R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down

Author Topic: WUMP NINE Listening Thread  (Read 12494 times)

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« on: November 02, 2006, 01:14:32 AM »

OK, I've spent too many hours listening to this cra-Z track. Things were a lot more consistent this time. I'll kick off a crit thread- here's how things sounded over here. One track, 2102, was so lastminute that I essentially missed it- sorry- I thought I had them all when I started, but there was that one straggler.

Source- +0 db. Big and clear but a bit flat. Definitely flat. Big dynamics, insanely exaggerated towards the end. Challenging sub-bass rumbles (listen the bird dance). Brutal distorted bass hits (where my crazy people at?) with a real point on them (very high RMS here). The track feels very dynamic with lots of very heavy bass that goes way down. Highs aren't very hyped, but they're sort of cardboardy. It feels very digital, with all the digital headroom but no air on the mix buss. The super lows, surprisingly, develop a compressed/squashed feel now and then- probably due to some sort of compressor which is releasing too fast to play the super lows cleanly. You can hear the artifacts produced, but they're all low frequency, nothing like clipping. A grind/rumble, VERY soft.

0192- +11.22 db. Airy, perhaps a bit hissy/tizzy. Bird dance pretty clean and kind of smooth. Hits are pretty clean too, slightly softened rather than dirtied. Everything's kinda weightless around that heavy bass pounding. Bright light on the lead vocal, on all trebly elements. It still sounds digital, with no room between the sounds in spite of the brightness. Was gonna say 'very' digital, but them's fighting words Smile

1001- +13.07 db. Spacious. Good textures. Bird dance throws up a bunch of crackly distortion here and there, but not directly on itself, more around it. Hits are good and hard, solid. This one feels undigital. The bass is being carried by midbass, it doesn't have the sheer extension of some, none of that shakey wobbly quality of the super-lows. The strings sound nice! Things have a physicality that's appealing. The highs are actually real extended, but not in a tizzy way. I like this Smile

1234- +12.16 db. Sort of sparkly. Breathy. Bird dance grinds a bit. Hits are definitely distorting further and they're not going louder than the body of the music as they're supposed to do. These highs are very extended but they're not coloring stuff that's not supposed to be brite. The effect is kind of like imaginary noises poofing out of the air and vanishing again- very quiet background here, which is a good sign. Good and listenable. Things feel solidly placed. The strings sound kind of funny, but they're clearly some kind of synth anyway... The arpeggio lead seems a little veiled. This is like a polite version... it's not really crazy people, that's just a lyric.

1776- +12.28 db. Big dynamics, stuff fighting with each other to be more solid. Bird dance grinds even more hard but also comes off extra heavy. Hits are buzzier but it's not cutting their volume much. There's some funny kind of presence going on that shows up on the reverbed lead vocals- a heightening of the texture. Big- the space keeps getting bigger as stuff is added, as if there's expansion in here. There's a tizz, but instead of being a glaze it pops things out of the body of the track. Hyper-focus on the voices, presence on the arpeggio even though it's way back there. This has really brutal bass down low.

2102- +10.33 db. (entry was lastminute, can't do much of a crit this late at night) Sounds good, clean on 'bird dance', using the extra dynamic range of its lowish loudness well. Maybe a bit unaggressive. Sorry- spent hours doing all the tracks, now it's 1 AM, gotta move on. I thought I was starting to review 'em pretty late, kept checking back to see if anyone was coming in at the last minute but didn't expect anything LITERALLY at the last minute Smile

2980- +10.93 db. Airy, hissy- major top end. Bird dance very good- not crunching too much, thick-sounding. Hits are pointy, with a hard front attack, but then compressed and buzzy. There's something simple about this one, where it feels a lot like the source in a way that 1776, 1234 etc do not. There are good things about that but the source isn't the last word in amazing- it's limiting to be too true to a source like this, because the character and atmosphere needs help. The space is just as flat as it was in the original track, no worse but no better. Seems like this is someone with good ears but an unexciting chain, doing not a whole bunch.

