Critical and Analytical Listening

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Can you give specific examples of these points using the eval track and if the mastered versions brought this a little closer to the goals that you would like to hear for the track both artistically and sonically?

I'll be happy to do that, but I won't be able to get to the new mastered versions until later today or tonight for purely logistical reasons.

Which, for me, may be a good thing because it gives me a chance to first enumerate some of the properties I think can be defined and examined for how well a mix does or does not serve them. Once these are listed (and maybe someone else has some other ideas, this is not necessarily a definitive list), that can serve as an extended mini-Clef (Clef Notes? ) to use for my personal analysis. Here's the ones I listed way back on the first page atht are relevant to this issue:

- The mix at a minimum supports, and at most helps create, the intended song arrangement rather than constraining or hiding it.

I have heard pro and amateur mixes where the arrangement was almost completely ignored (e. g. a ripping sax solo that remains buried behind the rhythm piano because the levels of neither track were jockeyed when showcase time came), or where an instrument is featured too far in front so that, even though it its following the arrangement, it is wrongly over-emphasized and just does not sound right to be featured at that time.

OTOH, there is a distressingly increasing number of raw tracks crossing either my desk or field of vision that come from rookie bands or recordists where there is no actual arrangement, it's just four guys playin their parts either as if each of them was the lead or with no one ever taking the lead. It's at this point where some structure needs to be put into the mix in order to keep it from just soundling like a wall of mud.


- The mix at minimum supports, and at most helps create the intended mood or emotional thrust of the song.

This is what we've been talking about in the last few posts. I think everybody should get the idea.

I would like to point out, however, that this is not something that I think is always necessary. For example, on Tom's homework assignment MP3, I made the comment that I felt it was a fairly straight up pop mix without a lot of emotion or overt style put into it, but I also didn't think that was ever really needed or intended. But when when it is used effectively, it cam make the difference between a hit record and a forgotten B side.


- The mix at minimum supports, and at most helps create the main hooks in the song.

What are the main hooks of the song? Is it the tone of the wall of guitars? Is it a main riff? is it that stagger in the backbeat? Is it the chord progression? The words of the chorus? The cowbells? The way the vocalist sneers out that one word? The overall rhythm or groove? The killer guest B3? Any combination of these (I dare anybody to count the number of different hooks, both natural and engineer-manufactured, in Fastball's "The Way" or Santana's "Smooth", just for two over-used examples)? And is the mix helping or hurting them?



- The mix provides the proper emphasis to the strongest element(s) of the song, whether they be the lyrics, the vocalist(s), the musicianship or the composition, and that it shifts the focus of this emphasis as necessary throughout the song.

I think this is kinda self-explanatory.


And one more I'd like to add to the list is...

- The mix at minimum supports, and at most creates a purposeful stereo image.

Panning not just for balance and interest, but to create a specific image, either real or abstract. "Real" at one extreme might be something like trying to re-create a real stage-ish experience with the band standing in front of you as if you were running Camera B. "Abstract" at another extreme might be something like what Alan Parsons or Brian Eno excel at where geometries and moving patters of sound in a seemingly 3D space suck the listener inside the music. Or any combination of the two in the middle.

Like with the emotion property, this one is not always necessary. There are some great mixes out there that are simply panned LCR (Left-Center-Right) that make absolutely no stereophonic sense and create no image whatsoever. But when used, this is a property that can be measured and can add that extra dimension to the mix (as well as open up the mix stage for more rrom and more possibilities).


The bottom line is that these are all mix properties that can be quantified and recognized, even if they can bend more to artistic than technical, and that can be enjoyed by any ear but require an analytical and critical ear to study or to (re)create, and can have a large and direct bearing on the overall quality of the mix.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Glen,

I think that all of your points are very good additions or replacements to the production section of CLEF. One of the things that is difficult though is finding a quasi objective measure of these things. When it comes to something like frequency balance while many may not be able to identify the particular problem, most people seem to agree (in my experience) when there is an issue with mud/clarity or when overly bright or harsh. On the other hand production values are far more subjective. Harsh may be a good thing for an aggressive rock track, not so good for a classical or folk track.

