Critical and Analytical Listening

[role65]

Quick listen

Dbl Post!!!!

 

[role65]

Quick listen

WOW!!!
Just read this thread at lunch and listened to the song a few times...
Mind you on a pair of crappy computer speakers...

Disclaimer, while i listen to these speakers every friggin day they suck so if i seem way off on something sorry it's just how it translates to $20 Dell speakers...

My quick thoughts...
Where are the drums? especially in the verse
the guitar is WAY out front in the soundstage. i can't tell on these speakers if it's verb(room) on the drums or lack of volume...
also sounds to me the guitars eq are leaving too much room for the laid back vox. like the vox style fits the song, but seem not to have ANY overlapping with guitar, someone mentioned layered, i agree.
Like one of those picnic plates that doesn't let any of the food touch... an accidental blob of gravy on some fried chicken can be pretty tasty sometimes...

Creative note
the 2 guitars are too similar in tone for my taste... i think leaving the jingly jangly out front a little and the other with a little more mud( lol i mean tube saturation) could keep them from "stepping" on each other...

(1:49) during the bridge a little guitar tremolo on the strum could be tasteful....

(2:16) needs some power (The climax is not real clear imo drums and bass could really build that) with the drums/bass up or guitar back in the mix.

but again could be my speakers
Ryan

 

[iqi616]

I think it might be a lost cause, it seems there's only a few of us who are interested in developing our ears to become better engineers.

What a disappointing state of affairs.

No offence to our learned colleagues but I think all this formal analysis is a turn-off. For me, it's been the act of comparing my mixes to reference tracks at equal loudness that trained my ear. Learning to hear the difference between how the vocals sounded, the drums sounded, everything. Learning what EQ to apply to fix the tracking problems. Learning to avoid solo-syndrome by always making adjustments in the context of the mix. Listening at low levels and playing with compression and limiting is what trained my ears to hear compression and to learn that it's most audible at low playback volumes. Also comparing mixes on different speakers within the control room - cheap computer speakers vs full-range speakers - and learning to hear how poor EQ decisions make the mix change audibly between the two kinds of speaker. Basically, many hours of practising hand-ear coordination until I can listen to a track and hear in my imagination what I need to go in and change to make it sound better. I'm still a good way from having "golden ears" but this is working for me so far.

For comments on the sample mix, it all sounds a bit lacklustre and loose and sloppy. I couldn't suggest how to improve it other than by mixing it myself. It needs a fair bit of work to make it work IMO. It needs to be mixed to make the looseness a feature rather than a problem and to bring out some interest and make it less "start, continue, then stop". Also, because it's musically bland, there needs to be more emphasis on the vocal in the hope that the words are interesting enough to attract and retain the listener's attention. Sorry to be negative but that's my opinion.

I'll not be doing a CLEF - sorry.

 

[Elton Bear]

I'm a little confused. You don't like analytically listening to music, but you listen to every small detail and try to emulate it?

Isn't that essentially a rewording of the same concept? The only difference I can see if whether or not you write down what you hear.

 

[gecko zzed]

For me, it's been the act of comparing my mixes to reference tracks at equal loudness that trained my ear. Learning to hear the difference between how the vocals sounded, the drums sounded, everything. Learning what EQ to apply to fix the tracking problems. Learning to avoid solo-syndrome by always making adjustments in the context of the mix. Listening at low levels and playing with compression and limiting is what trained my ears to hear compression and to learn that it's most audible at low playback volumes. Also comparing mixes on different speakers within the control room - cheap computer speakers vs full-range speakers - and learning to hear how poor EQ decisions make the mix change audibly between the two kinds of speaker. Basically, many hours of practising hand-ear coordination until I can listen to a track and hear in my imagination what I need to go in and change to make it sound better. I'm still a good way from having "golden ears" but this is working for me so far.

What Elton said . . . you show great analytical listening skills which you have refined with time and experience. You have also given details of what it is you do when you go through a mixing process, and it's all good information.

