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? |
Viitalahde wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 16:21 |
stereo linking off |
cerberus wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 02:29 |
i think it will be the next limiter experiment i will try. |
Viitalahde wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 14:07 | ||
I still got no dual mono compressor in my rack, but soon will.. |
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? |
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. |
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 23:29 |
guys, can we post our numbers yet? |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 23:49 |
OK everyone, reveal your numbers! |
cerberus wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 23:30 |
thanks for explaining more about your own perspective, it helps me understand much better. |
chrisj wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 16:05 |
I'm 0001 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). |
mbruce333 wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 01:04 | ||
Awesome!!!!!! I'm going to start using the dbTM scale immediately!! MB |
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! |
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 20:51 |
No one have any objections? Ok, I think Ed's was ....>>> 9070 |
Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 01:55 | ||
wrong.....some one else got mine wrong too. |
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:00 |
. .....1114??? |
Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:02 | ||
nope I'll put my notes up tonight & tell. i hope I have not let you down. Ed |
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:04 | ||||
AArrgh, ah well, You never let me down with your Masters mate! |
Ed Littman wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:06 | ||||||
Well, I'm glad I dont have a signture sound for mastering...i'll leave that to my guitar playing. Ed |
Ged Leitch wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 19:51 |
No one have any objections? Ok, I think Ed's was ....>>> 9070 |
MT Groove wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 02:18 | ||
9070 was mine. I still can't download any of the entries. bummer!!! |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 18:49 |
OK everyone, reveal your numbers! |
UnderTow wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 19:44 |
I'm listening to your version now. We did indeed take this in different directions. 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. |
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. ) |
MT Groove wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:18 |
9070 was mine. I still can't download any of the entries. bummer!!! |
Ed Littman wrote on Wed, 02 August 2006 21:06 |
Well, I'm glad I dont have a signture sound for mastering... |
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 |
cerberus wrote | ||||
jeff dinces |
ggidluck wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 05:43 |
I know the main focus is making the audio sound great on your monitors. |
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? |
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... |
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?!) |
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. |
Quote: |
do you like it better after reading this? or that is still a failure for you? |
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. |
UnderTow wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 07:51 |
(On a side note, I care less about natural sound than engaging sound). |
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 |
cerberus wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 17:52 |
hi patrik; considering your goals, why no ssl clone? jeff dinces |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
cerberus wrote on Tue, 08 August 2006 12:13 | ||
|
garretg wrote on Tue, 08 August 2006 12:30 |
Thanks for the feedback.... confused though... my submission was 7288, not 1234. -G |
cerberus wrote on Tue, 08 August 2006 18:13 | ||
jeff dinces |
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. |