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 12553 times)

NoWo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2006, 05:07:00 PM »

Hi Alex,

I think my Missy album had another name, it is about 2 years old.
I burnt our submissions onto a audio CD and compared it to Missy and others (all original CDS, nothing reburnt) also at other places and all I can say we are not up to par in all aspects. I wished it were not the case.
And as you mention 6969 I have to say I did not say it is good, I would not say it of any submission although the other three are better than mine (yes, it is mine) cause they have much lesser artefacts. And as we are on 6969 let me tell you what went wrong:
Just like a lot of the other guys I started with the master quite early and was content with it. The master sounded very similar to most of the other entries. I forgot about it. On the 1st of November I decided to compare it with Missy which I did not earlier and was shocked. So I started to work on it again and got some overcompressing which did not look as a big problem to me then. What really killed me was a last plug that I did not know up to then for widening the stereo image in the last second, I think it
Logged

pob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2006, 07:53:54 PM »

Hi all,

In the true sprit of typing the first thing that comes into my head when I hear...

3554 - Wide, sounded flat dynamicaly. Settled in in the verse. The rhythm section sounded inside out, no attack but big sustain/body, and sucked up before the next beat. Harsh, and fatiguing in choruses. Smoother in second verse.

6666- Yep I'm LOUD. When 1st verse vocals come in, just feeling the spit, no body. Chorus sounds more distorted, not more choursey. Up  and down on the transients on the second verse. Doom Doom bit, smaller, rather than bigger/punchy.

6969 - Pokey, in your face, big but small, claustrophobic sounding. No up and downs just all ups and upper's. Not my bag.

2890 - Not as LOUD as others, big n baggy bottom end. Lots of mid/highs n polite lows, nothing in body/middle n LOW freq. range. Soupy, in a nice way, on the bit before where my crazy people at section.

8765 - Vocals rule on this one, sounds great with on the verses, but the expense of the rest of the backing on the other sections of the arrangement.

1234 - Top n bass, but with not much body. Drums flapping in and out in an unnerving way on the dynamics of the kik n snare. Shinier than previous tracks, distorting on 'where my crazy people at'.

1776 - Silkier top end than previous tracks, nice pop on the snare. Glue-ier sounding. Chorus has some sshhi-ness, the backing track seems to drop on the chorus. After Bird dance bit sounds clipped.

2102 - Yep it's quieter than others. And lacking a bit in the trouser flapping sub sonic department . But, sounds like it retains more of the original tracks intentions, than the louder brigade. I just turned up me stereooo!.

7777 - Thin sounding, no SUB weight on bass end. Sort of half way between 2102 n 1776. Width/image stuff going on.

8080 - Very polite and middy, nice bottom end. Pip n pop sounding, sounds uncomfortably compressed. After second listen, start to notice some finer points on the tracks dynamics.  Sort of nearly there on the attack an release, but not quite.

0192 - This was my favorite. Mastering dynamics matched the tracks dynamics in a beneficial way. Nice bottom n mid, slight ting on the higher frequencies, but were smooth. Nice n gloopy!

1001 - Sounded a touch more manipulated compared to 0192. But I got into it buy the end of the second verse, to end, not as smooth. Doesn't have the sheen of 192, but a close second.

Just my opinion, no offense meant etc..
Thanks, really enjoyed the experience!

Paul o' Brien

p.s excuse my English, I'm from Manchester
Logged

KAyo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 345
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2006, 12:15:15 AM »

I understand what you are saying and I am not agreeing with you nor disagreeing with you here:
Just keep in mind that quite likely the intent of most of these submissions was not to be as loud as possible and still keep it clean. I think most were simply trying to make it sound as good as possible.
Personally, I strive for impact and sonic integrity first, level second....

J Lowes
Logged
http://www.Kantabiz.com
Business Video Directory

aivoryuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2006, 04:17:04 PM »

pobaudio wrote on Thu, 09 November 2006 00:53


p.s excuse my English, I'm from Manchester


cool where abouts in manchester???

are there any more comments to come???
Logged

pob

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2006, 04:31:02 PM »

Hi Alex,

studio is in Bexley Square, off Chapel Street M3 6BD.
I get what you mean about comments, just had a look on the Massive server and there are another four there, I will have a listen over the weekend.
Are you local?

cheers
Paul

Logged

aivoryuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2006, 05:00:05 PM »

pobaudio wrote on Fri, 10 November 2006 21:31

Hi Alex,

studio is in Bexley Square, off Chapel Street M3 6BD.
I get what you mean about comments, just had a look on the Massive server and there are another four there, I will have a listen over the weekend.
Are you local?

cheers
Paul



cert am bridgewater street next to the trinity way, 5-10 min walk from your studio
Logged

Ged Leitch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2006, 07:52:51 PM »

Havent had a chance to listen 2 all the entries yet...


will post critique soon...oh, i was 0192 by the way...
Logged
http://bitheadmastering.co.uk/

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

Ed Littman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 877
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2006, 09:38:40 PM »

I learned alot from this one.
I listend on Dunlavy SC3A’s.
I lined up all submissions at the same level as the original mix. I looped sections & observed my comments below.

2980— lost the original stereo field, to much de-essing
6666--- to sizzly on top
6969—  lost snare,boxy in the mids, to processed sounding,
0000— sizzly on top lost snare
1234--- warm but lost snare, & vocals
1776---  sizzly on top low end distortion, good subsonics
3554— voice stands out, lost bass & kick
7777---  boxy in the side mids, lost bass
8765---  less defined ,  a bit murky
1001--- sides a enhanced without to much distraction, lots of subs
8080--- thin in the vocal range"all our crazy people" the vocoder comes out more from the mix
0192--- close to the original, a bit harder sounding
1636---close to the original, soft on the highs & lows
5060---bigger mids with thunder under
8967---strong & thick
2102—strong snare, tone not as soft as the original
Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2006, 07:09:01 AM »

1636 - good groove... good eq, (freq for me)  a bit spatty on the transients.  heavy compression effects are obvious on choruses and refrains, but some parts feel more open by contrast. that is cool, but somewhat distracting, makes the arrangement sound "party" to me, perhaps the transitions between parts could be smoother.

6666 - instant sense of distortion, but let's give it a chance...   solid, separated bass is nice.. good pop from the kick drum... fairly groovy but does not let the groove overpower sena... though she sounds a more bit distant here.. it helps give a sense of largeness... snare has nice tone but is a touch sticky feeling.  it begins to feel stressed after the bird dance when the dynamics seem to have already hit their ceiling and then the sound tends to mush together... didn't bring it home for me.

2980 - nice tension, but again i feel some distortion coming on...  filtered feeling, sounds like logic pro, a sort of pasty fog... some crazy eq going on here? chrisj noise shaping.. the top lacks sparkle, i just find this is harsh to my  ears and sort of "contra" sounding... not harmonious for some reason.. bad eq i think.  i had a hard time enjoying it. i do not feel the groove here at all even though the dynamics seem technically ok.

5060 - nice and loud... deep... excellent stereo!  groove, bump, push, release.. snare perhaps seems a bit wimpy..  also there is an overall feeling that more dynamics are expected than delivered. transients are noticibly smeared, though not as bad as some.  could use de-essing.

6969 - distortion again?  kinda smiley curvey.. the way the groove hits the limiter gives it more of a sense of urgency than some...  more noise shaping or some weird freqs happening up top.. this one is just too distorted i think, the dynamics don't dance in the denser sections. good try at getting hot levels, but it misses.. loses my attention when i hear it fall apart.   i love the bass guitar distortion, but it comes at a high price.. muddled articulation as it gets denser, with an increasingly crude top end.

0192 - such lovely tone., though again a side effect is smeared transients, which prevent this one from being my favorite.  the dynamics do seem obviously controlled, the stereo image is not particularly deep or wide or allowing me to leave my chair and enter the music...but this one really brings on the funk, i like the how the rhythm section is melded here to work as a unit. i will leave my chair after all, and dance then.

8765 - a bit distorty.. dynamics are well controlled, but that makes me want more, and it never punches through, the loudest sounds get pulled back instead of being louder, it's like being taunted and teased. so you want some more groove?  well too bad!  is there lower mid dip?  imo, the bass could fill up that space more.

