who is doing what here exactly? are you providing musical input, or even providing musical "instructions" or are you just mixing this guys band?

There are a few scenarios.
This would be sharing a mixing or mastering project with another engineer for a client that you both are working for .
Mixing or mastering for someone that is using a monitor system completely inadequate for professional results.
As an other example, this person gave me a mix that had mass reverb that would make the 80's look lame lol. I know he doesn't hear the amount he is using.I know if he was here, and heard what I am hearing, there would be no question.

I blame a lot of problems on monitors. I think we all know a good mix when we hear it.

ive been described as "overly blunt", so imo the solution here is you need to have a conversation with the collaborator. be honest with him. put your concern out there.

does he know his room sucks for monitoring? maybe suggest he listen thru headphones. too much reverb will be relatively aparrent thru cans man.

"...How in the world can anyone attempt to successfully online collaborate when you have two completely different levels of monitoring environments. Is it possible? I used to think it didn't matter as much but I dunno anymore. You'll never be able to agree on certain aspects of a mix ..."

You can't limit that decision based on monitoring caliber alone.

You know that there are many other factors involved in collaborations - you guys could have the exact same mixing scenarios and the results could still be dramatically different - because you have two different sets of ears.

And, I'm not implying that one person's ears are necessarily better either.... just different... a different take or angle on the way things should sit in the mix. You and I could walk into the same pro control room with great acoustics, monitors and gear, and with the exact same raw tracks, and still walk out of the same control room with two completely different mixes.

If it's a recording collaboration, then it's not as crucial for both of you to have the same caliber monitoring system. As long as the tracks are well recorded, then they should end up with the person who has the best scenario to mix with.

In the scenario you spoke of, it should be you - not only because of your monitoring system, but also because you have so many other nice tools to work with as well.

Honestly Chris, I've never heard of a "collaborative" mastering project. I can see where you might collaborate on the mixing, but I can't see you both doing the mastering.

As far as mixing goes, then yes, the two of you need to be sharing the same caliber of monitors... maybe not the exact models, but at least the same caliber - as well as having similar environments acoustically.
But you'll still be at the mercy of that wrench in the machinery known as "subjectivity". You'll never hear things exactly the same way. And often, that can be a good thing. But it can very often lead to problems as well.

Your best bet is to collaborate on the recording, but then choose which one of you will handle the mixing and mastering. And I think we both know which one of you that should be. ;)

A collaboration is just that.....a collaboration. In working with someone, ESPECIALLY in the type of environments necessary for making recordings, its particularly important to sort out who is doing what and sticking to that.

I assume that this person did the tracking and even the mixing(perhaps) and is looking to you and your room to bring up the level of quality to the mastering point. I also assume that he is not the artist in this case. In your point of view, you can only do what you can do with the material presented. At some point, your professionalism must be, not one of a critique of his place no matter what you hear that could be improved, but simply one what your place can bring to the table and how you can make it better for the artist.

These days its a regular thing for records to be tracked at one place, mixed at another, and sweetened and mastered somewhere else. The age of specialization is upon us in a big way. The plethora of gear and the huge amount of variations in rooms (which can be easily pointed out by quality gear) is the thing that prompts this multiple environments to complete a project.

So choosing the environment for each portion of a collaboration is critical in bringing the quality and polish to a project. Thinking that your different environmental qualities will hurt the project simply because of different monitors or rack gear or even work flow and practices would seem to doom this from the start. If your collaborator knows from the beginning that the project will be enhanced from the beginning by doing certain portions at your place then he should be on board with that.

It would seem to be a matter of whoever is the producer of record to decide this. And if its the person who came to you then his decision should be based on whats best for the project not on an ego thing.

But then how many times does this go on???

Thanks for chiming in guys and always a big thanks to you Donny for adding me into many of your posts.

I agree, we will all come out of the same room with something different. Thats is the beauty of all of us. :love: But, this isn't my point. Its about doing business abroad where two or more involved all basing suggestions from different monitoring. Do you not think its that big a deal? I'm most likely over concerned.
I have thought about this plenty. I know we all get used to what we have so it becomes irrelevant. I get that. There comes a point where we know our room and gear and get it done! I know that.
I'm more concerned over the extreme being laptop and buds or just crud monitors or clients using home stereo subs .

