I prefer Mix one. Sounds less hyped, smoother.

Bos ( Boswell ) ...part of the top end thing might be the MP3 encoding, I had to use a lower (224k) rate because the 320k file was too large to upload.
But then again, it might be on the mix itself, and perhaps I have too much top end treatment in place, which could mean that I am having the tendency to add top end when it's not needed. (?)

It's also possible that I'm still getting acclimated to the changes and that a better mix balance will come with time and experience with this new room.
Or, it's just my perception, and maybe my age is starting to show with my hearing, and I am no longer hearing top end frequencies as well as I used to.

Chris (audiokid ) - are you hearing top end hype on both versions and prefer mix one because it is less so? I'm asking if mix 1 also sounds too hyped to you on top end but is preferable because it's not as much?

Kyle (kmetal ) - I'm still using Samp Pro X 1.
In your comment, you mentioned that the top end could have been because of the low end being attenuated. Does the low end sound too attenuated to you?
I've played the mix (both mixes) on a variety of playback systems on my end and the low end sounds even, defined and overall well-balanced on everything I've played it on so far. It also sounds similar in frequency balance to pro commercial releases that I'm comparing it to.

Dave (dvdhawk ) - are you also hearing the top end hype on your end for mix 2 ? Or is it there on both versions?

Thanks guys. I really appreciate you taking the time to listen and comment.

-d

Mix 1 mid range and top end sounds less curved.
Mix 2 top end could sound more hyped because of what you've pulled out of the mids.

Ps, I don't think my opinion has anything to do with MP3. From all my personal test , even though MP3 degrades in sound quality I don't blame or share the same negative blame on a mix not sounding good just because of it being an MP3.

Meaning, I think a mix that is mixed well will still sound balanced in an less pristine way.
Thus, the AM radio sound.

A question to the members: I don't hype or compensate freq just because it's an MP3.
Do others here do that?

audiokid, post: 448694, member: 1 wrote: Ps, I don't think my opinion has anything to do with MP3. From all my personal test , even though MP3 degrades in sound quality I don't blame or share the same negative blame on a mix not sounding good just because of it being an MP3.

Meaning, I think a mix that is mixed well will still sound balanced in an less pristine way.
Thus, the AM radio sound.

A question to the members: I don't hype or compensate freq just because it's an MP3.
Do others here do that?

I don't compensate with any EQ - or any pressure ceasing for that matter - based on the output format. I think I'd be chasing my tail if I started down that road.
I will compensate amplitude /RMS based on the format though.
The tonal changes I made between mix 1 and mix 2 weren't meant as any format compensation, they were just minor tweaks in EQ based on a different approach.
FWIW

D.

audiokid, post: 448694, member: 1 wrote: Ps, I don't think my opinion has anything to do with MP3. From all my personal test , even though MP3 degrades in sound quality I don't blame or share the same negative blame on a mix not sounding good just because of it being an MP3.

Meaning, I think a mix that is mixed well will still sound balanced in an less pristine way.
Thus, the AM radio sound.

A question to the members: I don't hype or compensate freq just because it's an MP3.
Do others here do that?

Whatever we are hearing here is as consumers, and, as such, we are not able to tell whether certain artifacts are present in the mix or are due to shortcomings in the way the file is transmitted. In this case, I hear something that tweaks my ears at the very top end, and I think it's unlikely this would be a problem in the mix. When I've heard this sort of thing before, it's been down to the MP3 encoding, as the corresponding .wav files did not show the problem.

I've read more than once over the years that some people adjust a mix accordingly to where it is being marketed. Some even have a specific itunes method.
Never the less, I don't mix or master any different, it is what it is but I also don't think those that have a specific tactic for the various formats are wrong either. I'm just curious because I'm always excited to discover something new.

I do think it can be helpful "including" tiny speakers as one of the types of speakers to use though.

I think in the end, - while we all share a sense of critical hearing, because of what we do and who we are - that even as professionals, we will all have different preferences and tastes as to what pleases us - or what doesn't.
I suppose that we could all hear something truly professional - and some of us might still hear things that we don't prefer, or that we would have done differently; I've heard some modern mix methods that I know are coming out of truly pro rooms, where the lead vocal sounds overly "bright" to me, or maybe the snare is pegging a frequency I don't particularly like - but I don't think that this makes these "bad" mixes per se', it's just that I like the sonics of some mixes over others.

audiokid, post: 448703, member: 1 wrote: I've read more than once over the years that some people adjust a mix accordingly to where it is being marketed. Some even have a specific itunes method.

As far as mixing for a certain format - other than volume levels/LUFS ( or mono/stereo) - I personally don't take that road.... I don't intentionally think "okay, this mix is going to MP, (or FLAC, or iTunes, or whatever) so I'll adjust this X EQ to X setting..."

I'm not saying unequivocally that I think it's wrong to do that - if there are some engineers who have found a certain formula/method based on final format and their method(s) that works, then it's not for me to say whether it's right or wrong - I'm just saying that I personally don't do this.

What I can say for sure is that I absolutely have heard differences in MP3 encoding quality. Soundcloud was always a crap-shoot for me, in terms of artifacts. I quit using it because it became too much of a gamble, and I don't want to take the chance that it'll encode fine one moment and then the very next, with absolutely no changes made on my end of any kind - that it will suddenly have a swirly/phasey top end, or other lossy artifacts that are quite audible.

