.
I have tried to keep my comments on the submissions positive and base this against the good things I hear against the mixdown.






ATOR =  Nice ambiance. Gutsy avenue to commit to I feel…. The live thing and all.  Good overall balance and nice level.

Trillium = nice dynamics, great overall balance, good width. Not too wide not too monoish  A good master in general.   Did not alter the song too much. Takes guts to commit to a master such as this, when its so easy to crank, great job.

MT Groove = nice and warm.  Punchy.  Left some dynamics in tact and generally made the song more enjoyable. Nothing sticking out for me on this and hurting my ears.  On 2nd listen I like more. Seems I detect some stereo narrowing which has made the song more powerful and has helped it to continue its drive.

Lukes = nice punchy loud master.   Good level without ruining the tune.  I like the overall frequency response.

Patrik T = Handled the area between 800hz and 3k well. I like the way he got the bottom end to blend in.  Not too smashed good level.  Another great master. Nice and smooth

Aivoryuk = at first listen against some of the others it seems less bright.  But listening to it for what it is makes an enjoyable listen.  Suiting this type of music nicely. Id say we could all listen to this version more than others over an extended period.  Left a nice amount of room for the dynamics to breathe.  Smooth listen. I like it. Reminds me of vinyl.

Schley May =   Another good job.  Good level, opened the tune up. Maybe a little bright for me above 5k.

Old Sonic =  Quite subtle in the eq in good way. Maintained the balance well with the level he pursued. Smooth overall, powerful.

Undertow 1 = nice eqing  good level, things are flowing nicely. A great smooth master. Nice smoothness between the kick and bass.

Ed =  Seems to have shaped things a little more than the others and done it well.Nicely percussive and smooth.  Slight scoop between 150  and 350 has given this entry some uniqueness. Overall volume very nice.  The song smoothly rises and falls.
Good one Ed

Ged =  Great level. Nice dynamics, smooth listen. Flowing nicely.  Nothing sharp sticking out. Similar to Aivoryuk.  Unique sounding. Good job. I'm hearing nice warm tones in the bass guitar that I'm not in the others.

Matt Grey  =   Addressed the area between 800 and 3k nicely but also added a bit of higher end sizzle which made the high hat more prominent which I wanted to do but didn’t know how to go about doing so I stayed away from it.  I don’t know weather this was the motive but its one of the few Ive heard so far that dealt with this.  Has not changed the mix too much. Nice dynamics and a nice overall listen. Good one.

Steve B =  Nice bottom end.  Tamed the brightness in the tune. Nice round overall balance. Not as percussive as some of the other entries, but I'm not saying this as a negative thing.  Good imaging and a nice overall level.  Smooth listen. Nice master without too much change from the original intent.

Pieter S =  Nice dynamics.  The song swells sweetly.  Compared to the mix down it’s a lot clearer, taken away the little muddiness the track had, and has generally improved the mix in a good way.

Bruce = I like what you've done with the bottom end. Nice and tight. Seems you have applied, little eqing which show discipline and what eqing you did do was done well. Nice warm master and left some dynamics in tact. Good one.

Cerebus = Nice full sound. Good overall frequency balance.
I like the bottom end. Seems to have a little cut around 300 hz which is adding a character the others don’t to the bottom without leaving a noticeable hole in the music.
Nice level without killing the dynamics.  Nice one.

Zetter =  Brave level wise.  Respecting the fact that the tune does not really need much work at all.  A respectable master that a client should indeed consider accepting as much as any of the others. Longevity is the key here.  The dynamics are sweet.  I didn't have the guts to keep as much myself. Made the song a more enjoyable listen.  Well done.

No Wo = The only entry I think with such a scooped out mid. Its has a surprising punch to it, but maybe the brass is too compromised by this. This entry is somewhat different from the original which can cause problems. But a unique submission none the less.





In conclusion I cant say which one I favour the most so I will list my top 5
In no particular order.

Zetter

Patrik T

MT Groove

Eds

Trillium


Very close behind them for reasons I don’t really know why didn’t make it into my favs were

M Bruce

Cerberus

Well done guys.

