Print

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

[aivoryuk]

HI Guys

I think its time to start this thread also as requested by Ged

try not to just list your settings if you can, i would like to see how you listened to the tune and what decisin you made and why you made them. also what you would different now that you heard the others and read the comments

Also remember to reveal your numbers so we know who you are. I'll be sending messages to people post their technique.

thanks again for those who contributed

[Ged Leitch]

ok cheers Alex!

here goes >>>> Entry no. 2368


Q metric EQ

hi pass@ 30hz

-1db@150hz Q 0.8

thats it EQ wise, tried to take some of the wooliness from the track, thought the guitars were very low mid heavy when listened to it loud.

Wavelab Mulitcomp

AAAArghhh!!! oh no!, mutliband eek,
anyway, one band - lowest - crossover@ 180hz
tried to control some of the loose bottom end.

But what i ended up doing was taking all the warmth from it.
Overprocessed?....yes.
classic case of spending too long on it and couldnt see the forest for the trees!

PSP mastercomp

20ms attack  100ms release  ratio 2.00
took about half a db of the "Hey you" part in the chorus thats all the compression it needed imo.

L2 - 2db of limiting outceling @ -0.3

UV22HR dither to 16bit.

thats it!

In retrospect, I shouldnt have spent so long on this, concentrated too much on the low end, and ended up with a brittle top end  - ouch - sorry dudes!

[mbruce333]

I'll post my techniques later...not at the studio today...damn day job!

But, mine is 2112.

As I said in the comments section, I really dug hearing all the different approaches.  I do have one general comment, though.  For the louder entries (including mine), I think the volume of the verses could have been brought down a bit.  When we squish that hard, what used to be soft is so much louder I think the impact of the LOUD sections gets lost.  Is anyone doing this as a regular part of their process?

Just some food for thought...I'm gonna try this out the next time I get a nice dynamic mix to squish! hahaha

More to follow...
Mike Bruce

[lucidwaves]

My entry was 1107.  First project I have mastered with my new monitors.  Here is what I did:

Load-in to Adobe Audition multitrack, one track for the working master, another track for the original mix so I can solo back and forth between them.

Listening on Dynaudio BM6A monitors from Lynx L22 converters.

UAD Precision EQ:  
+4dB at 96Hz, wide que (6) - Bass was the main thing lacking in the mix to my ears
-1.5dB at 206Hz, narrow que (14) - Give a bit of seperation to the amount of bass I added
+2.5dB at 1.3k, wide que (6) - To give the voice and guitars a little more presence
+1dB at 8.7k, wide que (4) - For balance, I probably would have left this out if I were doing this again.  Learning the highs on my speakers still.

PSP MasterComp:
Threshold at -19 with a 1.4:1 ratio.  70ms attack, 1.5sec release.  3.5dB of makeup gain
I got scared, with my new monitors I can really hear compression and how it affects dynamics now.  This is a good thing but definately something I will have to learn.  If I were to do the project again, this is the biggest thing I would have changed.  I would have been a bit more aggressive with the dynamics processing.  Not overly so because I love the smack and detail, but I think it would have pulled together a little better at a higher ratio and gotten more of the requested level from the track.

Izotope Ozone Limiter:
-2.2dB threshold -0.3 margin
say what you will about ozone but I think it has a good sounding digital eq at the higher filter sizes and a great sounding limiter.  Good enough that I dont think I will get UAD's.  I find myself using Ozone's limiter more than the L2 as well.

p.d.f. triangular dither and bit reduction done in Adobe Audition

Good practice for learning my new speakers, and reaffirmation that I made a good choice with them.  

I didn't edit the top and tail because I would rather have a bit of room noise than digital silence on a track like this.  Also, we didnt have a before or after track to see if it needed to be edited out.  Thats just me though, of course I would cut it out if the client wanted it out.

I liked 2112(Mr. Bruce), 1782, 1974 and 5576.  I think 1974 was my favorite.

[Luke Fellingham]

My entry was 1974.

Here's what I did:

Playback through Lavry Black

I would often compress at this point but at the time of this wump I was between compressors, so I thought I'd see how I got on without using one at all.

Avalon 2055 : +0.5dB shelf 450Hz, +0.5dB medium q 170Hz, -1dB high q 10KHz, +1dB shelf 2.5KHz

Gyraf G14 : +1.5dB 60Hz high(ish)q, +0.5dB 330Hz low q, +1dB low q 2.1KHz, +0.5dB low q 5KHz, +1dB high q 18KHz

Not having compressed I felt I needed to eq in some low mids to warm things up. I think this worked although I wonder if I overdid it just slightly.

