R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: WUMP VI discussion  (Read 14286 times)

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
WUMP VI discussion
« on: July 25, 2006, 02:17:44 PM »

Get to it.

Remember to discuss your own mix so people don't figure out which is yours...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2006, 02:43:55 PM »

First off I'd like to thank everyone for their participation!  With 21 submissions there's a lot to sort through but there's a lot of really good offerings from the crowd - very cool to get to hear the different approaches.  

I've given everything a preliminary listen via headphones on my internet iMac so I have a few initial impressions:

This was an interesting thing for me to hear as the "client" as I found that about a 1/5th of the submissions tried "creative" approaches that in fact changed some essence of the mix with the processing applied - and I found that none of these appealled to me at all - instead it was the more "conservative" masters that seemed to hit the requested points and overall mark the best.  

Also - there were a few that pushed the average volume slightly more than the rest - and all of these also seem to be lacking in comparison to the more dynamic ones as it seems this particular material is fairly quick to have its tones degrade and the crescendos to be negated from such treatment.

Anyway - as an ME the lesson learned via my own reaction to all of this as a client - points to the fact that my own use of the WUMP's as r&d time for more creative approaches might better be tempered by using it more as an excercise in reminding myself once more that in the vast majority of cases that mastering as if the mixer really meant to do what they do as far as balance goes is usually the best idea.

I will be moving these files to my DAW for playback on the B&W 802's and the NS-10's and will try to post impressions up in the next few days.  I also am going to provide the rest of the group a disc burned with most of the versions tomorrow - hopefully I will be able to get some feedback from them also.

Thanks again for all who participated.  

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Viitalahde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2006, 02:55:49 PM »

Well, I'm first I quess.

I was too lazy to take these to the studio so I listened them on an OK Sony system. Well, that's what people listen on.

My comments are short, and I focus in balance, flow and dynamics as I always do. Only unmodified opinions here.

...

Entry 0001

Very odd sounding high end, like an MP3 encoding problem. A hole in the lower treble, not balanced at all. Check you monitoring..

Entry 0603

Nice, dynamic and balanced. I like it, the sound is alive and the slight boominess doesn't bother me that much. If something, the kick thump seems to get a little lost sometimes..

Entry 0905

A bit too much cut at the upper bass/low mids but balance otherwise OK. Somewhat lacking in dynamics and life though. Thumbs up for not adding too much high end.

Entry 1114

"Delicate" is a word that comes to mind. Works nicely. Has surprisingly much high end and gets away with it well. Very nice & "dry" sounding!

Entry 1138

An aggressive sound, but I like it. Ballsy. Everything seems to work nice dynamically and the balance is right.

Entry 1793

Darker sounding, could maybe benefit from more high end but it's a taste thing. On the louder side but dynamics are still there. Low end working fine.

Entry 1978

Excess high end, can't get past it even when there could be a nice balance behind it. It's a pity, could've been pretty good without the HF boost.

Entry 1212

Too.. Much.. EQ. Boxy, honky and sibilant at the same time. Why fix it if it's not broken? Also "bad loud"..

Entry 1234

Smiley curve, though the high end is not as bad as on some entrys. The balance is OK but not really suited for the track (if you know what I mean?). Lacking in dynamics & loud, gets stressed in climaxes..

Entry 1389

An OK job to my ears. Could swing a little more but apart from that, nothing is drawing my attention.

Entry 1411

Too much high end. Somewhat distant, was the S channel altered?

Entry 2323

A kind of a hollow sound.. The low mids/upper bass is all over the place. Some parts seem to work ok but not as a whole.

Entry 2941

Too bass dominant and tubby. The kick actually sounds like an 808 sometimes.

Entry 2951

Splash.. Too much high end again. Very sharp & peaky in presence, fatiguing. Time to check the monitoring..

Entry 4391

Louder than most, turned the volume down to compare. Stressed sounding in general (especially in climaxes), lacking the warmth of the original. Some smiley curve detected.

Entry 5277

Balance is OK, but tad stuffed/boomy in the low mids/upper bass. The sound sounds stressed to me, especially in climaxes.