There was a thread some time back, I think Remy ( and you too Donny) were helping a guy. His mix sounded like ass. Really bright to us! He kept mixing back examples that were killing me. Then, it dawned on me. I asked, "are you using subs cranked in a living room "? Your mix is super bright. He replied, ya!

Well this is what I'm talking about. How many people are making music using whacked monitoring systems, then hiring guns to get it done.

I'm using the mastering example here only to shed light on how difficult its must be for M.E. too. I've had my share of mastering enough to know I never would do this full time unless I knew the client pretty good.
Its stressful having to keep spinning wheels over monitoring. generally speaking, people don't ask the details of bad testimonials. I know from basic experience that it takes a lifetime to build a reputation and one day to kill it all.
The monitoring thing takes the fun out of this business somewhat, don't you think?

The more time I invest, the more stressful this last 2% HD becomes because we are already at the so damn fussy level. Know what I mean? I'm not complaining. I'm merely trying to slim down the sentence on this one.I'm trying to find the words to say it well.

Here's something funny in closing. The guy I was just talking about emailed me saying he did this song a decade ago! Now I get it! Why don't people tell you this *&&^$ up front. I have obvious been played somewhat on this one. Never the less, he is really happy .

the monitoring thing is always a stress point for me. "do you hear what I hear".

it's all about the transducers. in front and at the end. mics and monitors. fancy conversion, reverbs and signal processing comes later. you have to have a decent foundation to build on and it ain't gonna be cheap.

it's important to stress to newbies that good mics, monitors and a decent listening enviornment are critical. doing quality mixes isn't an endevour for the cheap at heart. gotta be willing to spend a couple grand at the start or you're just pissin in the wind ...

Nicely put Kurt, I'm going to use that, thanks.

Your new avatar is priceless. Do you really feel that way hehe. (y)

audiokid, post: 413374, member: 1 wrote: Nicely put Kurt, I'm going to use that, thanks.

Your new avatar is priceless. Do you really feel that way hehe. (y)

only in the early and mid mornings, late mornings and early/ late afternoons, evenings and late nights ...

I am not getting a good sense of the parameters of the arrangement. You either trust each other or you don't. If you don't be honest about it. I differ to my mastering engineers expertise when in doubt. You don't hire an expert and not use the advise. If your the expert then you have to assert this as part of the arrangement. One person should have final authority. Often it's the person with the money not the ears.

I've learned a long time ago, never, and this applies to every successful trade or venture I've been part of. Never reach for a project just for money. If there isn't a mutual circle of similarities and respect, even though someone is willing to pay me money at the time, if it doesn't have an positive outcome that will build more of what I want, I always end up regretting something about it, which usually has a negative costs down the road. There hasn't been a time where I didn't get something better by passing on a carrot.

Never the less, my question is about monitors and collaborating. The question of inconsistent playback systems and trying to mix for them and clients that aren't on the same page.
The question is: How do your monitors measure up?

Are you hearing what I am hearing and if not, how do we deal with that? Surely not as simple as compromising our work because someone wants excessive something, not out of taste but because something isn't accurate. Because they are willing to pay you, and you take the money and run isn't good enough for me. I tend to want to educate for the mutual advancement, striving to keep the level as high as possible.
Do you choose an ME because he mixes bright for you, because your room is dark. there is a consistent pattern here. We choose mixes that sound good to us, in our setting, but would the same mix be as appealing if studied like we do in another setting or system. I say not quite and "not quite" can turn into hours of wasted time..

Not everyone client or engineer has the luxury to be sitting in the perfect room (including me). So, when collaborating with anyone, are they hearing what I am hearing. That is question and how do we get past all this day after day.

I am not suggesting you compromise at all. There' been many times that I help someone's project along or mix poorly tracked songs and not end up with as good a project when compared to something I've or a competent engineer has tracked. I can't tell you how many demos I've recorded and released to clients. None of these represent my best work. Sometimes we are a mechanic working on a ford Taurus and other times we are restoring a classic hot rod. The point is to elevate the project to a higher level then they could on their own. That IS your job. Truly great work happens when the work ends up being better then any of you could get on your own but this is what happens when working with equals. There is no shame in working with clients and other producers under our level. Just as we should strive to work with people with superior skills.

