which of these two do you prefer?
- Thread starter dobro
- Start date
Steenamaroo
...
He's a talker, huh?
I didn't make it to the music. Sorry.
I didn't make it to the music. Sorry.
R
RAMI
Guest
Yeah. I lost focus about half-way through. Either way, I love this guy, but all these "tutorial" dudes have the worst taste in music and always end up using these shitty, corny tunes. Even Pensado is always using these shitty, auto-tuned R&B crap tunes. I can't take it.
I never reference other tracks anyway, so this video wasn't really for me either way.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Jenna Marbles rules!
Steenamaroo
...
Thanks to all of you - that was really useful!
Sorry man, but I watched four minutes of a guy basically explaining the title of the video.
It has the potential to be interesting, but I don't have the patience to find out.
R
RAMI
Guest
We tried. What do you want us to tell you? I even love that guy. He's the guy in the sticky that I suggested a few weeks ago. But this video just never got going for me.Thanks to all of you - that was really useful!
YanKleber
Retired
Sorry man, but I watched four minutes of a guy basically explaining the title of the video.
It has the potential to be interesting, but I don't have the patience to find out.
I didn't even try to watch this one but you know what? Mostly I hate video tutorials. And the reason is just because what you mentioned -- guys that make them rarely goes directly to the point and the 30 seconds of relevant information ends lost among 10 minutes of BS.
I read somewhere that all tutorial videos will really start at 30% of the whole duration. Everything before this is just a lot of crap of self introduction, irrelevant explanations, advertising and inviting to visit some site, etc. But I have serious suspicions that the thing is getting too much worse than that.
Schwarzenyaeger
Formerly "Dog-In-Door"
His 5 Minute to a better Mix videos are great because they are only five minutes long but the guy does tend to overexplain things or stick too long to the introduction.
Also, he is always using some corny Christian Rock songs. lel
Also, he is always using some corny Christian Rock songs. lel
dobro
Well-known member
Bullshit.
Anders Erisian
XLIII
I've been interested in the value of using reference tracks and i've never gone to this level of detail, but i suppose it's just natural to compare your mixes to others. I did watch the whole video, and to answer the question it didn't really sound better to me. Wider, brighter, more processed definitely, but i think the original mix sounded more compatible to my tastes.
I've noticed since the advent of digital recording that overbright trebley superwide sound has become the expected norm, and of all things this is where digital excelled, at least on paper, HF response. I remember first listening to CD's the thing i noticed was how sharp and clear cymbals sounded, or clinical and harsh if you are an analogue purist. Most cheap boomboxes and bookshelf systems in the 80's had some sort of 'stereo wide' button on them too, and most people i know loved that sound, even though it may have mutilated the mix. It's interesting that he said he thought his original mix had 'low mid buildup', it sounded fine to me, and the EQ notching he did made it sound a bit thin and shrill. I guess if you grew up on all digital music it would sound better, but if you'd lived through analogue days you mightn't agree with what an acceptable reference is. I think both sound fine in the right context, never cared about the digi vs. analogue debate, and this mix comparison was not about that, just my take on it, the narrator definitely sounded younger than me. The point made about referencing a commercial track as a shortcut means to help achieving good translation on different systems struck me as an interesting and valid point, i think he referred to that as a hack
.
But really, it seemed like an exercise in the obvious to me, if you try to get something to sound like something else, it will probably start to sound like something else. And once you get used to a mix it usually starts to sound ok, and any changes just grab attention, maybe sounding 'better' until familiarity overrides novelty. Don't think there is a problem trying to emulate another mix if that's the sound you want. Didn't have a problem with the Christian middle of the road reference material, sort of irrelevant to the discussion, it did sort of suck, but so do I. Sorry about the ramble just to say no, another big Friday night in this neck of the woods, clearly
.
