Was it worth it? You decide....

  • Thread starter Thread starter sonusman
  • Start date Start date

Was turning it up worth it?

  • I like it LOUD!!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Master is masterfull!

    Votes: 6 54.5%

  • I don't like change. Give me Original stuff!

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • You are a shmuck dude, they are all horrible!

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Total voters
    11
sonusman

sonusman

Banned
Okay, lot's of mastering threads. I never give out much....:) Call it not going somewhere until I am dressed up!

Anyway. I am not a proponent of "loud" in mastering. I would rather augment what is there. Maybe a bit of limiting, but not too much, unless that is what the client wants.

Here are three Fraunhofer codec encoded mp3's, all at 192kbs done in High Quality mode, of the same mix. One is the Original, one is Mastered (the first time I mastered it to about the clients approval), and one Loud (I at least doubled the amount of limiting over the clients version).

I am torn myself between the Original and Mastered. Original just sounds so pleasent to the ear. Nothing abrasive or choked. It was the way we wanted to mix it within the 5 hour time frame we had to mix it and the lower end type of tools available.

Mastered is pretty nice though. I was able to get a bit more definition, and quite a bit more level. It seems to "rock" a bit more the original. But, I am not terribly fond of how the "depth" of the mix sort of got lost. Yes, it is louder and punchier, but it doesn't seem to be as pleasing to the ear. The warm sound started to go away. Instead of a sort of sweet top end, it is a bit harder and colder.

Loud is just plain too loud. I really didn't spend that much time on it. Coming out of the Bass solo you can really hear the limiter grab ahold! This is what I hear a lot of on some major label releases, and hear very distinctly on many mp3's I download from people who are not well versed with using limiting, and how you might need to eq before the limiting. I don't like loud mainly because it has no character anymore. It starts to turn to mush. The dynamics are very flat which robbed the song of it's charm. You can sort of hear the fuzzyness so much limiting produces. I think I could have spent a bit more time on Loud and taken care of some of the limiter grab things and mostly retained this level. But for the most part, Loud is around what you would here on many major label releases in terms of RMS level.

What is my point here? Loud is not always so good. Make sure to listen to Loud first. It really doesn't sound all that bad.

Don't listen for whether you like the song, or per se what you might have done differently in the mix. Listen to how listenable the different mixes are. Listen for the little "ear candy" things, sweet top, rich bottom, smooth dynamics.

Listen to Loud first, then Mastered, then Original. Give each a couple objective listens. Ask yourself, which was the most pleasing to listen to. Go ahead and turn up your monitors to match the level of each song. Please don't use software volume to adjust as that would introduce DSP, thus coloring the results. You will have to turn Master up a bit to sound as loud as Loud, and Original up a bit to sound as loud as Mastered.

This whole thing will be very revealling if you really listen to the listenability of all three versions.

I believe most will favor Original at some point purely on listenability alone. How friendly it is to the ear. Mastered I feel is acceptable, but not quite as enjoyable to listen to overall. Loud is just plain annoying unless you didn't hear Mastered and Original.

Let me know what YOU think. Was raising the level REALLY worth it?

Go to: http://www.xdrive.com

At Login enter: SoundCracker (exactly how I just spelled it, with no spaces and the same capitaliaztions)

Password: mp3s

Ed
 
IMHO...

The loud is just plain overboard. Exagerated, and annoying compared to the others. The Original was better, but lacking the shimmer and bottom end punch of the others. The Mastered was imo a standout. The bass hit me, and the cymbals sounded awesome. The warmth was diminished to be sure, but unless you're really looking for it no one is going to miss it in light of the added weight. If you could figure out a way to keep the warmth that'd be great, but given the choice I'll take the punch. That groove is just begging for it. On a more introspective piece I'm sure my opinion would be different.

By the way, the mix was outstanding :)

-Valgrim
 
It took 2 hours to download... but worth it!

Hey Ed,

For the record, I voted #4 - but I was kidding!!! :p

Great mix - but man, those horns are slightly too dry for my personal tastes!!!! (Guess I listened to too many Phil Collins tunes in my youth!!!) ;)

You forgot to mention that as you listen from Loud to Mastered to Original, you need to turn up volumes slightly to keep the listening level consistent, otherwise most people will generally perceive "louder as better" right out-of-hand, defeating the whole purpose of the "listenability" factor!

Anyways, I listened in the order you mentioned and even before I heard the other 2, I HATED the Loud version - the sound seemed squashed... no punch and the dynamics are gone!

As for the other 2, my immediate preference (after listening a few times to both) is the Mastered version. It has the punch and the dynamics feel like they've been maintained. The Original has dynamics of course, but I preferred the punchiness of the Mastered version.

For my tastes, I vote for the Mastered version.....

I like the wah rhythm guitar sound you got down... but where's the freakin' guitar solo??? It ain't a song until it's got a damn guitar solo!!! Especially one with that kind of groove!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p :D

And was that a wah I heard on a sax solo in there??? Cool!