We all seem to recognize (and critique with some consistency) characteristics like "fat", "skinny", "ugly", "beautiful", but anybody might be attracted to any of these qualities. For example a punk girl with pink hair and tattoos might be attractive to punk guys but not so attractive to guys that like hippie girls. The choice of pink hair/tattoos is a production value and whether it "serves" the goal of the person is entirely up to the goals of that person and their reaction it receives. Before we can critique the production values we have to know the goals of the artist were. Critiquing without that information is making assumptions or flying blind.

On the other hand we can all recognize pink and tattoos when we seem them. That's the non-production side of CLEF and critical listening/analysis. I'm curious if there is a common thread of agreement there with this track and the mastered versions. While this is the more clinical side of critical listening, I think that recognizing the sonic characteristics of a mix might better if done first and then evaluate how well these characteristics serve the production goals if we know what those are.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think that recognizing the sonic characteristics of a mix might better if done first and then evaluate how well these characteristics serve the production goals if we know what those are.

I understand what you're saying, but when one really thinks about it (or at least when I do ), I'm not sure it's possible to separate them, Tom.

This is why I said at the outset of this thread that I felt the the CLEF should be viewed not as a grading system of right/wrong or good/bad necessarily, but more as simply a relative profile/analysis of the mix. There's not a single item in the present CLEF that isn't subject to at least some degree of subjective judgment, or that given the content of the mix, that any given item on the CLEF is properly attainable.

On that last "attainable" point, would you give a recording of an oboe-violin-piccolo trio low marks for frequency balance because it did not have enough low end in it? Or do you adjust the "grade" on a curve upwards, understanding that those instruments are just plain lacking in bass and that the recording is a fair recording of what's there? Or do you give it even lower grade because it was a bum idea to create such an arrangement and production to start with, that it leaves the listener lacking, and that the producer should have included some balance tracks in the form of some lower-forment instruments?

Which answer one choses is in itself a subjective judgement, and there are major problems with each answer, and the answers themselves become increasingly more subjective as we iterate through the choices. The answer increasingly requires examining the "why" and not just the "what" of the mix.

At the beginning of this thread I gave two or three example of popular commercial recordings that I'd like to see someone churn through a CLEF analysis because they are examples of what are usually considered A-list productions that would actually score fairly low marks in the current CLEF, because they take purposeful and effective liberties with some of the "standards". One may not like all the choices the engineer/producer made (I personally do not like the harshness of "Heroes", but I recognize it's intent), but they are purposeful choices and not just mistakes. So how does one judge that? Do we take away points because it does not ideally balance or do we give it points for purposefully fucking with the balance to achieve effect? And how well can we apply impartiality in recognizing the difference between recognizing and understanding the "why" of the effect and our subjective opinion of how good it actually sounds?

Where can we possibly objectively draw the line between the technical and the artistic, when we must constantly make such subjective judgements?

Long post again. Sorry Part 2 coming up...

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Part 2:

I don't completely agree that the technical stuff is necessarily easier to spot and to agree upon as the "artistic" stuff. In fact the more I think about it, the more I realize that "technical" and "artistic" is a false division. The last post (Part 1 of this post) was chock full of discussion about the "technical" being directly affected by both "artistic" choice and subjective opinion in ways that cannot be considered separate of each other.

But even more pragmatically, when it comes to the mix properties I put up as important to listen for - service to arrangement, service to emotion, service to hooks, service to song strengths and service to image - of course one can recognize these things and find agreement with others on a similar degree with the "technical" stuff.

Other than the "emotional" property, I don't actually believe the rest of them are really that "artistic" in their execution.

Either you do service to the arrangement or you hinder it. Anyone with a good critical ear can tell that that saxaphone solo is too far back in the mix and should not be buried by the rhythm piano and agree with that more often than not.

Either you create a meaningful stereophonic image and do it well, or you don't and just go with an abstract balance. This is easy for the critical ear to hear and extremely easy to agree upon.

Either you let the hooks stick out to catch the listener in or you bury them in the mix and strip them of their potency. This can be a bit harder, perhaps, but most of us can agree when a real mistake has been made in this regard.

