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

[Dean Aka Nekro]

I see what you mean Nokenoku with the very clear purple energy which seems to pop up from nowhere (nowhere naturally i mean) on the first image?

Guess '*Perse*' will explain what/how/why this is when voting is over, which again is the bit i am really forward too

'*' = the real identity of Perse and everybody else aslo

So until then i am going to keep my virtual mouth closed

Take care all and best regards

Nekro Dean

[bmanic]

We really talk of different highs I guess. I just used an analyser to actually find out, what's bugging me with the perse version. And yes, it's something, which occurs at 20kHz.

As you can see, there's something at 20kHz, but at 5kHz to 18kHz it's rather dark (opposed to another version with more presence). That's the "hole" I was talking about.

Well spotted! I'm pretty sure I simply didn't hear that stuff. While mastering I usually check an analyzer to make sure there is nothing funky in the ulra-highs, just in case (it can cause serious fatigue that is hard to pinpoint).

It reminds me of something that was bugging me on the remaster of Michael Jacksons "Billy Jean". That shaker had some serious energy in the 18kHz range if I recall correctly. This was missing in the original master.

I think when getting older it's a real risk of missing these ultra highs while mastering as the ear is simply not sensitive enough. These frequencies are also much more common in modern productions, probably caused by plugins that have aliasing distortion, they kind of "mirror" back into the audible range as they get truncated or something around nyquist frequency. Actually I'm not technical enough to know or remember exactly what happens but this is my guess.

Anyhow, good detective work there!

Cheers!
bManic

[Shy]

The bass is one thing, it's too loud and I think most remasters didn't solve this problem. Also, most didn't address the too strong treble, or didn't tone it down without taking other stuff along with it. But the most major problem in this piece is the strong brightness of the vocal compared to everything else. It's hard to balance this mix. It seems that some people prefer to focus on the vocal and not care so much about everything else.

I think the key here is to find a compromise, in which the vocal will inevitably remain somewhat sharp if you want to keep everything else sounding unmuffled. It's easy to think it's too harsh, I can't stand it, etc., but if you shape it so that the vocal sounds balanced, you're left with everything else sounding extremely muffled, plus the low-mid frequencies of the vocal are far too loud, unless you lower them too and then end up entering a cycle of harsh vs tame again.

In short, I think that if you want a mellow toned vocal in this piece, you're asking for trouble, because the entire track will lack power and be hollow. If we had the vocal track separately, balancing this mix would have been a completely different story .

[Geoff242]

We are almost halfway through the voting and here is where everyone stands so far....

(the number after the name represents the overall score... lower = better)


1 Aeneous 33
2 Nacarat 40
3 Indigo 47
4 Ultramarine 52
5 Vermilion 62
6 Perse 68
7 Russet 69
8 Mazarine 100
9 Nigrine 101
10 Morel 103
11 Zinnober 103

I will post the spreadsheet that I am using once the voting is complete if anyone cares.

Keep up the great discussions!

[eduardo_b]

1: Vermilion (very well controlled highs, perhaps too much? It's still the most "natural" of the bunch in my opinion. Perhaps it's a bit too controlled overall)
2: Indigo (quite natural but too much reverb still present, also a bit too "careful")

Interesting that you cited the more natural qualities of these two, which was why they were my first two choices -- although in reverse order, which was almost arbitrary given how similar they seemed to me. Didn't really pick up on the reverb in the latter, at least compared to those with far more. Given my (and other's) mantra of do no harm, and given my belief that one respects the artist's and mix engineer's "voice," I went with those that seemed to meet these criteria. But that's just me.

[aknot]

All of which is to say, let's keep it nice and friendly, and let's just talk about why we made the choices we did, how we did it and what that might mean in the real world. Then it can be a learning experience, and a pleasant one at that.

