R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Brad Blackwood => Topic started by: Phillip Graham on July 26, 2006, 01:23:11 AM

Title: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Phillip Graham on July 26, 2006, 01:23:11 AM
Ok,

So I am going batty here in the office on a late night of work, so I am going to perhaps jump the gun, take a break, and write what I did processing-wise for WUMP 6.

This was the first WUMP I have participated in.  I really liked the song, and the raw mix, and I thought it would be a fun challenge.

I do a fair amount of archival clean up of live sound recordings, as I have mentioned here before, so those skills come to bear here.

Signal chain-wise, I broke all the "rules."  My WUMP submission was done on a pair of Grado SR80 headphones plugged into my IBM laptop here at the desk in my office.  The entire signal chain consists of adobe audition 2.0, and included or free plugins.  Audition is a 32-bit floating DAW program with VST support.  I double checked my stereo image decisions by burning a copy and making a quick run down to my car in the parking lot.  I did lots of referencing to the raw file, and kept the general adage of "do no harm"

Ok, introduction aside, here is the processing.

I first split the track mid-side using VoxengoMSED:

Mid-processing
1. Audition has a built in LINEAR PHASE GRAPHIC eq, with adjustable procoessing precision.  I choose 4000 points, and 20 bands.  I mention ONLY the adjusted bands below:
31hz +3dB
44hz +1.5dB
63hz -.5dB
125 -2dB
180 -1dB (would do more on a second run at it)
500 -.5dB
710 -1dB
2khz -.5dB
2.8k -1dB
4k +.5dB
8k +.5dB
11.3k +1.5dB
16k +2dB

2.  A digitalfishphones Blockfish.  Air on, no low cut, minimum saturation, slowest attack release, opto mode, complex mode.  
This only kicked in on the creshendos and served as a faster alternative to automating them down.

3.  dfphonse Dominion. +3 attack at 5ms, +5sustain at 229ms, full soft saturation, saturation 25.  HF 5k at level 6.  This  was to give a touch of snap, It is barely noticeable before and after with close listening.

Side processsing
1. 20 band linear phase again.
31 +1
44 +1
500 -1
710 -1
2k -.5
2.8k -1
4k +1
8k +1.5
11.3k +1
16k +2

2. Same as 2 above

3. Similar to 3 above except at attack of 9ms, and HF at 6.8khz

4. There is a large plate reverb on the side buss, a built in audition plate verb.

Main bus processing
1. Mid Side decode with voxengo  (Mid attenuated .4dB using audition send)
2. DFphones endorphin compressor.  saturation 25, soft mode, opto mode, attack 8.3ms, release 155ms, compression low and high both at level 57, output drive 1.9dB.  This was kicking in 3dB of reduction on the HF band at the loudest points.
3. Audition internal multiband compressor (based on izotope ozone).  Used only for the limiter (bypassed all 4 multibands).  Limiter is in brickwall mode, attack 5ms, release 200ms, margin -.1dB.  Worst case GR is about 4dB.
4.  Spliced a high diffusion ambience verb into the cymbal decay tail, then did an automated log fade out.
5.  Downsampled with pre/post filter, and dithered down to 16bits using Audition's triangle dither, no noise shaping.

And there you have it!  I will reveal which track is mine when the time is right.  I wish i could say it was my favorite, but it's not.  I do feel pretty good about a pretty "natural" final result that compares well with many of the other masters.

Night!

EDIT:  Brad says to now open up which mix is ours.  Mine is 1389
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Patrik T on July 26, 2006, 06:50:52 AM
Shouldn't we maybe hold the tech presentations until the feedback part is done and Brad's given out who's who?

Best Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: ATOR on July 26, 2006, 08:38:31 AM
Patrik T wrote on Wed, 26 July 2006 12:50

Shouldn't we maybe hold the tech presentations until the feedback part is done and Brad's given out who's who?


If we wait untill after the feedback round we could also mention our number with the tech specs. Then you don't have to search multiple posts to link the tech to the number.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: bblackwood on July 31, 2006, 03:05:49 PM
OK, let's open up the discussions...
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on July 31, 2006, 03:56:18 PM

Ok, here goes...

MIX >
well i loved this mix, the playing was superb and the cello's were nice and big sounding.However, there was too much low mid clutter and resonances muddying up the articulation i think.

so...>

PLParEQ  

+3db @ 68Hz bell Q 2
-1db @150Hz bell Q 0.5  
-1db @2K    bell Q 0.5

didnt want to cut all the warmth away here, so had to be gentle.

Impulse response EQ - Massive Passive shelf's

ok these sound great for boosting, but i DID overdo the hi shelf.

+ 2db @100Hz shelf

+ 2db @16K   shelf < : i have since found that this particular shelf is a really narrow Q, it cuts the upper mids but boosts the air too much, just like the special shelves in the actual massive passive.

Tube limit
Freeware thing, sounds nice when used very sparingly.

Compression @ 5%
Saturation - OFF
Bright -     OFF
Output -      no makeup.

Marquis compressor

Ratio - 3
attack- 30ms
release- 250ms
Knee -20db

3db makeup gain.

about 1db of GR at maximum, just to tame the crescendo's a bit as requested.

Ozone Limiter

Took exactly 1db off the top with this, set to intelligent mode.
Prevent intersample peaks ON.

SRC with R8Brain free and edit and dither in Samp.

In retrospect, i'd be happier with just a gentler 1db + @16K bell, as that shelf was too much.

But hey this was a GREAT track, and im learning from this all the time.

Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Viitalahde on July 31, 2006, 04:21:38 PM
OK, here's mine then.

>Playback at 48kHz, output at original level to Lynx DAC

>Virtal
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on July 31, 2006, 09:29:06 PM
Viitalahde wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 16:21

 stereo linking off
i've been prejudiced against dual mono dynamics processing for years; but of course my amplification is configured this way. i've never heard of an m/s amp in fact; and i wouldn't use a "linked stereo" one. thanks for showing us that; i think it will be the next limiter experiment i will try.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Viitalahde on August 01, 2006, 02:07:42 AM
cerberus wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 02:29

i think it will be the next limiter experiment i will try.


Yeah, the artifacts of unlinking start to show only when you're hitting really hard - and you're not really supposed to do that in the first place. I think I run the limiter unlinked 95% of the time, and the rest I run maybe 20% linked or so.

I still got no dual mono compressor in my rack, but soon will..
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Luke Fellingham on August 01, 2006, 05:05:59 AM
Here's what I did:

R8Brain SRC - Unfortunately there's something in my system which isn't working well with high sample rates at the moment which I haven't yet had a chance to look in to yet. Because of this I needed to SRC before doing anything else, I suspect in an ideal world this might have been better done at the end but on this occasion that wasn't an option for me.

Convert to M/S -
TC eq +0.5db@ 5KHz med q on S channel
Raise gain on S channel +0.4dB
Convert back to L R
Although I placed this M/S processing at the beginning of the chain, it was actually the last thing I executed. When I had finished my initial attempt I just felt that the image was a bit closed in and I wanted to draw a bit more attention to the side elements. What I did was fairly subtle but I think it was just enough to achieve this goal. My choice of the TC eq plugin on this occasion was a matter of convenience in that it is the only one I have which can have the two sides unlinked.

Sony Oxford eq - HPF 30Hz, +2.7dB @ 97Hz q 3.4, -0.9dB @ 157Hz q6.3, -1.4dB @ 205Hz q3.6, +0.4dBHigh Shelf @ 2KHz
I used the Oxford eq to help reduce a couple of resonant areas. I also boosted some low but with a fairly high q, I wanted to keep the bass solid without muddying up other stuff too much.

Out Via Lavry Black

Avalon747
Compressor - Low ratio, slow attack and release, tube switched in. Max 1dB reduction. My usual settings, not really doing much to the dynamics but warming things up just a little.
Eq - (no scale in dB) Low shelf boost @15Hz, small boost @ 500Hz, small shelf boost @5KHz, small shelf boost @ 32KHz

Gyratec G14 - Small narrow cut at 230Hz, small wide boost at 2KHz, small wide boost at 18KHz

Apogee AD

UAD Precision Limiter - about 1.5dB reduction
Sony Oxford inflator - Input 0, Effect 100%, Curve -14.2, Output -0.1
Set like this the inflator raises the overall level but with a slight bias towards transients. With a positive curve setting it would have been louder but not so dynamic.

Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Luke Fellingham on August 01, 2006, 05:07:20 AM
Oops I forgot to mention the dither!
Pow-r 1
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Pingu on August 01, 2006, 07:19:24 AM
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 14:07

cerberus wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 02:29

i think it will be the next limiter experiment i will try.


I still got no dual mono compressor in my rack, but soon will..




Mastercomp is not bad for this.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: ericjenson on August 01, 2006, 08:19:51 AM
ok

I liked the piece very much and enjoyed working with it,
so first off, thanks for supplying a very interesting mix.

split to m/s

side channel:

eq with electri-q beta 1.54(no longer beta at present)
thanks to christian budde for letting me try out his plugin on this.
anyhoot:
low cut bug pass linear phase at 30Hz, cleanup
-1 at 60Hz with linear phase triangular at0.33Q,trying to make the bass more controllable

-1.2 at 120Hz with the same, again, bass control

-0.8 at 240Hz with the same, just sounded good while sweeping through, so i adjusted gain to taste.
+0.4 at 3500Hz "    "   ", i think i settled here to make up for the cuts in the bass region of the side channel, again found through sweeping with the filter.


mid channel:

same eq plug as above:
+3.6 at 7400Hz  linear phase triangular at 1Q, brought out some shine, maybe too much; guilty...

+1.9 at 500Hz   with the same, it just needed the body and some mud, i was probably compensating for the aforementioned boost at the top end, to try and keep the balance,  failed i think...

combined to l/r
waves linMB
created a band at 100-400Hz
att: 40
rel: 400 opto manual, was looking for about 2 dBs of reduction max to tame some resonance, in retrospection i think the band should have been 60-400

created another band from 600-6000Hz
att: 60
rel: 600 opto ARC, for a little over 2 dBs of reduction at crescendos, in order to let the toms punch through and perhaps gain a tad of headroom at these louder parts.
no makeup

PSP MasterComp

-16.7 thresh
att: 50 auto
rel: 600 auto
100% linked RMS mode, FAT turned off
sidechain lowcut at 350Hz
this was an attempt at autoleveling the crescendos, seemed to work ok.
got about 1.4 something GR from this at the crescendos, anymore and i think the compression would have been audible.

scanned for peaks
and nipped 2dBs with an L2 plug, release at 60 ARC,
did the left and right seperately with same gain so essentially unlinked, cieling at -0.1
this was to even out some peaks for..

Magneto:

input +0.1
i.p.s. 15
drive settled at 2.1, was trying to be a little more conservative with this plugin this time around.  wanted some tape compression, not distortion.

SpectraQ:
enabled only the limiter section, took off another 3.6 dBs with this
cieling at 0.6

downsample to 44.1 via Audacity high quality sinc interpol

waves L3

thresh at -0.9, cieling -0.1, did nothing to the bands or releases, default settings here.

fades done in sequoia
dithered to 16 with pow-r 2

and that's it



this was a good practice piece and helped me to see some areas where i'm lacking.  this is not the type of stuff i usually work on and i like it for that.  good sharpening stone.

i think my first mistake was using a plugin i'm not familiar enough with for the EQ, with the PEQ orange i know i would have heard better results. lesson learned..

next?

4391



Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: ATOR on August 01, 2006, 01:01:26 PM
This is what I did:

SRC with R8brain to 44.1 (my sound-card doesn't do anything higher than 48kHz)

I separately edited the cello part at the beginning with
narrow PLPeq cuts at 100, 200 and 400Hz  of 1 to 2 dB

PLPar EQ
63Hz / 1.7dB / Q0.8
196Hz -1dB Q1.6
339Hz -0.7dB Q0.9
727Hz +1.3 Q0.5
7533Hz +3dB Q0.5

SIR
0.8sec room ambience reverb

UAD Fairchild
timeconstant 1
L&R unlinked
GR of max 2dB

Here in the chain I automated the gain to enhance the dynamics, I pulled down the beginnings of the sirens and the quiet middle part. Steve wanted the first kick/cello attack to hit zero so the only way to enhance the siren dynamics was down.

UAD PrecLimiter
rel 0.05
GR 1.5dB

Apogee UV22HR dither


That's it


edit: to give this some meaning, my master is 2323
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 01, 2006, 01:49:47 PM
 as some regulars know,  i have been using wump for a science lab to experiment with very complex chains. (e.g. including entire gangs of faders, plug-ins and routing paths such as an "ersatz k-stereo" section). so i took a tip from chrisj and tried to see if i could get by with removing sections of the chain; to simplify; for  efficiency.

but it didn't work.   and i also was stressed and rushed from deadlines, when i finished three hours earlier than i expected, it was a relief because i  was exhausted; but it didn't work.  one of my "techniques" even failed completely at one point...it needs to be revised to accomodate all situations.  

now i think that cutting these corners is not a path to success.   maybe next time i will try and cut some others, or perhaps not. i hoped it wouldn't show, but the reviews are scathing in terms of attributes that  usually i am said to control better.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: mbruce333 on August 02, 2006, 12:53:28 PM
Allrighty then, here was my take on the whole things...

First in Sound Forge 8, I wanted to do a little work on the gliss sections.  In Steves request, he said they needed to be brought to a similar level of the rest of the tune without losing the impact of the crescendos, and they were a bit brittle.

So, in SoundForge 8, just on the gliss sections:

Waves Ren EQ, -2.4db, 3750hz, Q=3.86 to take off some edge of the violins

Waves Ren Comp,  1.44:1 with about 3db reduction on the peaks of the crescendos.  

Saved as a new version, than opened up in a WaveLab 6 montage:

Waves LinEq Lowband:
HP@32hz with a slope of .26
1.5db boost at 96, Q=.9
-1.3db at 419 with a wide Q of .29

I wanted to help clean up some lower midrange mud and try and "under" the cello's to give the kick a little help to drive the track a little more.

External gear plugin wiith a 3db gain which feeds my usual setup...

Crane Song HEDD D/A

Manley Vari Mu to try and get a little more glue going.  Med-slow attack, slow rel, 2-3db of reduction, maybe 4 on the peaks.


Millennia NSEQ-2 Solid State Mode:

Low Shelf, +4db at 100
-2db at 200hz, Q=1.5
+2db at 7500hz, Q=.6
High Shelf, +4db at 10K

The goal was to continue to clean up the mud around that low "G" and try to get some air in the top end.  I think I could have been a little more aggresive in my cuts, and the HF boosts, though.

Crane Song HEDD A/D
No Triode or Pentode, Tape at 3.  

Trying to get a touch more "glue."


Back in WL6:
Voxengo Elephant:
In +4.5
Out -.3
Oversample = off
Mode AIGC-4
Lim Speed = Med

When listening to the gliss sections, I decided that I wasn't quite happy with impact at the end of each section. So, back in SoundForge, I used an L2 to just bump up (+2db) the kick drum hit that provides the impact at the end of the gliss sections.  I just wanted a little more "umph" to help release the wonderful tension built in the glissandos.

While I felt this worked pretty well for the first section, that same hit and the end of the second section just isn't as solid, so it didn't work as well there.  I thought about trying to copy the kick from the first one and mix it into the second, but felt I would be over stepping my place, so I went with the same L2 treatment as the first one.

I felt the head of the tune was a little tight with only 29 or so ms, so I added another 100 ms to keep the front edge from being clipped off by slow CD players.

R8Brain to conver the sample rate, fade in/out and dither in SoundForge.

This was a really good WUMP, tons o' fun!

Mike Bruce


Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: jdg on August 02, 2006, 01:54:36 PM
loved the track too. my type of thing totally.

