KVR MIX CHALLENGE - MC03 August 2014 - Voting period has ended, Winners announced (pg 17)

[Marando]

Your mix didn't sound that balanced, the snare was way to loud and some other elements could have been mixed a bit louder. Also, when listening to the EQ decisions that have been made, it made me believe your monitoring situation and/or room acoustics are not ideal, a feeling I had with almost all submitted mixes to be honest.

That was intentional. I love aggressive & loud snares. But I come from hardcore electronic dance music so yeah, makes sense that most people wouldnt. As far as acoustics, I have none. I have about $5000 worth of gear (half of it being a virus ti2) in a bedroom in an apartment. But I don't really feel thats an issue. Probably more along the lines of I'm not used to the genre.

Sure, you can make a snare be aggressive and loud by simply mixing it way louder than any other part in the song, but I don't think it works that well. I have listened to electronic music for a long long time already (and pop and rock and ambient and new age and classic) and I am not lying when I say your mix is not balanced. Your snare is ruining the mix, I tried to listen to your track very loud but the snare makes it an unpleasant experience. Just my humble opinion.

You think having no acoustic treatment at all is not an issue, but your mixes tell otherwise. You can listen and enjoy music on bad monitors and in bad acoustics and it might even sound awesome, but when mixing music, it's almost impossible to make the correct judgments.

It's like being able to tell that a painting looks awesome when wearing orange sunglasses, but try making a painting (with colors) while wearing it, chances are that it looks very bad when you put of the sunglasses.

Have a nice day!

[camsr]

If a mix needs serious fixing during mastering, isn't that an indication that the mix is not optimal? Just saying.

Ahhh there it is!!! The pretention that a recording is only as good as OPTIMAL.

Say what? All I'm saying is that I don't think a mix is good when it needs serious fixing during mastering. Me using the word optimal is probably me trying to sound polite. That's me, I'm not normally someone who says things like "you suck" or "get the f**k out of here loser" or "most mixes sounded like ass with serious gas issues". I like to stay polite.

Disclaimer: the bad words are just a fictive example

Are you familiar with how digital EQs sound exactly the same compared to one another?
If a cut was applied with one digital EQ, and a boost with the opposite gain and same Q applied with a different digital EQ, more than likely it would be exactly the same as the original thing.

Think about it.

[Marando]

If a mix needs serious fixing during mastering, isn't that an indication that the mix is not optimal? Just saying.

Ahhh there it is!!! The pretention that a recording is only as good as OPTIMAL.

Say what? All I'm saying is that I don't think a mix is good when it needs serious fixing during mastering. Me using the word optimal is probably me trying to sound polite. That's me, I'm not normally someone who says things like "you suck" or "get the f**k out of here loser" or "most mixes sounded like ass with serious gas issues". I like to stay polite.

Disclaimer: the bad words are just a fictive example

Are you familiar with how digital EQs sound exactly the same compared to one another?
If a cut was applied with one digital EQ, and a boost with the opposite gain and same Q applied with a different digital EQ, more than likely it would be exactly the same as the original thing.

Think about it.

I don't know what you smoked, but I have no idea why you are talking about digital EQ right now. As far as I know, we are not having a discussion about digital EQ at the moment, do we? Having said that, I think I don't understand any of what you are saying actually... let's have a look:

I wrote that I believe a mix should be good in the first place and that, in my opinion, a mix is not optimal (or read: NOT GOOD!) when a master engineer needs to fix a lot of things. The reason why I was saying this is because someone told over and over that a master engineer can easily fix a mix that sounds mid heavy or to bright. I think the mixer engineer made a MISTAKE when the mix is TOO bright or TOO dark or TOO whatever... the mix should be good in the first place, no hiding behind a mastering engineer who is capable of fixing YOUR mistakes.

After that, you replied to me with quoting a little bit from my post, saying: Ahhh there it is!!! The pretention that a recording is only as good as OPTIMAL.

