Inspired by eastside eddie, I am trying to finish mixing my songs for my CD (that I have been putzing around on for a couple of years at least!).
I loaded in about 6 or 7 Jimmy Buffet songs from A1A and White Sports Coat amongst my tunes so I could get a relative feel for the sounds and levels.
fergetaboutit! Those JB tunes just sound wonderful. Perfectly mixed, you can hear everything and they have a "sheen" to them that I can't get. Plus they are great songs! My songs just have a "dullness" about them I can't shake. Oh well, what can you do except press forward,
I do realize that they were recorded and mixed in a fine studio and mixed and mastered by folks who knew what they were doing (and on analog, of course). This doesn't do a wav file justice, but here's a sample song: My Lovely Lady by JB. By the way, I do believe that is Steve Goodman playing the acoustic lead stuff.
Maybe I will load some versions to Soundcloud and ask a few folks to do 30 second tests and see what they think.
Eddie trusted other ears to mix and master his CD. He concentrated on getting clean, good tracks with headroom.
So write the best songs you can, record them the best you can, make judicious real track choices and find the best person you can to mix and master it.
I loaded in about 6 or 7 Jimmy Buffet songs from A1A and White Sports Coat amongst my tunes so I could get a relative feel for the sounds and levels.
Sounds like a great start.
Let's talk about the "dullness" a bit more.
One common problem is that as you add tracks, low frequencies start piling up, and cause a sort of "muddiness" that might be like what you're describing.
One simple solution to this is to add a high-pass to all your tracks, to cut out the low end junk. Have a look here for a free plugin, as well as a video explaining the hows and whys about using them.
As the video points out, dial the high pass until you hear it, and then dial it back a bit. If the instruments are well recorded (as BiaB already is), that may be the only effect you need. But make sure you put it on all your tracks, because you're not just cleaning up that track, but the sum effect of all the tracks together.
My songs just have a "dullness" about them I can't shake. Oh well, what can you do except press forward,
I do realize that they were recorded and mixed in a fine studio and mixed and mastered by folks who knew what they were doing
It takes time and education.... mostly by doing, to get better. Gear actually has very little to do with it. A good engineer on a laptop with a good basic DAW and stock plug ins can make an impressive sounding mix.
Don't fret.... keep working. What other forums besides here do you frequent and or participate in?
... So write the best songs you can, record them the best you can, make judicious real track choices and find the best person you can to mix and master it.
Ha, ha: if you mean the "best person you can to mix and master it" and do it for free -- well I think that is me!
... It takes time and education.... mostly by doing, to get better. Gear actually has very little to do with it. A good engineer on a laptop with a good basic DAW and stock plug ins can make an impressive sounding mix.
Don't fret.... keep working. What other forums besides here do you frequent and or participate in?
I usually hang out at jpfolks.com and then the FAWM.org and 50/90 songrwriting challenge sites. The good news is that I stumbled on an old mix of a song of mine and it has definitely improved in the newer version. New vocals, but the instrumentation is the same (I think). ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you've been doing this for some time, so I won't insult your intelligence with my take on mixing - but -
There is a really useful interactive chart that can come in really handy when mixing instruments/voices. If you hover over the instument, it will give you the fundamentals, harmonics, etc. Thought it might be of interest.
Graham is a great resource. I have watched a lot of his 5-minute video series and a lot of his other stuff. I also have his "jumpstart" series. I have the tools and some knowledge -- but it still is tough (ha, ha)
Kevin, ... There is a really useful interactive chart that can come in really handy when mixing instruments/voices. If you hover over the instument, it will give you the fundamentals, harmonics, etc. Thought it might be of interest. http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm ... -- Bob
Yes that is a handy dandy reference. I've seen it before, but not lately. Always good to keep those things in mind.
** OK, so I loaded up my current CD songs as 256kbs MP3 files at soundcloud. Here is the collection address: Crows Say What?. I think all you have to do is listen to 20, 30 or 40 seconds of any (or all) of the tunes to see what I have going on now. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Kevin As yoda would say: "Mixing jedi yet you are not."
