R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: WUMP VII techniques  (Read 6730 times)

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2006, 04:38:38 pm »

aivoryuk wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 12:40

i never said i wanted it louder than incubus
i know. i went overboard on it.
Quote:

what point are you making about the lo-fi loop being a mp3?
lo-fi is cool ("analog", that is).   mp3 is a turd.

Quote:

the reason i didn't like yours jeff was that in the chorus section there was this weird sucking phasing  on certain phrases. i did state that in the brief (and this goes to others) that i wouldn't tolerate any weird stuff/pumping compression distortion but people still seem to go against that.

if it hadn't of been for that sucking phase sound i would have enjoyed yours

it's ok man!  i hear that (compromise) exactly and it bothers me too...

it was just weird to me how you have this great song and arrangement, but the brief seemed to imply that preserving the timbre of the mix was more important.  the way i hear this song is more distorted than you do. i find nascent art is  like a child... you are the parent;  but once it is born, it has needs of it's own that should be respected.

i think in this particular case that what the listener feels is more important than what they hear... the music is visceral... "get up, get down" music... not "sit down quietly and concentrate" music...funk!  

so i was hoping that "high distortion"  perspectives like mike bruce's (and mine) would "move you" more than they did... not that you would like my master specifically;  but more the "idea" some of us had about how this music might work "differently" on a listener if it had considerably more grit and grind. to [imo] be truer to itself.

jeff dinces

ericjenson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2006, 08:05:32 pm »

cerberus wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 15:38

 
it was just weird to me how you have this great song and arrangement, but the brief seemed to imply that preserving the timbre of the mix was more important.  the way i hear this song is more distorted than you do. i find nascent art is  like a child... you are the parent;  but once it is born, it has needs of it's own that should be respected.

i think in this particular case that what the listener feels is more important than what they hear... the music is visceral... "get up, get down" music... not "sit down quietly and concentrate" music...funk!  

so i was hoping that "high distortion"  perspectives like mike bruce's (and mine) would "move you" more than they did... not that you would like my master specifically;  but more the "idea" some of us had about how this music might work "differently" on a listener if it had considerably more grit and grind. to [imo] be truer to itself.

jeff dinces



well said, i too felt the need to give this tune more edge, especially if it was to be compared to an Incubus release.

i, however took this line and ran way too far with it, apparently. Embarassed



Logged
Eric Jenson
Mastering Engineer
Acoustics Engineering Apprentice

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2006, 02:10:06 am »

um .. it wasn't loud..had nothing on impact imo. the kick drum maybe.. but i thought i mentioned that i did like the way the guitars came out.

in real life there is tighter involvement with the client during the mastering process... but in wumps i feel a strong urge to experiment. the more radical, the more interesting and useful test data comes back to me in the comments.

jeff dinces

ericjenson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2006, 04:13:14 am »

cerberus wrote on Fri, 15 September 2006 01:10

um .. it wasn't loud..had nothing on impact imo. the kick drum maybe.. but i thought i mentioned that i did like the way the guitars came out.
jeff dinces


well the thing is i started off with the approach of making it really loud but clean, and this just ended up sounding way too dry and "dryveless". i mean no color at all.  i guess i just gave myself too much license to alter this one.  

i have to agree what i did was radical and did get some reactions, tho not good ones.  but was really no benefit to me, except i know i went too far, and in the wrong direction.

Quote:


And I feel that I've noticed various "known" engineers to be absent from these types of discussions. I sat in recently with Brian Gardner and Bernie Grundman and watched them work. Brian hardly discussed his work but Bernie went on and on like a fugitive getting something off his chest. It was weird, he discussed his favorite coffee, told me about his early experiences and how he bacame popular.

BECAUSE HE WAS AN INNOVATOR!

Because, more or less, ME's untill then, cut records flat. If a producer wanted a brighter or fuller sound, they remixed. Bernie compressed, made moves, all the stuff we take for granted today.

Yeah, he showed me his UREI Passive EQ's with the custom attenuators, but what I learned was...GO INNOVATE, seperate from the herd.

Look around his room and see little in common with other facilities. Same with The Mastering Lab. They just went their own way and the world caught on.

