Just decided to post other ideas about mastering.. on a thread I mean to post to a while ago but forgot.. more ideas about plugins there might also be useful for you..
https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?id=9371
My best to you - looking forward to more - v inspiring.
]]>Thanks for listening!
Something like bees... liked it !
Cheers, indeed!
Interesting Jeff - enjoyed this immensely - love the 1999 Village Voice review.
Without diving in too much, but responding to request for input..
I'm on headphones (Sony MDR-7506) - sound is maybe not too much in need of low hanging fixes (some weight/bass could be a touch more represented perhaps).
The main thing I'd want to work on, is that it seems a very wide stereo effect is present (like timing between L/R cans is minutely detectable as not realistic.. or plastic in terms of production - which can be fine if that's your goal of course).. maybe that could be less artificial to the ears if narrowed a touch, if you prefer. But.. with the generative compositional apsects.. this also works - and maybe you'd hilight that more instead of try attenuate?
If the goal is a more realistic piano, since it's full of compact close notation, that slight narrowing of stereo field, could then be given breath by a separate wider reverb. (If you send the piano signal to an FX channel, that makes it logical).. in short, the piano remains kind of more vividly or realistically in a more perceptible narrower center image, yet the reverb channel can have a stereo widening FX added, and upshot is, maybe you don't need so much reverb washing through notes because it 'wraps around' the piano cleanly (kind can be a lot more realistic than just applying reverb).
That out of the way, I'm wondering, in the advanced tuning pane in Pianoteq, have you tried switching "Full Rebuild" on and off.. I know the "String tension" modelling 'might' make some close tunings sound more swimming than IRL.. but always just a thing to try switching between for best results for any given piece/piano/preset.
As for final mastered version - so many decisions would stem from any alterations. But if you're happy with your export quality settings etc.. then at the last stage.. you could get plugins to allow you to meter the output LUFS values. The different streaming platforms all state they like some different measures but -14 LUFS seems to commonly work quite well among many of these.
I am no up-to-date expert on all of those current platforms, beholden as much to taking in examples and deferring to others still working on that kind of output..
There is always talk about going to other numbers.. like -16 on Apple Music, or some other numbers for non-pop/non-rock pumping music, or -19 perahps for more sparse classical music on some platforms..
but I think most platforms will understand many people will aim for -14 no matter the music - and long-term, IMHO that might be the number I'd choose. If you sit on 2 output versions and A/B listen to those for some weeks like a disciplined task, you may in the end discern that one may sound more hash or brutal in some way, even very subtly.. but if time is limited, it may be best to choose the one which instantly feels clearer, judging between 2 very similar files.
Probably with this type of music, it may definitely not be worth following some major artists who seem to output -5 or -9 or high numbers.. they mostly are pop producers who may know those numbers well enough to master for that intentionally.. but -14 for most 'well mixed' tracks should mean most listeners get the best experience we can do, without a superbly equipped mastering lab. Sorry that turned into more blurb than I wished.
Other than that hopefully helpfull stuff - I'm just thrilled to witness your modern day exposition into what is your personal masterpiece and enjoyed hearing the music
Cheers!
Without diving in too much, but responding to request for input..
I'm on headphones (Sony MDR-7506) - sound is maybe not too much in need of low hanging fixes (some weight/bass could be a touch more represented perhaps).
The main thing I'd want to work on, is that it seems a very wide stereo effect is present (like timing between L/R cans is minutely detectable as not realistic.. or plastic in terms of production - which can be fine if that's your goal of course).. maybe that could be less artificial to the ears if narrowed a touch, if you prefer. But.. with the generative compositional apsects.. this also works - and maybe you'd hilight that more instead of try attenuate?
If the goal is a more realistic piano, since it's full of compact close notation, that slight narrowing of stereo field, could then be given breath by a separate wider reverb. (If you send the piano signal to an FX channel, that makes it logical).. in short, the piano remains kind of more vividly or realistically in a more perceptible narrower center image, yet the reverb channel can have a stereo widening FX added, and upshot is, maybe you don't need so much reverb washing through notes because it 'wraps around' the piano cleanly (kind can be a lot more realistic than just applying reverb).
That out of the way, I'm wondering, in the advanced tuning pane in Pianoteq, have you tried switching "Full Rebuild" on and off.. I know the "String tension" modelling 'might' make some close tunings sound more swimming than IRL.. but always just a thing to try switching between for best results for any given piece/piano/preset.
As for final mastered version - so many decisions would stem from any alterations. But if you're happy with your export quality settings etc.. then at the last stage.. you could get plugins to allow you to meter the output LUFS values. The different streaming platforms all state they like some different measures but -14 LUFS seems to commonly work quite well among many of these.
I am no up-to-date expert on all of those current platforms, beholden as much to taking in examples and deferring to others still working on that kind of output..
There is always talk about going to other numbers.. like -16 on Apple Music, or some other numbers for non-pop/non-rock pumping music, or -19 perahps for more sparse classical music on some platforms..
but I think most platforms will understand many people will aim for -14 no matter the music - and long-term, IMHO that might be the number I'd choose. If you sit on 2 output versions and A/B listen to those for some weeks like a disciplined task, you may in the end discern that one may sound more hash or brutal in some way, even very subtly.. but if time is limited, it may be best to choose the one which instantly feels clearer, judging between 2 very similar files.
Probably with this type of music, it may definitely not be worth following some major artists who seem to output -5 or -9 or high numbers.. they mostly are pop producers who may know those numbers well enough to master for that intentionally.. but -14 for most 'well mixed' tracks should mean most listeners get the best experience we can do, without a superbly equipped mastering lab. Sorry that turned into more blurb than I wished.
Other than that hopefully helpfull stuff - I'm just thrilled to witness your modern day exposition into what is your personal masterpiece and enjoyed hearing the music
Cheers!
]]>Any comments about anything, mastering, velocity maps, etc. are welcome.
Score: https://imslp.org/wiki/Acid_Bach_(Harri...y_Michael)
]]>