Opinions are like #%>€s everybody has one so here's mine Most recently I've found that Waves' multiband compressor will make a mix really "pop."
A user here Tommyad put me onto it and I found it for $29. Google Waves LinMB and Adele. There's a great YouTube vid where her producer describes her reaction to it on a mix. I have some info on how to set it up on a mix in about 5 minutes if you ever end up with it. Our last 4-5 projects have nothing for mastering but the following in this order EQ > LinMB > Ozone's limiter.
Sounds like you've got all the obvious stuff covered!
So I guess the next thing is to start posting some example mixes and/or stems, and see if anyone wants to either offer specific advice, or have a crack at the mix and hopefully explain what they did so you could duplicate it.
Of course, every mix is different, and everyone's opinion of what the mix should sound like is going to differ. But if you start from the basis of "Why is this mix dull", or "Why doesn't this mix pop", you might get something that you could generally apply.
Otherwise, your other option is (as previously mentioned) to hand the mix over to someone who's got the skill to take it to the next level.
I'd prefer you take the former route, only because it would benefit me personally, because I'd learn something from all this.
But given that you're past the basics, I suspect that's not really what's needed here.
Janice & Bud: I actually have the Waves LinMB plugin. But I tend to use the L3 which has a multiband compressor and limiter built into one. Maybe I should try the LinMB and just use the L2 limiter. I loaded up the LinMB, but maybe I do need some instructions on it!
By the way, when I listen to my list of songs, they don't sound too bad by themselves. It is just when I follow one of my tunes with a reference track that I hear the differences. Maybe I am 80-90% there, but that last 10% or so is just a huge gulf!
I listened to all 14 songs. The beginning and then bits and pieces of each. They sound good. Crisp, in fact, not DULL at all. Your sound is consistent throughout - very Americana sounding. If anything there is not as much bottom as one might want (the bass never says "I'm here!"), but that is not necessarily a bad thing for the type CD this is.
It is just when I follow one of my tunes with a reference track that I hear the differences.
This is a good practice. It keeps you honest with your work, however you are comparing a 'mx' with a mastered piece. IMO, Your mixes just need mastering (and a little more dynamic headroom for such). The 'mix' aspect is just fine.
Floyd: Thanks for the kind words. Ya know, I was starting to feel good about my mixes -- and then I did that reference track comparison again. It is not that I don't think my songs are OK -- they just don't run with the big dogs! I am happy that my overall volume is in-line with Buffet's tunes and not too far off some other references I am using.
About a month ago, my nephew said the same thing about the bass and I have been trying to remix all the bass parts since then. It still looks like I have a bit more to go. The sound spectrum shows that I have more than enough bottom end, so I guess it is just the clarity of the bass parts themselves. I'll see what I can do, but I might be at the limit here.
rharv: I do have a compressor (waves SSL), a stereo imager (waves S1-Shuffler) and a multi-band limiter (wave L3 MultiMaximizer) on the master buss, so it seems I have some mastering tools, but maybe I need to use them better. What would ozone do for me that those items can't, I wonder?
David: Interesting that you think the vocals are a bit buried here and there throughout the mixes. I thought they might be too loud (ha, ha). Maybe it is my singing style, timbre and "power" that is the issue. Maybe I can try some more EQ on the lead vocal as a test. Unfortunately, since I know what is being sung, it will be hard for me to be objective!
"What are you hearing in the Jimmy Buffet mix you're not hearing in your own?" -- That's a good question (ha, ha). If I knew the answer to that, I might be able to fix it!) It might be just a simple as better songs with better performances -- and the dynamic range is wonderful.
Regarding Ozone, it has these three tools, plus a few more all in one VST. It's not that Waves tools aren't good (they are), but the fact that Ozone has all of them in one tool (plus more) with tons of presets that give you very good starting points right off the bat. You don't have to start from scratch figuring out how one is affecting the other .. The interaction between the Loudness, Multiband compressor, EQ, Exciter,StereoImager, etc are all set up well in the presets at the git-go. From there you adjust each to suit. I also like the user experience and visual feedback better in Ozone.