And as far as song strengths, I think we'd all recognize that emphasizing Dylan's guitar playing and leaving his lyrics unintelligible, or conversely, focusing the mix around the meaning of REM's lyrics instead of treating them as another instrument in an overall instrumental arrangment, would in either case be like admiring Jessica Alba for her math skills or worrying more about what kind pf plate to put the steak on instead of whether it actually is cooked right or not.

Even service to "emotion" has quantifiable aspects to it. In fact, that's actually already in the CLEF! (see 5.3)

Bottom line, any of these so called "artistic" properties have recognizable (to the critical ear) technical execution attributes to them just as much as the "technical" ones do, and (IMHO) the "technical" ones cannot meaningfully be judged outside of the context of their "artistic" intent. This, in my mind, basically creates a wash, an actually equality between the properties, making any distinction between the "technical" and the "artistic" fairly disappear.

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

On that last "attainable" point, would you give a recording of an oboe-violin-piccolo trio low marks for frequency balance because it did not have enough low end in it? Or do you adjust the "grade" on a curve upwards, understanding that those instruments are just plain lacking in bass and that the recording is a fair recording of what's there?

That's not really what frequency balance is about. Frequency balance means a realistic representation of that which is being recorded, i.e. not skewing the frequency spectrum toward an unnatural sound (too much bass or treble for and oboe) . It doesn't mean that all frequencies have to be represented, but that there isn't a unnatural "resonance" in a given area or areas.

I wouldn't think that anyone would want a bad balance no matter what they felt regarding the production qualities of a track, it cuts across all forms of music production.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's not really what frequency balance is about. Frequency balance means a realistic representation of that which is being recorded, i.e. not skewing the frequency spectrum toward an unnatural sound (too much bass or treble for and oboe) . It doesn't mean that all frequencies have to be represented, but that there isn't a unnatural "resonance" in a given area or areas.

I wouldn't think that anyone would want a bad balance no matter what they felt regarding the production qualities of a track, it cuts across all forms of music production.

I think there may be a few different ways of legitimately considering frequency balance.

I was thinking about this just the other day, as a matter of fact. I was listening in the car to a disc called "Zydeco Party Music", a compilation disc of mostly B side material by names such as Marcia Ball, Buckwheat Zydeco, etc. ($1.50 at a local church rummage sale ) I'm listening and for most of the tracks the critical side of my ears is saying two things to me: 1) Man, this disc is awfully heavy on the midrange, and 2) the bass is really well-defined, almost too much so; it almost sounds as if it's solo'd.

It occurred to me that the main reason I was getting this impression was because that was what the actual content of the songs were: Cajun-style drums, upright/honky-tonk piano, two electric guitars, one or two accordions, a sax (usually alto) maybe some horns and, if lucky, a washboard. Everything concentrated on the midrange. The only thing anchoring the bottom down was the bass, there was nothing to get in it's way at all, which is why it sounds so clean and almost soloed.

Now, in general, the arrangements were quite traditional for the instruments involved, the mixes and the mastering technically proficient, and so forth. No complaints "technically". Yet the mixes did not add up quite right to the other side of my ears. I was not quite happy with the sound; it was lacking, left me wanting, and was a hair's breath away from fatiguing.

No, I would not want to try and force those mixes to be something they're not. Yet leaving them as they were would cause me to give them low marks on the CLEF for frequency balance because *that is how they sounded*. The fact that it may have been the fault of the arrangement and the production values is something that my ear doesn't care about, the results were the results and it sounded the way it sounded regardless of the reason.

Which is, IMHO, really another important result of quality critical listening and why "why" is important; the ability to recognize why a mix sounds the way it does is required to understand what the fix is. In this case you're right, the fix would not be to try an force fit stuff into the low-mids or upper bass via dictatorial EQ, the fix would be in adding a flugelhorn or barie sax, or getting a different tracking tone out of one of the guitars, stuff more in the realm of the producer, arranger and tracking engineer. Recognizing that will save the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer a lot of wasted time, and for the home recordist who has to wear all those hats at once, will save them even *more*.

G.

 

[iqi616]

I have heard pro and amateur mixes where the arrangement was almost completely ignored (e. g. a ripping sax solo that remains buried behind the rhythm piano because the levels of neither track were jockeyed when showcase time came), or where an instrument is featured too far in front so that, even though it its following the arrangement, it is wrongly over-emphasized and just does not sound right to be featured at that time.

OTOH, there is a distressingly increasing number of raw tracks crossing either my desk or field of vision that come from rookie bands or recordists where there is no actual arrangement, it's just four guys playin their parts either as if each of them was the lead or with no one ever taking the lead. It's at this point where some structure needs to be put into the mix in order to keep it from just soundling like a wall of mud.

Two very important points.

I agree with the points about mixing being an art. I think the example mix is one where the tracks have been assembled but, taking the point of view of a mix being a performance like a conducted orchestra, the mix has not been well performed to capture or enhance any of the "magic" that's there.

 

[masteringhouse]

While very good points all around personally I would like to see some of this knowledge and experience put into actual practice. What are your views on the audio files? Was the frequency balance (however you define it) and overall sound closer to what you believe to be the artistic goals for the original mix? Were the balance issues between the vocals and drums improved, etc.?

 

[gecko zzed]

Was the frequency balance (however you define it) and overall sound closer to what you believe to be the artistic goals for the original mix?

This is a crucial question, and the three most significant words are 'believe' and 'artistic goals'.

It is possible that the intentions of the performer about how they wish their music to sound do not match the aspirations of the engineer mixing that music. (Forgive me, but I think I'm off on another related tangent.)

Ideally, we don't want to the sound to be close to what we 'believe' the intentions are; we want it to be close to what we 'know' the intentions are. To do this requires a high level of rapport between whoever commissions the recording and whoever mixes it. Sometimes this rapport is relatively easy to achieve if commissioner and engineer share broad musical directions. Sometimes it can be problematic if musical views are contrary, specially if the commissioner wants things done that offend the musical sensibilities of the engineer and his (or her) years of experience doing this work.

A really useful phrase is 'fit for purpose'. I'm recording someone at the moment who is not gifted vocally. She, bless her soul, is realistic enough to recognise this, so she is not seeking me to find a magic plug-in that will make her sound amazing. Her purpose in recording is not to dazzle the world, but to put together a set of songs that she can share (like a photo album) with her friends and family. Knowing this purpose makes my life easier: I don't have to worry so much if her pitch wavers, I don't have to put her under pressure to do retake after retake, and I don't have to resort to extreme technology to fix things. I do have to do the best I can from my side, but in the end she will get a CD that is not perfect, but with which she will be happy. I will be satisfied that I've produced something she is happy with, even though it is musically unsatisfying for me.

On the other hand, I've recorded a singer-songwriter who is a strong guitarist. He is a pleasure to track, because his playing is so strong and confident that retakes are hardly ever necessary. But mixing is a real chore because he is forever seeking the perfect sound for his guitar, and we spend an inordinate time making EQ adjustments that have insignificant effect on the overall sound. Additionally, his preference is for a mix that is guitar-heavy, and supporting instruments are pushed way into the background. That is highly unsatisfying for me, because my personal preference is for what I would consider a more balanced mix. Despite my preferences and my gentle nudgings towards alternatives, he is persistent. In the end, it is his project, and it is my job to produce something that suits his own purposes. He was very happy with what he ended up, even though I believe a better result could have been achieved.

When I'm doing my own stuff, I have a tendency to over-produce. It seems only natural that if I have a guitar in my hand I should play it all the way through a piece. I have to make a deliberate and determined effort to resist this. So it is with pleasure that I get someone in (another singer-songwriter; there is no end of them!) who seems to be interested in minimalist simplicity. We record a track, ending up with a great vocal and a very tasteful guitar, and I think 'great'! But he rings up and says 'what do you reckon about a big choral effect on the choruses?' Inwardly I groan, but, again, it's his project, so I say 'we'll give it a try next time you come around'. We try it and have a listen. Hmmm, it's okay, but I liked it better without. Fortunately, he is not blinded by what he hears in his head, and he realises that what he hears with his ears is also 'hmmm'. We mutually agree that it was worth a try but it's not going to fly. This is an example of commissioner and engineer achieving rapport that resulted in something that was satisfying to both, even if we did take a kind of circular path getting there.