Peak 5.2 -> Lavry ->

NSEQ-2
+2dB at 100 (bell)
-1dB at 220 Q 0.6
+1 750 Q 0.4
+2 21k Q 0.4
actually used the tube side this time.

API 550Ms
+1 @ 50
+1 @ 3k
+1 @ 12k

API 2500
thresh -8
attack 3msec
ratio 2:1
release .1sec
knee soft
"thrust" normal
"type" old
Linking - Independant
make up gain - off

back into daw

out AES to

L2
Stereo unlinked
thresh -3.0
out .1

AES into daw

UAD Percision Limiter
gain: 2.5dB
type A
out - .3

Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: UnderTow on August 02, 2006, 02:35:06 PM
First, up, I really enjoyed the music. Smile It didn't get boring during the whole mastering and listening process. Great stuff!. It reminds me a bit of some Tuxedomoon tracks ...

As I had a few comments about the level in the previous WUMPS and I had promised I would crank up the next one, that is exactly what I did. It was an experiment and I would probably leave 3dB of extra breathing room (or more) if this was in another context.

I considerd doing some level automation on the crescendos but found that with all the compression and especially limiting, things smoothed out quite well level wise.

Also, In my home studio, I have really bad accoustics. I tried EQing out some of the resonanance in the strings but it was more guess work than anything else so I turned off those EQ bands before printing. (When in doubt, abstain).

Two of the PSP plugins have FAT turned off. This was purely due to lack of processing power. I had intended to listen to the difference with it turned back on during bouncing but things got really hectic before I left for Italy and I just forgot to test this.

Anyway, here is my chain:

Track loaded in Sonar 5

Voxengo Soniformer

I Started off with the tape compression preset and tweaked from there. There are ALOT of things that can be changed. Too many to list here and anyway, most of it is graphical so can't be written down exactly.

PSP MasterQ
Hipass @ 30Hz with Q 0.71 and 24dB/oct
Low-shelf @ 100Hz with Q0.5 and 2.1dB Gain
Peak @ 249Hz Q 1.02 and gain -1.06 dB
FAT off

PSP MasterComp
Ratio 1.4
Attack 48.1ms
Release 389ms
No sidechain filters
No stereo linking
Mix 50%
Make-up gain auto
FAT Off
Between 0 and 2 dB gain reduction usualy hovering arround 1dB.

Voxengo Marquis Compressor
Ratio 2.0
Attack 0.05ms
Release 150ms
Force 100%
Dry 80%
Makeup off
Knee off
C.Mode Forward, Sharp
Param 1,2,3 set to the default 1.80

There is about 1.5 dB of GR throughtout the track. The intension was to add density more than anything else. Anyway, only 20% of the signal was the compressed signal. So there really isn't much gain reduction on the overall signal.

PSP MasterQ
Hipass @ 20Hz with Q 0.71 and 24dB/Oct
Low-shelf @ 100Hz Q0.5 Gain 1.94dB  (This was probably too much. I could have left this band out and have a leaner low-end).
Lowpass @ 20.1Khz Q 0.71 24dB/Oct
FAT on

Voxengo Warmifier
Type 6550
Prm V -9dB
Prm I -3dB

I am using this very hard. This is to add more colouring or thickness or harmonic distortion or whatever you want to call it. I'm really liking this plugin.

Voxengo Elephant
Lim mode: EL-3
Lim Speed: fast
Shape: 0
RShape: 2ms
St Linking off
4x Oversampling.
No dithering or DC filter.

I'm hitting this really hard. There is nearly constant peak limiting and at its max, it has 9dB of peak reduction! At this sample rate (+4X oversampling making it 352.8Khz) it still sounds amazingly clean.

Sligth fade in/out.

Exported to 88.2Khz/64 bit. Converted to 44.1/16 with Voxengo R8brain.

My version was 1234.

Alistair
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 02, 2006, 05:03:37 PM
hi alistair;

you and i felt this music very differently i think. it seems as if we both wanted to push the music toward our aesthetic preferences for the music a bit farther than the client told us to, though the opposite way.

i think that when people hear both our masters, they do not wonder so much what we did, as much as why we could all read the same brief and yet some of us came up with such divergent aesthetic solutions. i think we both knowingly were attempting to present something that we knew would be outside a statistical deviation from the mean, in an aesthetic sense; that it would get noticed, and there would be strong opinions.

so i hope we can have a deeper discussion on how we why we pushed various aspects of dog days to almost try and prove that it could fit the rock genre, or in my case a more classical motif.  (to paraphrase lennon: "you can rattle your jewelry", but please, no moshing!) the client appeared to be almost sitting on the fence, imo....so i think we both took the chance to demonstrate which way it might want to lean more than the other.

and one of us -really- loves the effects of compression; i think i am overdosed myself. what's up with that?

jeff dinces

Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: UnderTow on August 02, 2006, 06:00:08 PM
Hey Jeff, which was your version? I think your comments would make more sense if I could listen to what you did with the music. Smile

Btw, the WUMPS are all learning experiences for me. I am not trying to get the best master per say or trying to stick out or anything like that. I'm doing this for my own experience and pleasure. If anyone can learn anything from my sound+techniques description so much the beter. Even if it is what not to do! Smile

If this was a paying job, note that I am not a professional mastering engineer at this point so that is unlikely right now Smile, I wouldn't have slammed the levels this way. In other words, what you hear isn't a direct translation of my esthetic values. Rather it is how can I get the best results within a very strict set of constraints. In this particular case the constraint was that I had promised (myself) to get things loud in the next WUMP. That was before I heard the material. I stuck to my promise for good or bad. The other constraint is my studio limitations.

I don't think I have ever tried to make anything this loud actually. Smile That in itself was a challenge but even harder with this material. Things could have gotten much more distorted than they did. Wink

I also think that my ears were a bit too tweaked towards heavy bass music when I did the mastering. Anyway, as soon as I have some money, I'm spending it on improving the accoustics. That should really help with the low-end which is all over the place in my home studio.

Alistair
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: MT Groove on August 02, 2006, 06:26:02 PM
I'm not sure if I overlooked anything.  Were the entries revealed yet?  If we don't know what's what, how can we look at the settings and techniques and imagine what the +3dB is doing?  Very Happy
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 06:29:58 PM
MT Groove wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 23:26

I'm not sure if I overlooked anything.  Were the entries revealed yet?  If we don't know what's what, how can we look at the settings and techniques and imagine what the +3dB is doing?  Very Happy


Yeah MT,

guys, can we post our numbers yet?
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 02, 2006, 06:30:45 PM
UnderTow wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 18:00

Hey Jeff, which was your version? I think your comments would make more sense if I could listen to what you did with the music. Smile
i'll pm you, and anyone who wants to know until steve makes his observations. he's hinted that he might include perspectives from his bandmates who are his  clients. in that case, it's likely the opinion of musicians who are not mastering engineers; i think it's better to give them a blind listening test. imo,  the anonymity works to good purpose for that circumstance.

thanks for explaining more about your own perspective, it helps me understand much better.

ged, i think we are allowed to reveal our numbers now by brad.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: UnderTow on August 02, 2006, 06:48:18 PM
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 23:29



guys, can we post our numbers yet?



Brad gave the OK in the other thread. Time to discuss technique WITH the sound. Smile

I've revealed my number anyway. It is in my techniques description post.

Alistair
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: bblackwood on August 02, 2006, 06:49:16 PM
OK everyone, reveal your numbers!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 02, 2006, 06:52:46 PM
0905

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 06:53:03 PM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 23:49

OK everyone, reveal your numbers!



Woohoo!

