REAPER Contest - March 2017 (RESULTS)

[DaveKeehl]

REAPER CONTEST - MARCH 2017
(ONLY REAPER PLUGINS ALLOWED)

https://stash.reaper.fm/28947/REAPER%20Contest%20-%20mese.png


MIXING: 4-19 March
VOTING: 20-29 March
RESULTS: 31 March

March 2017 winners: REAmix (http://forum.cockos.com/member.php?u=112267) and cnyk (http://forums.cockos.com/member.php?u=114401)
Febrary 2017 winner: Fergler (http://forum.cockos.com/member.php?u=85151)
January 2017 winner: Indiscipline (http://forum.cockos.com/member.php?u=106792)
December 2016 winner: Fergler (http://forum.cockos.com/member.php?u=85151)
November 2016 winner: zacki (http://forum.cockos.com/member.php?u=55977)
October 2016 winner: Indiscipline (http://forum.cockos.com/member.php?u=106792)


Click here (https://mega.nz/#!iqoHhChL!bb48eN_x0xyIWbIeJn6GcCqqQtVD1X9YKO41sgS ODy8) to download all the submissions.


__________________________________________________


It's time for another contest, don't you think? :D This month the song is Much Too Much by Selwyn Jazz, chosen by the user Fergler (http://forum.cockos.com/member.php?u=85151) who won the contest last month.

So! Do you want to have fun? Do you want to get some good feedback from other people that love audio as much as you do? Do you want to feel like a boss chosing the song for the next month? Well, my friend, the answer is only one:

JOIN THE REAPER CONTEST ;)

__________________________________________________


CONDITIONS AND STEPS TO FOLLOW:

1) Download the source files from this link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8tn-W6XlSInVVRPcjBMdEVka0E/view?usp=sharing).

2) When you’ve mixed it send a zip file to reaper.contest@gmail.com with:


Your Reaper project
any reverb impulses you’ve used
any custom JSFX you’ve used (put them in an effect subfolder (project_path/Effects/))
a master mix (limited to -0.2 dB and at -14 LUFS): FLAC, 44.1 kHz, 24 bit
a note containing your username and your reaper profile URL
GLUED FILES AND SAMPLES ARE NOT ACCEPTED AND CAN COMPROMISE YOUR SUBMISSION.

3) Go to http://bit.ly/2n4L9Hn to listen to the submissions. Pick your 3 favourite mixes and take note of their ID numbers (look the track titles). You can also download the zip file "SUBMISSIONS" with an RPP containing all the files.

4) Go to this link (https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/9BL3W8L) and vote your 3 favourite mixes.

__________________________________________________


HOW TO LIMIT YOUR MIX AND MEASURE ITS LOUDNESS:

Limiting:
In order to avoid your mix going over a certain volume, you need to use a Limiter. If you need a limiter, a suggest using the JS: Event Horizon Limiter/Clipper. You just need to put the ceiling to -0.2 and to bring down the threshold if you want your mix to get louder (but more compressed at the same time).

Loudness:
Loudness is measured in Loudness Unit (LU) or Loudness Unit Full Scale (LUFS). In order to check your loudness, you need a Loudness Meter such as the Youlean (https://www.kvraudio.com/product/youlean-loudness-meter-by-youlean), HOFA (https://hofa-plugins.de/en/plugins/4u/) and Orban (http://www.orban.com/orban/meter/) loudness meters.
Try to look for a short-term value of -14 LUFS. In your limiter, bring down the threshold until you reach that value. Alternatively, you can print your master mix limited to -0.2 dB, without touching the threshold and let the SWS/BR: Analyze Loudness do the job. If you prefer doing it this way, follow these steps:


Install the SWS extension (http://www.sws-extension.org/)
Open a new project
Drag your limited mix into the project
Extensions > Loudness..
Select your item
Press "Analyze selected items"
Right click on the analyzed item in the loudness tool
Normalize.. > -14 LUFS
Export it again

__________________________________________________


A few VERY important notes:


DON'T RENAME the source files and the source folder.
DON'T SEND ME the source files.
READ TWICE this post before sending me your zip file. If I ask for a FLAC don't send me an MP3 or a WAV. Please, it's not that difficult and it would make my life a lot easier!
DON'T GLUE ANY FILE
DON'T USE SAMPLES

[DaveKeehl]

Hellooooo :)

[SmajjL]

Dey'!ooOo-oo-o-o-o... .. ., yodelay-you-hou!

;)

[Tod]

Hellooooo :)

Hi Dave, this looks like a good one and I hope I can find the time. Since I'm retired, I normally have plenty of time to do these kind of things, but lately I've had a couple old friends wanting my time, and that kind of affects my priorities.

But March is a long month so I'm going to try my best. :)

[trevlyns]

I'm in - let the games begin!

[germano]

I'm in too.
Like the song.

[thunderbroom]

can't let another month go by. I'll make time for this!

[martinmadero]

yeah, jazz
im in, surely

[DaveKeehl]

Cool! It looks like this month is going to be great! :D

[DaveKeehl]

I hope insub will return someday :(

[DaveKeehl]

I can't wait to fill this spreadsheet! ;)

http://stash.reaper.fm/30052/blank_spreadsheet.png

[martinmadero]

bueno, he usado este domingo para hacer la mezcla
listo, quedé conforme.
ya fue enviada!

[DaveKeehl]

bueno, he usado este domingo para hacer la mezcla
listo, quedé conforme.
ya fue enviada!

¿Qué? :p

[uncleswede]

I'm having a go at this for the first time :-)

[uncleswede]

@ReaDAVE ...

Quick clarification ...

In the submission ZIP file, you specify "your Reaper Project". I presume you just mean the .RPP file?

Cheers
CD

[DaveKeehl]

I'm having a go at this for the first time :-)

bienvenido amigo! :D

[DaveKeehl]

@ReaDAVE ...

Quick clarification ...

In the submission ZIP file, you specify "your Reaper Project". I presume you just mean the .RPP file?

Cheers
CD

I'm not ReaDAVE but yeah :p

[Bri1]

Hey DaveKeehl-could you check pm-rsvp =)

[DaveKeehl]

Do you guys use twitter? I want to open an account for the Reaper Contest. I think it would be fun :D

Oh and this month I'm partecipating as well!

[RDBOIS]

Hello.

I may try this, look like fun.

Just to make sure I fully understand the rules:

1. "Do not use any samples": So I won't upload any new audio sounds, but can I say split a track to cut out a small piece, paste that part in a new track, use this new track to create a cool effect in the song?

2. Can I rearrange the song? For example, can I change the place of the chorus, for example.

I guess I'm not too sure what the definition of "mixing" is for this contest. Or in any project for that matter. I know that some people go in a studio to record their song and then the guy doing the mixing is doing all sorts of things to the song... What are the "all sorts" of things that we can do here?

Thanks for clarifying this for me.

[Tod]

Basically you can do what ever you want as long as you don't add any other audio. That also includes cutting of any of the included audio and then gluing it, no gluing.

As long as you don't change any of the original audio files, you can cut/paste all you want. :)

[DaveKeehl]

Exactly. As Tod said you can pretty much do anything you want except modifying the source material. But I would also point out that the more you stick to a simple mixing task, the better it is. That's because if everyone did his/her own remix, then we would also need to change the way we judge the mixes.

That being said... if you use a sax section at the beginning, I'm going to say anything ;)

[RDBOIS]

Exactly. As Tod said you can pretty much do anything you want except modifying the source material. But I would also point out that the more you stick to a simple mixing task, the better it is. That's because if everyone did his/her own remix, then we would also need to change the way we judge the mixes.

That being said... if you use a sax section at the beginning, I'm going to say anything ;)

Ok. Got it.

Not too sure how this contest is judged, but seeing that I don't have good monitors I probably can't compete when it comes to getting a high sonic quality mix. I've never actually mastered a song either; it's a shot in dark, more or less when it comes to my audio quality. However, I'm big on creativity and enjoy spending time mixing and working out small details.

I downloaded the tracks and set them up in Reaper. Heck of a great song; very busy with lots of instruments and sounds. It's a real challenge for a 'minimalist' like myself. I love it!

I'm not used to dealing with microphone 'bleeding', so that will be a lesson on to itself. I think I might go easy on the gating and use it as some sort of reverb... Hmmm...

I already spotted where the singer clears her throat. Oups... Perhaps I shouldn't of shared that bit since it's a contest and all. :)

Let the fun begin :)

[DaveKeehl]

yeah man don't worry too much about your monitoring situation. I just have my laptop, my audio interface and a good pair of headphones because I've been far from home since mid January...

Just be creative! The only price for now is the pride of winning against the other (other than learning obviously!) :p

[RDBOIS]

One more thing.

I pretty sure I know how to limit a master mix -0.2 dB, but haven't the foggiest about this -14 LUFS thing...

I read through the "November 2016 (RESULTS + DISCUSSIONS)" to see if I could find some quick and simple way to comply with the LUFS, but all I found was a very lengthy and troublesome discussion about how to measure and deal with LUFS.

So... I'm thinking that it could be VERY useful if you could add some details in your instructions. For example, why not tell us which Reaper tool we need to use and how to limit our mixes to -14 LUFS?

Why not settle this issue once and for all, for everyone, and for all future contests.

No?

[DaveKeehl]

you're totally right. I took for granted that everybody knew how to do it, but I was wrong, sorry.

[DaveKeehl]

Ok, updated the first post with all the info to master your mixes and meet the loudness requirements

[REAmix]

You don't have to normalize the loudness that way. You just need to set your limiter to limit at -0.2, and then adjust the threshold so that the average over the whole song is -14 LUFS. If it's at -12, you need to layoff the threshold a bit, if it's at -16 LUFS, you can push it a bit more.

Then render your track.

I use Youlean, so I render it, that gives me LUFS for the render, and then if I need more or less LUFS, I just adjust the threshold, and render again.

I think normalizing might do other weird things, which is what happened to my mix last time, when you made it more quiet.

[DaveKeehl]

You don't have to normalize the loudness that way. You just need to set your limiter to limit at -0.2, and then adjust the threshold so that the average over the whole song is -14 LUFS. If it's at -12, you need to layoff the threshold a bit, if it's at -16 LUFS, you can push it a bit more.

Then render your track.

I use Youlean, so I render it, that gives me LUFS for the render, and then if I need more or less threshold, I just adjust the threshold, and render again.

I think normalizing might do other weird things, which is what happened to my mix last time, when you made it more quiet.

I always master the same way as you do, but last time I didn't normalize anything ;)

[EpicSounds]

how about the mix contest is about mixing and DaveKeehl loudness matches the files before judging?

[karbomusic]

how about the mix contest is about mixing and DaveKeehl loudness matches the files before judging?

We've been doing it successfully since October (with an occasional new contestant needing help their first time in) and I think the users need to be able to perform such an important task since it is really part of the big picture. If someone needs help, I'll help explain; also no need to give Dave even more work.

[EpicSounds]

I don't remember the last one I entered but the files were definitely not loudness matched when I downloaded to review.


ceiling to -0.2

I set ceiling to -1, same as I'd do for paid work.

[karbomusic]

I don't remember the last one I entered but the files were definitely not loudness matched when I downloaded to review.

They were in every instance I'm aware of at least within reason. Dave usually corrects if needed but he shouldn't have to.



I set ceiling to -1, same as I'd do for paid work.

TLDR so if I missed something (probably) better to just follow the contest rules instead of creating new ones or more work for Dave.

[Tod]

I don't remember the last one I entered but the files were definitely not loudness matched when I downloaded to review.
They were in every instance I'm aware of at least within reason. Dave usually corrects if needed but he shouldn't have to.

Actually Karbo, I've also seen some disparities between the submissions. I mentioned it back in November I think, but nobody else seemed to care, so I dropped it. It's really not that big of deal to adjust the levels my self.

I also don't want to see more work for Dave, and I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe the "SWS/BR: Analyze Loudness" action is not quite right on?

I think the ticket would be, we submit our own mp3s and everybody needs to be responsible for getting their own mix being rendered properly, so that Dave don't have to do anything with them. If there are those that don't follow the rules, it's either because they did it purposely, or more probably & likely, they don't know how to do it and/or simply don't understand. If they do it on purpose, they should be ashamed, and if they simply don't understand, this will give them the opportunity to learn.

I know getting "-14 LUFS" at "-0.2dB" can be a little tricky, but I think it's a great learning experience. Thanks to you Karbo, and the Orban loudness meter, I've been getting mine set up pretty close. Heh heh, well now that's according to my own readings, maybe there's discrepancies in mine too, and if so, I'd like to know. :)

I set ceiling to -1, same as I'd do for paid work.

Yeah, I would never use -0.2dB with my normal work either, but this is something special and since Dave set the bar at -0.2dB, then that's what I will try to do. :)

[karbomusic]

Actually Karbo, I've also seen some disparities between the submissions.