Who cares about other peoples settings, beat their work with YOUR SETTINGS. No, its not the '50's anymore. Not the dawn of the golden age of record making. But I do believe innovation is still possible. It hasn't all been done yet.

bab

this is my inspiration.

sometimes i just don't know how to be objective in this business anymore.
i could make it all flat and lifeless, but why, cause that's "the way"?

from a business standpoint, why would a producer or even a label pick me to do their mastering if i didn't have a certain kind of sound that they wanted/needed? Shocked

i think i am going to go the way of BaB, even tho i haven't found my signature sound, yet; and I obviously have alot more experimenting to do.
otherwise, if there is no room for creativity at this stage, i ought to go back to tracking and mixing. Smile

and i might as well write a step by step method for every mix and how it is to be mastered, just to be sure noone is deviating from this purely objective science were involved in. Laughing  



(i hope this doesn't draw any flames, as i am harmlessly ranting and still have a great deal of respect for everyone involved)



Logged
Eric Jenson
Mastering Engineer
Acoustics Engineering Apprentice

aivoryuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2006, 04:13:43 am »

cerberus wrote on Fri, 15 September 2006 07:10


in real life there is tighter involvement with the client during the mastering process... but in wumps i feel a strong urge to experiment. the more radical, the more interesting and useful test data comes back to me in the comments.

jeff dinces


agreed that real life there is a more tighter relationship between client and engineer. i would have love to have said post examples so i can hear them before you upload, but i think that is going a bit to far for this kind of thing.

i'm not opposed to people experimenting if it get the right aesthetic result, but when people go to far and compromise the overall quality, especially when the client asks for that not to happen.  Smile

anyway rather than turn this in to something its not, i would like more people to share there techniques here
Logged

mbruce333

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2006, 11:15:45 am »

ericjenson wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 17:05

cerberus wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 15:38

 
it was just weird to me how you have this great song and arrangement, but the brief seemed to imply that preserving the timbre of the mix was more important.  the way i hear this song is more distorted than you do. i find nascent art is  like a child... you are the parent;  but once it is born, it has needs of it's own that should be respected.

i think in this particular case that what the listener feels is more important than what they hear... the music is visceral... "get up, get down" music... not "sit down quietly and concentrate" music...funk!  

so i was hoping that "high distortion"  perspectives like mike bruce's (and mine) would "move you" more than they did... not that you would like my master specifically;  but more the "idea" some of us had about how this music might work "differently" on a listener if it had considerably more grit and grind. to [imo] be truer to itself.

jeff dinces



well said, i too felt the need to give this tune more edge, especially if it was to be compared to an Incubus release.

i, however took this line and ran way too far with it, apparently. Embarassed







Hey Eric,
FWIW, I started wanting to make it much more edgy/distorted, but after re-reading the "clients" requests, I had to back it off a bunch. I think it loses some vibe when it's really clean, though.  

But, you got your entry done early, so I got to live with it longer than some of the others, and I found myself listening to that one more than most others.  Yours is just more fun to listen to!  I dig it!

I still want to take some time next week to get a more distorted/edgy version going...time to crank up the HEDD! Twisted Evil   Should be fun!

Mike Bruce
Logged
Mike Bruce
myspace.com/auricleaudiomastering

Ged Leitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2006, 12:19:28 pm »

I dunno guys, I've got to be honest here.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that>>>

(A) Unless a major change is requested, the mix IS the mix, and the client is happy with it.

(B) Most of the time when a sonic "Signature" is applied to a clients mix that he's already used to the sound of and is happy with, then I think the old saying of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" applies.

(C)I find more and more with these WUMPs especially, when people (including me!) try and be too creative, then these ones tend not to go down as well as the ones that stayed truer to the mix.


Just my opinion guys, and I'm guilty of this myself, just been mulling it over in my head.
Logged
http://bitheadmastering.co.uk/

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

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2006, 02:16:21 pm »


I agree with Ged and Alex. Let me put it very bluntly: Don't use the term "Innovation" as an excuse for a bad decision. You are doing yourself a disservice.

See my post in the "Ears" thread about my opinions on "taste excuses".  Laughing

Off to write up my techniques for this WUMP ...

Alistair
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2006, 02:45:43 pm »

My version was 2983 (also called 2933 by someone Wink ).

First up, thanks again for sharing the material and allowing us to put our grubby paws on it.  Smile I think it was a good mix except for a general lack of low-end and the sharpness in that hihat. This caused me the most problems!

I found that the vocals were a bit dull in the mix. This isn't always a problem but in this case, that hihat was in the way!

I went for a loud master within the constraints of my abilities to do this well without distorting things too much.

PSP MasterQ
+3.4 dB @ 55  Hz peak to give the kick oomph.
+2.5 dB @ 120 Hz low-sheld to add more low-end to bass and kick.
Hipass  @ 32  Hz 24 dB/Oct
-1.2 dB @ 232 Hz Q 0.75 to remove a touch of mud.
+1 dB    @ 835 Hz Q 0.4 to add a bit of errr .. something. Smile

PSP MasterComp
About 0.5 dB max GR. This is mainly to glue things together a bit.
Attack 32ms, release 100ms , Link off, mix 50%, no sidechain filter, RMS detection.

PSP MasterQ
30Hz hipass to remove some low rumble caused by MasterComp.
-0.74 dB @ 4Khz Q 0.4 to remove some extra harshness cause by MasterComp.

