I must be a natural cynic. One is mastered by an experienced, professional ME with all the right equipment and environment, and one by an amatuer using Reason? They sound much too close for me to be convinced. I also find it amazing that the vocal was tracked with a $50 mic.

Mastering is not supposed to change the overall sound, just level the balance

Close? What are you using for monitors, coconut shells?

Active coconut shells 8)

Aww crap, I missed out. I just finished moving into a new apartment last night and my frickin internet isn't working. I'm reading all this from work with no way of listenting to any of the tracks, and now I allready know the results! Fooey.

Anyway, this doesn't seem to be a very accurate representation of what I had in mind for a contest. It seems like both parties rushed thier work. I understand that neither person was getting paid to do it, and that is a factor. I guess I was hoping for more...

Audioworkstation, sorry I didn't get back to you in time, again with the moving thing, very time consuming.

I'm going to head to a friends house tonight and check those songs out, I'll have to bring my headphones. I'll post who I would have thought each song belonged to, even though I allready know the results, I'll try not to be biased.

Interesting responses from members, to say the least...

Yes, but $50 Active coconut shells!!!

Heck...I only paid 3 dollars for mine and I did get to eat the "meat" of them and the milk.

On my post (for clarity) I was referring to the vote being "close"

On my monitors, the two files are worlds apart. I had a client take his pick. from a burned CD) and he chose mine...without any knowledge of the files. I made it as fair as can be.

headchem..I do appreciate you not messing with my file. It is intact. Some people would have used it..tracked with another on another pair of channels to make their own though...and this would be "cheating"...but of course, I am not accusing you of that at all.

BTW..what meter readings did you come up with on yours? You had a good 5+ dB more room you could have used for your peak info.

Well I was suspicious of A being Audioworkstation's before I even played B. And then after B, I knew I was right. This, for me and my limited knowledge, was gleaned really only for sure from two things I heard, one being the kick drum hits being so very balanced in AW's version, the other - and the most obvious and deciding thing for me, was as the song fades out, the string sounds are in a VERY pleasing frequency range that simply WENT INTO you immediately. Oh Headchems, this was not the case, a little more muddy.
The funny thing is, to me, the different versions all indeed sound VERY similar - enough for someone to say "is the difference that big or important?". But the kicker is that perhaps they do sound alarmingly similar to the naked ear. Still, the very pleasing frequency range I spoke of that you might even have to point out to someone to get them to spot, while perhaps not being the most obvious thing can deeply affect the listening and perception of the song on ALL levels. I think it can honestly make some people either want to play it again at some point, or pass. Small thing but with huge consequences.
That may sound dumb, but I've found it's always the case in music. I own many albums that I love because I "master them in my head" as it were, overcoming the lacks because the material itself is good.

They don't sound "close" to me. :?

Figured since I mixed up guessing who did what, I'd put my master where my mouth is... or something like that.

http://www.beachhunt.com/projects/cowboy_bh2.mp3 (~4mb)

I pretty much only used UAD plugs on this, aside from the Waves spectrum analyzer. (EDIT: I had more details about what I did here, but a few days without knowing if anyone even listened to it means there's no need to waste that space.)

Didn't focus on the hiss, and in retrospect probably made it worse between the compression and the high boost... Just wanted to give the song some broader brush strokes than dealing with noise and glitch correction. I'll offer a 150% refund if you don't like it ;)

HB

EDIT: On relistening, I prolly should have eased up on the high boost a little, got a bit harsh... Anyway, think there would be any interest in another organized mastering shootout? I missed the last one, would enjoy doing that again.

I can say that I would have chosen A if I had to pick the one I liked out of the two. I listened to them through the crappiest pair of computer speakers ever, but A just sounded more distinct and less crushed than B. I know, I know, "easy for you to say now that you know who's is who's", but that is honestly the one I would have chosen.

Well, I'm a little late to the game to jump in and say:

Oh, "A" is audiowkstation's - no doubt...

But, in truth, I don't see how anyone could come to any other conclusion.

B had no dynamic range and sounded lifeless (no offense headchem). A actually had a lot of dynamic range and you could hear the dilineation of frequencies a lot more in the mid-frequencies. Something which makes the entire listening experience, in a word, easier. I didn't have to struggle to listen to "A" but I did on "B."

In short - A was what I expected the track to sound like after mastering. (Though, in a few spots, a remix would have been very appropriate.)

Nice job audiowkstation!

J. 8-)

audiowkstation's has lots of life to it. Great sound. Nice job. I'm on Truth 2030A's and a musician, not a mastering engineer (though from my own experiences with trying this stuff, I'm really beginning to appreciate what you guys do).

I think if there's any lesson from this it's probably: consider your purpose before shelling out the $$$. There's a big difference between wanting to be on the radio and/or shelves of music stores and wanting some tracks to play for your buddies or demo to labels.

Headchem, I would pay the cash and get someone like audiowkstation or the other guys that weighed in to top it off because it's my impression that with these tracks you are seeking to have a finalized, sellable product. The difference between tracks a and b IS significant, and will likely make a difference in how the songs will be perceived.

Also, if that's 15 minutes work ... well last I checked, ME's charge $70-150 an hour. It wouldn't have to be much.

Thanks for all the masters. I definitely listened to every single one of them, but my ears are getting sick of my own song...

Audiowrkstation: I did have a lot of headroom left over, but that was from the volume reduction I put on my own so our two masters would have similar volumes. After hearing the differences between the two, the master I currently have on the song has much less volume and much greater dynamic range as did yours.

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but I am curious how you made the strings sound so good. I'm guessing you made the mid-range frequencies more stereo with some phase tricks? Or was it just EQ?

And my final question: what's this about 127 volume edits?! :D I had no idea mastering was so detailed. What exactly did you edit? I'm guessing the volume edits were done independantly on each of the stereo tracks because I think I heard a little phase wobble in a couple of places.

I'll post my updated master as soon as I incorporate all the lessons I learned from this exercise. I can't thank you all enough for giving me so many benchmarks to compare to and learn from!

I've never done a 127 edits on anything. I couldn't begin to imagine doing it in 15 min either. I have a feeling it's a bit of an exageration.

No Mike, the mastering was done in 15 mins, the regions took real time.

So it is fair to say, you have not used automation before? Each move of the fader creates a region. Each of these are checked..and may be or may not be re-adjusted. Still, you are dealing with 127 (was the number) incremental volume changes, which are indivigual edits, with undo and redo if needed.

See "Samplitude" and "control surface" for a reference.

I have a feeling it's a bit of an exageration.

Would you like to explain why you used those words?

riding a volume control is not what I would consider to be an edit. 15 minutes is just about enough time to listen, patch in the gear you would like to use, eq and compress on the fly. listen down as you print.

Definitions of the word "edit"

edit - cut and assemble the components of; "edit film"; "cut recording tape"
edit out, cut
alter, change, modify - cause to change; make different; cause a transformation;
"abridge, foreshorten, abbreviate, shorten, contract, reduce, cut - reduce in scope while retaining essential elements; "The manuscript must be shortened"

So editing can be about altering, changing or modifying and I guess that could be what you are doing with a volume control but I think most audio engineers would say that "to edit" something is to cut it and place it somewhere else either by physically cutting a piece of tape or by cutting and pasting within a DAW program. Most "editors" I know piece things together to form something different and I don't think moving a fader is what they charge for.

I am with Michael on the time frame - 15 minutes seems very quick to do any "real" mastering to a piece of music. Just listening to the piece, making a decision on what to do with it, choosing your equipment or plugins doing the topping and tailing would consume most of that 15 minutes let along "mastering" anything. I guess some people are just faster than others.

Ok fellows, you guys win. Regions are not edits. That the file is changed within a region is not an edit.

And...yes, 15 mins is not the time I usually take for mastering, so my example is inferior to what I can do.

I surrender, you win, you win, you WIN!!!

(Waves white flag and hides in hole)

PS, to Tom, yes, I ran it strait to analog, then my already patched (I do not use a patch bay, nor will I ever subscribe to the useage of one) equipment, I made an eq and dynamics decision, and rode the gain coming in, I changed a few volume markers and rendered, changed to mp3, and it took LESS than 15 mins. I usually take 3 to 5 days on an album, not one day like most. I get paid more as well. Do the quality, make the money. Look at what the 15 mins cost? Results nevertheless.