Hey Paul, this isn't about ego here, this is about monitoring and being on the same page ( within sanity).
I truly believe most professional engineers know a good mix when we hear it. The question I am always asking myself, am I hearing it the way they are. Or, are they hearing it the way I am. Is my room accurate.
How do we get there quickly when we are all in different rooms and systems.

This topic has a lot more to it than meets the eye here. It just dawned on me... here is an exact example of what I'm talking about. I can't believe it happened here too.
These tracks where mixed by two competent engineers. I know however, from listening to both tracks, the original was mixed in a room darker (with low freq issues) than the other. I expect some may find this difficult to believe I hear this, or obsess over this, but its where my ears are at this point in my career. I am identifying things that I never heard before, its a good and evil.
The topic is interesting to say the least and its seem to be coming up a lot in conversations lately. I'm trying to find the words to express it simply and at the same time, wondering if others have experienced this. I mean, more and more people are able to make some serious music on laptops and headphones. But, they do seem pretty damn bright. (meaning, heavy bass and excessive top end).

I won't say much more on it other than, listen for your self.

audiokid, post: 412554, member: 1 wrote: Check this out,

Great talent, which I unfortunately never got the opportunity to mix until after it was released. Maybe next time I get the credit :)

[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/better-by-morning-kultube
[="https://soundcloud.com/audiokid/better-by-morning-kultube"]View: https://soundcloud.com/audiokid/better-by-morning-kultube[/]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

Better By Morning

Written and Produced By Kara Hesse and Ron Flemming
Background vocals: Angela Flemming
Drums : Ryan Hoyle (Collective Soul)
Bass: Bennet Pullen
Guitar: Chebon Tiger
Mixed by "me" at Big Mix (v-12-v-4)

Here is the original version:
----------------------------------

[[url=http://="

"]View:

[/]="

"]View:

[/]

it has been a long accepted thought that monitor systems and rooms need to fall within certain parameters. producers choose where they work based on these qualifications. there's nothing new going on here.

Exactly, you and I know it. But, how many of us accept it, seriously. We spend more time and money on gear over monitoring and acoustics.
Affordable recording is mass, its where the work is.

yet another reason "affordable" recording and the democratization" of the recording studio" has not been a good thing. i saw this sh*t coming 15 years ago. hey! you kids! get off my lawn!

Another bone of contention: studios being martyr of their acoustic space. That is a whole new topic.

Mixing is a lot of fun, I get a great deal of pleasure from it. Its fun helping people but its also frustrating too. Sometime you can't say or do anything. It reminds me of painting really. Must be why I am a painter. I don't always like the colour people choose, but, I take pride in the outcome. Whether its an old house, old wood etc, I see it for what it is and simply bring it back to life without spoiling the vision for the client. I get exited for them and hopefully leave with us all smiling.

audiokid, post: 413402, member: 1 wrote: Another bone of contention: studios being martyr of their acoustic space. That is a whole new topic.

a totally different can of worms and one that i am sure you and i will have to agree to disagree. i love having real acoustic spaces to work with and the more the better. at it's largest state, my studio had 5 different spaces and i loved it.

audiokid, post: 413397, member: 1 wrote: Exactly, you and I know it. But, how many of us accept it, seriously. We spend more time and money on gear over monitoring and acoustics.
Affordable recording is mass, its where the work is.

That's because this craft has become inundated with people who think that every solution to every problem can be found in a plug.

They would rather buy something tangible that they can actually operate, as opposed to spending money on something inanimate that just hangs on the wall, or sits in the corner. So many of them have no trouble at all with purchasing 20 different EQ or convolution plug ins, but the thought of putting the same money into acoustic treatment is beyond them.

I think that monitors fall into the same category - maybe not exactly to the same extent - but it's similar.

I have a pair of Alesis Montor One's (passive) powered by a Hafler Transnova. I also have several broadband absorbers and diffusers in the room. Is it a perfect acoustic scenario? No. But I've never had any complaints about my mixes, either.

i love to geek out over pics of someones giant room-0-synths. invariably though, i see it all plugged into a crap interface, being monitored on crap, in a totally untreated room :(

what are they spending money on... trophies?
earaches is more like it.

are people getting used to and liking digital noise? like white noise is for the generations prior.
is this what is happening? everything i hear on the internet, most of tv now, all horrifying digital noise blasts. my ears feel numb just thinking about it.

Josh Conley, post: 413411, member: 47953 wrote:

are people getting used to and liking digital noise? like white noise is for the generations prior.
is this what is happening? everything i hear on the internet, most of tv now, all horrifying digital noise blasts. my ears feel numb just thinking about it.

I talked about this in a thread a few weeks ago...LOL

Yup. That's precisely what has happened... it effects you more, though... because you carry the curse that nearly everyone else here does, and that is the ability to reference modern sonics with what we used to work with, and the ears to hear the difference between smooth and harsh, warm and brittle, silk and jagged.

People in general have become accustomed to the "sound" of digital, because they are barraged by it every minute of every day, Josh.

And, depending on the age group listening, many of those people - kids mostly - have never had anything BUT digital. They've never dropped a needle on vinyl, they've never heard anything that started as analog and ended as analog.

Even the older classic rock that they are hearing... stuff that was cut to 1" or 2" tape and then mixed to 1", 1/2" or 1/4" two track, has since been "remastered" for digital. In some cases, this was done way back when digital was in its infancy, and they didn't have the hi-end converters that they do now. The result was a harsh, glassy sound to many of the classic recordings that were originally rich, warm and silky.

The industry has pummeled and barraged everyone with digital, and then to add salt to the wound, they've destroyed all the dynamics through uber-limiting.

I'm not against digital. I use it every day. I think that the trick is to emulate the warmth and silk of analog as much as one can when working in the digital realm; either through ITB tools, (or without them too!) or, in the case of someone like Chris, through a hybrid system that actually incorporates true analog along with the digital platform(s) that have pretty much become a "must have" if you want to work in audio production in this modern age.

IMHO of course.

theres a paradigm, how to bridge that divide in a meaningful way. knowing it exists, and discussing it will help.

Personally, I think they should offer an elective class in high schools for music appreciation, and a phase as part of that class should be offering a history of recording... and making those comparisons between the two formats as part of the plan.

I don't know how much enlightenment we could offer here.. as it takes someone to want to be enlightened for it to work - LOL. ;)

There are a so many new people to the craft who are buying budget gear and are far more concerned with how loud they can make their mixes, than there are those that actually care about the fidelity.

Caveat

Kurt, or whomever is thinking, whats this guy talking about....

I'm speaking completely after the fact from a specialized mixing POV here. I'm certainly not dismissing the standards or downplaying a studio. There is a way to the finish line and some get it and others keep making a mess of it. I know we all know that, but I personally believe we can make stellar sounding music in all shapes and sizes with the right tools and acoustic treatment. And thats the beauty of where I come in and what this OP is really about.

Without the skills of tracking and a good original capture, at least without replacement, will a turd become a masterpiece. There is constant confusion between recording and mixing and "specialized mixing" and post, which is where I am pointing here.
We all have to remember when I speak about space, I am speaking about a specialized art form ( similar to post) which is, and has been evolving out of the very thing killing us, digital audio and affordable recording with no set of standards.

I can spend a month mixing and building a song after it was beautify recorded by someone like you. Some might say, why would you do that though. Its Rock n Roll. "That's the sound of my studio". Well, that depends. Some people get it and will pay for that service. But, at that point when you are collaborating online, you are at a different level of mixing and it becomes a crossover into mastering. So, I have to always be asking anyone sitting on the other end if they are at a laptop or in front of something full range.

It just happened to me last night again. A client just told me he was listening to 7 version of a mix I gave him through a laptop. He send me an example of reverb and it blew my mind how excessive it was. I asked, what are you listening through. He responded, why?

