Print

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

[johnehartley]

L Fellingham - good overall sound but the sibilance jumps out.
A Johnston - low end could do with thinning out for me.
P Vincenten - a little muddy. Good sound on the vocals.
B Slobodian - like the tone of this one. Resonant frequency standing out around 460Hz.
E Jensen - tricky with the phasing on the original track but I like the width enhancement on this one. Overdone on the de-essing?
G Backlin - rather middly, didn't like the sound of the electric guitar - quite harsh.
A Ivory - Snappy snare. Muddy bass and darker sound.
P Graham - Bass and low mids aren't very clean plus vocals are buried a little.
C Truta - the width has been pushed a little, especially noticeable on headphones. Fairly harsh sound. Sibilance jumps out.

I experimented with my original version quite a bit and definitely overdid it, especially on the compression. Hopefully will have more time when I do the revision. Below is the process and the settings I used (all in the box).

- Waves X-Hum, X-Click & Z-Noise & bounced to 24bit
- Waves S1 Imager (Width: 1.0 / Rotation: -4) to centralise the image
- Flux Bitter Sweet II (Fast / 52.92% / Link) Wanted to experiment with this and see what it would do to a whole mix.
- Waves RCompressor Expander (ARC On / Opto / Smooth / Attack: 0.50 / Release: 801 / Ratio: 0.80:1)
- Waves IR-1 Convolution Reverb (Bluebird Cafe) & removed most of low frequencies.
- Waves LinEQ Low (+2.2dB / 64Hz / 3.78Q / Normal / Dither On)
- Waves C1 comp sidechain (904Hz / 0.500Q / 6.98:1 Ratio / 23.99 Attack / 72 Release / Lookahead On) for harsh vocal tone. Max 4dB reduction.
- Waves C1 comp sidechain (12977Hz / 0.500Q / 6.98:1 Ratio / 10.84 Attack / 11 Release / Lookahead On) for sibilance. Max 7.6dB reduction.
- Waves Q10
(Gain / Freq Hz / Q)
-3.3 / 96 / 83.5
-2.9 / 221 / 97.0
-5.5 / 161 / 98.5
-5.1 / 586 / 98.0
-4.9 / 993 / 98.0
-4.8 / 904 / 96.5
-2.3 / 331 / 93.0
-6.6 / 2520 / 98.0
- PSP Vintage Warmer 2 (60 Knee / 41 Speed / X1 Release / Fat On / Link On / 59.1% Mix) c.3dB reduction
- Waves C4 - low frequency only, others bypassed (2dB Gain / -12.2dB Range / 38.81 Attack / 49.89 Release / Electro / Hard Knee) c.3dB reduction.
- Waves LinEQ for air (+1.7dB / 20068Hz / 0.90Q / Normal / Dither On)
- Waves VEQ4 (-1.1dB / 270Hz / HiQ)(+0.9 / 3.3kHz / Analog)
- PSP MasterQ (170Hz / 6.34Q / -1.99dB) (2.55kHz / 0.49Hz / -1.20dB / PROC & FAT On)
- S1 Stereo Shuffler (Width: 1.10 / Shuffle: 1.4 / Freq: 630Hz)
- API 2500 Comp (30ms Attack / 3:1 / 50ms Release / Hard Knee / Med Thrust / Type: New / Analog On) c.2dB reduction.
- PSP MasterComp (Ratio: 1.68:1 / Attack: 31.6ms / Release 541ms / Classic On / Auto Off)
- Waves Maxx Volume (Low c.4dB reduction / High c.3dB reduction)
- L2 limiting & dither (Release: 1.00 ARC / Out: -0.3 / 16bits / Type 1 dither / Shaping: Ultra / -1.5dB reduction)

[masterhse]

I asked the client if he wouldn't mind coming over to the studio in order to evaluate the submissions. He said that it would be fun. Is this of interest to everyone? Most likely the comments would not be overly technical, just his preferences.

[aivoryuk]

masterhse wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 11:32

I asked the client if he wouldn't mind coming over to the studio in order to evaluate the submissions. He said that it would be fun. Is this of interest to everyone? Most likely the comments would not be overly technical, just his preferences.

yeah sounds good after all, its all about pleasing the clients

oh yeah Tom a big thanks for sorting all this out, its been educational

[johnehartley]

masterhse wrote on Tue, 27 November 2007 05:32

I asked the client if he wouldn't mind coming over to the studio in order to evaluate the submissions. He said that it would be fun. Is this of interest to everyone? Most likely the comments would not be overly technical, just his preferences.