3554- +14.17 db. Sounds big from the first note. Edgy. Bird dance grinds a bit, bits of clipping around it. Hits are buzzy and slightly clamped down on, but still pretty big. This is upfront and hot from the word go, with a fine ferocity to the bass. The voices are also getting a nice presence to them, that slight dry edginess not really hurting them. What's lacking is the size of the bass- it's smaller, everything's on a slightly smaller scale so it can come forward like that. This puts the whole track in your lap, but you needn't bother watching your bassbins, because it's not really hurting them as much as you'd think. I suspect some kind of highpass.

6666- +13.22 db. Zwip of hihats is suddenly loud. Damn that's brite. The brite is louder than the vocals? Bird dance clips and sounds kind of distorty, not just grindy. Hits are very buzzy in the same kind of way. The brightness is a bit fatiguing, though I should mention that it's happening WAY up top, enough to hype out the hi-hat (shaker?) without hitting the vocals very hard. What happens is the vocals sound right except that certain sibilance, nonpitched sounds, lean forwards really hard in the highs. By contrast, 1776, another brite track, has a similar hyper-presence but it doesn't drop out between sibilances, it's applied to everything evenly. In the final analysis this version sounds smiley-EQed and it draws one's attention too much to the frequency ranges of the sounds- a steam-hiss sound hits and instead of thinking 'steam!' you think 'treble!'. Gotta draw more attention to what the sounds are, not so much to what their frequency ranges are.

6969- +14.15 db. Loud as hell, but sounds kind of congealed and dry. Top end dry too. Bird dance clips hard. Hits are very buzzy and seem to fade in and out as other elements enter the mix. This one feels pretty flat and squashed, but the extreme lows aren't there. Also, it's getting its very high RMS loudness largely by hypercompressing- not limiting, but compressing. Things are pumping like crazy. It's not OK when the tail ends of noises swoop up and are as attention-getting as the 'hero' sounds. You gotta hit the important sounds harder even if it's to distort them, you can't get level this way and have it work musically, imagine what would happen after radio station compression? Just gotta pump less. That's the most important lesson here. Also, the end bit isn't faded. It just sounds like you're not hearing the subtle stuff very well and pumping it up to compensate. I have no idea who this is but I can be totally sure who it isn't- I know a number of guys who would never make this mistake. Be careful to avoid it, and if you need these levels, limit or just flat out clip because as ugly as that is it distracts from the main sounds less than the pumping. (sorry, harsh critique, but it's an obvious problem most people are avoiding)

7777- +10.66 db. Big preroll. Extra wide? Punchy kicking bass. Faintly tizzy highs. Bird dance grinds but doesn't clip much. Hits are buzzy but sound pretty solid. There's an airy quality here that's kinda cool, and I'm hearing some details in background vocals that aren't always obvious. Actually, on the Lavry Black/HD600 there are little vocal echoes popping up _everywhere_. Somebody's doing something interesting! Parallel compression? This is also not too flat- there's a spatiality here that grows on me. It's like the musical qualities (making it sound hiphop, slammin', about crazy people) aren't that intense, but some of the sonic qualities are just amazing. Good lord, does this one swim in a sea of delicious detail. I'd like to hear experimental texture-music mastered like this. Ear candy.

8080- +6.63 db. Quietest entry by a wide margin. Dynamics more clean that way, space less congested but also less dense and phat. Sort of classical? Bird dance very clean but there's still a bit of clipping around it. Hits are closest to the source, because the dynamics are expressing themselves most of any entry. This one's mellow-sounding... elements like the vocals that are supposed to grab you are kinda sitting back. There are places where the vocal should sound rushed and breathless because the performance is, but the feel is more sedate. The scale of the track is also not that big considering how much headroom it has- there's a politeness in the upper mids that keeps things from being aggressive. It's very luxurious, but very very not 'slammin'. Somebody is being true to their sound, but that wasn't what was being asked for.

8765- +12.24 db. Starts gently. Really heavy bass. Highs not hyped but a little thin, maybe rolled? Like a hardware unit that's a bit rolled. Bird dance thick and heavy, very free of crunch. Hits are buzzy and compressed, sort of clamped at the beginning and then swelling up into a buzz. This one's on a bigger scale, bass especially is really meaty. The vocals aren't tizzy but they've got just enough edge to express the performances. I'm hearing details in the string-section stuff I didn't hear before. I also like the amount of compression that's here- it definitely feels fuller than the source track, but when everything cuts out, it's got just the right fullness of the background, not too pumping but not too empty. I like the swing of this one. Interesting choice to totally kill the hang-over noise! I hung onto it because it was different enough that I thought it had to be intentional, but this sounded good too, just going to silence immediately. Interesting.

