Print

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

[Matt_G]

Hey Guys, thanks to all who participated with this one. There was 15 submissions in total so please comment on all 15 entries here so no one feels left out. It was interesting to see what your interpretation was with this track. Let's open up the floor for some comments...

Matt

[cerberus]

waiting for totalsonic; and oddly "unable to connect" to norbert's yousendit link. would someone please upload it to the massive server?

jeff dinces

[Matt_G]

Ok seeing as though everyone seems a bit shy   , I'll kick it off. Let me just say there was quite a number of submissions that were very good indeed so don't feel too bad if I critique yours too much, as I'm being very nit picky.

One thing that should be pointed out, is that the mix was done with high RMS in mind. To this end, the snare was a couple of db louder then was intended so that when it was compressed & limited heavily it would fit into place appropriately without  sounding buried. The guitars should be quite a bit taller after compression, brightening & limiting. The low mids & highs are out of balance & need to be corrected to improve the clarity & definition. I had the mix engineer for this track over today & he has since upgraded his monitoring & was cringing at the frequency imbalance particularly in the low mids & highs. We both had a listen through the submissions & agreed on the favourite being mine & "Sunny's". He said if he could pinch some of mine & mix it with Sunny's it would be perfect.

All submissions were level matched & A/B'd against the original mix. Listening was done through Dynaudio BM6A's with a Velodyne DD12 sub with additional listening done through Sennheiser HD600 headphones. Listed here in order from loudest to quietest...

1 NoWo - This one had the highest RMS value, but impressed me the least. Sub frequencies were very hyped around 40Hz, upper lows were ringing like a bell from 70-80Hz. Low mids were scooped losing the definition of the bass & the body of the snare & guitars. The upper mids sounded hollow, thin & brittle. Highs were nice & where they needed to be.

2 THP1 - Overall quite nice, good punch on the kick & snare, I felt like there was some slight phase shifting going on with the stereo image, which made it feel a bit weird, like the centre wasn't locked in. Perhaps a dual mono unlinked compressor or limiter? Guitars, snare & cymbals could've been a bit brighter overall.

3 MattG - In hindsight I could've probably removed maybe 1db at around 238Hz but the rest I am pretty happy with. I've kept the drum transients well considering the RMS level, I worked hard to get the guitars & vocal up front alongside the drums. My main goal was to give it energy & excitement without compromising the quality too much, which I believe was achieved.  

4 Hans - good strong level, I felt the 8-9kHz was a bit too up front & the highs sounded 'processed' (not natural). The subs were a bit too hyped & the lower mids were scooped too much, giving it a smiley EQ sound.

5 Mike Bruce - Nice! when the tracks are level matched, yours sounds quite similar to mine in tonality & overall feel. It felt quite open while still having plenty of energy. The depth & width was nice too. Perhaps a little less low mid then what the guys would like, but I don't think this compromises the end result too much. The only other minor criticisms is that the verses seemed a touch too loud compared to the chorus, so the lift wasn't as dramatic as it could've been. The upper mids/highs were a bit too bright/fatiguing for my taste.

6 Luke F - Overall quite nice, loved the tonal balance of the low mids & subs, if anything you could've opened up the very top end more to let it breath. Perhaps it could've benefited from having some more push circa 3kHz to bring the guitars up. The level was nice an open however I felt like the guitars sat back a bit & gave the drums a touch too much focus.

7 Sunny - Great Master!  Nice tonal balance, great punch on the kick, good overall energy. What impressed me most was your ability to get the level up while maintaining fidelity & keeping the transients & image in tact. My only criticism & it's subjective... It would've been good to hear it about 1db louder. Apart from the level yours was very close to the sound of mine with 3 small exceptions, mine was a little more dense due to the extra 1.5 db of RMS level & it also had more 3rd order harmonic distortion (not necessarily making it better, just different), probably due to how hard I pushed the Cranesong HEDD & lastly I had a touch more width & depth. This is my fav out of all the submissions I received, if I was hiring for this job, yours would of made the cut. Well done!

8 Ged Leitch - Another tasty master - Ged I liked the low sub treatment, nice density, decent level. I only really have a couple of small criticisms.  The top end seems a bit swishy & perhaps a little over pronounced. There is a little bit of a boxy overtone around 238Hz which could do with a small dip. Either way it's a really nice job.

9 Aivoryuk - Decent job, for me the snare & mids in general were a little dull which caused it to lose a little energy. Dynamics were good but it is getting a fair bit quieter then some of the top 10 releases. Stereo width was a little closed in. But overall very close to the money!