Excellent work Ed... ok, you can stay!!! :D :D

Bruce
 
Hmmmmmmm...Bruce, there are no guitars anywhere on the CD.....NONE....

That solo was a trumpet with a autowah foot pedal that the keyboard player had. You outta here the song where we used distortion, flanger, and delay on a sax off the same CD!!! Man, that was a track...;)

I wanted to use a lot more reverb on most things, but the keyboard player, the writer/arranger/producer didn't think we should have had even this much! Such is the way of working with those types!

The reason I overlimited the Loud mix was too illustrate how something may sound pretty decent to you, but you may never know just how much better it might have sounded with less limiting. When you compare your mixes to major label releases that usually are over compressed/limited in mastering (usually a record company exec's decision, NOT the mastering engineers....) you should forget about levels and go for a good sound. What do you have to lose unless you are releasing on a major label eh? Go for what sounds good, NOT what trying to compete in loudness to other stuff. This was more to reinforce what many have talked about how older recordings are not as loud usually, but sound much better.

Anyway....I still prefer the softness and charm of Original myself. That many of your prefer Mastered is a surprise quite frankly.

Ed
 
Hmmm... ok, there's a wah'd rhythm part that I initially thought was a guitar but now that you mention it, it DOES sound more like boards... as far as "no guitars anywhere", what the hell is up with that??? That's no song!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

:D

Maybe you're just too close to your own work to be completely objective about it, but the Mastered version had more punch, and still seemed to maintain all the track's dynamics. And it wasn't as if I had to listen back and forth between the 2 versions to decide - I found it immediately apparent...

Guess there's is something to be said for good mastering, even if you weren't convinced that that's exactly what you did! ;)

Bruce
 
Ed,you somna'bee-otch,THAT'S MY KINDA' MUSIC!!!!
I JUST LOSE IT, when I hear syncopated-jazz/funk oriented sh#t!!!! I'm madd about horn's,keyboards that have that old-school HAMMOND organ sound, Tower of Power rhythm with a little bit of Average White Band- influenced British SOUL blended in! I know you wanted
comments in re: to Mastered,Loud and Original recording,but d@mnnnnnn brutha',that's my musical flow! Slightly partial to the Mastered Version,but WTF,
that's Aaron(MisterQcue)Collie's brand of musical style!!!
I'm sorry,but I can't offer any opinions on the way it was recorded,(excellently BTW),but that's ME!
Doc,Emeric and this jam has just re-motivated me to expand,re-write,re-compose,re-think musically how I want to direct this new jazz/funk band I'm starting!
Eventually,when I do post an MP.3 my flavor along with
what I've just heard WILL be incorporated into what I musically envision with a modern edge!
Sorry Ed, I went beyond the recording techniques and headed straight for the music; MY kind of MUSIC!!!

Mr.Q, Musician 1st(Always MUSIC),Recordist 2nd!

Peace
Mr.Q
 
Ed,

I plugged my computer in at the console and was checking the peaks on the meters (the Mastered and Original versions.) Seeing how I just finished "checking meters" for the LP transfers I was doing the other day, I was curious to see the difference.

Just from looking at the range diff, your Mastered version is pretty much the same as the late 70's/early 80's releases - a good 9 to 12db of variance. Lots of dynamics there, compared to today's "mastered" releases.

Bruce
 
UPDATE!!!

Okay, not as many downloads as I was hoping for with this. I suppose that the three 7.9MB files was maybe a bit much for some....;) Sorry, just getting carried away with my new DSL connection.....:D

Okay, to alleviate this problem, I created two versions of each mp3. There are the normal full length versions, and now, there are a version of each that are only 2 minutes long each. The file size is a more manageable 2.8MB each. The file names are:

LoudEdit.mp3
MasteredEdit.mp3
OriginalEdit.mp3

Bruce, the whole goal more or less on this CD was to have a 70's porno funk "vibe" to it....:) I didn't track this CD, just mixed and mastered it. I feel most of the tracking was done very well, but the tracking engineer thought that a bit more of a "modern" sound was going to be sought at mix time. He was actually pretty surprised at how the whole thing was mixed.

I was too......

When I first started listening to the tapes, I was envisioning a bit more hyped up high's and a more "lush" sound overall. The keyboard player though kept having me take "bite" off of certain instruments throughout the mixes. Mainly, the Rhodes tracks, and Saxaphone tracks. He also wouldn't allow me to give the kick drums the kind of "basketball sound in a gymnasium" (his descriptive) sound that I thought would work better. Oh well......As I said earlier, this is the way it is working with certain types of musicians. The keyboard player "produced" the CD, and really had little experience in doing such things. He made up his mind to pursue a sound that isn't there in my opinion, and sort of drove the whole project away from what it really is, and the result was mixes that while I think are decent, sort of don't maximize what was really there on tape.

I suppose that the whole purpose of this thread was to show that very thing, that you won't have much luck pursuing sounds that don't compliment what is actually there. Again, tracking, mixing, mastering are all "arts", and those with little experience as the engineers in these fields are going to try to pursue production that is most of the time inappropriate to the song.

