a tune

  • Thread starter Thread starter B.SABBATH
  • Start date Start date
B.SABBATH

B.SABBATH

New member
I got side tracked while working on another tune and came out with this.. any comments on the sound are appreciated..

expect the usual problems.. since this started as an idea it's only 16 bit as opposed to my usual 24.. I added so much stuff that I left it for now..

you should definitely be able to rip this one up.. :D

top of the page - stone age - www.nowhereradio.com/samij/singles
 
B.SABBATH,

Based on the name of the track, I was very impressed with the beginning minute or so, (sorry, my eyes were closed as I was listening) of that dreamy mood you were putting out. Then the REALITY kicked in and the song changed into a modern alternate rock kinna vibe which was very well performed and recorded. Lots of sweeping, slithering things going on in there!

The drum samples were the only thing that I didn't like in that part as they sounded like something out of a 1960's Bontempi organ. They sounded well played just not what I would have liked to hear.

The vocal work was well done and very processed sounding but, in a good way that fit the mood of the music.

I can see you are a very complex and talented musician as well as a very competent modern recording engineer.

I am very impressed!

Cheers! :)
 
Hey Sam,
Sweet intro,I love the piano work.

Guitars sound great as always.

Back round instruments sound really good,did you mix the synth with some guitar,nice.

I didn't care for the drums either.
Not that they sounded bad,just no high end.

Vocals sounded good,fit well with the song.
Nice to hear you singing again,though I think you sound better unprocessed.:)

What happened at 1:57,you get a synth rush!:D

Cool stuff,
Pete
 
Just passing through, Sam. It's downloading now and I'll listen in the morning. Should go well with my coffee.

Spent. Later.
 
Another mindwarp creation. Always love the gtr tone you get from your leads. The song was a bit heavy on the bottom. Vocals were done well as usual. What were you thinking at the synth solo at 1:57? just curious.... Cool lyrics. I dont have a right to comment on the drums:rolleyes: Is the stone age mean ya used 16 bit like me :cool: or you been smokin that wacky again-lol
Always dig your keys. I think listening to your stuff inspired me to break down and get some weed, I mean keys. Good work.
Myx
 
thanks for the quick feedback!

I hoped it would be obvious why the drums sound like that but people probably can't understand the words..:D I have no excuse for the synth break either.. I was looking for a sound for another song that has normal sounding drums and I just fell on this..

I'm curious how the bottom seems on some other speakers.. I know it's right at the threshold.. hopefully others will address that too so I can see what's average..

thanks for the ears Ghost, muze, and Myx!







God help the machines, to give me everything I need and screw the rest.. minor latency, hook me up with something that is faster yeah, it's slowing down lately, it's running in the back and stealing precious CPU time.. free my creatures from inside, they're lying deep within the drive.. God help the machines, bring my people what they need and screw the rest.. if you help my machine, I will disappoint you only half the time..



:D




I'm going to bed now..
 
I dig it man.I really like the lead guitars and the harmony vocals.Kick ass tune!
 
nice stuff sam,

i like the keys......what do you use for those again? they sound good........

the guitar solo section kinda reminds me of the tone from the top gun theme........mainly the tone.........let's say top gun on hate pills:D

the distorted vocals don't always do it for me, but they do on this one for some reason.....they fit well

that's about it.......

nice work

drew
 
Crazy toon man!!

Very cool switch over from the calm to the chaotic. That could be something like a trademark of your style. Killer lead tones as usual. What is it 808 week here? Always taking chances you are, and here i see it's the "synth madness", crazy baby. Hmm.. 808's and songs about Khompewturs, I must've been the inspiration for this right? ;) :D

My favorite part has to be the lyrics, the vox sound really good but when i was reading your last post I was laughing. Singing about the Machinez!! Heh! Very cool stuff. Werd. Props.
 
the drums are perfect for this tune...same with the synth riff at 2 min. ...and the processed vocals. I mean, you are Borg, eh??

Sam...this is beautiful. You're such a great writer/producer, I don't care about the recording quality....which is above clearly above the average of the home tinkerer anyway.

Wish you could assimalate.

12 stars and a roachclip
 
oh yeah...16 bit kicks butt[and works just fine for synth patches and drum boxes]. I never record at 24... my computer is too wimpy and old.

I guess it is the people that like to mangle their tracks after the fact that say they NEED the extra bits to keep things pure, because of all their twisting and tugging at their .wav files, they[aka, the processed files] will turn into a pumpkin, or something...

Seems for this kind of music, if the tracks go down good...like they sound here,.....well the rest is....
 
Wait a second.. seriously.

Do you guys normally record at 24 bit?
 
Re: thanks for the quick feedback!

B.SABBATH said:
I'm curious how the bottom seems on some other speakers.. I know it's right at the threshold.. hopefully others will address that too so I can see what's average..
Hey Sam - first of all, nice job on the tune. The CPU line stuck out to me on the first listen in a good way.

Secondly, I'm used to hearing a lot of low end synth stuff in your tunes, so it doesn't really jump out at me anymore, but since you asked about "averages," I ran your tune through PAZ and compared it to something else that I knew had some low end synthy subharmonics in it. (I picked "Bother", by Stone Sour...you know, the lead singer from SlipKnot's "other" band, lol).

