I think we need to start a group project or two. Something that we all can learn from and won't take all of our time. I'm open for suggestions. Now this can be anything from tests, measurements, whatever. We also have to take into account that people are all over. If files need to be transfered, I have a server that can handle it unless it gets crazy.
rules: Must pertain to mastering. Shouldn't cost a fortune. Shouldn't take 6 months to complete.
Comments
I justed wanted to thank Michael for this one. This has already
I justed wanted to thank Michael for this one. This has already been a huge learning experience for me.
As far as when everone's work is submitted, I don't think I would be able to download all of the files as I am still holding out using dial-up. I'd likely have to get a CD of all the work. If it's easier for you I could even drop by your studio (I am somewhat local). If mail is the way to go, let me know what the costs would be and how to get you the money.
Thanks much,
Erik
Yes dialup would take awhile, like a day or two. I'll drop one i
Yes dialup would take awhile, like a day or two. I'll drop one in the mail to you or you are more than welcome to come by. If you want me to mail one, just drop me an email with your address.
10 so far, waiting for a few more.
I downloaded the file and it nulled so should be good.
OK, here goes... it sure is a lot of numbers to go through! Thi
OK, here goes... it sure is a lot of numbers to go through!
This is what i was thinking when i listened to the files first on the big monitors and then on my discman afterwards:
1. even and musical sounding i find this the one i like best.
2. to big and booming low end, maybe be a result from using rewerb.
3. low end is too sepperated from the voices witch are boosted a bit in this file... i think i would get tired in my ears listening too much to this file.
4.TO MUCH LOW END and to much compresssion witch both result in the compressor pumping!! SEVERE PUMPING!! sounds like bombs are falling down on me!! :shock:
5. To much compression/limiting... I feel that to much of the character has been removed from the original file with maybe some low end EQ or band-comping?
6. There is some rumble bass or "car sub bass" going one here... too much for my taste.
7. I think that the low end damping has sucked out the spirit of the song... but nice sound just a little cold for my taste.
8. A little to big low end, again still too much for my taste... what processing is done to this file? the ride cymbal sounds a little like an mp3 file.
9. A little cold sounding... and maybe a little to much low end?
10. I think there is to much sub bas and ringing cymbals on this file.
11. the bass is sounding like a car sub.
12. very nice even sound, but again i find that the low end damping is removing some of the character from the original file. And I find the upper range EQ pulling the ride cymbal to much up.
-----------------
This is my first short notes of all the files...
I hope you can understand my bad typing!!
I can by no means cover all aspects of every file so please tell me what you think!!
Best Regards,
They're 16-bit aiff files. My first impression is that of the o
They're 16-bit aiff files. My first impression is that of the ones that sound the best to me, some of them sound better at different parts of the song - which is interesting.
I've got them all loaded into 12 stereo tracks protools, so I can go back and forth using mute - a nice way to evaluate.
It's also interesting, that depending on which track you play fi
It's also interesting, that depending on which track you play first/next - that you can have such a different impression. Also, it's hard to comment without giving away, which one is yours. I'm definitely learning alot...both confirming my weaknesses, and becoming more confident in my strengths. Great exercise. And I think as far as comments go, we can learn more from listening to each others masters than by what each other says...
Also, instead of thinking of "this person messed it up by"...I think some of it could be chalked up to different styles. I think that after hearing all the tracks and employing EVERYONE's techniques, we could come up with a BLAZING master. Better than any of us did on our own.
That being said...
4. Too squashed. My meters are saying RMS of -5. That's not leaving much for dynamics. I couldn't really get past this.
2. Added too much reverb, but had a nice eq to it. Also, the right channel was significantly louder than the left...
11. This also was one of the better EQ curves, but I was hearing distortion...not that I can prove it was there, but it sounded like it to me.
I kept going back to numbers 3 and 5 as my "gold standards". I think 3 dealt with the dodgy lo mids and I thought it was compressed well, and 5 had an extremely pretty hi end.
Ammitsboel wrote: I like to get an overall feeling of the song b
Ammitsboel wrote: I like to get an overall feeling of the song before going to the next.
I find it very revealing to hear the whole song one at a time.Best Regards,
True, but I think it's REALLY easy to be influenced by the previous track. If track X sounded perfect, track Y would only have to seem lacking. Six of one, half dozen of another.
Great, this is the kind of back and forth I was hoping for...
Great, this is the kind of back and forth I was hoping for...
Yes, your opinion really changes on tracks depending on what's before and after, well maybe not changes drastically but can be influenced. I'm going to hold off on my comments because I know who's is who's. I have yet to listen to them on my main system, only on my expensive headphones. You can really hear different processors and different approaches which is what I like about it.
So if you haven't downloaded them yet, go ahead. I've had one request for a CD. If anyone else needs one, let me know.
