R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down

Author Topic: WUMP VI - Client's Requests  (Read 9006 times)

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« on: July 14, 2006, 02:26:41 PM »

Okey dokes - for those participating in WUMP 6 - here are my "client's requests":

LEVEL
This seemed to provoke the most controversy during WUMP 5.  First off - as pointed out in another thread I do not want an un-limited "purist" approach done for this master.  I'd like for this track to be able to played comfortably with the end user not having to ever adjust volume once set to have everything perfectly audible even in a noisy environment such as a car stereo on the highway or an iPod in the subway - and for this I'd say some amount of limiting is more than warranted.  I don't want to quantify an RMS figure as I think there's definitely room for creative interpretations - but I'd say the first drum kick/cello attack (after the initial two snare pickups that start the piece) should hit close to whatever you set as the output peak ceiling to get you in the ball park.  

Beyond that this piece should NOT be slammed to the extent of many masters we've seen for the past WUMPs.  I'd say if you come out with something like a -9RMS then you're really over baking things!  

Also - there are two sections of "siren glissandos" that peak well above the rest of the material in the unlimited mix.  These should be brought more to the equal the level of the rest of the mix (i.e. whether you limit them down or bring up the rest of the mix is up to you) - but I think it's important that these sections should still have a good amount of build up from mezzo-piano with the two crescendos in them to fortissimo still easily apparent.   Also - the piece has areas where the ensemble is deliberately mezzo forte, and there are a number of crescendos and decrescendos - while we desire a consistent average level these areas of compositional dynamics should not be negated in the master.

I think the overall guiding rule should be this:  If you are at any point confronted with a choice between readily apparent artifacts from limiting versus just having less average level - make the decision in favor of less average level.  Go for keeping the integrity of the sounds more than making it "loud."

Otherwise - I'd say in regards to level and vibe it makes sense to approach this as if it was a rock track (albeit one that is a rock track played by chamber instruments) - but let's say a rock track using average levels typical in 1996 - not the insane distorted crap we're seeing so much of in 2006.

BALANCE/SPECTRUM
To my ear it could use a bit of "air" on the top - and possibly a fuller extension and feeling of solidity on the bottom.  The cellos are mainly droning on their low G (an octave above a bass guitar's low G) through out the piece - so there's the paradox of there being a bit of a cluttered build up around this freq - but I also have a desire for the bass end to push this fundamental in as solid and tight and as "bass-like" of a way possible (and even give a perception of an octave below the fundamental if possible).  Sort this out without getting things boomy or boxy or cluttered or artificial sounding or thin and you get a gold star.   There's a couple of places where the mids and string parts get a wee bit cluttered - if you can clean these and help define things while still having the "body" left in tact then you da man.  

As far as overall brightness - seems it could use a little bit added - but one check is that I'd like for this piece to be "crankable" in head phones without feeling like ice picks are going in my ears.  

The drums were deliberately mixed slightly lower than what would usually done at the composer's request in order to emphasize the strings.  To my ear the drums still need to be "glued" much more to the strings though - so if you can bring these out a tiny bit and some how increase the sense that they are more in the same room as the strings is cool - but the overall balance shouldn't be radically changed from what you hear on the mix.

My own preference is for thumpy/thuddy kicks that hits you in the chest, and snares that go snap,  but as the drum performance is fairly busy with lots of dynamics in the part don't worry about making this happen on every attack.   Seems the hihats/cymbals have a little bit of grainy digititus on them so anything you can do in this area is cool too.

The two sections of "siren glissandos" (that peak well above the rest of the material on the mix) also seem to be a tiny bit brittle - and while this should most likely be tamed a little I think it's important also to retain a bit of an edgy in your face feeling in these sections also.

A couple places to pay attention to while eq'ing:
* At 0:20 Chris's cello (panned slightly right of center) plays the lead.  At Chris' request this was deliberately slightly distorted using the AIPL Warmtone plugin.  To my ear this area is still a wee bit "wolfy" - i.e. a few ugly resonances in the lower mids that occasionally poke out - even after a bit of corrective eq on the track.  SO - I'd prefer if nothing was done to aggravate this wolfiness, and if you can make this better without losing body, bottom or "naturalness" - then all the better.

* At 1:53 the lead melody is being played by the violin (panned Left).  This, despite my best efforts of a bit of additional processing at this point, borders a little towards the nasal sounding to my ear.  Again - nothing should be done that aggravates this - and if you can get things a little less nasal without diminishing the presence (which is fairly critical here) then all the better.  

TAIL
The head should be clean without a problem as far as I know.   The tail will probably need some additional fade overlayed on it - it's not entirely smooth as it exists now and this will certainly get aggravated by any limiting applied.  I'd like the fade to extend as much of the full length of the tail, as it exists in the current mix, as possible, with it slowly disappearing smoothly to the noise floor.

Have fun and thanks for participating in this!  Please also post any questions that you have regarding the approach that I would like and I'll be glad to answer them as best possible.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

mbruce333

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2006, 02:57:09 PM »

Steve...

You are the man!  What a great help to have such detailed thoughts on this track.  I can't wait to get home and hear this thing in the studio and get started. Very Happy  

Mike Bruce
Logged
Mike Bruce
myspace.com/auricleaudiomastering

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2006, 03:01:21 PM »

Also -
For those interested here is some background of the recording and mix (it might be way too much info - but I tend to talk way too much anyway - so consider the following what you might have to suffer through if we were actually in an attended session together):

The piece was composed in 2004 by Chris George, who is the other cellist in Invert (also featuring myself on cello, Helen Yee on violin and Chris Jenkins on viola).  He fully scored this out and then further small tweaks to parts and arrangement were worked out in rehearsals.  Over the past couple years it's become both a favorite of both the band and our audience.  This track will most likely be the lead off track for our upcoming third CD.

While Chris is a big fan of Kronos Quartet, the soundtracks to the films of the Brothers Quay, and composers like Golijov, Piazolla and Arvo Part, he also counts Rachel's, The Beatles. Guided By Voices, Velvet Underground, Ramones and Stereo Lab as big favorites too, and I think these influences reflect in his composition and in the approach he was wanting in the recording also.

The majority of the rest of the pieces for our upcoming CD were recorded in a more "traditional" way with just the quartet playing together in a single large room to an eight mic setup (4 close, pair of overheads, M/S pair in front of ensemble).  However, for our last CD we did a cover of the Beatles doing overdubs over percussion loops at my studio - and Chris really loved the way this turned out - and he wanted to try the same approach for this track.  Initially this was going to be a recording of only the quartet -  but I felt that the addition of drums was necessary to keep the energy of the track in an overdubbed performance, and after hearing the drum tracks Chris agreed.

The drums are performed by special guest Roberto Rodriguez, who leads his own group and has performed and recorded with tons of folks like John Zorn, Marc Ribot, Ruben Blades, Joe Jackson, and umm, even Julio Iglesias.  I think he contributed an amazing performance.  He was recorded at Studio G, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, by Joel Hamilton (who many of you might know as one of the moderators on the Tape Op board) who has recorded the likes of  Tom Waits, Elvis Costello, Book of Knots, and numerous others.  It was tracked to ProTools using stock HD192 converters.  I was too busy rehearsing and listening to Roberto to pay attention for the most part to what pres and mics were used, although I know Joel used a pair of Sage Electronics pres that he was really raving about.  Besides snare, kick, two close mics on the toms, and two overheads, he also put up three room mics to choose from - an AKG  C12 and a Blue Ball both slamming analog  comp/limiters to the point of distrotion (which we ended up deciding not to use at all for this mix) - and a Tannoy Ribbon - which we did use.

The strings were overdubbed at my studio using 2 Grace Design Model 101 pre's feeding a Mytek Stereo96 ADC.  Mic's used were two out of the three of an AudioTechnica AT4051 & AT4047 and an SE Electronics SE3500.  Usually the AT4051 was a couple feet from the source with the AT4047 out about 6 feet away  in the room, and then panned and blended to taste.  All the strings played their parts one at a time except for the 2 places where you hear the siren like glissing - which were played with the two pairs (first time violin and viola, second time violin and Chris's cello) playing at once while facing each other.

It was mixed at my studio entirely in-the-box using RML Labs SAWStudioLite.  Extensive splicing and editing was done of multiple takes to get what you hear.  Processing plugins used were the Sonoris EQ (on the string tracks), JMS Audioware Hi-res EQ (for some of the drum tracks), Sonoris Compressor (on a couple drum and string tracks),  Sonoris Multiband Compresssor (on a couple spots of the violin close mic), AIPL Warmtone (on the initial cello melody), Digital Fishphones Blockfish compressor (on the kick), and the built in SAWStudio compressor (used on a couple spots on my cello track).  Artificial ambience was generated by the Anwida Spazio plugin set to "Plate," and the dBAudioware Tempo Delay for some eighth-note echoes.  I actually mixed with a tiny bit of "protective" brickwall limiting on the 2buss using the RML Labs Levelizer - but I removed this for the mix provided.  

