Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!!
| OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89301] |
Mon, 03 September 2007 19:56  |
Nei
Messages: 108
Registered: November 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ready? Got diapers handy? OK, let's DO IT!!!
Below is a link to a sort of "mashup" I did between a song I
recorded & mixed (that I think most of you have heard) and a
typical heavily-compressed Mike Shipley-mixed/Ted Jensen-
mastered tune. Now, ths is not a diss on Mike Shipley, who's
got more platinum records on his wall than I'll ever have in 27
lifetimes, but it **MIGHT** just be a diss on Ted Jensen and
others who master like he does... well, he's got more platinum
than i'll ever have too, but nonetheless CHECK IT OUT! Here's
the deal:
1.) The file for "Panophobia" is a mixdown exported/rendered
direct from Cubase to hard disk; it was originally recorded at
24-bit 88.2k, and mixed down to 16-bit 44.1k. The 16/44 stereo
file was then imported back into a new project in Cubase, as
was the comparison song. No big deal - nothing weird or tricky
about all that.
2.) The file for the comparison song "Godspeed" by Anberlin was
imported directly into CubaseSX from CD, digitally imported
right from the onboard CD drive. No samplerate/bitrate
conversions were needed on either file as the new project was
set up as a 16-bit/44.1k project.
3.) Both songs were on separate stereo tracks in SX set at "0"
gain. The Master was also left at zero. NO effects, EQ,
plugins, or anything like that were used on either the master
or the individual tracks in the comparison project that
contained the stereo song files... all I did was snip & move.
4.) I exported to a hi-rez (320kbps) mp3 file - this is PLENTY
of resolution to be able to hear the differences. It's about a
2 1/2 minute long file, so it's not dragged out or anything
like that.
Here's the link... listen to how the DiMakina tune is VERY
competitive in volume to the fully-mastered major label
release, yet it's clearer, innit? Make sure you listen to the
whole thing, as there are a couple of SIGNIFICANT differences
right around the 2-minute mark/slighty thereafter.
http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/VolumeWithClarityExample -Comparison.mp3
Hear all the high-end distortoshit up there in the Jensen-
Mastered piece? IOW, the stuff that's NOT there in mine? This
is what I've been trying to avoid, while acheiving competitive
volume levels, and I think I've landed on it now!
Comments welcome.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89302 is a reply to message #89301] |
Mon, 03 September 2007 21:39  |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ok.. Neil, I think you hit your Sonic Nirvana. Very clear, but with in your
face volume.
I still dig the Anberlin Mix. I like it's use of stero delays and verbs.
As for the Mastering, the top end distorion, i think makes for the overall
sound of the mix. It's not overly distorted, rather very smooth distorted
which , to me makes the mix sound well. I like good distortion. A little
dirt is good for a mix in that genre.
"Neil" <OIUOI@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Ready? Got diapers handy? OK, let's DO IT!!!
>
>Below is a link to a sort of "mashup" I did between a song I
>recorded & mixed (that I think most of you have heard) and a
>typical heavily-compressed Mike Shipley-mixed/Ted Jensen-
>mastered tune. Now, ths is not a diss on Mike Shipley, who's
>got more platinum records on his wall than I'll ever have in 27
>lifetimes, but it **MIGHT** just be a diss on Ted Jensen and
>others who master like he does... well, he's got more platinum
>than i'll ever have too, but nonetheless CHECK IT OUT! Here's
>the deal:
>
>1.) The file for "Panophobia" is a mixdown exported/rendered
>direct from Cubase to hard disk; it was originally recorded at
>24-bit 88.2k, and mixed down to 16-bit 44.1k. The 16/44 stereo
>file was then imported back into a new project in Cubase, as
>was the comparison song. No big deal - nothing weird or tricky
>about all that.
>
>2.) The file for the comparison song "Godspeed" by Anberlin was
>imported directly into CubaseSX from CD, digitally imported
>right from the onboard CD drive. No samplerate/bitrate
>conversions were needed on either file as the new project was
>set up as a 16-bit/44.1k project.
>
>3.) Both songs were on separate stereo tracks in SX set at "0"
>gain. The Master was also left at zero. NO effects, EQ,
>plugins, or anything like that were used on either the master
>or the individual tracks in the comparison project that
>contained the stereo song files... all I did was snip & move.