Me was number......(drum roll.........) 1978!!!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: chrisj on August 02, 2006, 07:05:42 PM
I'm 0001 Very Happy

Wump VI used the 'faux vari-mu' compression with 6.4 db of gain makeup and a threshold of -0.6 dbFS. That was to stop it hitting limiting too hard, as the compression won't stop overs.
It uses the dreaded 'Rugged Cross' air band boost, which was ceremoniously torn out and killed following this debacle- this time the effect was only a boost of 1.12 db but it was still 1.12 dbTM (too many).
I've actually replaced it with an almost identical routine which is in fact an IIR filter, not a super-short FIR. I believe it's the extreme shortness of the FIR window that was causing such grief, and also producing funny tonalities- would have actually done better to leave that effect off entirely. But I am angsting, let's move on.
The shelving EQs are producing around 12 db of boost below 46 hz where there's practically no signal anyway, and about 1.8 db above 1.3K. The lower one has about one degree of phase shift pushing the bass component sooner and the high one has the over-1.3K part 0.24 degrees sooner- which may also be producing unwanted results- I got paranoid and scrapped the phase anomaly part of that code. Ever end up with a set of controls that just gets you in WAY over your head?
Finally, there's some scary transient designer code which is trying to produce about 2.1 db of extra dynamic punch around 290 hz, and 0.26 db around 5.4K, which also could have been cause for much fear and scariness.
I consider that I've learned some things about EQ in this go-round, but seriously stumbled over the idea that the track shouldn't 'put ice-picks in your ears' on headphones. This led me down a false path of going way skimpy on upper-mids. On the bright side, I nailed a very acceptable and dead-average loudness and compression setting first time off, which was a goal of mine.

My reaction to how this one went was the opposite of Cerberus's- where he'd gone too simple and recanted, I ended up stripping out a bunch of stuff- phase anomalies in the EQ shelves, the whole transient designer section, the dreaded Rugged cross high boost- that wasn't serving me well.

I'm happy to say I got that high boost out of my system before I ever turned it on a paying victim, I mean customer  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 07:12:39 PM
ok so i was 1978, and i guess the comments mine recieved were some good and some bad.

The repeated dislike was the HF boost,
which i totally agree was too much,
again i feel it's cool to make a mistake here and learn from it (Which I completely have BTW) than just get all defensive about peoples negative views.

If i didnt boost the air so much i guess i'd be happier with it.

I hardly compressed it at all, and the only thing that was needing some correction was that low mid clutter, which was still audible on some entries.

My mindset was >

It sounds fine, but, clean the low mid up around 150HZ
give it some more bottom circa 50HZ
midrange was fine with me,
It could benefit from some extra air as requested.
But, again I guess, tired ears and made the wrong decision regarding the air boost with the IR EQ.

I think, with a mix like this, i should have treated it with a more "Kid gloves" approach, i guess this is true of all mixes.

I recently just re-done Dog days, in a more simpler way, and think it's sounding great, i can post a link to those who wanna hear it?
just pm me.

Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: UnderTow on August 02, 2006, 07:44:48 PM
cerberus wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 23:30


thanks for explaining more about your own perspective, it helps me understand much better.



I'm listening to your version now. We did indeed take this in different directions. Smile The one thing I don't understand in your version is the reduced stereo field. Was that intentional or accidental? The way it sounds to me is that certain instruments (that were out on the sides) are now at the back behind other instruments. This makes things less clear for me.

I would like to add to my previous post that my chain would look quite different if I wasn't aiming for loudness. For instance, the choice of the "tape compression" in Soniformer was meant to really flatten things a bit. It works for that purpouse and also adds detail through the high-end boost intended to counter the "tape compression" of the high frequencies. If you look at the rest of my chain you will see that there is no high-end (or mid) EQ boost in any other plugin even though my master is brighter than the original material.

I have done another version for my personal pleasure that isn't slammed. The two extra compressors (MasterComp and Marquis) are out of the chain. The second MasterQ, which was to readjust the sound after compression, is also out. There is much less gain on the Warmifier and there is no gain on the input of the Elephant (this gives 0.7 dB max peak reduction). So the chain then looks like this: Soniformer, MasterQ, Warmifier, Elephant. Very simple and quite effective I think.

(Jeff or anyone, if you want to hear what this version sounds like, PM me and I can post it on Yousendit. It is arround 0 dB on a K-14 scale (AES-17 compliant) which I personaly think is more pleasing and fits the material much better. Smile )

Alistair
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: mbruce333 on August 02, 2006, 07:59:26 PM
For me...

0603

I liked this little bit of secrecy around our entries!  It was kinda fun...now I've got to go back and connect the names and numbers!

Mike Bruce
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: mbruce333 on August 02, 2006, 08:04:58 PM
chrisj wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 16:05

I'm 0001 Very Happy

It uses the dreaded 'Rugged Cross' air band boost, which was ceremoniously torn out and killed following this debacle- this time the effect was only a boost of 1.12 db but it was still 1.12 dbTM (too many).




Awesome!!!!!!  I'm going to start using the dbTM scale immediately!!
Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

MB
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 08:10:00 PM
mbruce333 wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 01:04

chrisj wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 16:05

I'm 0001 Very Happy

It uses the dreaded 'Rugged Cross' air band boost, which was ceremoniously torn out and killed following this debacle- this time the effect was only a boost of 1.12 db but it was still 1.12 dbTM (too many).




Awesome!!!!!!  I'm going to start using the dbTM scale immediately!!
Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

MB



I should use it too guys!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: jdg on August 02, 2006, 08:18:49 PM
i was 1138
just like the movie Smile
http://log.krak.nl/wateenswas/thx1138.jpg

this was great learning, for sure.  glad i had time to do it.

and totally OT for the thx1138 movie fans
http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=376
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 08:43:15 PM


To ED Littman>>> Can I guess what your number was before you tell?

I think I can tell, though I could be wrong!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 08:51:38 PM

No one have any objections?

Ok, I think Ed's was ....>>> 9070
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ed Littman on August 02, 2006, 08:53:38 PM
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 20:43



To ED Littman>>> Can I guess what your number was before you tell?

I think I can tell, though I could be wrong!


I think you'll get it right....yeah go ahead.

Ed
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ed Littman on August 02, 2006, 08:55:01 PM
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 20:51


No one have any objections?

Ok, I think Ed's was ....>>> 9070


wrong.....some one else got mine wrong too.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 08:58:41 PM
Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 01:55

Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 20:51


No one have any objections?

Ok, I think Ed's was ....>>> 9070


wrong.....some one else got mine wrong too.




Wow, ED, when i listened to 9070 for the first time i could have sworn it was yours!  funny, hmmm, now your gonna have me guessing!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 09:00:41 PM
.

.....1114???
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ed Littman on August 02, 2006, 09:02:33 PM
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:00

.

.....1114???


nope

I'll put my notes up tonight & tell.
i hope I have not let you down.
Ed
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 09:04:34 PM
Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:02

Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:00

.

.....1114???


nope

I'll put my notes up tonight & tell.
i hope I have not let you down.
Ed



AArrgh,

ah well,

You never let me down with your Masters mate!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ed Littman on August 02, 2006, 09:06:23 PM
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:04

Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:02

Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:00

.

.....1114???


nope

I'll put my notes up tonight & tell.
i hope I have not let you down.
Ed



AArrgh,

ah well,

You never let me down with your Masters mate!



Well, I'm glad I dont have a signture sound for mastering...i'll leave that to my guitar playing.
Ed
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 09:16:37 PM
Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:06

Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:04

Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:02

Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:00

.

.....1114???


nope

I'll put my notes up tonight & tell.
i hope I have not let you down.
Ed



AArrgh,

ah well,

You never let me down with your Masters mate!


Well, I'm glad I dont have a signture sound for mastering...i'll leave that to my guitar playing.
Ed



Cool, I play guitar too! mainly rock/ jazz stuff.
I love Mike Stern's fusion playing as well as a fantastic player called Greg Howe.

but I have been known to rock out now and then when theres no-one around Twisted Evil


Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: MT Groove on August 02, 2006, 09:18:23 PM
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 19:51


No one have any objections?

Ok, I think Ed's was ....>>> 9070


9070 was mine.  Smile

I still can't download any of the entries.  bummer!!!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 09:27:15 PM
MT Groove wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:18

Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 19:51


No one have any objections?

Ok, I think Ed's was ....>>> 9070


9070 was mine.  Smile

I still can't download any of the entries.  bummer!!!




