[quote="Compyfox"]
If is a difference if a vocal track sounds like being "sucked down" by a vacuum cleaner every time it is setting in, or a pad having a grooving element once a kick drum is setting in. This is what I mean with "pumping" sound. This is usually an indicator that a compressor was overused - or wrongly used.[/quote]
Finger point!
KVR MIX CHALLENGE - MC03 August 2014 - Voting period has ended, Winners announced (pg 17)
-
- KVRer
- 9 posts since 2 Feb, 2006
-
- KVRAF
- 20664 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
Well, don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. Compyfox is right that it is often an indicator of over compression but you're right that it's sometimes a good use of the effect. It depends on what's called for. In this case, I wanted the vocal to be as pristine as possible so I would have preferred if you did it with a side chain on everything except the vocal. My own version pumps big time but only on the bass and pads, everything else sounds natural.psycho43142 wrote:Finger point!Compyfox wrote: If is a difference if a vocal track sounds like being "sucked down" by a vacuum cleaner every time it is setting in, or a pad having a grooving element once a kick drum is setting in. This is what I mean with "pumping" sound. This is usually an indicator that a compressor was overused - or wrongly used.
btw, the mastering engineer for Daft Punk's "Homework" said that the mixes he was given were atrocious.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Again - the first time you hear the vocals, they're "sucked down" by other instruments. And not in a good way. The example you brought with Daft Punks IMO outstanding "Discovery" album is an example of using sidechain compression ("controlled" pumping) as groove element. Your mix clearly shows flaws with that attempt.psycho43142 wrote:Finger point!
Also, you criticized that certain mix are too mid-range heavy. Your mix would fall into this category as well, especially with the vocals (personal, objective opinion - which took me several hours, but it was worth it). They do furthermore sound "over-chorused", and also not "evened out" (the original files were probably recorded with a different mic distance and EQ - this could be fixed with careful editing). And I actually missed something while jumping through all tracks - you rearranged the vocals in a way that they are also off sync and distracting to the musical arrangement.
So you not only ignored the request on pg 1
You (again, personal objective opinion on this) overdid it with FX, compression (the "pumping" of certain instruments, and them affecting the vocals), you messed with the overall groove of the track (which is why we ask for demo tracks from the song providers as guide) and you unnecessarily used Peak Normalization on top of all that (which doesn't matter post Loudness Normalization).Eric Dahlberg wrote:The focus is on: vocals and drums. Add reverb to almost everything but use them subtly.
Sorry - but if I'd be the client, these are definite exclusion criteria.
I'd not be happy with this mix at all.
I do have to mention however, that certain ideas are interesting. But I am an audio engineer - so if a client comes to me and tells me "mix what you have, have a focus on this and that, don't go too wild" - I simply do just that: mix. No matter how bad the mix actually is. I do not create a rearrangement, like a lot of participants were doing actually.
Summed up:
A lot can be learned with/picked up from this challenge.
Which is one of the reasons why we started this game.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
I just voted - and voting wasn't easy.
A lot of tracks with offset vocals (actually, half of the entries), too mid range heavy vocals in general, others had too much pumping going on (as "groove element" and due to wrong usage of compression), and some tracks really sounded too heavily processed on the summing bus as well.
I was really about to withhold my vote on this one.
But I chose three top spots regardless in hope that after the voting process, these mixes (actually - pretty much all mixes) will be revisited.
Did you vote as well?
Please keep in mind, voting ends midnight to 14th September 2014.
Sidenote:
QUICKFIX for the Studio Compyfox Entry:
As I wrote earlier, an overall "muddy mix" is easier to fix during mastering than one that has more issues with a balance of reverb, instrument EQ, etc. If you want to hear the "curtain lifted" on my entry, try the following (broad) EQ settings:
Low Shelf @125Hz, -4dB to -5dB // Bell @350Hz, -2dB, narrow Q // High Shelf @8kHz, +3dB
I addressed this (and some more) in a revision already, which will be released "post" the voting process. I just missed one day to listen to the track on several mediums (MP3 player, non corrected PC output) again.
A lot of tracks with offset vocals (actually, half of the entries), too mid range heavy vocals in general, others had too much pumping going on (as "groove element" and due to wrong usage of compression), and some tracks really sounded too heavily processed on the summing bus as well.
I was really about to withhold my vote on this one.
But I chose three top spots regardless in hope that after the voting process, these mixes (actually - pretty much all mixes) will be revisited.
Did you vote as well?Please keep in mind, voting ends midnight to 14th September 2014.