What pretention? You are making a big thing out of my word choice of OPTIMAL, but I don't understand why.. especially not after my explanation that it was me being polite.. but having said that.. I think what I said is correct: If a mastering engineer needs to fix a lot of things, the mix was not optimal to begin with, it could have been mixed BETTER. English is not my native language so don't make such a big deal about my word choice. I think anyone should be able to understand what I'm trying to say here.

But now the part that you lost me completely. Suddenly, you start to talk about digital EQ and they all sound the same and you can boost something and later cut it again to make it sound how it was when it started. Like I said.. you lost me there, I seriously don't see why you bring this up. I was talking about mixes and masters and suddenly you start talking about Digital EQ?

[blind]

oh man, i didnt know i placed until now, is there anything left for me to choose from? lol

[blind]

OH and Congrats to

Photonic
Solidtrax
Doc Jon
Shroom Feverish

You guys were all in my top 5 actually! SOLID

[camsr]

I wrote that I believe a mix should be good in the first place and that, in my opinion, a mix is not optimal (or read: NOT GOOD!) when a master engineer needs to fix a lot of things. The reason why I was saying this is because someone told over and over that a master engineer can easily fix a mix that sounds mid heavy or to bright. I think the mixer engineer made a MISTAKE when the mix is TOO bright or TOO dark or TOO whatever... the mix should be good in the first place, no hiding behind a mastering engineer who is capable of fixing YOUR mistakes.

After that, you replied to me with quoting a little bit from my post, saying: Ahhh there it is!!! The pretention that a recording is only as good as OPTIMAL.

Since you are not very familiar with your choice of words, I will cut you some slack while I explain my perspective.

Optimal means optimum, defined as:
1. the most favorable point, degree, or amount of something for obtaining a given result.

So in your perspective of optimal meaning good, that means a mix critiqued by you is only good if you like it. You are the entire audience! Do you think everyone here in this competition mixed tracks that sounded BAD to themselves? If the mix is always optimal, why would mastering engineers exist, to cut vinyl? Why would they spend thousands of dollars on EQs and Compressors?
By using that word you only consider yourself and it's selfish.

I think the mixer engineer made a MISTAKE when the mix is TOO bright or TOO dark or TOO whatever... the mix should be good in the first place, no hiding behind a mastering engineer who is capable of fixing YOUR mistakes.

Well what if the mix was just EQed to sound dark or bright? Maybe it could just be EQed back to "optimal" ? Maybe the EQ could be reversed to sound EXACTLY like it should before it was? That was what I was alluding to. And earlier in the thread I was making this point:

Even if it is off balance it doesn't matter. Bass is one of the easier things to fix in mastering, although results vary depending on how it's mixed with everything else. Too much bass is usually not a problem. Too little bass isn't really a problem, or phasy bass, but usually doesn't sound the same. How you hear your mix also has an influence on how you shape it's dynamic, which is more difficult to correct.

So if we separate the concepts of tone and dynamic, you may be right that a mastering could not fix a bad mix. I'm in complete agreement! But you should at least attempt to qualify WHAT is in error.

I don't want to seem like an asshole with this, but for your sake of learning english, here is the definition of qualify I am using in that statement:
Qualify: transitive verb: to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form

[Uncle E]

So in your perspective of optimal meaning good, that means a mix critiqued by you is only good if you like it. You are the entire audience!

In all fairness, chaosbringer did specifically request feedback. Furthermore, he didn't seem to take the feedback too personally so I don't think this is something that needs to be fought over.

Anyway, FWIW, I was the client and I liked chaosbringer's mix quite a bit.

[Uncle E]

Bass is one of the easier things to fix in mastering, although results vary depending on how it's mixed with everything else. Too much bass is usually not a problem. Too little bass isn't really a problem, or phasy bass, but usually doesn't sound the same.

Those are interesting points. I've been a mastering engineer for over 10 years and you're right that unbalanced bass isn't really a problem in the end. In fact, I kind of like it when someone brings in something super bass-heavy, just so I can watch their eyes pop out of their heads when I show them how wide their mixes sound after I get it under control.