Hey Cool MT, good entry mate.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Phillip Graham on August 02, 2006, 09:38:13 PM
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 18:49

OK everyone, reveal your numbers!


I did version 1389.  I updated my original message to reveal my entry also.

Pretty fun experience, I might try another one!
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 02, 2006, 10:44:09 PM
UnderTow wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 19:44

I'm listening to your version now. We did indeed take this in different directions. Smile The one thing I don't understand in your version is the reduced stereo field. Was that intentional or accidental? The way it sounds to me is that certain instruments (that were out on the sides) are now at the back behind other instruments. This makes things less clear for me.
it was very intentional. it is closer to what i think stereo is. some instruments are in front of others, the drummer is behind the others.  nothing would be coming directly from the right speaker or the left speaker because i didn't want these objects (the listeners' own speakers)  to exist anymore in the recording.  also for the panners on the mixing board of the mix engineer to just go away, disappear, not important to this music at all... just like compression effects and the amp distortion on the cello... these electtonic effects were not helping the music, imo..i tried to minimize them to help free  the music from the production electronics involved which i felt were non-musical impositions that got in the way between the music and the listener...nothing but air should be there, not speakers, compressors, proximity effects. ringing bell filters, etc... (chrisj complains he hears too much of details like rosin on a bow, while alistair and others find that details are missing, i wonder what?!)

the mix did not seem to have a wide stereo field at all... just the hard panning and a weak  center...i.e.  nothing "real"... this aspect of the mix...it's rock-pop aspects... felt so  very contrived to me.

do you like it better after reading this? or that is still a failure for you?   i think the listener who never heard the raw mix would not complain. since they would be hearing what i think is chamber music.  classical music is exciting to me the same as rock... i shouldn't need to juice it up with an autopanner (extreme example) to make the listener feel it. bottom line: the sound had to seem come from the instruments, not from the right and left speakers.

Quote:

(Jeff or anyone, if you want to hear what this version sounds like, PM me and I can post it on Yousendit. It is arround 0 dB on a K-14 scale (AES-17 compliant) which I personaly think is more pleasing and fits the material much better. Smile )
yes,  i am interested   i'll pm you; also ged...
MT Groove wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:18



9070 was mine.  Smile

I still can't download any of the entries.  bummer!!!

bummer indeed; i wish we had the answers for your network/connection issues.  you seemed to emphasize the razzle dazzle stereo the most; so i wish you could comment more on it. or someone would... did  it  seem  wide for anyone else?
i am not complaining about phase issues or anything, but dog days isn't madonna..thus yours didn't sound convincingly natural enough to me, mostly because of the exagerated stereo.

Ed Littman wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:06

Well, I'm glad I dont have a signture sound for mastering...
oh i dunno.  what does "consistency" sound like?


jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ed Littman on August 02, 2006, 11:01:28 PM
Submission 5277
some of you had some intersting comments, but not to bad.

Original file out of wavelab & the Mytek stereo 96 DAC

into the Dangerous S&M(spread the stereo field a tad)

Cranesong STC-8 on the side …threshold(5)attack(6.5) release(5) shape 8, hara mode
I don’t really care about the numbers but this setting sounded pretty good .This is much more aggressive than I usually set this box up, but at the time it  sounded pretty transparent(maybe except at the crescendos). This also could have caused the somewhat stressed feel at points.

Captured by the Hedds ADC
Algorithmix orange eq
70hz  +3.2 db
287hz -3.5db  small q
332hz +3.2 wider q
11.60k +3.3  wide q

trans-x to get the drums to snap more, but was careful that they did not take over & be to loud. At 220 that was the snare popping out. Not a glitch but I could have tamed it more.

I felt the relationship between both mid boost & cuts with their respectful q shapes addressed the clutter without removing to much & getting it to thin. I think Steve wanted the thickness that was in the mix. Kinda in your face with out the resonance. I tried to keep that while opening up the mix.

I would really like to hear Steves comments.

Ed
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 02, 2006, 11:11:28 PM
Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 04:01

Submission 5277
some of you had some intersting comments, but not to bad.

Original file out of wavelab & the Mytek stereo 96 DAC

into the Dangerous S&M(spread the stereo field a tad)

Cranesong STC-8 on the side …threshold(5)attack(6.5) release(5) shape 8, hara mode
I don’t really care about the numbers but this setting sounded pretty good .This is much more aggressive than I usually set this box up, but at the time it  sounded pretty transparent(maybe except at the crescendos). This also could have caused the somewhat stressed feel at points.

Captured by the Hedds ADC
Algorithmix orange eq
70hz  +3.2 db
287hz -3.5db  small q
332hz +3.2 wider q
11.60k +3.3  wide q

trans-x to get the drums to snap more, but was careful that they did not take over & be to loud. At 220 that was the snare popping out. Not a glitch but I could have tamed it more.

I felt the relationship between both mid boost & cuts with their respectful q shapes addressed the clutter without removing to much & getting it to thin. I think Steve wanted the thickness that was in the mix. Kinda in your face with out the resonance. I tried to keep that while opening up the mix.

I would really like to hear Steves comments.

Ed



Ah, 5277, i actually liked that one, again I think most of us were in a catch 22 about either losing some "Body" or keeping some of the Low end resonance.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ed Littman on August 02, 2006, 11:23:21 PM
cerberus wrote

Ed Littman wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:06

cerberus wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 22:44

it was very intentional. it is closer to what i think stereo is.


Well, I'm glad I dont have a signture sound for mastering...
oh i dunno.  what does "consistency" sound like?


jeff dinces


Jeff,
when I listend to your version in mono I really thought it sounded great. but your veiw on what is stereo is a bit strange to me.

thanks for the consistancy compliment. now that were disclosed I hope I can still hold on to my rep. Confused

Ed
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: MT Groove on August 03, 2006, 12:16:23 AM
I don't have the settings for the Algorithmix Blue anymore.  I tried the demo on this Wump project to see how I like it.  The demo expired already.  

Algorithmix Blue EQ (demo) if I can remember correctly

+ 4 dB shelf @ 10.2k
some cut at the low mid range area
+ 2 shelf at 60 I think

TC Electronic MD3 Multiband Comp

Xover @ 160 & 3.15k
Autogain Off
Thres: - 4 (all 3 bands)
Ratio: 2:1 (all 3 bands)
Attack: 30ms (all 3 bands)
Rel: 100ms (all 3 bands)
Gain: +5 (all 3 bands)

Sony Oxford Inflator

Input 0
Effect 100
Curve 0
Output -0.1
Band Split OFF
Clip 0dB OFF

Fadeout in Samplitude Pro
Exported file in 32 Bit 88.2k
Sample Rate Conversion to 44.1k:  R8Brain
Dither: Pow-r 1 in Samp Pro

Still debating with myself if I should buy the Algorthmix Blue.  It's definitely nice but a bit pricey for a plugin IMO.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: garret on August 03, 2006, 12:19:08 AM
Mine is #7288.

The source mix sounded very good to me.  I listened to the mix several times on several playback systems and took notes on the things that jumped out at me, before ever reading Steve's client requests.  I didn't want his worries/potential areas of concern to automatically get extra attention from me.   One of the most important roles I think a ME can play is to be an independent set of ears, and I know well how hung up we can get with the flaws in our own stuff.

I first resampled to 44khz with r8brain (free version).    I tried to work at 88khz, but was having some probs with my audio interface, so I had to go back to my usual 44khz.

I chose several reference tracks... a Yo La Tengo track from And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out, something from Tortoise TNT, and three or four Stereolab tracks from various albums.   I heard dog days as post rock, and thought it belonged with stuff like the above artists. I love classical music, don't get me wrong... I just didn't hear this as a quiet little chamber piece that needs gobs of dynamic range.

Dynamics:
I used a volume envelope on the track to dip the level a bit during the crescendos... the level drops are something like 1-1.5 db.  I trimmed the track up 1.8db to bring the loudest peak in the song to -0.1db.