MT Groove

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2006, 03:46:49 PM »

Wow Chris, seems like you spent quite some time analyzing these entries.  Got some very good observations and critiques. Way to go!

I'm downloading now; hoping to post my comments soon.  
Logged

aivoryuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2006, 10:29:52 AM »

Here is my listening verdicts on the submitted tracks.

I have to say that of the recent wumps this has been the hardest one to listen to as every submission was very different ranging from bright to excess warmth i had take breaks between every listen. Although the track has been labled as "Hip Hop" and think it has more of a pop prduction so it was interesting to see how people were going to deal with this one.

so i order as the appear on the server.

8080very dynamic also quietest of the lot, smooth top end but the low end is still a bit cluttered whcih loses the impact of the bass slightly.

1234Eq genereally ok although , Dynamics are slightly flat due to the volume of the track. snare on bird distorting

7777more open dynamic than 1234, bass slightly lacking compared to others, level fine.

1001 i only seem to get 2 minutes of the track downloaded not sure why but from what i heard it seemd fine

6666Clear bottom end which is good but does distort on bird dance top seems slightly over done.

3554loud from start, clear mids but top end seems quite piercing and with the level gives a relentless sound.

0192Smooth top end but at the same time the lower mids seem a bit muddy dynamics seem very flat as well.

2980Good dynamics clear bottom end, high end could do with a lil smoothing and there doesn't appear to be as much side info whcih gives a 1 dimensional feel.

8765punchy low end  smooth/tame top end, snare suffers a bit on bird dance but generally good.

0000Like general eq on this one although sibilance could be tamed a lil more. not as clean as others as seems to have some aesthetic tube on it but i do generally like this one.

6969very loud crushed channel balance is not right (sorry)

1776There was a lot of over limiting (notably on the first drum hit whcih is not a good sign). eq seems ok

2102warm top, dynamics a bit flat

5060warm sounding although the low end is not as defined as maybe it should be.

1636punchy low, warm top end again not as clean as others but would seem to be a compromise of all the elements.

8967Lower end punch good but generally dynamics are a bit flat but general eq is fine.

well thats about it, only my opinion so don't take offence. I think it was a hard one to decide what to do with it tonally. The hip hop that i did listen to b4 it had a warm tone to it but at the same time the individual elements were clear. Also a lot of these tracks were louder than what i was referencing to, some of the tracks were reaching the sort of RMS you would associate with rock but because its a hip hop means that it will be very loud on the perceived level.

just my 2 cents

Logged

Luke Fellingham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2006, 10:08:51 AM »

Listening to all the entries was much easier on the ear than wump8!
Here are my impressions:

2980 - Quite clean but a bit thin/ bright. Image not as wide as it could be. Overall effect safe but unexciting.
6666 - A bit bright and tizzy. Not really punchy.
6969 - Loud but not terribly powerful. A bit thin and splatty.
5060 - This one?s a bit more exciting. Quite clean but quite punchy with it. Low end seems solid.
8765 - Overall quite nice but could maybe use a touch more sparkle.
1234 - Quite a good balance although not quite as much weight as I like
1776 - A bit thin, sounds a bit stressed.
2102 - Clean but may a bit too soft.
3554 - Nicely big but a bit edgey with it
7777 - Bight and wide
0000 - Bright and thin. Doesn?t feel punchy.
8080 - Should have been able to get more low end punch with a master this quiet. Quite clean and dynamic.
0192 - Quite clean with quite nice highs. Dynamically a bit unexciting.
1001 - Good overall balance, quite solid.

NoWo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2006, 05:12:42 PM »

Everybody has his own priorities and so do I. These are loudness to name first and second the overall sound and third if the submission comes close enough to first class international CD releases. Only four entries fulfilled these simple criteria:

0000: Quite good, could be slightly more percussive.

3554: Quite good, a little dull on some speakers.

6666: Quite good, could also be slightly more percussive.

6969: Quite good, although severe artefacts.

At this point I would make a cut, because from here the following entries are getting quieter from top to bottom, also lacking more and more treble most of the time:

1001
5060
7777
8765
1234
0192
1776
2102
2980
8080

Please understand that I do not have the time to comment submissions that would not have the slightest chance on an international market, sorry for that, I have this impression. Of course there will be a lot of explanations why these entries were done this way, but they are of no further interest for my vision of how a master should sound. I am pretty aware of the fact that most of the guys who sent submissions are not working with the best hardware or software, the same is true for me, but at least I took the challenge. I would have hoped that more others would have also tried a lot more what seems to be impossible for us at the fist glance. Listening to the tracks I have severe doubts that the guys who did them had listened to other world productions a single second.

If we do not succeed to come to better results the Wump idea is coming to an end I fear.

Norbert
Logged

MT Groove

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2006, 06:34:14 PM »

Here's my opinion in no particular order:

2980 - Good overall tone.  Sounds like a safe master, but lacks punch and excitement

6666 - Very good overall tone.  Bass a bit boomy but controlled nicely.  Lost a bit of punch but I like the entry a lot.

6969 - Loud but lost a lot of punch.  I'm hearing  massive pumping in the compression making it sound mushy.  Lots of details lost.  Sounds too smashed.

0000 - Low mids seems scooped a bit.  Hearing some distortion during Bird Dance section.

1234 - Sounds a bit clamped down.  Not punchy.  Overall EQ sounds OK but doesn't have that "in your face" sound.

1776 - Snare sounds snappy but the track overall sounds a bit thin.  The bass seems nicely controlled.

2102 - Good overall tone but lacks excitement.

3554 - Loud and punchy.  Siblance needs to be tamed a bit.  Top end a little harsh.  This one has that in your face sound.

7777 - Bass seems a bit too conservative.  There some weird processing going on in this track.  I hearing some artifacts, which don't necessarilty give it a bad sound but make it sound a bit smeared.  This entry sounds "different"

1636 - Good overall sound.  Smooth top and bottom end.  Lacks a bit of excitement though.

5060 - NIce tone.  Snare sounds a bit clipped, especially on the bird dance section.

8765 - Highs and high mids just a bit edgy.  Good overall sound.  

1001 - A bit honky on the midrange.  

8080 - Thin overall sound.  Bass is lacking.  Levels are too conservative for Rap/Hip Hop.  I know we're against overly hot levels in mastering, but I don't think clients would approve this considering how Rap/Hip Hop is mastered for the last 10 years.

8967 - Sounds a bit clamped.  EQ sounds ok even though it may sound a bit boxy on the low midrange.

0192 - Sounds a bit thin and lacks excitement.  Also sound a bit harsh.


This is just my humble opinion.  Take it with a grain of salt.  Smile



 
Logged

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2006, 10:38:53 PM »

Norbert: check your monitoring Very Happy

lucidwaves

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2006, 11:38:55 PM »

NoWo wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 14:12

Everybody has his own priorities and so do I. These are loudness to name first and second the overall sound


Loudness is your first priority even if it is not the client's?
Logged
~Aaron Hall~
www.lucidwaves.com

KAyo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2006, 05:18:01 AM »

Not trying to be cheeky Norbert,
But, I have listened to a lot of thoses so called "international" sound you seem to be talking about. But, I tend to follow my own direction, and my taste ain't for sale, as per some trend..

I also agree, clients may not have liked some quiter entries, but that doesn't mean, people just blindly went ahead with their processing. I for one, did what I thought was right for the song.. Maybe, that ain't going with the "10year" trend, and yes, maybe I may not have too many clients, who may agree with quiter masters. But, i like to make a master I can respect first, sure others may disagree, nonetheless, I'd like to think I prevailed with mine.

Quite can be liked too!!! A personal opinion, thats all. Rolling Eyes
Logged
http://www.Kantabiz.com
Business Video Directory

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2006, 07:03:48 AM »

When and if we get Cerberus's measurements we'll get a different slant on loudness, too. He's always shown average and maximum RMS. Maximum shows you more because it'll pick out how dense the loudest hits are- that against a quieter background means more dynamic punch. Simple average isn't that useful because you can have a flaccid but massively pumping entry and average out pretty hot.

