kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 15,143
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 22, 2018 22:59:28 GMT -6
Oh oh, I listened:) the added dimensionality depth and bread, tightness, focus and detail are all very apparent, but sound quality is more refined, energized and engaging!
Nicely done:thx!
If anyone with an apollo X or with 2x6se card wants to Pass at 24@48, i’d be very grateful
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Dec 23, 2018 0:09:36 GMT -6
No problem..... Just to note the transformers were engaged and emphasis was set to 12 o'clock...... That's the depth, tightness and extra openness you're hearing. A mix that is a bit more dynamic will impress even more. Glad to do it, and would be happy to do this for anyone thinking of grabbing one of these.
- Jerome
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 15,143
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 23, 2018 2:09:50 GMT -6
With my delta and ob comps I am still learning to back things off and let more transients/level through to have a better balance of control and dynamics.
The convert2 is impressive,but I find all Dangerous gear iswell considered, designed and executed: great tools.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 23, 2018 7:24:30 GMT -6
Wow that was a big difference!
That song is really fun too.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 23, 2018 9:14:25 GMT -6
Wow Jerome. The differences between those tracks is huge. Not just volume, but glue and detail and weight.
So just to be clear, that's the difference in sound quality between the Symphony's converters and the Dangerous AD?
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 15,143
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 23, 2018 9:20:23 GMT -6
not exactly as the Convert also has transformers and you can overdrive the converters But you can see what the convert2AD can do soncially to a close to final mix!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 23, 2018 9:24:32 GMT -6
All I can say is yikes, that sounds really incredible. I'd love to hear a comparison of something through the new Apollo's converters and the Convert 2, just as reference. I wouldn't expect the Apollo to outgun a separate converter that costs $2,500.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Dec 23, 2018 9:25:33 GMT -6
Wow Jerome. The differences between those tracks is huge. Not just volume, but glue and detail and weight. So just to be clear, that's the difference in sound quality between the Symphony's converters and the Dangerous AD? He’s clipping the Dangerous to get more RMS which will always sound better due to Fletcher Munson. Essentially using the Dangerous as an effect. It’s a great technique, I do not mean to sound negative about it in anyway. But you’d have to clip the Apogee a similar amount to really compare sound quality directly. No idea how the Apogee holds up to clipping, FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Dec 23, 2018 12:01:40 GMT -6
All I can say is yikes, that sounds really incredible. I'd love to hear a comparison of something through the new Apollo's converters and the Convert 2, just as reference. I wouldn't expect the Apollo to outgun a separate converter that costs $2,500. It's really not going to sound anywhere near the same..... The converters in main interfaces can take a few clips here and there, but when you're pushing the RMS level into it you're going to hear fuzz...... The main reason I got this converter was because it was made to do exactly what you're hearing, to add that final bit of solid, open, detail and LOUD to what goes out of my shop. You can never get the same sound like that as you would with a limiter. The most amazing thing about the Dangerous AD + is being able to turn the over indicators off. I can push that mix you heard into RMS levels that are humming around -2db and it still not have any fuzz. It takes some serious engineering and thought to do all that Jerome
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 23, 2018 14:01:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Dec 23, 2018 14:14:30 GMT -6
Sure.. What RMS level do you want it to be at?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 23, 2018 14:21:05 GMT -6
Sure.. What RMS level do you want it to be at? It's already fairly squashed, or moderately squashed. I'd hate to ask you to use your ears or spend a lot of time on it but maybe just "a little bit more" or "a medium bit more" but not extreme.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Dec 23, 2018 15:12:36 GMT -6
Guitar Here you go..... This file is already really slammed.... I did about all I could do. If you had something with no limiter and a few db of headroom you'd get a lot more effect out of this. - Jerome Mason
Original File
Dangerous AD + File
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 23, 2018 15:28:36 GMT -6
Guitar Here you go..... This file is already really slammed.... I did about all I could do. If you had something with no limiter and a few db of headroom you'd get a lot more effect out of this. - Jerome Mason
Original File
Dangerous AD + File Thanks! I'm impressed even with this, the vocal is more clear and open sounding the track sounds less closed in than my original file, even while being more compressed. I should have gone back to the project and removed the limiter but it's kind of cool to see what happens to something that's already been limited. It does sound louder, too, but I want to say better than it would have sounded by cranking my limiter that much farther. You've raised a lot of questions for me, what could be achieved by paying mastering people to do things like this, or investing heavily in the gear. jcoutu1 did one for me a while back running through the Weight Tank compressor that was really impressive too.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 23, 2018 15:42:03 GMT -6
Wow Jerome. The differences between those tracks is huge. Not just volume, but glue and detail and weight. So just to be clear, that's the difference in sound quality between the Symphony's converters and the Dangerous AD? He’s clipping the Dangerous to get more RMS which will always sound better due to Fletcher Munson. Essentially using the Dangerous as an effect. It’s a great technique, I do not mean to sound negative about it in anyway. But you’d have to clip the Apogee a similar amount to really compare sound quality directly. No idea how the Apogee holds up to clipping, FWIW. That's impressive. It always strikes me this is a mastering process, not a mix process. What's the mastering guy supposed to do with this? As soon as it's EQ'd in any way, it has to be limited again.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Dec 23, 2018 17:08:18 GMT -6
A lot of what you guys are hearing is the boxes transformers and it's emphasis circuit working. If you read up on the emphasis circuit, it's like a harmonic/eq/compressor mojo knob. By hitting those transformers and all that class D circuitry it does some very sweet and musical things to the audio. The transformers really concrete the bass and definitely make it cut laptop speakers and such, as I heard that for myself on that last mix.
The last time I sent a mix to a mastering engineer that was the level and all they wanted, what I heard out in the world didn't represent the dynamics or tone I worked my ass off to get at all. Near about all the mixing engineers I know send their final mixes to the labels already hitting modern RMS levels, and that's how I've been doing it for a while now. Not once I have I got a note from a mastering guy complaining either. Now that I have this box I can get rid of the limiter and send out even more dynamic mixes with modern RMS levels.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 23, 2018 17:49:45 GMT -6
Can't wait to visit you in Nashville and hear that thing up close!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 23, 2018 19:06:22 GMT -6
A lot of what you guys are hearing is the boxes transformers and it's emphasis circuit working. If you read up on the emphasis circuit, it's like a harmonic/eq/compressor mojo knob. By hitting those transformers and all that class D circuitry it does some very sweet and musical things to the audio. The transformers really concrete the bass and definitely make it cut laptop speakers and such, as I heard that for myself on that last mix. The last time I sent a mix to a mastering engineer that was the level and all they wanted, what I heard out in the world didn't represent the dynamics or tone I worked my ass off to get at all. Near about all the mixing engineers I know send their final mixes to the labels already hitting modern RMS levels, and that's how I've been doing it for a while now. Not once I have I got a note from a mastering guy complaining either. Now that I have this box I can get rid of the limiter and send out even more dynamic mixes with modern RMS levels. Eh. You're supposed to have relationships with mastering engineers, effective dialog about goals, etc etc. Not buying it (for myself). So nothing's mastered anymore? Really? Or it's double limited? Really? Are you bothering to print a non-clipped safety? I assume not. Considering hi-res release formats at all? I guess not. Anyway, any half-decent mastering guy out there should be able to do the same thing in a single pass with the clipping or brickwall limiting at the end of the chain. I'm gonna guess this kinda clipping gets serious moaning from a vinyl cutting guy, based on all my interactions with that process. Use of 'more dynamic' is a misnomer. There kinda aren't any dynamics by definition! But I guess you mean 'more dynamic in effect' than using a limiter to achieve the same levels. The emphasis circuit could be a lot of things, like higher or lower impedance drive to the transformers which would have EQ (more or less smiley face) and harmonic shift effects, or DC injection to crank harmonics. Definitely a plethora of those type boxes coming out these days. I do like Hammond transformers, and it's nice to see them used, I worry about them giving up on their classic lines since almost no one uses them in popular products. I'm not buying “Mastered for iTunes will not reject your opus" in regards to ClipGuard without more explanation. Maybe MFiT is gonna turn it down and the lack of clip indicator simply fools the algorithm? MFiT wants no peaks over -1dBFS as general recommendation. That sample indeed shows in RX7 as a near-constant 0dBFS, not even -0.05dBFS. Integrated loudness -6.5 LUFS compared to unprocessed -14.3 LUFS. No one seems to care about MFiT anyway. After the initial seductive loudness (which is always there) wears off, what I'm focusing on is the clipping artifacts. I don't really dig it, especially if I plan to listen to it more than once. Extra especially if I'm gonna listen on a good dynamic system. I have some converters in the home system that definitely fart real loud when they see sustained 0dBFS, that's a problem that's not been vanquished in consumer electronics, this may do more obvious damage on sustained tones, like a feedback symphony on an Earth record! QOTSA - 'Better Living Through Chemistry' has a droning feedback section that blew up a lot of CD players at the time, one example, the remix/reissue of Raw Power has it's own organic fuzz effect on whatever player tries to spit it out at full level (-2.2 LUFS). I still prefer significant crest factor in percussive music, which tends to be -12dB RMS or lower. It sounds really good for what it is, if that's what you want, I'll not deny that. It does a better job of that thing for sure. I'd want it if I were cranking out commercials for sure. Great for cramming as much as possible into lo-res systems of limited bandwidth. Experiment for people to try - so few ever do - level match the loud to the quiet (not necessarily any sample here, but anything pre and post process like this) by turning the loud back down, and see what you really hear going on (so yeah, back down to -14.3 LUFS with the one). You may be surprised by what parts you do and don't like. Once level matched (which the streaming services are gonna do) most things seem much more open to my ears in a non-clipped version. Worth dropping files into this too for perspective, it does an automatic level match approximation for different services: www.loudnesspenalty.com/You can open two browser windows and drop two versions in for pretty quick comparisons. Anyway....way too much blah blah from me on this! I'm apparently more suited to tracking jazz or classical even though I never do. I swear I've been slowly making louder and louder records over my sham of a career and using less and less compression as I go. Carry on!
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Dec 23, 2018 19:17:41 GMT -6
A lot of what you guys are hearing is the boxes transformers and it's emphasis circuit working. If you read up on the emphasis circuit, it's like a harmonic/eq/compressor mojo knob. By hitting those transformers and all that class D circuitry it does some very sweet and musical things to the audio. The transformers really concrete the bass and definitely make it cut laptop speakers and such, as I heard that for myself on that last mix. The last time I sent a mix to a mastering engineer that was the level and all they wanted, what I heard out in the world didn't represent the dynamics or tone I worked my ass off to get at all. Near about all the mixing engineers I know send their final mixes to the labels already hitting modern RMS levels, and that's how I've been doing it for a while now. Not once I have I got a note from a mastering guy complaining either. Now that I have this box I can get rid of the limiter and send out even more dynamic mixes with modern RMS levels. Eh. You're supposed to have relationships with mastering engineers, effective dialog about goals, etc etc. Not buying it (for myself). So nothing's mastered anymore? Really? Or it's double limited? Really? Are you bothering to print a non-clipped safety? I assume not. Considering hi-res release formats at all? I guess not. Anyway, any half-decent mastering guy out there should be able to do the same thing in a single pass with the clipping or brickwall limiting at the end of the chain. I'm gonna guess this kinda clipping gets serious moaning from a vinyl cutting guy, based on all my interactions with that process. Use of 'more dynamic' is a misnomer. There kinda aren't any dynamics by definition! But I guess you mean 'more dynamic in effect' than using a limiter to achieve the same levels. The emphasis circuit could be a lot of things, like higher or lower impedance drive to the transformers which would have EQ (more or less smiley face) and harmonic shift effects, or DC injection to crank harmonics. Definitely a plethora of those type boxes coming out these days. I do like Hammond transformers, and it's nice to see them used, I worry about them giving up on their classic lines since almost no one uses them in popular products. I'm not buying “Mastered for iTunes will not reject your opus" in regards to ClipGuard without more explanation. Maybe MFiT is gonna turn it down and the lack of clip indicator simply fools the algorithm? MFiT wants no peaks over -1dBFS as general recommendation. That sample indeed shows in RX7 as a near-constant 0dBFS, not even -0.05dBFS. Integrated loudness -6.5 LUFS compared to unprocessed -14.3 LUFS. No one seems to care about MFiT anyway. After the initial seductive loudness (which is always there) wears off, what I'm focusing on is the clipping artifacts. I don't really dig it, especially if I plan to listen to it more than once. Extra especially if I'm gonna listen on a good dynamic system. I have some converters in the home system that definitely fart real loud when they see sustained 0dBFS, that's a problem that's not been vanquished in consumer electronics, this may do more obvious damage on sustained tones, like a feedback symphony on an Earth record! QOTSA - 'Better Living Through Chemistry' has a droning feedback section that blew up a lot of CD players at the time, one example, the remix/reissue of Raw Power has it's own organic fuzz effect on whatever player tries to spit it out at full level (-2.2 LUFS). I still prefer significant crest factor in percussive music, which tends to be -12dB RMS or lower. It sounds really good for what it is, if that's what you want, I'll not deny that. It does a better job of that thing for sure. I'd want it if I were cranking out commercials for sure. Great for cramming as much as possible into lo-res systems of limited bandwidth. Experiment for people to try - so few ever do - level match the loud to the quiet (not necessarily any sample here, but anything pre and post process like this) by turning the