My favorite example is always Daft Punk's "Homework", the final mixes are said to have been horrendous but look how amazing they sounded after the ME N.I.L.Z. got to them. It's pretty easy for me to hear his sonic imprint on them, Bjork, Air, and all the other artists he mastered.

[camsr]

Those are interesting points. I've been a mastering engineer for over 10 years and you're right that unbalanced bass isn't really a problem in the end. In fact, I kind of like it when someone brings in something super bass-heavy, just so I can watch their eyes pop out of their heads when I show them how wide their mixes sound after I get it under control.

I've impressed myself on a few occasions of my amateur "mastering" (here meaning it probably only sounds good on my speakers ). How to approach stereo widening is a major decision! But it's never the same thing.

[Marando]

I wrote that I believe a mix should be good in the first place and that, in my opinion, a mix is not optimal (or read: NOT GOOD!) when a master engineer needs to fix a lot of things. The reason why I was saying this is because someone told over and over that a master engineer can easily fix a mix that sounds mid heavy or to bright. I think the mixer engineer made a MISTAKE when the mix is TOO bright or TOO dark or TOO whatever... the mix should be good in the first place, no hiding behind a mastering engineer who is capable of fixing YOUR mistakes.

After that, you replied to me with quoting a little bit from my post, saying: Ahhh there it is!!! The pretention that a recording is only as good as OPTIMAL.

Since you are not very familiar with your choice of words, I will cut you some slack while I explain my perspective.

Optimal means optimum, defined as:
1. the most favorable point, degree, or amount of something for obtaining a given result.

So in your perspective of optimal meaning good, that means a mix critiqued by you is only good if you like it. You are the entire audience! Do you think everyone here in this competition mixed tracks that sounded BAD to themselves? If the mix is always optimal, why would mastering engineers exist, to cut vinyl? Why would they spend thousands of dollars on EQs and Compressors?
By using that word you only consider yourself and it's selfish.

I think the mixer engineer made a MISTAKE when the mix is TOO bright or TOO dark or TOO whatever... the mix should be good in the first place, no hiding behind a mastering engineer who is capable of fixing YOUR mistakes.

Well what if the mix was just EQed to sound dark or bright? Maybe it could just be EQed back to "optimal" ? Maybe the EQ could be reversed to sound EXACTLY like it should before it was? That was what I was alluding to. And earlier in the thread I was making this point:

Even if it is off balance it doesn't matter. Bass is one of the easier things to fix in mastering, although results vary depending on how it's mixed with everything else. Too much bass is usually not a problem. Too little bass isn't really a problem, or phasy bass, but usually doesn't sound the same. How you hear your mix also has an influence on how you shape it's dynamic, which is more difficult to correct.

So if we separate the concepts of tone and dynamic, you may be right that a mastering could not fix a bad mix. I'm in complete agreement! But you should at least attempt to qualify WHAT is in error.

I don't want to seem like an asshole with this, but for your sake of learning english, here is the definition of qualify I am using in that statement:
Qualify: transitive verb: to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form

I don't know what happened but I seriously don't understand why we are even having this conversation. I tried to explain my point of view, and here you are again with a post that, to me, feels like you didn't listen to me. It feels frustrated that I somehow can not make myself clear.

So in your perspective of optimal meaning good, that means a mix critiqued by you is only good if you like it. You are the entire audience!

What are you talking about? You are saying things that I never said. I'm not an expert, I told that before, I'm an honest KVR member who gives honest and fair comments, am I not allowed to do that? As soon as I think a mix has a snare to loud or the vocals to soft, I should keep quiet because I'm "not the entire audience?"

It doesn't matter what I'm going to write here, you will find something to attack me again, or come up with strange acquisitions that doesn't make any sense. For the last time I'm going to try to explain something. Grab some popcorn and a big Coke.. here it goes.

I believe, in my opinion, that many of the submitted tracks had trouble in the mixing. Again, this is MY opinion, and I never said to someone that my opinion is the right one, that I'm the only one people should listen to. So no, I'm not the entire audience and I have never said I was! People are totally entitled to do whatever they want with my opinion. So.. what is wrong in that? How am I being a bad person now? Please explain, because the last thing I want is being a bad person.