The example of the track I linked here, is a classic example of a studio like yours, yet, fell acoustically short compared and it wasn't just because the studio had wall refection. The point isn't about mine or yours skills here, its beyond this. Its about hearing, trust during a collaboration and if anyone is at this point, when someone tells you they are critiqing the mix on a laptop from walmart, give me a gun.

If we can't hear it similar while working from different listening systems, it gets pretty goofy. So, has anyone really thought about this enough. We all think we hear it good enough so I say, after reading this and looking at it from my POV, how do you think your monitors measure up.

This is why I am so obsessed with monitoring and my own personal system. I know how critical it all is. And I don't mean $10,000 monitors either. When I am mixing with someone and they are suggesting we add more bass, and you find out later that they are in front of a laptop 90% of the time, OMG. What an absolute waste of time.

Cheers

"...It just happened to me last night again. A client just told me he was listening to 7 version of a mix I gave him through a laptop. He send me an example of reverb and it blew my mind how excessive it was. I asked, what are you listening through. He responded, why?..."

That might not be a monitoring thing though, Chris... that could just be his taste in mixing. I know guys who use too much verb for my tastes, and some guys who mix dry as dust. I'm currently working on one ( the one I am sending you) that's somewhere in the middle of that, because I think it's what is needed on this particular track to sell the feel and vibe... in this case I want it to sound like an "80's" mix, where other tracks I dry it up pretty good because I want it to sound more current.

I get you but this was unbelievable. It was complete impossible to believe.
He is responding back and forth to me for a few days over subtle changes and I'm listening to him but starting to wonder, hmm, I added quite a bit on this last one and he still didn't hear it. So he does an example of what he wants, but says he could do it but wants the Bricasti because he get what it does.
So i'm listening and working on this, busting my balls and taking time to be respectful right... . Ya know, while trying to retain the center image too right... then I get the sample and just about shit myself. ROTF!

I'm OMFG! he's listening to the finals on his friken phone or something. Yup. that was it. I posted this and have been wondering , its time to get some therapy here hehe.

Well, pal, if it's getting that bad - this early on in the project - then it's possible that this collaboration isn't going to work.

You have to measure it up. Use Donny's BSF (Bullshit Factor) Scale. 1 is a situation that's great... you dig into the project, love working on it, love working whom you are working with. Ideas differ occasionally, but for the most part, it works. A rating of 10 indicates an impossible situation. You're dealing with someone who isn't close to being on the same page as you. In fact, they aren't even in the same book.

They nit-pick about things that aren't important, they focus on things that are either nowhere near ready to consider, or things that are downright ridiculous. You don't hear things the same as they do, not even remotely. His idea of sonic perfection makes you cringe.... so figure out where in that scale this situation rates, and go from there. ;)

If he's driving you that crazy this early on and this project is turning into a boat anchor around your neck, instead of a creative venture that you enjoy doing, that you look forward to working on, then it's probably time to reconsider... and, it's probably better to reconsider now - in the early stages of this project - as opposed to later, after you've spent hundreds of hours on it and pulling your hair out the entire time. Unless the money on this project is very good, you should reconsider exactly what you are doing with this guy, and if it's really worth the taxation you'll face.

There are just some people you can't work with, Chris. I know people myself who are very good friends that fit this category. It's nothing personal, it's not like they aren't nice people, but when it comes to collaborating with them, it just doesn't work.

This may be one of those situations for you.

IMHO of course.

This isn't the first or that last! :whistle:. The business is going this way and I'm not kidding hehe. If you've ever followed ME, the stories they have will make a hard man cry. But, this one is over and we move to the next one. Yahoo.... :rolleyes:

We've all had to work with 'those" clients at times.

If you are in this business long enough, it's inevitable. And they run the whole spectrum of the moronic....

everything from "It's only a 3 minute song? Why does it take more than that to record it?" to "Make me sound like _________________." (insert Sting, Madonna, Pink, Gabriel or any other artist here)

And then, there are those that know just enough about the craft to be dangerous. They throw buzz phrases around - but they have no idea of what they are really saying. They just picked up a few technical phrases somewhere, and they regurgitate them...

"could you bump 80 hz by 4 db on that please?"
"Well, uhm...yeah, I could... but dude... it's a hi hat track!"