But if you are starting off, you can stumble across these things by accident, or by trial and error, or you may continually miss things you should be hearing. The CLEF thing is just a way of providing people with some signposts along the way, showing some of the areas where they can focus attention.

I guess it's like learning to drive. You are given a set of instructions before driving off (look in the mirror, indicate, release handbrake, etc.). After some years this all comes automatically (you become unconciously competent).

But in the early days, the checklists can be real handy.

 

[masteringhouse]

My apologies, midterm grades were postponed a week due to some unforeseen issues (along wth the distraction of the Phils winning and elections). My second engineer and I just finished grading today and I passed out grades for the students 4 hours ago. It would have been premature to post results until they received grades. I have my 4 (out of 15) favs and will be posting results very shortly. Listening to 15 variations of the same track several times can be a bit exhausting.

Part of my goal here is to demonstrate the perspective of a mastering engineer. It's easy to say remix it, and sometimes that's the only recourse to fixing a set of issues, but what if you don't have that option? Are there things that can be done to improve the presentation of the mix? If so, what?

The general feeling from the class was that the vocal was too upfront while drums (in particular snare) too far back. It lacked a general sense of depth and the guitars were somewhat harsh particularly the one on right. Some of the solutions included the use of M/S processing to EQ and bring the vocal back along with some upward expansion in the mid portion to help bring out the snare. Also a non-ganged EQ to help tame the guitar on right or to at least EQ this differently than the left. Some tried a touch of reverb on the mix for some added depth with mixed results. The bass was also a bit uncontrolled and attempts were made to remedy that along with de-essing the vox and cymbals slightly. At times the vocal seemed to drop in level at parts and automation of the mid was used to add some macrodynamic corrections. Looking forward to all of your comments with regard to how successful they were in obtaining their goals of fixing these issues along with the techniques used. Given that these guys have only worked in mastering for about a month and with a limited set of tools (compared to a major mastering facility) I'm pretty proud of what they have been able to pull off.

Thanks for your patience.

Best,
Tom

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Assorted miscelany

First, for Tom: the use of the term "ganged" in association with EQ is a new one on me. I'm used to hearing it used in association with analog radio tuners mostly, or (very generically) with electrical demarcs or junction boxes. I'm not sure what it means or how it works with EQ. I know it's rather off topic, but could you possibly provide a little explanation - or a link to one - of what a non-ganged EQ means and why it's important?

Second: IMHO, both role and iqi have provided good posts re their impressions of the mix. I also want to associate myself with gecko's excellent analogy regarding the CLEF.

The whole purpose of this thread was to address the issue that critical listening skills are tantamount to being a quality engineer, yet the most of those new to this not only have not developed those skills, they (usually self-admittedly) have no idea *how* to develop them. Exercises like filling out a CLEF are not intended to become part of the engineer's explicit task list so much as a training exercise to help budding fader jockeys learn what to listen for and how to listen for it.

But what I still find lacking in this conversation is something that I personally (FWTW ) consider one of the most important parts of the process, listening to how the mix serves the song. We talk all the time in these forums about "doing what the song/mix tells us to do", yet we talk very little about what that actually means.

For me it means one hell of a lot more than *just* balancing the mix in the various aural dimensions, or making it "sound good", though those are very important. And much of what it means to me blurs the lines between engineer, producer and arranger. In a more professional environment those lines may be more rigidly assigned, but for the home recordist or indie mixer, those three roles are often all embodied in one person anyway. And the difference (for me) between an adequate mix and a great mix is one where you can't tell where the arrangement ends and the mix begins or where the mix end and the production begins. The pros know how to work together to achieve this (sometimes, depending upon just how pro the pros are ), but the indie recordist/engineer often has the task of doing it all himself/herself.

More on that to come...

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

First, for Tom: the use of the term "ganged" in association with EQ is a new one on me. I'm used to hearing it used in association with analog radio tuners mostly, or (very generically) with electrical demarcs or junction boxes. I'm not sure what it means or how it works with EQ. I know it's rather off topic, but could you possibly provide a little explanation - or a link to one - of what a non-ganged EQ means and why it's important?

Ganged is synonymous with "linked" where you are able to change the EQ setting in one channel and the same settings are applied to the other. With non-ganged the channels work independently. The Weiss EQ1 for example has a switch for this.

 

[role65]

Tom,
I'm going to show why this is a hobby not a living for me...LOL I couldn't tell or didn't think the vox was Way out in front. Maybe because the guitar was so out front it was screwing with me, or the drums so far back... Although I thought since the vox "Style" lacks "energy" it needs volume, not more volume that it currently has, but more than a Dynamic vocal.... but hey what do i know...seriously i guess i need to keep on listening... this remind anyone else of weezer? It has an "island in the sun" feel to me...ok done showing my ignorance...

p.s. are the tweaked mixes posted anywhere so i can tell how off i am?

Ryan

 

[Elton Bear]

Well that's the point of the thread, to compare your CLEF results with others, and if they don't match decide why; Is it opinions or something you really don't hear? And if you don't hear it, can you hear it if you know it's there and try to find it?

Tom, is there any chance of uploading one you personally didn't like for comparison? Obviously your professional discretion may be needed and if that creates a conflict I understand. I just thought it might be interesting to hear the differences...

 

[iqi616]

I'm a little confused. You don't like analytically listening to music, but you listen to every small detail and try to emulate it?

Isn't that essentially a rewording of the same concept? The only difference I can see if whether or not you write down what you hear.

I guess the difference is that I'm primarily focused on the tracks I'm mixing or the songs I'm mastering, I'm not sitting down and spending time writing stuff down (apart from the usual studio log stuff).

I don't try to emulate the references, I want the instruments in my mixes and my mixes as a whole to sound "right" but in their own context. My favourite analogy is the compilation album where different songs and even different genres live together.

 

[iqi616]

My apologies, midterm grades were postponed a week due to some unforeseen issues (along wth the distraction of the Phils winning and elections). My second engineer and I just finished grading today and I passed out grades for the students 4 hours ago. It would have been premature to post results until they received grades. I have my 4 (out of 15) favs and will be posting results very shortly. Listening to 15 variations of the same track several times can be a bit exhausting.

I guess that's the difference, if I was taking your course and given this to do as part of that, I'd have some incentive to go through the exercise. When I take courses I like to take on board and understand the point of view of the course and put aside my own thoughts.

Part of my goal here is to demonstrate the perspective of a mastering engineer. It's easy to say remix it, and sometimes that's the only recourse to fixing a set of issues, but what if you don't have that option? Are there things that can be done to improve the presentation of the mix? If so, what?

Fair points. With my limited mastering skills and equipment the example would be beyond me doing anything more than basic tidying and would have little impact on the listenability of the song.

 

[masteringhouse]

Tom, is there any chance of uploading one you personally didn't like for comparison? Obviously your professional discretion may be needed and if that creates a conflict I understand. I just thought it might be interesting to hear the differences...

I suppose that I could, if others feel that there is something to be learned from it then I'm game.

For the moment though let's go with what Celia (my associate engineer) and I thought were the three best. You can download the results at:

http://www.masteringhouse.com/demos/hrforum/

No need to fill out CLEF or anything, just general opinions on any improvements or issues you feel were created by the mastered versions. I still have their papers so I can give comments on what their goals were for the mix or processing used if anyone is interested. I would prefer to hear opinions first though.

When listening I would suggest lining up the eval track and a mastered version, then flipping back and forth. You may also want to try adjusting levels so that they are the same in volume, switch to mono, listen on more than one type of monitor, room, etc.

Thanks again,
Tom

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Ganged is synonymous with "linked" where you are able to change the EQ setting in one channel and the same settings are applied to the other. With non-ganged the channels work independently. The Weiss EQ1 for example has a switch for this.

Doh! That's easy enough. Lot's of limiting amps/compressors set up that way also. I should have been able to figure that out; I'm surprised I never came across that use of the term...or maybe I did but the Alzheimer's is kicking in .....wait, what was I talking about again, and who is this "Tom" guy???

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

or maybe I did but the Alzheimer's is kicking in .....wait, what was I talking about again, and who is this "Tom" guy???

G.

I used to know of somebody named Tom, hey am I typing or texting on my cellphone? (beep)

 

[gecko zzed]

But what I still find lacking in this conversation is something that I personally (FWTW ) consider one of the most important parts of the process, listening to how the mix serves the song. We talk all the time in these forums about "doing what the song/mix tells us to do", yet we talk very little about what that actually means.

For me it means one hell of a lot more than *just* balancing the mix in the various aural dimensions, or making it "sound good", though those are very important. And much of what it means to me blurs the lines between engineer, producer and arranger. In a more professional environment those lines may be more rigidly assigned, but for the home recordist or indie mixer, those three roles are often all embodied in one person anyway. And the difference (for me) between an adequate mix and a great mix is one where you can't tell where the arrangement ends and the mix begins or where the mix end and the production begins. The pros know how to work together to achieve this (sometimes, depending upon just how pro the pros are ), but the indie recordist/engineer often has the task of doing it all himself/herself.G.

There are elements of science and art in every creative endeavour. An artist has to know how to prepare a canvas, how to mix paints, how to develop depth and perspective and so on, a photographer needs to know what the camera does, how to use shutter speeds and apertures, and a musician has to know how to play and to understand how the instrument works. This is the science part, and can all be learnt. There are heaps of 'how to' books that provide this knowledge.

The 'art' part, though, is the interpretative dimension of the activity, and the artist, the photographer and the musician all need to decide what their subject (scene, piece of music) is telling them, and to translate that into a painting, photo and performance. This is the really difficult part to describe. How does, say, Eric Clapton know what notes not to play in a solo? How does Van Gogh know that this patch of paint here is exactly what's needed to balance the picture?

Glen mentioned the many roles that a home recordist has to play, and I acknowledge that I play all of them. I often get people in to record who just sing, and part of the job is for me to devise (and perform) an arrangement for them. This is exciting, though somewhat daunting. My playing ability is okay, but not brilliant, so I have to work within my limitations. Were I not to challenge myself, every song would sound very similar (because of how I play and the instruments at my disposal). This would displease me greatly, so I have to work really hard to make the tracks distinctive and different. To do this means pay great attention to the material and deciding what it is about the song that will crystalise into something magical.

Sometimes it's the story being told. Sometimes it's the mood, and sometimes it's a series of images. Sometimes all three.

As an illustration, a singer-songwriter came in an recorded a track: vocals and guitar. As it stood it was ok, but nothing special . . . nothing that would differentiate it from thousands of other vocal and guitar songs out there. The recording was fine, the mix was fine, but as a recording exercise it was unsatisfying. It was a song of loss and loneliness, with an indistinct chorus and hook, but it was lyrically strong and exciting, and that was being lost in the conventional vocal and guitar arrangment.

I got her permission to mess around with it. The first thing I did was throw away the guitar track. I then started assembling a collage of icy sounds that would highlight that sense of loss and loneliness, and added the sparsest of instrumentations I could get away with. I now have a seriously eerie piece that (to her great satisfaction) conveys the intention of the lyrics really well.

The point of that illustration is to give one example of "doing what the song/mix tells us to do", even though it still doesn't explain how I decided to do what I did. All it shows was that I wasn't prepared to accept the material as it was, and to look deeper into the content (lyrically and musically) to find something to highlight in a musical and engineering way.

