Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Example of Mix versus Master (Read 7271 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Example of Mix versus Master

I'm providing a song clip in mix form (pre-mastering) and in mastered form. I think it might help people understand the differences between a mix (as delivered to a mastering engineer) and a mastered version.

The mix is my own work, for the singer, Violette, and the mastered version was handled by a mastering engineer.

In this case, the mastering engineer applied EQ, reverb, and dynamic range compression, which is exactly what I would have liked for him to do. I avoided doing this kind of processing on the mix, to allow the mastering engineer as much freedom as possible to 'color' the mix as he saw fit. In my opinion, he did a good job. The resulting master is fuller sounding and the transients are smoothed out. The reverb also adds a pleasing effect.

Note that I applied ReplayGain processing to both the mix and master.

This song appears on Violette's album, Innervoice, which can be found on CDBaby and iTunes.


Files
 

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #1 –
I'd really like to hear feedback on this, especially with respect to how you like the mastered version.  Does this clarify misconceptions about the differences between a mix and master?  I'm not sure that most people on this forum understand the difference.

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #2 –
Quote from: LocrianGroove on
I'd really like to hear feedback on this, especially with respect to how you like the mastered version.  Does this clarify misconceptions about the differences between a mix and master?  I'm not sure that most people on this forum understand the difference.


The original mastered version is too compressed for my liking.  This is not a pop track, but seems to have been mastered with a pop sound.

I had a go at mastering the mixed track myself. Results are here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=660924

I'm no mastering engineer, and I did it on headphones (HD 280 Pro)

In retrospect, it is a bit thin sounding, but it doesn't have the overbearing compressed bass of the LocrianGroove's mastered version. It also has a replay gain about 4dB below the LocrianGroove's mastered version.

If anyone is interested I can explain in detail what I did to the track.


Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #3 –
Personally, I've done an ABX  comparison, just to get familiar of the differences, and to decide myself which version I  prefer without being influenced by what you've done.
I've done the test on my laptop , with IE7  iems (sennheiser in ear monitors).

I prefer the "mastered" version. I found there's more clarity on the voice.
It seems that the highs frequencies has been boosted, and that's pleasant
especially on the voice. At the same time, I'm  thinking that's cheating,
the voice is enhanced, but then that's not the original voice .

Also in the mix version, the voice seems close to me, while in the master
version, the voice seems more distant.
I prefer when the voice is more distant, unless there's  a very special feeling on the
song, and that being closer "improve the emotion" . (example: "human nature" from
Michael Jackson)

So overall I  prefer he mastered version,  but I paid more attention to the voice than the music.

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #4 –
Quote from: extrabigmehdi on
At the same time, I'm  thinking that's cheating, the voice is enhanced, but then that's not the original voice.
  Ha!  Auto-Tune[/u] is cheating!

A typical modern recording has a ship-load of processing, enhancement, and manipulation.  The production process becomes part of the performance...  People have been doing sound-on-sound to play-along  or sing-along with themselves since the 1950s!  Artificial echo & reverb have been in use for a long time too.

Music production is a lot like movie production...  A lot of what you see in movies is "fake" too!

Besides Auto-Tune, it's quiet common for a producer/engineer to move the timing of notes around, especially with drums.  Sometimes, they replace the actual drums/cymbals with triggered MIDI samples.  And, sometimes the producer will add-in MIDI instruments, etc.

I read an article about the making of a "dance mix" of previously released music (I think it was Hanna Montana).  They did a lot of manipulation of the timing/tempo and pitch, sometimes carefully manipulating one word or one part of a word at a time.  (I think they competely replaced some instrument tracks.)  When I was reading it, I was thinking that it would have been a lot easier to bring the artist back into the studio.  Yeah...  It seemed like "cheating"...  I was thinking that it wouldn't be any worse (and easier) if they just brought in someone to mimic her voice, since it was no longer really the original artist's voice anyway.


Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #5 –
I like the mastered version. A few dB too loud and thus compressed-sounding at times, but IMO nice tonal balance and sense of space. The transients are a bit washed out in the lower frequencies due to the reverb (and the compression maybe), but I don't mind.

I listenened to the mastered version by reducing its level by 12 dB and then switching between it and the unmastered mix. I use Sennheiser HD-590s.

Thanks for posting this!

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #6 –
@DVDdoug
Quote
Ha! Auto-Tune is cheating! [...] The production process becomes part of the performance...

Maybe I've a bit exaggerated by using the word "cheating" , it's not as  if the voice was completely modified.  But the fact is that would be more easily seduced by the artist if I  would listen to the "mastered version".
It's a bit like the picture of stars , that are retouched for magazines in order to make  them look  more sexy, attractive etc...  ).  Sometimes small changes ,  can have a big psychological impact , that's why I used the word "cheating".

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #7 –
Just my amateur opinion (using HD 380 headphones):
The mastered version is hardly an improvement. The percussion is so beautiful (lively) in the mix (yet wasted by mastering - did they use low-pass or what?). EQ-overbassing something does not really help either, they should rather make the base a bit louder in the mix. The kick drum is even quieter (base killing its sound) but perhaps this is genre-specific (I'm a metal fan, sorry  ).
A little bit of reverb helps the trumpet as it sounds too choppy (unpleasant) in the mix (I guess the trumpet is sampled).

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #9 –
Tahnru, that's a great question, and I'm glad you asked!  On hydrogenaudio, when people evaluate the sound quality of a recording, they often evaluate it in terms of how well it was mastered.  The term "master(ed)" seems to be used as a catch-all for everything that goes into a recording, including the tracking, mixing, mastering, etc..