As I said almost all entries are worthy masters, in no need of revision.
The 2 I speak of are Nowos and Ators.
(Reasoning)
Quite significant alterations from the original intent of the song.

I hope these comments were useful.

I really enjoyed this WUMP, this was mainly cause there was such an awesome tune to work on. I hope we get to work on more tunes of this calibre.

My own submission sucks.

[schley-may]

Here are my comments, in order of preference. RMS levels indicated for reference. Please don’t anyone take anything personal, it’s just my perspective on this submission. We all perceive differently, and one man’s ceiling is 2dB above another man’s floor… But yes I'm being picky, as if I were paying you to master this for me, the producer or artist.

And many thanks for this opportunity to learn from each other.

Schley-May
-13
Perhaps a tad bright in retrospect, but not out of range of a lot of other releases. It brings out the hihat which adds excitement. I still like it best, although I was quite prepared to be wowed by other entries.

Undertow v2
-13.3
Better than 1st version, brighter, more space.

Ed Littman
-13.4
Smooth, not as much space as mine, not quite as bright, I want to hear more hat. Good bass, nicer fadeout than mine.

Trilllium
-15.2
Very similar to mine, not as bright, not as much space, nice and punchy, pleasant balance.

Pieter S
-14.8
Similar to Trillium but slightly duller.

Patrik T
-10.4
More compressed than I like, good tonal balance.

Cerberus
-11.7
Bass a tad heavy for my taste, but nicley EQ'd, very close to Undertow V1 but less hollow.

Undertow v1
-10.8
Very similar to Patrik T, but slightly hollow and less engaging.

Pingus
-10.5
Slightly honky and too compressed, edgy highs.

ATOR
-9.4
A little midrangey like the original, a little muted on top, bottom louder which takes focus away from more interesting areas.

MT Groove  
-11.3
A little veiled on top, bass a bit too forward, smooth though.

Steve Berson
-10.2 L / -12 R
Slightly veiled, peaks distorted, a tad bass heavy, some unpleasant artifacts when listening to L-R, perhaps different compression for each channel? Uneven RMS levels between channels is suspicious.

Luke F
-9.1
Bass heavy, edgy highs, overly compressed, slightly veiled.

---below this point in no particular order---

Aivoryuk
-12.2
Bass overemphasized, EQ not as balanced, punchy.

Matt G
-13
Veiled, bass heavy, a hole in the highs somewhere.

Old Sonic
-10.1
Overly compressed, narrower feel, harsh peaks.

Ged Leatch
-11.7
Veiled, bass a tad heavy, EQ balance uneven.

NoWo
-10
Very grainy top end, overly compressed.

[Patrik T]

Hiya!

All masters are good, so when you read your notes, have that in mind. YOU ARE GOOD! Here are just some brief thoughts and hence suggestions for changes.

In NO PARTICULAR order follows;


Undertow v.2 - Full, open and clear. on the flipside it might become a little too bright at certain passages and systems.

Totalsonic - Full-bodied analogue touch. The L side saxophone is distortion though and the sound feels somehwt trapped.

Trillium - Very conservative to the source. Could benefit from some HF lift to bring in the space.

MT Groove - A bit of more air would get the balance right in place. The midrange could need some more body-ness.

Pieter S - A bit shy around 200+5000 Hz, but otherwise it's fine.

NOWO - Aggressive brass that causes distortion, especially when interacting with cymbals. Dynamics ducking heavily, especially after 3:10.

Ed Littman - Wonderful, warm, clear and silky texture. The ensemble is GATHERED, in contrast to many others versions where the musicians are too far apart. Some brass instruments sounds a little weak, but it's not an issue since the general tone is really appealing.

Schlay-may - The brass is somewhat too aggressive for my tastes. It might have to do with too present upper highs. Apart from that it is a nice work.

ATOR - The reverb places a barrier between me - the listener, and the source - the band. It just does not feel very authentic at all. The reverbant just bugs me while I listen and it makes the brass sound...strange.