>
>4.) I exported to a hi-rez (320kbps) mp3 file - this is PLENTY
>of resolution to be able to hear the differences. It's about a
>2 1/2 minute long file, so it's not dragged out or anything
>like that.
>
>Here's the link... listen to how the DiMakina tune is VERY
>competitive in volume to the fully-mastered major label
>release, yet it's clearer, innit? Make sure you listen to the
>whole thing, as there are a couple of SIGNIFICANT differences
>right around the 2-minute mark/slighty thereafter.
>
> http://saqqararecords.com/MiscAudio/VolumeWithClarityExample -Comparison.mp3
>
>Hear all the high-end distortoshit up there in the Jensen-
>is what I've been trying to avoid, while acheiving competitive
>volume levels, and I think I've landed on it now!
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89303 is a reply to message #89302] |
Mon, 03 September 2007 22:35 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"LaMont" <jdpro@funk.com> wrote:
>
>Ok.. Neil, I think you hit your Sonic Nirvana. Very clear, but with in your
>face volume.
>
>I still dig the Anberlin Mix. I like it's use of stero delays and verbs.
>As for the Mastering, the top end distorion, i think makes for the overall
>sound of the mix. It's not overly distorted, rather very smooth distorted
>which , to me makes the mix sound well. I like good distortion. A little
>dirt is good for a mix in that genre.
Hey I'm not dissing the mix, I really like that Anberlin mix,
too - it's great work & has got some cool stuff going on - all
I'm sayin' is that for my personal taste I don't like the
distortion in it. It's almost like if you were to plunk an
exciter across a mix & just set it on "max" lol but it's
not as smooth as an exciter either, ya know?
Anyway - my sonic nirvana - yeah, I may have found it. Super-
competitive volume AND clarity too!
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89304 is a reply to message #89303] |
Mon, 03 September 2007 23:30 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Inquiring minds wanna know... what's your typical track count and dB
settings?
AA
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OI.com> wrote in message news:46dcee9a$1@linux...
>
> "LaMont" <jdpro@funk.com> wrote:
>>
>>Ok.. Neil, I think you hit your Sonic Nirvana. Very clear, but with in
>>your
>>face volume.
>>
>>I still dig the Anberlin Mix. I like it's use of stero delays and verbs.
>>As for the Mastering, the top end distorion, i think makes for the overall
>>sound of the mix. It's not overly distorted, rather very smooth distorted
>>which , to me makes the mix sound well. I like good distortion. A little
>>dirt is good for a mix in that genre.
>
> Hey I'm not dissing the mix, I really like that Anberlin mix,
> too - it's great work & has got some cool stuff going on - all
> I'm sayin' is that for my personal taste I don't like the
> distortion in it. It's almost like if you were to plunk an
> exciter across a mix & just set it on "max" lol but it's
> not as smooth as an exciter either, ya know?
>
> Anyway - my sonic nirvana - yeah, I may have found it. Super-
> competitive volume AND clarity too!
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89310 is a reply to message #89304] |
Tue, 04 September 2007 07:53 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>Inquiring minds wanna know... what's your typical track count
>and dB settings?
Track count on the DiMakina stuff was mid-20's to mid-30's,
depending on the song. I don't recall specifically what it was
on that particular song, but I can check & let you know if you
want. I know it was something like:
Kick
Snare
Hat
Toms L
Toms R
OH L
OH R
Bass Avalon 737
Bass MP2NV/Distressor
Guitars = probably about 8 to 10 tracks altogether (various
parts coming in & out, everything tracked in dual-mono, with
some things doubled).
Vocals = 7 or 8 tracks, as I recall (same kinda thing - various
parts coming in & out, two different singers using two
different mic & preamp setups on each one, some parts doubled,
yada, yada, yada).
So I guess that'd be 24 to maybe 28 tracks on that tune
altogether.
Not sure I know what you mean by typical db settings...
do you mean on specific channels, or RMS/PRMS measurements on
the 2-buss, or...???
If you mean on the 2-buss, I was able to get this song up into
the mid-to-low-4's PRMS... like around -4.3 was the hottest
part, as I recall. Mostly it was in the -4.7 range, PRMS.
Again, I'd have to re-check it to be certain.