Hi Tod, There are probably some I missed but didn't really see the point in veering from the rules (being able to not do that is part of the contest); though making the target -1.0 is fine provided it's actually the contest rule (I know I helped voice getting LUFs raised from -12 to -14). Seems to me, trying to meet the criteria, whatever they are is as important as moving faders when it comes to mixing - I know I learned some valuable stuff about LUFs simply by following the submission ask. I see you are meeting the criteria anyway and I agree with you. :)

[DaveKeehl]

Do you guys prefer -1 from the next month? I don't have a lot of experience with mastering standard "requirements". And for the long debated loudness matching thing, I really don't have time to do it. This contest is already quite a hard work especially at the end of the mixing phase when everybody sends me their submissions.

I'm more than happy if someone offers to level match the submissions.

But I agree with Jon that it would be much easier to let me do all the loudness job.

[RDBOIS]

Thanks for explaining and putting up some instructions.

Thanks everyone for chiming in... I got more than enough to figure it out.

I'm half way done mixing the song.

This is such a great song. I'm having way too much fun here!

I never really paid that much attention to big band music in the past, but this exercise has given me some perspective. All the sounds, melodies and instruments talking to each other is far out and exciting to listen too.

I suspect there must be a "way" to mixing big band music, to pay homage to the music genre and all, but because this is not my things my mix will probably be rather comical.

Best the composer of this song have a sense of humor.

hehehe

[REAmix]

I always master the same way as you do, but last time I didn't normalize anything ;)

Oh, how did you lower the volume of my track then?

[DaveKeehl]

Oh, how did you lower the volume of my track then?

I simply moved down (or up, I don't remember) the fader

[cnyk]

This is great, and exactly what I needed, as someone who hasn't mixed anything in years and is just now really learning the workflow of a daw, vs adats!


I have some novice questions:

1) I understand sending .rpp project file, but what are "reverb impulses"?

2) The JSFX plugins that are included in reaper are ok to use? But I should also send the actual plugin in a subfolder with the project file? Or is this ONLY if they are "custom" ones. I havent customized anything, other than saving some custom presets, but the stock plugs are as-is.. So does this not apply to me? Sorry if it's a dumb question.

3) I went to the url to hear submissions and there's nothing there, is it simply because none have submitted any yet?

Sorry if any of the above are stupid questions, but I took the time to mix it, I'd hate the have my submission nixed for same reason. Thanks. Love the forum, looking fwd to any constructive feedback on my mix.

[Tod]

1) I understand sending .rpp project file, but what are "reverb impulses"?

Impulse Responces (IR) are processed audio files that can be used in ReaVerb and can sound quite good. They are primarily used to simulate reverb, but there are also IR files for other things, like guitar cabinets.

2) The JSFX plugins that are included in reaper are ok to use? But I should also send the actual plugin in a subfolder with the project file? Or is this ONLY if they are "custom" ones. I havent customized anything, other than saving some custom presets, but the stock plugs are as-is.. So does this not apply to me? Sorry if it's a dumb question.

Most of the JS plugins come with Reaper, but there are a few are created by some individual(s), and they need to be included with your projects submission.

3) I went to the url to hear submissions and there's nothing there, is it simply because none have submitted any yet?

Yes, the individual mp3s will not be posted until voting starts.

[REAmix]

I simply moved down (or up, I don't remember) the fader

Definitely down. Iguess you re-rendered into flac after? That's interesting because it seemed to me like there was something a bit different sounding about it that I didn't get over here.

[ashcat_lt]

Well that was fun for a couple minutes... There's really almost nothing to do with the instruments, but the vocalist is not as good as the rest of the band (which isn't really saying all that much). I was hoping this would be a break from the tedious editing work that I'm doing on this other project, but it's going to take too much work to hack together anything useful from these two tracks. She tends to fail in the same place on both takes... Maybe I'll come back in a bit. Maybe I'll just ruin it.

Anyway, I wonder about the "mastering" instructions up there. If you peak limit first and then normalize for loudness, it is at least possible that the peaks will end up going over the original limit, no? Like, if I've got an 18db crest factor after the limiter, the LUFS normalizer is going to push it up 4.2db, and my peaks are going to hit +4. Am I missing something here?

[karbomusic]

Am I missing something here?

Not sure how it would matter, if you use something like YouLean or Orban which accounts for ISP's you can't go over (and not know about it which means you can correct for it). At least I don't remember ever having any issues during the few contests I have participated in; other than my initial self study of LUFs which took a good afternoon of reading before it all sunk in.

[DaveKeehl]

Anyway, I wonder about the "mastering" instructions up there. If you peak limit first and then normalize for loudness, it is at least possible that the peaks will end up going over the original limit, no? Like, if I've got an 18db crest factor after the limiter, the LUFS normalizer is going to push it up 4.2db, and my peaks are going to hit +4. Am I missing something here?

Do not pay too much attention at the normalization thing, I wrote ALTERNATIVELY. Anyway, if you prefer normalizing it, then don't lower the threshold on your limiter.

[Tod]

There's really almost nothing to do with the instruments, but the vocalist is not as good as the rest of the band (which isn't really saying all that much).

Humm, I don't think her vocal is that bad, I think her performance is pretty good. I did find a few things with her first track so I'm using the second one. For this style, I think she nailed it. :)

As far as the horns go, there's some pretty glaring "out of tune places", especially the Bone.

I think this was all recorded in the same room and was done with one take. They might have done several takes but then settled on one. At any rate, there is a lot of Bleeeeed. :)

[DaveKeehl]

Yeah I like the song too! But I've completely thrown away the "scratch" vocals :p

[REAmix]

Well that was fun for a couple minutes... There's really almost nothing to do with the instruments, but the vocalist is not as good as the rest of the band (which isn't really saying all that much). I was hoping this would be a break from the tedious editing work that I'm doing on this other project, but it's going to take too much work to hack together anything useful from these two tracks. She tends to fail in the same place on both takes... Maybe I'll come back in a bit. Maybe I'll just ruin it.

Anyway, I wonder about the "mastering" instructions up there. If you peak limit first and then normalize for loudness, it is at least possible that the peaks will end up going over the original limit, no? Like, if I've got an 18db crest factor after the limiter, the LUFS normalizer is going to push it up 4.2db, and my peaks are going to hit +4. Am I missing something here?

I totally gave up on her vocals aside from one spot. It's a weird spot where the mic picks up something somehow differently. Other than that, I just.. scratched the scratch track. The others mess up as well, and we can't re-track it, so I'm leaving it all cringy-like. I'm not going to spend forever trying to get it all on pitch, screw that. The first part is the most brutal I find, where it's just her and the rhythm section.


I think this was all recorded in the same room and was done with one take. They might have done several takes but then settled on one. At any rate, there is a lot of Bleeeeed. :)

Ya, I've never tried mixing anything with so much bleed before. What's annoying, is that you can't really remove a mistake with all that bleed, because you'll still hear it through the other instruments and all that.

[cnyk]

Impulse Responces (IR) are processed audio files that can be used in ReaVerb and can sound quite good. They are primarily used to simulate reverb, but there are also IR files for other things, like guitar cabinets.



Most of the JS plugins come with Reaper, but there are a few are created by some individual(s), and they need to be included with your projects submission.



Yes, the individual mp3s will not be posted until voting starts.

Thanks Tod!! Once more question, regarding "glued" files.. Does this apply to an instance where I took a bass note and copied it and pasted it where another bass-note was lacking...Right around 37.1.97 for instance.. And another spot. I hope I didn't compromise my submission. I also did it in one spot with one of the vox tracks where she was off beat a tad.. please advise. thanks. :)

[Tod]

Thanks Tod!! Once more question, regarding "glued" files.. Does this apply to an instance where I took a bass note and copied it and pasted it where another bass-note was lacking...Right around 37.1.97 for instance.. And another spot. I hope I didn't compromise my submission. I also did it in one spot with one of the vox tracks where she was off beat a tad.. please advise. thanks. :)

As long as you don't glue it, it won't matter. :)

[Tod]

But I've completely thrown away the "scratch" vocals :p

Yeah, that's the one. :)

I finally had some time to get into this today and I think I've about got it. A couple of hours with the high energy of this song, blows what little's left of my hearing right out the door. :eek:

[DaveKeehl]

Yeah Tod I think the file was renamed "scratch" for some reason :D

By the way, from next month -13 LUFS (YouTube Standard) and -1 dB for the limiter ceiling. Sounds good?

[RDBOIS]

Maybe I've listen to the song to many times, but I DON'T TRUST HER!!!

- "I've given up on flirting". Pffff... O_o

Her flirting is under control only because she loves him "much too much". What will happen when she starts loving him just a little bit less than too much?

That's right!

Her obsessive love disorder/obsession makes her high risk and I suspect this flirting thing is a coping mechanism for a lack of self-esteem.

She's aware that she loves him "much to much"; she knows.

Oh yeah, we all know!

[cnyk]

So I just submitted my mix, and I must say, the loudness extension posted to 'normalize' to -14 really made my mix sound "flabby". I decided to forego it, as the difference in loudness when A/B-ing was indiscernible.. But what was readily recognizable to me, was my low-end losing punch, and an overall flabby unglued sound to the whole thing. Am I crazy? Am I hearing things?

[Otto Tune]

Actually like the technical specs of the contest, whatever they are. Seems like part of the point is that if the delivery format calls for -.2 peaks and 14 LUFS, the goal is to make the mix work for that (or whatever else), no matter what the material.

Found that hard in the Dec contest, as it felt more natural to have that one around 18 LUFS, but getting it to 14 LUFS was a good part of the challenge and the fun. I'm not at all sure what normalizing could have to do with this kind of requirement or how it could help.

The conventional wisdom that mixing with plenty of headroom and then bringing it up to specs (with a limiter or comp or combination or whatever) seems easy and efficient and also shows you where you've botched the mix. This part has nothing to do with the pitch of the tracks, though one could of course try to correct "off" notes, but that's a totally different story, one that (for me at least) probably involves getting a better take and whatever it takes to get there.

I wasn't particularly bothered by the pitch stuff, as a mixer (because again, get another take), but I'm probably much more interested in rhythm, which worked for me here :)

[RDBOIS]

Gotta love that Kick Drum!!!

Well, if you like the sound of someone beating the dust out from a dirty carpet with a broom stick.

No bleed in that microphone... No sir, not one bit.

I almost hit the DELETE TRACK button a few times. Still considering it...

[DaveKeehl]

I almost hit the DELETE TRACK button a few times. Still considering it...

Haha be careful, you can't use samples :D

[ashcat_lt]

I personally muted all of the close brass tracks and was overall just leaning on the room mic for most of the mix.

The vox of course have no bleed whatsoever, and that to me really is the biggest challenge: finding a way to make that dry in-your-face vocal fit into the same space as the rest of the group. I thought about maybe trying to deconvolve the room track to get an impulse. There's stick clicks at the beginning that would be good for that, except they're a little too close together and there's a dude counting...

I didn't really have a problem with her pitch. I question some of her note choices and phrasing, but for the most part she gets close enough to the notes she's trying to sing for my ears. But it's pretty obvious that she has to reach pretty hard to hit those higher notes - especially when she sings "love him", so she drops her intensity at those points and is almost whispering. Overall, she lacks confidence and attitude, and it's just not good. If it was good, it wouldn't stick out so much for being dry, but it's so not good that verbing it up won't help.

[Tod]

So I just submitted my mix, and I must say, the loudness extension posted to 'normalize' to -14 really made my mix sound "flabby". I decided to forego it, as the difference in loudness when A/B-ing was indiscernible.. But what was readily recognizable to me, was my low-end losing punch, and an overall flabby unglued sound to the whole thing. Am I crazy? Am I hearing things?

Are you're actually normalizing your mix? If you are, there is a better way. I explained in the post below how I do it. It requires the Orban Loudness Meter that Karbo introduced to us, back in November I think.

At any rate the Orban meter is free and has an analyzer that works great. I explain how I use it in this post. :)

http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php?p=1795127&postcount=232

[Indiscipline]

By the way, from next month -13 LUFS (YouTube Standard) and -1 dB for the limiter ceiling. Sounds good?

-16 LUFS is a better target level, as advocated by Bob Katz and Ian Shepherd. Some of Katz's reasoning can be heard here, from 46:00: https://urm.academy/ep12-interview-w-bob-katz/ Although, I'm not completely comfortable with his explanation, but that's irrelevant. :)

Since this is a friendly competition, we can use whatever aims we want, so I'd stick to what tends to sound best.

[DaveKeehl]

-16 LUFS is a better target level, as advocated by Bob Katz and Ian Shepherd. Some of Katz's reasoning can be heard here, from 46:00: https://urm.academy/ep12-interview-w-bob-katz/ Although, I'm not completely comfortable with his explanation, but that's irrelevant. :)

Since this is a friendly competition, we can use whatever aims we want, so I'd stick to what tends to sound best.