I don't know if you'll even be able to read this, but if you can, the first 2 columns are the "PEAK" and "AVERAGE" data from the commercial tune, and the next 2 column are the same for your tune. Looks like you do have some peaks around 50Hz that are about 20db louder than anything on the commercial cut, but I think the "average" data is more representative.

Yeah, total geek here.

.
 

Attachments

  • stone-age-vs-stone-sourps.webp
    stone-age-vs-stone-sourps.webp
    28.8 KB · Views: 159
Khompewtur said:
Wait a second.. seriously.

Do you guys normally record at 24 bit?
32 bit float...which is 24 bit...mostly b/c I have to mangle tracks after the fact.
 
Just ingested... must digest... preliminary thoughts? Tastes good... back tomorrow with words
 
Hey Chris, that analyzer data looks really cool, what did you use to get that?


Could you use that data to figure out where to place your eq boost/cuts?

For example if you saw a frequency range that had avg. db lower than other surrounding frequencies would it makes sense to then apply a boost to that frequency (at the entire mix layer)?



p.s. Also if you record in 24 bit i guess you hear more clarity in the editor and then when you mix it down to a lower bit resolution you hear the "dithering"? But in this case then you won't know what you have at the 16 bit level until you actually mix down so it's kind of like a surprise?
 
Khompewtur said:
Hey Chris, that analyzer data looks really cool, what did you use to get that?
It's been pretty handy for me lately, especially in trying to analyze the stuff that's hard to hear...like anything below 50Hz or (for me) above 10K.

It's just the PAZ analyzer in most WAVES packages. The interface shows the EQ curve in real time, so you can see any weird spikes as they happen...nothing more than my old fashioned stereo spectrum analzyer does, but this has 70 bands instead of 9, lol. Anyway, once you "Preview" a section of the tune...or the whole tune, just hit "save data" and it'll save a little text file of what's going on. Oh, and you run it in one of 2 modes..."RMS" or "PEAK"...peak is self explanatory, and RMS is like an overall average stereo energy of combined Left and Right over the range of the sample.

And yeah, you can use it like you were thinking...or more often, if you've got one band that's going nuts, bring it down to be closer to the surrounding bands...But then again, lol...it depends on the tune. Most industrial/techno stuff is gonna' have a lot more low energy and may not really have many spikes below 250, but most pop/rock tunes seem to have a spike at 63Hz and 120Hz, and maybe at 80Hz (for the kick), so the trick is to pick a tune that you think sounds LIKE the tune you're recording.

Oh, and on that PAZ analyzer tool, the thing I like the most about it is that you can run a commercial tune through it, see the EQ curve, SAVE the EQ curve, and use it as a background to compare your song with...I have about 20 EQ curves saved that I use as references...Mixes that I think are good based on having listened to them on a bunch of different systems...everything from Allison Krauss for the acoustic mixes to RadioHead.

I think Sam has the Waves package, so I don't think I did anything he hasn't done...it's just that I had that PAZ thing for a long time before I figured out that it could actually be useful, lol...so I thought maybe somebody else might learn something about it too.
 
Khompewtur said:

p.s. Also if you record in 24 bit i guess you hear more clarity in the editor and then when you mix it down to a lower bit resolution you hear the "dithering"? But in this case then you won't know what you have at the 16 bit level until you actually mix down so it's kind of like a surprise?
For the whole mix, yeah...but where it makes a difference in my crap is in the submixing and processing. Like I usually have to do a submix for the drums, and I usually do another one for bg vocals, then I'll do one for the Lead vocal after I've comp'd it together from different takes...and the same goes for my guitar stuff...I'm rarely a "one take" kinda' guy on my rhythm tracks (I'm always a one take kinda' guy on my "solos," lol, so there it doesn't matter)...but the bottom line is that a lot of wave editing software defaults to work in 24 bit in the background for mixing or editing of tracks, even if you THINK you're in 16 bit...so it has to convert FROM 16 bit to 24 bit, then BACK to 16 bit, so that's a whole dithering step just for one submix, and all I can say is that if you're doing a lot of processing or submixing to save CPU (like I have to do), and your software is doing this (like mine does) then the end product just sounds worse. The way I'm working now, there's only one dithering step that happens when you go from your final mix to CD, and I honestly can't hear the difference between my final 32/24 bit mix and the 16bit copy.
 
Man, you are always full of surprises, Sam!

This intro is great, like FM, I had my closed, too. Really nice mood you've created, good arrangement, too! The intro blends in with the rest of the song pretty well, my only complaint is that since the intro has a very wide stereo-field, the rest of the song appears a little smaller in contrast(or just as big). I kinda wish the stereo field gets even wider when the vocal starts. maybe you can consider panning everything a little toward the center like a major before the vocal starts or something. Just a thought.

great job

Al
 
Hey Sam,
....moving intro. The signature Sam sound comes in with the heavy guits. Not really wild about the drum sound, Im not sure the sounds are the perfect choice for the music it accompanies. I like the effected vocs used as more of an intro type thingy, ...I guess im expecting a verse to open up with a more clean, up front, and in your face clarity. .....preference, of course. Nice experiment here brotha, and definitely worthy of more work and finishing up.

NICE!
 
Back
Top