I do quite a bit of CD reviewing and this is tricky, because the CDs arrive unannounced and I have little knowledge of the performer, and pretty well nothing about their intentions. In some ways ignorance makes the job easier, because I am not influenced by pre-existing knowledge (or acquaintance), and I can judge the music on its subjective emotional impact on me, and of the technical qualities inherent in the performance and the recording. The downside is that if I hear what I perceive as flaws in the recording, I don't know whether they were intentional, or whether they were lapses in the process. For example, on one CD, on all tracks the acoustic guitar was recorded using a DI, and had that awful brittle metallic sound I dislike intensely. It may have been recorded that way in ignorance (neither performer nor recorder realising its nastiness), or it may have been done deliberately (because for some reason the performer wanted it that way), or it may have been done for convenience (because the nature of the recording project was that miking up the guitar was not a practical option). Not knowing the intention, I had to review on what I heard and how it affected me (and it wasn't pleasant).

Perversely, I am guilty of exactly that crime. However, the 'fitness for purpose' rule invoke itself big time. I got a frantic call on a Saturday. It went something like this:

"Can we come down and record some demo tracks?"
"Sure. When do you want to come down?'
"Are you free on Sunday?"
"Yep, what time?" (Fortunately I was)
"Sunday morning."
"Okay, see you then. When do you need the demos by?" (This should have been my first question. Foolish me.)
"Monday morning." (It turns out that they had been trying to organise recording somewhere else, and it fell through at the last minute.)

They arrived on Sunday morning: bass, keys, kit and acoustic guitar. They wanted to record the backing tracks first and live, then add vocals. They play live with the guitar through a DI, so I suggested, as an expediency, that we do the same, then redo the guitar later. That way they could play together with everything going direct in so no bleed on the kit. By lunchtime we had the backing tracks for eight songs recorded (no clicktrack, and almost all were first takes). In the afternoon we recorded all the vocals (a few retakes, but not many). In the evening we mixed down and burnt to a CD. Eight songs and recorded to a CD in twelve hours: an exemplary performance from them! But no time to redo the guitar. They were delighted with the result, and even with a DI guitar, it sounded okay to me.

But . . . someone will listen to this demo, and go "It's okay, except for the DI on the guitar", and they will know nothing about the circumstances of the recording.

We never got around to redoing the guitar, but it had a reasonable pickup and wasn't the worst I'd heard. I did a remix at a more leisurely pace a few weeks later, which turned out not to be too different from the original. Sometimes the adrenalin rush of panic works to your advantage!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

While very good points all around personally I would like to see some of this knowledge and experience put into actual practice. What are your views on the audio files? Was the frequency balance (however you define it) and overall sound closer to what you believe to be the artistic goals for the original mix? Were the balance issues between the vocals and drums improved, etc.?

Sorry for the delay, but I've been stuck without access to broadband this weekend. I've been downloading the WAV files via dialup (ugh!) since about 3:30 this morning my time. As I type this I'm about 10% through the third file. At this rate it won't be until after the Bears game that I'll get an analysis in.

That said, I think maybe we're talking two different mini-threads here. I can't wait to check out the new masters, and I'm sure I'll be very impressed with the results. But for many of the things I've been referring to, by the time it gets to mastering, it's too late to do a whole lot about it. Using that zydeco disc as a continuing example, it's possible that the remastering engineer purposely made the entire disc sound as though it was being played through NS10s - in which case he should be fired - but in my experience listening to a *lot* of zydeco (recorded and live), he was probably limited in what he could reasonably do because of the somewhat lopsided nature of zydeco arrangements and a lack of proper planning for that on the part of the upstream engineers/producers.

The interesting thing about that dilemma is when you listen to this stuff live, it doesn't sound unbalanced; it sounds quite full and balanced (assuming the band is good and the FOH doesn't mess it up.) But it requires proper planning and technique by the tracking engineer and mixing engineer to keep that full sound and keep the midrange from building up into mud. You really need to let each instrument take a particular role within the spectrum.

Sure, the mastering engineer may be able to recover some of the fullness that's lost, but when you have 8 or 9 instruments going in a stereophonic field not easily separated through M/S processing, his options are going to be limited, or that least the best options will require a lot of work (and a higher budget). Besides, that would be like you said, trying to make it something it never was once the Red Button was pressed or at least once the mixdown was set.