Maybe what I am trying to point out here is just how good of a mix you need to start out with before mastering can really be effective. In all three versions of the mastering (or no mastering) the mixes basically have a very similar sound. The variences are mostly in levels, and those differences are not terribly extreme either. While I don't prefer the Mastered version as much, I don't feel that the song lost anything from mastering either. My regret is that I could have made the mix closer to that sound DURING mixing, and the resulting mastering would have had less effect on the overall "depth" of the mix from the DSP applied.

Anyway, just sort of sharing thoughts here. Not sure I am making any decent points, or if I am articulating them very well. But what the hell, gotta keep the typing fingers excercised....;)

Ed
 
I think the better example would be how it stacks up
to other (like tunes) on the top playlist, back to back on the same system under the same conditions. All this example can do is compare loudness of the same music. Can we get a sample from John Vestman, Bob Katz, or others played from the same player and re-recorded at the same record level? In all this discussion about loudness, most of it is straight forward and right on, but that is not going to solve all the problems. Remember, the analog equipment is +4db, and digital zero, or 0dbfs is 18db's higher. It is how you get there, close to the max, and keep from overloading and adding noise is where the level competition lies. Not to mention louder averages, by compression, and equalization. Thats what everyone wants, commercial sound quality. If more time was spent on effects, it would be better served. Now this may sound like a rant, but somehow this cycle of the same question has to be standardized. I have not found anything in about 50 reference books that deals with HOW TO SOUND COMMERCIAL. This is developed, by time and experience. The tools are there, but the study goes on. The audio world is filled with unorthidox methods when tracking and mastering. You can make a living, doing audio by the book. If you want more, then time, experimentation, and application is what you are looking for, or intern with the best. It's like a pinball machine, ping to loudness, pings to compression, pings to tracking, pings to equalization, pings to room modes pings to monitors, and levels, mics, pres, on and on, everyboard, every thread, the same. If I start a thread "my mixes aren't loud enough, I have the best equipment, what am I doing wrong?". And after about 30 reply's someone asked " Have you checked your hearing?" Don't hate me now.
--Rick
 
Rick, I dont know who you are or what you know...You could be Mutt Lang in disguise for all I know..Im not knocking your knowledge here...But I think the whole point of Ed's post and MP3's just flew right past you...
 
Rick... along with what Gidge said......
Not to mentiom that "sounding commercial" is not necessarily the goal to shoot for when "sounding commercial" means "all level and 0 dynamic range."

Ed... I hear what you're saying, but from an un-subjective point of view - I liked the mix! I found the kick/bass did work well, it felt solid and supportive of the rhythm tracks... I think you did a great job.... of course, now that you mentioned it - I'd like to have heard the mix the way you really wanted to do it! (hint, hint...) ;)

I also haven't forgotten about posting a clip of my stuff - been busy, it's forthcoming... (we wouldn't want to stray too far from our console debate, now would we!!!!!!) :D

Bruce
:)
 
hi sonusman,

I'm really excited and itching to listen to the works, but it will not let me play the mp3. Everytime I click on it, it goes to another page with the same list.
 
When you click on the file, you have to then select Download from the onscreen menu items above.

Bruce. I don't think there is much chance that I will be re-mixing any of that stuff any time soon. I don't have the tapes and that sort of ends it all right there eh? :)

I don't mind the mix too much. I don't even mind the mastering job too much. But that was a year ago, and I am finding that I can get a little better "space" for everything now, and also keep it nice and warm for the most part. I am now favoring far less eq in mixing and mastering now, and listening to this old stuff makes me itch to want to redo it and apply some different approaches. Such is life in audio.

That was the last "big" project I worked on, and most of the recent stuff has been "projects" and "demos", so not a lot of time to really dig into the mixes at all. But, we are finishing up some rear wall sound treatments at the club this week as well as I am finally getting the patchbays installed and wired, so I will be probably doing some remixes of SOMETHING to get a feel for the room.

Ed
 
Ed,

Great work!

I voted for Original. The extra detail and articulation, especially in the keyboards, is what wins it for me. Not to say that I wouldn't want to here a little more punch in some areas. The intro and reprise at the end could use more balls. I'd like to hear it kick in a little harder at the beginning, chill a bit in the middle with those cool solos, then a hard punch out. But, I think this is more a question of performance rather than mixing. The players could definitely be a more aggressive in those parts. Maybe add a touch of distortion and bang harder on that electric piano, and the horn players need to give more attack.

Without laying new tracks, how would you go about giving the song more of the feel I've described? Could you add limiting to just those two sections and leave the middle alone, or would you loose continuity this way? How about limiting just the rhythm section, or does this leave less room in the mix for that nice keyboard articulation?

Thanks,
barefoot

btw - You're right. It could use more reverb, but just a smidge.
 
I liked mastered,
but my vote goes to original, mainly because it sounds more like my elvis presley album than either of the other two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top