Well said. Here's my comment as a lurker (not directly participating):

(soapbox)

This isn't a reaction to any specific member's comment, but to be fair, I don't think Geoff submitted anything that I would qualify as a bad mix; just a reflection of what choices were made when producing the song. That said, Geoff never claimed it was a 'perfect mix'. If he did give you a perfect mix (which is easier said than done,) there wouldn't be much for the mastering engineer to do. Where is the challenge in that? I feel that it would make for an unimaginative contest, and pays no tribute to his stated objectives.

I feel that a mastering engineer needs to do their best with any mix, and it is unreasonable to expect the elusive 'perfect mix' coming in the door that would result in a quick mastering, and presumably less effort in the art/science of mastering.


PS - Isn't there usually one of my kind coming into the middle of every thread, stating the obvious?



(end soapbox)

That said, I recognize all the hard work you submitters and voters have put into all this. I'm sure Geoff appreciates this. Keep up the great work and productive discussion.

[bmanic]

This isn't a reaction to any specific member's comment, but to be fair, I don't think Geoff submitted anything that I would qualify as a bad mix; just a reflection of what choices were made when producing the song.

It's all about perspective. In the cut-throat commercial sector, the mix, nor the recording, would have been approved by any A&R representative or producer. At least none I could think of. Perhaps this is different in other countries, I don't know..

On a level of "all the mixes/recordings" in the world, sure, on that scale it isn't too bad but it isn't great either.

Actually, I think the weakest link is probably the recording process, quality of gear used and quality of instruments. If these are not pristine, it's very hard to get a good mix going. It's not a coincidence that some of the old classics that are heralded as great mixes are so good. They were usually recorded by brilliant recording engineers that knew exactly what they were doing. Not to mention that the bands who had already "made it big" probably had some pretty good quality instruments as well.

I feel that a mastering engineer needs to do their best with any mix, and it is unreasonable to expect the elusive 'perfect mix' coming in the door that would result in a quick mastering, and presumably less effort in the art/science of mastering.

It does actually happen sometimes. There are mixes that are so good that they can scare the heck out of any mastering engineer. That is, it's nearly impossible not to make it worse.. well with todays loudness demands it is impossible not to make it worse.

Cheers!
bManic

[kilroy]

@kilroy: I like the "punch" you have on each kick. How the heck you get that? Your frequency response is a bit funky though which is weird as that is usually what I think you always nail 100% every time.

Bmanic...yeah, when I messed round with this initially, I had something more like this...

http://www.headroomproductions.com/Audi ... e_Edgy.mp3

...but since an mp3 was used as a source, the high mid/top end just tends to get too edgy and hard when you process it. This is actually quite typical, but on this song it was particularly apparent. But, lets face it...processing an mp3 is a really bad idea, anyway.

It probably should be stated that, in this particular case, my first inclination would have been to inquire whether an alternate mix could be submitted with a few suggested changes. This is always the better first option.




As to the punchy kick...short answer, a pretty sophisticated compressor side chain processing topology.

[bmanic]

Cool! Care to share or is it again a custom secret weapon?

Cheers!
bManic

[Geoff242]

I think I should explain what I did when mixing the bass. Not in an effort to defend anything I did, but rather to shed some light on what you might be hearing. I tried something new, more for academic reasons than anything. I usually don't use send effects for bass.

First of all, you all should know that I really like how the bass was played, and thought it should be more prominent in the mix than the acoustic guitar from the beginning. So it being prominent in the mix is no accident. I think the acoustic guitar playing is rather boring, and the bass, is quite the opposite. I thought I could get away with this without detracting from the vocals. So, in order of importance, I think the vocals come first, then the bass, and perhaps drums then acoustic guitar. In hindsight, I probably should have said all that up front. Lesson learned.

Anyway, here is how I have the chain arranged on the bass...

