- Pianoteqenthusiast
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Krisp wrote:
Hello !
At first - a Masterpiece, a work done with extraordinary skill, an artistic achievement! I had to listen to this several times.
Nice how the video lives with the scarecrow, and I love that ”….and mixed all this with scarecrow sauce! ”
And the ”sound stage” - this is an area where your music really shines, it is so wide, open, spacious. The locations of the instruments both laterally and in depth, the instruments can be clearly located in space. That’s why it sounds so good, and of course the instruments sounds so real.
And great dynamics!
And I agree with this ….The music is meant to be in turn meditative, then worried….
What more can I say, Congratulations Krisp !
Thank you Krisp.
Best wishes,
Stig
- Krisp
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Pianoteqenthusiast wrote:
Krisp wrote:Hello !
At first - a Masterpiece, a work done with extraordinary skill, an artistic achievement! I had to listen to this several times.
Nice how the video lives with the scarecrow, and I love that ”….and mixed all this with scarecrow sauce! ”
And the ”sound stage” - this is an area where your music really shines, it is so wide, open, spacious. The locations of the instruments both laterally and in depth, the instruments can be clearly located in space. That’s why it sounds so good, and of course the instruments sounds so real.
And great dynamics!
And I agree with this ….The music is meant to be in turn meditative, then worried….What more can I say, Congratulations Krisp !
Thank you Krisp.
Best wishes,
Stig
Thank you for this wonderful comment!
Regarding the mixing work, and even if the sounds at the base already offer a very beautiful color, it is still necessary to rework the thing in depth.
The dosages of presence and relationship between the instruments and their placement in the panorama are of crucial importance (especially since there can be many surprises when switching from one articulation to another where the original mixes are slightly different). Then, find a fairly uniform reverb (for my part, I most often use the Liquid Sonic Reverberate plugin, with Bricasti M7 presets, which goes well with the original one of Spitfire's VSTs)
then finally, a sound level adaptation to the target (here on YouTube) to try to have a consistent dynamic while maintaining an overall level adapted to streaming listening. It's not always simple and I had a lot of trial and error with other compositions that were more complicated to standardize. Here, for example, the dynamics is quite important, but still less wide than that of an orchestral piece. This makes it quite simple to approach a recommended LUFS standard.
I also use in the end a little master bus compressor (Warm Audio Bus comp, which is a really very nice SSL clone and which helps to find the right level and also a certain appreciable 3D cutting).
I have sometimes had the opportunity to record (as a sound engineer), sets of strings, quartets in particular or real solo strings. This always gives the tuning of constraints and I like to see that finally the necessary mixing with samples is close to that of real life with human players !
Thank you again for your listening, which gives me a great pleasure.
I have two other scarecrows waiting for me in the coming months...
- bernard
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
nothing to add to what Stig mentioned, superb distribution of instruments in space and a beautiful mastery of nuances. The music, like that of the other pieces, always in a very French vein, a bit in the spirit of Guillaume Connesson's sextet
well done
- Krisp
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
bernard wrote:
nothing to add to what Stig mentioned, superb distribution of instruments in space and a beautiful mastery of nuances. The music, like that of the other pieces, always in a very French vein, a bit in the spirit of Guillaume Connesson's sextet
well done
Tiens, Connesson, je n'y avais pas pensé mais c'est intéressant... J'ai eu l'occasion de chanter sa musique il y a longtemps, pour une création.
J'avoue que je n'ai pas trop suivi son parcours depuis.
En tout cas, merci pour ton passage !
Last edited by Krisp (25-02-2024 17:31)
- Pianoteqenthusiast
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Krisp wrote:
....then finally, a sound level adaptation to the target (here on YouTube) to try to have a consistent dynamic while maintaining an overall level adapted to streaming listening. It's not always simple and I had a lot of trial and error with other compositions that were more complicated to standardize. Here, for example, the dynamics is quite important, but still less wide than that of an orchestral piece. This makes it quite simple to approach a recommended LUFS standard.
I also use in the end a little master bus compressor (Warm Audio Bus comp, which is a really very nice SSL clone and which helps to find the right level and also a certain appreciable 3D cutting).
I.
Thank you Krisp for your interesting answer, and your solid arguments that explain your working process.
And this is what I have learned reading and reading some time….
(I’m writing this but maybe you probably already know it and much more).
Whenever you upload anything to YouTube, once the file actually arrives there, you will wait while it is being “processed”. If you mixed it well, you should know that YT will add some compression and reduce the peak level. YT is normalizing audio loudness, but will not increase the loudness of your video.
The audio quality for an YT video is largely dependent on the way you record the sound. My recording on my daw, sounds great, but after uploading it to YT the quality of my piece sometimes sound different. Read also somewhere that YT encodes the uploaded audio in a lossy format which is 192kbs AAC. This can give some minor artifacts.
