I like Cass's version, Audiokid's version and Marco's version - Each version has things that I find very pleasing, and at the same time, none of the versions have any things that I don't like.

Chuck had it close but it sounded a little too smashed to me - that's only a personal observation, based on my own expectations for a song of this style.

I just listened to Chris Perra's version as well.... It sounds like maybe a little too much on the limiting, it seemed to effect the dynamic range, and I can see where some might like the edge that resulted .... personally, on a song like this, I prefer a less edgier tone, and a more "open" dynamic range.

IMHO of course.

I wonder if I'm the only one who tried to compensate to the clearer backvocals compared to the lead ?

pcrecord, post: 427850, member: 46460 wrote: I wonder if I'm the only one who tried to compensate to the clearer backvocals compared to the lead ?

That was my focus on this completely!, In fact, from what I clearly hear (strange others didn't pick up on this) My version appears to me, much better balance on the vocals.
I hated having to do this, it should have been fixed in the mix, but! I surgically lifted the vocal and edited every verses, prase and background I could, from the ss, to levels on every step of this track.
As much as many db is spots to match. You can really notice my version on the second verse is clearer and more balanced to all yours being duller and lower in volumes. Thats the beauty of Sequoia. ;) (at least to my taste):cool:

Again, I'm surprised and puzzled others didn't pick up on this on my version? Its pretty obvious to me. Makes me wonder what people listen for in music. Which, will be another conversation piece some day....

Audiokid, back to an earlier question, YES, this whole exercise is basically comp heaven, or hell, whichever way you want to look at it.

This started with noisy acoustic and a decent vocal lead, then instrument by instrument was layered, then I edited all hell out of the midi tracks, and cut and pasted like a terror, THEN went back and did another 6 lead vocal takes, then comped them, then redid my acoustic...this was amateur hour all the way, but I love me some micro-editing. A different party did the harmony vocals, I pretty much left them intact, phrasing errors and all, they just sounded natural.

You are absolutely correct about the different colorings sometimes within the same vocal phrases. I was totally pulling out the best performances, not fretting so much about the sound differences. Keep in mind I wear hearing aids and only put them in for mixing :)

I think overall I was able to achieve a pretty cohesive mix, considering the guitarist was in Sweden, the 'tuba' guitarist in L.A., and various other contributors were in Oklahoma, New Jersey (I think)....and I lost track of where the other guy lives...still sounds like a band to me, I'm kinda proud of that.

I think you all have done great things. I think Chris's turn narrows the stereo field a little too much, however.

I'll tell you what I like about Cass's version, and the reason why I chose him in the first place. Transparency.

Here's a quote from his email to me, I'm sure he won't mind me sharing:

"Sometimes people are curious as to the hardware chain, so it’s as follows:

Pretty straightforward—did a couple of things to add some clarity, and had a pretty good bass notch around 50 hz or so, but otherwise just added some analog mojo."

audiokid, post: 427858, member: 1 wrote: That was my focus on this completely!, In fact, from what I clearly hear (strange others didn't pick up on this) My version appears to me, much better balance on the vocals.
I hated having to do this, it should have been fixed in the mix, but! I surgically lifted the vocal and edited every verses, prase and background I could, from the ss, to levels on every step of this track.
As much as many db is spots to match. You can really notice my version on the second verse is clearer and more balanced to all yours being duller and lower in volumes. Thats the beauty of Sequoia. ;) (at least to my taste):cool:

Again, I'm surprised and puzzled others didn't pick up on this on my version? Its pretty obvious to me. Makes me wonder what people listen for in music. Which, will be another conversation piece some day....

Honestly I was pretty sure you did work on that aspect Chris. I just didn't want to sound like I assumed. ;)

freightgod : One problem with the lead vocal is that most sentenses end with more HF on the track. My guess is that the compressor that was used was taming the HF when hit hard and when there is less compression the sound is clearer. It does that at nearly every sentenses because the signer might just ends them softly. ( just a guess )
So did this happened at the tracking or mixing, I can't say...

No disrespect to Cass, but here is an interesting future discussion.

I actually hear his as less transparent to ours here and seeing his process (gear), I do know why. He also smashed it a bit too mush as well and missed the same areas in leveling to vocals as the rest of the group here. (my opinion that is) :)

Again, I'm not claiming to me an M.E. but I do understand the process and have better gear than most Mastering Engineers do, which has allowed my to discover a few really valuable skills and comparisons.
The gear Cass is using is excellent but not what I would ever use for mastering. For one, he is round trip processing? That is a deal breaker for me.
If we did an apple to apple A/B transparency tests using your original version to what I would use to demonstrate this A/B, I would clearly prove his process and gear choices add smear and reduce transparency.
It may be considered warming it up while you are in the moment... , but I would challenge this claim, that his process is better than "just staying ITB with no outboard added gear) any day of the week. If I was using any OTB process, it would only be the uncoupling step I use. Thats it.

