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 8954 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...

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2006, 03:25:14 PM »

chrisj wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 20:17

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.



I like that kind of confidence!  Looking forward to hearing it.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

jdg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 950
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2006, 03:25:52 PM »

TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 11:44

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.  




exactly.

if u had said, "the drums were mixed lower then the composer wanted in the first place" i'd be all over them stems.


but, if you have the stems... and dont mind uploading them.. i can't see any harm done.

hows everyones sunday going? btw Smile
Logged
john mcCaig
-Mothery Earworks Clarifold Audipure

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2006, 03:54:46 PM »

I think its too late to bring stems into this.

Might of helped but i don't know.

I am finished with mine and extremely pleased with it.

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 #18 on: July 16, 2006, 04:55:13 PM »

TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 14:44

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



I'm with sticking with the stereo mix.

Even though Steve is very responsive to supplying stems, usually they're supplied when the mixer is not sure of himself. If there are problems that require a remix & the mixer does not know how to improve or fix the "issues", stems are a great remedy.

I don't think our client fits in to this situation.

with that said, a future wump that starts off with stems might be very interesting indeed.....
Ed
Logged

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2006, 04:57:10 PM »

Call me stupid but as far as I'm concerned stems (Technically speaking) is mixing.
Logged
If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide.

Patrik T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2006, 05:25:37 PM »

I respect the artistic choice with the subtle drums and have no problem with the fact that some snare hits will be less dominant than others. That is a mix thing.

So, why not adapt with the composer's wishes? We had the very same wish in WUMP2 with intentionally low drums, still people carved out the snare and managed to bring it up like there was no tomorrow (why's that?).

Best Regards
Patrik





Logged

NoWo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2006, 05:47:43 PM »

Patrik T wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 22:25


So, why not adapt with the composer's wishes? We had the very same wish in WUMP2 with intentionally low drums...
Best Regards
Patrik




Had we? Can
Logged

HansP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2006, 07:41:05 PM »

eventually I think we should not change the destination during the flight...
the idea itself is interesting.
Logged

ericjenson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2006, 03:48:55 AM »

hey
i'm just gonna do the best i can with this and have fun, maybe even learn something, which is why i thought we were doin this.
not the way i would have mixed it but then again i'm not the producer..
so , they want it mastered, they 've given detailed specs,
let's do the best we can and stop whining and quibbling over stems and so forth
let's make it a real world situation, this is a client
let's treat it in this way and maybe we can learn something.
i'm saying this because:
this happens alot.
client drops off or uploads a mix , says what they want, and i try my best to give them that based on what they've given me.
if the client thought a stem or two would be necessary, then it's up to them to supply that with their demands.
in this case we've been given a mix, and detailed specs from a very skilled engineer at that.
maybe this wump can be useful in determining just what can and what can't be done with a mix once it's in your hands, but it's also a push for creativity and learning, that's why were doin this right, or am i on the wrong forum or do i need to start my own?

soo...
let's do our best and get to work

sorry if this is sounding too much like a PEP TALK but come on, just do your best. what else can you do?
LEARN,. and keep learning, it's limitless..


Logged
Eric Jenson
Mastering Engineer
Acoustics Engineering Apprentice

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2006, 07:05:52 AM »

I haven't had the chance to listen to the track yet, but...

do you guys actually request stems from your normal clients after hearing the tracks?
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2006, 10:08:05 AM »

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 07:05

do you guys actually request stems from your normal clients after hearing the tracks?
no. because generally i don't think it's the best idea to master one's own mixes.

i think that if stems were the correct way to do things, then the mastering profession would disappear.

the paradox is that i won't refuse more control in mastering. but i still do mastering separately with stems. a raw mix from me would have nothing on the 2 bus.

maintaing a two stage process no matter the situation. (i.e. respecting the title and position of mix engineer and  m.e. ) could either turn more expensive than regular mastering but still be compromised (i don't even have 2 rooms) or could work out cheaper than "regular" mastering, but even more compromised, since i would be forced to cut corners in both stages to stay under budget...not deliver my best work...which is up to the client.


jeff dinces

Ged Leitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2006, 10:10:23 AM »

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 12:05

I haven't had the chance to listen to the track yet, but...

do you guys actually request stems from your normal clients after hearing the tracks?