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... so you aren't very polite either [message #89322 is a reply to message #89320] |
Tue, 04 September 2007 13:53 |
Carl Amburn
Messages: 214
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil, your mix doesn't come close to the depth, thickness or balance of the
other one. It's apples and oranges. I do think it's great that you found
something you're diggin on though.
again - respect,
-Carl
"Neil" <OIOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:46ddc19b$1@linux...
>
> "Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> >No Neil - I get it, I think your mix isn't a good comparison.
>
> Umm, let's see - they're both mixes, one's been mastered by one
> of the preeminent hi-volume mastering dudes, the other is just
> a final mix that hasn't been mastered, the final - yet
> unmastered - mix is just as loud, if not louder, AND it's
> cleaner.
>
> How is that not a good comparison? Sorry I didn't think of
> asking the label to release me all the raw tracks from that
> song so that I could do my own mix of it in order to convince
> you.
>
> Other people here seem to get it. I don't think you do.
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89324 is a reply to message #89310] |
Tue, 04 September 2007 16:47 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Both actually.. what do your tracks typically sit at, what level do you
track at and what's the buss sitting at during a mix. Wait, that's 3 innit
:)
AA
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:46dd7173$1@linux...
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>Inquiring minds wanna know... what's your typical track count
>>and dB settings?
>
> Track count on the DiMakina stuff was mid-20's to mid-30's,
> depending on the song. I don't recall specifically what it was
> on that particular song, but I can check & let you know if you
> want. I know it was something like:
>
> Kick
> Snare
> Hat
> Toms L
> Toms R
> OH L
> OH R
> Bass Avalon 737
> Bass MP2NV/Distressor
> Guitars = probably about 8 to 10 tracks altogether (various
> parts coming in & out, everything tracked in dual-mono, with
> some things doubled).
> Vocals = 7 or 8 tracks, as I recall (same kinda thing - various
> parts coming in & out, two different singers using two
> different mic & preamp setups on each one, some parts doubled,
> yada, yada, yada).
>
> So I guess that'd be 24 to maybe 28 tracks on that tune
> altogether.
>
> Not sure I know what you mean by typical db settings...
> do you mean on specific channels, or RMS/PRMS measurements on
> the 2-buss, or...???
>
> If you mean on the 2-buss, I was able to get this song up into
> the mid-to-low-4's PRMS... like around -4.3 was the hottest
> part, as I recall. Mostly it was in the -4.7 range, PRMS.
> Again, I'd have to re-check it to be certain.
>
> Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89325 is a reply to message #89324] |
Tue, 04 September 2007 17:13 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>Both actually.. what do your tracks typically sit at,
My default project template has all the channel faders set
at -6db, I find that's a good starting point. When I add
channels for OD's & whatnot, I also start them out at -6.
Obviously by that point the rest of channels are all over the
place, as I kind of work the mix as I go along.
>what level do you track at
Somewhat hot - I mean I try to use every possible bit, but I
also don't care all that much if a track's waveform ends up
peaking at -2 as opposed to right at zero. Also, I don't
normalize tracks if they're not peaking right at zero - that's
just another step of processing that I don't think benefits
anything & just adds another type of conversion to the process.
>and what's the buss sitting at during a mix. Wait, that's 3
innit
Yes, you only said two, so no answer for that third one lol
Actually, I leave the Master at zero and set Ozone (and now
Elephant, too) both to -0.3.
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... so you aren't very polite either [message #89328 is a reply to message #89322] |
Tue, 04 September 2007 17:47 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>Neil, your mix doesn't come close to the depth, thickness or balance of
the
>other one. It's apples and oranges. I do think it's great that you found
>something you're diggin on though.
OK, one more time... look, I am NOT comparing mixes in the
sense of saying: "ooh, my mix is better than that one"; I like
that other mix a lot - fact is, though, it's got that typical
modern rock, overcompressed mastered-in dirt in the quest of
loudness. The ONLY comparison I was making between the two -
and it IS a fair comparison, because it's a straight a/b "which
sounds louder" comparison - is that mine is equally loud, if
not louder in similarly-structered sections, and furthermore
it's loud WITHOUT the dirt/grit/distortocrap.
Now, if you've found a way to achieve getting into the mid-4's
PRMS range prior to this, all the whie keeping it clean &
clear, then goody on ya, but I - and I know the same goes for
just about everyone on this NG, because we've had any number of
discussions on this very topic - have not. So, that's the pants-
shitting part... that I've found a way to do it and am telling
everyone here what I used in case they want to try it.