But I guess that's why this part of engineering is "lacking in this conversation"; it is so difficult to explain why or how you decide to do particular things with the mix; how you know when enough is enough, or when someone say's "that's fine", you say, "hang on a minute, why don't we try this?"; how you know that this vocal needs to be dry as the Kalahari, but that vocal needs to be dripping with reverb and so on?

 

[masteringhouse]

Great post gecko, but it seems that you are speaking more to artistic production than critical listening (and possibly another great thread *hint*).

I won't put words in Glen's mouth, but the term "having the mix tell us" (at least when I've used it in the past) means to let the mix breath and be it's own entity with you reacting to it rather than imposing your will on it sonically. Many budding engineers assume that there are rules of thumb that everyone plays by, a given chain in mastering, a group of presets, etc. There of course aren't which makes learning audio production all the more difficult. There is also the aspect of what gecko brought up, but that's a topic very deep and wide.

A goal that I had for this thread was to try to help define a vocabulary for discussing audio. There tends to be a very ambiguous terminology in audio, I see it often with my clients. For example one recently said that a vocal was "present". To me this means there might be a bit too much in the upper mids, to him it meant that it was too loud, to others it might mean that delays or effects are bring the vocal too forward. Without a definition it means nothing. My purpose with CLEF was to try to find areas where we use these ambiguous terms and find a common way of speaking to them so that we are somewhat on the same page rather than using terms that can be interpreted very differently, not a rigid list of parameters everyone must follow.

Anyway all of this is great discussion. Why does Eric Clapton choose a particular note? Is it because it is a part of a given key and scale for that key, is it because it's an extension of how he is feeling at the moment, is it a note that he was going for but screwed up and something magical happened, is he (like in Sunshine of Your Love) paraphrasing the melody of "Blue Moon"? Only Eric knows, but everyone can have an opinion on what it sounds like. There's no reason to be silent.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The point of that illustration is to give one example of "doing what the song/mix tells us to do", even though it still doesn't explain how I decided to do what I did. All it shows was that I wasn't prepared to accept the material as it was, and to look deeper into the content (lyrically and musically) to find something to highlight in a musical and engineering way.

Great post gecko, but it seems that you are speaking more to artistic production than critical listening (and possibly another great thread *hint*).

I won't put words in Glen's mouth, but the term "having the mix tell us" (at least when I've used it in the past) means to let the mix breath and be it's own entity with you reacting to it rather than imposing your will on it sonically.

I think gecko understands fairly well where I'm coming from with this angle of the conversation, and with apologies and respect Tom, I do believe that it is an important aspect of critical listening to be able to recognize and identify the use (or the lack) of such production or engineering choices.

You're right, Tom, that is looking at the artistic production aspect of it and not just the dry mechanics of it. But listening to and recognizing those properties of a mix requires a keen analytical ear, critical listening skills and attention to sonic detail just as much as anything else, and has just as much of an impact on one's ability to create a successful mix as the mechanical part of it does.

As I mentioned, this is especially true for the home recordist who has to fill all the roles themselves or for the indie mix engineer who is just handed a package of raw tracks and asked to make it sound good, with very little production direction from the client (a situation I have dealt with a lot over the past few years). But it is also very helpful in a more pro environment where the producer and engineer roles are separate. It's nice to be able to recognize sonicly both what a producer means when they say that recording meeds a more eerie/lonely sound (like in gecko's example) and what in the technical mix can be done to help accomplish that (is the type and amount of reverb right for that? do I need to to shape the vocal with some effect EQ? etc.)

This thread began with Tom asking the question: "Anyway, to start the discussion, what differentiates a good mix from a bad one?", and I strongly believe that one of the big differences is how well the mix serves the song, and that every song asks to be served on both technical and artistic levels, on both the "what" and the "why" of the song, that both of these issues have to be understood and manipulated by the audio engineer (even if managed by a separate producer), and that they equally require quality critical and analytical listening skills on the pat of the engineer.

