x
Ammitsboel 17 October 2004

While i was reading a 500 pages manual and adjusting tape guides today i thought about... is it time to make a new group project?

Does anybody have a good idea?
If we do a song/number again then why not bring on the artist's opinion of the different results?

...And let's have Don and Thomas with os this time... if they dare? 8-)

Best Regards

Comments

anonymous Tue, 11/23/2004 - 09:26

Ok, I changed my mind I’m posting.
But this is a general observation on all so far. I have detailed notes on each, But I’ll save that for another post for now.
I compared all the masters so far to the original at exact volume levels to come up with my observations. On their own, the masters sound good but in comparison I feel that all lost some of the most important details that were in the original.

As a reminder here is what the producer requested

1- Please try preserving the dynamics
2- When there is no keyboards, it has to Rock, can punch harder !!
3- I like when the rock parts "snaps" but not squashed (choruses).
4- Fade out not too short. Could end 1 or 2 seconds before the actual ending.
5- It seems boomy at several passages, can you fix this without loosing the "fat"?
6- No compression or limiting applied at the mix bus.

1. I don’t think any body took advantage of this rare request. Not only did most masters not preserve the dynamic they lost alot of it.
2. Yes, some masters had good guitar tones but how can you fulfill this request if your over limiting.
3. all of the masters are squashed when the drums come in. lost all the snap.
4. this was the most accurate to the producers request.
5. a few of the masters dealt with this pretty good others just lost the fat
6. I’m sure there was a reason for this, Don’t you?? What was done about it??

Some did an excellent job of dealing with the intro by curbing the ess’s without changing the other instruments too much, but others lost to much & added some noise to boot.

Don’t forget that this was direct comparison to the original mix not each other. If I were the client I would have to stick with the original mix so far.
Ed

anonymous Tue, 11/23/2004 - 11:57

Good comments ED, i think it's a bit too early to post my appreciations on the job you done guys, i'll listen the remaining songs (6) and compare as you say: not between each others but with the original master...

and i did'nt get all the Producers advice's RidZ Shore... where are youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil:

So, is it tonight for the 2nd Download batch process?

Massive Mastering Tue, 11/23/2004 - 19:08

#8 - Very interesting - Peaks at -4dB, but a crest factor of 10... Pretty crushed. Lots of hiss at the start also... 2.5k wash on everything.

#9 - Hiss again... Lost some lows, but crankable. Bass sounds a little "honky" from lack of sub info.

#10 - LOTS of hiss at intro. Sibilance pretty harsh... Vocal brought out pretty well... Lows missing a little again.

#11 - Hiss again in intro. Sibilance not so harsh. Low lack foundation. Not too squishy compared to some.

#12 - Hiss in intro again - Hiss is choppy. Excellent handling of the sibilance (de-esser chopping hiss?). Snare sounds limited very hard - very unusual. Strange midrangy "honk" going on. Nice though - Closest to the original than any, I think...

So far, I still like 4. Not as much as yesterday, There's a little mid-grunge in it that I didn't notice before. Overall, I still like it the best.

I think mine is 9... Except for the hiss. Maybe I didn't handle it as well as I remember... I don't know... I hope it's 4...

Will probably edit later - Session starting now (now that my ears are roasted :? )

-------- E D I T --------

Where the hell is everybody? 02:31 CST

anonymous Tue, 11/23/2004 - 21:07

I may brutally honest in my opinion but i'm not trying to be mean sprited either.
This comparison has really showed me what compression/limiting & modern music levels can do to the original punch of a mix.

Something about this song has that great challange of not losing the punch, & Like you said in an earlier post ,trying not to lose the snare & kick is difficult(you said somthing like that),& that seems to be happening with most of the masters.

This doesn't mean the masters sound bad it just seams to be contrary to what the producer asked for.

I see this request from the producer as an opportunity try some things that may not be usual in the current state of the record biz.
Thanks,
Ed

anonymous Wed, 11/24/2004 - 02:27

Richard, thank you very much for putting this together. This was a huge learning experience once again.