Apogee AD : soft limit on. Would have clipped a little without.

UAD Precision limiter : 2dB gain reduction. (I know technically this is a type of compressor but I choose not to  think of it that way!)

Sony Oxford Inflator : Gain 0, effect 100, curve 0, output -0.2dB

I didn't push the limiter or inflator any harder than I did because although I liked the guitar sounds I felt their crunchiness got a little ugly as the the level of the track got raised. I think where I left it was a reasonable compromise between level and sound.

[OTR-jkl]

*** Entry #5576 ***

I felt that the mix mostly needed more energy and impact. The overall EQ balance was already pretty good so I wanted to stay close to that. The hat bothered me somewhat in that it sounded too hard - too digital - so I tried to soften that up a bit. The other objective I had was to thicken the mix. The client stated that sonics are more important than loudness so I tried to get a good healthy level w/o sacrificing punch, dynamics and clarity.

I use Samplitude Classic 7.23.

- First thing I did was upsample the file to 88.2kHz using Samp's offline SRC.
- I dropped the level of the mix 2dB to give myself some headroom.
- 2 instances of Samp are used; Samp1 for playback and Samp2 for capture.

Processing chain

Samp1
 - EQ: PSP MasterQ
   HPF - 23Hz; Q=0.65
   +1.54dB @ 86Hz; Q=1.50
   -0.52dB @ 168Hz; Q=1.34
   -0.29dB @ 273Hz; Q=1.42
   -0.53dB @ 6.42kHz; Q=0.52
   Hi shelf - +0.12dB @ 12.0kHz; Q=0.50

 - Compression: PSP MasterComp
   Threshold= -10.62
   Ratio= 2.8:1
   Attack= 200ms
   Release= 278ms
   Link= 100%
   Type= RMS, Soft

 At this point in the chain the signal was routed out of the DAW thru the soundcard SPDIF ports into my tube (Telefunken) D/A-A/D (its an ART DI/O, but don't tell anybody...). I use this device for 2 reasons: 1) to impart some tube characteristics to the mastering chain (remove as much digititus as possible) and 2) to obtain gain in the analog domain. The convertor settings were:
   Gain= +4dB
   Tube= 80%

 The signal returns to the DAW via the soundcard SPDIF ports and is received by Samp2.

Samp2
 - Limiter: PSP Vintage Warmer
   Mode= Multiband
   Drive= +4.32dB
   Knee= 1.9%
   Speed (attack)= 68.0%
   Release= 0.29
   Mix= 100%
   Ceiling= +0.23dB
   Output= -0.53dB
   Low Xover= 86Hz
   High Xover= 7.10kHz

 On the "back panel" of the VW there are settings which allow you to control the Saturation (threshold) and Release parameters for each of the 3 bands.

   Saturation:
   Low= 1.0dB
   Mid= 1.4dB
   Hi= 1.3dB

   Release:
   Low= 1.11
   Mid= 0.79
   Hi= 0.62

 Basically, within the limiter, the Low band was compressed the most and the Mid band the least. Also, the limiter was set to hold onto the Low band the longest and release the Hi band the fastest.


I was unable to effectively achieve one of my goals (thicken the mix) with this processing chain so I decided to use Parallel Compression. I added 1 Aux chnl and 1 Buss to Samp1. EQ was applied on the original track. That signal was routed to the Buss and the original compressor was moved there. The Aux chnl was fed post EQ and the 2nd compressor was inserted there.

 - Parallel Compressor: PSP MasterComp
   Threshold= -14.50
   Ratio= 2.8:1
   Attack= 259ms
   Release= Auto
   Link= 100%
   Type= RMS, Soft

The Buss and Aux chnls were routed directly to the SPDIF outs. The Parallel Compression (buss chnl) was mixed in at -20.7dB.


After limiting, the file was captured at 88.2kHz. Samp's offline SRC is again used to downsample to 44.1kHz and finally dither (Samp TPDF) is applied when file is bounced to 16-bit.


Its rather amazing to me how my entry is so similar to Luke's (1974), especially when we approached it so differently. I was striving for a little more aggressiveness such as 2112 but didn't want to lose body and warmth. Fun exercise...

