****Mastering Challenge Vote Thread****

[bmanic]

Holy crap! Ok, this post might come out really offensive to some would-be mastering people in this thread but guys, seriously, the original mix sounds better than any of the masters here. Simply slap elephant v3 on the original and match the loudness of most the masters here and you'll get a better end result.

What to learn from this? Always double check with the original at equal loudness to see if you actually improve the master or not. Very often, with lots of processing, the opposite is true, you're destroying the original mix (usually for the sake of loudness).

It would be interesting if the ones mastering here specify their monitoring setup: brand or model of speakers/headphones, soundcard or AD/DA converters and if you have a room with treated acoustics.

I'm seriously impressed by the amount of destruction going on in this master. I'm willing to submit one of my own "home auto mastering" experimental presets results if I can get hold of the original mix in .wav format. What this means is that I run the original file through one of my experimental "auto-mastering" (I also call them "auto-destruct") plugin chains that are aimed at people who need a quick mastering fix and who do not want to tweak any settings. Mostly the chain contains:

1) ReaEQ (basic tweaking of frequencies that home-studio mixes seem to have problems with over and over again)
2) Sonalksis Free-G (to easily control amount of multiband action)
3) ReaXcomp multiband (setup to work like an auto EQ with about 12 bands)
4) Sonalksis Free-G (to compensate for any volume lost above)
5) Nebula 3 (some added "sheen" and control by some custom programs)
6) Nebula 3 (same as above)
7) Voxengo Elephant v3 (final loudness and dither to 16bit)

The chain is not always the same. I have 5 different preset chains to chose from. The point is still that these are "set and forget" presets that should in theory suck very much depending slightly on input material. However, I'm amazed that these auto-mastering presets seem to suck a lot less than what has been done here in this thread, which means there might actually be some use for these preset chains for people who are interested.

Sorry for the down-talking post but I think somebody needs to give a reality check here. What most of you have done could even be considered "re-mixing" as there is very much over the top processing, weird stereo widening and whacky frequency responses. Most of this is probably due to bad monitoring equipment or a badly treated room.

So, can I have a go at the original .wav? If not, I'll still post results with the mp3 file of the original mix but it is of course slightly compromised already. Btw. I like the song. Perhaps it's a slightly sloppy recording/performance but it has potential non-the less.

Cheers!
bManic

PS. once more I'm sorry if somebody is offended by the above post. I tried to put it as delicately as possibly without distorting the reality of my reaction too much. In Finnish it could be summarized with these words: No huhhuh!! Hirvee sotku!

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Edit:

Right i have downloaded all the different mixes and just finished listening to all of through them once, i am however going to reserve judgement until i have had a few more listens through then maybe tomorrow or the day after post my verdict/take: first i want to live with them a little first.

If their is a call to post which monitors, headphones, audio interface, AD/DA converters and treated/untreated room condition/listening environment: then just let me know Geoff and i will give you information no problems.

This is getting interesting now and look forward to the 'and now code name's mix was by x-member' and also what gear everybody used just out of curiosity really but even more so to see/read how all the soft & hard ware used differs or how similar it might be?

Take care all

Dean/Nekro

[Shy]

the original mix sounds better than any of the masters here.

No, it doesn't.

[Nokenoku]

Holy crap! Ok, this post might come out really offensive to some would-be mastering people in this thread but guys, seriously, the original mix sounds better than any of the masters here. Simply slap elephant v3 on the original and match the loudness of most the masters here and you'll get a better end result.

I seriously doubt that.



To be honest, I'm not totally content with my version anymore ... the frequency-balance is a little bit flawed .. missing some mids and lows (should've done more comparison with other stuff I guess). But other than that, I think it's much better than the Mix.
It sounds more dynamic and has more presence than the original imo.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Holy crap! Ok, this post might come out really offensive to some would-be mastering people in this thread but guys, seriously, the original mix sounds better than any of the masters here. Simply slap elephant v3 on the original and match the loudness of most the masters here and you'll get a better end result.

I seriously doubt that.

It sounds more dynamic and has more presence than the original imo.

I agree too guys and well i spent very little time on my version and am in no way attempting to become or have delusions of grandeur about rating my mixes and what not as 'mastering quality' but on reflection i could of done much more (but it is always on reflection though!). As for sticking Elephant on it and bringing it up by around 3-4 db's: that would not of tamed the overly forward and quite dominant bass line which is a constant throughout, But absolutely no offence taken mate: if it were not for critique we would all think were the next best thing to sliced bread and that would be bad as there are enough bloated ego's everywhere already

Nekro/Dean

[Geoff242]

Holy crap! Ok, this post might come out really offensive to some would-be mastering people in this thread but guys, seriously, the original mix sounds better than any of the masters here. Simply slap elephant v3 on the original and match the loudness of most the masters here and you'll get a better end result.

That's a pretty bold statement, and one that no matter how you choose to preface it, it is going to offend those that feel proud of their work so far. This thread was never meant to be a tool tear others down, your feedback is less than constructive. So, be prepared for some to be less than open to your feedback.

As for your suggestions for automated mastering; While this may work for you, it is not in line with the intention of this challenge. The intention is two fold, one, to help me release a finished version of this track, and two, to let people have a chance to try mastering a song that they have no bias towards and hopefully learn something and better their skills in the process. This challenge also creates an even playing field in which to make better comparisons between entries. The fact that you want to submit a version, while very interesting, doesn't really help at this point. If you were one of the original members of this challenge, then that would have been great and they would be agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion through their votes. But unfortunately, it's too late for that.

If you would like to still have the wav file, you are welcome to have it and do what you like with it. If you would like to post it here, that's up to you. But I would hope that if you do, you are less insulting to those that have put a lot of effort in to this process. You are entitled to your opinions, but please make an effort to be diplomatic. People will be much more inclined to listen to what you have to say.

Also, at this point, since you have obviously spent some time listening to these tracks, please take the time to post your vote. I think it's the least you could do.

It sounds more dynamic and has more presence than the original imo.

I am not sure you actually meant "more dynamic". Part of what everyone did when mastering this track was lessen the dynamics.

[bmanic]

Looks like there are some hurt by my post. Apologies for that. However, I stand by my statement, well almost. The new version of Nacarat does sound much better than the old, and is my favorite of the masters. It does contain some distortion in places (bass driving clipper/limiter too hard?), which makes it a tad annoying to listen to. It is one I could call "better than the original + elephant", so yes, my original statement was wrong.

Perhaps we all have different opinions of what mastering is all about? Making the frequency response more uneven than the original, slapping on horrible reverb and compressing things to oblivion or adding distortion that can be easily heard on even bad speakers, is not in my opinion "mastering".

Perhaps I should have been a bit milder with my comments (I really tried to keep it as mild as possible in the first place!) but I cannot hide my reactions behind pretty words. The fact that there were over 10 masters I was expecting at least one to respect the original, that is, try to enhance in subtle ways while retaining it's character. Unless the client specifically says "go nuts on the mix" then it's usually what is expected, a subtle enhancement that sounds "more like a record" than the original without taking away anything from it.

Anyhow, as this is all very subjective (as demonstrated by the poll) there really is no right or wrong, only something that is more or less familiar "mastered sound". I'd say most of the masters in this thread are of the latter category.

Last thing: Loudness does not equal mastering, but we all knew that already, right?

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

That's a pretty bold statement, and one that no matter how you choose to preface it, it is going to offend those that feel proud of their work so far. This thread was never meant to be a tool tear others down, your feedback is less than constructive. So, be prepared for some to be less than open to your feedback.

I'm not going to say that I'm an expert on mastering but I do have around 10 years of experience in the field, a studio built for that very purpose, high end converters and a full range monitoring system. It is, in essence, a tuned looking glass into audio and a bad master sticks out like a sore thumb.

As for your suggestions for automated mastering; While this may work for you, it is not in line with the intention of this challenge.

Fair enough.

The intention is two fold, one, to help me release a finished version of this track,

.. release meaning? If you are looking for a commercial release, in my opinion, you will not find the kind of audio quality in this thread (or is it needed?) that is usually associated with commercial releases.

and two, to let people have a chance to try mastering a song that they have no bias towards and hopefully learn something and better their skills in the process.

How on earth are you ever going to learn and better your skills if all you ever hear is positive feedback and friends patting each others backs? It's the very reason I wrote my original post. I'm not a writer by trade so my skills of putting my thoughts to words are limited at best.

This challenge also creates an even playing field in which to make better comparisons between entries. The fact that you want to submit a version, while very interesting, doesn't really help at this point. If you were one of the original members of this challenge, then that would have been great and they would be agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion through their votes. But unfortunately, it's too late for that.

Very true. Too bad I stumbled upon this thread much too late. I'll definitely join, time permitting, the next challenge if one such is ever arranged. In case it is not, I can report that there are similar mastering challenges, like this one, being organized at Brad Blackwood's Mastering Demystified forum. The difference is that most who attend and write at the forum are mastering for a living. It's a great place to learn and I highly recommend reading those forums.

If you would like to still have the wav file, you are welcome to have it and do what you like with it. If you would like to post it here, that's up to you. But I would hope that if you do, you are less insulting to those that have put a lot of effort in to this process. You are entitled to your opinions, but please make an effort to be diplomatic. People will be much more inclined to listen to what you have to say.

The problem is, I'm being as diplomatic as my skills (or lack of!) permit me! I really try to be discrete and I know people need to start somewhere but in my personal experience, some straight to the point, sometimes hard to hear, words are more effective and get people to see reality in a different way. Sometimes one needs to be woken up from the "Idols" syndrome (you know, that TV realitysoap where they are looking for talented young people who can sing and you get hundreds upon hundreds who really think they nailed it when in reality they have much to learn still).