Here Goes....... 1. nice highs, low mids fold, abit to much mud
Here Goes.......
1. nice highs, low mids fold, abit to much mud in second 1/2
2. to bass heavy, like the vocals, nice mids
3. nice ballance, vox abit thin, good tight bass
4. to slammed...what wre you thinking :?
5.nice ballance ,limiting constricts the dynamics a bit
6. to much bass, dudes check your monitors & rooms......
7. mids to high (1k) brings out the vox but to distracting for me.
8. mudd....check those montors
9.high end a bit lost due to the big bottom. to much kick in 2nd 1/2
10. to much in the 3k area. whatch those ss's
11. still to rumbly, vocals get a little lost in verb. use of hedd or other distortion mellows out the highs to much
12. nice use of mids brings out the vox, symbals a bit pulled back. nice overall
Thanks Micheal! you were very quick & this is a nice size to start with. how bout the one on brads sight...I hope its a damb good song :wink:
& yes I know which is mine :)
This is an interesting project. I think the choice of song brou
This is an interesting project. I think the choice of song brought up even more variables than a typical pop-rock song would have.
In addition to hearing other processing chains and the impact that various monitoring set-ups had on the final result, we also get to hear each person's idea of what they thought the song should sound like. I don't think many of us had anything else to reference this type of music to. No preconceived notions of what this genre should generally sound like. Should the low end be tight and punchy like a modern rock song? Or should it be loose and almost overwhelming? How bright is too bright for the top? Are we trying to make the mix sound realistic, a documentation of events? Or are we to polish beyond the quality of any live listening experience? I think all of these questions are what truly encompass the art of mastering. As we listen to each version we should keep in mind that not everything we hear as a problem to us is neccessarily a deficiency in equipment and monitoring, but could also be a difference of taste & opinion.
I approached this song with the idea that I wanted it to sound as natural as possible. Of course the problem is that I have never heard this type of music played live before. In hearing the original mix most of us likely thought that the low end was way too overpowering. I would agree, but I thought it needed just a little tightening, my impression was that those low drums should still almost overwhelm the listener. Others felt that the low end should be completely controlled. Similar things could be said about the top end.
I have not had time to make notes on each verison yet, I hope to post those in the next few days. I am finding that I am noticing some other issues besides taste & opinion in EQ and dymanics processing. For instance Version #1 is much noisier than the original, there is some fairly loud ground hum. Some of them are centered some are not, I believe the original was tilted to one side by about a dB. Version #4 is severely up-cut. We all did different things with the abrupt fade on the end. Yet another matter of taste in the absence of a producer.
Hi, Here is my list of comments and they are from my personal t
Hi,
Here is my list of comments and they are from my personal taste;
1- Equal, well balanced but miss some life, caracter ?
2- Too much bass, right channel louder or left not loud enough ?
3- Here again, too much bass and seem to clip.
4- For me it is too much comp/limit. I like the Hi ends.
5- Nice, miss a little some low mids.
6- Bassy, missing some transparency.
7- Nice too, the voice is front but seems squashing the rest a little.
8- Too basssy for me, I miss the voice there.
9- I like this but with 2 db less of 80-100 hz
10- Seems to be too High mids for me
11- A bit too much bass, still boomy. I like EQ.
12- Well balanced, nice EQ. I Think this one is my favorite !
That was not an easy one to do. Beside the style, the mix is kind so so. But again, it is a wonderful experience and it was challenging !
Thanks Michael for you to manage this project. I am sure it took you some time to drive this. It is appreciated !
Richard
number 3 I can't seem to get 3.aif to play... I thought perhaps
number 3
I can't seem to get 3.aif to play... I thought perhaps I hadn't gotten the whole file, but I deleted and redownloaded it, made sure the size checked out, and it still doesn't play at all. The rest of them play fine, is anyone else having this problem? Once I get this figured out, I'll add my opinions to the list...
HB
hmm, i'm not have a problem with it. what system are you running
hmm, i'm not have a problem with it. what system are you running? maybe there's something wrong with the extension? If you're on a mac, retype the extension and manually tell it what program to open it with. If you're on a PC, mmmm maybe someone else can suggest something.
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: hmm, i'm not have a problem with it.
Michael Fossenkemper wrote: hmm, i'm not have a problem with it. what system are you running? maybe there's something wrong with the extension? If you're on a mac, retype the extension and manually tell it what program to open it with. If you're on a PC, mmmm maybe someone else can suggest something.
If it were a problem with the extension, all of the other files would refuse to play, as well... It's only song #3 that I'm having trouble with =(
I guess if nobody else is having the same problem, I'll just post my thoughts on the rest of the files. Thanks anyway =)
HB
TrilliumSound wrote: Check if there is no space or check for cap
TrilliumSound wrote: Check if there is no space or check for caps on the extension, I have seen this before and just by changing it, everything was fine .
