Referencing a Mix on a Sh*tty Speaker

[JimmyS1969]

Strangely, I am a mod and have not the abilities to properly accommodate into my ability how to properly quote others.

Are there any teachers here that have privy and desire to show me?

 

[JimmyS1969]

This is equally true. Many people want to be perfect yesterday and the words 'wait' and 'patience' are like calling someone a pervert, racist or thief.
I have long felt that instead of communicating that one's way of getting somewhere is the only way, one should communicate that it is their way and they find it the best way. There's a subtle difference.

I am quite sure, I didn't understand that post so well. LOL

So if I understand you 'incorrectly', Perverts like to 'wait', and racists have no 'patience and or are also thieves'? LOL!

So if a patient pervert, calls a racist a thief, is he finding the right way to communicate? And will his mixes translate well?


LMAO!

Sorry man, It just kind of made me laugh.

Kind of made my day actually.

Best to you Grim!

 

[grimtraveller]

I was agreeing with your point, Jimmy. Words like 'patience' and 'wait' have become dirty words to the impatient who want to become experts yesterday. They often don't want to hear them, rather like no one wants to be called a racist or a pervert.

 

[Deleted member 196982]

Don't just check your mix(es) on other/crap speakers. Play the stuff the pros have put out and see how they sound. Honestly, if nothing like your music, assuming you have some reference tracks, sounds good on a set of transducers, I wouldn't spend (waste) time/money with them. But, probably you'll find that many pro recordings actually do translate and reproduce well enough to be intelligible.

 

[Papanate]

I think it has been discussed, either directly or indirectly. Using a bad speaker to check a mix on just to check how the mix will sound on a system most people will be listening on (except when you are the only listener) . It seems like a logical idea, if it sounds good on this ....

Just curious if anyone has tried or is doing this and do you feel it has helped your mixes for general consumption. I am going to try this in my next sessions, but wanted to know of others have tried this.

Generally people don't have shitty systems. - They don't have systems - not many have speakers.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Yery true.

 

[JimmyS1969]

I was agreeing with your point, Jimmy. Words like 'patience' and 'wait' have become dirty words to the impatient who want to become experts yesterday. They often don't want to hear them, rather like no one wants to be called a racist or a pervert.

I get it. Strangely that I must say, I friggen love you Grim. I love your take on things.

Not flying a multi color Gay flag at you by any means.

Oh shit, it sounded like I was hitting on you huh?

How only?

You are a one of a kind Grim...

 

[DM60]

Don't just check your mix(es) on other/crap speakers.

I hope that was understood, but you are right, one never knows who is reading this stuff. Being clear is important.

 

[brassplyer]

I think it has been discussed, either directly or indirectly. Using a bad speaker to check a mix on just to check how the mix will sound on a system most people will be listening on (except when you are the only listener) . It seems like a logical idea, if it sounds good on this ....

Just curious if anyone has tried or is doing this and do you feel it has helped your mixes for general consumption. I am going to try this in my next sessions, but wanted to know of others have tried this.

I've noticed that car systems are a good place to check a mix, it'll sound muddy if the balance isn't right.

Don't know if it's an urban legend but I've heard that records for juke boxes were pressed with a different mix to compensate for the limitations of the speaker.

 

[DM60]

I've noticed that car systems are a good place to check a mix, it'll sound muddy if the balance isn't right.

Don't know if it's an urban legend but I've heard that records for juke boxes were pressed with a different mix to compensate for the limitations of the speaker.

Funny you should make that statement. Side topic, but the more I read about records/vinyl pressings, the more I think as of today, that was the one of the worse delivery methods compared to digital. Here is my rational:

Record chain from mixing to play. Mixed->Mastering->Copy of master sent to processing plant global->Processing plant would make the mold->machine would apply RIAA curve->press->package and send->put on turntable->phone cartridge->Phone pre-amp->amp->speakers

I may not be 100% but I am close. Now, there are a lot of variables in that chain. When you look at a non-compressed or even slightly compressed digital, you get a smaller chain. Mix->Master->Format method->Delivery mechanism (Down load file, streaming, etc)->DAC->AMP->Speaker

Biggest variable in that chain is the format, delivery (which is really one and the same), DAC, AMP Speaker. In my head at least, digital seems like the better was to deliver and listen to music.

What am I not factoring in?

 

[brassplyer]

brassplyer said:
I've noticed that car systems are a good place to check a mix, it'll sound muddy if the balance isn't right.

Don't know if it's an urban legend but I've heard that records for juke boxes were pressed with a different mix to compensate for the limitations of the speaker.

Funny you should make that statement. Side topic, but the more I read about records/vinyl pressings, the more I think as of today, that was the one of the worse delivery methods compared to digital. Here is my rational:

Record chain from mixing to play. Mixed->Mastering->Copy of master sent to processing plant global->Processing plant would make the mold->machine would apply RIAA curve->press->package and send->put on turntable->phone cartridge->Phone pre-amp->amp->speakers

I may not be 100% but I am close. Now, there are a lot of variables in that chain. When you look at a non-compressed or even slightly compressed digital, you get a smaller chain. Mix->Master->Format method->Delivery mechanism (Down load file, streaming, etc)->DAC->AMP->Speaker

Biggest variable in that chain is the format, delivery (which is really one and the same), DAC, AMP Speaker. In my head at least, digital seems like the better was to deliver and listen to music.

What am I not factoring in?

What am I not factoring in?

The cool factor of putting that stylus on the record and watching it spin around.

There's no disputing the advantages of digital - lower noise floor, less susceptibility to physical damage, digital is capable of capturing more of whatever travels down the wires of the mics with less distortion and a wider dynamic range, certainly editing is in a different universe of ease, precision and functionality. It's more feasible to make your own "records" with burnable CDs, same in the video realm of DVD and Blu-Ray. You can make your own tapes but it's a much slower process. I've had a couple of burnables delaminate over time, I've never experienced that issue with a commercially-made CD, DVD or Blu-Ray which are stamped rather than burned. Burnables are susceptible to sunlight damage. I know there are DIY machines to make what I've seen called dubplate records but my understanding is they're not durable, only good for a few plays before experiencing serious degradation because the vinyl doesn't have the protective surface of stamped records, they're only for testing a mix not long-term use.

But there's a fun factor of vinyl that's part of the experience - I enjoy the cleaning process before playing a record using a home-concocted vacuum-irrigation process. There are high-quality LP pressings that are really quiet when cleaned. There's also wet playing but my understanding is it damages the grooves because the vinyl is more brittle due to the cooling effect and the peaks of the grooves break off.

Digital is great but they can take my turntable when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. ??

 

[Farview]

Funny you should make that statement. Side topic, but the more I read about records/vinyl pressings, the more I think as of today, that was the one of the worse delivery methods compared to digital. Here is my rational:

Record chain from mixing to play. Mixed->Mastering->Copy of master sent to processing plant global->Processing plant would make the mold->machine would apply RIAA curve->press->package and send->put on turntable->phone cartridge->Phone pre-amp->amp->speakers

I may not be 100% but I am close. Now, there are a lot of variables in that chain. When you look at a non-compressed or even slightly compressed digital, you get a smaller chain. Mix->Master->Format method->Delivery mechanism (Down load file, streaming, etc)->DAC->AMP->Speaker

Biggest variable in that chain is the format, delivery (which is really one and the same), DAC, AMP Speaker. In my head at least, digital seems like the better was to deliver and listen to music.

What am I not factoring in?

With vinyl, cutting the master with the riaa curve and all the other processing needed to put the sound on vinyl is mastering. You generally don't want to do much "mastering" before sending it to the plant

 

[DM60]

With vinyl, cutting the master with the riaa curve and all the other processing needed to put the sound on vinyl is mastering. You generally don't want to do much "mastering" before sending it to the plant

My understanding was the curve was done by the machine as a part of creating the mold, not by the mastering process. That is what I read, I don't know for sure.