10 Eric Jensen - Nice stereo width, I can see where you were going with digging the vocal out of the mix more but the EQ sounded a little harsh around 5kHz & a bit bright & brittle on the rest of the music in general. Having said that the vocal does cut through nicely. I guess this is one of those things where you wish you could have the vocal on a separate stem so that you can EQ it without compromising the rest of the mix.

11 Chris J - Nice Master, perhaps a little conservative level wise (I can't believe I'm saying this to you! ). Dynamics are left in tact while still sounding a little denser. The hats were perhaps a little too prominent & the mids could be stronger to accentuate the guitar & the snap of the snare. Nice control of the lower mids & bass.

12 Cerberus - When level matched against the original tonally it's not too different which is a shame, because the original mix lacks energy & needs brightening up. I am surprised if you've referenced this to Trapt, because your level is a conservative -12.6 RMS average & tonally it's not really in the ballpark. Unfortunately in your effort to achieve higher levels you have lost the punch & impact of the drums. They sound slightly fuzzy, unfocused & pushed back in the mix. The depth, width & openness of the highs seem slightly compromised compared to the original mix as well.

13 TrilliumSound - This one had some good points & some bad points. I liked the separation, width, the overall space & the openness. I also liked the bass guitar tone. The level was quite conservative compared to new releases. Despite the good points, I thought the track sounded over processed & that the upper mids were a touch too bright. The separation distracted from the song at times.

14 ATOR - Something weird is happening with the phase to me, the width, upper mids & highs sound artificially processed & unnatural. The centre channel sounds washed out & undefined. Compressor timing sounds wrong to me. Low RMS level also makes this one too far off the goal.

15 Patrik T - Lowest RMS out of all the submissions makes this too far off the goal. That aside the bottom end seemed to dominate & hog the mix particularly on the kick. Could use more energy in the mids & highs to bring it to life as the snare & cymbals weren't snappy & the vocal was a little buried.

16 Undertow - Something weird going on with the stereo image, the hats feel like they've swapped from the left channel to the right channel & there seems to be some image shifting going on.  Drums have lost impact & it sounds a bit blanketed overall, which is surprising given the lower -13.1 average RMS.

17 Pingu - I know you didn't officially submit it but I thought you'd like some feedback anyway... Lowest RMS at -16.3 makes this too far off the goal. The low mids & subs were stripped away too much, leaving the mix feel empty. Highs are nice & the snare is certainly up front (maybe a bit too much?) guitars feel overwhelmed by the level of the drums, this loses too much energy for me.

[ericjenson]

P for Pro's
C for Con's

In no Particular order:


LukeF:
P:Warm, Dynamic, good level
C:Lacking slightly in the highs and in width

aivoryuk:
P:Dynamic, nice spectrum, good level, good punch up on the hooks, nice width
C:some phasyness that took away from the overall energy and focus

ATOR:
P:good punch ups, brought up the highs tastefully
C:A little too beefy on the kick and lows, vocals are smeared and buried in certain parts, i think i hear some added reverb,maybe a little too much, because the focus suffers slightly

ChrisJ:
P:good level, dynamic
C:vocals jump to the left for about 2 seconds during the first verse?something in the highs seemed unnatural, alittle lacking in energy overall

THP1:
P:good energy, nice spectrum
C:a little overdone on the noise reduction

Trillium:
P:good level, good focus and balance in the spectrum,  toms really punched through nicely, width
C:the bass guitar sounds unbalanced in comparison to the kick

Mike Bruce:
P:good punch, balanced, focused
C:maybe a little more width on the hooks, the highs seem to jump around a little in the stereo field, with a few low level glitches

Ged Leitch:
P:nice balance, focus, i like how you emphasized the fundemental of the kick
C:could be a little more punchy, hooks sound a little thinned out from leveling maybe?

Sunny:
P:warm, kept the tape sound alive, nice balance, punch
C:lacking a little energy and width in the hooks

Cerberus:
P:stayed close to the original sound, brought the overall level up
C:it just seems all that was done here was comp/limiting

hans:
P:good punch and width, focus
C:Click,click,click, what were you doing to the transients? i think i could actually hear the snares from the bottom of the drum rattling

NOWO:
P:good punch
C:way too much lowshelf, high end sounds brittle, overall levels seem to change in unnatural ways throughout, some kind of leveling perhaps?

patrik t:
P:punch,
C:too much lowshelf, unbalanced, unnatural phasyness going on

Matt G:
P:punch, nice balance
C: a little unfocused, lacking some energy, too much leveling which i think took away from the impact of the hooks

[cerberus]

hfs  

ericjenson listened and said:

P:stayed close to the original sound, brought the overall level up C:it just seems all that was done here was comp/limiting

that was all i thought we were asked to do. i feel much better now, thanks.


jeff dinces

[Patrik T]

Ok, here are my observations.

