anyone else struggling with that file? i downloaded it twice, got 2 different file sizes and neither will open in anything.. :?

Ah yeah, wait just 10 minutes, I'm having problems with too so I'm trying to upload it a second time... It's about 34 Mb as a 48 16 bit.

Ok, it's all working for me now... I tested it in my browser, and it downloaded and played for me.

I'd love to get some feedback on my extreme multiband side-chain compression idea. Can you hear it? What do you think?

I haven't listened to it yet (I'll download again now) but you aren't the first to invent a dynamic EQ I'm afraid ;) I use a home grown Synthedit plug to do the same thing, but I wasn't the first either!

Be nice if you could post it as a strait mix as well.

Also..I have 30 mins coming up..if you want to email me to grab the track (mastering) and post it..30 mins from now.

Notice how your top end goes away during the louder passages as well.

Let me know where to put it.

You got mail headchem

Hey, I got the file and I'll post it online as soon as I get home (not at my copmuter right now). I haven't heard it yet, but I'm definitely excited! I've already got my mastered version done, just because I mix with the master enabled... I hope I won't be too embarassed to post it after I hear audiowrkstation's version, but in the name of science it will be done!

Oh, what do you mean by straight mix? Is that without all the dynamic frequency stuff going on?

Also, I'm just curious if you use the Vitalizer, or another such magical device?

Nope...good old fashoned analog mastering.

A strait mix is your best mix without anything on the 2-bus. (no compression, etc)

Back to work for me!

Don't use mine as your guide. That would be "cheating"

The thought certainly crossed my mind, but I promise my settings won't be tweaked. I'm still trying to understand this 2-bus - I'm not sure that I use it (I really don't know what it is). Everything coming out of my mixer isn't being touched. Of course several of the instruments within the mix have compressors / effects on them, but you don't what those removed, do you?

Anything after the mixer that affect the sound. Channel compressors don't apply to this.

A 2-bus is your master faders. Whatever you have looped through them or assigned to them directly before them or after them.

Gotcha. Well all those effects are part of my mastering device which I disabled, so that unmastered version you have is completely free of any effects after the mixer.

I'm listening to your version at my home right now, and uploading mp3 versions of identical sample-rates of course for everyone to hear...

Oh, do you think it is fair if I turn down my volume without touching any other settings, just so we can match the files at the same volume? Mine is quite a bit louder as it is...

I clearly went to level 6 on the BBC meters (actually above it) so if you are louder than that, you will have a rough time with the airplay compressor at the FM stations.

Level 6.3 to be exact.

I thought this was a nice full sounding song..not a death metal one. They should have different levels you know...

I had to restore some dynamics. You lost the top end (treble) on your mix during loud passages. The song clearly has several sections of dynamics. Since when does mastering encompass "get every song as loud as possible"?

you should enjoy an increase in volume as you add more instruments and what is there at soft levels should stay intact at all times.

Got company..be back when I get back..

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! :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

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. 8-)

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.

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. 8-)

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.

eh

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 ;) 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 :shock:

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?

They both seem to have lots of noise in the high end, you can *really* hear it between bar one and two as the hiss behind the opening cymbals merges into the noise behind the vocal track. I hear an unacceptable amount of hiss/noise in the highs throughout both tracks.

I'm 100% certain that "cowboy_a.mp3" is audioworkstation's work and "cowboy_b.mp3" is headchem's. Although neither mix sounds particulary exceptional by professional standards, audioworkstation's is obviously superior on my system by a large gap.

The song itself starts out strong but gets weak in the middle IMO.

BTW audioworkstation, I'll definitely be reaching you next paying mastering project I have. Given what you were provided with you did a great job of fixing the levels, balancing the stereo field, and evening out the frequencies. This was quite informative for me from the standpoint of seeing what skills you have to offer and I'm confident that, provided with a professional mix, you are a dangerous man. 8-)

Here's my attempt at mastering it. I didn't have time to fix the sections separately such as the little glitch where you cut and pasted the vocal from the start into 0:51, etc. This is just a blanket attempt at the whole mix. I probably muffed the low end vis-a-vis "the ideal" but it represents the best effort I can muster today, i.e. if this were my recording this is what I'd have done given what scanty skills I have at my disposal. 8-)

http://216.234.180.26/cowboy-c.mp3

That was compression, linear phase EQ, and a couple stereo tweaks. I probably muffed the phase being the muffing muffer that I am, i.e. Muffy "Muffman" McMuffermuff. 8-)

Is this a joke? I go to work and come back and all hell breaks loose.

No, perhaps I overstated my point in retrospect. Apologies.

What's the problem Mike? I don't see any flames, everyone is listening..I don't see anywhere "hell" is breaking loose at all. I took 15 mins to run a track to analog and do some eq and automation. Was this a problem?

I realise that if this was for pay..I would have requested some remixing and some gating or editing with the noise floor. It was not a noise floor contest..it is a "what version vibes the best" demonstration.

Calgary..I appreciate you posting your mastering as well! ;)

Reading back across the thread I can see Michael's point to some extent. What happened is-- I think headchem is a great singer but not in a position to be challenging the mastering establishment. And I've always felt that when you challenge something it's 100% your responsibility "bring it", so I tend to get (too) excited when people write cheques they can't cash as it were. My bad. I should have just made my basic point and left it at that. Next time. Main thing is that I apologize to Michael for being a spaz. :-?

Cool stuff again, headchem. You're getting pretty good exposure on here, eh? :wink: I just now saw that your in NC. I would've thought you to be a euro for sure. BTW, what is this $20 mic? You do quite well with it I think.
I liked the first mp3, but I have a hard time judging this kind of music with samples and all that. I am more familiar with band recordings (mostly rock) and how real acoustic drums & instruments and stuff should sound.

I find it very difficult to choose one. Between A en B I would say A I think, B sounds somewhat flat to me (maybe too much compression?), however I think B is sounding better in the couplets where the acoustic guitar isn't standig out as much as in A.

Nonetheless I think A is from headchem (I can't help but hearing some Reason tricks in here, I think) and B from audiowkstation. I must add that, in comparision to A and B I find C the best sounding of all, apart from the fact that the volume in the couplets seems to be a little too loud.

Heh, well, exposure is usually good, as long as it's the right kind of exposure. I know I've rocked the boat in this forum lately, so it might not be the best exposure.

I looked it up and $20 turned out to be hyperble. It's a Shure SM48 vocal mic which goes for about $50, but a friend gave it to me after he dropped it a few times. It has a ton of dents on it, so I always just assumed it was a cheap mic. If $50 is still not considered a cheap mic, then I guess this would be an example of my actions always being a step behind my words... Oh well...

With enough EQ, Multiband compression, high frequency harmonic enhancement, slight tube distortion added, harmonies sung, and vocal parts doubled (the chorus has three harmoniy parts, all were doubled so it's 6x), I think you can make any mic sound decent. I guess that goes along with my cheap approach to mastering, too.

I think since it is fair to say...since we are "officially" close, Mine is A and headchem is B.

I chose to restore dynamics of the mix because I heard instruments that started out at one volume...get buried during loud passages and the highs during loud passages took back seat.

Since I normally do NOT do mastering in 15 mins, I think this is a fair comparison.

If you noticed, headchems peaks are at -6dB and mine go to toward the top. However, his volume is much lower overall and his dynamics are compressed.

I must say, given the time invested with the track, all 3 files are simply what they are, noise artifacts and all.

To those who chose headchems mastering, if you like this much lack of dynamics..then you must be used to a form of music that I do not listen to. Music should breathe, not simply lay there.