After the volume automation, I put the track through Voxengo Tape Bus, to add some harmonic saturation and get a bit of gain reduction.  The settings I used were:
rec gain: 15.5db
saturate: 0db
lows: 0db
highs: 1.6db
out: 2db
curve: 40%
Em freq: 5khz
Em gain: 10db

Checking the levels pre and post TapeBus, it looks like it was boosting the rms about 3db.  

EQ (using plParEq):

cutting a bit of mud from the whole track:
peak type 1 at 168hz, q=3.36, -1db

cutting mid bass from the cellos on the sides:
m/s mode (sides): low shelf at 218hz, q=0.5, -3db

adding presence and snap to the snare:
ms/mode (middle): peak type 1 at 7307, q=6, +1db

adding air on top:
peak type 3 at 13khz, q=0.21, gain +1db

cutting the resonant fundamentals out of the cello:
peak type 1 at 97hz, q=3.9, gain -6 db
peak type 1 at 172hz, q=3.9, gain -6 db

I was afraid of what these last two heavy cuts would do outside the problem areas of the track, so I set up an envelope to enable them only when needed.   I honestly can't hear the seams, and I'm amazed that at least one WUMP participant (Ged Leitch) could.  Them's some good ears, chief.  I debated whether I should fade em in/out, and didn't.. but I think now that I should have. Smile

Dynamics:
Tape Bus and simple volume automation/trim took care of about 4db of boost... so I didn't have far to go to reach a respectable loudness (judging by my reference tracks).

I used BuzzMaxi3 in smooth mode to make up another 3.5db. Output ceiling -0.1db.

I added a bit of silence to the track start, because it seemed to be clipped too short.  I wasn't worrying about cd players that might act up.. I just don't like that feeling where you hit play, and don't have time to stop hitting play before the track starts.   It's like, I'm hitting play, my ears aren't ready yet.  I think I added about 500msec.

Since the home studio version of Sonar doesn't have anything except rectangular dither, I used the freeware mda dither vst plugin to add some noiseshaping dither.... that's where the noise at -80db is coming from, during the lead in. (I think one wump participant noticed that).

-Garret
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: ggidluck on August 03, 2006, 12:43:05 AM
Mine was the notorious 8606. Remember the bright one?
Nothing like standing out in a crowd is there?

Ok, my lack of experience shows here, but I will learn from this. And my masters will get better because I'm learning from the best. Smile

To explain what I was thinking... (The mystery is over ---no it wasn't a monitoring problem). I was overly obsessed with making the mix sound good in the car stereo. In my thinking the mix should sound good in every system.

Which brings me to a question if you would be so kind to take time to answer...
I know the main focus is making the audio sound great on your monitors. However, how great of a weight do you put on smaller systems like car stereos, cheap headphones, computer speakers, etc. ? Would anyone care to comment on how that factors in to your evaluation during mastering a track?

I won't go into great detail on the eq, since after listening to a few entries it was clear to me that I was way off the mark.
I use software entirely, so one of my goals is to preserve the integrity of the recording as best as I can by performing a minimum number of operations on it.

Steps:
1) conversion of the track to float format. This might not be necessary as there is some deliberation of whether 24-bit integer arithmetic is just as good as floating point. I use Samplitude for that.

2) use Har-Bal to design a rough but close eq filter of what I want the end result to sound like. Once any resonances are reduced the overall mix should sound smoother and can be raised in level.
To tune up the low end, I saw some peaks at 100 and 172. I dropped these a bit with a moderately narrow Q (just enough to reduce the strongest peak energy), and then I gave the low end a very wide compensating boost. This gave the kick energy at 50hz a bit of a boost compared to the cello resonance. I spent a good while on the low end as this is always the hardest part it seems.

3) use Samplitude to apply any fine-tuning of the eq, apply and boosts of level, compression and limiting. Samplitude can do this all virtually by just changing settings, so this is a single operation also.
To give the low end a little more punch, I used the multiband compressor in the mixer section with a 3:1 ratio on low band. Threshold -18, Attack and Release very fast at 20ms. Other bands virtually left alone with a ratio of 1:1.2 . Threshholds were set so that the compression occurred on the low band mostly.
I was concerned about damaging the recording with compression, so in the glissandos and a couple other louder parts I used the Samplitude volume curve tool. This allows you to basically have a very fast volume adjustment in spots where you need it. This worked pretty well to preserve the dynamics. When doing this, you can run the levels up a bit more in the mixer section. Limiter was set to hard limit at -0.3

4) take the output from Samp which is still 32-bit float and 88.2kHz and resample it with R8Brain the free version. The result is 32-bit float 44.1kHz.

5) make a 16-bit 44.1kHz version of the recording, using Samplitude with the POWR-1 dither setting.

I kind of feel like a dufus with my entry being so bright. However, I decided to let it go and take any criticism. I figure it's better to admit mistakes and learn from them. And I figured it was a good idea to be honest and not make a correction after the fact.
You guys were kinder than I thought you would be. Thanks for taking time out of your day to listen!

Gordon
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Luke Fellingham on August 03, 2006, 03:31:59 AM
My entry was number 1114
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Viitalahde on August 03, 2006, 05:47:29 AM
Me = 1793
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Viitalahde on August 03, 2006, 06:21:56 AM
ggidluck wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 05:43

I know the main focus is making the audio sound great on your monitors.


Not exactly. The ME's speakers should be good enough to reveal the flaws of the mix, and the ME should be able to know how the sound he/she hears in the studio translates to everywhere else.

See the difference? For sure you need to make it sound great on your speakers, but not "in your speakers".

Quote:

However, how great of a weight do you put on smaller systems like car stereos, cheap headphones, computer speakers, etc. ? Would anyone care to comment on how that factors in to your evaluation during mastering a track?


Well, this is the translation issue. You're not supposed to make the car stereo sound like an $$$ system but help the sound work within the capabilities of different systems. So a poopy car stereo will sound like a poopy car stereo, no matter what.

This means you can't have too much low end since many systems drop on their knees with that, you can't have too much high end or many cheapo headphones might kill your hearing, you'll need to maintain an "open" sound that helps its intelligency.

It's really a matter of practice & learning. Once you get to know your room/speakers combo, you're on the way to good sounding masters.  Cool
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: UnderTow on August 03, 2006, 07:51:00 AM
cerberus wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 03:44

it was very intentional. it is closer to what i think stereo is. some instruments are in front of others, the drummer is behind the others.  nothing would be coming directly from the right speaker or the left speaker because i didn't want these objects (the listeners' own speakers)  to exist anymore in the recording.  also for the panners on the mixing board of the mix engineer to just go away, disappear, not important to this music at all... just like compression effects and the amp distortion on the cello... these electtonic effects were not helping the music, imo..i tried to minimize them to help free  the music from the production electronics involved which i felt were non-musical impositions that got in the way between the music and the listener...nothing but air should be there, not speakers, compressors, proximity effects. ringing bell filters, etc...



You have an unusual concept of stereo. Smile I wonder, could you have your speakers pointing too far outwards? In my studio the instruments sound spread out over a stage. The only thing that might sound slightly unnatural is the drum kit which is a bit large stereo wise but I quite like that effect.

Quote:


(chrisj complains he hears too much of details like rosin on a bow, while alistair and others find that details are missing, i wonder what?!)



Some instruments and sounds pop out more as they are more center stage, others seem to have been moved behind the others. That isn't contradictory in itself. The fact that everything is more center stage in itself takes away some of the clarity. It makes sense to me that if everything is on top of (or behind) each other, things will be more cluttered and less clear.

Imagine having a bunch of people standing arround you talking. Your brain can focus into what different people are saying. Now put them all behind each other. It becomes much more difficult to focus on any one person.

Quote:


the mix did not seem to have a wide stereo field at all... just the hard panning and a weak  center...i.e.  nothing "real"... this aspect of the mix...it's rock-pop aspects... felt so  very contrived to me.



Well music doesn't actually need a center stage as such. If the musicians are spread out on a stage with no one in the exact middle, there would not be a center image would there? That doesn't mean it isn't natural. (On a side note, I care less about natural sound than engaging sound).

