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

David French Sat, 11/20/2004 - 09:51

I'm very sorry, but I'm out as well :( I waited too long and all of the sudden, I am swamped with other obligations. I was sooo looking forward to this too. If I can still download everyone else's masters and compare them to the one that I will do eventually, i'll still be happy. That way the only thing i'll lose is the opportunity to get my master critiqued, which was quite important to me, but I guess I can hear what you all would've said when I listen to the others. So is this ok Richard? Again, very sorry. :cry:

TrilliumSound Sat, 11/20/2004 - 13:40

DEADLINE : 24 HOURS !!

Songs have to be uploaded by tomorrow (Sunday ) by 8:00 p.m EST.

Everyone's file will be available on Monday morning (nov.22nd) . Each file will be named with a number and I will give the real person's name when everyone will have downloaded the files.

It will be too big for my server's space so I will not be able to put all of them at the same time. I will put 8 songs first and the next day I will put the rest (3 or 4).

All the best !

Richard

TrilliumSound Mon, 11/22/2004 - 13:51

There will be 6 more files to download. These are the first 7 and the 6 other will be available for download tomorrow night. So, please try to download the first 7 files before tomorrow night (tuesday) because I will remove them to save space for the last 6.

But if you want to start the comments from what you have right now, go ahead ! 8-)

By the end of the week, we will also have the Producer's comments also...that will be interesting... 8-)

David French Mon, 11/22/2004 - 14:31

OK, [takes a deep breath] here it goes....

1) sibilance in vocal fixed ok
more bass in intro balances out overly bright tone
drums lost punch
compressor pumps
EQ good

2) not quite enough sibilance control
fattened up thin guitar at intro... maybe a little too fat
no midrange guts
too compressed

3) natural sounding sibilance control
too heavy on the limiter.. at least it's punchy
good EQ
vocal still buried

4) nice handling of intro
nice and loud but not too loud
good EQ
vocal still buried

5) intro still a bit too sibilant in places
vocal brought out very well
sensible compression

6) too much top in intro
sibilance ignored
too heavy with the limiter
sound suddenly disappears at end

7) still a bit too sibilant
a touch too much limiting

I think 5 is my favorite right now. The vocal was brought out very well. 4 is also very nice, but the vocals are still low.

Massive Mastering Mon, 11/22/2004 - 17:42

1. - LOTS of highs in intro and throughout -- Very compressed -- Thin. Big thuds have no impact.

2. - Nice hiss-reduction on intro, but weird peak at around 3 or 3.5kHz is hurting my sensitive little ears -- Very compressed again - Drums missing that "THWACK" -- Lows very together, highs somewhat smeared.

3. - Still lots of intro hiss. Excellent handling of siblance in intro -- Heavy guitars a little harsh, but not bad. Vocal buried, but clear -- Stereo image sounds enhanced somehow -- Maybe a whisker too loud -- Upper mids very dominant. Lots of distortion in toms and peaks.

4. - Super-clean intro. Very airy. 2.5 edge taken off heavy guitars. Warm... "full" sounding overall. Vocal could be louder again, but very clear. Nice "THWACK" - not over compressed. Hat could use a little tweak - Nice "crankability" factor -- Easily my favorite so far.

5. - Hiss in intro still there, but not nasty. -- Sibilance not irritating -- Nice impact. Not oversmashed. Highs a bit veiled, but nice punchy lows. Another not-too compressed. "Crash" has nice impact. Overall a bit of a "hole" in the sound.

6. - Had to turn it down -- Highs are dangerous. Hiss in intro. Strange overtones popping up here and there -- LOTS of compression and hoards of clipping. Impacts have lost their impact.

7 - More of that hiss in the intro... Fairly sibilant -- Nice beginning in the heavy part, maybe a tad smashed -- Well rounded tone for the most part, impact has impact, but limiting might be a little overdone.

4 is my favorite - You can crank it up till God can hear it (and I would imagine God has some pretty nice speakers... :shock: )

5 is very nice also - Very different, but very nice. I'd like to hear 7 with less limiting. Good core in there.

zemlin Mon, 11/22/2004 - 19:30

I went down my list and it compares VERY closely with Mr. Massive so I won't repeat it all.