My understanding of the mastering it prepared the tape to have the curve applied and to make sure it would fit on both sides. Once again, since I have never done it, I can only read and assume the sources know.

 

[grimtraveller]

Side topic, but the more I read about records/vinyl pressings, the more I think as of today, that was the one of the worse delivery methods compared to digital

I suppose technically, it was. Yet of the 1000s of records I had, I don't once recall thinking that the sound of the music was somehow sonically lacking and many of my albums and most of my singles, I recorded straight from vinyl to CD and they still sound great to me.

 

[Farview]

My understanding was the curve was done by the machine as a part of creating the mold, not by the mastering process. That is what I read, I don't know for sure.

My understanding of the mastering it prepared the tape to have the curve applied and to make sure it would fit on both sides. Once again, since I have never done it, I can only read and assume the sources know.

Cutting the master is the mastering process.

The tape is normally the raw mix. The eqing, compression, de-essing and the riaa curve are all done between the tape and the cutter.

 

[brassplyer]

Funny you should make that statement. Side topic, but the more I read about records/vinyl pressings, the more I think as of today, that was the one of the worse delivery methods compared to digital. Here is my rational:

Record chain from mixing to play. Mixed->Mastering->Copy of master sent to processing plant global->Processing plant would make the mold->machine would apply RIAA curve->press->package and send->put on turntable->phone cartridge->Phone pre-amp->amp->speakers

There's also Direct-To-Disc which cuts out some of the steps and therefore some of the potential loss - the recording goes directly to the master disc and the stamper(s) is/are made from that. You do any tweaking at the board. A drawback was that an entire side had to be played in one continuous take at least in the original form in the pre-digital age, making a circle back to the same basic principle of wax cylinder recording. I imagine now most LPs are recorded & mastered digitally

One such album was the Woody Herman album "Roadfather" where trumpeter Allen Vizzutti plays his composition Firedance. It's a an extremely difficult piece where Allen displays technically extreme playing that he's known for - it was recorded as the first track theoretically so he'd have fresh chops to get through this really difficult bit of playing however the lore is that band members kept making really obvious clams at exposed points while recording the side and they had to start over really putting Allen through the ringer. Playing Firedance *once* is grueling, he had to do it several times - on the take that made the final release you can tell his sound is becoming a bit frayed in places, though most players would be happy to be able to play it as well as he did it on that final take.

An amazing Direct-To-Disc recording by Doc Severinsen - "Chimes Festival" on trumpet and flugelhorn. Amazing to realize this was a live performance. Again, the first track on an album of arrangements, some of them original compositions by Tommy Newsom.

 

[TalismanRich]

I have several direct to disc albums. Between songs, you can clearly hear as the musicians would change the music. Various noises, breaths, etc are present. Sonically, they were the pinnacle for vinyl records in their time. Musically, many were just ok. Many were mediocre. A few were very good. I remember reading about sessions being ruined by a simple mistake. A cough, a dropped object, someone's miscue. That's all it took to scrap a side. Playing 15 to 20mins without a flaw is tough, there's no going back and fixing it. Toss it and start over, and pay the musicians for extra time, along with the mastering engineer, mixing engineer, another cutting lacquer. It can get expensive, and you only end up with a few thousand copies from the 6 or 8 stampers made from the single master and maybe 2 or 3 mothers. Since they were going for a premium product, numbers were more conservative than your normal commercial records.

There are lots of things I don't miss about records... cleaning the record before playing, clicks and pops, wow from a slightly warped disc, adjusting the cartridge to get the optimum angle, getting up every 20 minutes to change the record.

Once digital tape came into play, you got almost all of the advantages of a D2D setup, but you could make as many as you want. Just play the tape back and make a new master when you need it.

RE mixing on "Sh*tty Speakers":

There were quite a few magazines about audio back in the day. Audio, Stereo Review, HiFidelity, HiFi News & Record Review, Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Audio Critic, What HiFi. They often had interviews with record producers, engineers, etc. I don't ever remember a producer or engineer saying "I make sure I check the mix on a shitty system so it sounds ok on lousy stereos", or "I always check my mixes on a transistor radio" since in the early 60s, eveyone had a transistor radio, strictly AM and with a 1.5 or 2 inch speaker. If you were a serious music lover, you were expected to have made a moderate effort to assemble a quality system.