Tom, you do touch upon elements of this in the CLEF. Really the entire fourth section touches upon it to some degree. Even though you're specifically talking about the narrow category of effects there, phrases like "appropriate for style of music" and "sounding like a natural part of the production" really reflect far more artistic values than technical ones and definitely, with adjectives like "appropriate" and "natural part", reflect an addressing of what works or that song; i.e. what the song "asks for".

Even more directly, is 5.3; "Emotion – consistent with the intent of the song, e.g. aggressive, emotive, pensive, etc."

So there is precedent in the CLEF for addressing the "artistic production" aspects of critical analysis. All I want to do is expand upon that idea a bit. And there's more to it than just the "emotion" as well, I do believe there are quantitative properties of a song or recording that can be identified and served specifically by the mix. Gecko, all is not lost to the "intangibles" there .

This post is already too long, so for now I'll just point you guys back to me first post in this thread where I gave my answer to Tom's initial question, and some of the ways where I feel it's important for a mix to serve the content. I can expand from there in the next post if anybody cares to.

G.

 

[gecko zzed]

it seems that you are speaking more to artistic production than critical listening .

Well, yes, you are right.

Critical listening is an analytical and evaluative process, and the consequences of that are actions: moving a fader, adjusting a knob, muting a track and so on; in other words, the array of actions that constitute an engineer's role.

It seems to me that 'artistic production' (in a mixing sense) follows from critical listening. 'Artistic production' is, for me, a general term that applies to any output that flows from creative activity (i.e. painting a picture, playing a guitar, mixing a song), but before that production can take place, there is the process of evaluation (what is this landscape, piece of music, set of unmixed tracks, telling me?).

If someone were to sit beside me at the computer (which often happens), I can talk it through with them as I go (which I often do). My prattle can go something like: "I'm going to fade this guitar a bit here and bring the piano up, because there is a bit of hesitancy in the playing that the piano will cover nicely. I know you like the chimes, but I needed to sit them back a bit because those high frequencies can draw blood. There is a spot here where the bass note is interfering with the djembe, so we need to choose which we are going to treat and which we are going to leave. Let's take a bit off the low end of the djembe to let the bass have its place in the sun. Listen, there is a spot of noise on this track. . . " and so on.

When I do this, whoever is on the receiving end often says "I see what you mean", or "I can hear it now that you've pointed it out". But I don't know how to describe how I know what I'm doing. It's like driving a car . . . my passenger can ask "how do you keep the car going the same speed?", and I say "I use the accelerator; press down a bit for fast and lift off a bit for slow". "Yes, I know that, but how do you know how much to lift off or press down?" "No idea, it just comes with experience and practice".

Even so, I think these are all 'mechanical' things, and in time, people can learn to do the same, just as my passenger did, and wondered what all the fuss about accelerators was once having got a licence and driven.

This is important: letting "the mix breathe and be its own entity with you reacting to it rather than imposing your will on it sonically". It is easy to slip into habit . . . you know what's worked in the past, so you repeat the process, and all of a sudden, you've built a wall of rules around yourself that become really difficult to surmount. A few musical acquaintances have grumbled to me about another studio where the guy there is extremely rigid and highly prescriptive in tracking and mixing. I like to think I'm more flexible than that, and am open to being more accommodating with the experimenters as well as with the mixes, but I'm sure that I subconsciously impose my own rules on things (justifying them on the grounds of musicality or some other excuse).

Taking a step backward: for me "letting the mix breathe and be its own entity" is the equivalent, in a production sense, of "letting the song breathe and be its own entity".

As for your goal for establishing "a vocabulary for discussing audio", I wish you luck. I was mixing a metal song once, and the guy complained that there wasn't enough purple in it! I'd like to bar words such as 'warmth', 'colour' and 'transparency' from this glossary, because they are so ambiguous and ill-defined.

However, I think I'm starting to ramble, and I'm not sure how coherent this all is. Maybe there are one or two bits that have value.

 

[masteringhouse]

Good points Gecko and Glen, I have a better understanding of where you're going and stand corrected.

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?