[MT Groove]

Entry number 6069


Voxengo HarmoniEQ

+ 1.8 @ 54 shelf...wide Q
+ 1.4 @ 1.98k, wide Q
- 1.8 @ 7.16k, wide Q

TC Electronic MD3 EQ

- 2.0 @ 82.4 HZ, 1 oct
- 4.7 @ 230 Hz, 0.4 oct

TC Electronic MD3 Multiband Comp

Xover at 100 & 4kHz
Crest RMS
Autogain OFF
Thres:  -6 ALL Bands
Ratio: 2.0:1 ALL Bands
Attack: 20 ms ALL Bands
Rel:  70 ms ALL Bands
Gain: + 4.5 ALL Bands
Limiter Bypassed

Sony Oxford Inflator

Input: +2.0
Effect: 100%
Curve: +15
Output: 0.0
Clip 0dBr: OFF
Split Band Mode

Voxengo Elephant

In: 0.0
Out: -0.1
Shape: 0.00
RShape:  2 ms
Lim Mode:  EL-3
Lim Speed:  Fast
Dithering: Off
DC Filter: OFF
St. Linking: 100%
Oversample: 4X

Dithering:  Pow-R #1 In Samplitude Professional

This was the first time trying out the Voxengo plugs..I kinda like em.  I used the Elephant only to catch the overs produced by the Inflator.

[ericjenson]

i liked the production on this tune alot, so first of all thanks for the opportunity to work with it.

i listened probably 3 times through before deciding what to do.
i thought it needed more edge if it was to be compared to an Incubus release.

VVA VST from DCLIVE:

i used a triode in the warmth region to boost some of the guitars and add grit.

i also used a pentode in the sweet region to try and gain some more intricate details.

i used a transformer AB in the bass region but i think i overdid it a little here and should not have clipped so hard the bass region and let some more details through.

all of this began to sound distorted and i don't think i a/b'd enough throughout

i was essentially using the plug as an EQ.

anyhow i kind of liked the distortion, and got the edge i thought it needed.

i next plugged in a PEQred for a high cut at 17kHz
and a 1.2 dB boost to the fundemental of the kick at around 60Hz. this tamed the hihats nicely along with the sibilance and brought out the punch.

then i pulled down some of the mud with a 2 dB cut Q=1.2 at 200 Hz. this gave some more headroom as well.

Lastly i used the spectraPhy limiter from spectraQ to get the level where i wanted it.



in hindsight i suppose i went overboard trying to get the edge i was looking for.  was also trying to innovate to make a master that stands out well.   based on the reviews, i succeeded in making my cut stand out, but not in a good way apparently.

oh yeah, and in case you haven't guessed,

5792 is mine.

[lm66]

My entry was 1782

First, I would like to excuse me to have dared to take part to this Wump. I'm certainly not a ME.
I’m only a musician who loves playing, recording and tweaking sound.
And I realized I was really arrogant when I jumped on this Wump.
The monitoring's gear and the untreated room I use are not in the Mastering's class and I understood when reading comments that there was a lot of things I could'nt hear (due to my poor ears or my poor monitoring, or both).

I'd like to say I loved the original mix (thanks to you Alex) which sounds well balanced to my ears. And I tried to stay as close as possible to the original file.

1st, I tried to deal with mentionned phase issues .
Certainly a mistake, if I could see a few signals out of phase in the corelation meter, I counld'nt hear enough issues to need a repair but anyway I tried but could’nt fix them and just narrowed the stereo imaging.

2d, As my knowledge in EQ’s managing is weak, I just tried to EQ as my ears leaded me, this was only a feeling’s approach...  

3d, I tried to reach a louder RMS volume without loosing to much dynamics.

My chain in Wavelab was :

. Voxengo M/S : mode Inline , Mid Gain : + 0,6dB, Side Gain : - 1dB
. Waves RBass : Freq 94, Intensity -16,9, Gain 0dB
. Timeworks EQ : + 0,3dB @ 42hZ Q=1; + 0.7 @ 81hz Q=1; +1db @ 201hz; + 0.2db @ 1Khz Q1; + 0.7 @ 3.4 Khz Q3.1
. Rcomp : Threshold 0, Ratio :2.51 ; Attack : 12,O ; Release : 199 ; Gain : +0.8dB
. Magneto : Drive 9,5, Tape speed : 30, Output : + 0, 4dB
. L2 :  Threshold : -1.6, Ceiling : 0.0 , IDR : 16bits Dither : Type I, Shaping : Normal

My monitoring system is a 2 way JMLab 906 with an Atoll In80 amplifier (a kind of midrange hifi system, not bad and quite natural but cutting @ 45hz).

When A/B listening with all the other entries , I could hear I would have liked to do a real good job (IMHO) like 1974 or 5576.
Sorry for the others to be an old school’s guy, but it’s hard for me to listen to  so loud RMS levels, even if I know now it’s close to the Incubus CD’s (on this point I did’nt match the client’s willings).
If I want to listen loud, I use the volume’s knob, but that’s just me. (BTW the Buce's remark about lowering a little bit the softest parts seems to be a good idea).