Yeah it really doesn't matter in the end :/

[REAmix]

I like the idea of -13 LUFS. I find -14 is not really loud enough, not just in a "turn up your volume knob" kind of way, but in the way that multiple instruments sound nice and loud relative to each other. -14 is not too bad, but -13 I think will be a bit more to my liking. That's usually around where I think I would usually naturally put it, if I wasn't metering it.

[RDBOIS]

Three quick questions, since this is my first contest:

1) when we vote do we get to see the Reaper projects, or only have the audio file?

2) Are the songs numbered randomly (blind) or do we see the name/nick of the person you mixed? *** Seems to me it would be best not to know, because we could be influenced/intimidated if we know that "someone good" (e.g. previous month winners) did the mixing, vis-a-vis, someone we know is rather new/amateur. Just saying... Why not take this out of the equation?

3) I'm done mixing and got Youlean Loudness Meter reading output and got:

-13.9 Integrated LUFS
- 2.7 True peak max.
(setting @ EBU R128)

I put JS - Event/Horizon Limiter/Clipper set at -0.2, with a threshold of -1.0. I won't get to exactly -0.2, and last time I messed around with a lowering part of a track to get the 0.01 LUFS down I got to -14.1 LUFS... :(

Any suggestions? Or is this good enough?

Thanks

[DaveKeehl]

1) The projects will be accessible on the 31st of March, the day the results come out.

2) Exactly, it's a blind vote. The submissions are shuffled and named "ID: number".

3) Well, if the limiter is on the master track as the last plugin in the chain, it has to its job :/ But don't worry too much... as long as you limit your mix to -0.2 and you get more or less -14 LUFS you'll be fine.

[Bass6]

Can someone help me out here please?
I'm having real trouble getting the levels right in this track. Because of all the spill in the tracks, I'm pushing a few of them (mainly sax and trombone tracks) quite hard to get a decent level against the other tracks. This does result in a few points in the song popping into the red, but I'm not getting any audible clipping.
I've got JS Event Horizon limiters on these tracks set to around -2.5, with another on the master track set to -0.2, but when I run the song through, my master track meters are peaking at +1.5.
Then when I run a render (flac, 44.1/24) and put it through Orban, I'm getting -18.2 LKFS and a peak of +0.2 dBFS.
I clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of limiters somehow - in my naivete I'd assumed that setting a limiter at -0.2 would prevent the song from overrunning that level. Wrong :confused:
Any suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong? This is driving me batty!

[DaveKeehl]

Can someone help me out here please?
I'm having real trouble getting the levels right in this track. Because of all the spill in the tracks, I'm pushing a few of them (mainly sax and trombone tracks) quite hard to get a decent level against the other tracks. This does result in a few points in the song popping into the red, but I'm not getting any audible clipping.
I've got JS Event Horizon limiters on these tracks set to around -2.5, with another on the master track set to -0.2, but when I run the song through, my master track meters are peaking at +1.5.
Then when I run a render (flac, 44.1/24) and put it through Orban, I'm getting -18.2 LKFS and a peak of +0.2 dBFS.
I clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of limiters somehow - in my naivete I'd assumed that setting a limiter at -0.2 would prevent the song from overrunning that level. Wrong :confused:
Any suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong? This is driving me batty!

Is the fader of those tracks above zero? I might be wrong, but the values in the limiter (but in every plugin actually) are relative to unity gain, so if you have the fader above zero but want the track to peak at -0.2 dB you have to do a bit of math. Something like: -0.2 - (dB of added gain).

I had the same problem some time ago. I had set the ceiling at like -0.2 dB and couldn't understand why it was not working. I soon discovered the fader was pushed above zero, and as soon as I double clicked it to reset it, it all worked as expected.

[Bass6]

Is the fader of those tracks above zero? I might be wrong, but the values in the limiter (but in every plugin actually) are relative to unity gain, so if you have the fader above zero but want the track to peak at -0.2 dB you have to do a bit of math. Something like: -0.2 - (dB of added gain).

I had the same problem some time ago. I had set the ceiling at like -0.2 dB and couldn't understand why it was not working. I soon discovered the fader was pushed above zero, and as soon as I double clicked it to reset it, it all worked as expected.
Mmm, nope, that's not it. Master fader is set at unity, all other track faders are below unity, some quite a way below (average about -6dB).

I've been through all the tracks and reduced the volume of obviously high peaks in ones like the snare, room etc, and now I'm getting -0.1 dBFS but -18.3 LKFS. I'm mighty confused!

[Tod]

Can someone help me out here please?
I'm having real trouble getting the levels right in this track. Because of all the spill in the tracks, I'm pushing a few of them (mainly sax and trombone tracks) quite hard to get a decent level against the other tracks.

Yeah, those saxes are buried in bleed, so keep in mind, as you push them you're also raising everything else. It took some doing, but I think I got an okay level on them.

Regarding the limiter, try the "JS Master Limiter", That's what I use and I've not had any problems with peaks getting above my settings.

[trevlyns]

The brass is a tough one - I found getting control of the room mic first to be of help. It did require quite a bit of automation, but they all sound fairly decent in there. Ended up limiting all the individual instruments trying to blend them in though..

[cnyk]

I thought this was fun to mix. Not suggesting I'll win of course lol... But it was a fun challenge, trying to carve out a "space" for each horn. Due to the bleed, I decided I'd try 1 of 2 things: Either
1: Try to achieve the sound of a jazz-club type of room... Or
2: Try to achieve the mid-rangey sound of an old peggy lee record..(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeHWqMKdDs0)

I decided #1 was a better fit for the tune and referenced it with a group called the "post modern jukebox". Unfortunately, I really struggled with her vocals. I take the blame for that, as I muted them while mixing the rest, then I had a difficult time getting them to sit in the mix right.. I did dial in a little mid-rangey tone, but in hindsight, I'm not sure that was the right decision. Anyway, fun contest. I look fwd to hearing all the great mixes from the resident reaper pros.. I've already learned a few things in the short time I've been on the forum. :)

[Bass6]

Now I have a headache.....:(
Went back to basics, stripped out most of the fx & just left basic eq's and compression on a couple of tracks.
Re-balanced all the tracks - nothing is now hitting the red, all tracks peaking between -12 & -6, and the master track meter is showing a maximum peak of -1.1 - Orban is now showing me -0.5 dBFS and -15.2 LKFS, but to get it there I've had to mess with the master limiter on the master track numerous times which is now set with a limit of -2.8 and a threshold of -10.0. WTF? :confused:
So Reaper is telling me the peak is -1.1, Orban says -0.5, but I'm telling the limiter -2.8. I just don't get it. I'll have to submit what I've got now as I've run out of available time for any more mucking about, but I can see I'm going to have to research this a lot more in the future, cos either I'm missing something critical or the world of metering is totally up the pictures.

[Fergler]

Haha be careful, you can't use samples :D

Did you not notice I used kick replacement in the last contest?

I didn't realize we could not.

[ashcat_lt]

Is this Orban thing telling you "true peak" values? Those often will be different from the peak meters in Reaper. Reaper tells you how loud the loudest sample actually is. "True Peak" tries to tell you how loud the converter will try to go between samples. "Intersample peaks" and all that.

I have never had very good luck with anything labeled "limiter". The reason it's called a limiter and not a clipper or saturator is that it does not really respond on a sample-to-sample basis. The gain reduction happening now is based on the average level over some short period of the recent past. This can and will let some really fast transients get beyond the limit before it starts turning down. Some of the smarter ones "look ahead" so that the gain reduction happening now follows the average of some time in the past and some time in the future. This can help, but still can't ever promise that you'll never go past the limit. I do some pretty extreme stuff sometimes with feedback and/or insane amounts of gain, and none of the limiters that come with Reaper can promise me their output level.

The only real way to be sure where your loudest sample is going to hit is to just plain not let any individual sample get louder than the limit. Clipping is the rude way to do it. Saturation - some sort of "curvy" sample by sample transfer curve with a hard limit - can be a little nicer sounding.

ReaComp will do this a couple ways. Set all time constants to 0 and ratio to inf and it'll hard clip wherever the threshold is set and no sample will ever come out higher than that limit. But then, just ticking "limit output" will clip it off right at 0dbfs, and you can adjust the wet output level down to -0.2 or whatever margin you want to leave. If you prefer a bit of "curvy" saturation, you dial up the knee parameter, but you have to remember that the knee kind of spreads "around" the threshold point so that basically your actual limit might end up a little higher than where the threshold is set. There's no good way to predict where that might be, so you kind of have to just slam it and see where it falls and adjust either threshold or set output to compensate. There are a few JS plugins that will do clipping and saturation also.

But don't turn on the oversampling (AA in ReaComp)! Oversampling is filtering and filtering - especially lowpass filtering - undoes limiting/clipping. If you really want to be completely sure of where your highest sample is going to hit, you have to just clip it off and let it distort and alias and whatever else it's going to do. It should be the absolute last stage in the process.

[DaveKeehl]

Did you not notice I used kick replacement in the last contest?

I didn't realize we could not.

From this month ;)

[karbomusic]

Is this Orban thing telling you "true peak" values? Those often will be different from the peak meters in Reaper. Reaper tells you how loud the loudest sample actually is. "True Peak" tries to tell you how loud the converter will try to go between samples. "Intersample peaks" and all that.



Yes, it will and it will work properly. The value of Orban is it will process offline, (drag and drop) which is much faster than a VST in Reaper because LUFs requires measuring the entire length of the song to arrive a the correct "Integrated" loudness value. So if you are using a VST you have to play the whole song in real time.


In orban's "Analysis" tab you want to observe the following:


Integrated Loudness (which is LUFS or LKFS which are the same thing) - this is the one you want target to -14


Highest reconstructed peak level - This is your True Peak/ISP calculation that you want target to -0.2.


So all you need to do is get close ITB with something like YouLean, then render and drag the render into orban. You should be able to pretty much nail it within a few renders and however much you are off by you need to use a brick wall limiter to adjust with because that last little bit of DR reduction is what you need.


There should however be a JS that will measure LUFs offline, just search for LUFs or loudness. I just happen to like Orban because it measures the actual rendered result removing any other chances to miss something.

[Tod]

Okay, just finished mixing and I've got one to go. However, I just noticed it's supposed to be a flac file, I did mine 24-wav.

When did that change and does it make any difference?

[Tod]

Integrated Loudness (which is LUFS or LKFS which are the same thing) - this is the one you want target to -14


Highest reconstructed peak level - This is your True Peak/ISP calculation that you want target to -0.2.

Yeah, I'm getting -14 LUFS but I don't think I've ever been able get Orban's dBFS down below 0.0dBFS. At least not with any of the mixes with this tune. However, Reaper faithfully shows -0.2dB, both on the project and also on the track when I drag it back into Reaper. Span also shows -0.2dB, so I tend to trust that.

I've always wondered about Orban's dBFS, it's never seemed to correspond to other readings?

[karbomusic]

Yeah, I'm getting -14 LUFS but I don't think I've ever been able get Orban's dBFS down below 0.0dBFS. At least not with any of the mixes with this tune. However, Reaper faithfully shows -0.2dB, both on the project and also on the track when I drag it back into Reaper. Span also shows -0.2dB, so I tend to trust that.

I've always wondered about Orban's dBFS, it's never seemed to correspond to other readings?

Because "True Peak" or "Highest 'reconstructed' peak' is a calculation of intersample peaks, Reaper nor span, calculates those on the fly as far as I know.


Based on how sampling works we can show -0.2 in reaper but when the wave file is reconstructed back into audio we can end up with something higher like this when the samples are reconstructed back into actual audio...


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0321/7609/files/0dBFS4.png?896


So forgetting the numbers in that graph for a moment, the red samples are what reaper is showing, the blue is what orban is showing which is what the resulting audio actually becomes.

[ashcat_lt]

I've always wondered about Orban's dBFS, it's never seemed to correspond to other readings?
That's because it's essentially making it up.

Converters usually can't just plain stop swinging all of a sudden. Clipping and limiting sometimes makes really sharp corners that "create" harmonic content above Nyquist. The filters in the converter "remove" that high frequency information, but since they can't look ahead in time, they end up overshooting. It's very much like driving a pickup 50mph and somebody says "Turn now!" and by the time you slow down enough to make the turn without rolling the truck, you're past the intersection. True Peak meters try to estimate how far past that intersection your converter will have to go before it turns around.

[Tod]

Thanks guys, and yeah, I'm aware of inter sample over thingy, that's why I mix most of my normal everyday mixes between -1.0dB and -0.5dB, depending on what it is. Heh heh, actually the only times I've ever mixed above -0.5dB is for these contest mixes.