I've never asked for stems from anyone.

For me, more options means more chances of screwing it up

For me anyway!

Now....SEPARATIONS!  thats a different story!!! Laughing
Logged
http://bitheadmastering.co.uk/

"...But I don't wanna be a pirate!"

Patrik T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 833
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2006, 10:30:38 AM »

NoWo wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 22:47


I think this loudness debate will never end, even if Matt, myself and other loud guys are out.
Forgive me if I say it is always the guys with the "quiet" masters who take these customers wishes starting with ...low... too serious.



Dear Norbert,

I think you misunderstand things here. This is not about loudness, different "guys" or seriousity. What we have here is drums that sits low in the mix, and some people seem to not like that artistic statement (requesting stems).

Since you decided that WUMP was nothing for you, I see no reason why you must inflame the ongoing discussion with things you extract, maybe purposely, from between the message lines.

We are talking about the LEVEL of drums in a mix, not loudness.

Clear enough?

BRGRDS
Patrik
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2006, 12:31:27 PM »

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 12:05

I haven't had the chance to listen to the track yet, but...

do you guys actually request stems from your normal clients after hearing the tracks?


Well interestingly enough I did in the last job. It is the first time I asked for them but is was needed. The client is a good friend. He made some very nice music but the mix was horrendous. The guy has horrible speakers in a horrible room and can't afford to upgrade so the best solution I saw was to actually redo the whole mix.

That would have been too much work and too much hassle so I requested 4 stems (all percussion, all vocals, all instruments, all special FX) and mixed and mastered those. He was very pleased with the results. Smile

Of course this isn't a typical mastering job. It was really a remix+mastering job.

Alistair
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2006, 12:36:36 PM »

Patrik T wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 15:30



We are talking about the LEVEL of drums in a mix, not loudness.

Patrik


For me it wasn't really about the levels of the drums. That isn't my decision. It was more that I wanted to see what I could do with two stems instead of just the stereo mix.

Btw, I don't believe in any kind of arbitrary delimitation of the ME's tasks "because that is our job" or "that is how things have always been done" or anything like that. If for whatever reason something can improve the final audio result, I'm all for doing it. Smile

Alistair
Logged

ericjenson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2006, 04:13:40 PM »

the level of the drums is a mix thing hence a production thing and not a post production thing, imo

i don't request stems

if the client hears the master and starts to ask why couldnt i do this or that, i will explain to them.
then maybe next time they will mix it better or supply stems if they choose, and i will charge more for that type of service as well, 16 years ago that's how i started out was  as a producer and a mixman, after a couple years tho i went into post production and found i had a talent and a liking for it, and clients were happy so i was doin something right i guess.

i do often get requests to actually mix the piece and master it for them, and i explain why i wont, but i do have friends in the business i can refer them to for that.
not that i can't mix , it's just that i am a m.e. now, and that is where i'd like to keep my focus, since that is where most of my experience comes from anyway.

i like that were having this discussion
because were figuring out in certain ways what should and shouldn't be expected from someone who's doing post production work.

i've never tried seperation mastering but know about the concept
basically being able to dig deeper with the eq on certain tracks that needed it while leaving others as is and not messing with levels too much, or possibly compressing a kick drum or snare to make it a little more even, but still, i think this is cutting a little too close to remixing, and if m.e.'s are going to be expected to remix we ought to charge double our rates.

otherwise i can see something like this happening:
an amateur records some tracks, does not produce it well, does not even try to mix it and then says "here, since you're a mastering engineer, take this project and make it sound good,"
were not making masters at that point anymore were going back to being producers
seperation mastering is a nice concept although not new,
but i think it will make it harder to keep production and post production "seperate"
and the reasons for keeping these two parts of the process seperate i'm sure have already been discussed elsewhere non these forums so i won't bother with that here.

this is aslo the reason why, with a client, i have to hear the track first, give it a good listen, and i'll tell the potential client straight away what i can and can't do with it, based on what they're expecting from me, and if they decide that's ok or they gotta go back to the mix themselves that's their decision, but if they accept this and want me to start working, i require a 50% deposit of the estimated cost. i'd say more than 80% of my clients eventually come back with more projects for me to do, so i would assume i'm doing something right Smile

i guess what i'm trying to say is, if the producer has done their job, then we can do ours.