Inserts

• 1:ReaEQ
• HiPass: 43hz Gain: 0db Bandwidth: 1.96 (this helped remove some muddyness)
• Band: 97.2 hz Gain: -3.6db Bandwidth: .49 (to get rid of some resonance)
• Band: 170 hz Gain: -4.2db Bandwidth: .21 (also more resonance taming)
• Band: 4119.5hz Gain: -0.4db Bandwidth: 4.00 (not sure why I did this)
• Band: 9959.3hz Gain: -0.4db Bandwidth: 1.52 (... or this)
  2:ReaComp
• Threshold:-40.1 (due to low level source recording)
• Attack: 0.0ms
• Release: 859ms
• Ratio: 12.9
• Auto make-up: on

Send at 0db to:

• 1:ReaEQ
• Low Shelf: 172.5hz Gain: -120.0db Bandwidth: 2.00
  2:TAL Chorus 60
• Chorus: #1
• Volume: 50%
• Mix: 95%
• Stereo Width: 95%

Channel Levels:

• Main bass channel: -16.49db
• Bass send channel: -11.49

After re-visiting this, I realize that I should have put a compressor on the fx channel. I don't know how I missed that, and normally I would have. But, any bass going on below 200hz should be consistent. My intention was to really widen the frequencies on the bass above 200hz, which I think I accomplished, but not without some side effects that could/should have been controlled.

So, anyway, I don't think it sounds as bad as some are saying. Could it sound better? Yes. Could I have done a better job overall if I spent more time on it? Sure. Has this been a valuable experience for all involved (including me) so far? I think so.

[hackenslash]

I certainly learned something valuable from it.

[Geoff242]

After re-visiting this, I realize that I should have put a compressor on the fx channel. I don't know how I missed that, and normally I would have. But, any bass going on below 200hz should be consistent. My intention was to really widen the frequencies on the bass above 200hz, which I think I accomplished, but not without some side effects that could/should have been controlled.

So, I am a retard. I know exactly why I didn't compress the fx send. Because it already was compressed! DUH! I don't know why, but I wasn't remembering that the send fx are post insert, so the send was receiving a compressed signal.

That being said, you should be able to see that the perceived problems with the bass may have more to do with just volume or the choice of fx than a lack of compression. Thoughts?

[Dean Aka Nekro]

After re-visiting this, I realize that I should have put a compressor on the fx channel. I don't know how I missed that, and normally I would have. But, any bass going on below 200hz should be consistent. My intention was to really widen the frequencies on the bass above 200hz, which I think I accomplished, but not without some side effects that could/should have been controlled.

So, I am a retard. I know exactly why I didn't compress the fx send. Because it already was compressed! DUH! I don't know why, but I wasn't remembering that the send fx are post insert, so the send was receiving a compressed signal.

That being said, you should be able to see that the perceived problems with the bass may have more to do with just volume or the choice of fx than a lack of compression. Thoughts?

I like the tone and think its well played but like you say its just too loud and clogs the Low-Mids up quite a bit but other than that its good because IMO it fits in with the track, its not the sort of bass tone i would use recording what i record as i could not fit it in the mix at all: i go for the clanky rickenbacker tone or Fender Jazz and lots and lots of Warick basses! because that is what i am usually working with and the guitars are so chunky its best to record the bass after the guitars if possible! thats just me though. Thats why i enjoyed working with this track so much as it is so different to what i usually work with Geoff

[mauseoleum]

Thoughts? Imo you didn't provide the proper bass tone for the line being played. More as in "tone", not how it was recorded/cleaned afterwards. When I played with it on headphones, I spent most time "fixing" the b-line's driving (I left all files that I posted here, including the one that was properly fkdup on 'phones and immediatelly recognized as such by a resident expert).

I think that most "masterers" here jumped into making kick punchy and pimping the vox but with that they fkdup the flow of the song which relies on the bassline (and which should be played slightly better ...). The drummer made ugly mistakes at the end as well..

my 0.02Euro wholesale


p.s.: personally I think it's best to first record a middly sketch bassline for guitars tracking and after cleanup record a bass proper.

[Geoff242]

The drummer made ugly mistakes at the end as well..

Ya, that BFD2 can really be unpredictable sometimes.