KVR Audio

Geoff242 · Post by **Geoff242** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:24 pm

Kim has been hosting mixing events like this in this same forum. I haven't seen anything like this for mastering though. I may have more songs we can do this with in the future, if there interest of course.

Split Second Silence · Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:10 am

Geoff242 wrote:Kim has been hosting mixing events like this in this same forum. I haven't seen anything like this for mastering though. I may have more songs we can do this with in the future, if there interest of course.

Interesting. I need to peek around more, that reminds me and sorry for going off topic but there was a technique i had mentioned b4 about filling your guitar with styroPuffs and Kim asked for some sound samples and I never got around to it because I forgot and well.. I just wanna say... dont do it.. clean up is a bitch LOL.. my acoustik is still laden with little puff debri that is stuck betweeen the grooves so Kim if you read this don't try it LOL... and yeah..

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:07 am

Split Second Silence wrote:Interesting. I need to peek around more, that reminds me and sorry for going off topic but there was a technique i had mentioned b4 about filling your guitar with styroPuffs and Kim asked for some sound samples and I never got around to it because I forgot and well.. I just wanna say... dont do it.. clean up is a bitch LOL.. my acoustik is still laden with little puff debri that is stuck betweeen the grooves so Kim if you read this don't try it LOL... and yeah..

Hahaha... I remember. Does the debris actually affect the sound, or is it just annoying?

-Kim.

hackenslash · Post by **hackenslash** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:17 am

Geoff (nearly typed geroff, which may or may not be apt.

)- Damn forgot the point...

Oh yeah! That was it!

May I recommend that you encode all at 320kbps? I don't know what your plans are in terms of hosting, but anything less than 320 doesn't give anything the chance top shine, IMO/
. I don't know about the other respondents, but anything less than 320 will make it difficult to judge anything beyond the encoding properties of certain algorithms. Of course, the playing field is level, regardless of your chosen bit rate, but I would personally like to hear all tracks in as much glory as can be mustered. If it's a matter of webspace, I'm sure that something can be arranged.

As for the next project, I reckon that that should be the final week of Kim's workshop series. That would be something interesting, if masters were submitted for all of the mixes. It would make a good control mark for the topic of premastering. I would deffo be up for that.

JCM · Post by **JCM** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:57 am

hackenslash wrote:
May I recommend that you encode all at 320kbps? I don't know what your plans are in terms of hosting, but anything less than 320 doesn't give anything the chance top shine, IMO/
. I don't know about the other respondents, but anything less than 320 will make it difficult to judge anything beyond the encoding properties of certain algorithms. Of course, the playing field is level, regardless of your chosen bit rate, but I would personally like to hear all tracks in as much glory as can be mustered. If it's a matter of webspace, I'm sure that something can be arranged.

I second that. Differences in mastering at times can be very subtle. By using a lossy compression format we are already losing much detail.

Geoff242 · Post by **Geoff242** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:51 am

The people have spoken.... 320 it will be.

Nokenoku · Post by **Nokenoku** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:02 pm

Imo 192kbps MP3s are fine (for listening). Most people don't even hear the differences between 192kbps and the original.
Every little mastering-decision influences the sound much more. But well .. I'll resend it to you in 320kbps.

hackenslash · Post by **hackenslash** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:28 am

^^ Better to send your master in 24 bit wav undithered. This will rule out any differences in using different encoding algorithms, which is an absolute must in any comparative test. Let Geoff do the encoding.

JCM · Post by **JCM** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:47 pm

hackenslash wrote:^^ Better to send your master in 24 bit wav undithered. This will rule out any differences in using different encoding algorithms, which is an absolute must in any comparative test. Let Geoff do the encoding.

Good point , on the other hand , dithering can also be considered part of mastering as must music work is still targeted for CD release.

Nokenoku · Post by **Nokenoku** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:29 pm

You people really see those things a bit too strict in my opinion.
I mean it's not like we're talking of a high-end-master of a perfectly mixed song.

For detail-lovers and audiophiles things like different dither-algorithms and 192kbps MP3 artefacts might matter ... for the 0815 listener it's totally unimportant. He hasn't even the system to hear those differences.

By the way ..
What has dithering to do with the CD as target format? Dithering always makes sense if you go down from 32/24bit to 16bit.

Geoff242 · Post by **Geoff242** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:13 pm

Nokenoku wrote:You people really see those things a bit too strict in my opinion.
I mean it's not like we're talking of a high-end-master of a perfectly mixed song.

For detail-lovers and audiophiles things like different dither-algorithms and 192kbps MP3 artefacts might matter ... for the 0815 listener it's totally unimportant. He hasn't even the system to hear those differences.

By the way ..
What has dithering to do with the CD as target format? Dithering always makes sense if you go down from 32/24bit to 16bit.

I will go with the popular opinion on this one. Let's not get into the finer details of why this and why that. There are a lot of other threads in this forum that beat those topics to death.

That being said, if any entrants feel they need to have voters hear the original wav file to make a decision they are welcome to host the wav file on their own and I will put the link in the vote thread. Otherwise, it will just be the 320k mp3 version.

My personal opinion, having heard most of the entries, is that you will be able to tell which one you like the best by hearing it in 128k if you had to, because many of them are quite unique.

JCM · Post by **JCM** » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Nokenoku wrote:You people really see those things a bit too strict in my opinion.
I mean it's not like we're talking of a high-end-master of a perfectly mixed song.

For detail-lovers and audiophiles things like different dither-algorithms and 192kbps MP3 artefacts might matter ... for the 0815 listener it's totally unimportant. He hasn't even the system to hear those differences.

Whichever way you guys want to go with this is fine by me. I was just pointing out that it is something that can influence the final product and therefore subject to judgment.

Nokenoku wrote: By the way ..
What has dithering to do with the CD as target format? Dithering always makes sense if you go down from 32/24bit to 16bit.

Yes. I guess you answer your own question. Maybe I should have written red book standard compliant compact disc instead of CD. Sorry if that was confusing.

Dean Aka Nekro · Post by **Dean Aka Nekro** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:08 pm

Geoff any date/deadline set? i am nearly done but just wondering friend...

Regards

Nekro

Geoff242 · Post by **Geoff242** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:21 pm

NEKRO.MACHINE wrote:Geoff any date/deadline set? i am nearly done but just wondering friend...

Cat's out of the bag now. Now everyone knows it's you.

I am reluctant to set a deadline, but you want me to I will. I had originally mentioned I would have liked all entries submitted last Thursday, but I am flexible. At this point, if you don't see yourself being done within a few days, I can just post your latest version.

Thoughts?

Dean Aka Nekro · Post by **Dean Aka Nekro** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:49 pm

Thats cool mate, should have it done by then though

Regards mate

Nekro/Dean

Are you up for a mastering challenge?