So I guess, now the question is, how is Dave measuring all this? :)

I'm thinking I'm just going to leave mine as it is, by the time I get down to -0.2dB on the Orban scale, my mix will be down to -0.8dB or less. Actually I don't guess it matters that much, we're kind of splitting hairs.

On the other hand, I think it does matter. I personally take the voting very seriously, and by that I mean how I select my choices, I put a big effort into it to try get it right. What's happened is I've gone through and selected the ones that I thought sounded best. However, after I get to looking, most of my choices have been louder than the others. So by the time I get them all down to where I think they should be, my choices completely change.

One more thing I have to say that I wish I didn't. :eek: Shame on anybody that votes for themselves. :mad:

[REAmix]

Because "True Peak" or "Highest 'reconstructed' peak' is a calculation of intersample peaks, Reaper nor span, calculates those on the fly as far as I know.


Based on how sampling works we can show -0.2 in reaper but when the wave file is reconstructed back into audio we can end up with something higher like this when the samples are reconstructed back into actual audio...


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0321/7609/files/0dBFS4.png?896


So forgetting the numbers in that graph for a moment, the red samples are what reaper is showing, the blue is what orban is showing which is what the resulting audio actually becomes.

Interesting. I always though reaper accounted for that in its peak levels. I guess now I understand why people would say you should leave a little bit of headroom when you limit on your master, even if you won't be sending off to get mastered properly.

[REAmix]

Can someone help me out here please?
I'm having real trouble getting the levels right in this track. Because of all the spill in the tracks, I'm pushing a few of them (mainly sax and trombone tracks) quite hard to get a decent level against the other tracks. This does result in a few points in the song popping into the red, but I'm not getting any audible clipping.
I've got JS Event Horizon limiters on these tracks set to around -2.5, with another on the master track set to -0.2, but when I run the song through, my master track meters are peaking at +1.5.
Then when I run a render (flac, 44.1/24) and put it through Orban, I'm getting -18.2 LKFS and a peak of +0.2 dBFS.
I clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of limiters somehow - in my naivete I'd assumed that setting a limiter at -0.2 would prevent the song from overrunning that level. Wrong :confused:
Any suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong? This is driving me batty!

Usually a limiter should limit dead at -0.2, if the master fader is at unity, but it doesn't always work that way I've noticed with the JS limiter I've used. Maybe I used a bad one, or maybe I picked my favourite from a couple, not sure.

If you are going into the red there are a couple solutions you can try. One, is to bypass your master FX, highlight all your tracks and move the fader down a bit, until you get no red, and then apply your master effects chain after that. Or B, and my personal favourite for this, is just open up a pre-FX volume envelope, and drag it down until you get no clipping throughout your song.

Then you should be able to get your -0.2 -14 LUFS without too much trouble, just by adjusting your threshold.

[Tod]

Heh heh, I keep mentioning "JS Master Limiter", am I the only one that finds it very effective. :)

[ashcat_lt]

So forgetting the numbers in that graph for a moment, the red samples are what reaper is showing, the blue is what orban is showing which is what the resulting audio actually becomes.
I honestly don't think that is particularly accurate. That picture seems to imply that the DAC is "unclipping" the signal, which is quite definitely not how it works. Intersample peaks happen between samples. ;)

@REAmix, I tried to explain why limiters don't limit unless they also clip. TL;DR, or???

[REAmix]

I am not able to get my track at both -0.2 peak limit, and -14 LUFS. Everything was just mixed too loud already. I would either need to have to go in and re-mix some stuff for that I guess. But I don't think I will do that.

All the laws and rules about LUFS don't care where your peak limit is, as long as it is not too high. What would happen with really squashed masters as opposed to more dynamic ones, would be that they would all end up at -14 LUFS, but the more dynamic ones would hit a higher ceiling than the squashed ones, and the squashed ones would just be more of a band all at around -whatever LUFS is the standard. For YouTube, I guess -13, and for us -14.

So I think I'm going to leave mine mastered so that my LUFS are correct, but I will have a true peak of -1.4db So be it. My track will sound overall less loud, but more consistent as compare to others that met both criteria. So, it's still volume matched [Please don't change my track's volume again ;)] "



@REAmix, I tried to explain why limiters don't limit unless they also clip. TL;DR, or???

Not sure what you are referring to.

[ashcat_lt]

Not sure what you are referring to.
Reply #73 (http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php?p=1818326&postcount=73)

[karbomusic]

I honestly don't think that is particularly accurate. That picture seems to imply that the DAC is "unclipping" the signal, which is quite definitely not how it works. Intersample peaks happen between samples. ;)


It was the quickest pictorial view I could find that would give at least some idea of what ISPs are about. If you guys have a better one, feel free to post it as I'm really more interested in everyone understanding how the peaks can be more than what was expected when reconstructed.

[REAmix]

Heh heh, I keep mentioning "JS Master Limiter", am I the only one that finds it very effective. :)

That's the one I use. It's usually pretty good for me, but I think sometimes not as dependable as I would like.

That said, sometimes I'm also just an idiot, and mix up -0.2 with -2.0, also. So maybe it's more dependable than I think, and it's just me that's not dependable. Or maybe it needs a lookahead feature like ashcat was saying.

[karbomusic]

So I think I'm going to leave mine mastered so that my LUFS are correct, but I will have a true peak of -1.4db So be it. My track will sound overall less loud, but more consistent as compare to others that met both criteria. So, it's still volume matched [Please don't change my track's volume again ;)] "


Just do what you can and don't over stress about it.


I do want to add, there is something important going on here. For any who wish for this to be part of your future, whether that be as a musician recording and mastering their own stuff, or the hopes of one day being a mix engineer, own your on studio or just want to create a decently competitive mix.


What makes people good at this is more than just the fun stuff, tbh much of it is actually work like dealing with bleed, out of tune and out of time musicians and even wait for it..... Having to figure out how to hit a LUFS target within reason. :)


Not saying any of that is you, this is for everyone because one great thing about this contest and it's rules isn't about winners; it's about experience gained that you can use in the future, and most anything worthwhile that has future value, is likely going to hurt or frustrate a little bit. :)


Take care!

[REAmix]

It was the quickest pictorial view I could find that would give at least some idea of what ISPs are about. If you guys have a better one, feel free to post it as I'm really more interested in everyone understanding how the peaks can be more than what was expected when reconstructed.

I think that diagram might actually be fairly accurate.

All the audible sound waves, will have a period greater than 2 samples.

[Otto Tune]

It was the quickest pictorial view I could find that would give at least some idea of what ISPs are about. If you guys have a better one, feel free to post it as I'm really more interested in everyone understanding how the peaks can be more than what was expected when reconstructed.

One thing that strikes me about that particular image is that it seems to try to show what happens when you cut a number of samples in sequence. I'm no expert in these maths, but I can definitely notice the difference between slamming a limiter with a track with loads of low end, which is what I'm guessing this image is meant to capture, vs. limiting or clipping a very short stray peak here or there, from a loud transient for example. The first case, loads of low frequencies getting cut, gives much higher readings on inter-sample peak meters, while the second case, the stray short spike, doesn't so much. That's partially what I meant earlier about how getting the mix to work with the specs can be a fun challenge, because you actually do have to adjust your mix to get it to work, and in the first case, the mix tends to fall apart in various ways.

[karbomusic]

One thing that strikes me about that particular image is that it seems to try to show what happens when you cut a number of samples in sequence.

All it was supposed to show is that -0.1 (for example) in Reaper or Span, may very well get reconstructed into a result that is higher/clipping vs. something like Orban (or other tools) that attempt to calculate this ahead of time. That's all it was for and how it should be viewed, I wouldn't want to complicate it beyond that intention.

[Otto Tune]

Cool, and don't mean to over complicate. Just making a probably off topic observation that I've noticed mixing these context songs to the specs while watching the LUFS and ISP meters in real time :)

[karbomusic]

Cool, and don't mean to over complicate. Just making a probably off topic observation that I've noticed mixing these context songs to the specs while watching the LUFS and ISP meters in real time :)

I was at work and could have grabbed a better picture as well. :) I dig watching all you guys participating. I got hung up on another project and may not make this one but I'm rootin' for you guys!

[REAmix]

Just do what you can and don't over stress about it.


I do want to add, there is something important going on here. For any who wish for this to be part of your future, whether that be as a musician recording and mastering their own stuff, or the hopes of one day being a mix engineer, own your on studio or just want to create a decently competitive mix.


What makes people good at this is more than just the fun stuff, tbh much of it is actually work like dealing with bleed, out of tune and out of time musicians and even wait for it..... Having to figure out how to hit a LUFS target within reason. :)


Not saying any of that is you, this is for everyone because one great thing about this contest and it's rules isn't about winners; it's about experience gained that you can use in the future, and most anything worthwhile that has future value, is likely going to hurt or frustrate a little bit. :)


Take care!

For some stuff though, especially with just reaper plugs, I am not going to put time into doing something I know I can do, to marginally improve a track nobody will listen to, and that I'm not being paid for.

For the LUFS thing, it's a preference thing, and I'm not sure yet what to think. New productions will know the guidelines, but everything mastered before LUFS were a thing, will still all get switched to the right LUFS average.

So, I honestly don't know where I would like what I do to sit. I don't know exactly what dynamic range I would want. That's what it is. If you are limited to -0.2 and hitting that consistently, over the whole track, and your track averages at -14 LUFS, then you didn't really have any say on what sort of dynamic range you used. But I think that's still a choice you can make, and it will be different for different stuff. My track will peak out at 1-2 db less high than the other submissions, but, I should have a more consistent in your face level of the components of the mix, which is a different sort of preference or artistic choice.

It's not failing. I think it sounds good that way. I like it. On its own, without other tracks at -14 LUFS in my playlist. Will I like it matched up against other stuff at -14 LUFS? Idk, that's what I am hoping to learn.

Having every song the same average out over the course of the whole song is not something I am accustomed to, or familiar with, and I don't know how difference songs of different dynamic ranges will stack up in that environment.

I'd actually like to compare the same song, like an old Nirvana song, the old version, and a new really loudly mastered version, and then match them for LUFS, and see how they sound differently.

I think that the newer song would sound more consistent, but less loud. It would definitely peak out a lot lower. But I'm not sure how different the perceived volume and dynamics would be. It would be interesting to me to see that.

That's really where it matters. I mean, I can like whatever sort of dynamic range for whatever track, and whatever I like is fine. But where it is different, is in comparing it to other things. The fact an original beatles song is not mastered loud, and a modern pop radio song is, is only a problem when you hear them side by side and have to reach for your volume control. That's what this ought to change, but there will still be a stylistic difference between the two, and they will peak out at different levels.

I am not certain that it is better to have a song peak as high as possible while meeting the -14 LUFS. That's artistic judgement call for whoever's decision it is to make. In this case it is mine, because I need to learn the difference for myself, so that I can know what I think is best, so that people can then trust the expert ;).

[RDBOIS]

Can someone help me out here please?
I'm having real trouble getting the levels right in this track. Because of all the spill in the tracks, I'm pushing a few of them (mainly sax and trombone tracks) quite hard to get a decent level against the other tracks. This does result in a few points in the song popping into the red, but I'm not getting any audible clipping.

I've got JS Event Horizon limiters ..

Any suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong? This is driving me batty!

Well... I approached this in a very different way, not saying this is better, but I decided that not every instrument needed to be showcased all the time, just because they were being played and recorded.

I'm well aware that in a real world situation, where a client is paying me to mix their song, they would not appreciate and fire me on the spot.

BUT, I decided that I was going to wear the hat of a producer given a white card, I gave myself the permission to "mute" some instruments, change the tones, and experiment with some textures.

I also decided I wasn't going to mix a big band song, but create a modern arrangement that has big band qualities. In other words, it has become a vocal song supported by the bass and guitar/piano, with the drum keeping count and horns acting as "ear candy".

Probably not a good idea to win the contest, but a GREAT idea to increase my own personal "fun factor". :) And well, it got rid of the situation you're talking about: trouble getting the levels right, spill in the tracks, hard to get a decent level against the other tracks, etc.).

[karbomusic]

That's what it is. If you are limited to -0.2 and hitting that consistently, over the whole track, and your track averages at -14 LUFS, then you didn't really have any say on what sort of dynamic range you used. But I think that's still a choice you can make, and it will be different for different stuff.

Correct, my only point was that when you are producing material for others, you are often held to their specs regardless. Being able to meet them is a good skill to have whether you follow it in other circles or not (the proverbial you that is). For the contest, the bigger picture is that we are trying to meet a common spec in order to make the voting easier due to all of the entries being of equal perceived loudness.


Secondly, how do you think it got to -14? Because I think I was maybe the first (or second) person to say -12 is just too damn squashed regardless of the industry is currently doing. Of the submissions I have mixed, they were not exact but close like 13.9 LUFS with a -0.19 peak or something. -14 LUFS is about as squashed as I can go before it becomes too annoying.