Ged Leitch - Pleasing tone, but a little locked in. It feels like many parts are trying to fit in a small area. Could need a little more or other adjustements in the 3-15 kHz are.

Matt G - Silky saturation texture. Quite sweet indeed. The soundscape is like a big ribbon microphone. Like as if the sound is oil-massaged. And I kind of like this approach!

Pingu - Pumping at strong brass passages (comp problems). Sax at 1:30 (L side) sounds a bit off (flangery, chorusey). Could need some serious boost around 300-350 to balance up the nasality in the brass section.

Oldsonic - A little too much towards mono. It's good to have shrunk the image (since the original is too wide) but this is a little too much. I also think the high end is too present and can become a problem on some cheap HIFI stereos.

Luke F - Open and nice. Maybe a little shy around 300, but it might on the other hand just be for the open-ness. After 3 minutes it becomes a little too much congested. 1 dB less level would do a lot for those passages.

Mike Bruce - A bit more air could do it!

Aivoryuk - Overall a pleasing and unfatiguing tone where the offensive brass frequs are under good control. Maybe a little bit more air could release things.


If I was the client I'd go with Ed Littmans version.

Listening was done thorugh Lavryblue D/A to PMC TB2s-A speakers. I altered loudness with a passive monitor controller this time, rather than digiatally. All submissions did hit the D/A at their intended gain, so no quantization took place on the digital side.

All entries were also checked in a pair of Sennheiser HD 600 headcans.

BRegards
Patrik

[zetterstroem]

i feel left out  

[NoWo]

Here are my comments:

NoWo: Bass slightly too hard, maybe phase problems in the last third.

OldSonic: Too less bass, little nosy, treble slightly overcompressed. Still like it.

PatrickT: My surprise of this Wump4. A little more treble would do it, let it shine, good bass. Like this one too.

Luke F: Too broad sounding, slightly hollow in the middle, treble could shine more. Anyway good like always.

MT Groove: Not bad but not punchy enough, quite round.

Cerberus: Cool treble, small bass, slightly flat, could have more punch.

Ator: Backing too broad, no center so very open, too loud, treble slightly overcompressed. Big fat warmth is your thing for sure.

TotalSonic: Similar to Ator but even less treble (although hyped at a special frequency).

Schley-Mey: Level too low, low end too small, not punchy.

Sonoris-PeterS: Too low, too flat, small bass

UnderTow: Too low, too dull.

Ged L: Similar to UnderTow, middle too compressed (or whatever you did to it).

Matt G: Punch is missing, too low, nosy compressed upper mid.

Ed L: Maybe V.1: Low end is missing, round in itself.

Aivoryuk: Muddy low end, much too low.

Pingu: Simply just loud but not nice, small bass, treble seem to have distortion or is just simply too harsh.

Trillium: Much too low, although round in itself.

Norbert

P.S.: Seems like I also forgot Zetterstroem. I have no explanation for it, sorry man.

[Pingu]

Lets try to keep the comments a little less savage please.

[Matt_G]

zetterstroem wrote on Sun, 18 June 2006 20:28

i feel left out

Couldn't find your upload link anywhere?? Can you post it here or in the other thread?

[UnderTow]

First up, thanks for the material, it was a pleasure to work with.

I did two listening sessions. One with all the tracks at unity gain and one with the levels adjusted to correspond to the original. I'm not sure if I have decided which is most valid but in the end I took the notes from the session with the adjusted levels.

As there are so many good versions, and the purpouse of all this is to learn, all my comments are made with extreme levels of criticism engaged. Alot of the comments are nitpicking. Take that into account when reading these comments!

Also keep in mind that I have less than ideal monitoring and accoustics. Things could be interacting with my room...

In no particular order:

ATOR:      Too much of the wrong reverb for my taste. (Too small and upfront). It feels like sitting in the back of the room instead of closer up to the band. I always try and sit in the front row. This also causes lack of detail. Reverb clashes with the ambience/reverb that is allready there making it sound like the instruments are not all in the same room at times.


Pingus:      Slightly overcooked limiter on the loud parts. Slightly edgy sound in the louder parts. A touch closed in. Brass sounds a bit strange. Sounds distant.

