Shifting Sun Playlist
skip

Reviews for "Abstracts Master class part 1"

Abstracts Master class part 1
by Abstract Audio
Recommends (18)
Sat, Feb 19, 2011 @ 9:21 AM
 
SackJo22
.
permalink   Sat, Feb 19, 2011 @ 10:09 AM
AA — you did an amazing job with this track! I cannot imagine what could be improved at this point. I know you worked hard on mastering this track (between all of our voices there may have around 20 vocal stems alone). Your skills are evident — technically and artistically. I am truly, truly honored and grateful that I got to be the first in your master series. I look forward to what you do next!
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Sat, Feb 19, 2011 @ 12:35 PM
Thanks again susan. It was great working with your amazing voice. This was the third time something great started with you, you have a way of emerging something in me
Alex
.
permalink   Sat, Feb 19, 2011 @ 12:06 PM
Well, I agree with Susan, you did a great job… It is improved on all levels. It’s clean and very well balanced! Agree about the kick drum, it was ok in the instrumental, but with vocal it was distracting quite a bit, and now it’s right on! OK, to the point… Very well done my friend I think I’ll have to botter you with some mastering problems in the near future :)
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Sat, Feb 19, 2011 @ 12:35 PM
Thanks and please do!
Clarence Simpson
.
permalink   Sat, Feb 19, 2011 @ 6:10 PM
What a cool idea! There are definitely plenty of examples of songs on ccM that are finished, well-developed songs that just need a mastering pass for that final coat of polish.

For this particular remastering I think you were spot on with toning down the kick drum. All the other subtle differences that I noticed were all for the better as well.

I look forward to your future remasters. And if you’re looking for candidates I’d like to nominate one of my first remixes (Thinkin About It):
http://ccmixter.org/files/c...

I knew very little about mastering when I first posted the remix. Then, I learned a little more and tried to remaster it, but still wasn’t happy with the results. I’m still not sure if it’s just my lack of mastering skills or if something is just still missing from the remix. Anyway, I’d love to hear what you could do with it.
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Sun, Feb 20, 2011 @ 3:20 PM
Cool thanks! I will at that to my oh so long list, futuring a staggering 1 songs ;)

Just did a quick look in to your zip file and the low quality vbr files are unusable. I don’t think you used them in your mix, otherwise that would be what was missing (digital data)
I don’t know why you use vbr for your uploads but I’d recommend you use 320kb or even flac/wav for your stems. When you listen to the stems solo you might not notice the fact that there are frequencies missing but when it goes through a number of compressors you will notice that the sound misses power.
Just a thought
 
.
permalink   Clarence Simpson Mon, Feb 21, 2011 @ 6:03 AM
I’m not quite an expert, but I do know a thing or two about MP3 compression and encoding. I don’t think that VBR is inherently worse than CBR. In fact, if you encode at an avg VBR bitrate of 160kbps, in theory, that should always result in a subjectively better quality encoding and also a smaller file than a 160kbps CBR file. The main downside of VBR is simply the extra time it takes to encode the file because it’s a more complex process than CBR.

Whenever I finish a mix I export first as WAV and then convert that to a VBR MP3 with a max bitrate of 160kbps. Every time I do that I listen to both, just to make sure, and I’ve never been able to tell the difference.

Check out this article:
http://www.maximumpc.com/ar...

Several people (including at least one real audiophile) were asked to bring a song they knew intimately and then that song was encoded at 320kbps VBR, 160kbps VBR, and uncompressed. They were then asked to identify which was which. In most cases, people couldn’t do it.

I do realize, of course, that real digital loss is taking place, but ultimately, isn’t perception what matters the most? I’ll choose compact files over imperceptible frequencies any day.

Now, with all that said, I will concede that maybe using 160kbps VBR for stems that will then be sent through FX processing may result in perceptible quality loss after processing. But I don’t know. I’ve never tested that to hear the difference and I’d want to test it before I believed it.

So, I don’t think I would say that my stems were “unusable”, but I’m also not going to force you to use them especially if you’re doing me a favor. So, if you really decide to give remastering that song a shot I’d be happy to upload a new set of FLAC stems. And I could export them dry or wet (the existing stems are wet), however you prefer.
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Mon, Feb 21, 2011 @ 7:30 AM
That’s a cool test I’m gonna do that with a friend see who can identify the right one.

Maybe the words I choose where a bit wrong, I didn’t intend to upset you in any way. And to say that your files are unusable was a bit harsh, but for mastering they really are.

I’m with you about whole perception thing. Generally we don’t listen to songs in the perfect listening environment. Most of the stuff I listen to is 160 or 192.
But with mastering it’s a diffrent story. For example the main bass part in this song went trough 6 compressors/limiters: 2 on the stem, then 1 on the bus with another bass stem, then 1 on masterchannel for alex’s song. When mixed with the vocals and the maximizer at the end. Now any small distortion or noise that’s in there will be compressed and boosted as well and in the end be very recognizable.


I still like to take the challenge to do a remaster with flacs
 
.
permalink   Clarence Simpson Mon, Feb 21, 2011 @ 9:14 AM
No, I wasn’t upset and I didn’t take any offense to what you said. I was just trying to clarify a little bit and give my opinion on the VBR/CBR/FLAC debate. :)

Anyway, sure, I’ll export FLAC stems for my song if you want to take the challenge. Do you want the stems totally dry w/ no FX? Or do you want FX on them like the existing stems?
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Wed, Feb 23, 2011 @ 11:37 AM
I settle for the wet channels if I need the dry I’ll ask for them
 
.
permalink   Clarence Simpson Wed, Feb 23, 2011 @ 2:31 PM
Actually, it’s good that you said that because I checked and for several of the tracks (vocals and guitars) I can’t take the FX off anyway. The vocal source already had the reverb and stuff applied and my guitar was recorded going through a hardware FX processor.

Anyway, I uploaded the FLAC stems just now so go for it! I did turn off the FX on the mastering bus (master limiter, etc.) since it didn’t make sense to leave that on while exporting individual tracks.

Can’t wait to see what you come up with!
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Wed, Feb 23, 2011 @ 2:55 PM
Ok they are in my to do list :)
Magic Moon
.
permalink   Sat, Feb 19, 2011 @ 8:47 PM
yes i think the kick drum is improved with the vocals also. she did a great job on the original. nice to hear this one too.
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Sun, Feb 20, 2011 @ 3:20 PM
thanks
Kara Square
.
permalink   Mon, Feb 21, 2011 @ 8:49 AM
Awesome project idea. Very nice job with the mastering of this track. Your skills are evident when doing the ol’ A-B of the two tracks.
Carlos SolĂ­s (a.k.a. ArkBlitz)
.
permalink   Fri, Feb 25, 2011 @ 5:20 PM
It makes me happy to see that free culture allows people like you to practice their skills at remixing and mastering. The result was nice! Not my favorite kind of music, so I’ll refrain from commenting on the technical details, but still, from my totally noobish perspective, it sounded nice.
 
.
permalink   Abstract Audio Sat, Feb 26, 2011 @ 4:12 AM
Thank you! In many ways this community has been a blessing.