I am so sure of this now, I would never use outboard gear to master. In fact, I can do it as good enough, on a TV using a laptop to world standards if I really tried. Thats the scary truth of this for Mastering today.
A year ago, only with the level of gear I use or more of... , I would say OTB is close. But today, it wouldn't even be a consideration. When it comes to mastering, once itb, stay itb. No outboard compressors or EQ's! No Round Trip.
And you can get it all done on a simple DAW system.

If this is a bandwidth problem, then please delete, but I thought I'd share the vocal track in isolation. And yes, I'm sure I relied too heavily on compression for the vocal in the mix. [[url=http://[/URL]="https://soundcloud…"]On my last mix [/]="https://soundcloud…"]On my last mix [/]I spent a lot more time 'riding the level' and the results were better.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files If I Didn't Care Lead Vocal no effects.mp3 (6.8 MB) 

audiokid, I get what you're saying. I think what I meant by transparency was that Cass didn't put his own stamp on my sound, that's the impression that I got from listening to some of the other examples from his website.

I like your work very much, and I totally respect the concept of "mastering to the vocal", or however you put it, that to me is the essence of any recording, at least mine. I put each of my songs to a 'campfire test.' In fact, that's how I judge all music these days. If you can't sing it at a campfire with just a guitar, or maybe in a living room with just a piano to plunk on, then in my book it's not a song. Period.

I love arranging and performing, but at the heart of a recording there had better be a song going on that someone can hum. That's just me, but it also means that the vocal and melody are central to my stuff. So I like your thinking.

As far as staying in the box (I assume that's what you mean by ITB?) or going hardware, I hope that becomes a lively discussion! I'm really getting a kick out of this.

Be clear to those who are wondering or up for this challenge some day... ;) , I'm not suggesting I am a ME but I am 100% convinced, Hardware and Mastering is no longer a good combination, especially if the mix is great. I would never use 2-bus hardware compressors or EQ in mastering chain again. That is a thing of the past.
When it comes to Mastering, there is nothing analog hardware does better than digital technology. And as far as adding character, I doubt analog gear does that better in a master as well. I think this is part of delusion (support of purchase) including hyped by Mastering forums discussing bad mixes while gear pimps keep it rolling of the last decade. Isn't that a ear full ! :D

I would however, use analog hardware for tracking and some hybrid mixing, but never for mastering.

freightgod , yes, itb = ITB = In the Box. No hardware processing.

Honestly, I don't know if hardware gear is needed or not to make a good mastering. I think it depends on the style of music and what the artists (musicians+engineer and ME) are looking for as sound textures. I woudn't ever say, it's not a good master because there was no hardware involve and neither because some hardware was involve.
If I was a very fortunate artist without budget limit, I would send my album to 12 or 24 ME and choose the one that sounds good to me without ever bothering how it was made.

It's clear to me that we need to work with what we have and I didn't use any OTB on purpose on this thread. I took it like, hey, what can I do with the tools I use everyday and know well. What kind of result could I come off without investing tons of hours. I believe the best ME is the one that knows right away which are the problems that can stay and those that should be fixed. Other than that, it's all about EQ and Volume ! (is it ?) ;)

Most ME are anal about transparency trumping anything else.
Those that have listened to what analog gear does to a perfect mix... , agree ITB is transparent.
The best mastering is when the ME is not noticed. However.... the question in this thread which is where I am going... "style" is irrelevant.

No matter what style it is, if the music was mixed well, hardware would only make it less transparent and smear. I beg to be challenged on this.

The best analog gear in the world still is not as transparent as digital nor an advantage if the mix is to remain unscathed. If you need analog gear to warm it up, it is to tame and change the transients. Which is something I do in a hybrid mixing process but never in the mastering realm.
I would go OTB to change the audio which is better done uncoupling a capture process over using compressors and EQ hardware. The hardware is the carrot in this, not the answer.And I look forward to that challenge some day. This is really where I hope we will end up in this forum one day. Thats what I am waiting for ;)

Imho, anyone that thinks different, is lying to themselves. Which I can clearly prove (look forward to someday). Analog hardware in a mastering chain is totally unnecessary today.. Now if its a personal choice, who cares. But if it is a transparent choice and we are basing our work on an apple to apple , where to look for the best master... it would be with someone that doesn't Round Trip to your music.

Now, when you need to smear it or "warm it up because of the mix itself, which has nothing to do with the style, that is subjective.
The better the mix, the less we would need to inject another sonic footprint to it. The better the mix, the less it needs some added "warmth" to it. When I mix my music, I definitely never want some ME running it back OTB to "change it again. I just want it tweaked a bit to improve the level or brightness. I never want the imaging changed. So, when I give a mix to an ME. I don't want it remixed OTB again. That would be reg flag in regards to imaging loss or change.

