RMS Folcrom + RMS Comp = BIG MIX!!

[XHipHop]

Hey Bang, can you post a "before" mix by any chance?

[Bang]

I never did an actual ITB mix of this one. But I probably could and I guess I'll throw on a Renn comp for comparison sake. What I did do was a mix through the Neotek with this mix, but I can't for the life of me find out what I did with the file. I do know that for this particular mix, the Folcrom mix sounded best. I used URS eqs exclusively too.

[indie]

Hey Bang,
When I click on the link, all I get is hieroglyphics...and no file.
Micah

[Bang]

are you on a mac? For some reason the AACs you have to save to disk or something. I haven't been on a mac in years so someone can chime in here. If you're on PC, right click download and import to itunes. For me, I have Real Player on my internet computer and that just streams it..

[indie]

Yeah, I'm on a mac...tried downloading it and it downloads a giant text file.
Anybody know how to check it out on a mac????

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by indie

Yeah, I'm on a mac...tried downloading it and it downloads a giant text file.
Anybody know how to check it out on a mac????

Control-click the link and save as. Double click the downloaded file and iTunes should open.

[indie]

Originally Posted by gsharp

Control-click the link and save as. Double click the downloaded file and iTunes should open.

Thanks gsharp,
I tried it and it always saves it as a txt. file...very strange. When I double click it, text application opens it.

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by indie

Thanks gsharp,
I tried it and it always saves it as a txt. file...very strange. When I double click it, text application opens it.

What OS are you on?

[indie]

OSX 10.4.2

[gsharp]

What's the name of the file showing up as in the window that appears after you do the control click thing?

[indie]

well what do you know...it works when I cntrl click in explorer but not safari. thanks for the help gsharp.
Micah

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by indie

well what do you know...it works when I cntrl click in explorer but not safari. thanks for the help gsharp.
Micah

Nutty.

[Bang]

here is a new mix posted 12/07

http://www.blacklinerock.com/music/echoRMSmasterweb.mp3

and another, this time using my Smart C1 for the master instead of the RMS. I also have the SSL 384 but can't use it for mastering because the makeup gain isn't smooth enough.

http://www.blacklinerock.com/music/e...Tmasterweb.mp3

these are mp3s so its easy for the mac guys..

[True North]

Was this compressor loosely based on the SSL comp?

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by True North

Was this compressor loosely based on the SSL comp?

I don't think it's so "loosely"...

[True North]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

I don't think it's so "loosely"...

What can I say , I was just trying to be a politically correct Canadian!

Well now that we let that one out of the hat...... my next question to Steve is, doing your best impersonation of an unbiased, experienced professional - have you had a chance to compare it to a Smart C2?

IF SO

How do they compare sonically ?

Thanks

[Mark Warren]

In broad terms I like the first 20 seconds of the first mix (RMS) and the rest of the song in the second mix (C1).

However, I think overall the C1 is flattening things out to much, and the RMS would work best if you could get it to compress a little harder when the heavy part of the song kicks in, as it sounds great in the intro.

My 2cents.

[3rd world order]

you gotta smooth out that automation swell after the intro.. it sounds like a mistake. too much modulation on the vocals.. sounds cheap. and i think you eq'ed too much out of the jangly GTR.. but it's a minor thing.

all this said, I like the Smart mix better... the RMS does something weird to the top end... it's a subtle difference tho.

[Jbassist]

Originally Posted by Bang

Here is a new mix done from Nuendo, to Aurora 16, to RMS Folcrom Passive summing box, to Trident S20 mic pre, to the RMS Super Stereo Comp. Then it was mastered with the RMS comp in "mastering mode" aka 1.5:1 with the 150 hi pass engaged.

here is a new mix posted 12/07
www.blacklinerock.com/music/echoRMSmasterweb.mp3

and another, this time using my Smart C1 for the master instead of the RMS. I also have the SSL 384 but can't use it for mastering because the makeup gain isn't smooth enough.
http://www.blacklinerock.com/music/e...Tmasterweb.mp3

the second one is smoother and alot less "cheaper" awesome man!, thanks for pointing this out.

[alnico]

I like the 2nd one also. That swell sounds out of place like someone let loose the master fader for a sec

[cap217]

You mixes are very good.... great work! What is your set-up? Also did you ever do an ITB mix?

