Print

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

[chrisj]

Thank you for furnishing each step, I was hoping you would- looking forward to seeing what happens to the pre-emphasized file.

I'm cranking away on wordlength reduction for a while, but I hope to keep revisiting my 'CJRestoration' file because my sense of how far back the dynamics should go keeps changing. I like the idea of not making it quiet, just punchier- think I could rock all over that. Also, I put a kind of dithering into my 'remap' code, and it sounded better.

[Charles Dye]

Good luck, we're all counting on you!

[Charles Dye]

From the thread At what point does tape compression become Distortion?

Charles Dye wrote on Fri, 30 July 2004 16:14

Speaking of bricks though... To set the record straight, I do take the credit (blame) for mixing one of the most obnoxiously over compressed tracks to have come out in a while. To leave no doubt, it was not Ted Jensen's fault that "Livin' La Vida Loca" looks like a damn brick when you look @ its waveform. I gave him almost nothing in the way of dynamics to work with when he mastered it. Nonetheless, he did do a fantastic job of making it sound better. He smoothed out the low end in an extremely cool way, and I have since both personally apologized + thanked Ted for his great work. What do I have to say in my defense? Nothing. I was young + stupid. I learned that lesson in a very public + hard way. But I quickly became a firm believer in always leaving mastering to the ME. If I had to do it over again I would do some things differently, but I'm still proud of my work. It has all the excitement + intensity I feel the song needed.

And once you've defrosted the ice box, cleaned behind the toilet + waxed the car, there's always The Complete Story on Mixing Livin' La Vida Loca.



blah, blah, blah...



(...doesn't he ever tire of hearing himself blather on?!?)

[Lee Flier]

Oh man...  

You gotta love the Internet.

[bblackwood]

A huge welcome (and thank you) to Charles for accepting my invitation to join in this discussion. Charles is a great guy, great mixer, and will be fantastic to have around for this.

Welcome, Charles!

[Level]

Steps 2 and 3 are now posted as a single file. One more step to go.

Called "De emphasis and regions steps 2 and 3"
Step 4 will involve getting the average level up to about -15rms and closing down on that peak before the break.

I really wish we had a cleaner source to work from but it may be "the way things are" and I am hip to that.

Right now...I have the rms track values are a shade softer than -17dbrms fs. and de emphasis (my curves) tamed the brightness to sanity levels from my earlier emphasized state.

[chrisj]

Hans writes again:

Quote:

I uploaded another version, this is from the AIFF, the older was from the mp3 http://members.chello.at/hmp_web/LaVidaLocaClip_hTR3.mp3 it is giving up about 1.2 dB RMS average. I could hide the distortion a little, and got better transients. several bandpassed expansion techniques were involved, reverb, and detailed, different EQs. 1 EQ gain parameter was automated between verse and chorus. everything ITB. have fun!

[chrisj]

Also, I got my entry to where I can leave it for now- I am going with the feedback that said things were 'pumping' too much, in the belief that it doesn't make a lot of sense to try and put symphonic dynamics into Vida Loca.

I've replaced my previous 'CJRestoration.mp3' with a new version that doesn't pump so much- and have uploaded 'CJRestoration.aiff" which is the same, uncompressed, for anyone who wants to take a closer look.

[links removed due to bandwidth usage]

[bobkatz]

Charles Dye wrote on Thu, 17 March 2005 19:48

From the thread At what point does tape compression become Distortion? Charles Dye wrote on Fri, 30 July 2004 16:14 Speaking of bricks though... To set the record straight, I do take the credit (blame) for mixing one of the most

Dear Charles: It was very good to hear you speak in this forum! Congratulations on owning up to your youthful "indiscretions"! It's very good to hear from you in such a candid and honest manner. Go for it, keep up those hits, and keep 'em sounding better and better.


Best wishes,



Bob

[Level]

[links removed due to bandwidth usage]

My Last entry is called "Bill Roberts Complete"

It came in with an RMS value -16.17/ -16.16

First file has heavy EQ for restoring the signal to signal ratio to a wider value. Second file incorporated making region for various portions of the song and adjusting the eq parameters to restore some of the bottom end "dumping" which happens with heavy compression. Second files also contains 3rd step elements of de-emphesis and the "complete file" is the best I could do with it between gigs.

Take a look at the structure of the .wav file versus the structure of the of the original aiff file I had to work with.

Ed and Chris, I feel you guys did a great job with the file!!

Jeff, Yours is coming in now. Jeff, Likewise!

I will check out the Hans file tomorrow.

[dcollins]

Level wrote on Fri, 18 March 2005 15:11

First file has heavy EQ for restoring the signal to signal ratio to a wider value.

Fantastic, Bill!  

This should work nicely with Bob Katz "expanders."

'signal to signal' ratio, is it?

DC

[Level]

Signal to noise is Noise floor to highest recorded signal.
Signal to signal is lowest recorded musicial signal to highest recorded musicial signal. No expanders were used in my restoration attempt. All done by EQ and volume mapping.

[dcollins]

Level wrote on Fri, 18 March 2005 19:33

No expanders were used in my restoration attempt. All done by EQ and volume mapping.

Where is Bob Katz in this "restoration" test?  

He was the first guy that I ever heard being critical of this mix.

And, along with Bill Roberts, seems to have all those Proprietary Techniques to "fix" things like this.  I'm surprised that he hasn't been involved.

DC

[Samc]

Level wrote on Sat, 19 March 2005 03:33

Signal to noise is Noise floor to highest recorded signal. Signal to signal is lowest recorded musicial signal to highest recorded musicial signal. No expanders were used in my restoration attempt. All done by EQ and volume mapping.

Something sounds a little weird/unnatural about this "restoration" to me. There seem to be some drastic jumps in the volume at some points in the song.  Not naturally dynamic and smooth, but more like automation was used to suddenly boost the volume of those "dynamic" parts????

Is this what is known as "volume mapping"?

[chrisj]

Level wrote on Fri, 18 March 2005 22:33

Signal to noise is Noise floor to highest recorded signal. Signal to signal is lowest recorded musicial signal to highest recorded musicial signal. No expanders were used in my restoration attempt. All done by EQ and volume mapping.

Oh- so by signal to signal you mean tracking either average or peak volume- it'd have to be average volume as the track is all peak all the time- and then changing volume according to what the existing volume is doing.

To my mind that IS expanding, but if you want to call it volume mapping that's fine with me. It's similar to what I was doing, except that I have a heavy dose of that 'remapping' stuff.

I didn't get a kook name check from DC! I am SO hurt. I'll go off and brood tragically now does it not count as proprietary if you blather about it and nobody can shut you up?