I know that I learned a lot from people on the internet that pointed out the flaws in my mix. I mixed a lot of songs over the last 15 years, and many times, I had the feeling it was awesome, until I listened to it on my hifi, in the car, on my mp3 player.. Somehow, it sounded good in my home studio, but not on other systems. I didn't understand, how is it possible that for example both Deadmau5 and my mix sounded good in my home studio, but in my car, Deadmau5 still sounded awesome but my song sounded like crap with many many flaws. I realized that I had to improve my studio acoustics, and at the same time I got myself some better (second hand) studio monitors. Yes.. this improved a lot, I had always spend money on other software and hardware but improving my acoustics and monitors was the best thing that happened to my music hobby.

So why am I saying this? I think it is totally possible that many of the submitted mixes, in my humble opinion, suffered from a bad monitoring environment. I'm not pointing the finger at the person who mixed the song. I'm more than happy to say what I think could be improved, just like other people are entitled to give feedback. Isn't that a good thing about the internet? In the end, the person who receives the feedback can decide what to do with it. We are not holding a gun against their head.

Anyway, I'm going to stop now. I don't want to continue defending myself, I know that I never tried to talk people down, I know that I always have the best intentions when I give feedback.

To anyone in this thread that felt attacked by me somehow, please understand I never wanted to do that. I think I made that clear but if I did not, I offer you my humble apologies.

[camsr]

I WASN'T ON YOUR CASE FOR GIVING FEEDBACK.
In fact feedback is exactly what this competition needs.

It's what you said about a mix being optimal that irritated me. I don't even understand what that means! It's like doublespeak/newspeak for audio! THEN you accused mastering engineers of not being able to do their job.

I give up this argument, it's just lowmidhisilly

[Compyfox]

Bass is one of the easier things to fix in mastering, although results vary depending on how it's mixed with everything else. Too much bass is usually not a problem. Too little bass isn't really a problem, or phasy bass, but usually doesn't sound the same.

Those are interesting points. I've been a mastering engineer for over 10 years and you're right that unbalanced bass isn't really a problem in the end. In fact, I kind of like it when someone brings in something super bass-heavy, just so I can watch their eyes pop out of their heads when I show them how wide their mixes sound after I get it under control.

My favorite example is always Daft Punk's "Homework", the final mixes are said to have been horrendous but look how amazing they sounded after the ME N.I.L.Z. got to them. It's pretty easy for me to hear his sonic imprint on them, Bjork, Air, and all the other artists he mastered.

I'd pick up the discussion at this point.

My entry was commented on by user Bass108 as "lofi mixed". Personally I beg to differ - but this is all about subjective opinion anyway.


Still, as someone that has experience in mastering, what is your honest opinion about my obviously "too muddy mix". Is this easy to fix during mastering, or does it need a drastic revision compared to (let's say) the winner or your favorite tracks.

I don't need in depth feedback as to what could be changed. Let's take a look at this track from an objective point of view. Assuming we only have access to this mixdown, that is. Because the main question recently seems to be "can this mix be fixed during mastering". So why not start with mine as example since it was declared as "not really great" to begin with.

[Marando]

I WASN'T ON YOUR CASE FOR GIVING FEEDBACK.
In fact feedback is exactly what this competition needs.

If you wasn't talking about me giving feedback, why did you started talking about me being the complete audience? You know what.. forget it, don't answer it.

THEN you accused mastering engineers of not being able to do their job.

I did? Wow... you know how to change words and make it sound completely out of the context.
I never ever said something like that, so stop putting words in my mouth!

Wow.. in my 15 something years online, I never had a discussion like this before. Congratulations, camsr, for bringing out the worst in me.

[solidtrax]

[..]

To anyone in this thread that felt attacked by me somehow, please understand I never wanted to do that. I think I made that clear but if I did not, I offer you my humble apologies.

Oh please, camsr is just trying to get under your skin, you did nothing wrong. Ignore him and carry on!

[camsr]

I'm just trying to make the point to him that it's subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure.