Help Please?

[Jeffsounds]

I have 1 minute of a song that I would like you to listen to. The song is split into two 30 second sections. The first 30 seconds is one mastering and the second 30 seconds is another mastering. I'll reveal which is whom when I get enough answers. All I want to know is which one do you think is better.

Both sections have been level matched.

Thank you for your help!

All I Can Think Of (Is You) AB Test

[kirk1701]

The second is fuller to my ears, but that's an arrangement thing. I think you can use both. The sparse stuff would do well on the first verse, then bring in the backup singers for the chorus and subsequent verses.

I also think this could use some keys. Whether you use acoustic piano, Wurli/Rhodes, and/or B3. The hat is hanging out there naked. Cover his shame with some piano, lol!

[Coachz]

the first 30 secs has way too much bass, and rumble and highs for me, the second 30 doesn't have enough bass and has too much highs for me. Give me stereo track and I'll remaster it for you.

monitoring on rokit 8's with 10" sub 3 feet away in isosceles triangle. Always find out how people are monitoring

[Jeffsounds]

Originally Posted by kirk1701

The second is fuller to my ears, but that's an arrangement thing. I think you can use both. The sparse stuff would do well on the first verse, then bring in the backup singers for the chorus and subsequent verses.

I also think this could use some keys. Whether you use acoustic piano, Wurli/Rhodes, and/or B3. The hat is hanging out there naked. Cover his shame with some piano, lol!

Thanks! It's pretty much done. Just had the real drums added, mixed it and now down to this.

Originally Posted by Coachz

the first 30 secs has way too much bass, and rumble and highs for me, the second 30 doesn't have enough bass and has too much highs for me. Give me stereo track and I'll remaster it for you.

monitoring on rokit 8's with 10" sub 3 feet away in isosceles triangle. Always find out how people are monitoring

Are you talking bass guitar? Or overall bottom in the mix?

[Coachz]

Originally Posted by Jeffsounds

Thanks! It's pretty much done. Just had the real drums added, mixed it and now down to this.


Are you talking bass guitar? Or overall bottom in the mix?

The whole bottom end sounds terrible to me.

[Jeffsounds]

Originally Posted by Coachz

The whole bottom end sounds terrible to me.

Details please?

[JamesPeters]

My 2c:

Your timing is off here and there, and particularly noticeable at 0:40-0:43. It sounds like you're falling down stairs at that part. I'd say address that first. Sometimes it's more difficult to play "too slow" for what you're used to than it is to play fast, as ironic as that sounds. It's about whether you're feeling the beat when it's slower than you're used to. You might find using the metronome set to double time helps.

Also I'd personally take that drum verb and scoop the lower mids and maybe also mids in general (or just a high pass that cuts off around the lower mids and lower) using an EQ before or after the reverb plugin so that the reverb isn't so resonant. That resonance makes the drums sound a bit obviously affected by a plugin (or just recorded in a very different room from everything else, at a different volume). You can also lower the reverb a bit too.

As for the "mastering":

Listen to your "S" sibilance in the second half, especially at 0:50 ("sleep"). Whoever/whatever did that mastering totally blew that out of proportion (either that or you de-essed it way too much beforehand).

Other than that I think both halves sound ok in their own right and maybe you can learn a thing or two from each (add more highs to acoustic and hats, make the bass warm, etc.)

[karbomusic]

The rhythmic stumble is a couple spots and it's the drums only. As far as the mastering, on the first 30 second sample... if you do a little cut around 100 Hz, normal to wider Q, not too much, not too little, about -2 dB... it will fix a few things and sound better than both of the samples provided. That's by ear from listening to the first 30 seconds but it should be real close.

[Jeffsounds]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

My 2c:

Your timing is off here and there, and particularly noticeable at 0:40-0:43. It sounds like you're falling down stairs at that part. I'd say address that first. Sometimes it's more difficult to play "too slow" for what you're used to than it is to play fast, as ironic as that sounds. It's about whether you're feeling the beat when it's slower than you're used to. You might find using the metronome set to double time helps.

I think that is exactly what the drummer did that played on this, set the click to twice the BPM. I've done that myself on projects. It really does help!

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

Also I'd personally take that drum verb and scoop the lower mids and maybe also mids in general (or just a high pass that cuts off around the lower mids and lower) using an EQ before or after the reverb plugin so that the reverb isn't so resonant. That resonance makes the drums sound a bit obviously affected by a plugin (or just recorded in a very different room from everything else, at a different volume). You can also lower the reverb a bit too.

I'm trying to give it a boom effect using reverb. It's a necessary part of the song. I may have to try a different reverb but for now it's staying.

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

As for the "mastering":

Listen to your "S" sibilance in the second half, especially at 0:50 ("sleep"). Whoever/whatever did that mastering totally blew that out of proportion (either that or you de-essed it way too much beforehand).

