What does EVERYONE think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Recording Engineer
  • Start date Start date
R

Recording Engineer

Moderator
This was taken from one of my replies to Pushing The Rei Envelope under the Mixing Forum:

I've been thinking about what I'd like to submit via CD (no home net connection) to sonusman for the Compilation since he has been gracious enough to do the mastering. If space would permit and The Group would concise, I'd like to submit two different home recordings of the same song, from the same band (my band), but all the band members aren't the same.

What I intend to show/compare is what I think a lot of people would consider more on the "pro" side (at least in comparison to a lot of "home" recordings); what my brother and I call the overproduced mix, cheesy version/arrangement and what I think a lot of people would consider a "home" recording (at least in comparison to the other).

Most people I show this comparison to love the overproduced mix, cheesy
version/arrangement, but I love the "home" recording a lot more; although I hate the drum sound. Actually, it sucks; and I'm the drummer.

If there's not enough space or some would feel I'm trying to "steal the spotlight"
or feel "it's not fair", then they could just be portions for comparison, or I'll just
scrap the idea. I just feel this might be quite a learning tool; since that's what it's ALL about.
 
I like the idea of different mixes if we happen to spill over onto a 2nd disc. Anything that increases the possibilities to learn from this.

I'm stealing this idea from another CD Comp project that I read about, and someone might have mentioned it already here, but I'd like to have some sort of list of equipment used on the song, techniques for recording, mixing, etc. Any creative ways of solving problems to get a track recorded. If your dog ran in and started barking during a vocal take and you still used it because it sounded cool, then I'd like to hear stuff like that.

Ed-
I'd especially like to have some notes and comments from you on what each track takes as far as mastering. That would help me a ton.

If space allows, I'd like to have this info in some kind of file format we can all access on the CD itself as long as it didn't cause problems or increase costs in mass production. Anyone interested in adding something like this? We could always post it here if it causes problems putting in on the disc itself and people are interested.
 
Well, personally I'd say that it boils down to space. Right now we're looking at *possibly* squeezing onto one CD.

I would say if your second mix will fit on the first CD, then that's fine....you've got my vote. Especially since it's just a second mix of the same song, which wouldn't be misinterpreted as "showing off", but a learning experience as you stated.

Now if turns out that we will need 2 CDs, then we're going to have some extra room on the 2nd disk. I figure we might as well fill it and people can submit 2nd songs or perhaps pictures/art and we'll vote on what makes it (if they won't all fit which is possible; I know several people only have one mix that they like).

Anyway, space space space. There will be space for everyone to get at least one song on there, and that's what's most important IMHO. If there's room for more then we can vote on what makes it. Don't start thinking too much about this until we get a song list, which I'll start collecting after January 17th. Once we have a list of what HAS to be on there, a lot of issues are going to clear up.

Also, I personally think that this project will be successful and that we'll do it again in the future. Anything that doesn't make Volume 1 can make Volume 2!

Slackmaster 2000
 
Jon,

I was thinking the same thing a while back, but I never thought to stick it right on the disk. Great idea!

I would like to see a small snippet about each artist in the actual jacket of the CD, but of course there's not much room for anything else in there.

This is something that we should definately consider when we get to the actual layout stage (a month or so).

Another cool thing would be to include a collage in the CD jacket of our various "studio" setups....S8-N's dogs & Doc's kitty at least... :) And if we stick some additional information on each CD as you suggested, people could even include pictures there of their setup. HTML would be the format of choice I'd assume.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Well, providing notes on what was done at mastering I guess would be more or less memoirs. Certainly a very do-able thing. Although, it really would not mean much except to me and the person who mixed the song (or whoever had a copy of the pre-mastered version) as they would not be able to hear why certain decisions where made in the mastering process. Many of the notes would be something to this effect, "Mix needed a bit of air, applied 1 db of 16khz". Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn...... :)

Mastering really is a boring process. It is not all that big of a deal usually. A tad of compression, a small eq tweek. Of course, some stuff doesn't need those things at all. Can't remember where I read an article where Bob Ludwig, the biggest name in mastering, stated that sometime for him to do ANYTHING to a mix would just be trying to prove his worth. Often people send their already great sounding mixes to him just so that he can confirm what the artist already knew, the mix kicked ass and didn't need any help. Of course, mixes like this almost without fail come from the top mixing engineers, and the top facilities in the world. Bob doesn't JUST work on big time stuff, he gets his share of local demos too (although I would think that the apprentice is probably the one doing the real work on it with his guidence).