Like I said in my PM, be forewarned; once you use the trial version be prepared to buy or suffer withdrawal.
.. and I agree the vocals could be a little more out front, especially if trying to mimic buffet.
Regarding Ozone, it has these three tools, plus a few more all in one VST. It's not that Waves tools aren't good (they are), but the fact that Ozone has all of them in one tool (plus more) with tons of presets that give you very good starting points right off the bat. You don't have to start from scratch figuring out how one is affecting the other .. The interaction between the Loudness, Multiband compressor, EQ, Exciter,StereoImager, etc are all set up well in the presets at the git-go. From there you adjust each to suit. I also like the user experience and visual feedback better in Ozone.
Like I said in my PM, be forewarned; once you use the trial version be prepared to buy or suffer withdrawal.
.. and I agree the vocals could be a little more out front, especially if trying to mimic buffet.
Rharv, are your referencing the regular suite of Ozone 6 at the $250 price or the higher priced Ozone 6 Advanced $999? It's obvious which is better, but my question is that for those of us that are hobbyist's, is there enough of the advantages of Ozone regular to be cost effective as it seems the Advanced would be geared toward the professional market. Like Kevin, I have a mastering software bundled with Studio One 2 but have not found that I am proficient enough to manually master any song to a commercial sound. I know that other forum members such as Guitarhacker and Janice and Bud also recommend Ozone, but I've never heard them state which version.
...the regular suite of Ozone 6 at the $250 price or the higher priced Ozone 6 Advanced $999?
The regular suite is all you need. It is incredibly simple to use. Merely selecting a preset will cover your needs 95% of the time - and you will likely settle on 2 or 3 that you use all the time (at least in Ozone 5 - I assume 6 is basically the same though I heard once that the presets changed?).
You can also delve deeper into it and learn as you go - 6 different modules - but, as I said before, you can use it "right out of the box".
It should be everyone's 2nd purchase (after BIAB) before ever buying ANY other plugins.
Let me suggest what I heard in the Jimmy Buffet mix vs. your mixes. The YouTube compression could be coloring my impression, but whatever...
First, up front and center is the vocal. I didn't hear that in all your mixes, and where I did, they often felt compressed.
By the way, your harmonies sound fantastic. If you're trying to match what other people do, though, I suspect you'll need to dial them back a bit. It kills me to hear that in a song, but everything is subservient when it comes to the lead.
Next, it's surprising how much space there is in the Buffet mix. When the instruments do play, they pay attention to each other and (mostly) stay out of the way.
You do this quite effectively in some of your songs.
It might be the YouTube compression, but the background instruments really are background instruments. They don't stand out, and are relatively quiet.
In the Buffet mixes, the instruments feel natural. That is, they sound loud because it feels like the musician is playing loudly. They are soft because they are soft, or they're turned down.
In contrast, there are places in some of your mixes where the instruments sound hot - turned up too high. I don't hear that in the Buffet mix.
It sounds like the vocal in the Buffet mix is actually dialed back a bit. You obviously can't do that. You are a soft singer, and the arrangement needs to support that. To me, the goal of the arrangement is to make you (the vocalist) sound awesome. And a lot of the times, they do.
Because one size fits many, but that only gets you part of the way there.
Once you're 90% of the way there, I think the other 90% is tailoring the mix to that particular song. Make sure there's one focal point at any one time, and when that vocal/instrument is the star, make sure that there's nothing that's casting shade on it.
But to run with the "big dogs", you'll probably have to get another pair of ears working with you, because you're already very good.
That's my totally-non-professional opinion, anyway.
The regular one will suffice for the described need. As mentioned, you'll be surprised how easy it is for even a beginner to get very good results.
The only other thing you could use to honestly compare your finished product to commercial ones (besides your ears) is a good metering plugin. I've mentioned PARMeter before. If you can find it anywhere it gives some pretty interesting stats/views/readings. I should try to email Jeff and see if I can share it, as it is no longer available for sale. I read once it was because it didn't play nice with 64 bit OS, but it runs just fine here. However 'it must be used as a "master insert" and will not work as a "send effect"'
Thanks Floyd and Rharv for your responses. Floyd, I am a simple man and you "make it look easy" so off to Sweetwater I go.....
Rharv, I believe I've heard you mention the meter plug in before. I've often wondered how relative the metering is between the different sound cards, pc sytems and such. So many variables, so I've never relied on the accuracy of the meters exclusively.
In amateur radio, a very strong signal reading on the meter was "full scale". This simply meant the meter was 100% peaked. I 'calibrated' the meters in my scanner modification projects that had a meter by keying a cordless phone about 10' feet away. So all of my reception signals referenced from that "full scale" reading. In times past, the analog signal chain was gained staged (calibration of sorts) by 1k and 10k tones so if were critical, that could be an option if necessary. I tend to use meters as a rough guide to avoid obvious clipping.
I downloaded what may be a similar plug in to what you speak of a couple of years ago but I've never installed or used it.
Janice & Bud: I actually have the Waves LinMB plugin. But I tend to use the L3 which has a multiband compressor and limiter built into one. Maybe I should try the LinMB and just use the L2 limiter. I loaded up the LinMB, but maybe I do need some instructions on it!
Howdy,
Here's my Waves LinMB mastering protocol or least the best one I could "appropriate" from the web gurus.
1. Always perform a Full Reset before proceeding with a new song 2. Select the Adaptive Electro Mastering Preset 3. Change Makeup to Auto (right hand column) 4. Play the song through and click Trim Button when you see peaks 5. Set each band’s Threshold by entering values at the bottom of each column (the values were determined by your run through) 6. Bring the Master Threshold down to where the bouncing line is sitting mostly in the middle of the blue band 7. Set each band's releases to mostly flatten line, i.e., slow down the “dancing.”
As mentioned by order of processing is Ozone 6 EQ > Waves LinMB > Ozone 6 Limiter
I'm not a fan, as least for me, of post mix reverb, stereo exciters or post production EQ hence I never use those modules with Ozone 6.
I've often wondered how relative the metering is between the different sound cards, pc sytems and such. So many variables, so I've never relied on the accuracy of the meters exclusively.
The math going on inside the DAW has nothing to do with the sound card, system, monitors etc .. Inside the DAW itself it is all digital, so nothing really magical about it, simply math. It happens before the signal ever gets sent to the sound card.
We live in a wondrous age for recording. By being able to measure the RMS, peak, average, and Peak/Average ratio we can get a pretty honest measurement of how 'loud' our mix is regardless of the system. Sure, System A may be louder/better than System B, but the goal is to make them both respond as expected.
The same two songs on system A can be reliably relevant on system B if the measurements/adjustments happen before the sound ever gets produced on either system. Just my 2 bits.
I agree about reverb at this stage (generally). I try not to. However I never rule out EQ or Exciter; they can make a huge difference. Same with stereo imaging.. though this can be a tough one to nail.
Once you implement a multiband compressor, an exciter can help keep the life in the sound. EQ, well, I never rule that one out.. and I'm confused because your post says you avoid post-mix EQ but your described signal path includes it.
"As mentioned by order of processing is Ozone 6 EQ > Waves LinMB > Ozone 6 Limiter" and "I'm not a fan, as least for me, of post mix reverb, stereo exciters or post production EQ hence I never use those modules with Ozone 6."
As a 'talking head' everything he said was true and made good sense then we see it contrasted to the 'performing head' working in the finished environment on stage where everything is computer generated cues, click tracks and processed vocals.
He is of the same opinion as you were just a few weeks ago on another post Rharv when you advised me not to let the technology of BAIB get in the way of my songwriting.
I spend most of my time with my hobby of BIAB not writing and producing original songs and making demos but downloading songs from facebook, YouTube of everyday people who have created their cover of a hit or singing their original using just a piano or guitar. Sometimes, even acaplla. Most of these are recorded with no metronome or click track and without the aid of the ACW, would be impossible for the most part to be used within BIAB/RB. But sometimes surprises me how much energy such live recordings have.
But sometimes surprises me how much energy such live recordings have.
This is why I like to use first takes. If I make a big blunder I will punch-in/punch-out. I do not record/sing my parts over 3-to-n times and cut and paste the good parts together. My philosophy is if you can't play/sing the song in one perfect or almost perfect take then you need to practice the song more. This is just me and YMMV.
PS-no offense intended for those who use other recording techniques. This is just my opinion and you may or may not agree.
David Cuny: Thanks for the in-depth look at my tunes and the nice write up on the Jimmy's tune. I just went through the first 7 or so songs look at places to working in the compression side.
Not much change on Bup Bup. I think I improved a Little Bit of Loving (the compression was too noticeable). ... so I kept going and made little tweaks here and there thereby only making small changes (which I hope are better) ... and then I destroyed Thunderbird (Thunderbord ?) Motel (ha, ha).
There was too much compression, but when I tried to ease off, I lost some feeling and got to many "esss" on Janet's part. The de-esser didn't seem to help too much and the DR rating went from 9 to 7! So I just restored that one from backup!
Imo, That "sheen" of older records besides being mixed by great engineers also comes from the analog outboard equipment that was used in the recording studio. I don't think even today most pro tracks are done strictly all ITB. And I think that emulations of outboard analog equipment are just that. Not saying some of them don't sound great, or that nobody's ever gotten a great mix solely ITB. I just think that's why some of this old outboard stuff is hot again and selling for big bucks. I also think the choice and use of reverb has much to do with that sheen.
Not that I've personally achieved that sheen on my own but from what I've heard and seen - just saying...
I agree about reverb at this stage (generally). I try not to. However I never rule out EQ or Exciter; they can make a huge difference. Same with stereo imaging.. though this can be a tough one to nail.
Once you implement a multiband compressor, an exciter can help keep the life in the sound. EQ, well, I never rule that one out.. and I'm confused because your post says you avoid post-mix EQ but your described signal path includes it.
"As mentioned by order of processing is Ozone 6 EQ > Waves LinMB > Ozone 6 Limiter" and "I'm not a fan, as least for me, of post mix reverb, stereo exciters or post production EQ hence I never use those modules with Ozone 6."
I'm confused (happens often, so may just be me).
Ozone has two EQ modules. One is the first in the chain and the other is the last module before the limiter. I meant that I use EQ only as the first effect in the chain and I always do that but never as the last. . Sorry I wasn't clear. But with me there's ample precedent for that!
But sometimes surprises me how much energy such live recordings have.
This is why I like to use first takes. If I make a big blunder I will punch-in/punch-out. I do not record/sing my parts over 3-to-n times and cut and paste the good parts together. My philosophy is if you can't play/sing the song in one perfect or almost perfect take then you need to practice the song more. This is just me and YMMV.
PS-no offense intended for those who use other recording techniques. This is just my opinion and you may or may not agree.
Peace
Ditto. We do one or two vocal takes at the most. When Janice says she's ready to record she is, well, ready We learned years ago that after that a little something is lost with each take. It may be technically correct but some of the excitement and edge is gone. And the live feel that we strive for is diminished.
Sorry for hijacking your thread for a moment Kevin but this needs to be said based on some other comments that might be taken the wrong way.
The voice is like a stove. It cooks best once it's warmed up otherwise your vocal will come out half baked. So however you choose to warm it up - keep in mind ALL pro singers warm up before they do a recording take (or even a live show.) Because what happens when a singer doesn't warm up by whatever method they choose is at best the first part of the song sounds considerably worse than the last as the voice starts to get loose. Half baked. And that's the best case scenario. Usually it doesn't go that well.
So for people reading this, if you don't warm up your voice before singing you're risking straining your voice just as if you were going to run a race without stretching first. You may hobble to the finish but odds are you're going to cramp.