Even with just brainless loudness it's not quite as brainless as all that...

mikepecchio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 231
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2006, 09:48:58 AM »

trying to be honest and not sugar coat.  I hope I don't come off as too harsh.  I didnt get a chance to listen to all of them. Id have to say 5060 was probably my favorite, if that matters.


2980  good.  louder w/ retention of original tonality. lost just a little clarity and depth.  

6969   bad.  sounds harsh at all levels. tonality changed too much due primarily to inapopropriate blasted HF EQ. vocals suffer. bass size gone, sounds distorted in breakdown. no depth. absolute phase is reversed.

6666    good.  on the loud side but the low end and depth arent ruined.  punchy, and the snare is snappy.  but the HF boost makes the vocal a little tiny bit stressed.  decent comprimise.

1234    poor. tonality is muddier and narrower than original. snare lost snap, vocal sounds boxed in / harder to hear at low level.  but at least it is not harsh.

1776  poor.  crackly. I can tell this is clipping withing 3 seconds, without even looking at the waveform. the breakdown sounds kindof farty. yet strangely, transients sound softer/muddier.  maybe some kind of misguided compression before clipping? the bass is actually boosted, that is cool I guess.

3554    poor.  what was done was pretty good, it was just turned up a bit too far.  bass suffers greatly. lost its size and movement. when level matched sounds much whimpier than the original.  I can hear some pumping and the highs are a little harsh. especially the voice. this is actually not a good master. but it is also not too bad for how loud it is. but it IS louder than it should be. and it is your responsibility to know when to stop. I know for a fact there was no client breathing down your neck to make it hotter.


8080    poor. too conservative level-wise, not appropriate to the genre. and the tonality has been altered. why?  sounds like the highs have been boosted and the low end has been rolled off some. sounds smaller and less dynamic even when played back a bit louder than the original. ?

5060    good.  loud and true to the original. maybe a tad fuller in the lows/low mids.  sounds great up against the source when level matched.  nice work.

8765    good.  but lost some clarity.  sounds a tad dull and narrow compared to the original. makes it sound smaller than it could. tonality is pretty good otherwise. in particular the bass did not get chewed up nearly as much as some of the others. sounds like an M/S eq thing. boosting mids in the center channel?

0192   actually sounds like the original. nice HF boost that sounds appropriate.  slightly boosted midrange and maybe some distortion added?

mike p
Logged

mikepecchio

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 231
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2006, 09:59:57 AM »

NoWo wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 17:12

I would have hoped that more others would have also tried a lot more what seems to be impossible for us at the fist glance. Listening to the tracks I have severe doubts that the guys who did them had listened to other world productions a single second.


this mix sounded good to start with. And you are saying most entries didn't try to alter it enough?  maybe you should be do more mixing, norbert.
Logged

NoWo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2006, 10:49:26 AM »

@ Chris,

I did not only check my monitoring, I also installed three new speaker systems and two new DACs, did something on the room too.

@lucid,

No, I do not judge a track on the loudness only, it is just the first thing that gains my attention during the first seconds of listening. To be honest it is not the pure loudness that gains my interest but more the energy or intensitivity of the track.
To the customer:
During 30 years as a pro on the biz I have not met a single customer that wants a quiet track. It needs not to be spoken out that it should have international standard, and that is  at least as loud as in the charts.

@ KAyo,

of course you can go your own way, but then again it would make no sense to me to do a Wump where you compare your technique or sound to that of others although you just said you are doing it your style. A little contradictory in itself I think.

In general:

I do not want to bring up this loudness discussion again, really. But I found that "Crazy People" sounded a little like Missy Eliott which I admire a lot. So i compared our submissions to that and Spear
Logged

OTR-jkl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 869
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2006, 11:30:48 AM »

NoWo wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 09:49

I do not want to bring up this loudness discussion again, really. But I found that "Crazy People" sounded a little like Missy Eliott which I admire a lot. So i compared our submissions to that and Spear
Logged
J Lowes ยท OTR Mastering
Professional Audio Production for Life
www.ShoutLife.com/OTRMastering

aivoryuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2006, 01:08:25 PM »

NoWo wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 15:49

But I found that "Crazy People" sounded a little like Missy Eliott which I admire a lot. So i compared our submissions to that and Spear
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up