[Mark Warren]

Yeah the top end is borderline painful when the heavy part kicks in on the RMS mix.

[Bang]

Hey fellas thanks for your comments.. The swell was supposed to be after the vocal, but the group wanted it on the word "abuse" to emphasize it, so thats that. The word is distorted. I kinda dig it, it throws you by surprise. I have mix where the swell goes later, we'll see if the band likes it better.

As for the word "cheaper" being thrown around. In no way in any sonic level does the RMS track sound cheaper. In fact, it has a beefier low end and the midrange is clearer, but overall, they are so similar that the world "a lot" shouldn't be used imo. In blind tests 4 out of 5 guys in here, one being a mastering engineer, chose the RMS as the better master. All pointed out to the bigger bottom end. Given the lack of hi pass on the Smart, the kick level gets squashed whereas the RMS leaves it alone and it thumps way more in the chest. I'm not saying that anyone's opinion doesn't matter or is wrong, I'm just disagreeing

I'm going to post another two mixes done with the smart and RMS, this time I won't label them. That'll be the true test.

[dim light]

Cool song the last one . the smart... Love the echo stuff on the guitars - very cool!

[Bang]

Cap this mix was all digital plugins then out to a Folcrom then a Trident S20 then the RMS comp. It was mastered using some software eq and then the RMS and Smart comps and then final limiting was Timeworks.

Mark what are you monitoring on?

[Bang]

Ok, few things have changed now.
First and foremost, no more mp3s. We're back to m4a AAC files, they just sound way more like the wav. I rarely compared the mp3s to the original wavs and every time I do its just mind boggling how people listen to those things, every encoder I've tried just screws with the top end.

Next, the masters were level matched, before this, the RMS was hitting the final limiter 1 db harder.. my bad.

Third, no more giving away which file uses which comp, but one was mastered with the Smart C1 at 2:1 autorelease, the other with the RMS 1.5:1 hi pass dual release.

www.blacklinerock.com/music/echo1.m4a

www.blacklinerock.com/music/echo2.m4a

I own both the C1 and the SSL 384 and I love them both, and I don't want to make it seem like I'm dissing them in any way. I just find for my personal taste, the RMS does what I want more on most two buss applications, and especially as a mastering comp. To my ears, it doesn't flatten things as much, and the master can still "breathe".. In future mixes I'll probably have the C1 on some drums and maybe the 384 on bass (yes it kicks ass on bass). And I've said it before, the RMS has different stuff in it then the C1, which has different stuff in it then the SSL. The C1 and SSL sound a lot a like, with the C1 being smoother. The RMS sounds different to me, cleaner top end, and beefier low end then both the C1 and SSL. I've never really dug the Smart C2 on two buss because it changes the overall eq to my ears.

[cap217]

I have event 20/20 vs and krk v8's..... You mixes just sound "clean" and cut really nice.....

[Mark Warren]

Rosetta 800 to Mackie HR824. Gave them another listen. IMO they're still in the same order: Echo1=RMS, Echo2=C1 but maybe I'm wrong.

Anyhow here's what I hear - Echo1 sounds much flabbier in the bottom end, I wouldn't say muddy, but there's something going on in bottom end and lower mids that leans towards flabby/muddy, and the upper mids come squealing/buzzing through too much.

Echo2 sounds more refined, more like an album, the bottom end is hella tighter, and the upper mids are tucked in and balanced more, it's less gritty and buzzy, more listenable.

Compare the two tracks beginning at that pre-chorus fill at 00:49-00:59, that's where I hear a big example of what I'm talking about. The bass just 'recovers' quicker in Echo2, less flab.

Even though I'm using superalitives this is all fine tooth comb stuff, but that's my 2 cents. I would also have to ask - what are you monitoring it on?

Originally Posted by Bang

In blind tests 4 out of 5 guys in here, one being a mastering engineer, chose the RMS as the better master.

So quick question, do you intend these mixes to be the final master, from which you go to duplication with, or are you still going to mastering with this. If you're going to bring it to mastering perhaps the less compressed one is the better choice.

[Bang]

when I finally master them, I'll have to have finished all the songs so they can be mastered all at once. I will also use an analog eq.

To me, the better master would be the one that has the most "life" to it, that still breathes. I don't like masters that sound flat and boring, I've heard a lot of commercial releases in the last month that are simply awful.