Schley May:   Slightly pinched/nasal sound. A bit harsh on the top end.

OldSonic:    Lack of width. A bit lacking in dynamics. The climaxes could stick out more. The sound is a bit unclear.

NoWo:      Strange stereo field. Distortion on the brass. Too much compression. Boxed in and nasal sound. Lacking  some mid frequencies but too much of others.

Ed Littman:    Nice master. I kept Coming back to this one. Open and detailed sound. Favorite version!

MT Groove:   Loud but could be a bit wider. Feels very slightly boxed in.

Trillium:   Nice master. Could have a bit more low-end or warmth. Clear sound.

Aivoryuk:   A bit lacking in high-end. Slightly muddy low-mid. The mid-mid is a touch too forward.

Ged Leitch:   A bit lacking in high-end. Slightly too much low-mid. Sound could be more open.

Luke F:      Big sound (loud and wide). Slightly lacking in high-end. Slightly muddy low-mid. Could be a bit less
compressed. I don't think this material needs this level of loudness although I am impressed that you can achieve it without completely damaging the sound. Sounds  a touch distant when the monitoring level is adjusted to correspond to the level of the original.

Patrik T:   Nice Master. Could be slightly more open. Maybe a touch too much low/low-mid.


Pieter S:   Nice master. Close to original. Nice Open sound.

Mike Bruce:   Nice master. Good balance. Not much to add.

Zetter:      Nice master. Very close to original. Could have a tiny bit more body.

Cerberus:   Nice master. Could be a touch wider. A bit too limited in the loud parts.

ChrisJ:      Very boxed in sound lacking high-end and too much mid. Distorts in the loud parts. Least pleasing version. I don't think material needs this level of limiting. (if it was limiting).

TotalSonic:    Image shifted to the left? The drums and bass are not centered any more. Slitghly muddy sound.

Matt G:      Nice master. Could be a bit more open/brighter at the top end and maybe a bit punchier.

UnderTow v1:   A bit too much limiting. A bit too much low-mid making it sound boxy.

UnderTow v2:   A bit too much high-end. Makes it too harsh and looses some warmth because of this. It also brings the cymbals unnaturaly forward. Sound of brass instruments most affected by "new trick".



Alistair

[Matt_G]

Here are my comments from loudest to quietest, I had to do this critique at night on HD600's (wife was sleeping), so I couldn't really judge the bottom subs properly for this review. I level matched everyones submission.

Chris J - Man don't take this personal, but there is seriously something wrong with your chain somewhere. Are you doing any analog processing anywhere in your chain? There is a massive phase cancellation scoop at around 8kHz which totally screws with the mix. This sounds like something is wrong & not intentional (I hope?). Yours was also the loudest making every part of the song pretty much sound like it's at the same level (good for rock bad for jazz). Extreme loss of detail & audible distortion in places. This is one case where the original mix (when level matched with yours) sounds a lot better then the master.

Luke F - This one brought up the lower level dynamics up nicely but at the price of squashing the louder dynamic parts, which stopped the music lifting at the right places & made the horns sound a touch distorted. The mids & highs were very similar to the original albeit a touch brighter in the upper mids which made the horns a touch brash (could be the limiter doing this not so much the eq), I did like the enhancement done in the lower frequencies.

ATOR - The first thing I noticed was some slight delays on the drum transients which wasn't on the source file. This sounds like an artificial widening affect of some sort. Perhaps the madsen affect was used? To me it gave the overall stereo image a fake phasey sound which also caused some honky frequencies in the mids. The overall eq was pretty nice, the horns weren't harsh & the low mids were warm.

Old Sonic - On first listen I immediately noticed the reduction in the stereo width compared to the source file giving it more of a mono feel. The upper mids & highs were exaggerated a bit too much for my taste making it a bit thin sounding overall.

NoWo - Sounds closed in & harsh in the mids. To me it sounded like you were using multiband compression & the mid bands were sucking when ever the horns came in. Perhaps the crossover points on the multiband were too audible too, giving it a 2 dimensional smeared depth. I could also hear distortion in places. For me a decrease in the sound quality compared to the original.