I think this is a topic easily confused with, how other mixers can improved a mix apposed to Mastering something done well.
If the Mastering engineer advises the mixer to fix things before he gets it, the end result will always be better mastered ITB. I look forward to that challenge dome here with a group of ME..

if this is the case, why "master" at all? i mean we can all get it loud as we need to with DAW so why bother? if what is needed is a "perfect mix" prior to the mastering stage, why would we need to do anything else? it's already "perfect".

one persons feast is another persons junk food. i don't get how anyone can say the way they want to hear a mix is the only way it should be. i would never assume to take that stance unless i was asked to by the producer. still, i would phrase it as "this is how i hear it".

mastering began in the 50's as the step need to get tape to disk (a format to format transfer). before tape, it had been a "cut it and make the mothers". we don't do that anymore. what we produce in our computers is the exact same data the end user listens to. perhaps we don't really need mastering at all? (we don't neeed no steeeenkin' mastering engineer.) that is unless we want to let another person collaborate on the final balance of the production (which is what modern ME's are doing currently, whether it be itb or analog). in that light, you might consider that your argument is moot..

added thought:
i think the whole "transparency" thing is way over blown and actually completely misses the target. transparent to me doesn't always equate with sounding good. Tascam pre amps are transparent. so are Avalons . i don't like either of them. i just don't think they sound good.

Indeed. Which is where I am going with this, why I am going "back to the Mix" all the time. And if we are tracking acoustic information, why it goes even further back to the tracking. The mastering should just be the finals imho.
So, I suppose one could say,

well, I buy analog gear for the songs that are harsher... , we use colouring equipment for the tracks that are really needing fixing?
Imho, songs produced through bad conversion, metallic sounding pre's and mic's, I would look for ME that has better ways to smear and soften the blow. Which at that point, I would actually look for an ME that has the ability to Stem Mix because most mixes I hear that are needing analog flavour, don't need it right across the 2-bus. They need it usually on the voices most, then less on the instruments. So, Imho, this is where Hybrid summing systems that start with a very transparent summing amp, followed by added tranny and value augmentation make the best systems.

I think the new Mastering engineers are the ones that can Stem mix. Otherwise, Mastering 100% is pretty obvious. S I see two kinds of ME. One that really is a Hybrid Mixing engineer and the other, which is your ME who is an expert in Volume ad freq tweaking which is better done ITB.

And as you put it Kurt, all of our Masters sound pretty good. So, if we were all starting out, investing in a system to master, what would you do or tell someone they should buy? And why?

:D

audiokid, post: 427874, member: 1 wrote: The best mastering is when the ME is not noticed. However.... the question in this thread which is where I am going... "style" is irrelevant.

No matter what style it is, if the music was mixed well, hardware would only make it less transparent and smear. I beg to be challenged on this.

I don't know Chris ! I thought the style of music would make a difference because there is no point of getting a vintage vibe to a Club or HipHop song. But If I produce a bebop song, I might have the ME do something special about it because he might have OTB gear that will make it authentic. Instead of faking it in the mix with plugins. Exemple a Fairchild Compressor that he might have that I don't or a highend reverb, etc..

I've experienced the opposite actually. I produced a nice Folk album with local guys here. I encouraged them to send it to an ME and he worked it as a pop album, which ruined alot of what the band was about. I was very far from where I am an mastering skills at the time but they prefered mine because I kept more of the dynamics.

So I might be dead wrong but to me Mastering could be very transparent when the album needs it, but it could also shape the sound.

Actually I think ITB or OTB, Mastering can't be transparent or it would be irrelevant. Transparent meens no change to me (yes !! the french guy might be lost) ;)
Anyway, is shaping the transients and curving the EQ transparent ? No !!
I get what you are saying, noise and saturation and phase issues are common in OTB work but, what if I want it ? What if I don't ? Isn't it the customer's choice after all ?

I fully respect your approach Chris, really ! If all the industry ditch their OTB gear in the next 5 years, I'll start to call you a Prophet ! ;)
Trying to convince people always make me shy. You know, those people becoming vegetarians are nice and interesting until the start a crusade by wanting to change the world !!! I always try to keep an open mind it both directions. Maybe I'm a nice guy o_O

audiokid, post: 427877, member: 1 wrote: And as you put it Kurt, all of our Masters sound pretty good. So, if we were all starting out, investing in a system to master, what would you do or tell someone they should buy? And why?

i would guess my advice was not to. it's a dying business imo, much like the rest of recording. and i wouldn't know where to start. the only time i actually had something mastered, it was by Leo DeGar Kulka at Sonic Arts. (that's a tale to tell.) the only reason i had to master was we were pressing a 45 so we had to get the format transfer. i'm sure some of the projects i did for labels were mastered after they left my hands but i couldn't say for sure. i never noticed any mastering credits on any of the CDs.

most of the old school MEs cut their teeth at major studios like RCA, EMI, Columbia or Capitol. it was a function of finishing the recording and getting it to press. it was carried out usually by up and comers who started as tape ops and were in the final steps of becoming balance engineers. cutting disks was a great way for them to learn what they could and couldn't get away with in tracking/mixing.

