Would mix/mastering engineers do it differently if...

[taeyoung]

Alright, so, after comparing a lot of mixes and (crap) mastering jobs I've been working on to some pro CDs that I appreciate, I've got this idea that's been pestering in my mind. Nothing ground breaking, but maybe someone with mastering experience will come and shoot my stupid thoughts down.

So, on every sound system I own, I have a sub. In my car. On my computer speakers. On my home theater. Probably that is becoming common nowadays.

So, the way I understand it, most nicer studios probably don't use a sub when mixing mastering, but they have full range speakers that can produce nearly, or the same, frequencies that subs produce anyways? Or not? Not really sure, but it seems to me that most mixing or mastering jobs are made more with the everyday user in mind, that probably doesn't have a sub.

Now, to my point, which is, when I forget about the little peon guy with his crappy speaker set up and just make a mix the way I like it, it sounds damn good in my systems! I mean, like way good, better than a lot of pro CDs I like to compare it to.

Let's take for example a benchmark CD that gets brought up on occassion here: Metallica Black CD. So, I like that CD, it's cool stuff, but am I alone in thinking it sounds inferior on a good system? The bass is pitiful. When I compare that CD to some other rock CDs it makes me feel like I'm going from CD to a cassette tape.

Is it just because some CDs are engineered to work well on a wide variety of systems that things turn out this way, and if an engineer focused on making songs sound good on full range systems they would take a whole different approach, or am I wrong?

Give me some opinions on this guys!!

 

[iqi616]

It could be differences in the gear or it could be differences in taste. Either the mastering gear had too much bass response leading to weakness in the result or they knew what they were doing and didn't want earth shattering bottom end.

 

[Mindset]

Alright, so, after comparing a lot of mixes and (crap) mastering jobs I've been working on to some pro CDs that I appreciate, I've got this idea that's been pestering in my mind. Nothing ground breaking, but maybe someone with mastering experience will come and shoot my stupid thoughts down.

So, on every sound system I own, I have a sub. In my car. On my computer speakers. On my home theater. Probably that is becoming common nowadays.

So, the way I understand it, most nicer studios probably don't use a sub when mixing mastering, but they have full range speakers that can produce nearly, or the same, frequencies that subs produce anyways? Or not? Not really sure, but it seems to me that most mixing or mastering jobs are made more with the everyday user in mind, that probably doesn't have a sub.


Give me some opinions on this guys!!

The nicer studios I usually go to, have both. The post production facility definitely has a sub in there (5.1) Most the studios I go to regularly has larger speakers to be able to hear what the mix sounds on a different set of speaks.

 

[Farview]

Let's take for example a benchmark CD that gets brought up on occassion here: Metallica Black CD. So, I like that CD, it's cool stuff, but am I alone in thinking it sounds inferior on a good system? The bass is pitiful. When I compare that CD to some other rock CDs it makes me feel like I'm going from CD to a cassette tape.

The black album was mixed and mastered before the volume wars. It's not that it doesn't have low end, it's that the low end isn't smeared by over-limiting and compression.

It was also done at a time when they were still making vinyl, and mixing with that in mind. There is only so much low end you can put on vinyl before the needle jumps out of the groove. Many of todays music would have to be remixed to put on vinyl because of the overcompression, phase problems, and low frequency overload.

The Black Album is one of the better sounding albums of all time, but that was 17 years ago. It wasn't recorded on a computer, it wasn't pitch corrected, it was mixed to 16 bit dat. I don't think you could make those mixes hit -9dbfs RMS without them falling apart.

If your goal is to make your stuff as loud as CDs are now, you will need to find a newercd to compare your stuff to.

[edit] If you think the black album doesn't have enough low end, you probably have your crossovers set too low.

 

[treymonfauntre]

i don't own a single sub. not in my car, on my monitors, on my stereo.. hell even my bass amp is a 6x10 guitar cab!

 

[LogicDeLuxe]

It was also done at a time when they were still making vinyl, and mixing with that in mind. There is only so much low end you can put on vinyl before the needle jumps out of the groove.

