|
Post by joseph on Dec 20, 2015 17:43:27 GMT -6
Synesthesia is the term you are looking for. I understand that Quincy Jones had it and Bruce Swedien, who is still with us, still suffers from it. I read an article in which Bruce talked about it and said it sure didn't help him in the engineering realm. Also Olivier Messiaen.
|
|
|
iLok 2
Dec 20, 2015 17:38:53 GMT -6
Post by joseph on Dec 20, 2015 17:38:53 GMT -6
Wonder if this will mean more developers going to UAD exclusively, since it's less likely someone would spend the time to recode/emulate DSP chip instructions.
Users and big and small time developers alike deserve some official explanation from PACE about how they fucked up. Lots of investment down the drain.
Moral of the story is invest in hardware for fundamentals where possible, not plugins, which are purely a musical investment. Slate and relab users got screwed twice now with non-prorated subscription and now this.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 20, 2015 12:41:05 GMT -6
Some of the best records have places where lead guitar is "too" loud or vocals are weird or certain drums have no attack or whatever.
Like a grid, it makes things boring to have balance perfect all the time, then there is nothing distinctive or performance-like about the mix, just the usual super loud and bright vocal; kick drum, snare and bass down the middle; room smash; taylor acoustic; yada yada.
|
|
|
LUFS
Dec 16, 2015 21:14:26 GMT -6
Post by joseph on Dec 16, 2015 21:14:26 GMT -6
My suggestion before you simply go higher is to try shooting for an integrated of -12 LUFS, since that will support Spotify replay gain (louder standard than YouTube or iTunes) without normalization, and leave -1-2 db on the limiter, for codec headroom, for the momentary parts above the integrated loudness (say -7-9 LUFS). Using bus compression, see how it sounds with an LRA range of around 10 LUs (loudness units equal to dBs). That should sound pretty squashed, but not ridiculously so (that would be like 5 LUs).
If you do it right, you should be able to find a compromise to your taste where you have a little more impact and less distortion with lossy conversion and streaming, plus a more optimal dynamic range, than if you just went to a higher integrated loudness off the bat.
Then later depending on the mandated loudness standard of your delivery medium (like an iTunes master at -16 LUFS), you can shoot for a lower LUFS on your master to avoid normalization artifacts, but similar LRA to what you think sounds good in the experiment above.
|
|
|
LUFS
Dec 16, 2015 18:05:27 GMT -6
Post by joseph on Dec 16, 2015 18:05:27 GMT -6
Are you looking at integrated, or momentary max or short term? What I'm talking about is integrated or sustained energy of -16 to -13 but with limiter to prevent overshoots. Compression will lower the crest factor (ratio of peak to average RMS), or in this system the loudness range (softest to loudest in LRA/in LU), so that may be a factor in what you're hearing/not hearing. Your loudness range may be too large. I would think -13 LUFS would be plenty sustained loudness for pop. itunes is normalized to -16, YouTube to -13, and Spotify I think is around -12 max. Of course a track may sound more distorted if it was limited to a louder level, just not really louder when streamed after normalization. If you go higher, you're killing your dynamic range beyond the playback level of most streaming/mobile. Mixing at 24bit under classical music/broadcast target of around -24-20 would be to preserve all dynamics and then you'd trust a mastering engineer to raise it to the appropriate higher loudness target. That way you know you haven't squashed really anything beforehand, and you leave as much headroom as needed for any delivery format. At least, that's how I understand it. www.tcelectronic.com/media/3363942/lra-design.pdf
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 15, 2015 9:50:07 GMT -6
I think it sounds great, namely the Cobalt and Copper modes.
The problem with the UAD is that while the initial attack sounds close to an EMT140, the tail is kinda 2D.
The Valhalla is very 3D, more so I think than his other plugins. For instance, I think VintageVerb is great, but for synths, maybe guitars and such, or 80s vocals and snares on the EMT250 burst style Sanctuary setting, where you want the reverb to add an obvious character. I don't think it has as much front to back depth and blend as LX480, and PhoenixVerb is better for short to medium rooms, although that is kinda apples vs oranges.
The reverb level in ValhallaPlate, much like his other reverbs, seems to be higher than most other reverb plugins. And by default it seems the bass multiply/cutoff leads to tendency for low mid build up. But part of this is by design in the Cobalt setting, to match a real EMT140 at Avast. So not unlike how the real EMT140 was used in 60s-70s, it benefits from big cuts on the returns and sends.
The sound is very pure, so I find running a gritty predelay, especially Soundtoys PrimalTap, helps to push the reverb back a little. Also the decay time really needs to be dialed in by ear, as Sean advised. After that, sounds pretty awesome on snares, guitars and vocals, and mixwise, fulfills similar role to the EMT140 sound. Doesn't color snares in the way a typical lexicon plate does, while still having character in the tail without chorusing.
Plus when you increase the size and use the higher modal density options, you get a very different chamberish expansive sound.
I showed it to my friend on drums the other day, and he was immediately like woah. So that's a good sign. You don't want a plate reverb to be boring.
|
|
|
LUFS
Dec 15, 2015 8:10:12 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by joseph on Dec 15, 2015 8:10:12 GMT -6
Ha, they're not yet.
I just used it as an example of when you want demos to be reasonably loud.
|
|
|
LUFS
Dec 14, 2015 19:19:23 GMT -6
Guitar likes this
Post by joseph on Dec 14, 2015 19:19:23 GMT -6
Nugen VisLM 2, iZotope Insight, Avid Pro Limiter, Waves WLM, Toneboosters EBULoudness, Klangfreund LUFS Meter, MLoudnessAnalyzer, HOFA 4U Meter are some options.
But this is a loudness standard, not a replacement for a mastering engineer on a serious record.
That said, for SoundCloud, master level demos, YouTube demos, whatever, it's an easy standard to follow.
And to know your mixes are not already squashed pre-master.
If your mixes don't break the -24 broadcast standard, for example, then you know you have a good dynamic range starting point, and you leave plenty of headroom for mastering to cd, streaming, or itunes.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 14, 2015 17:17:14 GMT -6
Listening to the examples, I don't think that a real U87 or 67 headbasket would pop as easily as the Slate mic's on "believe" and "what" (let alone a Josephson C715 or 716) and that the capsule distortion/sibilance on "just" would probably not be there at all on the same, definitely not on the Josephsons.
There is real utility to mic and capsule designs beyond tonal options because you want them to deliver predictable results on a day to day basis with different sources.
|
|
|
LUFS
Dec 14, 2015 17:00:04 GMT -6
Post by joseph on Dec 14, 2015 17:00:04 GMT -6
Bob should have a more informed answer to this question. But I think that is too high for master level. Since iTunes limits to ~-16LUFS now, and YouTube to ~-13LUFS, there's not much point for a master to go higher these days. Ideally you'd have separate mixes/masters for music files and video. But practically speaking, -16 max integrated over a track seems a good target for music/streaming, ~20-24 for classical, for sufficient loudness but preserving dynamics, and -1db of additional headroom on the master limiter to avoid codec and normalization distortion, since iTunes will limit the files anyway, and if your file is normalized to a louder standard, you want some headroom to avoid too much clipping. Whereas 24/23 is the standard for broadcast. www.digido.com/forum/welcome-mat/142-lufs-for-cd-what-to-use.html
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 9, 2015 12:35:18 GMT -6
You could also use EBU R128 loudness standard, which is an attempt to improve on RMS as it compensates for aural perception, and an integrated LUFS target level for all tracks, such as -16LUFS for Pop/Rock/Country to preserve dynamics which is about the iTunes standard, or to -13 which is more or less the YouTube standard. Izotope Insight/Nugen/Toneboosters EBULoudness/Klangfreund are some metering tools for this. I think toneboosters has a free mode. www.tcelectronic.com/loudness/loudness-explained/A lot of engineers, like Bob Katz, are using/recommending the EBU standard these days for music. For broadcast, it's becoming mandated. Talked about here www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war.htm
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 8, 2015 13:27:03 GMT -6
Is that Bessel? Haven't messed with that at all, but maybe I should experiment.
So you track with 6db/oct Bessel and mix with 12db/oct Butterworth?
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 8, 2015 12:06:10 GMT -6
I think that bass is the hardest thing to get right, really depends on the role it's playing in individual song vs guitars, low mids on vocals and bass drum how one should treat it and any harmonics or parallel enhancement.