Patrik - Nice man! I like the stereo enhancement very natural & open sounding, bringing out the sound of the ambience & room more. The highs were nicely detailed. My only comment on improving it further would be to add a touch more presence to the mids in the centre, so the snare snaps a bit more & perhaps a small duck in the lower mids again on the centre. But overall nice work, I was surprised to see your level on this one, considering your other submissions are usually so conservative. Yours was the 6th loudest, but I don't think it suffered too much to my ears.

Pingus - Something a little weird going on with the phase in the midrange. seemed to pump a little bit too much for me, causing the louder sections to duck & the lower dynamic sections to swell out of time to the music. The width was increased but perhaps a bit too far? Did you use MS compression? it sounds like the centre gets sucked down in the louder sections while the sides stay the same, giving it a weird feel.

MTGroove - I liked this one, it was pretty true to the original with the mids notched down a bit in the harsher frequencies. The compression (or limiting?) may have been rounding off the transients a little too much for my taste but it certainly sounded well controlled. Overall quite nice.

Ged - Nice job, mids were tamed just enough to remove the harshness but without compromising the feel of the horns. The low mids were perhaps boosted a little too much but this is just a taste thing & your interpretation. To improve it further perhaps a little more air on the top & a smidge more stereo width to open up the image a bit more. Well done.

Cerberus - Very true to the original, nicer top to bring out the cymbals more & the width sounds nice.

Aivoryuk - Another tasteful job, it's getting hard to pick a favourite. If anything it lost a little bit of openness in the high frequencies & small loss of detail. The bottom is a little bit too up front for me, but still quite acceptable.

Schlay May - Definitely in my top 3, beautiful depth & width, an open top without the 'shrill' factor. Dynamics are beautifully maintained with very little audible side affects. Bottom end is round & full without altering their balance or place in the mix. The upper mids were almost a touch too bright, but the way I saw it, you either removed it & lost detail/presence or kept it & lived with the brass poking through a bit more then you necessarily wanted.

Undertow V2 - Nice Master. Open detailed top, upper mids 8-10k maybe a bit too forward, causing the brass to sound a little edgy. The width was nice & the dynamics were better handled then your first attempt, which I didn't bother to fully review.

Ed Littman - I liked the low mids & the sound of the bass guitar on this one. The image didn't sound as wide as the original but the depth was nice. Love what you've done with the brass, nice mid range adjustments. Overall a nice improvement on the original. Probably a close 1st or 2nd place for me.

PieterS - A similar affect to ATOR's in terms of the slight delays on the transients giving me the sense of artificial width enhancement although not as obvious as ATOR's version. Overall it had a nice feel about it, nothing too weird or skewed, you've put the horns a nice place while reducing the hardness. Bass is perhaps a little too fluffy but you've managed to fill in the gaps & give the track a nice density.

Trillium - Structurally  this sounds very close to the original, a touch louder & more forward in the upper mids & tops, the original honk in the horns is retained (I didn't like this honk much so I chose to reduce it). Overall a nice delicate alteration of the original.

[UnderTow]

Matt, you are missing a few versions: UnderTow, TotalSonic (Steve Berson) and Zetterstroem.

Alistair

[chrisj]

Quote:

There is a massive phase cancellation scoop at around 8kHz which totally screws with the mix. This sounds like something is wrong & not intentional (I hope?).

Of course not. New code.... s**t. Yeah, it shows up hugely in a sonogram too, bingo. Weeellll, looks like I have my to do list for the day... finding out what the hell put that notch there.

You know the funny part is, the new code (including a bypass for other code) was meant to leave the whole midrange specifically alone and work on handling things with just dynamics, saturation and the frequency extremes.... something is obviously cancelling.

Sorry guys- count this one as 'Chris didn't come up with a technically adequate entry this time'. And I'm learning to hear narrow notches like that, but I need more work on it. No revision, I am a good captain and go down with my ship, saluting you all...

By next WUMP maybe my DSL can be hooked up... I'm not sure who else is trying to do this over a modem.