There are some people here who have years of experience as audio engineers, and they really understand the term, but not everyone does have that experience.  I had intended to provide an example of what a mastering engineer might do to color the sound of a mix, in order to help our community understand the concept better.  In this case, the mastering engineer did a lot of processing, so the differences in sound between the mix and the master (beyond the dynamic range compression and level) are easy to distinguish.  I thought it might open up an interesting conversation.

I'm glad you pointed out the other thread.  Since my original post was relevant to that one, it might have made more sense for me to have replied there, instead of posting a new topic.  But nonetheless, the overall conversation continues, which is great.

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #10 –
Martel, what you're hearing as a trumpet is actually 3 instruments playing together.  There is a tenor sax, trombone, and a trumpet (real instruments, not sampled).  The trumpet, being the highest-pitched instrument in this horn section, is the one that is most easily identified.

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #11 –
The master sounds to oversattured to me, especially the lows right at the begining. It sounds like a bunch of instrument sounds mixed together rather then single instruments on a stage. Though the voice sounds more pleasing in the mastered version. I guess it's mainly the reverb that improves it. It was to dry in the original mix.

Overall I prefer the original mix. I guess it's less fatiguing if listend for longer periods.

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #12 –
Apart from the slight reverb and EQ I don't think the mastering engineer overdid his job.

Although they are very dominant I still like the drums in the original mix more because the hi-hats and cymbals got muffled in the mastering too much, also there's this rumbling noise added to the drums, I can't really explain. Generally I like it when instruments have outstanding high frequencies and it is preserved on the final master.

The voice in the mix is very dry indeed, which is a big no-no for today's jazz, afaik (the record isn't targeted at blues listeners but jazz listeners, isn't it?). But why not use natural reverb of a recording room instead of adding artificial one? I think the reverb added in the master is too much, but then I don't like the typical 90s-00s jazz sound.

Because of the missing EQ I guess, the mix sounds more live, like I am actually at a place where the band is playing. But one thing is missing to make it a pseudo-live experience: stereo.

The original mix has this monophonic sound which the reverb cannot really compensate. After listening (knowing) the original mix it just sounds artificial to me in the master.

In the end I think the mix sounds more like old jazz records from the 60s which is a good thing, IMHO.

PS: On the matter that not all people know the difference between mastering and mixing: This sample is a good example of how important the mix is for what the music will sound like on the record. As I said the mix is pretty monophonic, probably because every musician was right in front of his mic, and so on. The sound may be colored by mastering, but it cannot change the things that happened during recording and mixing. The possibilities to shape the recording are far greater during these early stages.

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #13 –
Speaking of mastering, does anyone have a tutorial (without any bullshit) on mastering for beginners?

(Eventually also recommendations of plugins for doing it properly in Audition - I know Waves and iZotope RX, but are there others?)
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #14 –
Quote from: odyssey on
Speaking of mastering, does anyone have a tutorial (without any bullshit) on mastering for beginners?

(Eventually also recommendations of plugins for doing it properly in Audition - I know Waves and iZotope RX, but are there others?)


I don't know of any tutorials, I am not an expert at mastering but have dabbled, and I have not used Audition. But this is my advice:

1)Do the best mix you can, and fix any problems at this stage (or even in the recording stage if possible), do not leave it for mastering.
2)Forget about trying to add 'secret sauce' to magically make it sound better. Your goal should be consistency between tracks, and, as much as possible, consistency with similar commercial recordings.
3)If you find you need to go back and fix the mix, then go back and fix the mix.

I would approach it like this:

1)Load all of the stereo tracks into one session, on separate tracks. You may want to load a reference track from a commercial recoding also.

2)Adjust the levels of the tracks so that the vocals sound at about the same level (obviously quieter songs should sound a bit quieter, in any case it should sound natural). Solo each track and jump between them to see if the levels are right.

3)You may find that the tone of each track is different (or different from your reference track). That is, one track sounds brighter (more treble) than another. Use EQ to adjust each track to sound as close to your reference as possible. You may want to use a frequency analyser to help. I use Voxengo Span set to 1/3 octave mode reading the average level over time. Many commercial tracks have approximately flat frequency response up to around 2k and then a gentle roll off up to 20k. Again, solo each track and jump between them to make sure they are all in the ball park. Each track will sound different, but it should not be dramatic.

4)Check the levels between the tracks again. The EQ changes you made may have changed the perceived loudness.

5) Drag the tracks out so that they play one after the other but are still on separate tracks. adjust fade-ins and fade-outs so that the song flow well together in the order that you intend.

6)If you must. add a limiter to a master track and set it to max 3dB gain reduction.

7)You are finished. Don't mess with anything else.

8)No really. Do not use a mastering plug-in with nifty pre-sets. Your mixes should be good enough.

If you really want to try some more things (at your own risk):
1) A sublte amount of Plate reverb with at least 20ms pre-delay may help glue everything together
2) Broad band compression with a low ratio (1.5:1 or less) an attack time of at least 50ms and a release time of at at least 100ms, and not much more than 6dB gain reduction. You may want to roll of the low frequencies in the side chain. The compressor will give a subtle amount of dynamic control, but will also allow transients through, which can actually make it sound clearer.


Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #15 –
Which EQ would you use? I need a good parametric EQ (afaiu)
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Example of Mix versus Master

Reply #16 –
Quote from: odyssey on
Which EQ would you use? I need a good parametric EQ (afaiu)


A good parametric EQ is what you want. I tend to go back to the one I find easiest to use, which is the one that came with my DAW. If you can get your hands on a Linear phase parametric EQ that would be good.

As a matter of interest, What kind of music are you mastering?