Great idea - will be good to hear it from the client perspective.

Cheers Tom

[escape]

My revision is up on the server.

"1st REVISION" is in the name of the revised edition.

I kept the original there as well for those that would like to compare them.

I have yet another revision that I may upload as well later on.

Any feedback as to whether the revision is better and how/why would be appreciated not only by me, but I am sure by the spectators involved even more so on their part.

I'll make a post later with what I did differently on the technical side of things. For now I'd like it to be a blind listen. So, if you've got the time, go check it out real quick, and leave a few words here about your impressions.

Thank You.

[escape]

WOW

Seems as though everyone involved with this just disappeared.
Either that or they lost their enthusiasm.


Well, if anyone's interested, I'm posting my final revision on the server. So that's three versions from me, all numbered, so you can hear how it evolved. I think it turned out great. I was going to wait for comments on the other one first, but I guess I'll just be done with it, seems the trend.

[masterhse]

Still here Eric. I just got swamped with a couple of projects in a row and haven't had time to meet with the client. Add to this that it's finals week and I'll be grading 20 more mixes after Wednesday (all artists picked, produced, recorded, and mixed by the students). Ready for WUMP 15?    

[bslobodian]

Still here too, Eric. I'll report asap.

Bernard

[gbacklin]

Same here, I got hit with a LOT of work for Holiday Seasonal related.

I should be coming up for air by end of next week.

Take Care,
Gene

[escape]

I feel for ya guys.

I'm in pretty much the same situation.


talk to ya later,

[bslobodian]

Hi everyone,

When I started the project, I didn’t listen to the cd reference file (and I should have). Here are my observations. I’ll report back on my effort later.


Undertow- Really like this one. Nice rounded tone. Probably the best compromise. Smooth. Intelligibility on vocal is great. Like velvet.

LukeF- Really good. Tiny bit aggressive on mids. Compression bit to obvious. Real close to what it should be.

Ator- Another close but with too much artifacts from compression.

Eric Jenson- Compression too obvious. Aggressive high mids. Haven’t listened to your revisions yet and I think it should be interesting cause overall, there were some nice directions to your work.

Aivoryuk- Closed sound. Honky vocal.

Pgraham- Vocal’s burried & honky. Appreciated the effort to reconstruct the sound scape.

Jhartley- Heavy pumping and aggressive.

Catalin- Comp to obvious. Ducking on vocal. Another effort to correct the sound scape. Appreciated.

GBacklin- Thin. Heavy pumping and harsh. Sorry.

Bernard Slobodian

[johnehartley]

Apologies for the delay! Finally squeezed in time for a revision which I have uploaded to the server - comments appreciated.

Had a listen to your two revisions Eric - definitely prefer the overall sound of the first one; not as harsh as the original, a little too much bass for my liking but good clear vocals and snappy snare. The imaging on your second is rather strange especially when I listened with headphones - did you M/S / add ambient reverb?

All the best,

John

[escape]

johnehartley wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 10:52

Apologies for the delay! Finally squeezed in time for a revision which I have uploaded to the server - comments appreciated. Had a listen to your two revisions Eric - definitely prefer the overall sound of the first one; not as harsh as the original, a little too much bass for my liking but good clear vocals and snappy snare. The imaging on your second is rather strange especially when I listened with headphones - did you M/S / add ambient reverb? All the best, John

Actually,
on the second revision I was using Haas kicks, which had been recommended, to try and help with the imaging of the stereo field.

Just a few delays and polarity inversions, nothing more.

Was trying to be subtle but effective. I think it was at least interesting and it would be debatable if it was damaging to the original material, considering I didn't use a reverb box or anything "artificial" to do it. I was just trying to hi-light what was already there as well as give some more space for the sound to "breathe" without turning the sound upside down.

Thanks for noticing.

[johnehartley]

Good to read what you had tried to do Eric and how you went about it. Definitely a very sensible route to take, just didn't work for me, especially when heard through headphones.

Cheers,

John