[DaveKeehl]

This contest is becoming a nerdy mastering club :D jeeeez I just didn't want to have volume jumps xD

Feel free to experiment, but I really don't care too much. I just want to avoid volume jumps throughout the listening.

[ashcat_lt]

I think that diagram might actually be fairly accurate.

All the audible sound waves, will have a period greater than 2 samples.
I disagree, but I don't really want to go any further arguing it here. You could do some quick research and I think you'll quickly see what I'm saying, but it ultimately doesn't matter as long as we understand that there can be a difference between peak sampled level and the actual intersample swings of the converter.

Anyway, I think the point is to have the overall, average loudness of all submissions the same so that they can be compared fairly without voters having to do the level matching themselves. So basically the LUFS reading is far more important than the peak. We'd also like to avoid clipping on playback, so we set a limit somewhere short of 0dbfs. Honestly, I think if you made the max peaks in Reaper (actual max sample value) a bit lower than -0.2, it would leave more room for intersample overs and then we wouldn't even care about true peak estimates.

So basically, I think, shoot for -14 LUFS as a priority and then make sure it doesn't peak higher than the -0.2 limit. If you've got lower crest factor, so your peaks hit way lower, fine if that's what sounds right to you. OTOH, if your mix is more dynamic - the crest factor is greater than 13.8db - you'll have to limit or remix or whatever so those peaks don't go over. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

[Tod]

I disagree, but I don't really want to go any further arguing it here. You could do some quick research and I think you'll quickly see what I'm saying, but it ultimately doesn't matter as long as we understand that there can be a difference between peak sampled level and the actual intersample swings of the converter.

Yes, that's how I understand it to, it's the over swings between samples. I think that's also what Karbo meant. :)

[Tod]

For those of you that aren't sure about how to use a limiter or can't get it to work, try using a SubMaster along with a Sub-SubMaster1 and Sub-SubMaster2.

Put your mastering plugins on the Sub-SubMaster1, that would include the limiter, which should be at the end of the chain. Then route the Sub-SubMaster1 to the SubMaster, and Sub-SubMaster2 to Sub-SubMaster1.

Then Route all the other tracks so that they end up routed to Sub-SubMaster2.

What you end up with is an ability to feed the input of the limiter on Sub-SubMaster1 with any level you wish to try.

With this setup you can basically get any dynamics or loudness you want, and have what ever output peaks you want.

Realistically you don't need Sub-SubMaster2, but I like to use reference tracks, so then it becomes necessary.

Regarding the LUFS thingy, I didn't really understand it until I started participating in these contests. That's when I started to understand, and thanks to Karbo I got the Orban meter, and also thanks to his explanations I got to understand it. Thankyou Karbo. :)

PS: The JS Master Limiter works well for me, and the only settings I really change from the default is the "Threshold" and the "Limit".

[REAmix]

I disagree, but I don't really want to go any further arguing it here. You could do some quick research and I think you'll quickly see what I'm saying, but it ultimately doesn't matter as long as we understand that there can be a difference between peak sampled level and the actual intersample swings of the converter.

Anyway, I think the point is to have the overall, average loudness of all submissions the same so that they can be compared fairly without voters having to do the level matching themselves. So basically the LUFS reading is far more important than the peak. We'd also like to avoid clipping on playback, so we set a limit somewhere short of 0dbfs. Honestly, I think if you made the max peaks in Reaper (actual max sample value) a bit lower than -0.2, it would leave more room for intersample overs and then we wouldn't even care about true peak estimates.

So basically, I think, shoot for -14 LUFS as a priority and then make sure it doesn't peak higher than the -0.2 limit. If you've got lower crest factor, so your peaks hit way lower, fine if that's what sounds right to you. OTOH, if your mix is more dynamic - the crest factor is greater than 13.8db - you'll have to limit or remix or whatever so those peaks don't go over. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

I think I know what you mean. Just the very tip of a wave peaks in between two samples. But why can that not happen for a peak that spans a few samples?

[ashcat_lt]

But why can that not happen for a peak that spans a few samples?
I'm not completely sure that it absolutely can't, but that picture looks like a 2.6K sine wave (assuming 44.1K sample rate) is clipped at 2/3 its true peak value, and then the DAC turns it back into a nice smooth sine wave. I think we all know that ain't what happens, but if you want to prove it...

Insert JS Tone Generator. Leave everything default but change frequency to 2600. Insert JS Volume Adjustment. Change it's Adjustment to 0db, and Max Volume to -15.5. You hear the distortion immediately, and we know that we're nowhere near the voltage limits of the DAC. Theoretically, if you increase the frequency high enough you will first stop being able to actually hear the harmonics so it might sound like it's cleaning up and eventually get to Nyquist where the reconstruction filter really does just turn it back into a pure sine wave, but at that point all the "intersample overs" pretty much have to be actually between two samples.

FWIW, I think the actual output from a wave clipped the way that pic shows would look more like this:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/OpenREPThreadGibbs.jpg

Edit to add -
This True Peak discussion really is very much the same issue that I was talking about with how and why limiters don't actually limit. The difference being that a limiter with an RMS window and/or attack/release filters is working on a slower time scale from the DAC itself. The limiter basically works on a slower sample rate but does the same thing so that some of those "intersample peaks" can affect actual sample values.

The very best limiters are going to estimate the True Peak value and then manipulate the actual samples so that the reconstruction can't pass the limit. But those are always estimates and best guesses and while some can get really close, none can make any 100% promises. I don't think any of the JS limiters do any of that. And it's generally not necessary if you keep the actual sample values below -0.6. ;) (Unless you're a real prick like me and ram a signal that wants to go to +150dbfs through... B) )

Edit again -
In order to get as far from the original topic as possible, I'll mention that some limiters actually have a maximum amount of available gain reduction. I made Justin fix ReaComp, but up until a few months ago, an infinite ratio (with time constants at 0) would faithfully hold the signal at the threshold until you got to about 150db over. Then it would "open up" and rise linearly from there so that 153db above the threshold would overshoot by 3db, and 300db above threshold would overshoot by 150db. Who would ever do that? umm...

This is, in fact, a "feature" of certain vintage-style comps and limiters.

[REAmix]

I'm not completely sure that it absolutely can't, but that picture looks like a 2.6K sine wave (assuming 44.1K sample rate) is clipped at 2/3 its true peak value, and then the DAC turns it back into a nice smooth sine wave. I think we all know that ain't what happens, but if you want to prove it...

Insert JS Tone Generator. Leave everything default but change frequency to 2600. Insert JS Volume Adjustment. Change it's Adjustment to 0db, and Max Volume to -15.5. You hear the distortion immediately, and we know that we're nowhere near the voltage limits of the DAC. Theoretically, if you increase the frequency high enough you will first stop being able to actually hear the harmonics so it might sound like it's cleaning up and eventually get to Nyquist where the reconstruction filter really does just turn it back into a pure sine wave, but at that point all the "intersample overs" pretty much have to be actually between two samples.

FWIW, I think the actual output from a wave clipped the way that pic shows would look more like this:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/OpenREPThreadGibbs.jpg

I see. Ya, I don't think it was meant to be a perfectly accurate representation of the phenomenon in practice, but just a general diagram to easily visually communicate the concept. Which is normal for lesson material.

[ashcat_lt]

I see. Ya, I don't think it was meant to be a perfectly accurate representation of the phenomenon in practice, but just a general diagram to easily visually communicate the concept. Which is normal for lesson material.
Is kinda why I wanted to leave the further discussion out of this thread. ;) (Hopefully somebody has or will learn something useful, though. There were a number of questions on related topics)

I'm not gonna mix this one. Just won't be able to make it happen. I am looking forward to seeing what y'all do with it though.

I do have to say that I think if it's supposed to be anonymous voting, we should probably hold most discussion about what we're actually doing in our own mixes til after the votes are cast.

[RDBOIS]

...Hopefully somebody has or will learn something useful, though. There were a number of questions on related topics...


I'm learning a great deal. Thus far I'd been putting off educating myself on the topic of measuring loudness, perceived loudness, etc., but this contest has forced me into it, via the LUFS requirement.

I joined this contest to learn about mixing. Wasn't expecting this level of technical stuff, but I like knowing some details.

While searching for info about "perceived loundess" (figuring I need to know about this stuff to better mix and master my songs), software, plugins, etc., I stumbled across the work of the The European Broadcasting Union (EBU). These guys have lots of publications to educate their members about new proposed media/industry standards.

I cool paper I just read was called: On the way to Loudness Nirvana - with EBU R 128

https://tech.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/tech/files/shared/techreview/trev_2010-Q3_loudness_Camerer.pdf

"This article describes one of the most fundamental changes in the history of audio in broadcasting: the change of the levelling paradigm from peak normalisation to loudness normalisation"

The author claims:

"The True Peak Level of an audio signal indicates the maximum (positive or negative) value of the signal waveform in the continuous time domain; this value is, in most cases, higher than that shown by a quasi-peak meter or even a sample-peak meter, both of which would miss the true peaks which potentially lie between samples. The use of an oversampling meter, which is compliant to BS.1770, allows those peaks to be detected.

An oversampling meter may still slightly under-read the actual peak value (depending on the oversampling frequency) and so the Maximum Permitted

True Peak Level for Production is: –1 dBTP"

It is claimed that:

"Because the loudness-levelling paradigm affects all stages of an audio broadcast signal, from acquisition to distribution and transmission and, because the ultimate goal is to harmonise audio loudness levels within broadcast channels as well as between channels to achieve an equal universal loudness level for the benefit of the listeners, all audio professionals and audio-metering equipment in all parts of the chain will be affected by this change.

... EBU R 128 and the four supporting documents provide a means to end the “Loudness War” – at last! "

[DaveKeehl]

Shouldn't you maybe discuss all this super duper technical stuff in another thread? xD if a new user comes here just for curiosity, he/she's not going to understand anything! xD

[Bass6]

Shouldn't you maybe discuss all this super duper technical stuff in another thread? xD if a new user comes here just for curiosity, he/she's not going to understand anything! xD

I do sort of agree Dave - as a bass player who can't find his arse with both hands in the dark, a lot of this is way over my head.
However, the responses to my original plea for help, and the subsequent discussions, have served to open my eyes to the complexity and level of detail required to really get a handle on what's going on in the bowels of Reaper (or any other DAW for that matter). So, a big thank you to all the experts who have contributed - having a group of professionals willing to give so generously of their time and knowledge makes this forum invaluable to a rookie like me. I still find a lot of it hard to grasp, but I know a hell of a lot more than I did a month ago!
Now...where did I put my aspirin......:)

[Indiscipline]

I am not able to get my track at both -0.2 peak limit, and -14 LUFS. Everything was just mixed too loud already. I would either need to have to go in and re-mix some stuff for that I guess. But I don't think I will do that.
If your track is -14 LUFS and you have peaks well below zero, it means something smashes your transients, which is not very good (arguably).
So I think I'm going to leave mine mastered so that my LUFS are correct, but I will have a true peak of -1.4db So be it. My track will sound overall less loud, but more consistent as compare to others that met both criteria. So, it's still volume matched
It will not sound less loud, compared to other tracks with the same LUFS, by definition. It won't sound more consistent, just more compressed.

[REAmix]

If your track is -14 LUFS and you have peaks well below zero, it means something smashes your transients, which is not very good (arguably).

It will not sound less loud, compared to other tracks with the same LUFS, by definition. It won't sound more consistent, just more compressed.

That's what's cool though, the LUFS now makes how compressed you want it, an aesthetic choice, which is not affected by loudness. This is what I'd really like to learn from experience in comparing different songs mastered differently, but set to the same LUFS average.

I kind of like the compressed sound, to a point, and it depends on the genre.

My track true peaked at around -1.4db, but this is only in some specific circumstances.


I just did a test with this track. One version mastered to the guidelines exactly, and the other still at -14 LUFS but with more compression, and that peaked at -1.3db.

I put them both in reaper, and exclusive soloed back and forth between the two, and the sound difference was very much as I expected.

Maybe I am not using the right word, or maybe your experience would differ from mine, but to my ears, the more compressed version does sound more consistent, and there is not a noticeable difference in loudness to my ears either. The waveforms also look the same side by side in reaper. But the difference is noticeable, and in a few different ways.

I preferred my more compressed version, personally.

I think there is a sweet spot that I like, which may different from one genre to another, but is not necessarily with transients that peak up near 0. If you don't peak up near 0, that definitely means your track is more compressed and more consistent in volume throughout the song, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

That's what's great about LUFS though like I said, because it means you can make those sorts of choices, but if you just go and compress so heavy that your waveform looks just like one long rectangle, then at regulated LUFS, it won't likely sound as good to you as if you backed off from that, because the aspect of the illusion of loudness is removed, but the other aspects of leveling I think are still present. So, you can choose to get some benefits from limiting and compression, but it won't be to the point that it justifies making a track sound a lot worse, if it was volume matched, but it appears better because it is louder. Everything is volume matched now, so limiting and compressing is what it is for what it is.

You lose dynamics when you have more compression, but that's not necessarily bad, just like putting a compressor on a vocal loses dynamics, and makes it appear louder, but that's not making the vocals worse.

Although you will get some changes on your master that you might not like as much, like less snap on your percussions and things like that. But that's what's cool I think, now the engineer can make the choice. Whatever choice they make though, the playback will always be at -14 LUFS, so that puts some artistic responsibility on the engineer. If you just always master at the same peak value and the same LUFS, then you didn't really make any choices in so far as loudness and compression was concerned in the mastering process. I think there is some room there for preference though. And that might be different person to person, or genre to genre. Maybe I like the compressed sound too much, idk. But I don't think not peaking at -0.2 is necessarily bad. Peaking below -4db though or something, probably isn't something you'd want. There are a lot of factors that go into it though also, from the mixing phase, and the dynamics of the instruments, and the dynamics of the arrangement, and the song.

[ashcat_lt]

See now that opens up a slightly different topic. I'm cool with loudness matching in a context like this where it really is about trying to level the playing field and keep everything in the same ballpark loudness wise so that we can compare the mixes on their own merits.

Even in a shuffle or radio type (iTunes or whatever) playback it kind of makes sense.

Where I start to have a problem is when an algorithm undoes the track-to-track volume differences on something like an album. When I master a group of pieces for presentation as a whole, I quite deliberately manipulate the loudness of the pieces to flow and work together when they're listened to consecutively. One song really might just want to be overall louder than another. That's a decision I've made, and anything that tries to "fix" that is really just screwing up whatever vision I thought I had.

[cnyk]

I was furious to learn why my rendered mixes were suddenly sounding flabby and muddy and NOT like they did in reaper.. And it turns out my laptop had some "DTS" sound processing on. Very frustrating. I've already submitted a mix, can I send another with the proper low end, which was lessened to compensate in the last mix.. I hope it's not an inconvenience... downloading a another mix from the new guy! :(

[REAmix]

See now that opens up a slightly different topic. I'm cool with loudness matching in a context like this where it really is about trying to level the playing field and keep everything in the same ballpark loudness wise so that we can compare the mixes on their own merits.

Even in a shuffle or radio type (iTunes or whatever) playback it kind of makes sense.

Where I start to have a problem is when an algorithm undoes the track-to-track volume differences on something like an album. When I master a group of pieces for presentation as a whole, I quite deliberately manipulate the loudness of the pieces to flow and work together when they're listened to consecutively. One song really might just want to be overall louder than another. That's a decision I've made, and anything that tries to "fix" that is really just screwing up whatever vision I thought I had.

You definitely make a good point there. I guess the industry is just really moving away from the album format and more towards singles.

There is still some wiggle room there though to alter the "loudness" experience, and by that I mean basically the amount of compression/limiting, which is part of what you're saying, it's just that each song will have the same average actual perceived loudness.

But, it would be cool as well if you could somehow implement some sort of "album mode" where the album is set to -14 LUFS in its entirety.

That way, if you listen through an album, all of the relative loudness of each song will be the way the engineer intended, and if you listen to one album after the other, they will both be matched as well, as a whole, but keep the relative differences between songs , that the engineer decided on, and if you listen to any given song in a singles playlist, that will be matched to other songs as well.

That way, every song always has the "right" loudness, so you never need to go for your volume control, and all the decisions the engineers made will all be intact, and it will all have been real decisions for their own merit, rather than "louder is better" arms race.

[DaveKeehl]

I was furious to learn why my rendered mixes were suddenly sounding flabby and muddy and NOT like they did in reaper.. And it turns out my laptop had some "DTS" sound processing on. Very frustrating. I've already submitted a mix, can I send another with the proper low end, which was lessened to compensate in the last mix.. I hope it's not an inconvenience... downloading a another mix from the new guy! :(

no worries mate

[DaveKeehl]

The mixing phase ends this Sunday, so please start sending me your sessions and stuff :)


Until now 6 submissions! Can we get to 12? :D

[DaveKeehl]

Guys, feel free to send me your submissions until Monday/Tuesday because tomorrow a have the exam for the English certificate and internet at home is so bad that I have problems to download a 50 mb zip file. Sorry :(

[RDBOIS]

When I master a group of pieces for presentation as a whole, I quite deliberately manipulate the loudness of the pieces to flow and work together when they're listened to consecutively. One song really might just want to be overall louder than another. That's a decision I've made, and anything that tries to "fix" that is really just screwing up whatever vision I thought I had.


Nice.

I don't remember where and when, but I do remember a sound engineer, or was it a producer?, working on a Led Zeppelin album mentioning that they purposefully put Stairway to Heaven as the last song on Side 1, just because they were forcing a long moment of silence (i.e. the time it took to physically turn the album and set the needle to listen to Side 2).

He also mention that it ticks him off when he hears "Misty Mountain Hop" come in a just a few seconds after Stairway is over, when listening to a CD album version.

If you remember listening to Stairway to Heaven you might remember it has a serious crescendo and tempo change; going from approx 73 bpm to approx 105 bpm, and the volume increasing on you (minus the last few seconds) picking you up from a sweet classic-medival-like slow dance ballad to a full on rock anthem that has got you playing air guitar to Page's solo and wailing with Plant's screaming vocals.

Once that song is over, you really need a breather to collect your spirit from the astral planes and land back on planet earth.

Glad to know that some producers/mastering engineers are still thinking in terms of overall dynamics and listening experience.:)

[germano]

https://i1.wp.com/germanomartins.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/loundness_v3.png?ssl=1

https://i1.wp.com/germanomartins.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/limiter_v2.png?ssl=1

I send my submission.
The Loundness follow the -14LUFS and -0.2dB Celing (the celing of the limiter in my case must by set at -0.8).

[DaveKeehl]

9 people in total until now! Come on guys! :)

[thunderbroom]

9 people in total until now! Come on guys! :)

I submitted about an hour ago.

:)

[Tod]

Yeah, mines in too. :)

[EpicSounds]

sent mine in so long ago I probably wouldn't recognize it.

[DaveKeehl]

But Tod you only sent me the flac file :confused:

[DaveKeehl]

Ok we're now 12 people ;) I wonder if we'll ever get to 20 someday :O

[Tod]

But Tod you only sent me the flac file :confused:

Oops, sorry, I thought that's all you needed at this point, but okay, try get that off to you soon. :)

[DaveKeehl]

Oops, sorry, I thought that's all you needed at this point, but okay, try get that off to you soon. :)

well yeah, but it's been 6 months and you've always done it correctly :D

[trevlyns]

Sent mine (I think???) Can you check please Dave. Not too computer savvy - compressed it in 7zip but it was sent to Google Drive.

Ah, one of these days I'll understand this new technology...:D

[DaveKeehl]

Sent mine (I think???) Can you check please Dave. Not too computer savvy - compressed it in 7zip but it was sent to Google Drive.

Ah, one of these days I'll understand this new technology...:D

got it now

[trevlyns]

got it now

Cheers buddy!

[DaveKeehl]

Cheers buddy!

wait but... if I open your sessions there's nothing in there :confused:

[cnyk]

Hopefully mine came through ok. :)

[DaveKeehl]

Hopefully mine came through ok. :)

yep, I just had to use a limiter because your mix was peaking at 0 dB

[cnyk]

Really? ouch. Sorry. It's a learning process. I did apply a limiter as suggested I thought, and then used the loudness extension to adjust per instructions. But I don't doubt I made a mistake somewhere along the way.

Which brings me to a good newby question: After the contest, is there any open discussion with the winner and how they got the results they achieved? Mixing before the contest was fun, but truth be told I look forward to picking the winners brain and revisiting the tracks and mixing again.

[trevlyns]

wait but... if I open your sessions there's nothing in there :confused:

Sent it again - sorry, dunno what's happening. If I go to sent mail, it's there and the zip file with my Reaper project, the FLAC and my user notes are there

[trevlyns]

Frustrating to say the least! I've no idea what's going on - can somebody tell me how to zip and send the files - I have 7 zip.

'Else, I'll just have to withdraw from the contest- my entry is on soundcloud - see my signature

[ashcat_lt]

Really? ouch. Sorry. It's a learning process. I did apply a limiter as suggested I thought, and then used the loudness extension to adjust per instructions. But I don't doubt I made a mistake somewhere along the way.
The instructions in the OP are exactly backwards. I mentioned it waaay back toward the beginning of the thread. If your crest factor is greater than 13.8db, and you limit to -0.2 and then normalize to -14 LUFS, you push your peaks over. It can, will, and must happen.

[DaveKeehl]

Frustrating to say the least! I've no idea what's going on - can somebody tell me how to zip and send the files - I have 7 zip.

'Else, I'll just have to withdraw from the contest- my entry is on soundcloud - see my signature

don't worry man.

Create a new folder and put inside your mix, your reaper project and any reverb impulses (if any).

Open 7-zip, look for that folder, select it and press "add" in the top menu. Choose the compression type (zip or 7-zip) and where you want to save it.

There's no need to withdraw ;)

[DaveKeehl]

I'm uploading the submissions AND I haven't touched ANYTHING this time. So, don't you dare guys to tell I messed up everything :D

[thunderbroom]

I'm uploading the submissions AND I haven't touched ANYTHING this time. So, don't you dare guys to tell I messed up everything :D

OK. Easy now. Deep breath. Ahhhhh...there you go. By the way, you totally messed everything up.



kidding!

Have a great day! :P

[DaveKeehl]

oops my English is sooo poor sometimes when I'm tired.

More have a good night than have a good day :p

[trevlyns]

Thanks Dave - hope I got it right this time...

[DaveKeehl]

@trevlyns downloading right now :)

We're now 14 people! Both the submissions and the survey are now up and running.

The voting stage starts... NOW! :D

[DaveKeehl]

Trevlyns, there is an error in your zip folder. Just simply send me your reaper project via email (reaper.contest@gmail.com)

[trevlyns]

Done!

[Pet]

Dave, the link to the submissions opens google drive telling it's the February submissions.

No big thing, just wanted to tell, the files are the actual ones.

[DaveKeehl]

Dave, the link to the submissions opens google drive telling it's the February submissions.

No big thing, just wanted to tell, the files are the actual ones.

shit xD no the files are not the actual ones

[DaveKeehl]

ok fixed

[Tod]

Dave, you've got my mix right?

So all I have to send you is my project file right? That's small enough to just attach to the email, will that be okay.

[DaveKeehl]

Dave, you've got my mix right?

So all I have to send you is my project file right? That's small enough to just attach to the email, will that be okay.

exactly, you just need to send me your project :)

[Tod]

exactly, you just need to send me your project :)

Okay you should be getting.

[DaveKeehl]

yep, thank you.

We're now 16 people!

[thunderbroom]

Thanks again for your hard work Dave! Listened to the mixes and cast my vote. First time in a while I could not pick my mix out from the submissions as there were one or two others that were awfully close to mine. Guess we'll see. Good luck all!

[Indiscipline]

I think there is a sweet spot that I like, which may different from one genre to another, but is not necessarily with transients that peak up near 0. If you don't peak up near 0, that definitely means your track is more compressed and more consistent in volume throughout the song, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

...

You lose dynamics when you have more compression, but that's not necessarily bad, just like putting a compressor on a vocal loses dynamics, and makes it appear louder, but that's not making the vocals worse.

Thank you for long and detailed answer, REAmix. I think I understand you better now. I'm pretty much agree with you, since really, the level of overall compression, macro- and microdynamics should be solely an artistic choice and all these things are very subjective and depend on the style of the music a lot.

What I noticed, is that some people tend to trust the measurements too much and act blindly upon a limited set of values which are sometimes too broad to address all the details of the mix. I mean, it's possible to look at the integral loudness meter and just slap a compressor at master to achieve the aim LUFS level, whatever it is. But there's so many factors at work here: the difference in volume/compression between parts of the song, attack/release curves of multiple dynamics processors at different stages of the mix, the resulting amount of transients passed and their character (sharpness and punch), etc.

Even though I may hold a different opinion on what sounds good to me, It pleases me to know when a person makes his decisions knowingly and controls all aforementioned parameters to achieve their idea of the best sound.

----

Unfortunately, I had no time to participate this month, even though I liked the song a lot. I'll try to listen to all the submission and vote! Good luck everyone! ;)

[Fergler]

Lol. I tried to email a while back but it would seem it never sent.

That's fine. There's 16 entries and lots to look through! I'll post my mix for shits when the contest is over along with my notes on the mixes, which I just finished writing.

[RDBOIS]

Lol. I tried to email a while back but it would seem it never sent.