It does’nt mean those loud masters are bad  (some of them like 2112 keep a really good  balance with high RMS level).
But, as a musician I’ve learned (not only theorically, but mainly in my percussion player’s job) that dynamics is one of the major components of sound. So it’s a little bit hard for me to listen to tracks who leaves so less place to this main element.

But, I’m now an old one (48 and already an happy grand father...) and I have more habits to deal with Jazz and acoustic’s musics (where so high RMS levels are'nt required).
So my opinion is without value about Pop/Rock music.

Anyway, I’d like to thank to all of the participants (specially Alex, Brad and MassiveMastering who allowed us to realize this Wump).

This was really a good experience for me an I learned a lot.

Thanks again.


PS : Sorry for my poor or sometimes strange english.

[Ged Leitch]

lm66 wrote on Wed, 13 September 2006 22:56

My entry was 1782 Anyway, I’d like to thank to all of the participants (specially Alex, Brad and MassiveMastering who allowed us to realize this Wump). This was really a good experience for me an I learned a lot. Thanks again. PS : Sorry for my poor or sometimes strange english.

Hey Laurent, no need to apologise about anything, i really thought you done a good job!

much better than mine,

great to have you here!

[cerberus]

i "was" 8130

uh... sorry y'all didn't dig it...i worked way past my bedtime to get it louder than incubus.

and try to meet my supposed high sonic standards..which i dunno.. everything is relative... some of today's records sound really bad to me, but they are "professional".

it's got a  lo-fi loop which actually is an mp3 on ninety percent of it. and the hi-hats?  i'm afraid to ask, don't wanna know...  

but descending the loudness matterhorn is so much easier than climbing it.

jeff dinces

[aivoryuk]

cerberus wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 05:13

i "was" 8130 uh... sorry y'all didn't dig it...i worked way past my bedtime to get it louder than incubus. and try to meet my supposed high sonic standards..which i dunno.. everything is relative... some of today's records sound really bad to me, but they are "professional". it's got a  lo-fi loop which actually is an mp3 on ninety percent of it. and the hi-hats?  i'm afraid to ask, don't wanna know...   but descending the loudness matterhorn is so much easier than climbing it. jeff dinces

i never said i wanted it louder than incubus i said it would be nice to get it to percieved level of that track, the majority of people managed that with no problem at all and the rms value (if we're going that way) was far less than the incubus reference track.

what point are you making about the lo-fi loop being a mp3?

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

[Ged Leitch]

aivoryuk wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 17:40

cerberus wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 05:13 i "was" 8130 uh... sorry y'all didn't dig it...i worked way past my bedtime to get it louder than incubus. and try to meet my supposed high sonic standards..which i dunno.. everything is relative... some of today's records sound really bad to me, but they are "professional". it's got a  lo-fi loop which actually is an mp3 on ninety percent of it. and the hi-hats?  i'm afraid to ask, don't wanna know...   but descending the loudness matterhorn is so much easier than climbing it. jeff dinces i never said i wanted it louder than incubus i said it would be nice to get it to percieved level of that track, the majority of people managed that with no problem at all and the rms value (if we're going that way) was far less than the incubus reference track. what point are you making about the lo-fi loop being a mp3? 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

Hey Alex, i actually liked your mix mate, well done for using no compression and just EQ, the only thing I really had bother with was keeping the mud under control while at the same time keeping the balance.
This wasnt the fault of your mixing but rather, my lacking skills to deal with it in the right way.

[aivoryuk]

thanks for the comments about the mix ged, im not a fan of mixing, i mean i wrote the song, performed all of it including the singing, recorded it im kinda of drained by the time i get to mixing it and impatient (would rather just skip to the mastering part of it  )

my biggest bug bear about the mix was the bloody high hats, it was drum sample so kind of lmited to what ican do but did try to do something with them

[Ged Leitch]

aivoryuk wrote on Thu, 14 September 2006 17:56

thanks for the comments about the mix ged, im not a fan of mixing, i mean i wrote the song, performed all of it including the singing, recorded it im kinda of drained by the time i get to mixing it and impatient (would rather just skip to the mastering part of it  ) my biggest bug bear about the mix was the bloody high hats, it was drum sample so kind of lmited to what ican do but did try to do something with them

Y'know, i've been working away on different versions of your Track Alex and to be honest the Hi hats I can tame easily with 1 instance of Voxengo tape bus! also "Gels" the mix nicely.

Should have done this on my entry! doh!