Sidenote:
QUICKFIX for the Studio Compyfox Entry:
As I wrote earlier, an overall "muddy mix" is easier to fix during mastering than one that has more issues with a balance of reverb, instrument EQ, etc. If you want to hear the "curtain lifted" on my entry, try the following (broad) EQ settings:
Low Shelf @125Hz, -4dB to -5dB // Bell @350Hz, -2dB, narrow Q // High Shelf @8kHz, +3dB
I addressed this (and some more) in a revision already, which will be released "post" the voting process. I just missed one day to listen to the track on several mediums (MP3 player, non corrected PC output) again.
-
- KVRist
- 66 posts since 24 Sep, 2003 from Las Vegas
I think I was the ONLY one who had the pumping thing going on lol
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Nope, blind - a couple more had the idea to use sidechaining (controlled pumping).
The actual "pumping" I mean is the negative side effect of overusing compression.
The actual "pumping" I mean is the negative side effect of overusing compression.
-
- KVRist
- 66 posts since 24 Sep, 2003 from Las Vegas
Ah I see. Well I misunderstood what you meant originally when you suggested it. Sidechain in electronic music embracing pumpinp is fairly norm. Had I known it was a red flag I would have toned it down quite a bit
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
*sigh* - okay...
Side chaining can be used for various things:
- controlling other signals that overlap in frequency, but can't be cut any further to "blend in" with other signals
- create a groove type element (just like reverb with a suitable pre-delay)
If done right, this can either be subtle (the main reason for side chaining) or a controlled groove element (let's call it "controlled pumping"), like you can hear for example with Pendulum - Hold your Color (kick clearly cuts through the rest of the beat section due to side chaining - subtle example) or Armin van Buuren - J'ai Envie De Toi (more prominent). And yes, even Blind's MC03 submission does count to that category.
Then there is "pumping", a negative side effect of overusing a dynamics processor - better known as "compressor".
Pumping can result if:
- you used a way too low threshold, wrong attack and release times, maybe even wrong ratio (this sounds as if a sound is "sucked down")
- you used a way too low threshold and wrong release times, but the attack time is correct (which sounds as if you get hit by a sledgehammer, due to the overpowering transients)
- the list goes on
A compressor is a ideally used to control overpowering signals, or signals that fluctuate too much. But unfortunately, there are no universal presets to tame a signal. So overdo the settings, and you get that negative pumping effect. Go beyond the limits of your compressor/limiter, and you get the negative pumping effects.
Hit the sweet spot, and barely anyone notices it's there.
Take a listen to my production (with or without the frequency correction a couple of posts earlier):
I used heavy compression on the vocals to even them out a bit. I also used side chaining to make room for the kick with both the bass and the pass pad. Granted, not as prominent as in Blind's track - but it's there.
This is what I mean with "pumping" compared to "pumping".
Musical terms sure seem to be blurred these days.
Side chaining can be used for various things:
- controlling other signals that overlap in frequency, but can't be cut any further to "blend in" with other signals
- create a groove type element (just like reverb with a suitable pre-delay)
If done right, this can either be subtle (the main reason for side chaining) or a controlled groove element (let's call it "controlled pumping"), like you can hear for example with Pendulum - Hold your Color (kick clearly cuts through the rest of the beat section due to side chaining - subtle example) or Armin van Buuren - J'ai Envie De Toi (more prominent). And yes, even Blind's MC03 submission does count to that category.
Then there is "pumping", a negative side effect of overusing a dynamics processor - better known as "compressor".
Pumping can result if:
- you used a way too low threshold, wrong attack and release times, maybe even wrong ratio (this sounds as if a sound is "sucked down")
- you used a way too low threshold and wrong release times, but the attack time is correct (which sounds as if you get hit by a sledgehammer, due to the overpowering transients)
- the list goes on
A compressor is a ideally used to control overpowering signals, or signals that fluctuate too much. But unfortunately, there are no universal presets to tame a signal. So overdo the settings, and you get that negative pumping effect. Go beyond the limits of your compressor/limiter, and you get the negative pumping effects.
Hit the sweet spot, and barely anyone notices it's there.
Take a listen to my production (with or without the frequency correction a couple of posts earlier):
I used heavy compression on the vocals to even them out a bit. I also used side chaining to make room for the kick with both the bass and the pass pad. Granted, not as prominent as in Blind's track - but it's there.
This is what I mean with "pumping" compared to "pumping".
Musical terms sure seem to be blurred these days.
-
- KVRist
- 66 posts since 24 Sep, 2003 from Las Vegas
I know all the uses of it, the pumping was intended for effect though.
I have done pro mixes for bands and various artists and have used sidechaining extensively so no need for the lesson on it.
My most intense sessions have instruments sections sidechaing other sections of orchestras with a multiband comp, which effect wise is barely audible, but extremely effective on a 24+ track song
I have done pro mixes for bands and various artists and have used sidechaining extensively so no need for the lesson on it.
My most intense sessions have instruments sections sidechaing other sections of orchestras with a multiband comp, which effect wise is barely audible, but extremely effective on a 24+ track song
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
I know your work since OCR days, blind.