Quote:


do you like it better after reading this? or that is still a failure for you?  



I wouldn't call it a failure as you set out to do something and achieved it. But no, it doesn't change my personal taste. I still like things to be quite wide. Smile

Quote:


i think the listener who never heard the raw mix would not complain. since they would be hearing what i think is chamber music.  classical music is exciting to me the same as rock... i shouldn't need to juice it up with an autopanner (extreme example) to make the listener feel it. bottom line: the sound had to seem come from the instruments, not from the right and left speakers.



I wouldn't call this classical music but anyway, no they might not complain but the mix was made intentionaly wide. I choose to respect that. Not least because I like it that way. Smile

Alistair
PS to Jeff: Uploading other version to Yousendit
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 03, 2006, 11:55:38 AM
thanks alistair, i can relate to all your comments. especially the one about altering my monitoring without spending a penny... they're canted about 30 degrees inward, so a bit more could probably be appropriate. i'll experiment, thanks.
UnderTow wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 07:51

(On a side note, I care less about natural sound than engaging sound).

this is really the thing to talk about here for me... i love electronica, i love compression, but the timbres and dynamics i hear in dog days are all acoustically generated. it is not like electric guitars at all where the fx and amp make as much of the sound as plucking the strings do.  but steve tried to make it so...but the result i hear is not abstract sound, like a hendrix guitar solo, but rather just a distorted version of acoustic sound, which maybe is reminiscent of "rock", but is soooooooo  still an "acoustic" recording.  thus the "engaging" aspects of hard panning (that is static), close micing, amplifier distortion are already a distraction for me in the dog days mix.  great mix, but i think somewhat working against the song... steve knew this i think, because he found  several very specific problems that came from the mix itself: problems apparently not sourced from, or directly caused by the players.

i decided that these problems were   because a close miced "electronically enhanced" feeling couldn't really work.  so i destroyed steve's mix to try and rebuild it as if it had been recorded from a front of stage, live perspective. steve referenced kronos quartet...afaic, kronos quartet doesn't try to sound electric or electronic,  they just play cool songs...and they play them hard. i don't notice any amp feedback in their rendition of "purple haze"!   maybe it is hard panned, i didn't reference it directly here, but also is over ten years old, and is probably not the "fresh sound of 2007". so imo, what i did was not necessarily going to piss him off.

but i knew that most of you would kind of appreciate the close micing and hard panning more than i would.  it gave an opportunity to try and make a pop record of it, that is always the most fun kind of record to try and make, imo.  

here, i had fun, but really i just tried to shepherd this art... not really influence it...that i needed to be so manipulative to the stereo, and to get rid of some senses of compression and distortion, i blame all on the mix, not my faulty aesthetic (which obviously i am really doubting here).  i am going to step out and say this mix ended up seeming heavily damaged to me... and the best masters (not my own!) made the best compromises to repair the damage.  all my critiques tend to  refer to how much   "gratuitous electronica"  was still hanging around the master, or even emphasized for effect, if that direction worked at all for me (in some cases, sort of, but not completely) i said so..but at no time does that get so good that i think: "hey that cello sound is really phat!"   nobody has pulled that off here, imo.

but imo, if the cellos were played through distinctive fx, such as guitar pedals, or had they used actual electric violins, it would work.  but this recording and mix felt more like taking acoustic guitars and running them through pedals and amps and calling them "electric guitars". i couldn't reckon a way to make those apples seem like great tasting oranges.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 03, 2006, 11:59:05 AM
garretg wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 05:19

Mine is #7288.


I was afraid of what these last two heavy cuts would do outside the problem areas of the track, so I set up an envelope to enable them only when needed.   I honestly can't hear the seams, and I'm amazed that at least one WUMP participant (Ged Leitch) could.  Them's some good ears, chief.  

-Garret



Hey Garret, it really wasnt that obvious mate, But i guess i just noticed a slight loss of "Weight" after the intro section.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Patrik T on August 03, 2006, 12:44:53 PM
Ok, here's my techno.

My impressions with the source was; Lean forward towards the speakers. For being a rock-oriented mix I felt it lacked the drive quite a lot. For being a string quartet it was good, but muffly dark. The client mentioned reverbs but I just did not get any big sensation of either space or room.

The requests were understandable, but somewhat went in opposite directions. Especially the level. "Peak close to the ceiling in the start to be in the ballgame" contra "don't get it up to todays levels". I just found it difficult to interpret where the client wanted to park the whole thing, so I guess that decision went into...compromise.

Anyway, I went into an experimental mode this time. I also had both the 10 band version of PLParEQ, and all three Algorithmix plugs for demoing during this period so, unfortunately, I guess more of the power went into a lot of different renderings of different combinations to find out the individual plugs operational manouvering spaces.

Ironically, in the end I chosed the version where I used a LP EQ from Sonoris.

So here goes:

1. Import 88.2/24 into Sonar.

2. Three (3) delays (Sonitus) chained with different settings on the delaytime, feedback, crossfeed and so on. The wet signal got blended in at about 5% to the dry on each delay. The delaytimes were 30, 60, and 90 ms.

3. Behind the delays in the chain, I placed Izotope Ozone. I bypassed everything except from the DC filter. I also had 24 bit dither active.

4. This was played back in real time (through Lavryblue DA) to my little workhorse, the Neve-clone; Vintagedesign CA73. I ran the input gain at full and it balanced on the edge of clipping. the output gain was somewhere at "one o clock" position. There was quite a heavy amount of transformer grit happening here (the over-shine).

I also had the eq angaged on the CA73:
L Shelf: 60 Hz, +2 dB
M bell: 1000 Hz, +2 dB
H Shelf: 12 kHz, +2 dB

5. Recorded back to Sonar through Lavryblue AD.

6. Clean export of split mono to interleaved stereo. 24 bits, 88.2.

7. Imported into Sawstudio Basic.

8. Plugin chain in SAW:

- Voxengo Soniformer; width setting only, gradual rise from 1.5 kHz

- Sonoris LP EQ:
54 Hz, +0.75 dB, 2.5 oct B/W
97 Hz, -1.50 dB, 1.5 oct B/W
410 Hz, +0.75 dB, 1.3 oct B/W
4800 Hz, +0.75 dB, 1.8 oct B/W
13100 Hz, -1.25dB, 1.3 oct slope (shelf)

- Sonoris compressor:
Ratio 1.1
Knee1: 57%
Knee2: off
Envelope: Opto
Filter: 100 Hz
Attack/release: auto

- Sonoris M/S Codec:
Side signal + 0.5 dB

- Voxengo Elephant:
Mode: EL-3
Speed: Faster
DC: 10 Hz, bessel
St. Link: off

9. Export as 88.2/24

10. SRC to 24/44.1 - r8brain pro. Ultrasteep + lin phase

11. Reimport to SAW for Sonoris dither to 16 bit:

- TPDF + curve 2


Conclusions:

The master went a little too much towards the bright side because of too much drive on the input gainstage on the CA73. I feel that the 400-12000 area is quite solid but tilted too much on the top. It is not excessively bright in the context of other releases, more then in the context of the source.I  think the delays made quite a huge difference regarding to make drums and strings play together in the same "space", and opened up the soundstage in a good way.

The rendering out from Sonar sounds better than with the post-processing in Saw. Less is more and WUMP is a good channel to remind oneself about that.

Hohoho.

It was a fun project and I'm extremely happy that there is a variety in the masters. I've learned that I should go with my gut instinct rather than questioning myself if it is enough or not. And again: Less is more. I have to return to my WUMP 2 methodologies. I've been on the overdo-path for too long now.  Smile

My master was the godsaken 8085.

Best Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 03, 2006, 12:52:47 PM
hi patrik;

considering your goals, why no ssl clone?

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Patrik T on August 03, 2006, 03:31:14 PM
cerberus wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 17:52

hi patrik;

considering your goals, why no ssl clone?

jeff dinces


Hm, my goals. I did not mention my goals.