I got a sense of some fader-riding in #2 to - i dunno - restore some of the dynamics after too much limiting?

Agree - good sibilance control in #3 - but bass heavy for my taste.

I'm not quite as enamored with #4 - but of this batch that would have to be the keeper.

De-essing in #5 seems to kill some and let others by - also felt like some of the cymbals suffered.

looking forward to the second batch.

Massive Mastering Mon, 11/22/2004 - 19:40

David French wrote: John,

I liked 4 quite a bit as well, but the vocal in 5 was brought out so well. Am I the only one hearing how well handled the vocal was in number 5? Anyway, it's nice to see that my comments have a fair degree of correlation with a pro.

That's a rough one, David - I think the vocal in 5 seems to keep a little more of the mids in it, which is a good thing. I tried it on some smaller speakers and for some reason (and I'm really trying) I just don't really hear it "stand out" more. I think the vocal tone is a little less abrasive in 5, at the same time I also like the slightly thinner but more "in your face" of the vocal in 4.

Personally, I'd be pretty happy with either one of them. I know I was fairly careful on the intro. I think I got it much quieter than 5. But I don't think I got it as quiet as 4 (I ZIP'd mine and moved it to another machine so I can't check! :shock: ). They both sound nice, and still SO different -- I'm on the edge of my seat until the comments have been made and the curtain is lifted after the rest have been released.

Hey Richard! No one ever answered my "copious notes" post! 8)

TrilliumSound Mon, 11/22/2004 - 20:11

:? Sorry John if I didn't answer. Hmmm, what do you mean by copius notes? :oops: Do you mean settings and tweeks etc? I would go for this because it will be very interesting for the "learning" process. Gear that has been used would be nice also.

I wiil provide my comments on wednesday for all them. Tommorow p.m, the next batch will be there.

Regards,

Richard

mixandmaster Mon, 11/22/2004 - 21:00

I thought that this round was much better on the whole than what we did last time. I'm going to comment now, as I'm going out of town for a while on Thursday AM, and don't know how crazy I'll be tomorrow/Wed. Though I will comment when I get back, I'm sure no one will care by then!

As I worked on mine, here were the traps that I was on the lookout for:
1. The producers notes...wanted to try to preserve the dynamics. Also, knowing that with a project of ME's, it would be hard to lay off the limiter...testosterone...can't...take...anyone....esle...being....louder....than...mine...

2. The vocal. Not only was it obviously buried AND sibilant. But the mids, to me, were really missing. I really thought that a different mic would have made this song soooo much easier to work with.

3. I felt the lo end was a little sketchy. The bass would pop in and out at weird places, the kick didn't really have the punce I felt necessary to propel the songs through the heavier parts, especially with the snare and hats REALLY punching through the mix. And then there were the toms.

4. I also figured the band spent a LOT of time on the track, both writing and performing, and they had the mix/eq the way they liked it. I remember somewhere Michael F. saying the question was "to cook or not to cook?"...so I didn't want to drastically mess with the eq, espcially the guitar sound.

and 5. I'm not really that familiar with this style of music...(I don't know how that affected anything :? )

So here goes....all saying how these 4/5 points were treated...

Track 1 Liked the way the lo end was dealt with. Nice and tight. Thought this had a nice compression ratio, keeping the dynamics, while giving it a nice boost of power.

Track 2 Also good in the lo end, though quite different and heavier in the lo than track 1. Maybe a little too much compression, and not enough limiter.

Track 3 I thought the vocal was handled pretty good in this one, and also thought they got a nice blend between the guitar/bass/drumkit.

Track 4 Nice in the lo end. Punchy, and powerful. Maybe too much sizzle left in the highs, sounded great in some sections, but a little thin in others, but all and all really, really good.

Track 5 This was the best vocal treatment I heard. Not as clean and punchy in the low end, but the dynamics were also treated with quite a bit of care. I expect the producer to really like this one, in respect to their "tips" in the email.