loud back down, and see what you really hear going on (so yeah, back down to -14.3 LUFS with the one). You may be surprised by what parts you do and don't like. Once level matched (which the streaming services are gonna do) most things seem much more open to my ears in a non-clipped version. Worth dropping files into this too for perspective, it does an automatic level match approximation for different services: www.loudnesspenalty.com/You can open two browser windows and drop two versions in for pretty quick comparisons. Anyway....way too much blah blah from me on this! I'm apparently more suited to tracking jazz or classical even though I never do. I swear I've been slowly making louder and louder records over my sham of a career and using less and less compression as I go. Carry on! 99% of the time I have no clue who is mastering what I mix..... All that stuff about mix engineers getting to tell the label which ME to use..... Well all I can say is they clearly have a ton of sway over the labels. I don't make this stuff up, the things I say and put out there, I put it out there because I hope it helps people and gives them an idea of what to expect, I don't sit and make this stuff up for the heck of it. I just know that most if not all of the mixing guys in town I know send in their final's hot as hell and limited. Maybe that's a product of the labels not giving us in Nashville the choice of who masters it or makes sure there is an open line of communication with us during the mastering process. I just know I've never gotten a call from a Mastering Engineer asking me to take a listen and sign off before he turned in his work. I make it sound like I would want it to sound on the radio.......I hope the mastering guy can improve what I do. I've found that turning in hot mixes yields me that far far more over giving them something with a ton of headroom.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Dec 24, 2018 8:57:56 GMT -6
That sounds corporate and awful...
There is one guy in the NY area that has been getting a ton of work lately doing “Mastering”. He actually put up on Facebook the other day that he was proud to have “Mastered” 28 songs in 1 day. How much attention to detail can you possibly have when you pound that much work through your place everyday?
I actually sent something off to him just to see how it would sound, and also because it was just mind boggling cheap. It came back way worse than what I had sent. I’m not even sure what he did but he was proud of it for some reason...
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 26, 2018 9:31:31 GMT -6
From Sound On Sound:
Inserting the transformers tightens up the low end, with a gentle roll-off that starts at 100Hz and is down 0.5dB at 40Hz. Simultaneously, the removed bass energy is ‘folded up’ one octave due to added second harmonic distortion. The result is a slightly tighter low-end that translates better to small speakers. At the other end of the spectrum, there’s a gentle rise which starts at 3kHz and is up 1dB at 20kHz. At loud RMS levels, transformer core saturation kicks in and compresses the high-end a little bit.
Emphasis is a parallel analogue high-shelving EQ and compressor section, that also introduces second-harmonic distortion. The EQ starts boosting at 300Hz. When the knob is at 12 o’clock the boost is 1dB, and with the knob turned fully clockwise the boost is 2dB. The compressor, with a threshold (relative to the digital output) of about -14dBFS, lowers the gain of the signal before it’s blended back in with the dry signal. Both the transformers and the Emphasis circuitry are hard-bypassed when not in use.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 26, 2018 9:46:26 GMT -6
I did a similar thing some time ago in another thread where I clipped transients vs. original file and most people preferred the clipped file.
I'd like to take the files in this thread and run them through mine and see if it's truly a transformer thing, or purely the clipped peaks that make the most difference.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 26, 2018 9:51:02 GMT -6
One thing I noticed quickly is that the tune already has a nasal midrange, almost sounds like a phase issue, and the pushed version accentuates that greatly, while the rest seems a bit more laid back. Also, looking at the spectral plots, I don't see much "push" going on, the peak to average delta is not much different.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 26, 2018 13:38:49 GMT -6
It does sound like that classic bit of transformer smiley face EQ with some bottom loss and lower harmonic additions to me. Then add the large gain increase with clipping, so some of both.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Dec 26, 2018 16:41:21 GMT -6
Always a fun time making pancakes.
|
|