Jacky and Joseph

Jacky, I like your new track a lot. This is not a negative comment, but one thing I have noticed and have always wanted more of from your tracks is a larger impact (compressed/processed, up "louder" in the mix) with the rhythm. Say to match the level of the synth that comes in at 2:05 and elsewhere. Are you using the Twine (IDM) Acid sample CD or processing the loops yourself? Very cool though! Certainly what you are creating merits a trip to a larger studio to process your audio as you have things together on the creative end. Running your drum tracks through an Empirical Labs Distressor (http://www.empiricallabs.com/distress.htm) would beef them up for sure. That unit is certainly on my medium range list of stuff to get.

Anyway, I hope you are saving all of your multitrack projects!

At 03:33 PM 2/27/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Mike of "Catharsis," a participant on this list, processed my stuff
>and it is, indeed, amazing:
>http://catharsis.egregious.net/jpehrson/

Thanks for the compliment. It took me about an hour to get everything set (and 10 minutes for the "creative" version; 7 of those bouncing the file... ;) ). If there was more material to process that was recorded in the same way it would take progressively less time to process the tracks.

>I can't believe it. This guy has a *lot* of gear.

I used just the Waves plugins and a little "trickery" (but I described most of it in previous emails)... ;)

>Frankly, I prefer the "straight" version to the Catharsis "creative"
>one, but only because it adheres more to the piece.

Err. Yes.. I just added ambience by two different delays a little wider in the stereo field.

>So, I told Mike, he's the man: he can do my sound editing whenever
>he wants to!

I would be glad to do anyones given the time as it gives me practice and a chance at a little creativity once in a while with my current uni schedule.

When I create I like to hole myself up for at least 3-4 days to a week and work on nothing else but the creative task at hand. Currently I have been unable to do this, but can always fit in time to "master" and work with basic ideas, but not to completion... ;.( I hate to not complete something immediately otherwise by the time I take breaks and come back to it multiple times I will have learned something new that will make me view it in a different way (at least so far this has been the case). Un/fortunately: the horizon is only exponential from here! Time for a change in aesthetics!

>****That makes sense, and maybe I need to manipulate the reverb
more. What I was getting that I didn't like was a *very* synthetic-
sounding "ring, ring, ring, ring" on the solo drum section. I mean,
I was willing to *live* with it, but Catharsis (Mike) managed to make
the reverb sound *much* better in these sections.

Yes, since I was working with the complete track and had to add reverb I noticed the same thing even with the minimal amount that I added. What I did was set up the reverb as an aux send. The reverb was set to full 100% and I automated it in the mix. When the drum part is soloed I pulled back the reverb, but brought it back in when the synths appeared again. The synths masked the "ring" of the lower drum part (also see reverb EQ). What I was not too happy about was catching the "clicky" rhythm with the reverb (best heard at 4:45). Not much you could do here without having separated audio tracks.

Cool thing with the Waves reverb is that you are given an EQ built into it and can target specifically the higher frequencies (which is usually what I do) instead of the whole range. Reverb below 500hz is not usually pleasant or wanted (muddy range). You still catch the higher partials/frequencies of the bass drum, but not the whole thing. I also ducked out a little part with an EQ around 300-500hz to tame the organ sound and to make the fast attack components sit a little more over it.

I also want to comment on the quality of the 128 encoded new MP3; it sounds bad. You can hear artifacts all over the place with the fast attack components of the track. Especially with the "clicky" rhythm at 4:45. That is why I included the 320 encoded version which really improves things, but there is still some silliness at the 4:45 part that does not occur with the 77 meg version here. Also since the original source was your 128 encoded MP3 a lot was already lost to begin with... Can't wait for future projects to roll forth from the list...

Cheers,
--Mike

Egregious
"Spiritual renewal through music for those outside the heard."
http://www.egregious.net/

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Catharsis <catharsis@e...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2387.html#2387

Can't wait for future projects
> to roll forth from the list...
>
> Cheers,
> --Mike
>

***Hi Mike!

Thanks so very much again! John Starrett is accepting the "revised"
version, so we'll have something nice up at Tuning Punks.

If you don't mind, I would like to collaborate with you on *all* my
electronic efforts in the future. That way, I can concentrate on the
*composing* end of things... I really hope you'll have time to do
more.

I can't believe this all happened from the MakeMicroMusic list.

Jon Szanto, you'd better put this in your Press Release and
promotional materials for this list.... :)

jp