Yeah, in DMG Equilibirum you can adjust the Q of the HPF to affect the bump/ripple.
Also TDR SlickEQ GE has option of 12db/oct with bump. Can sound cool on kick around 30-35hz.
Bob and other mastering guys have pointed out elsewhere that sometimes 18db/oct sounds better, like when you're eqing in lows too. For this I use Butterworth, which is also in both the regular version and GE of SlickEQ.
But like Jim and mrholmes say, when you start high-passing everything like crazy you introduce phase shift and lose balls.
I like Jim's philosophy. I don't usually like miking things like guitar amps and snare too close either, because lots of woofy problems go away when you don't and you need less compression.
With digital recording, not really necessary to add high end like with tape loss if you use the right microphones and let cymbals and vocals naturally take up that range. I totally agree with Svart on his point about gelling and perception, and unnecessary boosts, too much lows to counteract boosts in highs. Really all about arrangement, good capture of midrange and panning.
The other thing about phase shift is some eqs like Pultecs work better at manipulating lows without introducing as much phase shift as other eqs, which may be better left for enhancing mids on vocals and guitar, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 7, 2015 19:49:53 GMT -6
thethrillfactor's posts on GS are an invaluable resource for his posts on balancing low end, midrange and effects, check them out.
Like drbill said, I find it's best to filter individual elements rather than the whole mix.
I myself prefer not to highpass overheads for instance because I like kick in the overheads and use the spot mics more as fill mics. Same with any rumble/noise issues in tracking, I just move the mics if I can, try solve low end issues with shock mounting and placement rather than commit to filtering.
I think it's good besides in the car to check levels on cheaper speakers because often the first harmonic will hit the built in limiter of shitty computer speakers. Likewise if my drum bus compressor is reacting strongly to the low end, I know there's a problem with the drum mix. Using a highpass on a stereo or mix compressor is way too tempting these days, but people did without them for years.
The mixes with best low end I've heard are not super boosted, it's more of a perception thing. Like the kick has size because of the front of kit mic giving a natural room decay, not because of some crazy eqing of the low end of a mic jammed inside, or the bass guitar is cutting through the arrangement at just the right moments, or has a woody tone.
I do filter the hell out of effects returns though.
I find that once you get above 30hz it can be really detrimental to your low end to hpf, you can mess with the balls and phase balance if you start cutting willy-nilly. As a rule I don't cut above 70hz on guitars or vocals, and prefer to use gentle shelving where possible. Contrary to what a lot of people say, there seems to be a lot going on in vocals and guitars below 100hz. I even like to boost guitars if I can, a la Joe Barresi's Queens of the Stone age and Melvins work.
And any resonance bumps above the cutoff can sound good but then the harmonic above the resonant fundamental can cause issues in midrange.
I tend to like a little high shelf cut or 6db LPF on electric guitars if I'm incorporating condensers. I'll gate a room mic to the snare on occasion.
Besides that I use headphones to doublecheck anything under 45hz.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 3, 2015 17:15:02 GMT -6
Yep.
The reason I love them so much is you can put put them close to a snare or floor tom, but you don't need to pad them down or get that woofy resonance that you sometimes get with dynamics too close, but farther away you still get substantial low end. This gives them a huge sweet spot where they sound true to the source, no matter how loud.
They're detailed condensers but not overly crisp or sizzly. Plus they're ridiculously durable brass, and have perfectly controlled bleed and off axis response, which is really noticeable on cymbals.
They have flattering transient response on plectrum instruments but sound a little meatier than other sdcs. Although you really do need a good preamp on quieter sources.
All the Josephson mics I've heard have the smoothest capsules. From an engineering perspective, they are unbeatable.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 3, 2015 13:53:10 GMT -6
Josephson E22s. Get a pair and you'll find yourself using them on everything.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 1, 2015 15:49:38 GMT -6
Hey man, I think you should do what you like!
Would love to hear some examples of what you're talking about.
Some of the best recordings I've heard are pristine digital, but of a great orchestra and hall.
Biggest problem today is people doing things as matter of course, to sound like other peoples records or a bad pastiche of old record sounds, like way over-dampened snares for instance.
I do like some compression sometimes, just not that phasey room smash sound with distorted vocals on every damn song.
Depends on the application.
You ever listen to the Breeders' Title TK? That to me is very hifi capture for the most part, forward production with bits of lofi color too in the vocals for example, and intense drums. Not really like an older Albini record at all in terms of soundstage.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 1, 2015 15:25:18 GMT -6
The elephant in the room: Modern music that almost nobody considers worth buying... I think people today ought to be looking really hard at arranging and counterpoint. When you get that right, you don't need tons of signal processing. On this topic, there was an article in The New York Times the other day on how industry people were dumbfounded about Adele's new album sales records, and lots of 30-40 year old demographic buyers for first time in 5 years. I thought this was very funny.. I'm not a fan of this genre but GEE turns out when you have a singer with talent people actually want to buy her records, unlike with manufactured garbage pop that constitutes 99% of youtube/streaming/radio these days. Turns out people have taste enough to know an inferior product. That said, there is quite a bit of indie music worth buying and lots of hipster vinyl collectors and HDtracks weirdos who do seem to care, whatever one thinks of them. Personally I hate the sound of most records today, especially that bottom and sample heavy, distortion-limited sound that predominates in many rock and pop genres with little musical development per song either. Just lazy production, very boring at this point to put decapitator and other saturation plugs on everything and boost to death. Hate that shit
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 25, 2015 18:00:04 GMT -6
Nice looking too! I like the Sequential Circuits style switches on the big version.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 25, 2015 17:30:32 GMT -6
Spec-wise, that's a lot of mic for the money.
Can't wait to hear the samples, if the synergy is really there.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 10, 2015 21:15:31 GMT -6
What I don't think can be modeled is the off axis response, diaphragm shadow and proximity effect. It obviously could work at one distance from a voice in a dead environment but moving the mike would create a completely different result. Am thinking the same thing, but what do you mean by diaphragm shadow, resonance/coloring from the basket? And what about high SPL without a pad and handling noise? One thing I would guess is that this system in its current form won't be able to emulate a KM84, E22S, Schoeps Colette series or a Coles 4038, some of the most useful mics in existence. So not as of yet much of a replacement for a mic locker.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 9, 2015 15:07:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 6, 2015 12:10:52 GMT -6
I believe "PLEASE MR. POSTMAN" by The Marvelettes was our first 3 track punched down hit in 1961. So, Bob, was this primarily a vocal thing, like for the band single takes and sometimes splicing sections, other than overdubs and punching in certain lines mainly for vocals? Direct guitar comping? Thanks! My feeling is that today comping and all signal processing is so easy, that one can lose sight of the whole performance. It's not just done when the effort's really needed on a tape machine but as a matter of course.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 4, 2015 22:31:28 GMT -6
Could you explain more about Nikolaus Harnoncourt and his security and beauty idea about music . The rim of catastrophe thats where I wanna play but I find I'm either in suck mode ( bad performance ) or I have the part down too well and play in security . I just find the thread of the sung melody often gets lost. The natural build up or down. Like a good verse performance will have a flow as the singer lands on an inflection they like and builds from there, and likewise each chorus will have a certain intensity. Once you start messing with comped phrases too much, you often lose the natural expression, but it all depends on the material. To my mind, you don't want each verse or chorus sung the same way at all, and a good singer will really work at the performance each take or give up for the day. Ideally they've performed the song live many times and have the confidence, but they are still fresh for the day, like McCartney did to an extreme with Oh! Darling. Then again, a few singers can just nail a brand new melody and lyrics in two takes. The specific quote from Harnoncourt comes from his criticism of American orchestras as being too perfectionist, always worrying about fucking up. But his point is that musical expression involves risks. A highly skilled musician knows the part perfectly and won't make mistakes easily, but takes performance risks for the sake of expression. That goes for a violin solo but also a drummer playing in a band. They know when to go for it, like a spontaneous fill which might screw up the rhythm section. Same with singer leaning on a phrase (sometimes it sounds stupid) and so on. But you figure out what works and what doesn't and hopefully get better at it.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 4, 2015 16:55:56 GMT -6
The Fulltone is pretty damn hifi! More so than an Echoplex, which is noisy too. Rob Schnapf uses it, for example.
The best BBDs are too dark and grainy for a lot of vocals, and just don't sound as recognizable, in the case of the Moog. But they are awesome on most instruments.
|
|