Compare these two mixes...

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetbeats
  • Start date Start date
sweetbeats

sweetbeats

Reel deep thoughts...
mix a
mix b

This is an EP project I'm working on. I did the tracking and am responsible for pre post-production work if that makes any sense (i.e. assembling track selections and some editing).

Beware, both are 16-bit, 44.1kHz .wav files so they're relatively sizeable. Probably can't stream as the pipeline from the server on which the files reside is not really big...probably have to download...sorry.

These were both tracked at the same time (i.e. two simultaneous mixdowns with different paths).

It is a rough mix so I'm not looking for comments on the mix itself as it is chock full of issues (though most certainly open to any and all comments), but rather comments/questions in comparing the two.
 
Last edited:
Corey, first I want to say good job.

They are so similar I'm not sure how much help I can do. I find the second mix to be slightly more evenly mixed, (maybe). Smoother and gelled. If I had to choose I'd probably go with b.


Yeah, the high end is a little more tame on b. I think I like it better that way.
 
Yes...that's a good point (the difference is subtle). I should have mentioned that.

I really appreciate you taking a listen.

Once I get some more comments (if I do that is) then I'll disclose details of the two different mastering paths...I don't want to lead anybody's ears yet. :)

Of course, eventuallly, I'll spill my guts whether or not anybody else has a listen and posts a reply because...I'm terrible at holding on to such geeky details.
 
All though Im deaf I will take a stab here. Mix one was mixed form computer to a analog machine and limited with outboard compresion.
Mix two was all in the box. The Evil box that is:)
 
It really IS a subtle difference...I'm not sure I have a preference. It might be easier if I could listen to them at the same time and switch between them.

It seems to me that Mix A is a bit punchier, and I think I like it a bit better because of that. Did you bring the drums out a bit more on that mix?
 
Mix B is better to my ears. To use SteveM's words "Smoother", "gelled" and highs more "tame". Dare I say it sounds more like an analogue mix.:eek::D;) I will say this tho that it is not a night & day difference, ultimately speaking but still audible enough a difference to compare. Currently listening on AKG K240 cans. Will my analogue comment come to bite me in the ass?:D If so, I plead being :drunk: ....
 
All though Im deaf I will take a stab here. Mix one was mixed form computer to a analog machine and limited with outboard compresion.
Mix two was all in the box.
Click to expand...

Both were summed in the box, but took an out of the box trip. You're close, and not as deaf as you think...


It seems to me that Mix A is a bit punchier...Did you bring the drums out a bit more on that mix?
Click to expand...

Both mixes were created at the same time so, no, the drums were not different on one vs. the other.


Will my analogue comment come to bite me in the ass?
Click to expand...

Chomp-chomp...


Okay. The project was all tracked direct to hard disk at 24-bit, 48kHz. There are 5 songs in the project, and each song averages about 23 tracks. Tracking occurred over 3 nights. We are doing take selections at a distance. Rough mixes like the one above are for the band to listen to to confirm that I assembled the right collection of takes. So for fun I took a stereo sum in Cubase and ported through two outputs on my Yamaha i88x, and right back in through a set of inputs to a new stereo track in Cubase. I took the same stereo sum and also ported it through another set of outputs on the i88x, and then to my CRL SEP400A multiband dynamics units and then to the Tascam BR-20T...I setup another new stereo track in Cubase and tracked recorded the output of the BR-20T in realtime during playback of the stereo sum from Cubase. That's how I got two versions of the same mix: one, a simple D/A/D trip through the i88x, and another the same except also going through the CRL units and the BR-20T.

The tracks in Cubase are totally raw except for the ambiance tracks (the reverb you hear), which are actually a couple mics that were thrown on ground in the large hallway outside one of the tracking locations...I did a steep shelving cut on those at around 200Hz to reduce the mud so the rest of the mix was easier to hear (again, because the mix was a rough for the band to approve take selections).

The BR-20T hasn't been calibrated nor is it setup for the tape I'm using, and the CRL units need calibrating too but this experiment helped me learn and understand more about how I'm going to do that...the input sensitivity is off and so there was some crunch there because the input was a little too hot for them...the CRL units were set pretty conservatively with a little low end boost but everything else was flat.

I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just wanting to clarify the stage of what you are hearing...it is all far from polished, but promising AFAIC...

SO...

The CRL/BR-20T version is mix a, and the simple i88x output to i88x input is mix b.

At this point I am looking forward to getting the CRL units dialed in better as far as input sensitivity, and maybe trying some other opamps in them. Currently they have 4558 chips and I'm interested in trying 5532's or 2134's...and recapping them. I've heard enough from them to know that I like them.

So Herm was just about right on except that mix b was not totally in the box, although it basically was for all intents and purposes...it just had a superfluous D/A/D trip.
 
Hmm, I wonder what sort of magic dust the CRL units impose on the signal. Would have been cool to see the exact same test but without the CRL's in the chain, just a properly calibrated / aligned BR-20, kinda a pure mix-down, one to computer and the other to tape.
 
I still prefer mix b. Though it's so subtle. The highs are definitely cut a little more.
 
I don't know why but I'm not really convinced that mixing off the play head of a tape deck in real time makes any difference. I've never tried it but it seems to me at that stage you are still mainly just getting the input, even if it is bouncing off the tape. I could be wrong, and I know others here have talked about doing it, but that idea has never been appealing to me.
 
Hmm, I wonder what sort of magic dust the CRL units impose on the signal. Would have been cool to see the exact same test but without the CRL's in the chain, just a properly calibrated / aligned BR-20, kinda a pure mix-down, one to computer and the other to tape.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I plan on doing that at some point and sooner rather than later. If you ever have a chance to read some of the theory of operation stuff from the manual posted over in my thread on these units, they are doing a bunch of "dust" stuffs but I like that it is all analog processing, and so far I'm liking how they effect the sound. You all don't get to experience that really because I'm speaking from the experience of tweaking knobs during playback and hearing the changes.

I still prefer mix b. Though it's so subtle. The highs are definitely cut a little more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mix b is more mellow. Even though the mid hi and hi band knobs were centered on the CRL units those areas of sound came through brighter on mix a just by virtue of passing through the processors. To my ears it sounds better, but I am also recovering from a bad cold and my hearing is still a bit tweakered...:rolleyes::o

I don't know why but I'm not really convinced that mixing off the play head of a tape deck in real time makes any difference. I've never tried it but it seems to me at that stage you are still mainly just getting the input, even if it is bouncing off the tape. I could be wrong, and I know others here have talked about doing it, but that idea has never been appealing to me.
Click to expand...

The output signal, when monitoring the repro head during recording, is absolutely 100% identical to recording a source, stopping the transport, shuttling back to the beginning, switching to monitor the repro head and hitting PLAY.
 
The reason I guess the way I did was at first I was thinking that mix b sounded a little dull which can happen with some converters on mixdown in the box. Then I cheated and looked at the wave form in cool edit pro and saw the mix a waveform was not as flat lined like mix b was. Thats why I thought maybe you used a outboard comp for the mix and went into a 2 track.
Thanks Cory this was fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top