Entry 8085

Fatiguing high end, the sound gets really stressed in climax parts & high violins. Lacking warmth.

Entry 8606

WAY too much EQ! Sounds like a clock radio and that's it. Got to be a monitoring problem.

Entry 9070

Smiley curve again. Loose bass and odd presence things going on. Dynamics still there, that's a plus. But not an improvement really..

Entry 7288

This one is OK. Nice balance, has high end but not too much. Well thought changes. Maybe lacking a tad in the low mids and could perhaps swing a little more.

Entry 9170

Too much highs and odd EQ. At least not crushed. Monitor check time.


Logged
Jaakko Viitalähde
Virtalähde Mastering, Kuhmoinen/Finland
http://www.virtalahde.com
   http://www.facebook.com/pages/Helsinki-Finland/Virtalahde-Ma stering/278311633180

schley-may

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2006, 03:23:44 PM »

Here we go, in descending numerical order, with approx rms level indicated.

9171 16
Missing upper lows, impression is mid and high heavy, a bit strident.  

9070 11.5
Nicley EQ'd, slightly less 3K-7K than I'd like to hear. Has more >15K which could be preferred. I like what you did with the crescendos.

8606 15.5
Too hot from 2K on, razor sharp highs around 8K. mushy dynamics, hole at 250Hz. This one hurts!  

8085 10.5
Nice Eq balance, except for low resonances 100 & 169, highs a little bright but it works, smooth feeling compression.

7288 11
Almost identical to mine! spectra match to a tee except slightly less at 3.5K and slightly more >10K. Very, very nice, I prefer this one slightly over mine, but I won't say which one mine is.

5277 11
A bit low end resonant, 2-5K a little thin for my taste, but pleasant.

4391 8
Overly compressed, good crescendo in spite of this, a bit muddy, mid string details a little obscured.  

2951 11.5
Overall very nice. Upper midrange may be a tad too present, but details are brought out because of it.

2941 10
Strange pre echo on snare start. Smooth, but low end a little boomy, 1-5k a little weak to my ear.

2323 10.5
Just a bit low end resonant. Very similar to mine, not as much kick drum as I'd like, nice space. Was reverb added?

1978 13.5
Just a little low end resonant, good dynamics on crescendos, kick drum level sounds right, 20k boosted a bit much? Very pleasant to my ear.

1793 10.5
Low end a bit resonant, otherwise nice EQ balance.

1411
Hole at 450, low end hot at 100.

1389 12
500-5K a little thin, low end resonances not tamed.

1234 9
A bit hot, good crescendo, bass resonances not tamed, otherwise nice tonal balance.

1212 8
Too squashed for my taste, but nice tonal balance. More highs and less mids than I chose, but it works.

1138 11
Gitch at very start of drum hit, 500-5K a little thin, low end resonances not tamed.

1138 later version 11
Glitch fixed, otherwise same as first version.

1114 11&13
Glitch at very start of drum hit, a little low end resonant, but very nice tonal balance. Good dynamics. Quite good to my ear. More level difference between L and R than original is curious.

0905 12
Very smooth and pleasant, less detail and depth in mids, sounds like side channel was altered (highpass filtered?), reduced dynamics, sounds somewhat more "distant" than original.

0603 10.5
Nice tonal balance, good mid definition, low end a little resonant.  

0001 11
Low end resonant, 3-8K is hollow, 20K boosted perhaps a bit too much which sounds a little disembodied from the lower highs.

I haven't said a whole lot about compression since I didn't notice major differences or artifacts. I did repeat myself about the low end resonances of the cello since on a lot of submissions they tended to howl out of control in spots, which bothered me. Other than that, there were quite a few that I really liked.
Logged
Jim Schley-May

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2006, 05:21:37 PM »

index.php/fa/3178/0/

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2006, 05:24:28 PM »

index.php/fa/3179/0/

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2006, 05:28:43 PM »

index.php/fa/3180/0/

Phillip Graham

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 280
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2006, 06:42:34 PM »

My impressions of the WUMP6 tracks, at least as many as I have time for now.  There a couple spots in the original file that I might consider "clicks" that I have decided not to comment on here.  I will finish listening to the remainder when I can.  And, as always, just my personal opinion!  PS i used the original file dithered to 44.1 as my palate cleanser.