But there still seems to be a confusion between "controlled" pumping and "negative side effect" pumping - especially in this thread.
So this post wasn't directed at you personally.
But there still seems to be a confusion between "controlled" pumping and "negative side effect" pumping - especially in this thread.
So this post wasn't directed at you personally.
-
- KVRist
- 66 posts since 24 Sep, 2003 from Las Vegas
ready set, KVR MASTERING CHALLENGE!
much less forum energy needed
much less forum energy needed
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
But just as strict rules.
We're working on something along those lines.
We're working on something along those lines.
-
- KVRist
- 66 posts since 24 Sep, 2003 from Las Vegas
oh yea? haha, well id say the rules wouldn't be hazy lines like mixing. cool tho
-
- KVRer
- 9 posts since 2 Feb, 2006
[quote="Compyfox"][quote="psycho43142"]Finger point![/quote]
Also, you criticized that certain mix are too mid-range heavy. Your mix would fall into this category as well, especially with the vocals (personal, objective opinion - which took me several hours, but it was worth it). They do furthermore sound "over-chorused", and also not "evened out" (the original files were probably recorded with a different mic distance and EQ - this could be fixed with careful editing). And I actually missed something while jumping through all tracks - you rearranged the vocals in a way that they are also off sync and distracting to the musical arrangement.
[/quote]
Never criticized anything for being to mid-range heavy but for the mixes being muddy which I see you now admit tours was one of. As for the rearrangement, I did use the extras that weren't aligned to create a very long delay of the second verse that were a counterpoint to what was being sung in the main vocal track at what I would call a bridge. I thought it was said we could use those since they didn't properly line up to start with. Maybe the compression was overdone, but between posting on this forum downloading the file and mixing I have less than 3 hours invested in this exercise. Not a big deal what you bring up would take under 5 minutes to fix. If nothing else I've managed to divert the conversation away from levels and loudness and to actually bring it back to what actually matters, actually mixing and listening to the mixes.
Also, you criticized that certain mix are too mid-range heavy. Your mix would fall into this category as well, especially with the vocals (personal, objective opinion - which took me several hours, but it was worth it). They do furthermore sound "over-chorused", and also not "evened out" (the original files were probably recorded with a different mic distance and EQ - this could be fixed with careful editing). And I actually missed something while jumping through all tracks - you rearranged the vocals in a way that they are also off sync and distracting to the musical arrangement.
[/quote]
Never criticized anything for being to mid-range heavy but for the mixes being muddy which I see you now admit tours was one of. As for the rearrangement, I did use the extras that weren't aligned to create a very long delay of the second verse that were a counterpoint to what was being sung in the main vocal track at what I would call a bridge. I thought it was said we could use those since they didn't properly line up to start with. Maybe the compression was overdone, but between posting on this forum downloading the file and mixing I have less than 3 hours invested in this exercise. Not a big deal what you bring up would take under 5 minutes to fix. If nothing else I've managed to divert the conversation away from levels and loudness and to actually bring it back to what actually matters, actually mixing and listening to the mixes.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14738 posts since 19 Oct, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Like I said, try these EQ settings to "lift the curtain" for the time being for my entry:
Low Shelf @125Hz, -4dB to -5dB // Bell @350Hz, -2dB, narrow Q // High Shelf @8kHz, +3dB
I mixed in long sessions, and usually late in the days. So that might have had definitely an influence on my mix.
I invested about 30-45min with a revision, only changed send levels, slight EQ settings and fader positions (read: like with MC02, only used what was already there). So effectively I lacked about 2-3 hours of work time with fresh ears.
Actually... we all thought that people use the "Extras" to recreate/fix certain vocals parts while sticking to the original arrangement. Not create a whole new track with it. Some people also really struggled with the placement (which in turn was made fairly clear on the first pages). So I'm personally really surprised how many mixes we got with offset vocals in this challenge.
But... if you realize what went wrong, and you can improve on that... then one of the concepts of this challenge is working out.
Low Shelf @125Hz, -4dB to -5dB // Bell @350Hz, -2dB, narrow Q // High Shelf @8kHz, +3dB
I mixed in long sessions, and usually late in the days. So that might have had definitely an influence on my mix.
I invested about 30-45min with a revision, only changed send levels, slight EQ settings and fader positions (read: like with MC02, only used what was already there). So effectively I lacked about 2-3 hours of work time with fresh ears.
Actually... we all thought that people use the "Extras" to recreate/fix certain vocals parts while sticking to the original arrangement. Not create a whole new track with it. Some people also really struggled with the placement (which in turn was made fairly clear on the first pages). So I'm personally really surprised how many mixes we got with offset vocals in this challenge.
But... if you realize what went wrong, and you can improve on that... then one of the concepts of this challenge is working out.