Also, at this point, since you have obviously spent some time listening to these tracks, please take the time to post your vote. I think it's the least you could do.

I'm sorry but I do not know how to rate masters where most are worse (in my opinion!) than the original. However, I will take the time to give specific comments and hopefully constructive critique to any of the people who mastered a track here. That is of course the least I can do.

It sounds more dynamic and has more presence than the original imo.

I am not sure you actually meant "more dynamic". Part of what everyone did when mastering this track was lessen the dynamics.

There is always a trade-off. Loudness = less dynamic. There is no way around that. However, what some people express or feel as more dynamic is actually a sharpening of the transients or kind of distributing the energy of the drums+bass in a different "time spread". Duh.. I don't have the words to describe what I mean. Anyhow, this is usually achieved in mastering with a slow attack and a fast release. Some engineers like Bob Katz like to use an upwards-expander, or whatever it's called (ratio less than 1:1) to the peaks, making them seem louder than they are. The result is then clamped down by the final limiting/clipping, thus preserving the original dynamic ratio a bit better than without the expander. Another trick is to figure out the fundamental note or "thud!" of the kick and boost that slightly with and EQ, usually pre-compressor to get a bit more "smack!".

Anyhow, I'd love that original song as a wave file and I'll do a home-master (to keep it fair) and see what happens. It might be much worse than any of the entries here!

Cheers and apologies again for everybody who felt offended!
bManic

[Cordelia]

My votes, and it wasn't always easy to choose:

1- Indigo
2- Ultramarine
3- Vermillion
4- Perse
5- Aeneous
6- Nacaret
7- Russett
8- Zinnobes
9- Nigrine
10- Mazarine
11- Morel

It was quickly apparent to me which were my two favorites, and which were my two least favorites, but the middle votes were difficult to decide.
A few sounded extremely bright, and some otherwise nicely balanced masters lost points for obvious distortion.

[eduardo_b]

Perhaps we all have different opinions of what mastering is all about? Making the frequency response more uneven than the original, slapping on horrible reverb and compressing things to oblivion or adding distortion that can be easily heard on even bad speakers, is not in my opinion "mastering".

I think at the end of the day, this is what I would also point to. Mastering is about small things that sweeten the final mix, correct issues that still exist and give an overall shine to the track. What seems to have happened is some were in hybrid mode, using some mixing techniques alongside traditional mastering tasks. I have to say that Izotope's Ozone has reverb as an option, so that may mislead anyone using it to assume that adding reverb will resolve specific reverb issues in the mix -- that's what the Ozone manual says it's for. I don't agree with this concept myself. I don't know that anyone in this excercise used Ozone, but I also don't remember another mastering suite that has reverb in it.

/edit
1- Indigo
2- Vermillion
3- Ultramarine

These were the best by far to me, with 1 and 2 fairly close to each other, and then the more distant 3. It was a rapidly descending drop to 4 and below after that, none of which I liked enough to list. The original track would be either 1.5 or 2.5 -- not sure really.

Repeat after me: Louder is not better.

[bduffy]

I tried a master for the heck of it, but I'm not going to post it because bManic is scary.

[Kim Lajoie]

I tried a master for the heck of it, but I'm not going to post it because bManic is scary.

Would it help if I did one too?

-Kim.

[bduffy]

I tried a master for the heck of it, but I'm not going to post it because bManic is scary.

Would it help if I did one too?

-Kim.

Well, I jest really. I'll post it, if not just to get criticism, but I'm not really a mastering guy anyway, and it was off the mp3, late at night. I can barely call myself a mixing guy really, until I do some serious upgrading over here (which is soon! ). But I'll show mine if you show yours.

[Nokenoku]

It sounds more dynamic and has more presence than the original imo.

I am not sure you actually meant "more dynamic". Part of what everyone did when mastering this track was lessen the dynamics.

I said, it sounds more dynamic, not that it would actually be more dynamic (but at least for the very low bass, it is).

The fact that there were over 10 masters I was expecting at least one to respect the original, that is, try to enhance in subtle ways while retaining it's character. Unless the client specifically says "go nuts on the mix" then it's usually what is expected, a subtle enhancement that sounds "more like a record" than the original without taking away anything from it.

I did respect the original. It has a nice general vibe. But then I think it has also loads of "not-so-great" issues.
So I tried to fix em, without destroying the sound. And I think it worked quite good. Yes, I have to admit (and already did), that it's of course not perfect, but I think it's still much better than the original.

Have you actually compared those things at the same percieved loudness? I did .. and I just did again. And I still can't follow your point.

[kilroy]

I tried a master for the heck of it, but I'm not going to post it because bManic is scary.

Pffft...I'm not a'sceerd of that plonker.

http://www.headroomproductions.com/Mast ... ate_Me.mp3



Jesting, Bmanic...just jesting.