1978

The low mids a bit too scooped out for me, and too much above 15k.  Kick drum hits are gritty, but punchy.  Snare sits a little better

5277

Most of the low mid wooliness is still there,  feels a bit pinched, snare pops a bit too much.  Toms are big, and violins bite nice.

7288

Wow, fairly hot here, makes the drums punch too much, not balanced like the original.  Image is a bit too wide, seems at bit hollow in the center.  Like the eq balance.  Dynamics are weak.

9170

Wow, where is the low end?  Almost everything below 250 is missing, makes things seem small and overy strident.  Good dynamics.

0001

Decent eq balance, but the very high stuff is gritty.  Toms seem to be missing most of their original transient impact.  Seems kinda "dry."  

0603

More low end impact for sure, but also kinda tubby.  Kick hits here also seem gritty/distorted.  Pretty hot, not feeling the dynamics here.

0905

Here, too, I feel like the low mids are overly cut, removing the wonk, but throwing out the track balance.  The kick feels too "woofy" as a result.  Don't feel like the violins have the "guts" in the building parts.  I like the imaging.

1114

My favorite so far in listening, unfortunately not mine.  It has just the right balance of low mids and a little extra air relative to my submission.  I feel it keeps the tom impacts in the crescendo the best so far!  Great job.

1138

Very similar to my entry (but not mine.)  Has a bit more low end impact, and a bit narrower imaging.  I like the little extra oomph on the snare.  Another good job in my book.

1212

Wow, where all all the mids again?  the strings sound like they are in a tunnel.  It is too hot level-wise, too.

1234

A bit to smiley-faced eq wise for me.  The cello resonance stuff is all still there in my book, maybe worse.  This track is too loud/squashed, but at least it is somewhat similar to the original in instrument balance compared to the other "hot" tracks so far.

1389

Good eq balance, though a bit of cello "wonk" is still there.  Nice imaging and spaciousness.  Not the most impressive in terms of "sweetening" the original, but a pretty good job.

1411

I like this one pretty well, except that there is some "seasickness" inducing quality of the low mid eq cut (widening?) that I can't seem to get around.  I also feel there is too much above 13k, making it too crispy.  It also feel it is touch lacking in dynamics.

1793

Good eq balance, the though I feel like bowing is a bit too "sawing."  I feel like the instrument balance in the builds is a bit out of balance (not enough lead), like the mid was compressed more than the sides?  The best of the fairly hot mixes so far!

2323

I feel like the low mids are a touch too cut, and the highs are too bright, or at least bright in not quite the right spots.  Like the imaging.  Some resonance is there in the cello, but I personally like that...  Not feeling any dynamics here, but this is the best of the hot mixes, replacing 1793.  Would like to see it 2dB quieter.

2941

Wow, upper highs too boosted, and low end too full, and the cello "wonk" not dealt with .  Whatever was done for ambience feels cluttered, too.  Violins lacking body, weird build after the first creshendo.

2951

Mids are too cut, and the bowing is accentuated.  Feels like the track could use some more "bite" in upper mids.  Kick is "blatty" in spots.  Oh, and where are the dynamics?

4391

Too loud for me to even consider objectively, since the instrument balance is totally off to my ear.  "crispy" sounding, too.  Obvious distortion in the creshendo.

8085

Another pretty darned hot version, with too much highs.  Hi hat is screaming at me.  Kick is punchy.  The extra ambience I like too, but it might be a touch heavy.  Violins are screaming at me.

8606

Hum?  where are all the mids?  and why so stinking hot?

9070

Other than feeling like it needs a touch more low mid energy, I like this version.  Has a good smoothness to it, and a nice image balance, and the creshendo really pops!  Pretty loud, too.  Best of the loud versions comes last I guess.

If I was the client in this case, I would pick between 1114, 1138, and 1389 if I wanted something with the dynamics.  If need more "modern day" levels, I would pick 9070 first, followed by 2323.

