Our Good Wolf: 'Tourism' (SSL plugins) -14LUFS

[herold52]

Hi all out there!

Just laying down a mix with lots of SSL plugins to see if I can really get that SSL sound we all love. Mix is at -14LUFS. 

Enjoy!

[Monk]

Just laying down a mix with lots of SSL plugins to see if I can really get that SSL sound we all love. Mix is at -14LUFS. 

You are clearly deluded.

Research suggests it was all done originally through a Neve88-to-DAW. Let's call the Neve "X".  Now let's call SSL plugins "Y". The outcome is XY, right?  It's like crossing a donkey with a camel and hoping you'll get a camel without long ears and a funny face.

I will also say, that all my observations point to the fact that the multi has already been HIGHLY PROCESSED (including AUTOMATION, just like most multis), so it's perhaps wise that we all ignore the misleading statement in the download section that "For maximum mixdown flexibility, the contributors have made every effort to provide audio ‘raw’, in other words without additional effects or processing". Nothing is further from the truth; the multi speaks for itself.

Maximum mixdown flexibility means being able to exercise a vision. If someone gives you automation because they can't be ar$ed to switch it off before printing, you/we have no real mixdown flexibility because someone is imposing their own ideas and values about what should be up in the mix, and what should be down. All of that factors into EQ (especially compression.....work it out), because of EQ/compressor affects a listener's perception (eg think Fletcher-Munson).

The multi is already rich in processed distortions. Any more you, or we, add to this will break the audio quality exponentially in the wrong direction for those seeking audio quality rather than merely noise.

-14LUFS, I presume you mean Integrated Loudness (you failed to say what this value represents),  means NOTHING, NOWT, SOD ALL without other measures. I deduce this as a lack of knowledge in the subject of Loudness Normalisation.  What you have done is smash this song into a brickwall limiter and created digital distortion artifacts that contribute to listening fatigue; so much for audio quality then. Some might like to claim that listener fatigue is a taste thing around here.  Hearing impairment has a role there.

One more point. 48kHz is a self declaration of audio ignorance. I'd recommend you, and the increasing number of forum participants who are doing this also, actually inform themselves.

[Y's Man]

Just laying down a mix with lots of SSL plugins to see if I can really get that SSL sound we all love. Mix is at -14LUFS. 

You are clearly deluded.

Research suggests it was all done originally through a Neve88-to-DAW. Let's call the Neve "X".  Now let's call SSL plugins "Y". The outcome is XY, right?  It's like crossing a donkey with a camel and hoping you'll get a camel without long ears and a funny face.

I will also say, that all my observations point to the fact that the multi has already been HIGHLY PROCESSED (including AUTOMATION, just like most multis), so it's perhaps wise that we all ignore the misleading statement in the download section that "For maximum mixdown flexibility, the contributors have made every effort to provide audio ‘raw’, in other words without additional effects or processing". Nothing is further from the truth; the multi speaks for itself.

Maximum mixdown flexibility means being able to exercise a vision. If someone gives you automation because they can't be ar$ed to switch it off before printing, you/we have no real mixdown flexibility because someone is imposing their own ideas and values about what should be up in the mix, and what should be down. All of that factors into EQ (especially compression.....work it out), because of EQ/compressor affects a listener's perception (eg think Fletcher-Munson).

The multi is already rich in processed distortions. Any more you, or we, add to this will break the audio quality exponentially in the wrong direction for those seeking audio quality rather than merely noise.

-14LUFS, I presume you mean Integrated Loudness (you failed to say what this value represents),  means NOTHING, NOWT, SOD ALL without other measures. I deduce this as a lack of knowledge in the subject of Loudness Normalisation.  What you have done is smash this song into a brickwall limiter and created digital distortion artifacts that contribute to listening fatigue; so much for audio quality then. Some might like to claim that listener fatigue is a taste thing around here.  Hearing impairment has a role there.

One more point. 48kHz is a self declaration of audio ignorance. I'd recommend you, and the increasing number of forum participants who are doing this also, actually inform themselves.

why are you on a learning forum if you know everything?

[mikej]

Hi all out there!

Just laying down a mix with lots of SSL plugins to see if I can really get that SSL sound we all love. Mix is at -14LUFS. 

Enjoy!

Hey there herold52!

Welcome to the forum. Not a bad mix at all for a first post!

I had to post as I'd hate you to think that being called 'deluded' as I see someone has posted as a response to your first post is how we go about welcoming people here. Most odd. Anyway, that sort of thing is not at all in the spirit of this forum, and I hope you'll find most people here to be more helpful and objective than that!

Interestingly (or maybe not ) I used SSL plugins pretty much exclusively for my first mixes on this forum too. I found it a great way to try and get a handle on eq without getting distracted by visual feedback from eq graphs, etc. Also it saved me from having to worry so much about plugin choice too. I mainly use a parametric eq these days, but I felt I learned quite a lot mixing wise from sticking with the SSL for a while. Good fun.

I've not mixed this track (yet...). In part because we've been very lucky to have quite a large number of tracks added to the library the past few months, thanks to the many generous folks that have been kind enough to donate their multi-tracks to the library. I find I can't get around to mix them all.

I'm listening on some IEMS (that are a little on the bright and analytical side of things) at the moment, as opposed to my usual monitors, and as I already mentioned I haven't attempted this track yet, so my thoughts might be a bit off.

By way of critique, in comparison to the library mix - I'm thinking you might be able to focus the mix a bit more on the low end as such, rather than so much on the top end perhaps, if that makes some sort of sense? Kind of bring out the tone of the kick, etc a bit more? I'm getting more of a sense of the kick drum skin from the library mix, and perhaps a cleaner more rolled off top end? It took me a while to figure it out, but I feel you can kind of control the high end in a similar way as you do with high passing the low end, if that makes sense?

From memory I think the high and low filters on the SSL plugin are pretty handy to kind of focus things a bit on some instruments.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more mixes.

Cheers!

[mikej]

Hey Y's Man!

Not sure if you are aware of this, but I feel the need to point out there is a handy 'ignore' forum function in the User CP panel. It's in the miscellaneous section, on the left hand side .

Cheers!