I'm not saying your guy is that bad... but you've spent a long time honing your craft. It's a drag to work with someone who doesn't respect that or trust you to know what will work best. ;)

Could this be the only reason there were so many sets of Yamaha NS-10's in every major room in the world back in the day?(it was the sound quality!!!!!)

Everyone worked on a similar system (at some point) in mostly neutral environments.....(within reason).......I Know I Know!!! All control rooms were NEVER the same....But the NS-10's were. So there was a commonality point of reference.

Another thing from back in the day, and I could never figure out how this could ever work, people took their tapes to different studios for different things. One place had the best grand piano another the best this and that etc....Even though the engineers could bias a tape machine to the same specs...the differences in age and head-wear and the sonics in the room stood to be large differences indeed. So what was the workaround?

In reference to Kurt's point about the 'transducers'...it begs a further reference to "shit in=shit out"...we've all experienced this at some point. But Chris' assertion of doing work in a collaboration where one party is listening to things in a suspect environment is valid. And what is workaround there? Its been established that moving forward to chase the paycheck isn't something he wants so how does one collaborate without stepping on the toes of the other person who really NEEDS to step up their environment and listening position?

Interesting.

DonnyThompson, post: 413455, member: 46114 wrote: We've all had to work with 'those" clients at times.

If you are in this business long enough, it's inevitable. And they run the whole spectrum of the moronic....

everything from "It's only a 3 minute song? Why does it take more than that to record it?" to "Make me sound like _________________." (insert Sting, Madonna, Pink, Gabriel or any other artist here)

And then, there are those that know just enough about the craft to be dangerous. They throw buzz phrases around - but they have no idea of what they are really saying. They just picked up a few technical phrases somewhere, and they regurgitate them...

"could you bump 80 hz by 4 db on that please?"
"Well, uhm...yeah, I could... but dude... it's a hi hat track!"

I'm not saying your guy is that bad... but you've spent a long time honing your craft. It's a drag to work with someone who doesn't respect that or trust you to know what will work best. ;)

FUNNY! and so true.....This is more prevalent today than any other time. Understand that a lot of these "experts" information is derived from the internet....from RECORDING SITES!!! hmmmm....

I think Chris' problem is not one of the respect factor but one of the uneven playing field. How to collaborate when the other party can't hear or appreciate the work when their system doesn't allow for the detail you are capable of producing.....

The only thing that could make things work at this point is for the guy to be shown how skewed his monitoring system is, along with the acoustic shortcomings of the room he's in, if that is also a problem.

And.... that can only work if the guy has ears like Chris. You could put the best system in place and tune the room to exacting standards, but... if the cat can't hear the difference, or, if his mixing style is that myopic, then it won't matter a bit what caliber of gear he has or how well-balanced his room is.

"...Another thing from back in the day, and I could never figure out how this could ever work, people took their tapes to different studios for different things. One place had the best grand piano another the best this and that etc....Even though the engineers could bias a tape machine to the same specs...the differences in age and head-wear and the sonics in the room stood to be large differences indeed. So what was the workaround?"

Usually, professional studios kept their gear serviced very well, so bringing in a master reel from one room to another to add other tracks wasn't really all that hard, when both places had gear that was working at optimum levels and both places had skilled engineers to do the tweaking on both ends.

I recall back in the late 70's, I was cutting my teeth as an assistant engineer, working at a studio in Cleveland. We got tapes in from other pro rooms all the time, because the studio I worked at had a great room for vocals. Performers loved to record their tracks there... the ceilings were high and canted/vaulted, and it sounded great for vocal tracks. In some cases, I remember biasing and re-biasing our MCI multi-track deck several times in one day, so that we could accommodate the back-line/rhythm tracks that were recorded at other facilities.

There was always gong to be a bit of a difference, but those cats who were engineering at that time really knew their stuff... and through the use of EQ (very nice EQ) and GR (very nice GR) they made it work.

Yeah. I know thats what they did....but you point out the deficiency in such a case as having to bias and re-bias several time a day. Maybe one of the great things about digital is the transferability. Of course, in those days, it was all in a days work making records.