Ed, you make a very good point about this being an opportunity to go against the norm of the music industry. I wish I exploited that opportunity a bit more than I did.

These are my notes from my first quick listen. I'd like to discuss all of the tracks in more depth at sometime.

1. Lost some of the original intensity. Sounds a bit dynamically flat.

2. Eq leaves a hole in the upper mids.

3. A bit too compressed. Sounds like clipping.

4. Nice eq. Pleasant compression.

5. Vocal stands out well and it was not ruined to pull the vocal out.

6. Very bright and squashed.

7. Nice tone. A bit too compressed.

8. Squashed and fatiguing.

9. This one really exploited the wide dynamic range.

10. Too squashed.

11. Good dynamics. Nice EQ.

12. Very dynamic. The snare really thwacks hard.

Overall, I liked most of the masters. As far as the hiss in the intro, that didn't bother me so much and I thought it best to leave it alone. I think that the only major issues were the vocal esses (it was also buried) and the occasional boominess. A bit of tonal sculpting did help the track in my opinion.

-Erik

Michael Fossenkemper Wed, 11/24/2004 - 07:21

second half

7) (thanks for the new upload) a little wooley in the low end but nice balance. a bit heavy on compression.

8) a bit bright and limited.

9) nice balance, Sounds like it has compression but not really. strange... Sounds like it should be louder than it is.

10) intro really essy. a bit too compressed and limited. a bit dull sounding but could be just the compression.

11) nice tone and balance. good compression. good sounding. Similar sounding to 4 but with a bit less low end.

12) wooley sounding. loudest thing is the snare. lowest is the vocal. I'd be interested on seeing how this was processed.

anonymous Wed, 11/24/2004 - 11:30

Hi everyone, i read your reviews and i think we have all different ears...
Here are the Producers recommendations i missed... and i think it can do a BIG difference regarding the song...

5- It seems boomy at several passages, can you fix this without
loosing the "fat"?
6- No compression or limiting applied at the mix bus.

Personnaly, i applied Dynamic processing on the master bus.....OOOOPS!!!!! and for the boomy passages, usually i take care about that... (i know it's cheap to say that after the project is finished and wrapped up) :oops:

01 Still sibilant, good overall sound.

02 Good de-ess, mid-hi range missing, strange overall flanger effect .

03 Level too hi, little bit distort.

04 Need more dynamic, little bit flat, tiny mid-range.

05 Good de-ess, need more dynamic,,

06 Too much HF, good overall sound.

07 Sounds good to me, a little, little bit too much LF, good tone.

08 Very good job for the vocal, music a little bit squashed, very
narrow spectrum.

09 Mid-hi f are missing a bit.

10 Need more de-ess, good punch and clear overall sound,
Mid-Range very well developped, Very Wide-range: Stereophonic
and Frequency expanded

11 Sounds good, good tone,

12 Too much "Vacuum Tube Processing", my ghetto-blaster suffers
it man!

Thank you Reeshare :D inviting me give me chance to hear a lot of ways to listen music... music is so subjective...

I think, for me, that the cut #07 and the #10 are very good. But i'm not the producer, so probably his choice will be very different from mine... I took the sound-like Yes-Rush in fact, so i did'nt push the HI-F too high... to respect the musical style...

Thank you very much guys! and my pleasure...

TrilliumSound Wed, 11/24/2004 - 20:01

Hi everybody,

Here are my first and quick comments and observations from the first listening:

1- I like the guitars in this one. I find the overall too thin bright and I miss the low mids too much. Too compressed for my taste.

2- I like the dynamics between sections (must did some level editing).Seems boomy in the sub range. Too compress to my taste. Nice de-essing.

3- I like the intro. Nice general eq balancing. Limiting is hurting too much in loud passages.

4- Nice overall Eqing. This one makes me feel good, it has caracter. A tiny too compress if I recall the Producer comments (don't feel bad, I probably did the same).

5-I like the Eq and vocal. Find it a notch too bright. A bit too compress. Good de-ess.

6-Too bright (sibilant) to my taste. This one is clipping. I really miss the low ends there and feel unbalanced.