Best wishes,
Stig
Last edited by Pianoteqenthusiast (25-02-2024 22:44)
- Krisp
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Pianoteqenthusiast wrote:
Krisp wrote:Pianoteqenthusiast wrote:At first - a Masterpiece, a work done with extraordinary skill, an artistic achievement! I had to listen to this several times.
Nice how the video lives with the scarecrow, and I love that ”….and mixed all this with scarecrow sauce! ”
And the ”sound stage” - this is an area where your music really shines, it is so wide, open, spacious. The locations of the instruments both laterally and in depth, the instruments can be clearly located in space. That’s why it sounds so good, and of course the instruments sounds so real.
And great dynamics!
And I agree with this ….The music is meant to be in turn meditative, then worried….What more can I say, Congratulations Krisp !
Thank you Krisp.
Best wishes,
Stig
....then finally, a sound level adaptation to the target (here on YouTube) to try to have a consistent dynamic while maintaining an overall level adapted to streaming listening. It's not always simple and I had a lot of trial and error with other compositions that were more complicated to standardize. Here, for example, the dynamics is quite important, but still less wide than that of an orchestral piece. This makes it quite simple to approach a recommended LUFS standard.
I also use in the end a little master bus compressor (Warm Audio Bus comp, which is a really very nice SSL clone and which helps to find the right level and also a certain appreciable 3D cutting).
I.
Thank you Krisp for your interesting answer, and your solid arguments that explain your working process.
And this is what I have learned reading and reading some time….
(I’m writing this but maybe you probably already know it and much more).Whenever you upload anything to YouTube, once the file actually arrives there, you will wait while it is being “processed”. If you mixed it well, you should know that YT will add some compression and reduce the peak level. YT is normalizing audio loudness, but will not increase the loudness of your video.
The audio quality for an YT video is largely dependent on the way you record the sound. My recording on my daw, sounds great, but after uploading it to YT the quality of my piece sometimes sound different. Read also somewhere that YT encodes the uploaded audio in a lossy format which is 192kbs AAC. This can give some minor artifacts.Best wishes,
Stig
Indeed, YouTube potentially adapts the levels to its sauce in a somewhat wild way. Overall, it is said that the best target to aim for is a -14 or -15 DBLUFSI for -1 db of peak. At this rate, it is likely that Youtube will not touch anything or almost anything But it's often a little too compressed for my taste. Often, I rather aim for -17 or -18 dbLUFSi if I want to keep the maximum of dynamics in the orchestrations. This could also be an admissible level for a CD version (with -1 peak however for Youtube not necessary on a cd).
What matters especially for those who want to keep the dynamic is this true peak. Namely: the passage with the strongest ridge must serve as a reference to be at -1 db.
For the rest, you must above all put yourself in the shoes of the listener who will sometimes listen in awful conditions. (in his car, or even in mono on his phone...)
But I still find it difficult to sacrifice everything for these special cases, preferring to tell myself that the listener will still have a little more rigor. Even the basic wired headphones delivered with iPhones in Europe are better than the ridiculous hp of a phone (or even a basic laptop).
It's true that on my monitoring system, it's quite amazing to have versions of an absolutely fantastic dynamic (around -25 or -30 sometimes dblufs), and with a good margin. It is then a little sad to have to limit this dynamic for the different adaptations to listening media, but in the world of audio it is not a novelty...
The question of the format (mp3 or wave) should not be a problem. In my opinion, this is very secondary to the question of the mode of listening (untreated acoustically, poor quality diffusers). Youtube remains a content distributor and not an audiophile platform!
However, it is also possible to cure the result by exporting in 4K, because the compression algorithms are better.
Last edited by Krisp (25-02-2024 22:57)
- Krisp
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Small precision may be useful:
I admit that I still have a doubt whether Youtube really retouches the dynamic.
This tends to show that this is not the case.
Https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/#
I use this link to check and from this test, it seems that Apple Music or Spotify for example do not deprive themselves of compensating while Youtube remains invariable. This is still to be checked but I admit that I have not yet tried to send files that are potentially too strong or too weak to have a clear heart.
In any case, the purpose of a mastering remains to adapt as much as possible a source to a target, taking into account many adjustment variables, including the platform (streaming, CD file sharing...), as well as for each target a "psychoacoustic" adaptation that aims to put itself in the listener's shoes as much as possible in a supposed listening environment. And also an important factor is to consider a musical context: is the song independent or is it part of a more important project including many tracks, such as a record for example. In which case, we must normalize the whole piece (we do not imagine normalizing each movement of a symphony for example because the goal is to listen to the whole of the symphony)...