And just to be clear, I have nothing against MP3's - I recognize that they have become an accepted format and that there are times where they need to be used.... as long as they are encoded correctly and deliver a certain quality - at least a "quality" that is known and accepted. Would I rather deliver .wav files? Yes. But, I accept that MP's have become a "standard" of sorts for consumers, much like other formats that have come ( and gone) over the years, that were popular for awhile and then faded from the scene as other formats also came...and went.

From my own perspective, the 224k MP3's I uploaded here yesterday don't sound as good to me as the .wav files do - I have the luxury of being able to compare the two formats, and the 24 bit waves sound better to me than the MP3's I uploaded... the upper top end sounds "glassy" to me on the MP's, as if I'd used an exciter or ultra high enhancer of some kind (I promise I didn't) .... whereas I'm not hearing any of that "hyped" top end on the .wav's. ( FWIW, I hear this weird top end on both 224 MP3 mixes, and it's there a little bit on the 320k MP's, but not nearly as noticeable on them as it is on the 224k uploads).
BUT...
I was also not looking so much for a critique on the "final quality" of the mixes, as I was for the translation and consistency of the mixes. That's not to say I don't appreciate the comments on the mixes; of course I do... but my main goal right now is to get my mixes to sound consistent on a variety of systems. ( LOL.. I suppose that could mean consistently "bad" too, as long as it was consistent, LOLOL.) And then, through either further treatment, or even just me getting used to the new mixing environment, hopefully, the rest works itself out... hopefully.

;)
-d.

How are you finding ARC now?

I think it's a useful tool. I wouldn't rely on it solely, but I think it works well as a final touch when there is already some physical corrective measures in place.
I don't think it would be needed in a pro place that has been designed and built for audio production, but for home studio work I think it's a good solid building block.
I can't compare it to the other compensation systems out there as this is the only one I've got any experience with; but I think it helps round-out issues that treatment can't cover entirely on the home studio level.
IMO of course.
D.

DonnyThompson, post: 448692, member: 46114 wrote:

Kyle (kmetal ) - I'm still using Samp Pro X 1.
In your comment, you mentioned that the top end could have been because of the low end being attenuated. Does the low end sound too attenuated to you?
I've played the mix (both mixes) on a variety of playback systems on my end and the low end sounds even, defined and overall well-balanced on everything I've played it on so far. It also sounds similar in frequency balance to pro commercial releases that I'm comparing it to.

-d

I only asked becuase my phone cuts off around 250-300hz. I spend 5 or more hours a day listening on it mostly via Amazon music and YouTube. Mostly commercial stuff. Sometimes I can hear the bass well sometimes not depending on the song and genre.

If the bass is good on your references I trust it. Just wanted to narrow it down since I can't judge bass well right now.

It was only mix 2 that had the highs hyped to my ears. again just based on the phone relative to others.

DonnyThompson, post: 448692, member: 46114 wrote:

Kyle (kmetal ) - I'm still using Samp Pro X 1.
In your comment, you mentioned that the top end could have been because of the low end being attenuated. Does the low end sound too attenuated to you?
I've played the mix (both mixes) on a variety of playback systems on my end and the low end sounds even, defined and overall well-balanced on everything I've played it on so far. It also sounds similar in frequency balance to pro commercial releases that I'm comparing it to.

-d

I only asked becuase my phone cuts off around 250-300hz. I spend 5 or more hours a day listening on it mostly via Amazon music and YouTube. Mostly commercial stuff. Sometimes I can hear the bass well sometimes not depending on the song and genre.

If the bass is good on your references I trust it. Just wanted to narrow it down since I can't judge bass well right now.

It was only mix 2 that had the highs hyped to my ears. again just based on the phone relative to others.

audiokid, post: 448694, member: 1 wrote: Ps, I don't think my opinion has anything to do with MP3. From all my personal test , even though MP3 degrades in sound quality I don't blame or share the same negative blame on a mix not sounding good just because of it being an MP3.

Meaning, I think a mix that is mixed well will still sound balanced in an less pristine way.
Thus, the AM radio sound.

A question to the members: I don't hype or compensate freq just because it's an MP3.
Do others here do that?

No I haven't, but i intend to. To me format conversion is critical, and not all methods/algorithms are equal. I consider this part of new era Mastering. Just as exceptions were made when vinyl, cassette, cd, and terrestrial radio were all somewhat standard at the same time. Then mixes were done at the highest quality, and the masters possibly tweaked for release.

I've always worked hardest on the mix in whatever format it was recorded in, usually 44.1 or 96, almost always 24bit.

Then when it's released, it's Never in full 24 bit for some reason, and barely ever even in CD quality. Even if it's released, it's most often listened via streaming of some sort, which is going to use some data compression.

So I think it's (become) important to be aware and in control of the most likely heard formats as the engineer, making sure there put into that format with the best conversion algorithm/method available.

Sometimes cheap loves cheap. Some of my garage rock tascam recordings seem to sound almost better in high quality MP3, or at minimal suffer the least.

My therotetical new modus operende is to track and mix and master at the highest quality/no conversions. Then make a set of converted format mixdowns in the (new) standard formats that are typical like SoundCloud Spotify YouTube, YouTube HD. As well as multichannel in my case. If mix adjustments need to be made based on the conversion format I'll make them, if not cool.

I won't know if I can do better than said companies own algorithms or not until I try. To me it's reliability and efficiency that would be important to those companies rather than ultimate quality.

I've been interested in these types of conversions, and as well as the types on various limiters.

I've been meaning to ask you guys how you listen to music these days?? I probably haven't heard a cd quality mix in a year or two besides on projects. I'm mostly pandora YouTube and Amazon. I'd love to find some sort of full quality stream if that exists.

-sorry for double responses and long quotes, my phone/browser is acting up.-