Logged
Eric Jenson
Mastering Engineer
Acoustics Engineering Apprentice

NoWo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2006, 05:24:26 PM »

Patrik T wrote on Mon, 17 July 2006 15:30

NoWo wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 22:47


I think this loudness debate will never end, even if Matt, myself and other loud guys are out.
Forgive me if I say it is always the guys with the "quiet" masters who take these customers wishes starting with ...low... too serious.



Dear Norbert,

I think you misunderstand things here. This is not about loudness, different "guys" or seriousity. What we have here is drums that sits low in the mix, and some people seem to not like that artistic statement (requesting stems).

Since you decided that WUMP was nothing for you, I see no reason why you must inflame the ongoing discussion with things you extract, maybe purposely, from between the message lines.

We are talking about the LEVEL of drums in a mix, not loudness.

Clear enough?

BRGRDS
Patrik


Absolutely Sir! Ah, what do I miss these advices. Very Happy

But I have to correct you:
I did not want to inflame anything. If the drums are deep in the mix there has to be done a lot on the dynamics, so this will end up in some loudness increase anyway.

Norbert

Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2006, 12:04:25 PM »

chrisj wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 15:17

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...

this should be interesting. but i seriously don't have a clue what you are saying.

chrisj wrote on Sun, 16 July 2006 15:17

Inspired by Paul Frindle and his continuing talk about how it's not the sample that matters, it's the reconstructed signal value...

that makes a lot of sense... but i don't grasp the connection with the evil hacks, their purpose isn't obvious to me.

jeff dinces

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2006, 04:18:13 PM »

I'm sorry- sometimes when I'm trying something weird I don't like to be too direct, besides I've learned not to leap out going "This will change the WORLD!" Wink

All I'm doing is interleaved FIR moving-average EQs.

In other words, all odd samples and all even samples have their own FIR moving-average EQs. Moving-average is very easy to make efficient because you just store an array of values and add one on the end, subtract one from the other end- there's only an add and a subtract to worry about. I tried doing a sort of windowing by using two values on each end (one being attenuated) but didn't find it mattered.

What seems to happen with this is, if you're making an EQ component that's all lowpassed, it seems to make the stop-band emptier and cleaner but totally doesn't attenuate stuff around 22K (nyquist for 44.1) because that's all happening in the every-other-sample zone, it's not averaged over a larger number of samples.

By the same token, if you're subtracting this lowpass from the signal to make the top part of the shelf, it does not BOOST the stuff around 22K. Since I have a routine (which I abused on 'Rugged Cross' as people remember) which boosts just the stuff around 22K, I ended up with a neat little set of EQs which are complementary- decent-sounding shelves, and the air-band one. I found that if I did not try to do upper-mid boosts by cranking the air-band one, I didn't get an ugly suck-out at 6K even if I had the timing correction I wrote fully engaged.

Now the question is, if it sounds good Smile and we'll be learning that soon enough! Very Happy

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2006, 07:01:51 PM »

ok... you still confuse when you seem to refer to a "high shelf with cut" as an lpf.

like noise shaping near 16 bit nyquist? i think your own opinion of uv-22 and other heavily noise shaped dithers tells why i also probably won't like an eq that tries to exploit the same psychoacoustic [imo] dead end.  anything at 22khz is inaudible so it's "noise" to me.    i think you'd rather want to emulate analog filtering processes that don't treat 44.1khz nyquist like anything special, then just dither it later with your nearly transparent proprietary dither.  

what do you find special about 22khz that you give it so much attention?  it's an arbitrary number decided by sony and phillips so the cd could contain a symphony and fit into a car dashboard!  what does it have to do with the sonics of an eq?

and aren't you working at high sample rates? your nyquist should be at least 44.1khz i would think??  i wouldn't have any objection to noise shaping where a bias tone on a tape deck would exist for example...(around 32khz?). could you try it up there? imo it would also be "inaudible" but would seem to be a better model of the analog systems i assume you wish to emulate.


jeff dinces

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2006, 08:24:27 PM »

cerberus wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 19:01

like noise shaping near 16 bit nyquist? i think your own opinion of uv-22 and other heavily noise shaped dithers tells why i also probably won't like an eq that tries to exploit the same psychoacoustic [imo] dead end.  anything at 22khz is inaudible so it's "noise" to me.    i think you'd rather want to emulate analog filtering processes that don't treat 44.1khz nyquist like anything special, then just dither it later with your nearly transparent proprietary dither.  

what do you find special about 22khz that you give it so much attention?  it's an arbitrary number decided by sony and phillips so the cd could contain a symphony and fit into a car dashboard!  what does it have to do with the sonics of an eq?

and aren't you working at high sample rates?