Hmm, only five out of 21, I am probably being too picky.  Regardless, love reading other's replies!  Very insightful!
Logged
Phillip Graham

Ged Leitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2006, 07:20:25 PM »

Ok, i will add more as i download them guys...

2941

ok, but lost kick, theres a weird fade at the start, low mids overpower at times.

1411

Hmmm, seems to be a prolonged drone around 100HZ?
apart from that ok, air eq was nice.

2951

Lost kick, but overall nice, snare seems notched or something?
a tad boomy in low mids.

5277

Nice and thick, dynamics are good, but that low mid resonance creeps up now and then.Perahps a tad more air?

0603

Again, warm and smooth, like the kick drum, low mids again are a tiny bit cluttered.Dynamics are good for me.

1793

Clean sound, low mids resonant at times though.
I find the cello parts a bit grating but not unpleasant.

9170

No low mids? dynamics are fine, but the lack of low mids nd kick takes all the warmth away.

1978

Like the overall balance, 16K  a tad too much, nice dynamics,
and low mids are fine.

0905

Good sound but something sounds squashed in the low mids / bass area.Natural top though.

7288

I like this one, natural but good dynamic control, maybe a bit too much level or slightly overcompressed?
I think there maybe an audible automated EQ cut happening just after the intro?

1138

Nice and smooth, clean sound, just that bothersome low mid resonance again though.

1114

Good clear sound, midrange is smooth, natural dynamics, some slight distortion build up on that low mid resonance.

0001

Kick could have had more 50Hz IMO, i'd say this was good but slightly too midrangey for me.And some low mid clutter from the cello parts.

2323

Lively and energetic, but again still the low mids are too much.
I like the top, nice and airy.

1212

Good work, but perhaps a tad too much sizzle on the top, nice beefy low end though.A tad too much average level for this genre I think.

1389

Good level for this style, soft sound, natural sounding dynamics,  still a bit too much resonance in the low mids though.

1234

Good balance, like the bottom end, low mids a tad boomy with the Cello, a wee bit of audible distortion on toms during cresendo's.
But overall good work.

9070

Big kick drum, nice,balance is a bit sharp, seems too crispy in the upper midrange,good.I think I know who's this is...IBIS?

4391

Perhaps a bit too hot, cellos seem too thin, lost some warmth.

8085
ok master, nice sizzle on the hats, crescendo's seem a tad sharp.

8606

too much circa 3K, and the bottom end has no impact.


and i think thats em all...
Logged
http://bitheadmastering.co.uk/

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

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2006, 07:31:58 PM »

Please pardon my ignorance.  I don't mean to interrupt the thread but it's driving me crazy.  What does WUMP mean?

Thanks.  Any answer would be great 'cause it's making my head hurt from guessing.

Barry
Logged

TotalSonic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3728
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2006, 07:45:13 PM »

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 26 July 2006 00:31

Please pardon my ignorance.  I don't mean to interrupt the thread but it's driving me crazy.  What does WUMP mean?

Thanks.  Any answer would be great 'cause it's making my head hurt from guessing.

Barry


We're Under Massive Pressure

or

Web Users Makin' Poop

or

Wow - Unbelievably Melodramatic Plunderphonics

or

whatever clever anagram you want to insert here.

Seriously - it derives from the original series of mastering "shoot outs" hosted on this board of named WOMP - standing for Web Only Mastering Project afaik.  That was followed by a "WIMP" where only plugins or in the box digital processors could be used on the track.  So we were stuck for a vowel to differentiate this series from the others - ending up in the name WUMP.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2006, 08:52:31 PM »

Thanks Steve for the great answer!

I can put down the liquor and stop beating the dog.

Barry
Logged

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2006, 11:28:38 PM »

TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 19:45

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 26 July 2006 00:31

Please pardon my ignorance.  I don't mean to interrupt the thread but it's driving me crazy.  What does WUMP mean?

Thanks.  Any answer would be great 'cause it's making my head hurt from guessing.

Barry


We're Under Massive Pressure

or

Web Users Makin' Poop

or

Wow - Unbelievably Melodramatic Plunderphonics

or

whatever clever anagram you want to insert here.