somewhere in the 60's someone decided it would be a good thing to open a lab that only did mastering. my guess, this was most probably a response to some of the independent studios that were starting up and actually capturing clients that were on label budgets making real records but didn't have cutting lathes. but even then a lot of rooms had lathes and cut thier own masters. lots of stories of cutting a hit on Monday and the masters are on the train to the pressing plant Tuesday am and the record on the air on Friday. of course, things are much better now.

pcrecord, post: 427878, member: 46460 wrote: I don't know Chris ! I thought the style of music would make a difference because there is no point of getting a vintage vibe to a Club or HipHop song. But If I produce a bebop song, I might have the ME do something special about it because he might have OTB gear that will make it authentic. Instead of faking it in the mix with plugins. Exemple a Fairchild Compressor that he might have that I don't or a highend reverb, etc..

I've experienced the opposite actually. I produced a nice Folk album with local guys here. I encouraged them to send it to an ME and he worked it as a pop album, which ruined alot of what the band was about. I was very far from where I am an mastering skills at the time but they prefered mine because I kept more of the dynamics.

So I might be dead wrong but to me Mastering could be very transparent when the album needs it, but it could also shape the sound.

Actually I think ITB or OTB, Mastering can't be transparent or it would be irrelevant. Transparent meens no change to me (yes !! the french guy might be lost) ;)
Anyway, is shaping the transients and curving the EQ transparent ? No !!
I get what you are saying, noise and saturation and phase issues are common in OTB work but, what if I want it ? What if I don't ? Isn't it the customer's choice after all ?

I fully respect your approach Chris, really ! If all the industry ditch their OTB gear in the next 5 years, I'll start to call you a Prophet ! ;)
Trying to convince people always make me shy. You know, those people becoming vegetarians are nice and interesting until the start a crusade by wanting to change the world !!! I always try to keep an open mind it both directions. Maybe I'm a nice guy o_O

pcrecord
I'm not telling anyone to believe anything. I'm just saying and playing along using a TV monitor a set of headphones and a PC on Windows 7. :p
Lets do another.:D
I'll keep using the same system and lets see is someone wants to step up to the plate with a million dollar studio to show us it makes that much difference.

I bet we will never get one Mastering Engineer here for that. I I do hope it happens. My guess is, no one in their right mind would take the chance in public. All the gear in the world will not improve a Master if the mix isn't up to it. There is a reason Mastering is becoming a thing of the past. We are being educated better on how to mix. And our mixes are getting so good, than we really don't need them mastered. We just need to improve our tracking and mixing.

I'm only in this topic now to make us think about mixing :unsure::cautious:

I suppose one could argue, if you want to sound like the Beatles, you need everything they used. But if we are just Mastering, do we really believe you buy mastering gear to sound like the Beatles?

audiokid, post: 427880, member: 1 wrote:

I suppose one could argue, if you want to sound like the Beatles, you need everything they used. But if we are just Mastering, do we really believe you buy mastering gear to sound like the Beatles?

i hear lots of recordings that sound very Beatle-ish and i don't think they had everything the Beatles used. to me that's more about performance.

the only thing that's important (and this is not opinion) is; does it sound good? which version do you like best? personally i don't feel a need to have my recordings mastered. if it's not a demo, i mix for CD .. (wave file, whatever). if i thought it needed a "little more this or that" i would have done it when i mixed.

Guys like Grundman, Ludwig, Fossenkemper ... they get the work because people like what they do .. it doesn't matter, the road taken. all that matters is that we "arrive".

I think maybe we need a "Mix This Song" sub-forum :whistle:

You know, I am coming around to the idea that the mix is the thing...

I think I didn't express my thoughts on transparency very well. Yes, obviously there was a different 'sound' to the master I purchased, it was punchier and sounded more 'polished' to my ears (whatever that means), I mean, I was paying for SOME transformation, or hoping for one, right? Right. What I meant was that I still recognized my mix underneath...I guess that's hopefully always true, but, I'm a newbie...

OTB or ITB? I'm not qualified to say, but I will say I don't miss any of my gear from 20 years ago...except I'd love to have some active faders at my fingertips...but just as controllers, an extension of the DAW experience.

If albums are made anymore (well, as a concept I'm making one) I can see the value of having one ME working to achieve a flow or uniform sound from track to track. I produce and mix my own stuff, so I am the master of my world in that way. But I also have lousy hearing and value the input of more experienced and neutral ears. So that's something to think about, too, beyond the technical ins-and-outs. Skills and Skilz aren't necessarily the same thing...:cautious:

freightgod, post: 427882, member: 48902 wrote: I think maybe we need a "Mix This Song" sub-forum :whistle:

You know, I am coming around to the idea that the mix is the thing...