For my own trial mastering efforts I found the track benefited from a few bands giving a slightly smiley faced shapes on the Amek Medici analog eq, a little smoothing via my API 2500, a smidge of high and low shelf boosts with the Sonoris linear phase eq, and finally a decent bit of brickwall limiting.  Other approaches are very very welcomed though!!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

ericjenson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2006, 04:14:51 PM »

thx for the detailed specifications Smile
Logged
Eric Jenson
Mastering Engineer
Acoustics Engineering Apprentice

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2006, 08:23:24 PM »

You pedantic mongrel.


Good tune Steve, I'm impressed mate.
Logged
If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide.

Ed Littman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 877
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2006, 08:52:15 PM »

a hechm........now the client has spoken. & a knowledgeable one at that.
Ed
Logged

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2006, 05:44:02 PM »

Im finding this a tough little monkey to master.

Your tempted to make it thick and filthy but then the timbre of strings get sacrificed but if you dont take that approach then it can lose momentum.

Logged
If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide.

HansP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2006, 05:42:48 AM »

this is gonna b a dog  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
watch out!
(I'm out of town for a few days and have a slow modem here, but I have already prepared something)

will it be anonymous?
Logged

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2006, 01:34:24 PM »

I received a PM from one of the participants where he felt it's possible he might actually be able to do a better job by working from two stems: one of the drums, and one of the strings.  I could also post this up in a day or so for those interested in trying this approach - but I'd need to see first that more than one person thinks this is something they would work from, and that it would be appropriate for this WUMP.  

Comments?  Requests?

Best regards,
Steve Berson

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2006, 02:09:21 PM »


That would be nice actually. Smile

Alistair
Logged

jdg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 950
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2006, 02:37:59 PM »

only reason i would want stems is to bring drums up a bunch.
but then at that point.. we're 'mixing'

im fine with just the two track.
Logged
john mcCaig
-Mothery Earworks Clarifold Audipure

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2006, 02:44:10 PM »

jdg wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 19:37

only reason i would want stems is to bring drums up a bunch.


Which would be "wrong" to do as per the composer's specific request to really emphasize the strings they were deliberately mixed low, as per my notes above.  
I think the better reasons to work from stems rather than from the 2track would be to have the option to process them with different eq or compression than the strings, and to perhaps make any small compensations in balance between the 2 to maintain the balance as it is exists in the mix even after processes such as limiting, etc. were done to the master.

So far I've got 2 people stating interests in the stems - any others?

Best regards,
Steve Berson

ATOR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2006, 02:56:45 PM »

TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 19:34

I received a PM from one of the participants where he felt it's possible he might actually be able to do a better job by working from two stems: one of the drums, and one of the strings.  I could also post this up in a day or so for those interested in trying this approach - but I'd need to see first that more than one person thinks this is something they would work from, and that it would be appropriate for this WUMP.  

Comments?  Requests?

Best regards,
Steve Berson


Although the wish of having the drums separate popped up in my head, I think for the WUMP we should stick to the stereo-mix. The challenge of mastering is getting most out of a stereo-mix. That's tested most if there are groups of instruments with contrary cures for sounding good.

Logged
Pieter Vincenten - ATORmastering

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2006, 03:10:04 PM »

ATOR wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 19:56


Although the wish of having the drums separate popped up in my head, I think for the WUMP we should stick to the stereo-mix. The challenge of mastering is getting most out of a stereo-mix.


I disagree.  The challenge in mastering is to get the best sounding master.  

Now - whether working with stems allows you to achieve this has been highly debated on this forum - however - this WUMP could provide an opportunity to see whether more desirable results could indeed come from working in stems.  

While most often the client will not be able to provide anything but the 2 track mix - in this case the actual real world fact is that you are dealing with a client who could easily provide you with stems if you did in fact feel that you could get a better sounding result from working with them.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2006, 03:17:54 PM »

I didn't need stems. Voice it right and get energy coming out and you don't have to resort to pumping up the gain of the drums... that's a strong claim yeah, but I think it worked out just about right.

Thanks to whoever was talking about shelving EQ, as I coded some shelving EQs to use and it turned out seriously useful and powerful. I'm sold on the 'shelving EQ' concept for mastering, though I did program an evil twist that causes high boosts to fade around Nyquist, but low boosts to load the extraneous filter noise into the Nyquist area. I hope people like the sound of it, it's a pretty evil hack really. Inspired by Paul Frindle and his continuing talk about how it's not the sample that matters, it's the reconstructed signal value... and the neat thing is it dovetails with my other evil EQ hack that gave me fits on Rugged Cross Very Happy now I need never try to get upper-mid brightness by taking it off the fringe of a super air band boost again...
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 19 queries.