That's fine. There's 16 entries and lots to look through! I'll post my mix for shits when the contest is over along with my notes on the mixes, which I just finished writing.

Ohhh that's a shame, but plz do let us in your project flow and mix .

I did check out Theatre Crisp for the first time, just now, and I really like it! Kind of reminds me of 311; at least from what I remember in the late 90's.

I really enjoyed the video for Get It (LIVE OFF THE FLOOR). Did I see the Reaper DAW on the big screen? lol

You guys in Ontario? I'm from Montreal, Quebec (un francophone de souche).

Keep up the good music. You got a new fan. :)

[DaveKeehl]

Lol. I tried to email a while back but it would seem it never sent.

That's fine. There's 16 entries and lots to look through! I'll post my mix for shits when the contest is over along with my notes on the mixes, which I just finished writing.

did you send me your mix??? oh shit :( :(

[Fergler]

did you send me your mix??? oh shit :( :(

No I started the email, uploaded a .zip, then thought to change something, did so, I think I got to uploading it again, got distracted, I dunno something happened. It's not in my sent or draft folders. :P

Whatever, I learned from the mix and will learn from the other submissions, that's all that matters.

[DaveKeehl]

You could have continued your dictatorship :D

[DaveKeehl]

Any ideas about who might be winning at the moment? :D keep voting!

http://stash.reaper.fm/30254/Untitled-1.png

[REAmix]

Just a kind of small thing, but would it be possible next time to just zip the Submissions.rpp, and the "Source" folder with the submissions in it, directly to a zip file, rather than within a "submissions" folder inside the zip file?

That way I can unzip straight into my project directory and it will work right away.

Or, if anybody knows a way to only unzip some specific files within folders in a zip, directly to a specific directory, without the entire hierarchy being written there, that would be really useful for other times as well, but to my knowledge that's unfortunately not possible.

[msundh]

drag and drop

[REAmix]

drag and drop

Fucking nice! Man, that's going to be useful. Thank you, and nevermind for my last comment.

[ashcat_lt]

Man, that was kind of tough! And not just because I had to listen to that chick sing that song 16 times. ;)

I really tried to put aside any ideas of "that's not how I would have done it" and just listen to the pieces as presented. There were several that were really close, and almost just splitting hairs to pick between them. There were several that were really bad. I really don't want to be mean. I know we're all at different stages and it's at least as much about learning and just having fun than anything else, but there were a number of them that I didn't bother listening through because they were obviously way out whack to begin with. I think even the best of them could have been better at what they are and none of them really went the direction I thought would work best. Easy to say when I didn't submit anything, I know. Overall, it really was interesting to kind of see different people's interpretations of this thing, the subtle and not-so-subtle differences.

[Fergler]

http://stash.reaper.fm/30254/Untitled-1.png

Yes I think I know which one is orange based on my votes. xD

[Tod]

I think even the best of them could have been better at what they are and none of them really went the direction I thought would work best. Easy to say when I didn't submit anything, I know.

Yeah, heh heh, I don't think anybody knows how they would do it until they've done it, especially having not heard any of the other submissions yet. After I've heard all the submissions, there's always something I wish I'd done a little differently. :)

[msundh]

For me there were three that distinguished from the others.
Two that was better than the rest and mine that was worse than the rest :)

[RDBOIS]

Man, that was kind of tough! And not just because I had to listen to that chick sing that song 16 times. ;)



Imagine the number of times if you'd mixed the song? lol




...almost just splitting hairs to pick between them.



Agreed.



... not-so-subtle differences.


That would be me. Sorry about inflicting that on the group. Was kind of the only way I could enjoy mixing this song :s

[cnyk]

Yeah, heh heh, I don't think anybody knows how they would do it until they've done it, especially having not heard any of the other submissions yet. After I've heard all the submissions, there's always something I wish I'd done a little differently. :)

Aint that the truth! I wish I'd spent more time trying to bring the drums out... Admittedly, I "went with" the assumption that if they were more important to the vision of the song, they'd have been miked better... But now that I hear a few of your mixes, I realize I maybe should have given them more attention.

It's interesting to see the pie chart. Wow, whoever is in first, it clearly isn't very close!

[DaveKeehl]

Interesting... ;)

http://stash.reaper.fm/30268/results_today.png

[REAmix]

Interesting... ;)

http://stash.reaper.fm/30268/results_today.png

I guess we don't all have the same taste lol. It's pretty close for first it looks like. I think just one point difference.

What's interesting about the results, is that it doesn't look like there are 4 or 5 top choices which take turns in their top 3 depending on preference, there are 9 of them, and 11 votes.

Normally, you'd expect the usual suspects in the top 3, but it isn't really that way.

[karbomusic]

I guess we don't all have the same taste lol. It's pretty close for first it looks like. I think just one point difference.

What's interesting about the results, is that it doesn't look like there are 4 or 5 top choices which take turns in their top 3 depending on preference, there are 9 of them, and 11 votes.

Normally, you'd expect the usual suspects in the top 3, but it isn't really that way.

I think the fact that mostly only contestants are voting runs the risk of widely varying results. Not because they aren't honestly trying to vote accurately but because they/we are already so close to the tracks/mix/song.

Since I didn't mix or even hear these tracks, I'll try to vote before the voting ends.

[Tod]

I think the fact that mostly only contestants are voting runs the risk of widely varying results. Not because they aren't honestly trying to vote accurately but because they/we are already so close to the tracks/mix/song.

Also there is a huge disparity between listening environments. I think the only way to make it work right is to have everybody listen in the same good room, using the same monitors. :)

[thunderbroom]

Also there is a huge disparity between listening environments. I think the only way to make it work right is to have everybody listen in the same good room, using the same monitors. :)

And that's practical (*snicker*). Seriously, though, I don't think we should be losing sleep over this. A good mix should, in theory, sound good almost anywhere. That said, "good" is relative. Based on the differences in even just these mixes, everyone submitting has their own perception of good, as I'm sure the artists did when they had their track originally mixed.

I'm more looking forward to the after-contest feedback, as I find that the most useful and helpful overall. Good luck all!

[karbomusic]

Also there is a huge disparity between listening environments. I think the only way to make it work right is to have everybody listen in the same good room, using the same monitors. :)

I think it would even out more if there were enough people voting (and more who aren't familiar with the mix) because a better mix should sound better in general.

I see where you are going (such as two mixes that are very close) but I think our being too close to the mixes is a bigger hindrance than say 50 end-users listening to pick what they like better. Could be wrong but still think more voters might give a smoother curve for lack of a better term.

[REAmix]

I think it would even out more if there were enough people voting (and more who aren't familiar with the mix) because a better mix should sound better in general.

I see where you are going (such as two mixes that are very close) but I think our being too close to the mixes is a bigger hindrance than say 50 end-users listening to pick what they like better. Could be wrong but still think more voters might give a smoother curve for lack of a better term.

I think you might be right here. I mean, we can take reverb as an example. Say we all had the same mix, and all we did was control the volume of one reverb buss. We would each set it where we think is right. Then when we go to vote, we would think that everything more wet than we set is bad, and anything less is bad, and the closest to us, is good.

I think our personal setups do also make a difference though, because although a good mix should sound good everywhere, we are often mixing with a bias to our system, and what we think sounds good on our system, and that might not translate well.

But, to your point, if we had a huge number of voters, then it would average out to what people think sound good on their systems, which should find the best overall mixes on an average setup.

So, I think it's a bit of both.

[karbomusic]

We would each set it where we think is right. Then when we go to vote, we would think that everything more wet than we set is bad, and anything less is bad, and the closest to us, is good.

That's an excellent way of putting it, I wish I had worded it that way. :) That's why I wish lots of users who come here (by default being a little more pro than random people) might help too because they would be far enough away to not be biased but experienced enough to notice poor decisions that might get past that random non-engineer. Or it could all be a wash, just thinking out loud here.

[DaveKeehl]

Hehehe we should meet and discuss audio in front of a nice beer :D

[karbomusic]

Hehehe we should meet and discuss audio in front of a nice beer :D

Best advice ever. :D

[Tod]

Best advice ever. :D

Heh heh, how about mooses saloon. :)

http://stash.reaper.fm/30270/Mooses%20Salon%20Smile%20%28Fully%20Edited%29%201. jpg

[karbomusic]

Heh heh, how about mooses saloon. :)

http://stash.reaper.fm/30270/Mooses%20Salon%20Smile%20%28Fully%20Edited%29%201. jpg

Man that is so 70s ish.

[Tod]

Man that is so 70s ish.

Yah, and wow, you got it, it was one of my best bands back in the 70s. :)

EDIT: I should say it was a great band and by far the most successful.

[karbomusic]

Yah, and wow, you got it, it was one of my best bands back in the 70s. :)

EDIT: I should say it was a great band and by far the most successful.

So that's you on the left? I'm guessing it is. I'm 53 and wasn't even playing yet by then but I was already long-hooked on music hence my 70s influences etc.

[Tod]

So that's you on the left? I'm guessing it is. I'm 53 and wasn't even playing yet by then but I was already long-hooked on music hence my 70s influences etc.

Yeah, it is. I played music most of my life starting in the early 60s. I think of those days as the good old days, but I guess that just shows my age. :)

Mooses Saloon is a great old place, actually pretty well known in the western part of the US. It's got sawdust and peanuts on the floor, and only serves beer and pizza.

We recorded a song for it back in the early 70s and I think it's still on the jute box. Hence the drawing. :)

Heh heh, just think if we could all meet at Mooses Saloon in Cowsbell, Montana. Be sure and wear your cowboy boots. :D

[karbomusic]

Yeah, it is. I played music most of my life starting in the early 60s. I think of those days as the good old days, but I guess that just shows my age. :)


Hehe, same here just add 20 years to the decades. :) I grew up on late 60s and all of the 70's music though. The acoustic duo I played in up until two years ago played mostly 70's tunes. On a side note I'm also a big fan of most of the midwestern bands that were really hitting it in the mid-70s.

[DaveKeehl]

Still 4-5 days to vote :)

[DaveKeehl]

2 days people

[DaveKeehl]

Tomorrow is the last day, so vote now or never again :D

[DaveKeehl]

Results are coming out tomorrow. We have 2 winners for this month! :D

[DaveKeehl]

There you go folks. REAmix and CNYK are the winners!

Both of you have the right to choose a song from here (http://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm).

http://stash.reaper.fm/30400/REAPER%20Contest%20-%20risultati%20marzo.png

[Fergler]

Congratz! Whats next... maybe bluegrass? :P

[karbomusic]

Nice job guys, congrats ReaMix and CNYK! Also, another set of kudos to Dave for doing such a great job managing the contests. Also shouts to martin and uncleswede. :)

[cnyk]

Woah! Thanks! So many great mixes I'm kind of surprised!
So what next, I pick any song from that site? If so, I pick The Black Crown -- 'Flames'. :)

[REAmix]

Victory is mine! lol. Congrats CNYK, and uncleswede and martinmadero for 2nd and 3rd.

Not only did we tie for first, but we tied for points in the exact same way, with same number votes for first second and third.

I will assume that CNYK and I will probably not select the same track out of that extensive list, so I don't know how we could do the tie-breaker, maybe just Dave could pick out of the two, or Uncleswede? Or maybe more of a collective thing, idk, but I came across this one (http://www.previews.cambridge-mt.com/SlowDown_Full_Preview.mp3), and thought it might be cool to do.

The link directs a sort of "mix" of the stems that were thrown together and leveled, but no EQ or FX or anything like that.

Thanks Dave, for setting it all up.

[uncleswede]

Well done ReaMix and CNYK. Pretty pleased with 2nd place, especially as it was my first contest entry :-)

[msundh]

I was right about the first and the last:)

[thunderbroom]

Really cool to see how things break down. I wonder if anyone has noticed any patterns occurring with the voting either as a mixer receiving votes or someone voting. Not implying anything at all - just morbidly curious to see if someone is getting more or less votes each time, or if someone notices more votes coming in at certain times versus another. I'm always fascinated by this stuff so just asking for fun.

[REAmix]

Really cool to see how things break down. I wonder if anyone has noticed any patterns occurring with the voting either as a mixer receiving votes or someone voting. Not implying anything at all - just morbidly curious to see if someone is getting more or less votes each time, or if someone notices more votes coming in at certain times versus another. I'm always fascinated by this stuff so just asking for fun.

Not really sure what you're getting at, but there were 14 votes for first, and 16 of us, and some people said they would try to vote even though they didn't participate. So, at least 2 people that mixed didn't vote, and maybe more.

the winners in past contests have been pretty consistent. Other than that, I only really pay attention to my own votes, to be honest, and I can say that I've been in all rankings, from middle of the pack, to first this week, to literally getting 0 votes.

This is my third month as well.. maybe 4th, but I think 3rd. So, I've been all over the place.