Excellent.

yes, we have that forum already. Its called Song And Mix Critique. A sub category of Track Talk! http://recording.org/forums/song-mix-critique.20/
You read my mind.
The Category is based around problem based learning. We openly discuss and point out what people are doing or not doing and how to improve the mix.
Then, pass it off to this this forum for ME .

freightgod, post: 427882, member: 48902 wrote: I think I didn't express my thoughts on transparency very well. Yes, obviously there was a different 'sound' to the master I purchased, it was punchier and sounded more 'polished' to my ears (whatever that means), I mean, I was paying for SOME transformation, or hoping for one, right? Right. What I meant was that I still recognized my mix underneath...I guess that's hopefully always true, but, I'm a newbie...

Yes, you did explain it really well. I'm simply adding onto the discussion.

freightgod, post: 427882, member: 48902 wrote: I think I didn't express my thoughts on transparency very well. Yes, obviously there was a different 'sound' to the master I purchased, it was punchier and sounded more 'polished' to my ears (whatever that means)

It means you didn't get it punchy enough in the mix, and that the Mastering Engineer was able to improve it to your expectations! If he would have had the Stems, he could have fixed your vocals better, isolated the Tuba and the harmonies better and made it even punchier.

If you were able to fix this all in the mix, it would have made the Stems and the Master even better. Which, at that point, it would have been an incredible master if it was better from the get go.
All doable if you would have been made aware of some very easy to do changes.

Which is why we have this new Forum going now :) . Its making us more aware. I have a feeling you are going to get the next mix even better! :)

audiokid, post: 427880, member: 1 wrote: I'll keep using the same system and lets see is someone wants to step up to the plate with a million dollar studio to show us it makes that much difference.

I'll give you that, with millions of people using earbuds, it wound not make that much of a difference.

A mix thread is a great Idea !!

Ok, fair enough. Great learning for me, by the way. I'm just about finished with another mix, it's lacking harmony and some percussion touches, but that's all. Would it be presuming too much if I start a thread and promise to respond to whatever requests come along? I think I would be pretty responsive and timely. Stems, tracks, fingerprints, DNA samples, whatever...I can just lay it out there. Too much?

pcrecord, post: 427889, member: 46460 wrote: I'll give you that, with millions of people using earbuds, it wound not make that much of a difference.

Wouldn't matter if it was on HD speakers. I don't think people hear half of what we all fuss about. Even in this thread, no one mentioned ( good or bad) me adding more volume to the intro or increased level on the second verse. How is anyone going to notice when I used a $8000 compressor to one ITB? It think once we get it close , its how Kurt described it; they all sound good.

I agree. I like them all too:!

pcrecord, post: 427889, member: 46460 wrote: A mix thread is a great Idea !!

We have that already! Its called Song and Mix Critique. I think people are just realizing its not just for soundcloud tracks.http://recording.org/forums/song-mix-critique.20/

freightgod, post: 427891, member: 48902 wrote: I'm just about finished with another mix,

(y)

I don't think there's any argument that the mix is always the most important part. The best ME in the world can't fix a bad mix. They might be able to improve upon some things, but in the end, it's the mix engineer's responsibility to provide the final output as being the best it can be, and whether that output is to an M.E. for final volume and overall album EQ tweaking, or directly to the pressing plant, is really irrelevant. You don't mix "better" or "worse" depending on where it's going. You do the best mix you can, every time.

As far as analog vs digital, or hybrid vs ITB, it's contextual as well as preferential. I'm not gonna tell Bob Ludwig that what he's doing is wrong, nor am I going to tell Chris that what he is doing ks wrong, either - if the final product sounds good, then that's the only thing that matters. If these guys know their workflows - whether it's OB, Hybrid or totally ITB - and they have a track record of success and reputation for hi quality sonics, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no need to question the method in which that was achieved.

There are obviously strong opinions on all sides for all methods - advocates and dissenters, those who support and those who oppose, with varying degrees ranging from passive to intense, and that's fine... Although I don't see much point in one method-user bashing the other and trying to force others to believe that their way is the only way - and that goes both ways... There are analog purists who scoff at anything digital, and digital users who find fault with those who use analog.

If what you are doing works for you - if your method is proven to you, and the songs sound good and your clients are happy, then that's the way you should do it... and that includes recording, mixing and mastering.

If everyone did everything the exact same way, I think it would be a pretty boring world artistically.

IMHO of course.

This has been a really good discussion all around, I think.

I don't even want to try mastering my own mix at this point, but I'm hoping someone else puts up something soon....and yes, I'll be putting something up in Song and Mix Critique...but after this thread, I better spend more time on the mix first!!:unsure:

Generally speaking.
Personally, I think, "to keep harmony" , its best to stay clear of workflow discussion because workflow crosses the boundaries of personal or subjective strategies which often fall into self awareness. But how do we learn while avoiding that, when you are debating the outcomes of comparison learning? Problem Based Learning :)
I often wonder why people buy the gear they do and how it fits into their process. In a round about way, I don't think there are right or wrong ways to do things, but I do think there are smarter ways to do everything. Comparing is the key to learning in this business. The question of smarter always crosses into personal awareness which eventually has to be self reflection time.

