R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP7 discussion.  (Read 19052 times)

Adam Miller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #165 on: October 04, 2006, 07:30:21 pm »

I'd like to think that everyone here is well informed enough about the pros and cons of 'home' mastering, mixbus processing and whatever else to make a sensible decision- and I'd also like to think that we all know how to compensate for differing levels when we listen back.

Ultimately, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot- something that sounds like a record still sounds like a record whether it's slammed in the red, devoid of 2bus processing, encoded as a 128k mp3, or whatever.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #166 on: October 04, 2006, 08:56:20 pm »

how did we leap from my post merely mentioning my thoughts about not having any L2 (and similar limiters) being used on the next IMP to a blankey statement about "no 2buss processing".

please point out to me exactly where i made such a statement?

every mix i've done for the last year has had 2buss compression, and for 6 months there has been a sontec EQ in front of the comp.....

thp1, have you even participated in an IMP yet?

how bout this......

i'm thinking about requesting that all participants of IMP8 deliver a mix as if it were heading to mastering

put the pitch forks and torches away.......
Logged

thp1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #167 on: October 05, 2006, 02:43:34 am »

[quote title=j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 October 2006 19:56]

thp1, have you even participated in an IMP yet?

quote]

Shocked  of course i have, i wouldn't have opened my mouth on this subject otherwise ! i participated in IMP 7 and had some comments about the presence of a limiter on the 2 bus of my entry. But actually there was no limiter, no EQ etc, nothing but 3 db of A/D clipping (well, i know, that's an extreme form of brickwall limiting ! btw please people do not tell me it is bad to do that, i am a M.E., i know my stuff thanx). That is why i said that nobody can tell what was done exactly only by listening to a final product.

Anyway, the last part of your post make things clearer than your previous one, thank you. I thought that we could have ended up with a stupid 'loudest mix hunt', seems that i was wrong ! Wink

Logged

ATOR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #168 on: October 05, 2006, 06:20:19 am »

I think we shouldn't use any 2buss processing in the IMP just to make it louder. It's about letting other engineers listen to the the quality of your mix, not about trying to impress a client with how loud you made it.

So I'm in favour of sending the IMP-mix like you would send it to a mastering engineer. Make it sound as good as you can instead of how loud you can.

Logged
Pieter Vincenten - ATORmastering

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #169 on: October 05, 2006, 01:32:40 pm »


I always send my mixes to the ME at-6db  and no limiting or compression...  But in the case of the IMPs I have been compressing about 2-3 db and normalizing to -.3db or so... No limiting.

I agree with J that we should have some sort of standard for everyone, It makes it a lot easier to compare.

After all this is supposed to simulate real world situations and we would be delivering to specs that the label, client, and ME ask for...  A little "standardization" is not a bad thing.

IMP8 anyone?  it looks like I have a week of downtime, and need something to do ..  Confused  (And I'm expecting a new pair of monitors anyday now and need to break em in... KRK V6's)
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

TheViking

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #170 on: October 05, 2006, 02:38:09 pm »

My bad...   I think I probably started the witch-hunt.   I'm also the guy who hasn't participated in an IMP in a long while so...   oops.

My only point, and I still stand by it, is...   saying that a certain plug in or device is not allowed to be used for loudness is going to be a hard sell for some mixers.   How do you quantify loudness over goodness?   You can't.   There are some pro mixers that I've heard unmastered mixes of and they are pretty damn loud before going to mastering.   Some pro mixers mixes I've heard that aren't.   The other thing is that I may use a maxim or L2 or Massey limiter to achieve a sound or density in the mix that I like and want to keep.   This is going to be difficult to try to figure out.

That's all I'm trying to say...   Give Peace a Chance.
Logged
Is this thing on?

Kevin Bruchert / The Viking
www.myspace.com/thevikingproducer

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #171 on: October 05, 2006, 04:13:21 pm »

rankus wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 19:32



I agree with J that we should have some sort of standard for everyone, It makes it a lot easier to compare.



Why don't just say 'all mixes must be 18 db RMS' or something like
this?
I'd leave an ME plenty of room and I wouldn't need to adjust
loudness while listening to each mix.
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #172 on: October 05, 2006, 04:36:49 pm »

I can limit, or I can not limit-- I don't feel strongly either way.

In the real world, you might well lose work to someone's loud, distorted, POS mix-- it happens all too often.  
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #173 on: October 05, 2006, 05:51:42 pm »

how about this.

no more then 1db of GR on the limiters.

what i'm after is to minimize all the artifacts that can smear a mix with bad limiting.
Logged

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #174 on: October 05, 2006, 06:15:46 pm »

j.hall wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 23:51

how about this.

no more then 1db of GR on the limiters.

what i'm after is to minimize all the artifacts that can smear a mix with bad limiting.



Can of worms?
When we start limiting the use of limiters on the 2 bus we
have to do the same with compressors.
And clipping.
And all these other nasty tricks to make things loud.

Request a final loudness and all is good.
And easy to verify!
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #175 on: October 05, 2006, 06:31:02 pm »

Tom C wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 15:15

j.hall wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 23:51

how about this.

no more then 1db of GR on the limiters.

what i'm after is to minimize all the artifacts that can smear a mix with bad limiting.



Can of worms?
When we start limiting the use of limiters on the 2 bus we
have to do the same with compressors.
And clipping.
And all these other nasty tricks to make things loud.

Request a final loudness and all is good.
And easy to verify!


I'm kind of wary of such a specific rule-- I want to be mixing for vibe and cohesion, not an RMS level.  

No fence.

Can't we just tar and feather El Jefe ane move on?
Logged

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #176 on: October 05, 2006, 08:10:11 pm »

i think, it's pretty simple

the mix that leaves your room should be as you would send to mastering

when people evaluate the mixes, they can try on a mastering hat

turn up the volume, if you have to, bung a limiter on, if you really want (at least, it'll be the same limiter across all the mixes)

Logged

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #177 on: October 05, 2006, 08:52:30 pm »



Ah well.  It's no biggie either way.
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

MI

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1292
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #178 on: October 06, 2006, 11:11:16 am »

I must admit I "effed" up on my submission.
That's what I get for trying to do things too fast.

Now that I know what the ground rules are, I'll stick to it for IMP 8 which I look forward to.

Thanks.

Mario
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #179 on: October 06, 2006, 04:21:44 pm »

rattleyour wrote on Thu, 05 October 2006 17:31



Can't we just tar and feather El Jefe ane move on?



as long as it's an internet tar and feathering i'm cool with it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Up