People reading this who don't sing often and who don't practice and who don't know how to warm up their voice may see the above posts and think they're just going to pop on the mic and find some elusive "magic" in that first take - ain't going to happen.
That's why Bud said when Janice is "ready" to sing. I'm sure being an athlete in addition to singing she knows from experience (as do all singers I know) to warm her voice up first.
The magic happens when the voice like the stove is preheated and ready to cook.
There was too much compression, but when I tried to ease off, I lost some feeling and got to many "esss" on Janet's part. The de-esser didn't seem to help too much and the DR rating went from 9 to 7! So I just restored that one from backup!
Backups are good!
I've got a lateral 'S', so I'm particularly sensitive to silibance. I've tried various automated ways to tame it, but I always come back to the same method: zoom in, draw an volume envelope around the offending bit, and manually adjust it. Works like a charm.
You don't want to overdo it (like I tend do) or you end up with a sliced-and-diced performance with all the life sucked out of it. But fixing the main trouble spots means that you can ease back on the other settings a bit, because the rest of the signal chain doesn't have to try to fix it.
The magic happens when the voice like the stove is preheated and ready to cook.
Hijack over.
I will continue the hijack
It is not just the voice that needs to be preheated! By first takes that means AFTER you have warmed up even if you play guitar, piano, sax, whatever! First takes means the first time that you record not the first time you sing and/or pick up your instrument!
If you have access to the original "Will the circle be unbroken" album with country stars and the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, during some of the talk between track takes, Roy Acuff says the very same thing about getting the vocals right on the first take because the quality of the vocals decrease with additional takes.
In a YouTube video "Allan Parsons on recording audio", (it's been taken down by YouTube) during an interview with Michael McDonald, Michael states it normally takes him 3 hours before his voice is ready to record. Of course it shows, but my status quo is to think about a song, write it, create the music in BIAB, export the BB track and record, edit, mix and print the song and have it up on Soundcloud in about 3 hours. No one needs to remind me of the difference in quality of Michael McDonald's vocals and mine, just let me dream on that it's the three house making the difference. ;=)
After all the hemming and hawing and good discussion points made by many, I am starting to feel a bit better about my mixes. Even though I use a lot of real tracks, I think I am being held back a bit with my recording quality. I don't really strive for the best possible mic location (and plus the location will change from recording to recording), I record on a $50 mxl v63m condensor mic using a $29 art preamp in a basement room that has no treatment!
I think I might be doing as well as expected under those conditions. Now could I mix, EQ or compress better? -- absolutely. ... and I will continue to see what I can do. Over the past couple of days I have gone through 1/2 the songs looking for too much compression and went though all the tunes looking to where I could expand the dynamic range (DR) value.
They are not pro mixes by any stretch of the imagination, but they are holding up a bit better against some of my reference tunes. I don't know if I could learn and apply ozone in 10 days to feel comfortable using it so quick, so maybe I will go with what I got for this CD and on the next effort start over again. In the current songs, I need to fix a couple of vocal parts, re-do a ukulele part that is awful and fix a few other small parts hither and yon.
Thanks to everyone's comments, it has been most helpful.
Kevin, you should download the Ozone trial and simply install and try a few presets to see if it immediately improves your mixes (I suspect it will surprise you how much better they sound!)
The trial is 10 days...software fully functional...comes with a ton of presets...no learning curve at all if you just try out the presets...so all you really have to lose is a couple of hours to download, install and check out the presets. If you like the result just keep your work and buy Ozone for the next CD!
OK, another thing that I have noticed: Most (or all) of my favorite tunes (that I am using for references) just don't have drums in them. They also have congas, bongos, shakers, hand claps, finger-snaps and whatever else they can find laying around.
Doesn't having anything to do with mix quality, but it does help with song interest.
Kevin, you should download the Ozone trial and simply install and try a few presets to see if it immediately improves your mixes (I suspect it will surprise you how much better they sound!)