The learning curve. PBL is all about discussing problems (cause and effect) within a group. The group shares why we do the things we do. We must be able to restrain from taking things too personal, while all trying to come up with solutions for a better outcome.

Its all so tiring when learning gets to the point where people say, this is what this guy uses. Well, I like to know why. I truly believe the older generation in this business doesn't always do what's smarter. They do it because that's the way they've been doing it for years.

If we were in a think tank with a bunch of new generation engineers, the last thing I would tell someone to do is go out and buy a bunch of analog gear . The problem there ,is there are a lot of people in forums who have already bought stuff and they like to feel was worth the investment. Is it? Why? Have you compared?

Here is the general approach to PBL and where I like to think we are heading in this forum.

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered [="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy"]pedagogy[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]pedagogy[/] in which students learn about a subject through the experience of creating a problem. Students learn both thinking strategies and domain knowledge. The PBL format originated from the [[url=http://="http://en.wikipedia…"]medical school[/]="http://en.wikipedia…"]medical school[/] of thought, and is now used in other schools of thought too

We of course are not in a classroom but we can apply some of this here..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-based_learning

PBL. :) It may not always leave you smiling, but it will definitely leave you thinking.

I think it's a great idea. PBL makes sense... and not just for audio... I think that method applies to pretty much anything - any subject that you want to learn or improve your knowledge of, and skills at.

audiokid, post: 427914, member: 1 wrote: Its all so tiring when learning gets to the point where people say, this is what this guy uses.

Agreed. I think that generally, people tend to put too much stock into what other people do, their workflows, and the gear that they use.

I respect people like Tom Lord Alge, but that doesn't mean I want "his sound" on everything - or for that matter, even anything - that I do. Nor do I necessarily want a sound or style similar to what I hear on the latest Katey Perry record, either.

I love The Beatles, they're my favorite band of all time - and while I have infinite respect for Sir George and the talented engineers who played a part in their sound, that doesn't mean I want my latest project to sound just like those recordings.

People should pay more attention to that which supports their own sonic styles, their own sonic goals.

Even if everyone used the exact same gear, the exact same workflows, methods and processing, you won't get the exact same sound out of everyone, even if they were all working on the exact same song. You could drop me into Alge's studio, sit me at his SSL, and load tracks for me to mix. But that doesn't mean that the result would sound anything like what he would have done.... Nor do I really want that to be the case, either. If I do something that ends up sounding reminiscent of what someone else has already done, then it's not necessarily because I intentionally set out to do so - ( unless it's the rare occasion where a client say to me - "I ant this to sound like "____." ) ... it might just be coincidence.

I don't desire to be just like "__________". What's the point to doing that? There's already someone who sounds like that. I like to try new things, to hear different perceptions, to experiment with different angles. I want to hear things presented in alternate ways ... because I think we can all learn from that as well. The things I experiment with might not always work, but how do I know what will and what won't, unless I try them?

When I post mixes or tracks here, I'm not showing off. Very often, I'm actually posting things that I don't like the sound of. If you go back and listen to some of those past posts where I presented audio, this is the case most of the time.
Where's the benefit to posting something I already like? If I already like something, I don't need a critique on it. While it's sometimes hard for me to lay out my weaknesses for public critique, in the end, that's the way I learn.

IMHO of course.

audiokid, post: 427892, member: 1 wrote: We have that already! Its called Song and Mix Critique. I think people are just realizing its not just for soundcloud tracks.http://recording.org/forums/song-mix-critique.20/

I was thinking more of, let's put some recorded tracks (stems), mix them and exchange on the results and techniques that were used.

The hell, we could also start from tracking a song, kind of collaboration. We could pick a very known song, use a midi file as a guide and everyone could send tracks. We could decide which tracks to use together and then start the mixing. Actually, I'm gonna start a thread right away ! ;)

Yeah, but...http://recording.org/threads/a-song-about-nothing-at-all.58550/

freightgod, post: 427931, member: 48902 wrote: Yeah, but...http://recording.org/threads/a-song-about-nothing-at-all.58550/

We're not giving up on you freightgod, I'll have a listen to your song when I get to the studio today. ;)
I just felt that we were going backward. mastering then mix ... and this actual thread created fantastic discussions..

audiokid :
Hey, what happened to this thread ? [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]http://recording.or…[/]="http://recording.or…"]http://recording.or…[/]
Can't find it !

pcrecord, post: 427956, member: 46460 wrote: audiokid :
Hey, what happened to this thread ? [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]http://recording.or…[/]="http://recording.or…"]http://recording.or…[/]
Can't find it !

Possibly:
@freightgod did you remove it?

audiokid, post: 427957, member: 1 wrote: Possibly:
@freightgod did you remove it?

Yes, I'm sorry, I removed it. It was way too quick and dirty, I was in a hurry to post it but it's not worthy yet. I should do the best I can with it first, then turn it over.