Richard
Good idea =) Unfortunately, didn't work... there are no spaces in any of the filenames, and while some of the extensions are in caps and some are lower case (1, 6, 9 and 11's extensions are in caps, the rest are lower case, including #3), #3 won't play either way. Thanks for the suggestion, though, I hadn't thought of that =) Makes me think there's still hope ;)
What's really weird is I sort of remember quickly checking each of the files when I originally got them, and I don't remember any of them not working... Maybe I just accidentally skipped #3 or something =P
HB
I've just received the CD today-- big thank you to Michael!!! A
I've just received the CD today-- big thank you to Michael!!! Although, right now I am at my non-audio "day job" and I won't be able to listen until tonight. I think by tomorrow night I should have all of my comments up. I am impatiently awaiting tonight's listenning time.
-Erik
unmastered version - boomy bass. right side louder than left sid
unmastered version - boomy bass. right side louder than left side. inconsistent highs. occasional phase problems. (I figured I'd start with the original, to provide a reference point)
1 - good dynamic range, great tonal balance, I could clearly hear some parts that didn't even seem to be IN some of the other attempts. the phase problems are pretty severe, though.
2 - phase problems are heavily increased (overused stereo enhancer and/or reverb?), but great dynamic range =) not tonally balanced - if the bass were brought down to where the mids are, the highs would probably fall into place.
3 - good stereo positioning and dynamic range. highs or upper-mids a bit harsh (but the tonal balance does seem improved from the original)
4 - ouch. boomy, loud, undefined, squashed. repeat: SQUASHED (RMS hovers between -0.4 and -2.2 for most of the song!!). phase problems are worse than original. anytime any part comes in, everything else drops out. on a related note, I'm not at all looking forward to the Waves L3 =P
5 - better stereo positioning, but right side still a little louder. too much limiting - the dynamic _range_ is good, but the peaks are harshly flattened. more (but gentle) compression and less limiting might keep the dynamics without pinning the peak meter.
6 - boomy bass. right side still louder than left. phase problems seem worse than original.
7 - good tonal balance, stereo positioning and dynamic range. lead vocals sound defined and undistorted, but there seems to be a lot of distortion in the rest of the mids (maybe compression-gone-wrong). phase problems still present but less frequent.
8 - lows are pretty muddy, highs still inconsistent. good stereo positioning.
9 - lead vocals sound great - clear and tightly defined! however, the background vocals sound very distorted (though they were already distorted in the original... maybe it just sounds more distorted because they're more present), and phase problems seem to increase in some parts. good tonal balance, but it's hard to really tell since the phase seems to make the bass come in and out.
10 - sounded good at first (vocals are nicely defined, bass is present but not overpowering), but got fatiguing pretty quickly (highs might be too loud)... good stereo positioning and dynamic range.
11 - decent tonal balance, good dynamic range, but the left side sounded louder than the right side (maybe overcompensated for original?). some parts (especially bass and vocals) sound undefined due to the reverb. the phase problems are worse than in the original? maybe due to the added verb, dunno... during the second half (when the kick drum starts up) the lows sound overcompressed / distorted.
12 - overcompensated with EQ - highs are too loud in relation to the lows. very nice dynamics, but there are some added phase problems.
Still keeping in mind that this is supposed to be a learning experience and not competition, the versions I liked the most are probably 1, 3 and 5. #2 I think made the best use (or maybe lack, who knows?) of compression; if the other effects were used as wisely it would definitely be in the list as well. I do know which one is mine, and "if I could do it all over again..." ;)
Great project, I would love to do this more often (or at least "again" sometime)! Thanks Michael for doing the hosting and song choice!
HB
PS: #3 still won't play in my winamp, I just listened to them all in Samplitude and it opened fine... weirdness =P
PPS: do we ever get to find out who did what? maybe on a "voluntary" basis, as in once all of the comments are up, then whoever wants to take credit for theirs can let everyone know?
It's a real shame I noticed this forum at the time I did. If I w
It's a real shame I noticed this forum at the time I did. If I would of found out about this earlier I would of been jumping at the opportunity to work with a song.
Anyway, I know I'm late, but can anyone be so kind to send me a copy of the CD. (I'll gadly pay for it!)
I would like to take a crack at the original for myself and then compare to the rest. I would not post any comments on this project being that I did not participate.
Thanks in advance!
weird that it posted twice.... Damn that Vodka! anyway, we've h
weird that it posted twice.... Damn that Vodka!
anyway, we've had a couple of late comers. Let's get this wrapped up by friday night so I can compile everything and upload it this weekend. I think we have 12 or 13 versions if everyone turns it in.