Actually that compromise is not really a big one. Basically vinyl requires a high pass at 40 Hz, because the mechanical resonance is below that. There is rarely something important going on at that low frequencies anyways, especially in non enlectronical sounds, nor is the average speaker able to reprocuce such low frequencies to begin with.
The other requirement on vinyl masters is that low frequencies are mono, which is not a problem either, since it gives the best power on a regular stereo, is the only option on a system with sub woofer, and you can't localize low frequencies anyways.

If your goal is to make your stuff as loud as CDs are now, you will need to find a newercd to compare your stuff to.

Bad idea. See my signature.

 

[Farview]

Actually that compromise is not really a big one. Basically vinyl requires a high pass at 40 Hz, because the mechanical resonance is below that. There is rarely something important going on at that low frequencies anyways, especially in non enlectronical sounds, nor is the average speaker able to reprocuce such low frequencies to begin with.
The other requirement on vinyl masters is that low frequencies are mono, which is not a problem either, since it gives the best power on a regular stereo, is the only option on a system with sub woofer, and you can't localize low frequencies anyways.

True, but 'low end' at that time was concentrated closer to 100hz, now it's almost an octave lower. It was just the way things were mixed back then.

 

[chessrock]

It was also done at a time when they were still making vinyl, and mixing with that in mind.

There was very, very little vinyl going on during the time of that particular record. You make it sound like it was done in 1984 or something.

.

 

[Farview]

There was very, very little vinyl going on during the time of that particular record. You make it sound like it was done in 1984 or something.

.

I have the black album on vinyl. Yes, it was 1991 but the overall feel and production style had more in common with the previous decade than it did the decade that followed.

I think the album sits around -15dbfs RMS!!!! That's almost 10db quieter than what people shoot for now.

 

[Farview]

There was very, very little vinyl going on during the time of that particular record. You make it sound like it was done in 1984 or something.

.

I have the black album on vinyl. Yes, it was 1991 but the overall feel and production style had more in common with the previous decade than it did the decade that followed.

I think the album sits around -15dbfs RMS!!!! That's almost 10db quieter than what people shoot for now.

Even though that album was the beginning of the 'new' metallica, it was still 16 years ago. The 'old' metallica only lasted 8 years.

Time marches on (my face)

 

[IronFlippy]

Even though that album was the beginning of the 'new' metallica, it was still 16 years ago. The 'old' metallica only lasted 8 years.

Ugh, don't remind me. Yea, I know I'm only 20 and I never actually experienced the old Metallica, but nonetheless, time passes on too quickly. I'm still, personally, stuck in the 90s.

 

[Farview]

Ugh, don't remind me. Yea, I know I'm only 20 and I never actually experienced the old Metallica, but nonetheless, time passes on too quickly. I'm still, personally, stuck in the 90s.

You were only 13 when the 90's ended! You think time passes quickly now, wait another 20 years.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You were only 13 when the 90's ended! You think time passes quickly now, wait another 20 years.

Yeah, how 'bout it. I'm still reeling from the phrase "old Metallica". Makes me feel like my first band played the inaugral date at Stonehedge .

It wasn't long ago that we considered anybody born after the moon landing to be young. Now some of those people have grandchildren. And I'm only 47!!

G.

 

[Reggie]

Here's an idear: what if your system is not the true sample of a full-range system? Maybe your system is not giving a true flat frequency response. I recommend in the future you provide a duplicate of your sound system to whomever wants to listen to your mixes. That way you know it will sound as you intended it for your particular wacked-out sound system.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

Your ears can get used to just about anything and call it "normal". If every system you own has subs, I can nearly guarantee you your ears have gotten used to WAY too much low end. It's the same as most budding heavy metal guitar players start out: scoop all of the mids & boost the bass & treble. It sounds sweet at first, but eventually you come to realize the midrange is where the balls & the volume are at.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is the Black Album has some of the tightest bass (in a 'not flabby' way, not in a 'mad sikk ill tight dawg' way) of any metal album I've heard, as well as REAL dynamics and an amazing attention to detail.