In short, these are considerations that can quickly make us lose our footing and as the dissemination technique is very scalable, we must still keep abreast of new constraints regularly.
- Amen Ptah Ra
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Krisp wrote:
Small precision may be useful:
I admit that I still have a doubt whether Youtube really retouches the dynamic.
This tends to show that this is not the case.
Https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/#
I use this link to check and from this test, it seems that Apple Music or Spotify for example do not deprive themselves of compensating while Youtube remains invariable. This is still to be checked but I admit that I have not yet tried to send files that are potentially too strong or too weak to have a clear heart.
In any case, the purpose of a mastering remains to adapt as much as possible a source to a target, taking into account many adjustment variables, including the platform (streaming, CD file sharing...), as well as for each target a "psychoacoustic" adaptation that aims to put itself in the listener's shoes as much as possible in a supposed listening environment. And also an important factor is to consider a musical context: is the song independent or is it part of a more important project including many tracks, such as a record for example. In which case, we must normalize the whole piece (we do not imagine normalizing each movement of a symphony for example because the goal is to listen to the whole of the symphony)...
In short, these are considerations that can quickly make us lose our footing and as the dissemination technique is very scalable, we must still keep abreast of new constraints regularly.
The above link you furnish that is Https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/# appears broken.
Your description at YouTube of your piece I read.
Personally, I like your piece a lot including the SWAM clarinet. It's very realistic!
About orchestral music uploads to YouTube, which does as a platform compress audio portions to what appears YouTube's average (-14 LUFS); it does so whenever in fact the audio within a video exceeds the average but however also seems to apply absolutely no compression whatsoever to any video in which audio average loudness falls below that —what's been the recommended -14 LUFS.
So, if this assumption is correct, orchestral arrangements uploaded to the platform are listenable and available to a span over countless broad dynamic ranges the broader the better, possibly. (Smile.)
Krisp, if truly interesting is any limiter that through just one switch offers genre specific limiting onto a large selection of platforms and which you can quickly dial up inside its interface, that limiter smart:limit from sonible very much —before you upload again— might just interest you.
It does me, certainly. I've repeatedly been using it on a number of my own mixes.
Although now I am quite uncertain whether or not it had been quietly used inside a video I myself about two (2) years ago also posted to YouTube:
'Jesu bleibet meine Freude' Recorded at Asam-Schlossl in Munich
Like you, I'd been experimenting towards various instrument placements, SWAM Solo Instruments and a LiquidSonics reverb only Illusion. Which I omitted from my upload since I was wanting to bring up reverberations instead and in part already present inside the file I had gotten originally to mix.
(Just I've included a link to my mix intended to become helpful possibly in your own endeavor.)
Pianoteq 8 Studio Bundle, Pearl malletSTATION EM1, Roland (DRUM SOUND MODULE TD-30, HandSonic 10, AX-1), Akai EWI USB, Yamaha DIGITAL PIANO P-95, M-Audio STUDIOPHILE BX5, Focusrite Saffire PRO 24 DSP.
- Krisp
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Krisp wrote:
Small precision may be useful:
I admit that I still have a doubt whether Youtube really retouches the dynamic.
This tends to show that this is not the case.
Https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/#
I use this link to check and from this test, it seems that Apple Music or Spotify for example do not deprive themselves of compensating while Youtube remains invariable. This is still to be checked but I admit that I have not yet tried to send files that are potentially too strong or too weak to have a clear heart.
In any case, the purpose of a mastering remains to adapt as much as possible a source to a target, taking into account many adjustment variables, including the platform (streaming, CD file sharing...), as well as for each target a "psychoacoustic" adaptation that aims to put itself in the listener's shoes as much as possible in a supposed listening environment. And also an important factor is to consider a musical context: is the song independent or is it part of a more important project including many tracks, such as a record for example. In which case, we must normalize the whole piece (we do not imagine normalizing each movement of a symphony for example because the goal is to listen to the whole of the symphony)...
In short, these are considerations that can quickly make us lose our footing and as the dissemination technique is very scalable, we must still keep abreast of new constraints regularly.
Here the link without error (I wish)...
https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/#
I just tried to practice a "null test" of my Scarecrow to find out if the upload version was strictly identical to the original file version. The null test does not achieve a total cancellation. There is therefore a difference after Youtube encoding. I don't know if it's something very audible and the dynamics of the waveforms generally do not seem modified (modified but the dynamics remain the same for what I was able to compare on the extracted analyzed).
So, until proven otherwise, the dynamic seems overall the same as on my export. However, the harmonic structure is modified, enough to prevent cancellation as opposed to phase. Maybe simply compression is enough to degrade the high frequencies to make this cancellation impossible.
Youtube therefore acts on the file (which is not a surprise).
I do not think it is necessary to worry more about it, the main thing being to provide a file well adapted to export in terms of dynamics. Exporting to 4K is a benefit to consider because the algorithm is different and of better quality for audio video encoding.
- Amen Ptah Ra
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Krisp wrote:
Small precision may be useful:
I admit that I still have a doubt whether Youtube really retouches the dynamic.
This tends to show that this is not the case.
Https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/#
I use this link to check and from this test, it seems that Apple Music or Spotify for example do not deprive themselves of compensating while Youtube remains invariable. This is still to be checked but I admit that I have not yet tried to send files that are potentially too strong or too weak to have a clear heart.
I, Amen Ptah Ra, wrote:
The above link you furnish that is Https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/# appears broken.
Krisp wrote:
Here the link without error (I wish)...
https://www.loudnesspenalty.com/#
Man, thanks!
Pianoteq 8 Studio Bundle, Pearl malletSTATION EM1, Roland (DRUM SOUND MODULE TD-30, HandSonic 10, AX-1), Akai EWI USB, Yamaha DIGITAL PIANO P-95, M-Audio STUDIOPHILE BX5, Focusrite Saffire PRO 24 DSP.
- Amen Ptah Ra
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Pianoteqenthusiast wrote:
Whenever you upload anything to YouTube, once the file actually arrives there, you will wait while it is being “processed”. If you mixed it well, you should know that YT will add some compression and reduce the peak level. YT is normalizing audio loudness, but will not increase the loudness of your video.
The audio quality for an YT video is largely dependent on the way you record the sound. My recording on my daw, sounds great, but after uploading it to YT the quality of my piece sometimes sound different. Read also somewhere that YT encodes the uploaded audio in a lossy format which is 192kbs AAC. This can give some minor artifacts.
Read please (s'il vous plaît) over response #9. Maybe that'll help toward your understanding of compression on your next YouTube upload.
Take care!
Last edited by Amen Ptah Ra (27-02-2024 03:04)
Pianoteq 8 Studio Bundle, Pearl malletSTATION EM1, Roland (DRUM SOUND MODULE TD-30, HandSonic 10, AX-1), Akai EWI USB, Yamaha DIGITAL PIANO P-95, M-Audio STUDIOPHILE BX5, Focusrite Saffire PRO 24 DSP.
- kencarlino
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
I wild journey here, excellent work! Glad I had a chance to listen
Ken
- Krisp
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
kencarlino wrote:
I wild journey here, excellent work! Glad I had a chance to listen
Ken
Merci !
- Pianoteqenthusiast
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Amen Ptah Ra wrote:
Pianoteqenthusiast wrote:Whenever you upload anything to YouTube, once the file actually arrives there, you will wait while it is being “processed”. If you mixed it well, you should know that YT will add some compression and reduce the peak level. YT is normalizing audio loudness, but will not increase the loudness of your video.
The audio quality for an YT video is largely dependent on the way you record the sound. My recording on my daw, sounds great, but after uploading it to YT the quality of my piece sometimes sound different. Read also somewhere that YT encodes the uploaded audio in a lossy format which is 192kbs AAC. This can give some minor artifacts.Read please (s'il vous plaît) over response #9. Maybe that'll help toward your understanding of compression on your next YouTube upload.
Take care!
Thank you Amen Ptah Ra.
Best wishes,
Stig
- Gaston
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Krisp wrote:
Hello !
Bonjour Jean-Christophe,
Cette maîtrise exceptionnelle des instruments virtuels m'impressionne de plus en plus, avec cet épouvantail tu atteins un sommet !
On a vraiment l'orchestre en face de nous, avec la délicatesse de toutes les nuances !
Bravo, et merci pour ce cadeau !
- Krisp
- Member
- Offline
Re: First Scarecrow (clarinet & string quintet)
Gaston wrote:
Krisp wrote:Hello !
Bonjour Jean-Christophe,
Cette maîtrise exceptionnelle des instruments virtuels m'impressionne de plus en plus, avec cet épouvantail tu atteins un sommet !
On a vraiment l'orchestre en face de nous, avec la délicatesse de toutes les nuances !
Bravo, et merci pour ce cadeau !
Hé ! Merci Gaston,
J'aimerais mille fois mieux pouvoir un jour faire jouer ces machins par de véritables humains... Mais bon, c'est un peu mon joujou dans ma cave/home studio. Et j'essaye d'y consacrer une part de mon temps libre.
En tout cas, ça me fait toujours plaisir de lire ces commentaires favorables.
J'ai en tête deux autres épouvantails, avec un peu plus de dessins pour accompagner la musique (ou l'inverse...)