Voxengo Soniformer
Set to MID. Only used as an EQ to boost the center (vocal) a bit arround 2.5Khz. I think this might have been what caused the loss of stereo width. The "Q" was quite wide so it must have affected the cetner quite a bit.

Voxengo Warmifier
6550 emulation, high-quality, Filters/EQ off.
I boosted ALOT with this to thicken things up and increase density and "warmth".

Voxengo Elephant
Set to clip, Stereo link off, 4X oversample, DC filter 6Hz, type Bessel.
1.8dB max limiting at the loudest peak in the right channel. This is my version of clipping the AD converters. Smile

Voxengo Elephant
+3dB on the input giving 4.5dB of limting on the loudest peaks.
EL-3, Fast, St linking off, 4X oversampling, 8HZ Bessel DC filter.

Overall, I think my version still had a bit too much lower mid mud that could have been removed and I am wondering if the vocal really was a bit too dull. It was probably just the way my ears/brain where masking due to the loud/sharp hihat.

Alistair
Logged

Ged Leitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2006, 05:04:24 pm »

UnderTow wrote on Fri, 15 September 2006 19:45

My version was 2983 (also called 2933 by someone Wink ).

First up, thanks again for sharing the material and allowing us to put our grubby paws on it.  Smile I think it was a good mix except for a general lack of low-end and the sharpness in that hihat. This caused me the most problems!

I found that the vocals were a bit dull in the mix. This isn't always a problem but in this case, that hihat was in the way!

I went for a loud master within the constraints of my abilities to do this well without distorting things too much.

PSP MasterQ
+3.4 dB @ 55  Hz peak to give the kick oomph.
+2.5 dB @ 120 Hz low-sheld to add more low-end to bass and kick.
Hipass  @ 32  Hz 24 dB/Oct
-1.2 dB @ 232 Hz Q 0.75 to remove a touch of mud.
+1 dB    @ 835 Hz Q 0.4 to add a bit of errr .. something. Smile

PSP MasterComp
About 0.5 dB max GR. This is mainly to glue things together a bit.
Attack 32ms, release 100ms , Link off, mix 50%, no sidechain filter, RMS detection.

PSP MasterQ
30Hz hipass to remove some low rumble caused by MasterComp.
-0.74 dB @ 4Khz Q 0.4 to remove some extra harshness cause by MasterComp.

Voxengo Soniformer
Set to MID. Only used as an EQ to boost the center (vocal) a bit arround 2.5Khz. I think this might have been what caused the loss of stereo width. The "Q" was quite wide so it must have affected the cetner quite a bit.

Voxengo Warmifier
6550 emulation, high-quality, Filters/EQ off.
I boosted ALOT with this to thicken things up and increase density and "warmth".

Voxengo Elephant
Set to clip, Stereo link off, 4X oversample, DC filter 6Hz, type Bessel.
1.8dB max limiting at the loudest peak in the right channel. This is my version of clipping the AD converters. Smile

Voxengo Elephant
+3dB on the input giving 4.5dB of limting on the loudest peaks.
EL-3, Fast, St linking off, 4X oversampling, 8HZ Bessel DC filter.

Overall, I think my version still had a bit too much lower mid mud that could have been removed and I am wondering if the vocal really was a bit too dull. It was probably just the way my ears/brain where masking due to the loud/sharp hihat.

Alistair




Hi Alastair, like the chain!

I agree about the low mids being cluttered, It's definitley in the 125HZ area in the original mix, in revising my version a 1.5db cut(Q 3) helped a lot there!

Also, I use the Mastercomp too, but funnily enough have not noticed the rumble you noticed? or the harshness?

cheers,
Ged.
Logged
http://bitheadmastering.co.uk/

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

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2006, 05:34:26 pm »


Hi Ged,

Glad you like the chain.  Very Happy It worked here. I don't have a fixed chain or anything like that. I listen to what I hear and decide what I want to change (if anything) and choose what I think will be the best tool for the job.

These days I try and use as few elements in the chain as possible. If I think I can somehow do the job with less processing, I will go for that.

Ged Leitch wrote on Fri, 15 September 2006 22:04



Hi Alastair, like the chain!

I agree about the low mids being cluttered, It's definitley in the 125HZ area in the original mix, in revising my version a 1.5db cut(Q 3) helped a lot there!



I am actually suspecting a combination of things. I had alot of boost in the low end and no filter in the Warmifier. Next time I use the Warmifier I will experiment with filtering the low-end to keep things a bit cleaner down at the bottom.

Quote:


Also, I use the Mastercomp too, but funnily enough have not noticed the rumble you noticed? or the harshness?

cheers,
Ged.


I am not suggesting there is a problem with the MasterComp. It is just the way it reacted to the signal going in with the particular settings I used here.