7- Nice ! I find it warm and like the low mids in this one. A bit much limiting.

8- I like the highs. Find the mids a bit too dominant. Squashed a little.

9- I like the balance. Low mids could have been a little more present.

10-I like this one too. Nice overall. A little too hot in the compression.

11- Pretty pleasant. Nice eq but I feel a lack of high-mid. Nice !

12- This is my favorite. Good dynamics. Snare is up front (this is intriguing). It is warm, musical and define the caracter of the song...to my taste.

So for now my favorites are : 12 at first, 4 and 11.

This is it for now.

Richard

anonymous Fri, 11/26/2004 - 06:37

Hi guys! you know, i 'd listen again the songs and i changed my mind about that: i think in most cases, a good mastering depends of the sound level you listening at.

I mean, some tracks are maximized and some not. In my previous comment, i choosed number 10 and 07 as my favorites, so this morning i listen again the songs and i agree with #04, but i have a little comment regarding that one:
It seems that have been almost untouched; it is like the original but the HF (sibilance) are fixed. In some parts, there's extra sibilance added in higher frequencies...and sound a bit like too much but the overall sound is very good to listen. And the compression is very good. The snare is punching-tight and the bass is round and clear.

I think that experience was a good lesson of critical listening...

So, i'm waiting for the producer's opinion but i'm sure mine's will be discarded...

I do'nt know if you're like me... but sometimes a friend let listen me a song and that day i'm not in the good mood... and i say: i do'nt like that song.

2 weeks later the same song comes to my ears and suddenly i scream for genius!!

Music is very subjective...

Have a nice week-end folks!

anonymous Fri, 11/26/2004 - 11:32

some general thoughts on each. I wont mention levels or dynamics since I already spewed my mind on that already.

1.good highs & guitar tone. a bit bright for my taste.

2.good de-essing at a slight cost to the viola. brought up the guitars.

3.kept the air but is a bit thinner than the original.

4.more true to the original, but a bit darker.

5.maybe to much de-esser? Guitars sound nice& warm

6. more noise & ess's. guitars have nice overtones...but really should'nt be there. cymbal a bit over the top.

7.nice intro dealt with issues without changing the mix to much. good bassline.

8.good intro a bit heavy on the high mids

9.intro a bit fuller than original. vocals are good

10.sounds a bit to processed but can use more de-essing. retains the bottom end.

11. well ballanced

12. More dynamics than the original. snare to present.

Thanks for having me be part of this.
Ed

zemlin Sun, 11/28/2004 - 03:20

I don't have enough space, nor do I have the time up upload a gig of data somewhere. I would be willing to mail you CDs or a DVD with the data, but I don't want to do that without Trillium's blessing (it isn't my material) and I also don't want to start something I'll regret as additional request start coming in.

TrilliumSound Mon, 11/29/2004 - 07:25

Sorry guys, I was very busy the last few days. That is fine with me Zemlin if you want to do the CD, actually it is a great idea :) .

I will have the Producer's comments today and I will post them today (hopefuly). He is suppose to send them to me by e-mail today.

I think we are still missing some comments from other participants, no ? :roll:

Talk to you soon !

Regards,

Richard

zemlin Mon, 11/29/2004 - 07:46

Beachhunt, email me your mailing address and media preference (1 DVD (+ or -?) or 2 CDR) and I'll send it out.

kzemlin@cheap-tracks.com

I still need to post comments on the last batch. Too much family around over the holidays - have not had the chance to crank things up a bit and listen. I might be able to do that tonight.

I know this thing is over, but I spent a little time and reworked my master once again (#9) - brought the low end out a little more, and put a little more effort into careful de-esssing - I also pushed it a little harder with the limiter - squeezed the tops of the snare hits a little. I have not posted it anywhere, but I could if there is interest.

I really expected to hear a mastering job or two that would stab me in the heart and make me think I have no business trying to play this game - it didn't happen - my version is still one of my favorites. I guess I should feel good about that.

It's probably too soon to add MASTERING to my list of services - but I may be closer to that than I had originally thought.

TrilliumSound Mon, 11/29/2004 - 13:24

Ok guys, here they are... Regards.

Hello everyone !

First, I want to thank you all for this wonderful experience and your great jobs! I must say that I am lucky and very thankful for this privilege, having one of our songs mastered by 12 people !! I must say that all the tracks differences are for me, kind of subtle. The following comments come from my personal taste and vision of this band's sound.

My comments are short and are not too technical, I am just telling what I feel and what I like the most and least. I am leaving the "technical" part to you ;-).

Here are my comments;

1) Nice overall! It is too hissy in the intro for my taste.

2) A bit too much LF, Smile kind of EQ.

3) Nice overall frequencies. A little too "loud".

4) Very Nice! Nice groove, it bites!!

5) I really like the intro and the song in general but a db too much in the 100 hz ?

6) This one is particular; HF sounds weird to me and dirty but I like the feel of the song. This one has the "Rock" caracter that I like but I do not dig the HF.

7) This one is cool and very fine. No specific comments execpt that it is well balanced and make me feel good !

8) That is the One, my favorite!! This is my prefered one and I have no obvious comments except that I like it. See, dynamics have suffered a bit but it sings to my ears.

9) I did not like this one, sorry. Too much compression ?

10) I love the intro sound !! A little to much LF and I miss some definition and clarity in the High range.

11) I love this one too. Everything seems to be there but is it close to distorts ? I have listen to it 3 times and I always ask myself this question. It has THE caracter and the "Rock" buzz though.

12) That is my second choice! I really like the intro on this one too. Good overall, good groove, it breathes. Really different from my favorite (#8) but I love this one. It is like having 2 children, very different from each other but you love them... ?

It is hard for me to judge people's creative works but Richard asked me to do so ;-). Here is my top 4 starting with my favorite:

1)8 - I would have choose that one for the Album.
2)12 - this one too, can I ?
3)4
4)7

Many thanks to ALL of you, it has been such an honour for me to be part of this Fantastic and musical Experience!!

All the very best of success !

THANK YOU !!!!!

Mike

zemlin Mon, 11/29/2004 - 16:40

OK - I made a listening pass through all twelve samples. Some of my comments here may conflict with what I said the first time - I'm trying to be as neutral as possible. My notes on the first pass were done listening with cans - and I got a bit hung up on what I SAW on the screen - not just what I heard :oops: .

I did not listen all the way though any of these takes - listened mostly to the vocals in the mid section of the tune.

1 - a bit boomy at the bottom & too much lost in the mids.
2 - strong upper mid EQ peak
3 - too much compression flattened this one out
4 - A good one
5 - Good de-essing - rock section sounds squeezed
6 - too scooped
7 - I set levels so it matched the original - could barely tell it from the original
8 - Lots of upper mids - harsh and short on dynamics.
9 - no comment
10 - honky mids - pumps some
11 - sounds pretty good, but lost some dynamics
12 - too much snare - no definition in the low end - dead mids.

[edit] I will comment on #9 - if I match levels with the original and the other takes, I still think it sounds good - at times, better than #4 - I wonder if part of the problem is that mine is one of the quieter versions (except for the original).

I'm really not being defensive here - just trying to understand and learn.[/edit]

zemlin Tue, 11/30/2004 - 03:32

TrilliumSound wrote: What are your monitors ? I suspect that you don't have an accurate picture of what it is. Just asking...

Event 20/20bas - room for improvement, I know - but they've been working OK for me as far as translation goes.

My room has been carefully analyzed and treated (not hodge-podged) although there is still some question about the low end accuacy of the room - I will be doing some tests for that pretty soon.

anonymous Tue, 11/30/2004 - 07:33

TrilliumSound wrote:

I will have the Producer's comments today and I will post them today (hopefuly). He is suppose to send them to me by e-mail today.

I think we are still missing some comments from other participants, no ?

Between schedule and the holiday, there has been very little time to give this the listen it needs. Please move forward without our comments.

Mark Wilder

x

User login