ez_willis
.
BRIEFCASEMANX said:
Can you hear the difference between an mp3 and a .cda or .wav?
Can you hear the difference between an mp3 and a .cda or .wav?
BRIEFCASEMANX
Winner chicken dinner!
ez_willis said:
yeah. can you hear a difference between something on my myspace, and an album on myspace mixed by andy wallace, or any big engineer?
The difference between an mp3 and .cda/wav is smaller than the difference between something I (and 99.9% of people on this forum) have mixed and something a big time engineer has mixed. The engineering is far more important than the file format.
BRIEFCASEMANX
Winner chicken dinner!
ez_willis said:
Can't get back - everything sounds good except the cymbals, although the highs suffer the most with mp3's, especially when you lower the sample rate from 44.1 to 32khz, but even the midrange of the cymbals still sound just a little weird. They don't sound bad, but they don't sound great either. I think it's the hi hat more than anything, like it's played too loud and getting into the opposite overhead too much and messing up the stereo spread or something. I seem to get phasy cymbals a lot as well, and I think it has to do with my room, because whenever a drummer plays cymbals quietly, especially hi hat, it sounds fine. Getting the drummer to play cymbals quieter always seems to work better for me, cause then i have to turn up the overheads in the mix and I get more room sound on the close mics. There's a phaser/flanger effect in the middle thats too distracting, maybe turn down the wet mix on the effect a little, and maybe turn down the overall volume on that part just a little smidgeon.
Make Your Move - Drums sound a little better on this. Hi hat isn't quite as apparent in some places and doesn't eat up space/stereo image as much. Everything else sounds good.
Don't Need You Around - This might sound the best so far. I like the guitar tones a lot. The dynamics are definitely there, everyone is playing together well.
Hey Man - again nice guitar tones. The way the guitar/bass/kick interact is very good on all the songs, you can especially tell when there's a quiet part and then everything comes in, it just sounds right.
Shine - Don't like the vox effects, they don't seem to fit his voice, sounds like a subtle delay and verb to me. Or maybe a verb with an extremely low diffusion setting. The delay is what's bugging me most, i'd turn that lower in the mix so there's not as distinct a slapback effect. Doesn't sound as bad when all the music comes in, but I still think it could be better. Everything else sounds good.
No Real Emotion - I like the idea of the delay on the guitars at the intro A LOT, I think something about the execution sounds a little weird though. Maybe too much low, or midrange in the effect, something is a little cloudy sounding about it. It's an awesome idea though, I would cut whatever is muddy the effect, and actually the guitars and effect up. Everything else sound good, except that hi hat thing.
Brand New Amerika - Too much reverb on drums mostly snare, it also sounds like it could be the wrong type of reverb, but it could fit right in if it was lower in volume, I don't know.
The Last Time - Snare reverb sounds great, really fits the song, it sounds a touch loud but I'm on headphones so in speakers it would probably sound just right. Too much verb on toms. I like the idea you had, it gives the song some more character, but it's just a tad too much. Vocal Effects are awesome. Best vocal effects use out of any of the songs yet. What did you use?
Guilty - I'd turn down the chorus on the acoustic at the beginning a little, so that the effect doesn't draw your attention overpower electric. I don't want to get into songwriting critique too much, I like all the songs, but the part that starts at 1:12 I think the acoustic or mandolin or whatever that is playing too busy and distracts too much attention from the song as a whole. Or maybe just eq'ing it differently would push it back further in the song and sound better. Again great job with this song though.
Overall - Sounds awesome. The things I pointed out aren't huge glaring problems, I just got picky because I had to say something. If it were a more modern type of band, I'd say there was too much low mid in your mixes, and too much reverb, but it fits the style, I think. I think the high end overall sounds a little dull, like too much absorbtive materials soaking up high end or something, but again that's kind of how a lot of recording made 20+ years ago sounded, and that's what this reminded of. Plus the fact that it's tough/impossible to judge the high end on a low quality mp3.
Edit: I don't know if you were wanting me to compare it to typical pro engineer's recording or not. I think it sounds like a very good recording done on modest equipment, but I don't think it compares to the big guys. It sounds better than 85% of the stuff I hear on this board though, add the fact that most people don't have the guts to post their stuff up anyway, and you're doing very, very well.
I'll have something up in about 5 minutes in the mp3 section if you want to destroy me.
jmorris
New member
Are you just offering yourself as an engineer or do you have a studio? Or did I miss something?
ez_willis
.
BRIEFCASEMANX said:
Well, that kind of proves my point. Andy Wallace produced and engineered it at Rumbo in Canoga Park.
The cd sounds killer. The mp3's sound like mp3's.
ez_willis
.
ez_willis said:
I appreciate you taking the time to do your homework before throwing something out there, and I'm not trying to challenge you or be a dick, I'm just saying that it's tough to judge the skills of someone by listening to an mp3.
BRIEFCASEMANX
Winner chicken dinner!
ez_willis said:
Yeah, I guess he did it like 15 years ago. Thanks for wasting almost an hour of my time. How about we post something big he's done lately, instead of some obscure/semi-obscure thing he did a decade and a half ago for an actual fair comparison so I can judge it more in context. I guess I was totally wrong about equipment though, I was thinking it was someone with comparable quality equipment as mine, i.e. a few good pieces but not an insane amount like a pro studio would have where every piece is awesome. It doesn't seem to have the same upfrontness that modern records have, but I guess that's because of the time period it was done in, where everything wasn't compressed and in your face. It fits the style though, as I said in my review, and again it doesn't sound like his newer stuff that I've heard. I still stand by everything I said other than the equipment comment, and judging by the time period it was made, I can understand why it sounds the way it does.
ez_willis
.
BRIEFCASEMANX said:
Uhh, I didn't force you to listen to anything, besides, your time ain't valuable enough to be "wasting", or you wouldn't fucking be a member here.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
ez_willis said:
Ouch, that even hurt me, and I'm not even in on the discussion of your tracks.
BRIEFCASEMANX
Winner chicken dinner!
ez_willis said:
I thought I was doing you a favor, but instead it was all an attempt to make me look stupid. Yeah, it was a waste of my time, and I thank you for that. Explain again what the point of that was? Unless you're trying to say that engineering hasn't changed in the past 15+ years, which is laughable. Do you think if Wallace produced/mixed that right now, it would sound the same?
I guess it wasn't a total waste, because it gave me a little more confidence in my ears. Thanks again, chummo.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I personally don't think it was a waste of time. While it may have appeared to be at your expense, frankly it could have been anyone who tries to judge "amateur vs. pro". What ez did, IMHO (whether he intended it or not) was demonstrate a HUGE point beyond just the MP3 issue.
I have said before - and got flamed heavily for it, and probably will agin by more than you - that the quality of "professional" productions are all over the map, regardless of their age.
Most of us have heard medium-budget productions from 1957 that sonically blow away some similar style stuff done big-budget in 2007. And vice versa. (And, no, I'm not even including RMS war issues in that comparison.) I've also heard plenty of platinum record, Grammy winning, Top40, releases done in nuclear-powered studios manned by marquee names that have a sonic quality to them where, if you took the big names off the artist and engineering lists and then put them in this forum's MP3 clinic posing as "amateur" recordings, they'd be ridiculed right off the forum.
I've also heard small-budget, independent, even amateur productions that sound great, and if one were to paste some recognizable names on them, they'd suddenly be considered shining examples on pedistals of how things "should be done."
Either way, I've never heard a recording that didn't have imperfections in it, whether it cost a million bucks or a million lyre to produce.
And we haven't even gotten into other variables besides MP3 encoding that can affect what reaches our ears, such as who did/where was the tracking done versus the mixing, the different versions of commercial releases available that sound entirely different (CD re-releases that sound like crap compared to the original CD or vinyl because of the horrid re-mastering or glass printing job done on the re-release, import releases vs. domestic, what has has been done to the recording between the CD rip and the MP3 encoding, etc. etc. etc.)
Let's face it; there's a lot of products with "professional" labels foisted upon the hapless consumer that aren't necessarily that good. How many $50M movies are released in just one single year that most of us think are crap? There's plenty of "Gigli's" out there. How many "pro studio monitors" are there on the market that half of us wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole? More than we care to count. Why should music be any different? It isn't.
Saying that something doesn't sound like the big boys is meaningless. Tracks can only be judged on their own merits, not in any catagorical context.
G.
I have said before - and got flamed heavily for it, and probably will agin by more than you - that the quality of "professional" productions are all over the map, regardless of their age.
Most of us have heard medium-budget productions from 1957 that sonically blow away some similar style stuff done big-budget in 2007. And vice versa. (And, no, I'm not even including RMS war issues in that comparison.) I've also heard plenty of platinum record, Grammy winning, Top40, releases done in nuclear-powered studios manned by marquee names that have a sonic quality to them where, if you took the big names off the artist and engineering lists and then put them in this forum's MP3 clinic posing as "amateur" recordings, they'd be ridiculed right off the forum.
I've also heard small-budget, independent, even amateur productions that sound great, and if one were to paste some recognizable names on them, they'd suddenly be considered shining examples on pedistals of how things "should be done."
Either way, I've never heard a recording that didn't have imperfections in it, whether it cost a million bucks or a million lyre to produce.
And we haven't even gotten into other variables besides MP3 encoding that can affect what reaches our ears, such as who did/where was the tracking done versus the mixing, the different versions of commercial releases available that sound entirely different (CD re-releases that sound like crap compared to the original CD or vinyl because of the horrid re-mastering or glass printing job done on the re-release, import releases vs. domestic, what has has been done to the recording between the CD rip and the MP3 encoding, etc. etc. etc.)
Let's face it; there's a lot of products with "professional" labels foisted upon the hapless consumer that aren't necessarily that good. How many $50M movies are released in just one single year that most of us think are crap? There's plenty of "Gigli's" out there. How many "pro studio monitors" are there on the market that half of us wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole? More than we care to count. Why should music be any different? It isn't.