Track 6 Though smashed, this one did bring the kick back to life. At lower volumes the drums themselves sound good. (Cymbals are a different story)

Track 7 What I liked best about this one was that I heard some detail in this that I didn't hear in the others...Just the reverb/delays/etc. this version really brought them to life.

WHEW!!! Glad that post is over. :wink:
Again, everyone, great job on a outrageously demanding song. 8-) 8-) 8-) Plenty wimped out once they heard it. :wink:

Massive Mastering Mon, 11/22/2004 - 22:05

TrilliumSound wrote: :? Sorry John if I didn't answer. Hmmm, what do you mean by copius notes? :oops: Do you mean settings and tweeks etc? I would go for this because it will be very interesting for the "learning" process. Gear that has been used would be nice also.

That too - I made "real time" notes while listening for the first time, listed a "game plan" on what & how to deal with it, followed by "real time" notes on setting and changes. It's a bit long-winded (HA HA HA!!! ME? Long winded? :lol: ) but I suppose I could edit it down a little... 8-)

I suppose that'll happen after everyone comments on stuff, eh?

Michael Fossenkemper Mon, 11/22/2004 - 22:13

first of all, thanks to trillium for organizing this project. Second, great song, production, playing.

Problems I had with the mix, and the pros. Problems were thin vocal with those pesky esses. overall, the mix was thin but had good detail. sounds like they spent a lot of time on it so I wanted to keep the spirit of the mix and of the style. vocal and snare were tricky and easily buried. How to retain these while beefing up the track for me was the challenge.

1- good tonal balance. a heavy hand on the multiband and a little too much limiting. the kick and snare suffered. controls some of the problems but lost something in the process. also brought up the noise in the intro.

2) a little too much low mids in the intro. pushed the lows a little too much into the compressor and as a result pumps when it kicks in. has more body but sounds a little choked. kick and snare in the chorus are pushed too far back. Nice beefy guitars though.

3) hissy in the intro, pushed the desser a little too much on the intro but nice tonal balance. good aggresivness when it kicks in. a little too much limiting but still has a nice snap on the snare. maybe the cymbols a little too forward and the vocal gets a little buried. but overall nice.

4) Good intro, present but hiss isn't overtaking. Nice body when it kicks in. great dymanics and tonal balance. vocal a little low but warm and clear. I agree that this has a great crankability factor. so far my favorite but I wish the vocal sat a little more on top.

5) a little hissy in the intro. seems like dessing in the higher end but sneaks through in the lower range. nice balance when it kicks in. good dynamics and not too limited. Vocal sits a little higher than 4 which is good. maybe a little too much compression, but overall nice and my second favorite.

6) cranked the high end, too much multiband and the esses jump out. a little too compressed. overall too much high sizzle and compression.

7) for some reason i'm having a problem playing this one. I've downloaded it 3 times with no luck.

in this batch, I think 4 and 5 addressed the problems while retaining the mix, 4 being my favorite.

Massive Mastering Mon, 11/22/2004 - 22:40

I know (Bob?) had a problem playing that one before - And when I loaded it into Samplitude, it "converted it" to a wav - Although it was already a wav... Also, properties not showing up in Windows...

Samp ended up converting it just fine, but won't give me additional information.

Don't know if that'll help anyone... It just seems that some software will play it and some won't.

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

Duh - Samp made me a new "7" file when it converted the original. I just renamed it "7A" and I'm uploading it. Probably be an hour or so... This one is treated normally by Windows. Richard - Hope you don't mind. 12:47AM CST

-------- U P D A T E --------

01:46 AM CST - 7A.WAV is up for anyone was having problems with file 7.

anonymous Tue, 11/23/2004 - 01:48

Hi

Great feedback! 8-)

I have really examined my master now and the feedback I got back on it is very accurate. :)

It also mean that I must trust my speakers more in the future.

I definitly did way to much final high boost. :oops: :oops: :oops:

Now when I listen to it again I cant stand it. :mrgreen:

Will make my statements, when I have listened to all wavs.

Cheers
Bob
:roll:

x

User login