Listen to the black album on some *real* speakers (like ridiculously expensive audiophile-grade speakers, or the 'big speakers' in any respectable recording studio. Perhaps you will find it's YOUR system that's lacking in areas other than low-end, not 'the rest of the world' lacking in bass...

*edit: try turning down the bass, and turning up the overall volume to get the same bass. Live with it for a week or so and tell me how you like it

 

[ecktronic]

Alright, so, after comparing a lot of mixes and (crap) mastering jobs I've been working on to some pro CDs that I appreciate, I've got this idea that's been pestering in my mind. Nothing ground breaking, but maybe someone with mastering experience will come and shoot my stupid thoughts down.

So, on every sound system I own, I have a sub. In my car. On my computer speakers. On my home theater. Probably that is becoming common nowadays.

So, the way I understand it, most nicer studios probably don't use a sub when mixing mastering, but they have full range speakers that can produce nearly, or the same, frequencies that subs produce anyways? Or not? Not really sure, but it seems to me that most mixing or mastering jobs are made more with the everyday user in mind, that probably doesn't have a sub.

Now, to my point, which is, when I forget about the little peon guy with his crappy speaker set up and just make a mix the way I like it, it sounds damn good in my systems! I mean, like way good, better than a lot of pro CDs I like to compare it to.

Let's take for example a benchmark CD that gets brought up on occassion here: Metallica Black CD. So, I like that CD, it's cool stuff, but am I alone in thinking it sounds inferior on a good system? The bass is pitiful. When I compare that CD to some other rock CDs it makes me feel like I'm going from CD to a cassette tape.

Is it just because some CDs are engineered to work well on a wide variety of systems that things turn out this way, and if an engineer focused on making songs sound good on full range systems they would take a whole different approach, or am I wrong?

Give me some opinions on this guys!!

You are totally right. Getting a mix to sound good on most systems is a challenging feat but needs to be done as people wont be listening to your music on your system, they will be listening on all different sorts of systems.

I dont see anything wrong with using subs to mix and master as long as you set the sub up right so you know how to mix with it.
Play a commercial CD on your mixing set up that you like the low end of, and then set the sub so it is almost starting to go boomy when at loud volumes. Then that should give you decent transition to other systems of your low end.

Eck

 

[FALKEN]

I agree with the OP.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Let's take for example a benchmark CD that gets brought up on occassion here: Metallica Black CD. So, I like that CD, it's cool stuff, but am I alone in thinking it sounds inferior on a good system? The bass is pitiful. When I compare that CD to some other rock CDs it makes me feel like I'm going from CD to a cassette tape.

Eh? I just gave the Black Album a listen for the first time in years a week or two ago. I was actually astonished at how amazing it sounded. I mean, leaps and bounds over anything that gets released today from a pure "sound quality" standpoint. And yes, this was on a "good system".

 

[Flangerhans]

One thing to keep in mind is that every album is different as well. Metallica will be mastered in such a way as to clarify a punchy rhythym guitar, and the bass player has little to do with their sound, as can be deduced from their interchangability in the last few years. A wide variety of music will expand your ideas about what your system reproduces well and where it is weak, and all systems have weaknesses and strengths. Sometimes it is best to start with a reference tone and an osciliscope to see exactly what you are coloring in your room, there are precision instrument microphones that will allow you to take fairly accurate measurements at your regular listening positions. Keep in mind, though, that your ears are your most valuable reference tool, and listen to your mixes on as many different systems as you can, including lousy ones. A quick visit to a local stereo dealer can make this easy, they usually have many systems set up and will let you hear what your mix sounds like through a variety of systems. This will give you a good idea of what's working and what isn't.

Hope this is useful to you.

 

[Farview]

Metallica will be mastered in such a way as to clarify a punchy rhythym guitar, and the bass player has little to do with their sound, as can be deduced from their interchangability in the last few years.

Last few years? Cliff died in '86, Jason was only their bass player for 17 years (the major complaint about the first album he was on was that you couldn't hear the bass) and Rob has been there for the last 3.

Their stuff relies on a strong bass blayer.