Saying that something doesn't sound like the big boys is meaningless. Tracks can only be judged on their own merits, not in any catagorical context.
G.
BRIEFCASEMANX
Winner chicken dinner!
I can mostly agree with what you said, although the output is much more consistent than the output of home studio's/small studios when we're talking about guys like andy wallace, etc. If it wasn't how come I can't just call up a major label and get some mixing jobs for 100k? It's because I suck, and my best isn't close to his worst. So I don't think it's quite meaningless.
ez_willis
.
I wouldn't have said it to you.SonicAlbert said:Ouch, that even hurt me, and I'm not even in on the discussion of your tracks.
ez_willis
.
Dude, that was not my intent AT ALL! Frankly, I don't think it even made you look stupid.BRIEFCASEMANX said:
BRIEFCASEMANX said:
Yes I do. It's a common rock and roll recipe. Solid rythym section, Les Pauls and Strats through Marshalls, and a Tele through a Twin thrown in for texture. It was captured on a couple of Studer A-827's using a traditional selection of high end mic's and outboard gear.
If anything would be different between now and then, the gruelling pre-production wouldn't have been as difficult because of advances in editing technology, but the pre-production made our live performances good enough to do arenas and stand up to the headliners we were touring with.
I ain't trying to give you a hard time, bro. I was trying to give you an example of the point I was trying to make by using the one top level producer/engineer that you called out.
To be honest, if you wouldn't have mentioned Andy Wallace we wouldn't be having this discussion.
ez_willis
.
Sorry to jack the thread. 
X
xfinsterx
New member
ez_willis said:
Oh damn! Remind me never to argue with you.
Ever.
BRIEFCASEMANX
Winner chicken dinner!
ez_willis said:Dude, that was not my intent AT ALL! Frankly, I don't think it even made you look stupid.
Yes I do. It's a common rock and roll recipe. Solid rythym section, Les Pauls and Strats through Marshalls, and a Tele through a Twin thrown in for texture. It was captured on a couple of Studer A-827's using a traditional selection of high end mic's and outboard gear.
If anything would be different between now and then, the gruelling pre-production wouldn't have been as difficult because of advances in editing technology, but the pre-production made our live performances good enough to do arenas and stand up to the headliners we were touring with.
I ain't trying to give you a hard time, bro. I was trying to give you an example of the point I was trying to make by using the one top level producer/engineer that you called out.
To be honest, if you wouldn't have mentioned Andy Wallace we wouldn't be having this discussion.
OH WAIT, so "our" as in that is actually your cd? I thought you were just looking to find an old cd by him that I might not have heard of to make me look stupid. Nevermind what I said than, I apologize. I do however, think it would sound a lot different. Brighter, more upfront(compressed), different use of effects. The whole time I was thinking everything about this sounds old. I was actually thinking "man, this is probably an old guy who was probably hot shit back in the day, but seemingly hasn't moved on to more modern production techniques". I think the mix of the midrange would essentially be the same though.
edit: oh, you meant physical address....PM sent. I'll definitely do that.
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I'm honestly curious about a few things. Not arguing, just asking about what I think are some interesting discussion points:BRIEFCASEMANX said:
1.) What kind of "modern production techniques" are you thinking of? Are you talking abut the RMS not being high enough, or the fact that it probably wasn't done on PT, or something more that? (15 years ago is only 1992, it's not like we're talking about the Dark Ages
)2.) In 2022, which is only 15 years from now, are today's "modern production techniques" going to be considered as wrong as what people did in 1992 are to be considered today? If so, then why should we consider them to be such gold standards by which to judge?
3.) If in a blind test like ez_ just gave, someone with admittedly good ears and good judgement (I found your detaild critique of the material to be insightful and balanced) can't tell the difference between a pro recording in a big studio by a marquee name from an above-average amateur production done on average prosumer gear, then what's the point of making the comparison? Why is it relevant to say that any given production does not sound like a "pro job" when even many pro jobs do not sound like "pro jobs"? What is the standard? How is a "pro job" defined?
IMHO, this is far too important of a point to dismiss, and I'd like to grab it while the opportunity avails itself.
It's like the old "if you tell them it's done by a famous painter, then it's a profound work of art; but as soon as you tell them it was done by a 4yr old child, it's just child's play" argument. Repeated tests have been made on that issue to repeatedly show that art critics are extremely biased for the artists and against the art itself. IMHO, that same kind of bias permeates the timbre of critiques heard repeatedly on BBSs like this one. Which brings me to the big question:
4) Why was your critiqe of ez_willis' offerings OK when it was ez_willis you were critiquing, but when it was Wallace you were critiquing, you suddenly think you were made to look the fool? Why should who did it or where it was done make any difference whatsoever?
It shouldn't. Yet it obviously does. And not just to Brief, but to the vast majority of people here. That's a problem.
G.