Dawn And Sunrise (by cleanbluesky) STW MasterComp

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:10 pm

This file has expired and is no longer available here. The owner of the topic can re-upload the file, or post a link to an off-site file. <a name="planetz-tag"></a>Genre: Acoustic <a name="planetz-tag"></a>Uses: Pulsar Effects copyright © YYYY cleanbluesky _____________________________________ the mp3 player's output was sent (via wave source) into the STW Mastering Compressor, recorded on VDAT (16 bit) and after cutting the .wav file it was mp3ed by the lame encoder.

there isn't much to set on the comp, but threshhold and release.
I used the soft knee version, set by ear to -8db and 1.5 (fast, range is from 0.01-1000)

imho the STW almost always yields an improvement in density, the main problem is not to use it too much.

cheers, Tom

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:28 am

pretty good difference you've made. You should offer cleanbluesky mastering services!

I liked the song too

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 6:02 am

tnx legros, but well - it's not my merits.
I just moved those 2 faders a little bit, actually the treshhold setting would have been enough. Just set the threshold where the program is supposed to set in and it does what it does.
There is indeed a significant gain in loudness, but I was concerned that it already was a bit too much.

Yesterday I cross listened to both versions and right after that a van Geldern recording (Black Eyed Blues/Esther Phillips) because I had just installed a vinyl player in my new room.
I must admit there's a whole lot of subtleness and detail in the latter recording, but you have to move the faders up a lot to make that audible.
It's just not contemporary (in the sense of what we're used to listen today), yet it remains a great record.
Cleanbluesky's record was totally unprocessed and imho it's really good for 'raw' material.
I'm not shure if the STW-ed version is so much better if you crank up the original's volume.
At lower levels (radio) the STW version comes over somewhat closer and more adressing imho, as said, contemporary.

cheers, Tom

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:03 am

i noticed that the result is cleaner. the quality of the creamware plugs is amazing, after using them vst's or directx sound like toys!

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:44 am

then the tool has done a good job in fooling you

if you listen closely the highs of the voice are quite blurred - no wonder at an mp3^2 job.

I processed an mp3 which was finally encoded another time, you should hear it if you push the original's volume to the same subjective level as the stw version.

cheers, Tom

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:50 am

ah well, i'll go get an ear check then

i think the difference of volume levels might have fooled me.. i'll double check that tonight

cleanbluesky · Post by **cleanbluesky** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:07 pm

I listened to the STW version and I can notice the difference. The first thing I thought is that the STW version is better (wondering what results would be on the multitracked original). I then turned up the voume on the original and realised the normalisation of the STW helped a lot but there was still a difference in sound. If I didn't know better I would have said the vocals were louder in the STW version? Was it only compression you applied because it sounds different. I am going to AB it a few times (hopefully I can syncronise and switch between them seamlessly in Cubase to get a decent comparison.
I was against the idea of any processing to an extent as i wanted the whole thing raw. I also think that any normalisation of the vocals should be done as much as posible with microphone technique. Either way, I am re-recording much of it in the next few days.

I don't fancy it's chances in the competition as I submitted a poorly recorded version last time (very poorly recorded) and it was ignored and they chose bland music. Wish I could have got my CD printer in time to make an impression...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:55 pm

On 2005-01-13 12:07, cleanbluesky wrote:
...The first thing I thought is that the STW version is better (wondering what results would be on the multitracked original).

...Was it only compression you applied because it sounds different. ...

that's exactly what the STW's MasterComp is for - it's to impress, to brag, to stand against the competition

and it's a no-brainer, totally easy to operate (I think there's a demo version with gaps or beebs available)

I dunno what it does exactly, but it needs something like 4 DSPs for the processing.
At least it keeps the character of the original (imho), and with moderate level almost never fails.
I like it for it's 2-buttons-only control

cheers, Tom