Print

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

[aivoryuk]

Hi

As Eric hasn't started this yet thought i would get the ball rolling rather than dwell on multiple masters

Although I will go into this in more detail in the technique section, my impression of the mix was the it was generally ok but all the all the instruments energies were bunched up in the same area as each other.
I was also referencing the masters against commercial releases in a similar vain.

in order of when presented on server

1980 good width, full sounding, guitars brought out,could be more edgier and maybe a cut in the lower mids would help with overall sound and sounding a lil thick in that area.

4242like the eq choice as has full sound and edgier sound although i think the distortion/saturation effect has been applied a bit too much, think it could have been backed off a tad without losing too much at all. i did notice that the width is slightly narrow compared to the org mix which im not sure is a good thing but overall i like it.

0007 general eq fine although bottom end lacks depth compared to a lot of commercial releases. the width seems to be pushed further than the speaker which gives a unnatural feel.

2255good width, all energy still seems to be in the mids like the original mix and the bass lacks depth.

2323good low end and scooped lower mids but i find the upper mids/high end too fatiguing especially in the crash/chinese cymbals.

4811good width and balance eq seems fine, bottom end lacks depth and punch whcih makes the track seem a little flat.

0002like the kick but there is some sort of comb filtering through out which spoils it for me.

0610good eq choice quite smooth, my only thing is that even when level matched some of the louder one it doesn't seem to excite me as much so maybe its too smooth.

2010 not sure what to say about this one sounds like a t-racks preset

2114 a lot of pumping compression that i can't really get passed.

7776guitars have been brought out well but overall sounds a bit thin.

3814original version, not bad eq selection but the width seems a bit unnatural

0707original version, very scopped mids reminds me of early 80s metal but the mid/top end is very fatiguing

As a general conclusion i tended to favour the more fuller sounding ones as they sounded a bit more energetic and closer to commercial sounding masters. they may not have fixed all the problems with the original mix but to me they were certainley more engaging to listen to for this sort of music. Some of the smoother one tended to resolve some of the individual elements but seemed to lose some of the vibe and energy of the orginal mix.

listened though benchmark dac as well as the usual

just my opinion of course so don'tbe offended and thanks to all those that submitted

Alex

[Luke Fellingham]

I think this has been the biggest challenge of any of the wumps so far. Unfortunately I don?t think it?s possible to turn a mix like this into a really great master but it was certainly interesting to listen to the various attempts to do so.

Here are my thoughts on the various entries:

7776 - Cleaned a lot of the mud and rumble making the track cleaner and clearer than the original. Probably gone too far though because the overall tone is quite thin. Level seems quite low on this entry.

0007 - Quite clean but not too bright.

1980 - On the warm/ full side of things.

2010 - I think I can hear some compression ; - )

4242 - Reasonably powerful but maybe could have been a bit cleaner.

4811 -  An improvement over the mix. Reasonable balance between clarity and warmth.

2255 - Rumble not controlled as well as some other entries but overall quite reasonable.

0707 - Feels quite bright.

2323 - Overall quite tidy, manages to make the mix sound more powerful than a lot of the other masters although a touch thin.

0002- It seems like this entry has the bass rumble much tamer than most of the others. Unfortunately I think this has come at too high a cost and despite efforts to keep the kick drum the overall tone is thin and a bit odd.

0610 - This seems quite conservative. Like the mix but just a little bit better. Could maybe have used just a small extra lift in the highs.

2114 - Overall tone not too bad compared with other masters but the over compression really closes things down in an unpleasant way.

3814 - A bit more mud remaining than some other entries.

[Ed Littman]

I monitor on dunlavy SCIIIa's & a Bryston 14b amp.
This was a tough one. I made a few passes before uploading. i think I spent to much time went to far on this.
Ed

0007.... Good, to much mids on the side guitars

1980....Big & full. to muddy on the bottom end & smashed to hell on the 2nd part of song.

2010....ouch...mud & hi mids. lost to much

4811...nice, good ballance. could use more beef on the botttom

2323.... decent ballance...to loud, everthing stessed to much resonance on bottom, smashed at the 2nd part.

0002...  missing low mids for punch. fatinging without the low mids. subsonic are there.

0610... very interesting.Made the drums wider but the guitars closer to center. tonally close to the original but the mud down below was delt with nicely.

2114... I'm going to pump you up.......with compression.
this master does explode in your hands.

3814.... nice ballance, a bit sizzly on top.  once again lost the stereo space of the guitar.

4242....lots of beef but not alot of definition. 2nd part crushed.

7776... no bottom, no beef

2255....like original but louder & darker

0707....highs to harsh. loss of mids

[cerberus]

[cerberus]

[NoWo]

Hi,

the interest in commenting is overwhelming this time. I understand this quite well -:)))
I listened through B&W 602, Mackie 824, Klipsch RF-35, Grado headphones and Alpine/Pioneer (car).

4242 Cool pumper, slightly sharp and comped.

1980 Also good but only in the car, in the studio it could not convince me.

0707 Thought it was not bad until I heard it through headphones, extremely sharp in certain areas.

2010 Too bright and distorted, slightly too broad, rumbling bass.

2323 Good compromise in all aspects.

2255 Too comped to the back, avoids sharpness of course.

0610 A little flat, little highs.

2114 Too broad, no center.

0007 Closest to the original

4811 Small bass, rather quiet

0002 No bass, resonating, sharp.

7776 Quietest of all, small bass.

If I would have been the artist or a record company I would not have accepted any of these masters, especially mine. For me the winner of them all is 4242 and that is the best I can say.
I feel exhausted and disappointed.
Someone mentioned "Let us see if this bird can fly".
Now we have seen it.

Norbert

[present]

Alright, here goes...

It was very interesting to hear what everybody did with this.

This was a tough one, so hats off to all who gave it a shot!
I think the song is worth it, as well.

Listening through Driade 81 MkII monitors, Luxman LV105 amp, and Sennheiser HD600 cans.


In numerical order:

0002 - nice midrange, lo-mid mud well under control, makes good first impression. It's let down by some strange modulation, which makes it a bit metallic.

0007 - emphasis on guitar eq and widening. Seems to work rather well, makes the guitars roar, but it's quite hollow sounding overall.

0610 - nice eq controlling the low mids. Stereo image is altered. Could have been louder. And perhaps needs a little more top end.

0707 - the Metallica Master. Drums oriented. Kick is heavy and bright, very clever (how did you do that?) Bass is a little rumbly and the mid-highs are dominant.

1980 - close to the mix, nice mid eq, makes it heavier. It's a bit grainy. I can hear some grain on the reverb, which sounds a little unnatural. Widening done very well.

2010 - Alright, now I'm scared. Distorted, narrow bandwidth. Works in the testosterone department though.

2114 - very loud. Aggressive compression and clipping makes it dense. Mids cut through nicely. I like the low end. But it's so loud!

2255 - nice. Like mix, but just a little clearer and wider. Openness disappears a little towards the end.

2323 - clear and bright. But it's a little harsh in the mid-highs which makes the cymbals sizzly. Good widening.

3814 - eq in highs is nice, but a tad too much. It's a bit bass heavy as well. Eq works well on voice.

4242 - loud. I like the overall sound, quite dark. Some heavy clipping going on; it collapses a bit after the middle section. Overall, good effort.

4811 - very good eq, shifts everything higher up the frequency spectrum and gets rid of the mud. Guitars cut through nicely in the 'chorus'. My favourite, if you don't mind my saying so.

7776 - High mids galore! Actually works well, gives it an in-your-face quality. Unfortunately, it makes the cymbals ring and gets a little fatiguing.
May be too wide, but that might work for the client.


That's it, folks.

Think I'm gonna wash my ears now with a little Satie or something...

[Ged Leitch]

Sorry for the late reply guys, Too much going on over here at the moment,

These are just my opinions guys

Most of the entries were good! improved the mix.


1980Very warm sounding but a bit muddy in the lows, also the outro part seems overprocessed, perhaps too much comp/limiting?

4811Good work, nice tone, bottom end is clean, perhaps it could benenfit from a db more @50hz.

2323 A bit over done for my tastes but the balance is good.

2010This one changes the mix too much for me,
a wee bit harsh too.

0002 Low midrange seems a bit too scooped, makes it sound thin, good effort though.

0610 Like this one, stereo image has been tweaked a bit? and i like the tone, better than the mix for sure.

2114  over compression/limiting is too audible for me, would have been better with less i think.

3814 Good job, I hear more Air on this one, compression is good, level is fine too.

4242Somewhat muddy to me, warm sounding at the expense of detail, Perhaps a tad more midrange would help?

7776 A lack of low end makes it sound too thin for this genre, but just my opinion!

0007 Good one, i like the balance but maybe the L/R gtr's are a bit middy?

2255Sounds like the mix, but with a smoother top end, perhaps a tad too dull?

0707Ok but it seems skewed in favour of the upper mids, slightly harsh at loud volumes.

[mbruce333]

All righty, here are my thoughts...

Overall the entries were not as bad as I was expecting from reading some of the reactions in the discussion thread.  This tune isn't the end of the world guys!  It's not the greatest, but I've gotten MUCH worse before.

It's too bad that the mix was one of the weakest links in the final product, though.  When I get something that sounds much worse than this, usually the musicianship is worse, too.  These guys sound like they can play!

One of my little pet peeves is top and tail fades, so I tried to comment on those quite a bit.  I think it's a little detail that we shouldn't over look.

Well, for better or worse in no particular order.....


0610:  Overall very nice, doesn’t sound like you tried to take it too far.  Mids might be pushed up a little too much, but, it’s much less muddy than the mix.

0707:  I felt like this on was on a great direction, but went too far.  I like the attempt to open up the high end, but the boost around 5k gets fatiguing quickly.  A short little fade on the end would have been nice so the noise floor of the mix doesn’t call attention to itself when it suddenly drops between songs.  Same for the fade in.

3814:  A good set of compromises.  Nice job!  No top and tail fades, though.  I like this one.

0002:  A little too much of the lower mid has been carved out leaving the tune pretty thin sounding.  Very compressed.  Thanks for the little details like top and tail fades!

2323:  Overall a nice job of cleaning out the mud, but it makes the guitars sound a little small and the cymbals pretty harsh.  Thanks for the fade in/out!

2114:  Wow, way too squished.  I’m not sure if it’s a combo of release time on a compressor, or manual gain riding to get the stuff that’s supposed to be quiet louder.  The sudden changes in volume (the little EG riff on the left side in the intro, and the bass stuff before the bridge in particular) are very distracting.  Sorry man, but I didn’t dig it.  The fade out has a weird pulsing…Like a noise gate chattering or something, but it doesn’t actually fade out.

2255:  A much more subtle entry than many others; similar to the mix but better.  Overall nice job.

7776:  Again, a good idea taken too far.  Instead of thinning out the mud, all lower midrange has been removed which leaves this on very harsh on the old ears.  No top and tail fades.

4242:  Wow, super hot level.  Sonically similar to the original, just a lot louder.  Pretty distorted due the level.   The fade out is a bit long for my taste, but glad there is one!  A little fade in could smooth out the beginning, too.

4811:  A little on the thin side, but a good entry.  Thanks for the top and tail…the devil is in the details, as they say!  Nice job overall, I like it.

2010:  Holy-Moly!  Not  sure what to say…way to much of everything!  Can’t really listen to it.

1980:  Nice job with this one.  Perhaps a little on the warm side, like the mix, but better!  No top and tail fades.

0007:  Nice job, not too thin or too muddy.  More open sounding than the mix.  Nice fade out.


Monitoring at my place...B&W 803S, Rotel power, Grace Controller.

On to WUMP-9!

I also think it's pretty damn cool that we've done EIGHT of these so far...the internet is pretty cool sometimes!

Mike Bruce

[Ed Littman]

very interesting different views on the trax.

pretty cool that Ged & mine are very similar.

Ed

[Ged Leitch]

Ed Littman wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 06:26

very interesting different views on the trax. pretty cool that Ged & mine are very similar. Ed

Yeh I basically got in from work last night and set my playlist up,
then made my written notes while each track played.

Kind of just went for the first impression, prefer it that way.

[Ged Leitch]

Also @ ED and others, >>>

What do you think were the main problems trying to make this mix better???

For me, the guitars EQ sounded funny to me,a lack of midrange on them circa 2khz,  so I guess it was hard to EQ the track as whole and maintain my perspective on the mix.