Why do I even fucking bother with this sort of thing? Seems
like every time I do, somebody comes along & crashes the party,
saying this or that comparison was unfair for one imagined
reason or another. Does anyone else feel the test was "unfair"?
If so, just convert that mp3 file to a wav & import it into any
application you have that you can insert whatever plugin you
use to measure RMS & PRMS. You'll see that the segments of the
file that contain my mix will measure around the -4.3 to -4.7
range PRMS in the loudest places; that number can't be faked,
manufactured, or otherwise manipulated - it is what it is.
Geez!
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHUT THE HELL UP!!! [message #89350 is a reply to message #89319] |
Wed, 05 September 2007 21:43 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Nice to see that y'all can fight without me even being around.
Hate to think the place has gone soft....
DC
Hey Sarah, did you REALLY ask about nards??
"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>No Neil - I get it, I think your mix isn't a good comparison.
>
>
>"Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:46ddb325$1@linux...
>>
>> "Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>> >Nope. Sorry man - the 'volume wars' is an old old argument. I'm glad
that
>> >you are excited about finding techniques that you like, but "OK Gang...
>> get
>> >ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!!" <<< that is a bit much. There are some
>truely
>> >gifted engineers and musicians within this forum - and although I've
>> >certainly plugged some mixes I've been excited about here - I would NEVER
>> >even joke to these folks with a line like that.
>>
>> Ahhh... once again, the reference was not to the mix, it was -
>> - oh, never mind, if you didn't get the first explanation,
>> you're not going to comprehend a 2nd or 3rd.
>>
>> Please, continue to selectively filter all text in order to
>> extract the wrong inference in any post you come across.
>>
>> Neil
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHUT THE HELL UP!!! [message #89351 is a reply to message #89350] |
Thu, 06 September 2007 01:52 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
well of course she did...she's a nurse.
On 6 Sep 2007 14:43:59 +1000, "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>Nice to see that y'all can fight without me even being around.
>
>Hate to think the place has gone soft....
>
>DC
>
>Hey Sarah, did you REALLY ask about nards??
>
>
>
>"Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>No Neil - I get it, I think your mix isn't a good comparison.
>>
>>
>>"Neil" <IOUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:46ddb325$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Carl Amburn" <carlamburn@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Nope. Sorry man - the 'volume wars' is an old old argument. I'm glad
>that
>>> >you are excited about finding techniques that you like, but "OK Gang...
>>> get
>>> >ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!!" <<< that is a bit much. There are some
>>truely
>>> >gifted engineers and musicians within this forum - and although I've
>>> >certainly plugged some mixes I've been excited about here - I would NEVER
>>> >even joke to these folks with a line like that.
>>>
>>> Ahhh... once again, the reference was not to the mix, it was -
>>> - oh, never mind, if you didn't get the first explanation,
>>> you're not going to comprehend a 2nd or 3rd.
>>>
>>> Please, continue to selectively filter all text in order to
>>> extract the wrong inference in any post you come across.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OK Gang... get ready to SHIT YOUR PANTS!!! [message #89357 is a reply to message #89356] |
Thu, 06 September 2007 06:23 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bart" <wmn987@yahoo.om> wrote:
>Hey Neil - just to tell you I would be very happy to get the results you
got
>!! and personally prefer yours to the pro master-
>when you say you keep channel levels at -6 , your're talking about post
>fader during mix down? as not to overload bus right ?
I'm talking about that's where I start the individual track
channels out at, not to "keep" them there. Obviously, you gotta
move 'em as you mix! And yes, part of the reason for that is to
not start off with an overstuffed mix bus. The analogy I use is
that if you're using an analog console, you woudn't start off by
pushing all your faders all the way up, would you? No - 'course
not. So why would you start off all your DAW channels at zero,
or what is essentially "all the way" up in the digital realm?
Paris being the exception, of course, since as we learned from
Chuck awhile back, in Paris "zero" is really "minus 20".
Group channels for EFX & whatnot, and also the Master - those I
leave at Zero.
>since switching from paris to sx , i have been frustrated with
>the tendancy for the buss to get distorted at the slightest
>push .
Yeah you can't push it, that's for sure - it's not like Paris
or like most analog consoles... you've got to get your glue
elsewhere.
>again , just wanted to tell you i like the sound your getting-
Cool - thanks!
Neil
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Dec 27 00:23:31 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.07910 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