[karbomusic]

Really cool to see how things break down. I wonder if anyone has noticed any patterns occurring with the voting either as a mixer receiving votes or someone voting. Not implying anything at all - just morbidly curious to see if someone is getting more or less votes each time, or if someone notices more votes coming in at certain times versus another. I'm always fascinated by this stuff so just asking for fun.

I think they come out pretty well. I have previously thought having a larger voting base might be of value but can't precisely say I can back that up.

I've either listened or participated since the first one and the winners seem to have winning mixes overall. If several submit great mixes comparatively, then it starts getting close but that is always the case if one mix doesn't blow all the others away. I can say it seems easier for me to judge when I'm not participating vs when I am and so close to the mix because my own decisions start sounding like the best one because I've heard them so much while mixing, anything different sounds out of place even if technically superior.

What I do like is how well participating in these shows just how important the source material is - including the musicianship as well as tracking and engineering abilities. Meaning once mixing skills get a certain distance over the bar of acceptance it gets harder and harder for the mixer to be the determining factor. This is why when you are good at anything, all the other stuff (how you handle conflict, working with people, quick on your feet, general expertise) starts making the bigger difference. ;)

[msundh]

There were at least three that didn't vote on their own mix:)

[DaveKeehl]

It might be a little of a contradiction but I didn't vote. I'm running this contest for your amusement and I want to keep things separate (even though sometimes I like submitting my take on the mix hehe).

Regarding the song for the next month, I am more keen towards the jazzy tune that REAmix proposed. Not to avoid cnyk to choose what he likes, but simply because metal-ish songs on that websites are not that great. What do you guys think we should do? Rock, paper, scissors (http://codepen.io/Pustur/pen/ojLepV)? :p

(the minigame was made by a good friend of mine! check him out if you're interested in really cool web design stuff!)

[DaveKeehl]

Oh and you can now download all the submissions from the 1st post

[cnyk]

I def. didn't pick a metal song because it's what I like.. but because I don't have much experience mixing it... So it would be of more value as practice for me.

[germano]

Oh and you can now download all the submissions from the 1st post

DaveKeehl, I am not seeing the projects on the first post.

[DaveKeehl]

fixed

[martinmadero]

Congrats to the winners! and to all who participate in this contest!!
I will listen to the submissions, now, and i post my opinions about it!

[DaveKeehl]

This song was to me sort of a challenge, because it was the first time I had to use only my headphones, since I'm away from home, and frankly I wasn't used to it that much. So I think my mix lacked of a few things that maybe I would have added if I had used my monitors. Especially in my opinion, there wasn't enough bass and it sounded pretty "light" and maybe too bright. I want to partecipate also this month and I'll try to make a better mix this time :)

[cnyk]

so, should we flip a coin or take a vote on the next one? I'm not picky. :)

[REAmix]

This song was to me sort of a challenge, because it was the first time I had to use only my headphones, since I'm away from home, and frankly I wasn't used to it that much. So I think my mix lacked of a few things that maybe I would have added if I had used my monitors. Especially in my opinion, there wasn't enough bass and it sounded pretty "light" and maybe too bright. I want to partecipate also this month and I'll try to make a better mix this time :)

I always mix in headphones mostly. I usually do most of it in headphones, and then when it's close to being finished, I listen a little bit on some stereo speakers, which aren't very good.

It definitely does make a difference, just the fact that you are listening on speakers. One thing that I have found kind of helps also, is to mix a little on mono. I'm finding that doing that towards the end is also helpful.

Mono, I think helps a bit like if you had speakers, but it's still not quite the same. It also helps get a clearer mix, because you aren't as satisfied as easily due to stereo panning. I think speakers are closer to achieving that same effect than headphones.

If all you have is headphones, I think it's definitely a disadvantage. I know that if I never did checks on speakers, my mixes would turn out differently.

For me, I find vocals are really affected by that. I think it's because on speakers, the sound from each speaker reinforces each other, if it's a mono signal, but the stereo pans don't, so you end up with a louder vocal on speakers comparatively, and the dynamics in the vocal I find are more noticeable on speakers also.

Obviously, it also depends what headphones and speakers you have. And I'm sure the room makes a big difference, but I haven't had the luxury of testing that one out.

[DaveKeehl]

so, should we flip a coin or take a vote on the next one? I'm not picky. :)

maybe let's go with the jazz one. I'll find a way to repay you xD

[Bri1]

Although I did not enter,playing with this mixture of stems was actually a good teacher.
It helped me finally decide when there's just a mix,and where's a fix and mix.
Would say this set of files was more fixing,than mixing.

For eg,dj's mix,they do not fix.Quite the difference.
I guess the people who recorded the session also learnt something about better mic placements.
Congrates to all=)

[DaveKeehl]

April contest begins tomorrow. Btw, nobody has to discuss anything? :(

[cnyk]

maybe let's go with the jazz one. I'll find a way to repay you xD

Maybe a foot rub? ;)

BTW- Like REAmix, I also mix in mono for a good portion of mixing.. At least UNTIL I get aLL the levels set at their general positions and I have EQ'd everything so it has it's own 'space", I stay in mono.. And do most everything in headphones... Then reference on studio monitors, in car, laptop speakers etc.

[Bri1]

And do most everything in headphones... Then reference on studio monitors, in car, laptop speakers etc.

Find this also to be better approach here-headdies are the most non coloured way to monitor I find-- funny enough,this was 1 session tried on some bass heavy/muddy speakers-no phones(usual) kept a very tight span on the pans,practically no widths overall sounded just ok`ish..
Having rea wired some spanking speaker set-up,so changes i'm enjoying as of now. =)

The vocals were fairly close,everything else seemed pretty distant to me-needed quite a lot of fixing I thought.
Really enjoyed the actual track as a whole-definitely a project for those that put the *extra efforts in.

Looking forward to next selection.Cheerz.

[Tod]

Wow, heh heh, I wasn't even close to picking them right. :eek:

Congrats to the winners. :)

[DaveKeehl]

Wow, heh heh, I wasn't even close to picking them right. :eek:

Congrats to the winners. :)

Yeah they really got many points! :p

[DaveKeehl]

April's contest is up by the way.

I made a few changes to the rules. Now the file has to be limited to -1 dB

[RDBOIS]

April contest begins tomorrow. Btw, nobody has to discuss anything? :(

Well, seeing that I finish near last I don't really have any advice on how to mix a song.

I was surprised to hear that I was the only one who did some major panning to the instruments. At least I didn't notice anything major in the other mixes.

Perhaps it's because I have a contrived notion of what is means "to mix a song". I've never mixed professionally, so I'm probably giving myself too much liberties. I can imagine that in a real world situation 'the client' would not be very happy if the person mixing did such things to a song.

So... Why no panning? Is it wrong to make a stereophonic mix of a big band ensemble?

I was going to leave everything in the middle, but I couldn't. I had lots of fun panning one sax 100% left and another 100% right (leaving the third in the middle), one trumpet 60% L and the other 60R, etc. I also had great fun deciding which instruments to highlight and shine a spot light.

Once I heard the other mixes I knew I was going to finish last...Oupppssss :S

What did I learn? That I should not try to mix professionally. hehehe

Congrats to the winners. I did vote for these songs: I thought the low end was better (hey I'm a bass fan), the vocals were clear, and your songs were not drowning in reverb.

[cnyk]

Well, seeing that I finish near last I don't really have any advice on how to mix a song.

I was surprised to hear that I was the only one who did some major panning to the instruments. At least I didn't notice anything major in the other mixes.

Perhaps it's because I have a contrived notion of what is means "to mix a song". I've never mixed professionally, so I'm probably giving myself too much liberties. I can imagine that in a real world situation 'the client' would not be very happy if the person mixing did such things to a song.

So... Why no panning? Is it wrong to make a stereophonic mix of a big band ensemble?

I was going to leave everything in the middle, but I couldn't. I had lots of fun panning one sax 100% left and another 100% right (leaving the third in the middle), one trumpet 60% L and the other 60R, etc. I also had great fun deciding which instruments to highlight and shine a spot light.

Once I heard the other mixes I knew I was going to finish last...Oupppssss :S

What did I learn? That I should not try to mix professionally. hehehe

Congrats to the winners. I did vote for these songs: I thought the low end was better (hey I'm a bass fan), the vocals were clear, and your songs were not drowning in reverb.


I hear what you're saying regarding panning.... I definitely panned a lot of stuff, and I usually try to fill the stereo field... BUT, before I do that fun part, I keep it in mono and set the basic levels, and I EQ and compress things.. Basically, I keep it in mono until it sounds good and I actually FORGET it's in mono.. then I switch to stereo. Panning is important, to give things their own "place" in the landscape, but I think more importantly, I carving out EQ 'holes' for things. For instance, when you have multiple saxophones playing at once, how to you make them NOT sound like pure MUSH? I solo one, add an EQ plugin and with one band and I'll go back and forth looking for the "sweet" spot for that specific sax, once I find it, I'll leave it there, then do the same thing for other ones- THEN, I'll open the plugins for all saxes, and SUBTRACT the same dB from the others- so each has it's own "space".. Not sure if this makes sense.. In this pic- Sax 2 sounded sweet at 3073 at +5dB, so I also subtracted -5dB from sax 1 at 3073.... So they have their own sonic space.. more elbow room. All that I usually do in mono until I can hear the song open up and sound clear, then I switch to stereo and pan stuff for a wider mix. :)

http://i67.tinypic.com/2mmegcj.png

[RDBOIS]

I hear what you're saying regarding panning.... I definitely panned a lot of stuff, and I usually try to fill the stereo field... BUT, before I do that fun part, I keep it in mono and set the basic levels, and I EQ and compress things.. Basically, I keep it in mono until it sounds good and I actually FORGET it's in mono.. then I switch to stereo. Panning is important, to give things their own "place" in the landscape, but I think more importantly, I carving out EQ 'holes' for things. For instance, when you have multiple saxophones playing at once, how to you make them NOT sound like pure MUSH? I solo one, add an EQ plugin and with one band and I'll go back and forth looking for the "sweet" spot for that specific sax, once I find it, I'll leave it there, then do the same thing for other ones- THEN, I'll open the plugins for all saxes, and SUBTRACT the same dB from the others- so each has it's own "space".. Not sure if this makes sense.. In this pic- Sax 2 sounded sweet at 3073 at +5dB, so I also subtracted -5dB from sax 1 at 3073.... So they have their own sonic space.. more elbow room. All that I usually do in mono until I can hear the song open up and sound clear, then I switch to stereo and pan stuff for a wider mix. :)

Awesome.Thanks for sharing that!

I like the idea of forgetting that you're in MONO and working until it sounds good. I will incorporate this in my workflow.

I like the carving out technique. What is the sweet spot? What do you do if two instruments share a same freq spot? Do you consider things like 'root notes' vs third or fifths? Or even harmonics or octaves?

Is all panning done in stereo and then a volume check re-done in mono, or is the final volume setting done in stereo?

[cnyk]

Awesome.Thanks for sharing that!

I like the idea of forgetting that you're in MONO and working until it sounds good. I will incorporate this in my workflow.

I like the carving out technique. What is the sweet spot? What do you do if two instruments share a same freq spot? Do you consider things like 'root notes' vs third or fifths? Or even harmonics or octaves?

Is all panning done in stereo and then a volume check re-done in mono, or is the final volume setting done in stereo?

Well, I dont know what's "proper", but for me, I recheck in mono often to make sure I havent "lost" anything... Mono sounds like crap, no question.. But I do feel that once I can create a mix that is somewhat "open" and uncluttered with basically just EQ and basic level setting in mono, it will usually translate to multiple systems/environments better..
I dont really consider notes or octaves etc.. Not technically anyway.. I just tweak until it sounds right. And always use a reference mix. 1st thing I do is grab a song that is in the same genre/style.. For this one I think I used a band called the "post modern jukebox"... It's so easy to mix away for 2 hours thinking it sounds great until you compare it to a great mix, and it's a rude awakening.. You wasted 2 hours training your ears to like garbage! lol... I always switch between a major label mix and my own to compare whatever element I'm working on at any given time.

[DaveKeehl]

Awesome.Thanks for sharing that!

I like the idea of forgetting that you're in MONO and working until it sounds good. I will incorporate this in my workflow.

I like the carving out technique. What is the sweet spot? What do you do if two instruments share a same freq spot? Do you consider things like 'root notes' vs third or fifths? Or even harmonics or octaves?

Is all panning done in stereo and then a volume check re-done in mono, or is the final volume setting done in stereo?

check out this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57iD9HhVHOo) (if you still don't know Graham from the Recording Revolution)

[RDBOIS]

check out this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57iD9HhVHOo) (if you still don't know Graham from the Recording Revolution)

That was a good vid. Thanks.

After that, I ended up watching someone talk about mastering MID/SIDE. Something about using dynamic EQ only on the MID signal and leaving the SIDES out of the equation. Interesting stuff...