They were based in the requests - lessen some nasal things in one violin, clearing some string-congestion and adding a touch of air. Regarding some of the droney notes around 100 Hz or so - well, not too much mock-up.

I went pretty much for the request for drums/strings to play in the same space.

Those were the goals.

best regards
patrik
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 07, 2006, 05:55:50 PM
undertow's revision is very engaging for me... it surfs the boundary between electric and acoustic without needing to lean too hard in one or the other direction, nor does it seem overtly self aware of either "style", but is rather true to itself.  (imo as music should always sound) it's in glorious full stereo too.

ged's revision is about 6db louder in terms of rms, edging toward rock, but not losing it's cool.. i find it's well balanced in every regard and not sounding too affected by processing; though i hear a  slight graininess covering up some details.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: Ged Leitch on August 07, 2006, 06:55:07 PM
cerberus wrote on Mon, 07 August 2006 22:55

undertow's revision is very engaging for me... it surfs the boundary between electric and acoustic without needing to lean too hard in one or the other direction, nor does it seem overtly self aware of either "style", but is rather true to itself.  (imo as music should always sound) it's in glorious full stereo too.

ged's revision is about 6db louder in terms of rms, edging toward rock, but not losing it's cool.. i find it's well balanced in every regard and not sounding too affected by processing; though i hear a  slight graininess covering up some details.

jeff dinces



Hey Jeff thanks for the comments mate, I appreciate the feedback.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 08, 2006, 12:13:45 PM
ATOR wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 13:01

Here in the chain I automated the gain to enhance the dynamics, I pulled down the beginnings of the sirens and the quiet middle part. Steve wanted the first kick/cello attack to hit zero so the only way to enhance the siren dynamics was down.
i think this approach should  have extended the dynamic range, making more contrast between the loud and soft parts. it should have increased the sense of tension, added drama. so i wonder why i was disappointed this way in your master. (2323)


garretg wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 00:19

I used a volume envelope on the track to dip the level a bit during the crescendos... the level drops are something like 1-1.5 db.  I trimmed the track up 1.8db to bring the loudest peak in the song to -0.1db.
i think reducing the dynamic rang this way may have been key in your achieving what i felt was low overall distortion considering how hard you seem to hit the limiter. i wonder what it would sound like if you were to simply reduce the limiting by a few db. (1234)

mbruce333 wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 12:53

First in Sound Forge 8, I wanted to do a little work on the gliss sections.  In Steves request, he said they needed to be brought to a similar level of the rest of the tune without losing the impact of the crescendos, and they were a bit brittle.

So, in SoundForge 8, just on the gliss sections:

Waves Ren EQ, -2.4db, 3750hz, Q=3.86 to take off some edge of the violins

Waves Ren Comp,  1.44:1 with about 3db reduction on the peaks of the crescendos.  

Saved as a new version, than opened up in a WaveLab 6 montage: ...

When listening to the gliss sections, I decided that I wasn't quite happy with impact at the end of each section. So, back in SoundForge, I used an L2 to just bump up (+2db) the kick drum hit that provides the impact at the end of the gliss sections.  I just wanted a little more "umph" to help release the wonderful tension built in the glissandos.

While I felt this worked pretty well for the first section, that same hit and the end of the second section just isn't as solid, so it didn't work as well there.  I thought about trying to copy the kick from the first one and mix it into the second, but felt I would be over stepping my place, so I went with the same L2 treatment as the first one.
why did i like this one so much? i think most of us applied a technical approach to it. but you took a more musical approach than anyone else. to recognize the disproportional importance to this music of a single kick drum hit, imo  takes more than a good ear.  i could feel it when i was working on it, but i didn't open my mind to it the way you did.  i was too busy doing what i wanted to before i even listened critically to the mix rather than listening with an open mind before i determined my strategy.  and there is this whole other dimension of control that eighteen of us either didn't consider, ignored, or rejected. (0603)

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: garret on August 08, 2006, 12:30:15 PM
cerberus wrote on Tue, 08 August 2006 12:13


garretg wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 00:19

I used a volume envelope on the track to dip the level a bit during the crescendos... the level drops are something like 1-1.5 db.  I trimmed the track up 1.8db to bring the loudest peak in the song to -0.1db.
i think reducing the dynamic rang this way may have been key in your achieving what i felt was low overall distortion considering how hard you seem to hit the limiter. i wonder what it would sound like if you were to simply reduce the limiting by a few db. (1234)




Thanks for the feedback.... confused though... my submission was 7288, not 1234.

-G
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: mbruce333 on August 08, 2006, 12:57:44 PM
Thanks Jeff!  I'm glad you enjoyed it so much, it was a really cool project to dig into.  

It's funny how some tunes seem to have more room to think about them in a more musical way than others.  This one definitely had many different directions it could go and it just seemed to lend itself to thinking in a more "musical" rather than "what settings on the gear" kind of way.  I'd still like to find time to re-visit mine and see if I'm capable of taking it farther, without screwing up the music!

This was also my first attempt at processing certain sections independently to accomplish a specific goal for those phrases, and then look at processing the tune as a whole.  I wished I had done this in WUMP5, to be honest!

Anyway, enough blabbing outta me for goodness sake!

Mike Bruce
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 08, 2006, 01:14:33 PM
garretg wrote on Tue, 08 August 2006 12:30

Thanks for the feedback.... confused though... my submission was 7288, not 1234.

-G
7288 was the one i referred to..then i went to reference the numbers for this post (to help others follow along), and that is where i made the error. my comments apply to 7288. sorry i f'd that up.

i know you did quite a lot of other work the same week as this wump (,e.g two mixes for i.m.p) so i think it's worth mentioning that you appear to be able to perform under intense pressure.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: ATOR on August 08, 2006, 01:27:38 PM
cerberus wrote on Tue, 08 August 2006 18:13

ATOR wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 13:01

Here in the chain I automated the gain to enhance the dynamics, I pulled down the beginnings of the sirens and the quiet middle part. Steve wanted the first kick/cello attack to hit zero so the only way to enhance the siren dynamics was down.
i think this approach should  have extended the dynamic range, making more contrast between the loud and soft parts. it should have increased the sense of tension, added drama. so i wonder why i was disappointed this way in your master. (2323)

jeff dinces



Well I guess you would have been disappointed even more if I hadn't done that  Razz  I didn't bring them down too much because Steve said he wanted to hear everything while driving his car. When I had brought them down more I sorta envisioned Steve in an open Jeep on the highway saying: "What the f*ck, I can't hear the start of my sirens." So I turned them up again. Basicly I went with rocksong dynamics instead of classical ones because I thought that was what Steve wanted.
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: cerberus on August 08, 2006, 01:36:32 PM
jeep... lol peter!  

i was thinking to make the mid to top end real strong so it would stand out it over the shusssssssss of steve's snowboard...or did he say "subway"? also to drown out chirping birds in the park...nobody gave them permission to enter the tracking room. i did have fun, even though i think i could have done better to try and meet all of steve's requests, which i did not do either.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: WUMP VI -- Mastering Techniques
Post by: garret on August 08, 2006, 01:43:44 PM
cerberus wrote on Tue, 08 August 2006 13:14

of other work the same week as this wump (,e.g two mixes for i.m.p) so i think it's worth mentioning that you appear to be able to perform under intense pressure.



Eh, not too much pressure really.  Fun more than anything else. Audio work/writing music is a side thing for me, not my full time job (I'm an IT guy)... the biggest thing was it took precedence over working on my own music for a few days.  I also have an energetic two-year old kid I'm often juggling while pushing faders... does that count for more bonus points?

Back to your feedback...   I tried to let the track only distort during the crescendos, as a substitute for volume.  (I.e., distorted stuff sounds louder than clean stuff, even at the same rms power).

The envelope trick was based on the idea that if you can sneak the "lead in" to a crescendo down a bit, the crescendo doesn't need to peak so high to seem loud in contrast.  I can't remember where I started the dip.. maybe 10 seconds before each crescendo.  Not sure that's bad mastering practice, but it works for me.