So, if notes on the mastering process where desired, I have no problems jotting down notes and making them available.

Ed
 
How long have I been gone! I havent heard about this comp cd..
How do I get a slot. I am a great beggar.
I have stuff done, self mastered, or just finished mixes whoever is putting it together could master.
Whats the deal? am I too late?
 
sonusman:

Those notes might be totally boring to you, but to the rest of us they'd be golden! So yeah, if you were to jot down some notes as you went along, we'd love to see them (at least I would).

rj:

You're not too late. I'll add you to the list. Please email me at HR_Comp_CD@hotmail.com so that I have a record of a good email address for ya.

Please see the last update thread (1/4/2000) in this forum for more info!

Slackmaster 2000
 
That's exactly the info I would like to hear sonusman. Not boring to me at all, but like you said, either confirming what I think is good about the mix, or the other extreme of showing me how far I need to go and what I need to work on.

Also, reading what other people's mixes need and being able to hear the final result compared to mine will be of use to me without the original file. If someone sends in a great mix that doesn't need anything, and mine needs tons of work and still sounds totally crappy next to the great mix, then it will make me more likely to head to the woodshed to improve my recording and mixing skills. The other side of that is, if my mix turns out to be good then I will at least know I'm on the right track and can continue to improve from that point.
 
Back to Rec Eng's original question, a good one. I think that the focus here is choosing x different styles of music/recording technique and giving each the same shot at giving their best y seconds of performance.
Since Ed has donated his time to run the mastering effort and has agreed to provide track notes with regard to his contributions
let's not jump on his back like fleas on my cat. You can easily do an A/B comparison in a single allotted timeslot by cutting the tune in half and giving yourself the best view by choosing the style that gives your stuff the best sound in each half. Oh- and Ed. As long as some folks will be sending you tracks on CDR- can you use 48KHz or 96KHz .wav files at 16 or 24 bits? I say we vote on how many minutes per donation and design the CD around that number. Shortfalls will be no big deal.
4425 seconds divided 20 ways leaves 3:41 per track.
24 .... 3:04
20 .... 3:41
19 .... 3:52
18 .... 4:05
17 .... 4:20
16 .... 4:36

24 or 18 tracks each sounds good to me.


[This message has been edited by drstawl (edited 01-05-2000).]
 
Let's try to keep this musical though. A learning experience it might be, but it's a little cooler than that...hell, the clinic is for learning...the CD should be geared a little more towards the fun side.

What if the song that I think is my best work is a little longer than, say, 3 minutes. Should I have to settle with submitting something of lesser quality? I wouldn't like to see that happen.

I propose that we have everyone give us the length of the track they'll be submitting and we figure it out from there. It might turn out that everyone can submit what they want. A lot of people have some really short tunes. DON'T DO THIS YET. THERE'S STILL A LOT OF TIME LEFT.

Plus we're up to 23 people now...and I'm still expecting Dobro and maybe Dondello and some of the regulars who haven't been around the past few weeks. So deciding a time frame would mean leaving people out. Not good.

This is all just my opinion of course. But let's see what we've got before we lay any concrete rules.

Slackmaster 2000
 
It's never too early to design it right.
Not a line of code need be scribbled.
Those that won't fit on disk one will easily make it onto succeeding compilation volumes.
Maybe this would spur some of the other owners of high dollar production studios to promote their own mastering talents in this forum. And other members to step up to the plate in the recording artist department. I'd be willing to forego the mastering step if we can't get volunteers in the future. Might be really informative all by itself, which after all is what this site is most.
 
But then how do you decide who makes it on this CD...and who makes it on the next CD?

Unless there is a financial or other good reason to limit the CD, why do it?

Maybe this year we have 2 CD's. Maybe next year 3. Maybe the year after 4.

You never write a line of code before you have your specs. You can't write specs until you understand the scope and physical limitations of the project.

Slackmaster 2000
 
It would be a fairly simple process to get pics and a small standardized bio from everyone involved and create a browser accessable html file to go on the disc. I could rip a decent looking page off the net somewhere and recode it for our purposes. I'm not that experienced at this but I'd be willing to give it a shot. Any ideas for a cover yet? Something 'pro' looking or more down to earth? I think a black and white picture of someones' work area (as is!) would make a good cover. Of course, with the cables, gear, trash, manuals, etc. laying around. If we go with the Homereccr's name idea, someone will have to recruit their old lady into the picture! Maybe you could really piss her off and snap a quick pic of her expression while standing in front of your gear. Now who's toting the bigguns around here? Not me, I don't have a digital camera or scanner! ;)
 
drstawl,

Getting a new soundcard tomorrow. Basically it will support whatever, 16-24 bit, 5-96khz (digitally, only up to 48khz through the converters).