This is why critical listening is indeed critical, and why it belongs not just to the realm of mastering, but to the entire process from composition all the way through mastering.

G.

P. S. (41% done )

 

[masteringhouse]

This is why critical listening is indeed critical, and why it belongs not just to the realm of mastering, but to the entire process from composition all the way through mastering.

Absolutely!

Maybe my bias is showing a bit regarding the mastering stage, however the first part of this thread was supposed to be a critique of the mixing. While we could tell the original engineer what we felt were faults and how to potentially remix it, it would probably extend this thread to several months in order to follow through. I would prefer to approach this thread as a "what can you do once it's been mixed"? If this one works, and there is significant participation, a marathon mixing version of this may be in order.

Glen and Gecko have brought up significant reasons why one can't expect miracles during mastering (though sometimes they happen) and to show that there has to be "reasonable expectations" when you choose an ME. Also that if the communication between an ME and artist are not in agreement the project can take a wrong turn. I've seen threads elsewhere (mostly GS) where clients complaint about the skills of a given ME when in fact it's an error in communication or the submission of material that never really had the potential for it to become what the artists wanted.

The real questions for this thread (IMHO) are:

• Can there be a general agreement to what is wrong (and right) with a mix that can be communicated in a consistent fashion?
  
• What specific remedies can people come up with to move the mix toward a direction that they feel better represents the intentions of the artist?
  
• How well did we do once applying those remedies?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Maybe my bias is showing a bit regarding the mastering stage, however the first part of this thread was supposed to be a critique of the mixing. While we could tell the original engineer what we felt were faults and how to potentially remix it, it would probably extend this thread to several months in order to follow through. I would prefer to approach this thread as a "what can you do once it's been mixed"? If this one works, and there is significant participation, a marathon mixing version of this may be in order.

I think we both have our own biases just a bit here, Tom, you as a mastering engineer, me as mostly a mixing engineer and editor. But I think that's a good thing because we cover a bit more of a combined perspective, I think. I imagine we all would pretty much agree on that.

I personally looked at both the critiquing of the mixing and your mastering exercises as demonstration and learning exercises in critical listening, not necessarily as courses of action. I would not expect to tell the anonymous donor of the example song to go and remix just for our sake. Not only do I - after listening to your sample masters - believe that a remix is not necessary (more on the masters in a minute), but I thought that was well beyond the scope of this thread, which is more about developing an ear than about developing a mix (or so I thought.)

• Can there be a general agreement to what is wrong (and right) with a mix that can be communicated in a consistent fashion?
  
• What specific remedies can people come up with to move the mix toward a direction that they feel better represents the intentions of the artist?
  
• How well did we do once applying those remedies?

That first question is really a couple of questions in one. Can there be agreement to what is right and wrong with a mix? I believe only to an extent. There can be some real and mostly obvious mistakes that most or all of us will agree are wrong most or all of the time, but once the obvious mistakes are out of the way, things can become subjective and become matters of personal preference more than "right" or "wrong".

Communicated in a consistent fashion? Only if there is an agreed upon scale of measurement and vocabulary for such things, or if the people communicating know each other well enough to be able to transcend shortcomings in either of those. But for most of us in real world situations, such measurements, vocabularies or familiarties don't exist. When a first time client tells me that he thinks, "the piano sounds just a bit too 'ootzy'", I want to start pulling my hair out because I know this is the start of a long slog due to a failure to communicate. What can sometimes help is to use a third-party production as a reference; "I want my piano to sound like a George Winston recording". Then you can reply, "The problem is George Winston isn't using a Fisher-Price piano, Schroeder." D)

"Intentions of the artist" I find to be a slippery term, if for no other reason than as often as not, the artist doesn't have any major intentions with regard to the production, or hands off that responsibility to a separate producer.

First, I think it's very important on any production (notice the noun there) that there has to be a decision made as early in the process as possible just who is going to be wearing the badge of "producer" and it's up to that person or persons to communicate to the engineer (assuming they are different people) what their "intention" or "vision" is.