Thank you Tom for trying to explain my intentions. You are one of the good guys.

Sorry I could not resist, so I made a 'home master' of your song. :)

But at least I converted it to 16k & 44,1 & 128kbps. :wink:

http://www.byd-media.net/byd-Cowboy_HC.mp3

It probably sounds awful in a mastering system? *hehe*

Not too bad except for the 18,262 clips (or overs)

The problem is...you did not learn anything from this post..

(Dead Link Removed)

Back up...read all of that..and do something about all of those flat-tops. My monitors don't like all of that "rattling" that happens with clipping. If I hear it, someone else certainly will.

My Poor CD player is a full volt and a half past its design limits.

We are going in circles here...why??? (I don't find this funny or amusing at all)

:roll:

BobYordan: thanks for your input! Don't let the Clip Nazi get you down (friendly poke, audiowrkstation) ;-) The first song he analyzed of mine had 7000 overs in it. The big lesson to learn from that other thread he linked to is that with lower volumes you get a cleaner, more dynamic sound. I used to master with a ton of volume so my songs sounded as loud as commercial mixes, but that meant they also sounded lifeless (due to too much compression) and distorted (due to too much volume, and rapid gain reduction from the compression / limiting, which is like really harsh compression).

Thanks to all these posts, I'm now mastering A LOT quieter than I used to. On the down side, none of my mixes compete in terms of volume with comercial mixes. I think I'll need to start a new thread (or better yet, search the forums first!) about how to get that competitive gain while still maintaining the dynamics. My crystal ball tells me there may be a mutually exclusive trade-off here...

[with sarcasm] Thanks a lot everybody for teaching me to appreciate dynamics... Now I'll never be able to master as loud as commercial top 40... :roll: :D

about how to get that competitive gain while still maintaining the dynamics

There are ways... :

1. Convince the industry to put an extra 12dB past zero for "headroom".
2. Convince the entire CE commitee and all consumer electronic manufacturers to change the standards of all line level inputs and line level outputs (raise the LLI/O to 10 volts without distortion)
3. Make all CD players mistrack and skip (and eject..with little hammer coming out and ruining the CD)..if the RMS value is less than 15dB from the peak value.

So...we can't get there from here.

Because...A...number one would be crammed up to the new limit in no time.

B. All older equipment would all of a sudden not be user compatable.

C. Hammers would add to the cost.

Now..if consumer machines had a compressor for the end user to adjust and CD's were mastered within the guidlines set forth when digital was in its infantcy, you can have your cake and eat it too.

I find that a 15dB average to peak relationship to be about the minimum allowable for dynamic content to not sound like total ass. If you get into the 12's..the peaks will certainly be mashed down.

If you are like some that love the sound of heavy compression, then would it not be best to put on all the compression that the world will offer and keep the peaks below -2dB so that the clipping would not happen and CD players would not distort? I have done some DAMNED LOUD CD's with peaks of -5dB and people freak out when they see that I am not close to hitting the top. I am not against compression..I am against going beyond established standards of the consumer electronics guidelines..is all.

I do love dynamics as well. Sounds better.

Hi

Thanx for the feedback. :)

I used a file called Cowboy_master.mp3 as input, perhaps not the ultimate
source dynamically?? Though it is way to loud already. :oops:

Is there a not mastered version around somewhere??

audiowkstation - unfortunatly I did not read that post,
thanx for the tips. 8) I kind of boosted the mix up to 0dB, my mistake.
Is it -6dB that is the ruler for counting clippings??? :?
I will keeep me 'home masters' for myself in the future. :wink:

I listened to the demo you have on your site (clicking on the speaker),
wow that really sounds excellent. What artist is it (the eytee file)? :)

I did however find some major clippings in the file!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :wink:

Nice to have an oppinion from a mastering expert with such an
impressing past. :)

Professional Mastering engineers spend their lives looking for ways to make things sound better. They have lots of experience and have the best rooms and the best gear they can afford.

If you want something to sound professional (i.e. commercial) then take it to a professional mastering engineer.

Home mastering is like home dentistry you could probably do it but the final outcome may not be what you were expecting.

WTCW