3554 - i like this one. kick drum seems to sucking in on the choruses... but otherwise, good job, everyone had to compromise, but you found balance.

8967 - thick and funky... not distorted.  very excellent stereo. another really good one that lets the music do all the talking,  this one felt really natural.. the m.e. is like...invisible !  and for the most part  the mix engineer's work here is made less obtrusive.  beautiful...wish this was mine !

1234 - this one is pretty thick sounding... i want to like it but i feel that i'm really listening to filters and envelopes as much as music, nice though, just not allowing me to leave the "studio" and feel the music in its pure form at all.

2102 - feels special... refined like. civilized.. not particularly loud, but that makes me want to turn it up.. a good thing.  feels restricted however... the dynamics are "good"  the eq is "good"... the groove is "good", but i want to feel inspired more. is there high pass filter?  missing some bottom i think.

1776 - intro sounds nice and hi-fi -lo fi... i mean my ears stopped hurting.. yay! compressor seems to be pulling down the edges of vocal inflections a touch...  dynamics are very controlled sounding.. almost apologetic for refusing to "go all the way" with the groove, which in parts seems overwhelmed by "properness".. i want to like this one, but it doesn't seem to have enough "juice" to bring it on home...somewhat lacking in funk factor.

7777 - what with the long intro pause..  it certainly is distorted, but not necessarily badly to me. some details i hear that i don't in others.. it really is groovy...   great sense of urgency and pressure, interesting how different it sounds than any of the others.. this does sound hot and it sounds like  a record.. i really like what has been done here, although it's totally not my style, i like it the best, especially the soundstage.. it is a bit weird sounding... the tone and dynamics have been altered from the mix, but  i find it's very comfortable to listen to.  

8080 - too long a pause at the beginning..what u waiting for?    this one is real nice, but it's way to quiet to be competitive in the marketplace... for all this it's got nice dynamics, but still sounds limited, especially the kick drum which is totally stifled somehow. on the plus side, the transients are not smeary and it seems very true to the original mix.... but some of the sections of the mix have dynamics change-ups that do not sound especially natural, and these stick out here for me as defects which distract me from the music.

0000 - superb freq balance.. sense of space and depth.. beautiful tone.. but many vocal transients get smeared obtrusively.  this is compromise to me.   the bird dance percussion came off particularly well here, and there is a good feeling of climax and release despite the mix levels obviously being altered by compressors among the different parts of the song, which it seems this master emphasizes.

<edit: i posted these comments before reading the discussion from the past 4 days, some of you revealed yourselves, but i did not read about it until after i wrote the critiques>

jeff dinces

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2006, 07:19:54 AM »

chrisj wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 07:03

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...



i chose not to post numbers because i think loudness is a perception. i've thought perhaps i'd been giving the wrong impression that i think it can be easily measured... maybe as you suggest, it can be...  but i was afraid that someone would judge the masters the way norbert did and that  would not seem fair. you mesure the the rms too before you listen, but it happens that your critiques seem very accurate, i'll leave you alone on it, but i'm not sure that's the best strategy in general... it tends to favor prejudice and not really listening to loudness, which is a psychoacoustic perception.

obviously, if we smash it so the rms is near zero, it will measure loud, but won't sound loud, just bad.  and there seems to no set number for the threshold, it is a musical judgement and different for each music, or even for parts of the same song.  imagine what today's more "aggressive" m.e. might do to bohemian rhapsody for example.

i did chat-up the idea that we should attempt to get this sounding competitive with other hip-hop tracks that were released lately, but then one could get carried away with that idea and lose the music....

i am not sure what maximum rms tells us... what needed to be loud here?  the vocals?  the kick drum?  the snare?  the bass? the different parts of the song had different instruments that seemed louder in the mix. i think that the music required some artistic decisions that the stats may be too crude to explain with one number.   are you sure that is the right way to interpret the stats?

NoWo wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 10:49

 it is not the pure loudness that gains my interest but more the energy or intensitivity of the track.


yes i agree, i wish you had reviewed my master though instead of rejected it...among the ones you did review , you mention distortion being too high. on your own.. that is a concession, but it seems you have an admittedly high tolerance for distortion.  audible distortion can make a mix seem much more exciting on some systems, but if the client does not like it, it would never be released, and the m.e. should not expect get paid.

it seems paradoxical to me, or you are not expressing yourself clearly to us. the client specifically asked for it to be clean. "loud" may be assumed, but  the first priority was nonetheless to keep it clean, that directive is not disputable based on alex's instructions to us. one has to pay at least some heed to the client's most pressing wishes and needs.

it sure got weird in wump5 when the client wanted us to severely distort his music if necessary in order to reach certain levels; but i admitted i was wrong to argue with him so vehemently. the customer is always right.

jeff dinces

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2006, 09:08:36 AM »

I'm pretty much at the limits (or beyond) of my monitoring and accoustics to be able to properly judge all the entries so my comments are mainly things that seem to stick out a bit in my environment. I wouldn't like to choose an absolute favorite here at home.

Also the orignal mix is very nice so there was not as much heavy corrective work going on as in some of the previous WUMPs I took part in. Or hardcore limiter slamming for that matter. That makes it harder to distinguish the work done in the various entries.

Take all this into account when reading my notes.

0000 Loud without too many artefacts but a touch bright.
5060 Loud but a bit dull. Lacks some resolution.
6666 A bit bright.
6969 Too bright and distorted yet not the loudest
8967 Maybe a touch overcompressed.Snare could be a bit stronger.
2980 Big lows. Lacking a bit of attack on the snare.
8080 Not loud enough for competitive levels. Otherwise nice sounding.
0192 A bit boxy sounding. Not bad.
1001 Big lows. Maybe a bit too much. Distorts slightly during the bird dance.
8765 Low-mid/high-bass bump.Slightly too middy.
1636 A bit sharp yet snare a bit dull.
7777 Lack of bass. A bit middy in the stereo.
3554 A bit too much bass pumping and could use some de-essing.
2102 A bit middy.A little hard sounding.
1776 A little too Hi-Fi EQ curve. Distorts in the bird song.
1234 A bit too middy. Snare a bit too compressed.

Alistair
Logged

ATOR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2006, 07:17:37 AM »

These are my notes. This week I've attended a mastering session at Electric City in Brussels and listening to mixes I knew very well on their really big speakers has made me change my taste for where the high mids and low mids should be. I used to like warm mellow sounding mixes/masters but now I'm leaning more towards a leaner and meaner kinda sound. Right now my internal reference for what is 'good' is in a state of flux so I found it hard to comment.

0000 highmids too pronounced, lost punch

0192 sounds good

1001 Nice full sound, upfront vocal, energetic, deep bass, sibilance could use some taming

1234 lows could use tightening, vocal burried

1636 sounds boxy and a little closed in, basslevel low

1776 overly bright, makes the track sound thin

2102 like the mix but turned up a little with more midlows, not very exciting

2980 kinda middy

3554 much sibilance, sounds stressed

5060 sounds good, nice controlled low end, the sides are little too loud

6666 harsh and thin

6969 this one is really ugly, overcompressed/limited, harsh, had to turn it off

7777 little harsh, low end could be bigger

8080 lost punch and openness compared to mix, the level is way too low

8765 mids too present, sounds as if you narrowed the image

8967 much sibilance, sounds stressed

Logged
Pieter Vincenten - ATORmastering

aivoryuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 480
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2006, 02:33:17 PM »

is any body ready to discuss the techniques used for this track??
Logged

ATOR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2006, 05:30:40 PM »

aivoryuk wrote on Tue, 14 November 2006 20:33

is any body ready to discuss the techniques used for this track??


Sure go ahead, it's been 2 weeks since we all submitted our masters. I'll open a techniques thread.

Please submit your master reviews before you read the techniques thread.
Logged
Pieter Vincenten - ATORmastering

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: WUMP NINE Listening Thread
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2006, 03:09:10 AM »

eleven reviewers out of sixteen masters so far.

jeff dinces
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.097 seconds with 20 queries.