Oh no. I'm actually working at 44.1, the final sample rate for the CD. I'm convinced there's a _reason_ high sample rate work is liable to sound better, but I'm trying to address the reasons in ways other than simply doing it all at high rate and SRCing down to 44.1.

The reason I treat 22.050K as special is this: it's a special case frequency. You could say that it is the highest frequency you could have under any circumstances at CD sampling rates- oscillating every other sample. You could also say it's the lowest frequency you absolutely cannot have- signal reconstruction will obliterate it completely with a brickwall filter. Which is it? Is it there, or is it not? I'm assuming that it's actually not- that proper reconstruction, rather than produce ultrasonic noise by allowing a finite-slope filter to still include 22.050K, will begin rolling off earlier and attenuate completely by 22.050K.

If you're working with samples you cannot get around the fact that it's a digital system. Adding more samples helps, yeah, but the fact is I'm NOT in analog and at CD sampling rates 22.050K IS a special frequency. Specifically, if you are going to have to produce unwanted noise of some kind you have to deal with it somehow.

One way you can deal with the problem of a lowpass (and if you take a signal and subtract a lowpass you're left with the complementary highpass) is to have an FIR filter- fixed coefficient filter- of infinite length. The amounts each sample have to do with the point you're working on will get progressively smaller as you get farther away from the point you're using, but to produce perfect results you can end up having to calculate an infinite number of samples. Not good.

If you sharply limit the number of samples, what you end up with is, the stop-band of your filter has stuff still in it. Try taking white noise and clobbering it with a lowpass filter at around 40 hz, see if you can get a good powerful rumble going without any hint of artifacts up higher.

Interestingly, there's a kind of filter (the 'virtual analog' resampling filter) which can do a very decent job at this. How? It uses potentially a lot of filter coefficients- and it's using a mathematical function that interacts with, you guessed it, 22.050K (if you were ending up at 44.1K). There's an oscillating characteristic to the filter coefficients which means that the broader the filter coefficients, the closer it can come to lowpassing everything as a perfect shelf while rejecting anything at the Nyquist frequency and up. If you were lowpassing at 220 hz instead of 22K, it would be much the same as SRCing to 440 hz and then SRCing back up to normal sample rates again. The resulting data, as long as it was 32 bit float or something, would perfectly represent the sound after a lowpass shelf at 220 hz because the sample reference points, even at that slow a rate, would be an accurate guide to the desired reconstructed waveform

Someday I oughta try that on a reggae bass tone. But I digress Wink

My point being, even if you want to emulate analog filtration, no matter what you do there's going to be some reference to a sampling rate you're working at because the samples DO NOT EXIST as a 'waveform'. They are merely indicators to another waveform which can only be reconstructed using those sample points at a given sampling rate. You can't take 'em and switch to a higher sample rate and draw straight lines between the sample points and say that improved anything. Anything, no matter what, which steps away from this samples-indicating-waveform thing, will cause the digital sound to be less warm, lush, 'analog' like.

Believe me, I've tried Wink

In digital, sampling frequency is hugely important. Nyquist was right. The black art of digital audio is all about understanding what things cause this digital representation to lose its convincingness, and that can happen very easily.

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2006, 09:35:23 PM »

Quote:

Oh no. I'm actually working at 44.1, the final sample rate for the CD. I'm convinced there's a _reason_ high sample rate work is liable to sound better, but I'm trying to address the reasons in ways other than simply doing it all at high rate and SRCing down to 44.1.
well that partially explains what i've been hearing. choosing not to make negative comments in wumps  was a good move for me when it came to evaluating your masters, since i would have been telling you what you already know...