Other than that I think both halves sound ok in their own right and maybe you can learn a thing or two from each (add more highs to acoustic and hats, make the bass warm, etc.)

Thanks for the listen and the insight! Truly appreciated!

Originally Posted by karbomusic

The rhythmic stumble is a couple spots and it's the drums only. As far as the mastering, on the first 30 second sample... if you do a little cut around 100 Hz, normal to wider Q, not too much, not too little, about -2 dB... it will fix a few things and sound better than both of the samples provided. That's by ear from listening to the first 30 seconds but it should be real close.

I tried your suggestion and it helped but I'm now considering remixing and maybe trying to clean up the low end a bit more. But I really like the tone I'm getting out of the bass guitar! Thank you, Sir! More to consider.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Jeffsounds

I tried your suggestion and it helped but I'm now considering remixing and maybe trying to clean up the low end a bit more. But I really like the tone I'm getting out of the bass guitar! Thank you, Sir! More to consider.

All good, don't overthink it too much.

Contrary to the interwebz great mixes don't have to be super complex. Mixes (not the performances that affect the mixes per se) are always opinions so get it as close to what you want to hear. Of course there are exceptions such as I doubt most people's opinion that boosting 3k by 24 dB sounds good but once it is within a certain threshold, it's 100% personal preference - period.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Jeffsounds

I'm trying to give it a boom effect using reverb. It's a necessary part of the song. I may have to try a different reverb but for now it's staying.

The reverb itself sounds nice. It's just those lower mid frequencies that are making it a bit too "big" for my tastes. I know what you mean by "boom effect", and I think it can be achieved without so much lower mids. I'm a fan of that kind of sound, as "fake" as it is, and I learned after a while that chopping some EQ out sometimes helps it not be in the forefront as much. I like it being noticeable if I'm trying to notice it, but also less noticeable if I'm not trying to notice it.

That's my 1c on the matter.

[Tod]

Originally Posted by Jeffsounds

I have 1 minute of a song that I would like you to listen to. The song is split into two 30 second sections. The first 30 seconds is one mastering and the second 30 seconds is another mastering. I'll reveal which is whom when I get enough answers. All I want to know is which one do you think is better.

Both sections have been level matched.

Boy I don't know Jeff, the 2nd half is by far the best. But the 2 parts don't sound like they came from the same mix. for example the snare, it's hard for me to imagine they could draw out that snare sound in the second mix if it wasn't already there.

Actually on 2nd listen and due to the EQ changes in the 2nd mix I can see it now. Neither mix is great but the 2nd mix is definitely better, it's not muddy like the first mix. But really and truly, it sounds like you have all the parts there, they just need to be mixed properly.

[ashcat_lt]

I think the first half is better if you just pull back the low end a bit. Like almost just low shelf it a bit. It just feels a lot better to me. Much more like I space I'd like to hang out in for a bit.

I don't like the second half at all. It pumps and breathes and honks in all kind of weird ways and is strident and just uninviting in ways I don't think this song wants to be.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Tod

Boy I don't know Jeff, the 2nd half is by far the best.

Yeah but you're deaf in the high frequency range, so you can't hear how insane it gets. The strumming of the guitar is really plinky and the vocals get sibilant in a weird way. I think having some of that effect would be fine, but it's like overexposed photography.

[ashcat_lt]

It's not quite "sounds like cocaine", but...

[Jeffsounds]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

All good, don't overthink it too much.

Contrary to the interwebz great mixes don't have to be super complex. Mixes (not the performances that affect the mixes per se) are always opinions so get it as close to what you want to hear. Of course there are exceptions such as I doubt most people's opinion that boosting 3k by 24 dB sounds good but once it is within a certain threshold, it's 100% personal preference - period.

My biggest problem is with the low end. Always has been. I try to make it sound like all the records I heard and hear but it always ends up sounding like someone jumped in the car and cranked the bass up. My son used to do that. Ruined a beautiful 8 speaker system in a brand new station wagon back in '89. Anyway, the harder I try NOT to sound like that, the more it sounds like that! But is personal preference what we should be going for with our mixes? In the analog days the goal was flat. These days it doesn't seem to matter what a mix sounds like as long it's within a certain LUFS for the different platforms. I just want my music to sound as good as possible.

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

The reverb itself sounds nice. It's just those lower mid frequencies that are making it a bit too "big" for my tastes. I know what you mean by "boom effect", and I think it can be achieved without so much lower mids. I'm a fan of that kind of sound, as "fake" as it is, and I learned after a while that chopping some EQ out sometimes helps it not be in the forefront as much. I like it being noticeable if I'm trying to notice it, but also less noticeable if I'm not trying to notice it.

That's my 1c on the matter.

I still have some work to do on this mix so I will consider these points at that time. I want it to be big and noticed. It's not on every snare beat so it should be ok in the long run, right?

Originally Posted by Tod

Boy I don't know Jeff, the 2nd half is by far the best. But the 2 parts don't sound like they came from the same mix. for example the snare, it's hard for me to imagine they could draw out that snare sound in the second mix if it wasn't already there.

Actually on 2nd listen and due to the EQ changes in the 2nd mix I can see it now. Neither mix is great but the 2nd mix is definitely better, it's not muddy like the first mix. But really and truly, it sounds like you have all the parts there, they just need to be mixed properly.

Thanks for the listen and the comments, Tod! Much appreciated.

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

I think the first half is better if you just pull back the low end a bit. Like almost just low shelf it a bit. It just feels a lot better to me. Much more like I space I'd like to hang out in for a bit.

I don't like the second half at all. It pumps and breathes and honks in all kind of weird ways and is strident and just uninviting in ways I don't think this song wants to be.

Thanks, ashcal_lt! My biggest concern as I have said is the low end and it seems that most people agree with my fear that it is too much.

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

Yeah but you're deaf in the high frequency range, so you can't hear how insane it gets. The strumming of the guitar is really plinky and the vocals get sibilant in a weird way. I think having some of that effect would be fine, but it's like overexposed photography.

I didn't want to say that... but he has mentioned how bad his hearing the end is on numerous occassions.

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

It's not quite "sounds like cocaine", but...

Close?

[Jeffsounds]

Ok, here's the deal. The first 30 seconds is my own poor excuse for mastering. The 2nd 30 seconds is Izotope's Ozone 8 Elements using the mastering assistant. I usually compare theirs to mine just to see if I'm in the ballpark but Ozone ALWAYS cranks up the high end and kills the low end on ANYTHING I feed it. Even professionally mixed songs that I rip from a CD. That just got me wondering if there is something wrong with Ozone's algorithm or something wrong with my mixes. Or both? Which is why I did the A/B test. It should be fairly well known that I always have trouble with the low end and with Ozone killing it so completely (thanks Munchkins) it rightly gave me a low end inferiority complex to add to my already low end fears.

So I'm going back to the mixing board, I guess and try once again to figure out that damned low end. Or maybe I'll just write 'em and let someone else play and record 'em.

[ashcat_lt]

Originally Posted by Jeffsounds

Close?

Oh idk. It (we’re talking about the second half here) honestly sounds like a decent mix that’s kind of been ruined by some hamfisted attempt at “mastering”. That might be partly because I’m hearing it contrasted with the first half. Like if I didn’t know the mix had that much vibe I might not mind that it’s been totally destroyed.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Jeffsounds

But is personal preference what we should be going for with our mixes?

Would you pay a pro mixer to send you a mix of your tracks that you don't actually prefer?

If I painted houses for a living (actually used to), chances are some customers are going to ask me to paint their house with colors I think are butt ugly. Their house, not my problem.

If I'm painting houses to sell, I'm sort of chained to colors that sell, of which I may completely not prefer aka butt ugly to my preference but since selling is the only goal, that's what I'd do.

If I'm building houses and painting them for my own enjoyment, some portion of others may like my color choices too, others will not, but it is for my enjoyment and any who happen to also enjoy. My expression and how it makes me feel trumps everything else in this scenario.

None of the above will please everyone so pick one and use that as your guide.

In the analog days the goal was flat.

Not too long ago I spent a month listening to as much as I could of 50 years of mixes of published music as an experiment - there was little "flat" or "known good instrument tone" to be found, it was all varying people's representations of what they liked or simply worked in "that" mix and they varied wildly, just like taste and opinions. It was eye-opening for me.

There is of course some sense of representing the instruments and parts involved in a listenable and balanced way across the spectrum, so the listener can hear the parts as intended... but my main point was there will also be thousands of opinions that are nothing more than their opinions based on what formed their own experiences growing up - IOW, if someone says "that kick drum sound sucks" it is in relation to their idea of kick which may have zero to do with my tastes and/or the taste of many others. So the better path might be listening to opinions of those who create mixes that you like and aspire to.

[SoundGuyDave]

Originally Posted by Jeffsounds

My biggest problem is with the low end. Always has been. I try to make it sound like all the records I heard and hear but it always ends up sounding like someone jumped in the car and cranked the bass up.

Grab a selection of music that you want your mix to sound like, and edit them into little clips that really focus on the spectral and/or dynamic content you're shooting for. Now, throw up some metering. Either something like ReaFIR, or another spectral analyzer where you can "capture" the sonic thumbprint, plus look at what's happening dynamically as well. It's not a matter of "crank up the bass" on your tracks, it's where in the bass region you do it, how much, and how you handle the dynamics. Combine a high-pass filter with a low-shelf and you can create some very nice assymetric low-end boosts. If it starts to get farty (the car sub effect, license plate rattle included!), throw a multiband comp on it to limit the amount of filter effect there is relative to the dynamics of the signal in that region. If you look at how the "pro" mixes do the low end management, it's all about energy over time. A giant EQ bump may have the same area under the curve as a gentler, compressed/limited filter, but they will sound completely different. One will be thuddy, the other deep and smooth.

