Entourage Paul Tucci
EntourageForum Replies Created
-
Bar,
This a very good piece of work as is. I’ve listened a half dozen times and think I may have a suggestion or two to offer up when i settle back into normal schedule after doing a bunch of shows and being a caregiver after my wife’s surgery today.
PT
-
Joe,
That’s another gorgeous guitar piece from you. The believable sound-field created by your Blumlein mic setup is wholesome. It’s not crazy wide, yet dramatically different and far more compelling than mono. I’m a tinkerer so I tried some harmonic distortion as a brightener, and to my own surprise, a pinch of hall verb to give it even more depth. The first 30 seconds of the piece are below to spark imaginations.
As always, thanks for letting me play in the playground.
PT
-
Jeremy,
So I downloaded “Birds” into my DAW before listening to your new creation. I thought we were headed back to the zoo with the other “Animals.” Little did I know we were actually going to outer space. That first vocal intro is gorgeous. It’s lush, spacious in its phrasing and a slower tempo from your previous bangers. That’s more my pace at this point in my life so it really captured my interest though the instrumental intro confused me.
I’m guessing your storytelling wanted the intro to transport us into the cosmos and then add the actual words. I had the idea to tell the story differently. I separated the vocals away from the music and remixed so as to let them shine upfront. (+1dB ) There’s enough space in your signature verb to believe we’re somewhere out there in the cosmos.. Now when the music enters, it is a gentle piano chord entrance, unlike the rocket ship ride as currently presented. One man’s opinion…
All that good tension you built into the last 30 seconds or so that peaks at the final word (?) “There” almost feels anti climactic. Metaphorically speaking, I think there’s room for an effective piece of ear candy that mimics the little sparkle-y fireworks that finish the July 4th celebration big bangs and booms each year.
PT
-
I’m curious to see if Joe digs it. I may have made it ever so slightly unnatural sounding if the intent was 100% au natural.
PT
-
Dana,
Thanks, I just tried to make it more of what I think it is. Exercising my “taste’ choices on other folks’ art hopefully makes me smarter in this game. It’s analogous to improvisational comedy where the correct reaction is “Yes, and…”
I’m definitely smarter now than when I brought Neil Young’s version of the song “On Broadway” onto the bus and asked my employer, the guy who won a Grammy for his version thought about it. That was awkward and certainly reinforces your idea of music not being binary. There are however, choices that are better than some others. That’s timely advice here on the first Monday of November. 📡 🇺🇲
PT
-
Yea man,
I feel like I benefit also. It’s good to exercise the perception of the songs and then gently articulate that into informative, entertaining, supportive suggestions (“what ifs?) and not get stuck in my own biases. I’m looking at you Wallace Clement Sabine.
PT
ps I agree, Nate is gifted with his vocal arrangements.
-
Jeremy,
I did a little listening to the newest (mastered?) version and I agree it’s not as airy as it coulda/shoulda/woulda be if the top end got a little love. I listened with a boost as Dana suggested ( no PULTEC in my tool box) and subjectively compared it to using added dynamically harmonic enhancement from my recently purchased PLASMA fx from iZotope. Based on looking at its amplitude vs frequency graph, I gather it creates harmonics to add texture dynamically rather than the static nature of an EQ. ie, a static EQ would amplify noise, the dynamic EQ would only add harmonic content level if there was signal there. I favored the “how much voodoo” setting to create about 3dB more harmonic content at most. It added air but never venturing into sounding strident.
PT
-
Uh oh, uh-uh, uh oh-oh-oh! Someone let the Animals out.
🦁🐯🐼 Oh my.PT
-
👍
-
Joe, Yea, the low end bump on v3 echoes the vocal tonality on the reference track that Dana suggested. It’s ll warm and comforting, perhaps like the little monsters perceive it when laying on Dad’s chest. I would implore Jesse to not test my hypothesis with his teen out of an abundance of caution. My suggestion to Jesse to try capture the fishies’ perspective with an underwater mic still stands though.
PT
-
-
Jesse, that’s close but I was thinking something more like this.
-
I think it’s really a gain staging question.
You could send all the signal you want as long as you don’t overload the input to the verb. If you clip the verb input, that nasty digital schmutz will be baked into the verb return no matter what level you choose to use at the fader. You will have boxed yourself into a corner of somewhere between quiet distortion or “Oh Fuck!” fader dependent. In the old days, analog gear would be quieter when operating at healthy, but below clipping levels. The newfangled digital stuff seems to have a much better S/N ratio allowing a bit of slop in gain staging. There’s an argument to be made that the resolution of the reverb would be finer if all the digital bucket is filled with signal. No idea how audible that would be.
-@PT
-
So I’m not alone in having not thought about that DIY reverb ducker chain before.
I still think the $50 I spent on the verb is well worth it for ease of use, especially now that I’m making friends with daverb.
iZOTOPE Aurora
PT
-
Jesse,
Not sure why my bastardized version is not playable now. Maybe Dana thought the hip hop beat I added was inappropriate and wanted to put the kaibosh on it. I dunno. 🤨
I’ll DM PT’s version to you here on MP.
PT