The low-end rumble probably came from my low-shelf boost together with the peak at 55Hz combined with the MasterComp. The 4Khz harshness was allready there in the hats. It was just brought out nicely (as it should be) by the MasterComp. It was just doing its job very well. Smile No one is to blame. Just the interaction of different elements.

Alistair

Logged

Ged Leitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2006, 06:06:21 pm »

Cheers for that Alastair!

I remember on the PSP forum someone saying that they "Swore" turning the FAT mode ON made the sound a tad brighter, but the developer replied back saying this is not the case.

Oh well, the wonderful world of plugins!
Logged
http://bitheadmastering.co.uk/

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

mbruce333

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2006, 01:20:01 pm »

Ged Leitch wrote on Fri, 15 September 2006 09:19

I dunno guys, I've got to be honest here.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that>>>

(A) Unless a major change is requested, the mix IS the mix, and the client is happy with it.

(B) Most of the time when a sonic "Signature" is applied to a clients mix that he's already used to the sound of and is happy with, then I think the old saying of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" applies.

(C)I find more and more with these WUMPs especially, when people (including me!) try and be too creative, then these ones tend not to go down as well as the ones that stayed truer to the mix.


Just my opinion guys, and I'm guilty of this myself, just been mulling it over in my head.


Yo!
Sorry for the late reply, been out of town for a couple of days.  I actually got to play my drums for a change!

While I agree that we are here to please the client, I think a little chance taking in the WUMPS is OK.  In this case the client requests were pretty clear, so you've got to weigh your options...go with what YOU think sounds cool, or what the client wanted.

If this were a "real" session, I think we would all be a little less likely to step outside the box.  Plus, if you had an idea you were unsure of, you could play a sample of your idea and discuss it with the client to get an idea if they are going to like it.  Maybe it'll fly, maybe not.  

Anyway, I think we all just want to please the client, but also want a safe place to take a couple of chances and expand our techniques and learn from what others think.  And that's what WUMP does well.

Enough of my ramblin'....
Mike Bruce

Logged
Mike Bruce
myspace.com/auricleaudiomastering

mbruce333

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2006, 01:42:41 pm »

So, I liked the mix, but I think others have hit it on the head about the weaknesses of it.  A little muddy, harsh hats, needs more bottom.  So, here is what I came up with..

In WL6...

PLParEQ3  High pass at 36hz, quality=5.
    I knew I was going to try and get some more bottom out of the mix later, so I wanted to make sure that I didn't bring up anything else down there.

Out to Analog...D/A with the HEDD

Manley Vari Mu,
    I didn't quite have the attack and rel times dialed in, I feel like I can hear it a bit.  Only went for 2-3db of GR on the loud sections.

NSEQ-2,
    Low Shelf @ 56hz, +2db
    -1db @ 190hz, Q=.9
    -3db @ 7.8k, Q=.8
    High Shelf @ 16k, +3.5db
In solid state mode, trying to tame the harsh hats, add some air and find some bottom.

A/D with the HEDD
    At first I tried quite a bit of triode and pentode to crunch it up a bit, but then backed off a ways to help comply with the client requests.  Settled on..

   Triode @ 3.5
   Pentode @ 2.5
   No tape.

DBX Quantum...
    Only some m/s EQ to try and tame some hats in the side, and add some highend to the vox in the middle.  I don't have my exact settings as my quantum seems to be picky about saving...sometimes it wont.  As I was reaching for the power switch, my little voice telling me not to shut down was a little too late.  Shocked

    No other processing was added, though.  I tried some stereo widening, but didn't dig it.

Back in WL...

Voxengo Elephant2:
    In = 3.6db
    Lim Mode = AIGC-3
    Oversampe = off

Waves L2:
    -3db threshold
    -.3 out celing
    Dither to 16 bit with type 1, normal shape.

I was going for a pretty aggressive version, pretty hot, but  trying not to take it too far.  Overall, I'm pretty happy with how mine turned out, I needed to spend some more time with the Vari Mu's attack and recovery times to smooth it out.  I would also like to turn down the "quie sections" a bit.  With all the comp and limiting, the quiet sections aren't so quiet anymore.  There needs to be more contrast than my master provides.

Another great WUMP!  This has been such a great tool for all of us tools like me!

Later!
Mike Bruce
Logged
Mike Bruce
myspace.com/auricleaudiomastering

OTR-jkl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 869
Re: WUMP VII techniques
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2006, 07:55:39 pm »

I'm kinda curious what everyone thought while they were listening to all the submissions regarding whether or not each one was done ITB or with hardware. IOW, were there any submissions that you thought were "dead giveaways" as to which type of gear was used?

I myself didn't even think about it while I was listening so I'll have to go back and listen again.

Anyone else pay attention...??
Logged
J Lowes ยท OTR Mastering
Professional Audio Production for Life
www.ShoutLife.com/OTRMastering
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up