But is personal preference what we should be going for with our mixes?

Absolutely. There are certainly technical requirements that need to be met for a mix to be "good," like controlled spectral content and dynamics, and having all the elements audible without masking, but once those requirements ARE met? All up to taste. If Chris Lord-Alge and Tony Masserati both mix the same track, I guarantee that both mixes will be "good," at a minimum. Which is better? That's purely subjective. Do you like vanilla or strawberry ice cream? Is one "better" than another objectively? No. Subjectively? Yes.

In the analog days the goal was flat.

So, what defines flat, and thus "correct?" Is it the drum tone on Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" or Queensryche's "Silent Lucidity?" To me, "Flat" really only describes the transfer function between two sources. It's kind of like saying that a single mono track is out of phase (and I mean phase, not polarity!). It can't be until it has relationship to another track. If by "flat" you mean a pristine, uncolored recording of an acoustic event, that precludes any "artistic" input from the mix engineer, and requires only pure audio engineering chops. I'll vote for the "art," thank you very much! Take a Deutche Gramaphone symphonic recording, which is arguably a ruler-flat representation of a real symphony orchestra in a real concert hall, and is about as "real" as you're going to find short of a flight to Salzburg. Then consider a nice Bjork track, loaded with distortion, filtering, compression/limiting and other audio trickery. Applying the techniques from one to the other would result in an absolute abomination. Flat is "correct" for the symphonic recording mix. Flat is "incorrect" for the Bjork track.

These days it doesn't seem to matter what a mix sounds like as long it's within a certain LUFS for the different platforms. I just want my music to sound as good as possible.

Oh, I don't know about that. "Good" mixes still tick all the boxes before you can start discussing artistic merit, and "bad" mixes don't. Now that the "volume wars" are over (thank the Lord above!!), there is still incentive to make your mix sound bigger/fatter/wider/crisper/more-exciting than the next fellows' mixes. So I think we're still in an era where there is some experimenting with exactly how to accomplish that within a given loudness range. Back in the day, there were separate mastering processes for intended distribution on vinyl, cassette and CD formats. Physical constraints limited what could be achieved on a vinyl master that didn't apply to the CD format. Cassette masters were hyped in the high-end to compensate for the lack-luster reproduction capability of the medium as well as the inevitable degradation from repeated plays. Now that streaming is the de facto means of distribution, it behooves us to learn how to "translate" our mixes so that the listener experiences what you intend him/her/it/them to experience, and not something that is inadvertently introduced by the medium itself, like added limiting. We all know that process can radically change the character and balance of a mix if not done with deliberation. Again, it all need to translate. In the end, that is what your job as an engineer is all about. You translate the artist's intent to the listener. If it needs to be "loud," then make it loud, but see if you can figure out how to accomplish that in a way that won't be altered when it's uploaded to Spotify or YouTube or wherever. At least we're no longer trying to mix/master tracks to have a dynamic range from -0.1dBFS to -0.15dB any more! There have always been compromises in the way we have to mix. Even in the "golden age" of Motown, they frequently double-tracked the bass guitar an octave up, or at least doubled it with an electric. Why? Frequency cutoff on the AM transmitters of the day would wipe the bass out of the mix. It's all about translating the song to the listener.

[CrankyChris]

I prefer the first by a lot.

I assume that's the non-mastered b/c the last half sounds stressed/compressed.

You can hear how the low end of the bass is gone in 2nd half.

Now as for how it sounds through an iphone mono speaker or ear buds? I have no idea.

[Jeffsounds]

Originally Posted by CrankyChris

I prefer the first by a lot.

I assume that's the non-mastered b/c the last half sounds stressed/compressed.

You can hear how the low end of the bass is gone in 2nd half.

Now as for how it sounds through an iphone mono speaker or ear buds? I have no idea.

Thanks for listening and the comments! Both have been "mastered" with the first being my own mastering and the second being Izotope's Ozone 8 Elements. See my post #17 earlier in this thread.

[karbomusic]

I meant to add earlier, if you are just recording and mixing a song, when you mix it, if it sounds like you think it should and that translates well in other systems and environments to your liking, it is already "mastered" and you are done.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

Oh idk. It (we’re talking about the second half here) honestly sounds like a decent mix that’s kind of been ruined by some hamfisted attempt at “mastering”.

That describes Ozone to me. I'm sure it has its usefulness but it seems to do a lot of overkill stuff in its presets, and people tend to rely on those presets (otherwise they'd just learn to mix and master better).