I've burned CD-R's this time. Listened through boomboxes, in old CD-player headphone jacks, in a Volkswagen and so on.

I really have changed mind about the RMS comparison thing since it says nothing much at all. I prefer to adjust things with a physical rotator from now on when listening to submissions. No more montages here, ever!

I also have listened in my DAW. Monitoring through the ordinary lavryblue -> pmc tb2s and additionally in Senn HD 600 cans.

In no particular order;

AivoryUK: Excellent work. The layers of guitars are indeed dancing and CHUGGING (most seemed to ignore that part). Unfatiguing tone towards soft, but definitely rock! Swinging and everything! Very Nice and no complaints!

Luke F: Nice! A little boxy (compare your's to Aivory's and find out what I try to indicate) and therefore a little "trapped in". But it is swinging and it is rocking. Good work.

Chris J: Have you by any chance done this with the Lavryblack?    Chris, this is really nice and sweet. There is a strange image shift at around 0:15. The sides feels a little low but the over all tone is very pleasing and it is a really good and sensitive work!

Mike Bruce: Pivot above 1000 Hz makes it a little brittle. Good separation and guitars kicking in goodly at louder passages, but it becomes a tiny bit too stressed at those louder passages. But, good work.

ATOR: Now, it feels like a hole here somewhere. As if some region is out'ed. The sides are good. Nasal tone on the singer. I do not experience any lift-off at choruses.

Trillium: There is a too bright pivot center for my taste here. Extremely well chosen and carved tone for the guitars (and bass) - the "dirty" one! Very, very swell! I hear some pumping tendencies on the louder passages though which makes it a little nervous on those.

Hans: Sizzly tone here. The snare, especially, sounds like breaking glass on every hit during louder passages. The sound is too processed and stressed.

Eric Jenson: Very brittle, sizzly, sharp and harsh. There is an exeptional separation but it is very fatiguing and the whole tune lacks drive. I do not know what you monitor through, but you might have some issues there.

Undertow: Side channel fells in front of mid. Not too sizzly or harsh but somewhat nasal.

Matt G: Not very relaxed anywhere. The toms and drums becomes very unactive for the drive in the louder passages. The tone is fine, the separation is good, but honestly - I think you are overdoing the tape-sound a little too much sometimes. This I base on your former submissions as well.

THP1: Hollow and locked in sound which lacks air on top of everything. Pleasing tone though. Strange image shifts from time to time. I feel no big drive in louder passages.

Ged: Sizzly and bright sonic centre. Very surgically carved out soundscape. Clear and open, but this might become too much carved out in the context of rock. I miss some energy around 100-200 Hz.

Cerberus: Very subtle and transparent work which is true to the source mix. Keeping in mind that there were no clear directions from the client ("smash it!"), this work is very well done.

NOWO: NONE OF THE FORMER DISTORTION ISSUES THAT HAS BUGGED ME IN THE PAST! Let's buy Champagne Norbert. The bass is some 6 dB too loud, but in your submission I can atleast hear the bassplayer play his instrument more than in most of the others! Surprisingly clean and soft sound for you. Pumping issues in the choruses and so on and so on and so on, but I'll try to shut up now. It's always kind of funny to hear what you come up with because it's really way off anything else. Eve though your submission is wicked I'd probably would choose that before some of the brittle ones if I had no choice and a gun to my head.

Pingu: Not bad Pingu. The level is fine because the music lives, and you know that, but obviously there are some serious issues regarding comp/exp/transient or whatever at the louder passages. If you found a way around those and gave it some more hours you'd surely come up with something very good!


MY OWN SUBMISSION: I choosed to make it dark, gritty and give it a rock-costume. I did not find a bright and plastic texture to fit this song at all. I did not want it to become techno-mazurka.



Best Regards
Patrik

[cerberus]

i think the band -is- that dark...what is the problem with them sounding like they sound? if they want to sound brighter: mix it like the lord-algai; or mix it again.  

i spent six years learning how to get the f*ck out of the way of mix engineers and still do my best work...how is it possible to raise the rms by double and still get all that so close to seeming like i did almost nothing to the eq?  i must be very good at the part of the job description where it says i should be able to do the work and still be mostly invisible to the end listener.

now i am to second guess every mix engineer?  shall i rewrite the lyrics too?

restoration is another matter, we should have a restoration "wurp" i think.  or should that stand for "remix"? (burp!) "But Uh we can't Remix it. Please?!"

jeff dinces

[Patrik T]

I could not read anywhere that I was supposed to smash this source into oblivion before I started, but maybe I missed that part?