Just listened to these masters produced. I've got to pick the Cass one as the best. While the other submissions are good they definitely sound smaller than what his does. In particular, the side channel sounds much better with his. And playing his a 2nd time on some small little speakers sounds much bigger than the rest. I wonder why a lot of people's mixes (particularly online) sound "smaller than they should be" to my ears? what makes something sound smaller? HPF?

So maybe they aren't getting their HPF's quite right...or can they truly hear correctly their low frequencies? or they just aren't getting a good curve on the side channel? not exactly sure why...

One thing that we have not to forget is that Cass had a full wave file to work with as we mastered a mp3 file... I bet all of our tries would sound better if we started with an high def file and then went to mp3 here ! ;)

That's a good point, pc.

JayTerrance, post: 428290, member: 49019 wrote: Just listened to these masters produced. I've got to pick the Cass one as the best. While the other submissions are good they definitely sound smaller than what his does. In particular, the side channel sounds much better with his. And playing his a 2nd time on some small little speakers sounds much bigger than the rest. I wonder why a lot of people's mixes (particularly online) sound "smaller than they should be" to my ears? what makes something sound smaller? HPF?

So maybe they aren't getting their HPF's quite right...or can they truly hear correctly their low frequencies? or they just aren't getting a good curve on the side channel? not exactly sure why...

Indeed.

But...
No disrespect but this is such nonsense from the Cass comparison. ... This isn't even a mastering shootout. The mix needed to be fixed before it even got there. Which is where this thread was targeted , as are more to follow who post their mix here too.
.
I strategically pointed out the deficiencies in the mix, exaggerating, border-lining to point towards improving it where it was most obvious.;)
No disrespect intended but since we are only here to help the OP improve ... and make aware for others lurking the importance of mixing and choosing a ME that can actually do more for you than take your money....... I would have approached this different, and not mastered it until the easy but very important fixes were done. I mean, its a win win if it just sounds better.
The Mastering Engineer on this one missed the ball on this completely. I without doubt could have improved this mix substantially though suggestions on how to mix it better, before I even attempted to master it.

And as pcrecord said, we used an MP3 as well , which adds to the irony..
plus... I did mine on a TV for the added punchline. ( point maker and added discussion coming) :)
As Kurt points out... In the end... no one would really hear all that much difference so the real gem in this thread is... fix it in the mix. Mastering is the easy part.

Thanks for your input though. thats what this new forum is all about! :D:love:

audiokid, post: 428294, member: 1 wrote: No disrespect but this is such nonsense... This isn't even a mastering shootout , The mix needed to be fixed before it even got there. Which is where this thread was targeted, as are more to follow.
.
I strategically pointed out the deficiencies in the mix, exaggerating, border-lining to point towards improving it where it was most obvious.;)
No disrespect intended but since we are only here to help the OP improve ... and make aware for others lurking the importance of mixing and choosing a ME that can actually do more for you than take your money....... I would never of even mastered it.
The Mastering Engineer on this one missed the ball on this completely. I without doubt could have improved this mix substantially though suggestions on how to mix it better, before I even attempted to master it.

And as pcrecord said, we uses an MP3 as well :) which adds to the irony..

I don't know, audiokid. You would never have even mastered it? It wasn't the Beatles, granted, but for a quick nonsense tune recorded under limitations, like I haven't even met my bandmates, it weren't that bad.

I think we all get hung up on perfection or the pursuit of it. THAT is nonsense. In the end, ain't we just making music?

And I have posted a simple mix-to-master offer on the forum since this one, and I haven't heard a peep.

The original post on this was not to remix, it was to take a mix and master it. It was about mastering. You think perfect mixing negates the need for mastering. I am inclined to agree. But that wasn't what this thread was about.

freightgod, post: 428295, member: 48902 wrote: I don't know, audiokid. You would never have even mastered it? It wasn't the Beatles, granted, but for a quick nonsense tune recorded under limitations, like I haven't even met my bandmates, it weren't that bad.

I think we all get hung up on perfection or the pursuit of it. THAT is nonsense. In the end, ain't we just making music?

And I have posted a simple mix-to-master offer on the forum since this one, and I haven't heard a peep.

The original post on this was not to remix, it was to take a mix and master it. It was about mastering. You think perfect mixing negates the need for mastering. I am inclined to agree. But that wasn't what this thread was about.

Okay, the big explanation put in perspective...
Lets look at this from a different perspective and in a few levels, all in the name of PBL.

Please tell me you haven't missed the real gem here?

Prior to Mastering:
If you had been guided better, a simple few fixes in the vocals , plus lifting the tuba and a few other things, this mix would have been much better!

Even though you don't know it, helping you improve your mix is what I am doing here.
Q like: How do we know the ME is right for us?
Well... Looking back... Stem mixing was the better choice wasn't it.Or even better, just fixing a few really important things on the vocals prior to stems would have been even better.