Am actually going to be playing with some different software here in the next week as I am not all that sold yet on GoldWave for Mastering purposes. It is ok for doing stuff that I post as MP3's or give to clients as a preview, but the dynamics processing is still a little hard to use.

Getting Cakewalk Pro 8 from a fellow studio owner. Lots of plugins available for that, so finding a usable compressor limiter will be easy enough. I already have a great Direct X parametric for eq.

I really have doubts though about doing too much to anything while mastering this. The problem really starts with the clients (all of you guys) maybe not hearing quite what you would want. Maybe everyone trusts that I will do the best thing for their song, but, that almost seems counter to the idea of a Comp CD that is made up of people on this BBS, where the idea is everyone doing their own recording.

Basically, I think compiling, song order, noramlizing (although nomalizing is not really all that it is cracked up to be....since normalizing only cares about relative level, some mixes can still sound quite a bit louder due to the nature of the material, so, some other way of level adjustment will have to be made to make everything sound relative...this will probably hurt the better mixes as they would have to be turned down to "seem" to match the mixes where maybe alot of low end information is present...don't forget the Fletcher/Munson relative loudness curve!!!) and spacing between songs should be all that I do. I am almost thinking that normalizing would not be such a good idea. Unless, everyone is looking to have this be the best sounding product it can be, even if that means taking one part of the recording process, mastering, to a more professional level. If that is the aim, then I have no problem applying every trick to the mixes that will improve them, as well as giving the whole CD a more consistent sound.

Maybe you all should think about all of this before I start the mastering. If I am going to go all out, well, some of you may not care for what I have done. If I am not going to go all out, then some of you may not feel that your song is represented as well as it could be. This is all a matter of whether everyone feels that a professional quality should be applied to the finished product or not.

Anway, let me know.

Ed
 
Ed's got a point here. Since the cd is supposed to be more of a learning tool for us and for those new folks out there present and future rather than a commercial venture, I'd prefer a minimum amount of tinkering during mastering. I think it would be more helpful to me to have someone be able to pick apart my stuff's sound in relation to everyone else's than have a super consistent "album" of music. I think everyone who submits a song deserves to stand proudly behind their work as is.
 
Hey Ed-
I just got the T-Racks Mastering Suite (from IK Multimedia) and it kicks @ss in my opinion - I tried it on a couple of my "finished mixes" and it made them sparkle - (well, as much as possible as I'm recording in an apt.). Dunno if you've used or heard of it, but you can download a demo from the site http://www.t-racks.com
- you mentioned mastering warez so I thought I'd put in a plug.
 
I kind of liked the idea of putting a 'before' version and an 'after' version of a song on the comp. Maybe instead of tricking out every song, sonusman, you could pick 1 or 2 songs to in-depth master. We'd get all the home-mixes intact as well as a vital lesson in the importance of production work. You could pick the song(s) that would be best suited to your touch.

I also like the idea of including a little extra data on the cd. A few words by Dragon and the moderators, some message posts, or something similar to draw a closer association between the music and this site.
 
I have tried T-Racks. For about 10 secs. it sound really great. But after that I didn't care for what it was doing to the mix. The interface is a little tricky to use to as it is only knobs that you adjust with a mouse. It was hard for me to get the exact settings I wanted.

I am really looking into Wave Labs. I seen version 2.0 today, and it really looks promising. It supports Direct X plugin's. Seemed very straight forward.

I just got an email from the creator of GoldWave and he promises some more tweeking in the next version which has not been announced yet (a release date that is).

I am getting Cakewalk Pro 9 tomorrow. Also getting some very spendy high end plugin's for pitch correction and what not. Will be hunting for a killer Peak Limiter as another plugin is within budget for Echo Star right now.

Anyway, gotta get the new card installed (Lynx One, I am drooling just thinking about it) so gotta run.

Ed
 
I have used T-Racks on several mixes, and I think it does well for a budget, all in one software mastering tool. I have used the Wave Labs stuff on a computer at a local studio, and it does allow for more precise tweaking and seemed easier to work with in general. Of course, all the plug-ins they had cost a whole lot more than I paid for the T-Racks software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top