[cerberus]

Matt_G wrote on Tue, 27 June 2006 03:07

I guess the main brief for the track would be to make it competitively loud while preserving the dynamics & the feel of the music.

which i may have misinterpreted.

jeff dinces

[NoWo]

Patrick wrote:
-------------------
I'd probably would choose that before some of the brittle ones if I had no choice and a gun to my head.
-------------------

That was very funny Pat. BTW where is my gun?
And you drive a Volkswagen? With Safari windows? Better buy a Mercedes, the sound is better there  
No distortion this time? Might there be hope???    

In general:

Jeff wrote in the other thread that he is still trying to find words. Well this is more than true for me. From Womp 1 I asked myself if you guys ever listen or compare your submissions to other music. I really doubt it.
I compared mine to Korn, Lambretta, Rammstein and a few others, unfortunately I could not find any Oasis CD which might have suit best. Compared to these buddies I am still too quiet and lacking some treble. My submission is a little too broad, but that is endurable. If I can choose between small or broad I always decide for cinemascope (might be an old habit because of doing hundreds of films).


Excuse me for being very short, but I had an extremely bad day:

1. NoWo: Slightly too broad, not enough separation between verse and chorus. Although I like it best I am still not content with it.

2. Hans: Very cool, a little more treble. Unfortunately you could not get completely rid of this hollow demo sound of the mix. What a pity. Could have been the best.

3. Mike B.: Okay, not enough punsh, more treble.

4. Matt G.: Hollow, not enough punsh (yes, I know, this hollowness is in the mix).

5. Sunny: Quite okay, more depth would make it even better.

6. Trillium: On every speaker bass is lacking.

7. Ged L.: No bass this time? The rest is okay.

8. Eric J.: With more punch in the bass it would be cool.

9. Luke F.: Very conservative, too warm, more aggressiveness would suit you good.

10. Ator: Much too flat, varies extremely on various speakers.

11. Chris J.: Too dull and not enough loudness.

12. Patrick T.: Same as Chris, but louder BD (much too loud compared to the rest of the music btw).

13. Cerberus: Add to this treble, bass, punch and loudness and it is cool.

And now it is time to say goodbye to you brothers, new kids are already knockin at your door. Sometimes it was a joy to ride a while with you, and sometimes you were a pain my a**. It is quite obvious that I follow other rules than you do and now I am looking for other challenges.

So good luck to anyone here, you might seee me here and there.

Norbert

[Pingu]

Matt.

I uploaded a different one to the server.

Thats not the master that i sent you.

[Pingu]

Patrik.

Thanks for your comments.

Its not like i was unaware of what the compressor was doing i set it
to pump a little.
Though i do not like smashed levels i like a little movement from a properly implemented compressor.

Cheers

[Pingu]

Nowo =   Slammed and scooped with no dimension. Harsh highs.
No nice way to say it………. Shocking!

ATORs =  Got that hard rock edge powerful
Quite different from the source.  Hi end is harsh for me.

Chris J = Quite true to the source but has added quite a bit of high end.
I didn’t think the high end was good enough to be boosted.  A bit squashed.
Good master though.  

THP1 = big rock sound but nothing really defined.

Matt G = Smashed to shit, but powerful. I like the overall tone though and for the fact that it is so fucking loud you’ve done it well.

Trillium = Quite good but I think has shaped it too much. A bit bright in the high mids and high end.  Big sound.

Mike Bruce = I like this one. Good job tone wise maybe a little loud. Seems to have reduced the bass as opposed to increasing the highs.  Good mids. And Bottom end.

Geds =  Similar to Bruces with a little more brightness. Quite like this.
Good one man. So far this ones sort of like an average of the masters.

Sunny =  Good job.  Good tone………… maybe robbed the bottom a touch.

Cerberus = Nice and warm with dynamics. Didn’t accentuate the high end, which for me was important in this song. Starts sounding like an mp3 when you do.
The most dynamics. Good one.Didnt change the tone too much form the original.   text book mastering

Eric = Sorry dude. Shocking in every way.

Luke =  Good job, a bit squished.  Like the tone.  Nice and warm good balance and a good master.  Well done.  



Aivorik = Good job mate. Really smooth.
Maybe a little smooth for me.  Though I don’t like smashed levels I like to hear a bit of swinging in the compression.
Great master. Well done.

Undertow =  A bit bright.  Harsh in the top end. Not bad though.

Patrik = I like the tone, just a little gritty.  Also the bottom seems to thud.
Nice work for this type of stuff.






Thanks for participating chaps.



I wish this was anonymous.
The tone of the comments on all of these wumps come through as "mines the best".

[NoWo]

Pingu,

please don

[Pingu]

I dont mean to be rude Nowo and im not anything special at all.
All i can do is tell it how i hear it.

I like your participation around here.