[NoWo]

For me the greatest problems were the absence of dynamics and the ruined bass area which left not a single grip, not to the speak of the too loud snare.

The problem was not to get it loud enough and preserve everything that was in the mix by just pumping it up. But after this it sounded horrible and I did not find a single plug or hardware to tame this enough. So I tried to give it a new "grip" and inserted a Sansamp. That was my killer fault. After that everything was ruined and I could only try to minimize the damage.

It is a pity cause I liked the song. In the past I was always convinced that everything could be brought up to a release level and tone, but now after listening to the other submissions too I do not believe it any longer. This wasn

[Ed Littman]

NoWo wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 17:10

For me the greatest problems were the absence of dynamics and the ruined bass area

& the almost mono result. Unlike the old beatle mono recordings that didnt seem to be missing anything & was not destracting, & infact sounded great...this mix was distracting cause the cramped feeling of it all.

Ed

[chrisj]

Wump 8 Ten Second Jam

This tune is a good opportunity to play A&R flack for MEs. I'm turning each track on for around ten seconds- or ten seconds after the entry of the vocal- or until I get bored or feel like throwing the tape out the window. The idea is (since this isn't an important critical WUMP) to do a 'immediate first impression' crit. I have listened to none of the tracks before at all, and haven't listened to my own tonight either. They're level matched, for what it's worth- it's 1 AM and not a good time for playing 2114 unattenuated

Reference- original mix. NO- feels so garagey, murky, I don't get a sense of anything though the vocals, band etc aren't an instant turn-off. It's like I'm not listening to the actual music but an audience tape- no- an mp3 of an audience tape. 'for rabid fans only'.

0002- Um, nah. Like the intensity in the vocals but it's washy and garagey- this is a death-metal mastering where it's trying not to sound slick or full. Ugly. meant to be, but ugly.

0007- Urgh, no. All washy low-mid blur. It's like it's trying to be full-range as if it was recorded properly but it gives my ears eyestrain and astigmatism. Also, not vicious enough by half.

0610- Hm, maybe. Similar, but without the astigmatism. I'm missing focus and physicality and it's dull and washy but there was a bit of definition in there and it sounded like a band doing something interesting- maybe.

1980- Maybe. Same deal- it sounds almost like something but you struggle to find value in it because it's so bloody washy. Hell of a thing. In this case it made me want to listen more even though I wasn't enjoying it, in case something good happened.

2010- Yeargh! No. This is a POD preset. Eek. No worky. I shall have nightmares of having to master my first really major major-label-CD except all I'll have is two PODs, in racks. In series...

2114- Ow. No, no, no. I was paying attention for the raunchy EQ that sounded all deathmetal and stuff, but when the solo guitar went sweeeEELLLLLLLLL and then the band hit and went SUcckkkk... no.

More than halfway done! oh yay!

2255- OHyeah. YES. Sounds like music and hits like metal. Correct size, minimal astigmatism. Whoever you are, you win, unless there are really incredible surprises in store for the last four entries...

2323- Hmmm, yeah. Also good, just not as much. Low end has astigmatism and bulges out in funny ways, I'm missing some clarity and solidity. Very good tho. Contendah.

4242- Nah. Too hot, if it was a couple DB less hot and still had the drums and stuff working this way it might be interesting. It doesn't sound wrong, exactly, but it's choking.

4811- OK, you and 2255 fight it out I am wondering about the way that the hihats come forward crisply and cleanly- amazing trick but it doesn't say 'metal' to me, so I wonder whether it's really appropriate. However, the track works that way so it's a stylistic choice.

7776- OK, you and 4811 and 2255 fight it out nice.

The 2255-4811-7776 deathmatch:

2255- Big-ass scale. Real big. That sells me. Sounds very live.

4811- Sounds all MTV. Sorry, not into the sparkly cymbal stuff for this genre, and your low-end kick isn't in it with 2255, though it's mostly the kickdrum itself I'm faulting, NOT the guitars and bass.

7776- Very articulated. This is hella good, though it makes the snare entirely too distinct. Little TOO much articulation, this isn't coming from a big enough space, it's almost funklike at heart. There are moments when that kicks ass, but still-

2255 gets the gig now who is this?