Before I would say anyting at all, I'm curious as to what level of MP3 compression you used for these examples.

Is this a 128KPS conversion, or lower, higher?

.

I think it´s 96Kbps but i´m not very sure

(A) We're going to need something a little higher-res than 96 or 128... Try 256 or 320kbps.

(B) Without hearing the original mixes, we aren't going to be able to tell you how the mastering went.

.

I mostly need an opinion about the quality of the mixing and if it is well mastered reffering to distortion in high volume, any type of saturation, stuff like that, can you use these mixes to see those kind of details?

Re: .

Cosme wrote: I mostly need an opinion about the quality of the mixing and if it is well mastered reffering to distortion in high volume, any type of saturation, stuff like that, can you use these mixes to see those kind of details?

In a word, no. hopefully, your mixes sound a lot better than what you're presenting here. The MP3 data compression is so severe, that it's not worth getting into any serious discussion about it here. Maybe you can try it again at 128KPS - that's the standard that's used for most MP3 players, (eye-pods, etc.)

Too loud and too compressed and mp3@128 kbps is not ideal for any real judgement.

Oh no, pop-punk has made it into the Latin market too!? :shock:

From what I can tell, the recording is pretty decent at least.

...

I agree on the loud and compressed part, but in reallity most clients ask for this, loud masters, most quiet masters are even taken for amateur recordings. I've taken these masters to aproximately -9.5dB RMS, although the genre of these songs don't help the dynamic part