Quote:

The reason I treat 22.050K as special is this: it's a special case frequency. You could say that it is the highest frequency you could have under any circumstances at CD sampling rates- oscillating every other sample. You could also say it's the lowest frequency you absolutely cannot have- signal reconstruction will obliterate it completely with a brickwall filter. Which is it? Is it there, or is it not? I'm assuming that it's actually not- that proper reconstruction, rather than produce ultrasonic noise by allowing a finite-slope filter to still include 22.050K, will begin rolling off earlier and attenuate completely by 22.050K.
 there is no such thing as a perfect brickwall filter, certainly not in nature. the steeper filter will make more artifacts, so even if one worked as you hypothesize, it might tend to resonate "too much".

Quote:

 If you're working with samples you cannot get around the fact that it's a digital system. Adding more samples helps, yeah, but the fact is I'm NOT in analog and at CD sampling rates 22.050K IS a special frequency. Specifically, if you are going to have to produce unwanted noise of some kind you have to deal with it somehow.
you were given a source file that was 88.2khz and you were going to process it.. i do think you've gone mad for dan lavry's theories, which are theoretical afaiac. but it is very interesting to me if you can approach upsampled quality without upsampling. if you could then imo, you would be a true "winner", even in this non-competition. and yes it probably would change the world some...

Quote:

One way you can deal with the problem of a lowpass (and if you take a signal and subtract a lowpass you're left with the complementary highpass) is to have an FIR filter- fixed coefficient filter- of infinite length. The amounts each sample have to do with the point you're working on will get progressively smaller as you get farther away from the point you're using, but to produce perfect results you can end up having to calculate an infinite number of samples. Not good.
i guess you insist on doing the process in real time, otherwise wouldn't the maximum  "window" size for any fft  be limited to the number of samples in the source file?

Quote:

Interestingly, there's a kind of filter (the 'virtual analog' resampling filter) which can do a very decent job at this. How? It uses potentially a lot of filter coefficients- and it's using a mathematical function that interacts with, you guessed it, 22.050K (if you were ending up at 44.1K). There's an oscillating characteristic to the filter coefficients which means that the broader the filter coefficients, the closer it can come to lowpassing everything as a perfect shelf while rejecting anything at the Nyquist frequency and up.

i did not hear this filter (or did i?) if not, then why not..who can say if a design on paper is euphonic? the nyquist filter in my src is not really that audible...so far i prefer that one, whatever the design happens to be. your method would replace it with this other thing... i would like to know what [other] artifacts a test sweep might make with that filter too. and they can call it whatever they want, but there is still nothing "analog" about making hay at 22.05khz.  

since i feel that nothing special happens at exactly 22.05khz in nature, i think you are wearing your programmer hat too often when you are mastering. this number is not important until much later, but you take it as a starting point...as an excersize...but...suppose your master also had to go to a 48khz format?  or dvd? how much louder could you declare your absolute love and trust in the cd format?!  seems a good thing you are already married... to master at 44.1khz is to love the sonic qualities of cds that much, [imo]. but there is this multiplication thing...(see below)...can we do dsp without multiplication?  maybe then, these paper theories would work better in practice.

Quote:

 If you were lowpassing at 220 hz instead of 22K, it would be much the same as SRCing to 440 hz and then SRCing back up to normal sample rates again. The resulting data, as long as it was 32 bit float or something, would perfectly represent the sound after a lowpass shelf at 220 hz because the sample reference points, even at that slow a rate, would be an accurate guide to the desired reconstructed waveform
so you did not restrict bit depth to 16 bit?  why not?  16 bit dynamics is enough for the human ear!   ok i am totally with you here.. but!

Quote:

You can't take 'em and switch to a higher sample rate and draw straight lines between the sample points and say that improved anything. Anything, no matter what, which steps away from this samples-indicating-waveform thing, will cause the digital sound to be less warm, lush, 'analog' like.

when you multiply, you end up rounding off...dropping data... so would you rather do one of these truncations per unit of time? or more of them, ultimately averaged together by an almost transparent filter after all the other processing is finished?

imo, you will have a hard time equalling the response of a system that upsamples for all dsp; and an extremely slim  chance of matching the response of a top analog system. but yours is the most radical experiment i've witnessed in wumps. as much as i argue against your theory; i am rooting for you to succeed with it.

once again i suggest that you forsake nyquist and instead apply your algorithm towards emulating the bias tone that appears on tape. one inch tape has a higher frequency response than cd. this is a fact that will never change; so imo that is a more worthy pursuit for an "evergreen" sound.

jeff dinces

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2006, 10:42:51 PM »

Oooh! Watch da fur fly Very Happy

cerberus wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 21:35

you were given a source file that was 88.2khz and you were going to process it.. i do think you've gone mad for dan lavry's theories, which are theoretical afaiac. but it is very interesting to me if you can approach upsampled quality without upsampling.


Yeah. I downsampled it to 44.1K and THEN mastered it Wink well, specifically why not? I am of the opinion that upsampling serves to maintain timing relationships you tend to lose in non-oversampled processing like high boosts. I'd like to deal with these things in different ways- if I can. And I'm using a Lavry DAC. I don't consider his theories 'mad' at all. To my mind it's all about the bit depth, not so much sampling rate- especially w.r.t 'midrange warmth' or whatever. You don't get mids and bass quality out of simply extending to supersonic frequencies.

re: virtual analog resampling

i did not hear this filter (or did i?) if not, then why not..who can say if a design on paper is euphonic? the nyquist filter in my src is not really that audible...so far i prefer that one, whatever the design happens to be. your method would replace it with this other thing... i would like to know what [other] artifacts a test sweep might make with that filter too. and they can call it whatever they want, but there is still nothing "analog" about making hay at 22.05khz.


Oh yes you have. Every WUMP I've done has used that, up-front. I've done sweeps with the virtual analog resampler, naturally, and the artifact is this: the sweep begins to fade off somewhat before it quite hits 22.050K. That's it. No interaction above the passband, no funny behavior below it. Hell, you can take a sweep that's generated by a less-than-ideal tone generator, which you can hear go up to near 20K, filter it, and the resulting wave is plainly obvious on a waveform editor but this time you can't hear it go up that high because artifacts you were hearing before are gone thanks to the filtering...

Quote:

since i feel that nothing special happens at exactly 22.05khz in nature, i think you are wearing your programmer hat too often when you are mastering. this number is not important until much later, but you take it as a starting point...as an excersize...but...suppose your master also had to go to a 48khz format?  or dvd? how much louder could you declare your absolute love and trust in the cd format?!  good thing you are already married.


Ooooh, burn! Actually I've always hated CDs with an unreasoning passion. I wanted to find out what was spoiling them. I do my best- if the master was for 48K, then this stuff would be interacting with a 24K frequency, naturally. It's got to do with the sampling system, not any given frequency. The frequency doesn't matter...

Quote:

so you did not restrict bit depth to 16 bit?  why not?  16 bit dynamics is enough for the human ear!   ok i am totally with you here.. but!


Nah- 64 bit float throughout. I actually try to reconstruct signal data coming in, to a higher depth than 24 fixed- do a thing where I sort of downward expand the noise floor and average things out a bit to get a reconstruction of what the lower frequencies might be doing. I don't do that all the time.

Quote:

when you multiply, you end up rounding off...dropping data... so would you rather do one of these truncations per unit of time? or more of them averaged together?


Mmmm- not much rounding off at 64 bit float really. It's one of the minor advantages of my retarded workflow in a program I wrote myself out of duct tape and stray digits- I do get to specify tons of variables as double precision, and there's no 'mix buss' to have to return to. I sometimes point out I'm not using 'plugins' for this very reason.

Quote:

imo, you will have a hard time equalling the response of a system that upsamples for all dsp; and an extremely slim  chance of matching the response of a top analog system. but yours is the most radical experiment i've witnessed in wumps. as much as i argue against your theory; i am rooting for you to succeed with it.


Well, I thank you, Jeff- I'm just doing what I do, not so much trying to match the response of a top analog system. It reminds me of something I did once- I'd been mixing stuff through a crude analog line mixer (this is somewhat before the Dangerous 2-Buss got popular) and struggling with the sound, and I tried using an equally crude digital line mixer (midiman SAM- this is only 8 tracks). That one does have a 56 bit buss internally. The interesting thing was how suddenly the mix was far more colorless- if I was shooting for a grungy rock roar I'd have been out to lunch, but if I wanted a Pink Floyd gloss and transparency I was actually better off, and it wasn't costing me half as much in warmth as I expected.