Seriously - it derives from the original series of mastering "shoot outs" hosted on this board of named WOMP - standing for Web Only Mastering Project afaik.  That was followed by a "WIMP" where only plugins or in the box digital processors could be used on the track.  So we were stuck for a vowel to differentiate this series from the others - ending up in the name WUMP.

Best regards,
Steve Berson




Actually it was ROMP before it was WOMP. Stood for Recording . Org Mastering Project. After participants sent their submissions and $10 fee in for the compilation cd's. Rec Org, started charging a $29 dollar fee. So to finish the project you had to pay the new org membership fee. Everyone protested including myself and no emails were answered back when I protested and told them that they suck for charging a forum membership fee to the participants in the middle of a project that they already paid for. Most of us thought that was a dirty deal. Brad had just signed on as moderator here so he offered to finish the project and the name was changed to WOMP. I never got my 10 bucks back, BTW. I won't mention who screwed everyone out of the money again, on this forum, and who promised to reimburse me for my check several times, but never did. It wasn't the 10 bucks that I was worried about, it was the principle of the matter, being lied to several times by a colleague. If that's what you want to call him.  
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2006, 11:58:59 PM »

Ronny wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 22:28

Actually it was ROMP before it was WOMP. Stood for Recording . Org Mastering Project. After participants sent their submissions and $10 fee in for the compilation cd's. Rec Org, started charging a $29 dollar fee. So to finish the project you had to pay the new org membership fee. Everyone protested including myself and no emails were answered back when I protested and told them that they suck for charging a forum membership fee to the participants in the middle of a project that they already paid for. Most of us thought that was a dirty deal. Brad had just signed on as moderator here so he offered to finish the project and the name was changed to WOMP. I never got my 10 bucks back, BTW. I won't mention who screwed everyone out of the money again, on this forum, and who promised to reimburse me for my check several times, but never did. It wasn't the 10 bucks that I was worried about, it was the principle of the matter, being lied to several times by a colleague. If that's what you want to call him.  

This story has some things that need correcting...

Bill Roberts was in charge of the initial WOMP (than called ROMP - Recording.Org Mastering Project) under the direction of Chris @ RO. Though Chris had little involvement (other than the initial idea), he was good enough to let me take over after Bill disappeared with everyone's cash. I took over and had Ardent (my employer at the time) fund it. ROMP was not finished when I left RO and came to what later became R/E/P, so we changed the name to WOMP.

This is the reason I have always held everything Bill Roberts said under scrutiny. Further history has shown this to be a wise move on my part...

It's sad that people got screwed, even over some paltry sum, but it happened. I contacted Bill on more than one occasion, even privately banning him from all WOMPs until he made an effort to repay those whom he screwed. He never did.

That's the history behind WOMP, for those that care.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

jdg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 950
Re: WUMP VI discussion
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2006, 12:04:16 AM »

Note: i am only focusing on "problems"... easier for me.  sorry for my lack of verbosity. i still love you all.

9070 - my fav of the bunch.. a bit brighter then i would have done.. but i like it. ear candy.

1389 - 2nd fav.  sounds like the original, just some more level. Smile

1138 - wooly low end.. a tad resonant down there.

1978 - tilted way to bright.

0001 - too nasal

0603 - like how the drums come out a bit more here. something isn't right for me with the low mids.. no words for it tho.. probalby my 3rd fav.

0905 - low mids and mids seem gone.

1114 - some lowend missing

1212 - too much level

1234 - a bit much on the upper mid boosting

1411 - to much highs

1793 - the bowing has gotten a bit too agressive in this version.

2323 - bright and brittle.

2941 - nice middle.  its bright, but brings out the drums.. and body of the kick. bit too hot

2951  - wierd EQ.. scooped out middle.

4391 - too much level

8085 - mucho high tilt.. too bright for me

8606 - extreeeeemly odd EQ. sounds like a band reject filter.

9170 - more missing low mids.

5277 - i like this one. some more mids would make me happier tho.

7288 - tad nasely.  brings out some rasspp and crackle i dont like.. nice tho. Smile
Logged
john mcCaig
-Mothery Earworks Clarifold Audipure
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 21 queries.