The change in the audio industry was MASSIVE over the 10 yr period from 1958 to 1968. There are archives of magazine from that period on the internet. Heck in 1958, stereo records were a rarity! I wish some of the younger people would go back and see how things have changed since those days. It might give some perspective on how things used to be done.

 

[TalismanRich]

Dang... somehow I got a double post. Oh well. It's gone now!

 

[DM60]

RE mixing on "Sh*tty Speakers":

There were quite a few magazines about audio back in the day. Audio, Stereo Review, HiFidelity, HiFi News & Record Review, Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Audio Critic, What HiFi. They often had interviews with record producers, engineers, etc. I don't ever remember a producer or engineer saying "I make sure I check the mix on a shitty system so it sounds ok on lousy stereos", or "I always check my mixes on a transistor radio" since in the early 60s, eveyone had a transistor radio, strictly AM and with a 1.5 or 2 inch speaker. If you were a serious music lover, you were expected to have made a moderate effort to assemble a quality system.

The change in the audio industry was MASSIVE over the 10 yr period from 1958 to 1968. There are archives of magazine from that period on the internet. Heck in 1958, stereo records were a rarity! I wish some of the younger people would go back and see how things have changed since those days. It might give some perspective on how things used to be done.

I think in the end, I have to agree with the idea. I don't really concern myself how it sounds on a phone speaker. I might check it, just because you just do, but I really want it to sound good on a stereo system. That is really my aim.

I would also say, I am not surprised by the responses. Most, if not all, are looking for the "best sound" we can mix. There are some rules to that, but it is also subjective. I think there is enough room between the rules, and the mixers idea of good sound, to make recording/mixing always a challenge in its own right.

Personally, I have enjoyed the responses. Much more detailed and objective than I was expecting.

 

[brassplyer]

I have several direct to disc albums. Between songs, you can clearly hear as the musicians would change the music. Various noises, breaths, etc are present. Sonically, they were the pinnacle for vinyl records in their time. Musically, many were just ok. Many were mediocre. A few were very good. I remember reading about sessions being ruined by a simple mistake. A cough, a dropped object, someone's miscue. That's all it took to scrap a side. Playing 15 to 20mins without a flaw is tough, there's no going back and fixing it. Toss it and start over, and pay the musicians for extra time, along with the mastering engineer, mixing engineer, another cutting lacquer. It can get expensive, and you only end up with a few thousand copies from the 6 or 8 stampers made from the single master and maybe 2 or 3 mothers. Since they were going for a premium product, numbers were more conservative than your normal commercial records.

There are lots of things I don't miss about records... cleaning the record before playing, clicks and pops, wow from a slightly warped disc, adjusting the cartridge to get the optimum angle, getting up every 20 minutes to change the record.

Once digital tape came into play, you got almost all of the advantages of a D2D setup, but you could make as many as you want. Just play the tape back and make a new master when you need it.

RE mixing on "Sh*tty Speakers":

There were quite a few magazines about audio back in the day. Audio, Stereo Review, HiFidelity, HiFi News & Record Review, Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Audio Critic, What HiFi. They often had interviews with record producers, engineers, etc. I don't ever remember a producer or engineer saying "I make sure I check the mix on a shitty system so it sounds ok on lousy stereos", or "I always check my mixes on a transistor radio" since in the early 60s, eveyone had a transistor radio, strictly AM and with a 1.5 or 2 inch speaker. If you were a serious music lover, you were expected to have made a moderate effort to assemble a quality system.

The change in the audio industry was MASSIVE over the 10 yr period from 1958 to 1968. There are archives of magazine from that period on the internet. Heck in 1958, stereo records were a rarity! I wish some of the younger people would go back and see how things have changed since those days. It might give some perspective on how things used to be done.

Couldn't they make more than one master when recording the sides by having the signal going out to more than one cutting lathe?