Quote:

once again i suggest that you forsake nyquist and instead apply your algorithm towards emulating the bias tone that appears on tape. one inch tape has a higher frequency response than cd. this is a fact that will never change; so imo that is a more worthy pursuit for an "evergreen" sound.


Once again I am going to value your opinion immensely, while incidentally ignoring it Very Happy if you want to talk 'evergreen', hey- I define those as records that have sold over a very long term without tiring people, and very often that means the frequency response isn't anything you couldn't do happily at 44.1K. You'd have to not screw it up, but that's not so hard.

What I'm finding is that with tape, you get a upwards compression effect with very high frequencies, one that also incorporates high frequency limiting. I already do the high frequency limiting (I call it slew-limiting which is much the same as de-essing, except it might be on a more direct level rather than ducking the whole highs) but how about if I try making my 'air band' boost more interactive to signal level? That might be more tape-like in a good way. I realize the EQ stuff that interacts with the Nyquist frequency isn't tape-like but it's not meant to be. Anyway you haven't heard it yet... it went on 'Dog Days', not before.

Cheers Smile

Ged Leitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2006, 10:54:57 PM »

Chris check yer PM's!
Logged
http://bitheadmastering.co.uk/

"...But I don't wanna be a pirate!"

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2006, 02:15:24 AM »

chrisj wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 22:42

And I'm using a Lavry DAC. I don't consider his theories 'mad' at all. To my mind it's all about the bit depth,


no i never said dan's theories were mad; i adhere to one or two of them..or perhaps three...

you are well able to shut me down by making other controversial points which i coincidentally just happen to agree with. and i don't have access to a pure 64 bit path; so i'm totally impressed that you use one...
Quote:

Watch da fur fly Very Happy
all over, nothing to see here. if you missed it;  the round went to the large cat (tko).
Quote:

 Anyway you haven't heard it yet... it went on 'Dog Days', not before.


so the proof of the mudding must be in the basting... i knew it all along.  the revelations  in advance of the reveal from you and also from patrik certainly have been dramatic. i wonder what other strange and unexpected strategies may have been attempted in this wump?

jeff dinces

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2006, 02:36:47 AM »

cerberus wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 02:15

you are well able to shut me down by making other controversial points which i coincidentally just happen to agree with, but deftly one upping me here and there...as if you read sun tzu long before answering my last post.
Quote:

Watch da fur fly Very Happy
so  i concede this round to the cat.


Aw- well, for what it's worth, it's almost 2:30 in the morning and I just tried to do what you provoked me into doing- coding a compression factor into my 'air band' EQ- and it looks like it worked out really nicely. I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't bugged me about pursuing more 'tape' things, so I have you to thank. (though it's not going to be heard as such on 'Dog Days')

Naturally in my first experiments I'm pushing it ridiculously hard, but by the time I do another WUMP I'll have settled down a bit Very Happy

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #41 on: July 25, 2006, 02:48:00 AM »

ok here's your ad:

air band eq:
<image of tape spooling off a studer as it morphs into "ben franklins"... >
kewl!  
pushing an air band eq really hard in mastering and getting away with it:
<image of headbanger with blood gushing from ears >
priceless!
Twisted Evil
this is your brain on air band eq:
<image of humpty dumpty>
this is your brain on air band eq, pushed ridiculously hard:
<image of hot humpty in frying pan>
Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

jeff dinces

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2006, 12:59:02 PM »

back on topic.

i found each of steve's client requests were "easy" to meet. he communicated his mix verbally as i also heard it. so there was no head scratching or wondering  or needing to second guess my own target sound here.  thus far, this wump has been the most like a real job for me.


jeff dinces

Viitalahde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
Re: WUMP VI - Client's Requests
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2006, 02:08:33 PM »

cerberus wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 17:59

this wump has been the most like a real job for me.


I agree to this, Steve's client requests were excellent and very much what a real client would've asked.

So.. When do we start?
Logged
Jaakko Viitalähde
Virtalähde Mastering, Kuhmoinen/Finland
http://www.virtalahde.com
   http://www.facebook.com/pages/Helsinki-Finland/Virtalahde-Ma stering/278311633180
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 20 queries.