In cases where the artist has no stated intention or clue beyond "I just want it to sound good" or "That's your job, I just make the music", and there is no other producer or manager, then there is (I believe, but others will probably disagree) a implicit responsibility handed to the engineer to a) first, do no harm and b) use their best skills - technical and creative - to serve what the material asks for; I guess that would be what we perceive to be the intentions of the material itself. In essence, they become de facto producer, but with a mandate to serve the material more than serving some wild Rick Rubin/Phil Spector conceptual vision of it.

How well we did has as many answers as our product has listeners, with obviously the most important answer being the one given by our client.

Next post: The Masters (not the golf kind) EDIT: Oops, I gotta walk away fron the computer for just a little bt and take care of some personal stuff. Next post will be in just a little while...

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The Three Masterteers

First off, let me compliment the donor to our little exercise one again for a very fine song, arrangement and recording. Well done!

I also must compliment your students Tom, on mastering jobs very well done. I expected to be impressed, but frankly I am even more impressed than I expected. There are some things accomplished in there that would would not have expected to be done without a remix. Maybe that's why I'm a mixing engineer and not a mastering engineer .

If I had to chose (for my tastes), it would be between 1 and 3. #2 is fine, but it doesn't have quite the punch or definition that I'd prefer. As far as the other two, it's tough to choose; each has it's advantages yet each has it's small areas where I like the other better:

I like the overall soundstage of #1 a bit better at the outset; the guitars are spread L/R, but it sounds like a more natural spread than in #3 to me, with room left on the outside for room verb. OTOH, #3 comes in with a bit more punch and definition, and when the bass kicks in it sounds less muddy and more defined, all of which appeals to me. Very slight edge to #3 here, but both have their long and short suits.

~1:43: Drum fill and cymbals sound cleaner and less veiled on #3 to me, a good representative of the drums overall, I think. I am impressed on both tracks how much they were able to resuscitate the drums our of the original, but slight edge to #3 here as well.

Right about here the bass takes a break; understandable and a nice touch in the original arrangement, but it never seems to quite recover after that break. All the extra vocals and such after 2:00 add to the midrange density, but the bass never quite seems to quite come back to fully balance it out again. This is pretty much equally true (to my ears) on both masters; was this because there was no more blood to squeeze out of the stone in the original? Maybe it wasn't their fault. In any case, I'd call it a tie between the two masters, but a tie in that they both are lacking in the same way to my ears.

At about 2:00 or so there is another important divergence between the two for me. On #1 the harmonizing vocals come through better (a nice hook that is showcased better) and the lead vocal and right guitar hold their own and remain nicely consistent. Whereas on #3 at this point, the harmonizing vocals are a bit less distinct and the lead vocal seems to recede further into the mix (not what I personally would go for) while the right rhythm git gets all jangly and dominant (also not what I would druther.) Edge to #1 here.

That said, though, this works this way for maybe about 10-15 seconds. At that point the overall balance of the mix shifts left in #1 because there's almost nothing *but* that guitar on the right to balance out all the vocal action center and left. This is not necessarily a fault in mastering; perhaps it might be better fixed in the mix. Without being there, I can't say for sure, but the jangly overbearing right git starting around 2:00 in #3 winds up balancing the amplitude in the center as the repeating chorus continues on past 2:15. I guess my solution to that might be some gradual automation of the L/R balance so that we get the advantage of each master in it's own time.

Then comes the fadeout. I like the idea of the slightly longer fade in #3, but the fade itself sounds a little artifacty and grainy, almost as if it were a time stretched verb. The fade in #1 is slightly shorter than I'd prefer, but has (to me) a better sound quality. Kind of a wash, but I'd have to go with #1 because I personally would take a too-short but better-sounding fade over one that's the right length but not as clean.

A couple of small technical things:

Maybe this wasn't part of your exercise for them, Tom, but apparently the original mix had a rather audible noise floor at around -75 to -80 dBFS or so (give or take.) None of the masters really addressed that. I personally would have set up my volume envelopes to take that out of the beginning and end of the track. #3 kind of handles the beginning by cutting in the music almost immediately, and the long fade covers some of it at the end (maybe the noise floor is what I'm hearing in the fade?), but still not as clean as I would have done.