I've noticed since the advent of digital recording that overbright trebley superwide sound has become the expected norm, and of all things this is where digital excelled, at least on paper, HF response. I remember first listening to CD's the thing i noticed was how sharp and clear cymbals sounded, or clinical and harsh if you are an analogue purist. Most cheap boomboxes and bookshelf systems in the 80's had some sort of 'stereo wide' button on them too, and most people i know loved that sound, even though it may have mutilated the mix. It's interesting that he said he thought his original mix had 'low mid buildup', it sounded fine to me, and the EQ notching he did made it sound a bit thin and shrill. I guess if you grew up on all digital music it would sound better, but if you'd lived through analogue days you mightn't agree with what an acceptable reference is. I think both sound fine in the right context, never cared about the digi vs. analogue debate, and this mix comparison was not about that, just my take on it, the narrator definitely sounded younger than me. The point made about referencing a commercial track as a shortcut means to help achieving good translation on different systems struck me as an interesting and valid point, i think he referred to that as a hack
.But really, it seemed like an exercise in the obvious to me, if you try to get something to sound like something else, it will probably start to sound like something else. And once you get used to a mix it usually starts to sound ok, and any changes just grab attention, maybe sounding 'better' until familiarity overrides novelty. Don't think there is a problem trying to emulate another mix if that's the sound you want. Didn't have a problem with the Christian middle of the road reference material, sort of irrelevant to the discussion, it did sort of suck, but so do I. Sorry about the ramble just to say no, another big Friday night in this neck of the woods, clearly
.
R
RAMI
Guest
another big Friday night in this neck of the woods, clearly
It's already Friday night there? It's still morning here. So, what happened later today?
(By the way, your post is one of the best, accurate and most articulate I've read in a long time. Or maybe it's only because I agree with all of it).
dobro
Well-known member
Well, that's the whole point of using reference mixes - you want to nudge your mix in the direction of a commercial mix you emulate, or you just want to check that you haven't disappeared up your own ass cuz you've listened to your mix so many times you're just not hearing some obvious issue. But like you said, he made his mix different, but not better. And so the lesson for me that I took from this video is not that using reference mixes works, but that it's pretty important which mixes you use for your reference. I'm suspicious of the current taste in bright mixes - it's a fashion.
MusicWater
Banned
Spot on. Hey dobro, those flamers, can you notice how bored they seem, I'm just wondering why are they even here when they lack interest and passion about all of this, to me that just becomes hilarious - being here, hating it all...
Anyway, to comment on your thread post. I find the music great, the tutorial was well made and the knowledge shared was a particular approach to achieving more high end final products - by relating to other mixes through A/B and becoming more familiar to brighter more clear sounding mixes. All of this is good and done by many within both the pro and non-pro world, it is a concept that can help to increase your music and audio intelligence significantly. He did improve the sound in my view. I'm not a big fan of the scope of application he does it on though, it can work if you have a really really good monitoring solution so that you can immediately tell when you cross the line and do it in parallel, but overall this kind of tuning is more efficient on a scope with much higher isolation level and should in my view be the default route. In other words, my view is that he should have balanced the high end stems of the various elements lacking gain in those frequency bands individually per side only as much as required (L,R). It would yield a better sound in my view, but that does not mean what he did cannot work too. It kind of depends on how close you are to what you A/B. But many out there overdo it in this way, not because of the technique itself but because of how far away they are to begin with and how off their monitoring solution is. That in combination with the scope of application creates an issue.
Last edited:
R
RAMI
Guest
Oh shut the fuck up already. Nobody hates Dobro. You, on the other hand, are a complete idiot. Don't try to hide behind Dobro. He's not an idiot.
MusicWater
Banned
For some reason you can't help but let the hate out, can you... It unbalances the thread. Now we are talking mixing/mastering, now we are talking hate, now we are talking mixing/mastering, now we are talking hate. Please just keep the thread free from that bullshit, we try to be inspired and inspire others, we don't try to hate.
R
RAMI
Guest
No hate, just sick of your bullshit. So are many others. Why haven't you responded to the many requests from different people to post something you've done, to back up your mindless, meaningless drivel. You've been asked numerous times to post some music, and you completely ignore it. Why???? Dude, you're a fraud and a phony. Your 1,000 word posts don't fool anyone into believing you have any idea of what you're talking about. You're a complete joke.
Post some music or shut the fuck up once and for all.