I spend time helping people rather than just doing something for the sake of a few bucks. Thats my style. Coming from that perspective, once I loaded this into my DAW, I spent my time trying to help you see something rather than trying to master a mix that wasn't ready for me. I'm not saying your work is bad, I'm saying it would have been better, with good advice, that advise you are getting here for free..

Another problem presenting itself is how people lurking don't even know we are using an MP3 as the source.
Its fun to hear the Official Master but its clearly putting him in the wrong light and us in an awkward position to bring shit to the forefront.

Putting up Cass' mix in light of all ours here, to be sonically compared and judged against, when we were working with an already compromised Mp3 is absolute nonsense. :rolleyes:

Do I care if Cass's master is better... Gawd I would hope so! But whats really interesting is how much better is it really? We don't know that do we?

I'm sorry but I don't hear it as better because I hear past the MP3 and hear the problems missed in his work. Now I'm sure this could be considered an attack, but it isn't because we are in a PBL forum and I am in my element.Its just learning how to improve.

This song is worth it.
The second vocal is 4db too low and dull. The ME missed that all together. Why?
I guess that is the difference between a master that takes 20 minutes vs one that might take a few days to get it all sorted. (food for thought)

:)

What do we want the readers to learn from this?

It keeps coming back to the mix. Did Cass do a better master?
Based on advising, I don't think so. He should, or "could" have helped you fix this before he took it on but I'm sure he had his reasons?
Q: Should the ME even care?

Never the less... That's what I would have done and I think a few others here would say the same thing.
In fact, Marco also mentioned this so at that point, the thread imho, changed and was called out: we can't really master this but okay... . These pointers are imho so important.

Why are even doing this in this forum? Would any of us actually put our reputations on the line to be compared to an MP3 to an Master that was full bandwidth? Really? And this isn't nonsense all of a sudden? Should we clarify that or let all that we did in the last 4 pages be ignored. ?

Being said... even though my tone in the last few post may seem defensive, I'm not :D. I am however, serious about confirming what I see as wrong with that post.
Its important we aren't getting stupid over this, what was a good thread gone really sideways in one post.
To actually turn this into a thread that was all of a sudden compared to a master that wasn't even in the game is absolute nonsense.

The forum is about PBL and pointing out more than it will ever become a forum for sonic comparisons.

This might be a good time to discuss what we all learned on this one?

• Was Cass's Master really better than our MP3's?
• Would you have had a superior master if the mix was tweaked better before it even got to the mastering?
• What to expect from a Mastering Engineer
• We may not need to invested the farm on gear to master anything today?
• A good mix produces a pretty similar master.
• ozone is pretty cool.
• Sequoia de-essing can really dig deep into the esss (a savage 15db)
• A good mix will master up pretty darn close to others.
• An MP3 doesn't master as good as a full bandwidth
• stem mastering would have been the better ME to choose on this one

etc etc

Just saying... carry on.. There rest is up to you how you use the forum.

:cool:

audiokid, post: 428294, member: 1 wrote: Indeed.

But...
No disrespect but this is such nonsense from the Cass comparison. ... This isn't even a mastering shootout. The mix needed to be fixed before it even got there. Which is where this thread was targeted , as are more to follow who post their mix here too.
.
I strategically pointed out the deficiencies in the mix, exaggerating, border-lining to point towards improving it where it was most obvious.;)
No disrespect intended but since we are only here to help the OP improve ... and make aware for others lurking the importance of mixing and choosing a ME that can actually do more for you than take your money....... I would have approached this different, and not mastered it until the easy but very important fixes were done. I mean, its a win win if it just sounds better.
The Mastering Engineer on this one missed the ball on this completely. I without doubt could have improved this mix substantially though suggestions on how to mix it better, before I even attempted to master it.

And as pcrecord said, we used an MP3 as well , which adds to the irony..
plus... I did mine on a TV for the added punchline. ( point maker and added discussion coming) :)
As Kurt points out... In the end... no one would really hear all that much difference so the real gem in this thread is... fix it in the mix. Mastering is the easy part.

Thanks for your input though. thats what this new forum is all about! :D:love:

All very good points you brought up, indeed. Some of which I was unaware of when comparing the submissions.

I do think that learning and comparison goes hand-in-hand. Some of the best learning experiences are obtained by what someone else does compared to what I do, for instance. And though some of these learning experiences may get somewhat of a defensive feeling as people hash out the details of their work/labor...as long as it is constructive (& instructive), it's a win-win for everyone.

I, personally, hear something advantageous about the side channel in the ME mix. Whether it is simply the side channel or it is the balance of freq's between mid and side channel....I don't know for sure...it sounds larger. That's why I raised the questions that I did. Yes, everyone starting with a WAV rather than some having mp3's would have been precise. However, I don't think that is necessarily everything I am hearing. There definitely are details that have been corrected/enhanced in some of the other submissions that are better than the ME version.

So in the end, it seems there's room for a future mastered version that exceeds everything.