My software (Sound Forge 6) reports that Master #2 has an itsy-bitsy, teeney-weeney DC offset to it. Only on the order of about -90dBFS, so it's nothing I'd worry about too much, and I'm sure it has virtually zero effect on the sonic outcome. I only bring it up out of curiosity: does this indicate that the students had different gear to work with?

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

My software (Sound Forge 6) reports that Master #2 has an itsy-bitsy, teeney-weeney DC offset to it. Only on the order of about -90dBFS, so it's nothing I'd worry about too much, and I'm sure it has virtually zero effect on the sonic outcome. I only bring it up out of curiosity: does this indicate that the students had different gear to work with?

G.

Thanks Glen for your feedback, this is exactly the type of insight that I was hoping we would acheive. Do you feel that the changes brought the mix closer to what you feel the original artist may have wanted to convey? If so, how?

As far as software used, the students had their choice of a Pro Tools HD system with Waveburner. All pretty much had to use Waveburner to create the CD and PQ list (along with any additional processing they felt necessary) the use of Pro Tools was optional, but due to the type of processing this may have required (automation, M/S matrix, etc.) it was was likely required. I'll have to check back on their notes to see if all were used equally in these three. It's interesting to me that it's around -90. There was a software bug reported on some of the forums regarding Waveburner dropping a bit when used in certain ways. If that bit was stuck on instead of dropped, hmmm...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Thanks Glen for your feedback, this is exactly the type of insight that I was hoping we would acheive. Do you feel that the changes brought the mix closer to what you feel the original artist may have wanted to convey? If so, how?

Well, of course I can only guess what the original artist may or may not have wanted, but I think they certainly do in the fact that everything can be heard better, that the arrangement has been pulled out of the mud a bit, and that the masters sound more cohesive.

Just for example, I doubt that the original artist actually wanted the drums so far back as they were in the mix (parts of them bordered on casual inaudibility), or that he/she wanted the song to sound like layers of tracks that tended to sonicly lay a bit like water on oil rather than the more blended, homogeneous sound of these masters.

At the same time, the masters remain true to the original mix. They sound much better, of course, but not by changing the basic flavor or intent of the mix; rather by enhancing and polishing it to let that basic flavor come out more defined.

So yeah, I'll hazard a guess that they remain true to the artists intent - at least to the extent that the artist's original self-mix was true to it.

It's interesting to me that it's around -90. There was a software bug reported on some of the forums regarding Waveburner dropping a bit when used in certain ways. If that bit was stuck on instead of dropped, hmmm...

Yep, one bit is what SF reported. Here is the actual display (with the key line highlighted). This is the only one of the three to report anything greater than 0[-inf dB]:

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

I'll hazard a guess that they remain true to the artists intent - at least to the extent that the artist's original self-mix was true to it.

Wow, you just summed up a major point about mastering in that sentence. Should be a mantra.

 

[CIRO]

I wrote a comment about the original mix and -sorry - I just lost the thread.
"Let me try again..." with the masters.

Just remembering the link:
http://www.masteringhouse.com/demos/hrforum/

My (pretty simple) analysis:
Master 1 :great improvement in the stereo/stage image.Closer to the original in the frequency range/dinamics

Master 2: has some excess in the ~500hz range that makes the vocal and guitars sounds worst than the original.

Master 3:wider image (excellent) and more compression than 1 e 2.
All the improvement on punch and the "on face" thing stole a bit the natural breath/dinamics of original (not necessarily a problem).
Solve the mid frequencie issues (I talked about on master 2,but common to the original and master 1).

My "the winner is" is master 3

Ciro

 

[masteringhouse]

Thanks Ciro!

I'm wondering if a poll should be setup for this ...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm curious about a couple of things: 1: Has any of this made it back to your students, and how did they react to any of it - i.e. did this help you or your class out at all? 2: Same questions about the original artist who donated the mix?

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

I'm curious about a couple of things: 1: Has any of this made it back to your students, and how did they react to any of it - i.e. did this help you or your class out at all? 2: Same questions about the original artist who donated the mix?

G.

Yep, the students are aware of the thread and have been keeping an eye on it. The original artist has not contacted me about it since it was posted, but I assume he is as well.