The trial is 10 days...software fully functional...comes with a ton of presets...no learning curve at all if you just try out the presets...so all you really have to lose is a couple of hours to download, install and check out the presets. If you like the result just keep your work and buy Ozone for the next CD!
WARNING WARNING WARNING.......
If you do this be sure of one thing. Check to see that you have the money available to purchase the full version. No "if" about it, Ozone will make the mix sound better. I was an owner before the trial was up.
I recently joined Dueling mixes (www.duelingmixes.com) by Graham from recording revolution. I think it is about $29 per month but you can cancel anytime and the first month is free.
Graham and Joe mix a song for you, do an instruction video and then give you all the raw tracks to practice on and compare to their mixes. You can get feedback from other members of the forum on your mix.
I have mixed three songs so far.I think (I hope) it is improving my mixing.
PS I am NOT affiliated to the recording revolution or dueling mixes.
Ozone: I think I will spend a week or two making some of those changes I need to do and then I will get the 10-day trial version. If it works out, I guess I'll have to get the standard package (on sale until Nov 2nd for $199).
In the meantime if anyone want to "ozone" one of my tunes, I will gladly make the wav file available. rharv took one of my songs and did that -- but I already had a compressor, stereo imager and limiter/maximizer on the master buss, so there was no real headroom to make any significant improvements.
If you want to try one, I will remove all the master buss plugins (double check that there is at least -6db headroom) and place it out on dropbox.
Don't try and do any real work, though (ha, ha). Just use a preset and if that works, fine. If not, try another preset. No need to go nuts for this simple test.
I don't consider myself to be great at mastering... mixing is tough enough for me! Anyway... if you want to send me a link to download the wav, I'll give it a go. My email is listed in my profile (click on Noel96 and that should take you there).
It would be interesting to see what Herb does with your file, too. He's got more experience in this arena than I have.
Is there any particular song you wanted to try? Remember I am not really looking for a finished product -- just something that might give me feel for what ozone can do before I get the demo.
I dunno, even though there was limited room to work with, when I A/B your file (from Soundcloud) to the Ozone wav I created from it, I hear quite a bit of sonic difference. Measurable actually. I've never heard the original wav file though to make any 'real' comparisons... and I spent very little time on it. I said it took about 5 minutes. My point was to do exactly as you are now requesting; just do a quick 'one preset does this' type of example.
I dunno, even though there was limited room to work with, when I A/B your file (from Soundcloud) to the Ozone wav I created from it, I hear quite a bit of sonic difference. Measurable actually. I've never heard the original wav file though to make any 'real' comparisons... and I spent very little time on it. I said it took about 5 minutes. My point was to do exactly as you are now requesting; just do a quick 'one preset does this' type of example.
Not downplaying at all what you did (very much appreciated), but I just assumed that because there was only 1 db of headroom, any additional limiting was going to adjust the sound a little artificially. It was louder and sonically different -- but it was a tad more "brittle" (and I thought because of too much compression). I just figured that a test with 5 or 6 or more db of headroom would make more sonic sense.
Noel: Here are the two songs that I didn't have to add any compression to allow it to have any headroom (you may have to right click on the link and do a "link save as"):
You have to be aware that while Ozone can take a song and make it 1000% better sounding, it's also possible to have it do the exact opposite very easily.
You can have a decent sounding song to start with and slap some Ozone on it and ruin it ending up with a brittle, thin, weak sounding mess that's worse than the original.
To use Ozone properly you really do need to understand what is happening and what you are doing to the frequencies when you turn a knob or adjust a slider. If not.... you can just as easily ruin a song as fix it.
They do provide some downloadable PDF documents on mastering and on Ozone..... it's well worth the time to DL and print them and read, study, understand, what they contain.
Remember also, a preset is not a destination, it's the first step on a journey. Presets essentially give you a good starting point. But that's all they are. I have custom presets in it that I have saved. I have never popped on in and let it roll. Every single time I have used my favorite preset, I have had to tweek it to get it to fit the new song.
Most recently I've found that Waves' multiband compressor will make a mix really "pop."
