Price of Mastering Worth it? Pt. 2: Empirical Evidence.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:28 pm

Cool, I'll try to get them the same.

2 weeks ago I thought one of the most important parts of mastering was getting a song to compete in loudness with other comercial material, but that opinion is being deconstructed as I've read through these forums. I guess I'll leave that duscussion for another thread. I agree that death-metal is not what I was going for with this song! Very Happy

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:34 pm

No offense headchem but you're not supposed to be asking mixing questions/advice from the mastering engineer being tested during the process. You're supposed to just do it as best you can on your own and then compare. My two cents.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:38 pm

Well, I really didn't know what he was requesting. I thought maybe he needed a different kind of file, or something needed to be changed in order to get the best master possible... I'm not changing any of my settings except for volume - but only because it would be unfair if one were louder than the other. I want this whole thing to be as fair as possible, too.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:42 pm

If you hear my file at all before you post yours, you skew the results of the test. It should have been posted prior to my release to you..but I doubt you will be able to match dynamics and levels with my file unless you use my file. I had 129 different volume edits.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:47 pm

Well, I have heard your file, but all I was turn down my gain knob until it sounded about the same level as yours. I haven't automated my volume or anything, it was just a total volume reduced for the whole song thing. Is that ok? I still have my previous master, so would it be more fair to post that one? I was just thinking similar perceived volumes could help us judge them better.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:50 pm

Do what you need to do. I did watermark my file...so if you use any of it..I can tell...but that is a secret..just how..because sometimes I work on credits..and I need a way to tell if my file was used. It keeps us honest.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:57 pm

No offense but the test is *toast* as far as I'm concerned personally if you heard his file prior to completing yours, doubly so given you asking questions of him during your mix. That's no test of anything, let alone "empirical". Oh well so much for this... Wink

Not trying to be a downer to anyone else, have fun with it.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:02 pm

Calgary...email me if you want a copy of my file in mp3 to compare to what I had to work with. My session tonight starts in 10 mins..so I may not be back tonight at all..

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:03 pm

I promise none of my setting were changed! I really do want this to be fair, and I have no shame in presenting a master that is inferior to that of a professional, so I'm not scurrying around trying to emulate his sound. This change in volume is not automated, just turned the knob until the average level sounded similar... That's it, really... (no offense taken, but I just want to make it clear I think this test is still completely fair). The file audiowrkstation has is the unmastered version - the same version I used to master with. All I did was disable my mastering settings.

The file is exporting right now, and my next post will be with the two files for comparison.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:06 pm

As long as the file posted of mine Nulls completely with my file, no worries.

All I have to do is look in the machine code for this line below:

ÙIA{ÿq¶‘%é«É

If it is missing..it is not my file..or the file has been modified.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:13 pm

I flipped a coin to see which file would be posted first. Not telling which is which of course... I've emailed audiowrkstation which file is his, so I hope he will verify that everything is on the up and up. My volume matching was pretty bad, but I hope that doesn't mess with anyone's ears.

http://www.headchemists.com/cowboy_a.mp3
http://www.headchemists.com/cowboy_b.mp3

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:19 pm

Sorry headchem, all that means anything to me. This is definitely no "test" of anything as far as I'm concerned.

I'll level with you, I find your position a bit disingenuous. Your actions appear to be perpetually one step behind your words. That's just an assumption of course based upon what little of you I've seen here, and it's not meant to be an insult by any means. Have fun with the song swap. Thumbs Up

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:20 pm

Remember, I never once thought I could do as good a job as a professional could, just close enough for the average set of ears. I am one step behind as best, and most likely several more behind... Oh, and no one reading in this forum can be considered an average set of ears...

Ok, I have to go for a bit, but I'll be back to see how accurately you all pin-pointed the best one.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:24 pm

Your post title says "empirical" which is a very specific word, misused in this case. All due respect, I'll take a pass on the backpedalling phase of this challenge. Thumbs Up

Quote:

I never once thought I could do as good a job

"I told you I'd lose" is no way to finish a challenge *you started*. I'm not sure where you're coming from frankly.

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:44 pm

I kinda agree about the iffy validity of the test, but my guess is A=headchem, B=audiowkstation. Having not heard any of audiowkstation's work before, it just seems like IF the two files represent "pro" and "not pro", B is pro. The vocals are much clearer and brighter, and the song holds together very well. In A, aside from the muddiness, the various parts each stand out too much at one point or another. B seems much more "glued together", just letting me focus on it as a good song instead of drawing my ears back and forth among the stems.

By the way, it really is a good song, testing aside. If anything, this comparison tells me that if you do decide to get your music professionally mastered, I may buy an album Wink

Going to bookmark your site and keep an eye out for that...

...Unless I was wrong on the A/B, in which case I need to relook at Reason Shocked

EDIT: I'm leaving my original post up there, despite that it now looks a lot like eating my own foot, but.......

I might have made a mistake by listening to the mp3s before listening to the "unmastered" file, I don't know. I can tell upon hearing the original that B is closer to the unmastered copy than A, so I likely would have guessed the other way around if I had checked the unmastered file first. Still, I guess I heard what I heard, and stand by the subjective comments.

One thing I found strange was that neither mp3 was even encoded the same way, so this is as much a comparison between variable bitrate mp3s and constant bitrate mp3s. Different frequencies are 'chopped' on the high end of each file due to the different encoding formats, regardless of who did what. Might be a bit late now, but would it be possible to hear the .wav or .aif version of the masters, or at least encode them to mp3 the same way?

This topic sponsored by: