I Paid 3 Mixing Engineers to Mix the Same Song... and I'm Not Impressed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- 3 mixing engineers, 1 song. Find out if paying 10x the price gets you 10x the quality when it comes to the final mix.
☛ Learn the go-to starting points for EQ and compression in heavy mixes with my FREE Mixing Cheatsheet: mixcheatsheet.com
Song & multitracks contributed by Illegal Aliens: linktr.ee/illegal.aliens
Watch this next: I paid 5 mastering engineers to master the same song • I Paid 5 Mastering Eng...
Music I’ve Worked On: open.spotify.com/playlist/6I7...
Website: hardcoremusicstudio.com
Listen to the work done by our students: open.spotify.com/playlist/7IK...
-------------------------
MY FAVORITE GEAR:
Computer / Interface:
Mac M1 Studio Max sweetwater.sjv.io/anOMOo
Avid Carbon sweetwater.sjv.io/ZQ6M6g
Apogee Duet 3 sweetwater.sjv.io/y2qXqb
Monitors / Headphones:
Avantone CLA-10a sweetwater.sjv.io/WqyMyZ
Audio Technica ATH-M50 sweetwater.sjv.io/PyOMON
Microphones:
Shure SM57 sweetwater.sjv.io/daOMy7
AKG D112 sweetwater.sjv.io/Kj0MBy
Sennheiser e604 sweetwater.sjv.io/DKyvWa
Shure SM7b sweetwater.sjv.io/5g5vk3
AKG C451b sweetwater.sjv.io/jre9Rv
Shure SM81 sweetwater.sjv.io/eK1LnD
Audio Technica AT4050 sweetwater.sjv.io/JzKMqr
Preamps/Outboard:
API 3124 sweetwater.sjv.io/eK1LRD
EL8 Distressor sweetwater.sjv.io/XYmMd4
Favorite Plugins:
BSA Clipper blacksaltaudio.com/clipper
Escalator blacksaltaudio.com/escalator
Low Control blacksaltaudio.com/low-control
Waves SSL Bundle waves.alzt.net/dMd4q
Waves CLA Compressors waves.alzt.net/0va0P
Waves Platinum waves.alzt.net/jxz2M
Slate Trigger 2 sweetwater.sjv.io/MmAM53
SoundToys Rack sweetwater.sjv.io/xkLgyd
Auto-tune Pro sweetwater.sjv.io/OreMYr
Vocalign Project sweetwater.sjv.io/xkLgyA
Cranesong Phoenix II sweetwater.sjv.io/PyOMrz
Instruments / Amps:
Ludwig Black Beauty Snare sweetwater.sjv.io/1r9vDR
Gibson Les Paul sweetwater.sjv.io/B0nvz1
Evertune Guitars sweetwater.sjv.io/WqyM6P
Fender Jazz Bass sweetwater.sjv.io/nLX5R6
Sansamp Bass Driver DI sweetwater.sjv.io/OreM9Q
EVH 5150 sweetwater.sjv.io/4PGvr9
Mesa 2x12 cab sweetwater.sjv.io/75avGA
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
The 2nd mix and the fact that someone charged $100 for it makes me feel very good about my skills
I would have done a better job for free than that $100 mix....
ya that's how I feel too!!
This.
Sounds anaemic
Me to haha. Yeah it was turrible. He should be ashamed to charge anything at all for that work.
It would be great if you organize a mixing contest with a song sharing the multitracks and then you judge it. We would learn a lot.
Agreed
You would have to join his class for that since he can't just give out the stems from these bands out for free
Yep, that could be a great idea
I would do it! good idea!
@@EthanRom he could, one song 🤷
The $100 mix sounded like a bass player's headphone mix. 💀
Version 1 is easily the best. It's a pretty good mix.
Version 2 I can't believe was even turned it.
The verses sounded like gubbins, but chorus sounded alright. I would be gutted if i paid for any of those mixes. Having said that, if i wrote that song I'd do the right thing and just delete it.
@@brownmoney27 Well yeah.. that goes without saying. It sounds like secular Christian rock or something.
Version 1 sounded the best to me, more forward feeling. It could be better with less reverb time on vocals, but very nice comparison - Keep up the good content !
For me the longer reverb is the only thing saving this mix. 1 and 3 are very similar, with some backing elements coming through more clearly on 3. Both have the same huge issue, of the vocals being way too loud and burying any complexity that exists musically, but on mix 1 the reverb at least moves the vocal back a bit in the mix, helping stop it overwhelming every other element like the vocal does in mix 3. Honestly all of these mixes are unbalanced and whoever is charging 1000 quid for a mix like this, is getting away with murder
1 had more audible guitar parts in the chorus (tho the vox to me sounded more dry); 3 felt much fuller overall, which yeah the reverb seemed to be doing heavy lifting lol
Sometimes mixing engineers tend to have a certain genre (or collection of genres) that they specialize in. When I'm hearing the mid-scoop mix I can tell that that mixing engineer probably is more used to mixing hiphop/r&b due to more enhanced low-end and the general frequency profile. The same thing would happen if you asked a rock mixing engineer to mix a bebop jazz record.
I made this same remark on the video where he was comparing masterings.
@@IfeeSound Ahh sorry, I just skipped everything to just hear the masters 😅❤
I was thinking the same thing. It didn't seem like the mixing engineers were mixing for the correct style, especially mix #2.
yea, I don't think you should mix styles you don't like. Even though mix 2 sound bad, I actually find it less annoying than the other two lol. But I know that this is because I absolutly don't like this genre at all
@@Jaburu I always figured mixing engineers would develop an appreciation for lots of different genres as a consequence of their work 🤔
It's shocking how much of a difference a good mix makes
It's recorded music bro.
@@NeonBeeCat Not sure what you're trying to say here
@@NeonBeeCatBro what
@@dylangilman mixing is very important in recorded/digital music as opposed to live acoustic music, often times it matters more than composition nowadays, ear candy will always be ear candy even if the idea is rather weak.
@@dylangilmanu clearly don’t know music recorded music would clearly require a mix and limiting . Rather than live where you would need leveling.
Mix 1 was better balanced to my ears. It was wider and I like that it wasn't over compressed and flat sounding. For this genre of music I think #1 took it. I see how the vocals sounded better in 3 and maybe thats what is pushing you that way. But I think asking for a revision on version 1 could have got you all the way there on version 1. And that's a fair mid level prices for a mix of mid level quality.
count me in, version 1 it is.
@dfasht 3 Had mud and way too much verb on the vocals. one was clearly mixed for the chorus, and not volume automated in the verse so all the levels were jacked up in the verse. and number 2 ... we don't talk about no. 2 xD.
Yeah I also thought the Mix 1 was better balance for the genre
That was my initial impression as well. The fact that the reverb was more tame gave it a little more of an edge imo, but that’s just my opinion listening on cheap earbuds.
Definitely mix 1 ya
Mix 1 and 3 does sound similar but the vocals on 1 seemed a bit brighter and legible. Mix 3 kind of sounded like it was drowning in reverb and pushed the vocals to the background. I would have kept them dryer but added more excitement using a limiter and compression.
I personally found the opposite
Yeah, I see a lot of people saying the opposite but the reverb is just way too heavy on the vocals.
Yeh, reverb was cavernous
The 3rd mix has all the focus on the vocals like it should be for me it sounds the best im listening on airpods but the 1st one clearly the beat jumps on top of the voice misleading the focus of the listener
If that's the norm for a $1000 mix, that's kinda sad really. For that money, the mix should be pretty top-notch and without glaring issues.
What are the issues?
@@persona8991 1 they clearly didn't automate as the levels are good at the chorus but fall apart in the verse. 2 ... do I even need to comment on mix 2?. 3 was muddy and swimming in reverb. That's just the biggest single issue with each. For 1k, you shouldn't be able to listen to a mix for 10 seconds and immediately pick out something clearly wrong with it.
@@persona8991sounding terrible is the issue
I love these comparison mixing/mastering videos. I'd be really interested in one where you not only have different prices for humans mixing/mastering, but if you added in some of the AI options. I've seen videos where people did blind comparisons of human mastering vs. AI mastering when they first came on the market and they didn't do great in comparison, but it's been a few years and you have to imagine there's been improvements since then.
I'd like $101 for having to listen to that fiverr 'mix' intermittently for 17mins.
😂
Mixing 101, how NOT to mix.
I love these!!!
Would be cool to see another episode of this with mixing but next time maybe preform a quick rough mix at the end for comparison.
This is a great video format man. Just from a UA-cam engagement perspective, enjoyment level is high because people play along. You should do more of these.
I paid a studio from Nashville to mix and master my song and they did the worst job! Highly recommended! The first time the song was missing the background vocals and the keyboard pads. Because I was a new customer they'll do it again for free, oh ok. Second time around they missed the keyboard pads and was so over EQed it was ear piercing, I had to mix and master the song myself.
Thanks, it’s interesting to hear the different mixes. Reference software would level match these accurately for a fairer comparison.
The 500 and 1000 are very good. 500 is definitely a bit wet but that is an easy tweak. Would love to hear what you can do on these mixes
Dude. Super interesting format. Keep doing these pls.
love these type of videos. good content Jordan!
Best thing I did was hold an audition for my album mix, had like 60 people on a forum mix one of my songs and I chose the best, ended up paying $150 persong AUD for 10 songs, and it came out extremely good. I would have paid him more if I had more money, but some people posted saying they would only take $250 min... and they sucked arse compared to the guy I chose. Know your place basically.
What was the name of the forum?
The first mix is definitely more balanced. I would argue the 3rd mix has just a bit too much low end all over where as the low end in the first mix is heard everywhere you'd expect to hear it not just blanketed over the track. I'd stand by mix 1 as the best. Great video and that song is pretty awesome too 🤘
If people are paying 100 for that I must have my marketing wrong on fivver....Interestingly I like the reverb on v3, but I also don't like how dry modern rock mixes can be. but this depends on the song and what the client wants.
Honestly, Fiver person should literally just import stems. Use presets for everything. Don’t change anything. And hit bounce. And the results will be way better. And mix 3 had a sound idea and went for it. I feel like 3 focused on the vocals too much.
YES!! I was looking for this exact type of video yesterday (same song different mixers) and then BOOM you did it! Thanksssss
Great video and great word/perspective at the end. Appreciate this !
I like version 3 because the vocals sit better within the mix. But that's just me!
agreed
The version 3 is The better version
Yes
Definitely. Vocals are tuned and tight...and harmonies are well balanced
Agree. Everything in #3 is better balanced and that allows the vocals to sit better.
It would’ve been very cool and even more helpful if you could’ve added one of your mixes for comparison of how to improve beyond the three you had. Make that your next video, but spend the same amount of time that you normally would on a regular mix project
V1 // Tries to maintain a coherent balance between across elements - sounds like the engineer was really striving for a tonally balanced mix with no one element taking centre stage - and largely achieves it. Good stereo field use too.
V2 // I'm genuinely amazed (and intrigued) how the engineer made it sound this bad...even if for $100
V3 // Engineer wants to the vocal upfront more (and often that's how vocal mixes should be) but IMO the mix, especially the vocal needs more EQ cut work amongst other things. Otherwise it's fairly well balanced but doesn't utilise the stereo field as much as V1.
If V2 was anything other than the $100 then we're all in the wrong game people...
Great content BTW - loved your similar video on mastering services. Keep it going!
v2 shouldn't be even worth 10$
The V2 was worse than the rough mix, at the very least because it was so startlingly different. They were given a rough mix with aggressive guitars and just didn’t get close to that same energy lol. I really wonder if all of these would have been better with a couple revisions which is common/expected.
@@Googahgee Surely v2 must be worse than what you'd get just by setting levels properly with no fx applied at all...
Thing with no1 is that it was mixed for the chorus and sounds like they didn't automate anything for the verse, so the verse sounds all out of whack, otherwise it'd be my favorite ... well it is my favorite because the others wern't right either lol ... but the chorus was pretty good for no.1 so it had the best section out of all of them I guess xD.
How could V2 charge $100? wow, I feel way better now with my mixes
Version 1 was the best out of those three. Version 3 had too much reverb going on and was overcompressed which made the verses seem almost perceptively louder than the choruses. Version 1 kept the verse to chorus balance better i.e. feels like it lifts into the chorus. When you said you preferred the verse of version 3 better it's because it sounds louder at that point but in the overall picture, it shouldn't be louder in the verse otherwise it won't lift into the chorus properly. Also making mid EQ cuts on Version 1 using CLA NS-10's, well, I'm not surprised you're trying to cut the mids on those as they're a very mid forward and inaccurate nearfield monitor. Version 1 all the way... Version 2 was very amateur so I'm glad it was the $100 mix but how that engineer could compare their mix to the artists rough mix and think it was better is beyond me. one other suggestion for level matching mixes in future, use ProTools Gain Audiosuite plugin in RMS mode to measure the same chorus of each mix, then match them all to the lowest RMS value, then turn up your monitor volume.. done.
Yep., the first and third sound nothing alike, not sure what he was talking about.
Hey, I requested this on your mastering comparison. Somehow I feel really statisfied now :D. Thanks a lot!
Thank you so much for doing this for everyone. Very informative
Great video, thank you! I have subbed. In my experience, having used someone on 'sound better' a few times - even someone with some INCREDIBLE credits - they just don't give quite the same quality of service as they would if they were working with someone like Biffy or Pearl Jam... It's a shame but I guess I get it. They know that all our "vanity projects" are so unlikely to see the light of day in any significant way.
It's also very tough to mix a body of work (like an 11-track album) contiguously using those services - without bunging a huge wad of cash.
I'm driven to try and improve my own mixing so I can be in full control and not have to negotiate do-overs and revisions that people don't want to do... Not to mention coming back to a song 3 months later having decided you hate it and want to record guitars again!!!
mix 3 sounds the best IMO, it really gives that full sound of filling up the space in the mix (and my headphones) rather than leaving that space to be desired.
I honestly don't know why he said there's not much difference between 1 and 3. The difference is night and day to me. Everything is flat and at the same level on 1. Not dynamic or lively at all. Nothing stands out. Super boring and dull vocals that almost sink to the back of the mix at times. The current trends are awful. The examples of student mixes in the link that supposedly beat these mixes didn't impress me much either.
Agree with #3. The sound in the verses was noticeably different from mix #1. Much fuller and warmer sounding to my ears. I did agree with him that the choruses in #1 sounded better, but to me the difference was very minimal, compared to the obvious difference during the verses.
#3 was drenched in reverb. Not good.
@@LukeSawardMusiclol
@@LukeSawardMusic but the space was better for it, also the guitars sounded so much better on mix 3
I cant believe people actually charge that much for these kind of mixes!
Thank you for doing this video, it was very helpful!
Thank you for taking the time and spending the money to do this. It's something all musicians stress about when it's time to take the final step and have their music professionally mixed. Besides the basic mixing and mastering of the song, I feel like it would have helped immensely to fix the pitch problems with the vocals... Before sending it to a mix engineer. As far as I can tell, each one of the mixes is passable, given the fact I'm not listening to it through a professional sound system.😊 I guess what I'm saying, is it's better to get the fundamentals right before sending it to someone to polish. This band needed a knowledgeable producer, someone to get the last three percent right, before sending it off.
You should make a mixing league with us. I would really would love to "compete" against other producers to get better and to see were my skills are right now :D
+ free feedback from you would be great :)
#URM
Yes, that sounds like a lot of fun.
Would be interesting to listen to your mix on that song. Are you planning to mix it, Jordan?
I'd love to hear that, too!👍🏾
Put it on the chopping block
I'm one of those mixers that usually don't mix annything to completion before sending the first mix. I feel like it makes the process more of a cooperation because often the band have a vision and it's hard for me to guess that vision fully. I find it a lot easier to change stuff upp aswell as early as possible instead of having a lot of automation, and everything sitting right where I want it and someone comes and wants a big change... getting the band in early helps me not having to mix it twice.
that said I would never send a bad bad first mix to a client. just maybe one where vocals aren't automated or all the small delays in between stuff haven't been sent yet
I was pretty surprised that version 2 had a sub bass synth line added to it that I didn't hear in the others. In this video it occurs at 2.24.
I would be furious with that $100 mix. It’s literally worse than the initial rough mix. 🤣
Makes me wonder what my attempt would sound like in comparison. I could be wrong, but I think most untrained ears would be pretty happy with 1 and 3. Maybe not perfect mixes, but I think that’s similar to my skill level if not a bit better. I think the things you noticed about too much reverb/wetness is an issue of using the same general techniques across multiple genres which is something I think many would struggle with(including me).Version 2 gives me a bit of confidence in where I’m at in my mixing journey. Cool video!
A very interesting video that shows that a mix of a song is very subjective, and dependent on both the mixers interpretation of the song (technicalities of the mixing aside), and with the artist/person who submits it for mixing. Another thing to consider is does the person mixing it actually like or enjoy this type music or the song, even though they are happy to charge you for it, as that can make a big difference to the final result. (There is nothing worse than mixing something that is uninspiring or lacks quality in both performance and production, or something you plain don't like).
The price/money thing is interesting and can't always be trusted as a sign of quality, as I'm sure there will always be someone who will make a better mix at a lower price than the top price guy or gal, but I guess it's a case of being lucky and finding one. In this example, the lower priced mix came out as you logically might expect (you get what you pay for, right?), but one day you might be surprised!
These Kind of Videos are just awesome… i really enjoyed the mastering Video too…
Loudness match them next time. Easiest way to get the volumes comparable with each other, and it helps you hear how the mixes will respond when normalized on streaming services.
Metric A/B is a great plugin for this.
I'm surprised how bad they all were; I'd have felt ripped off paying the respective fee's for any one of these mixes.
Why? I am new to this and would love to hear your opinion on why you dont like any of them. To my ears v1 actually sounded pretty good
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing the info. I liked the reverb on the track, but I am a child of the 80's though.
Agreed, I'd mix with as much expected feedback as possible, but mainly add my own style by taking the music in the directions I think it will feel the greatest, etc. For a fixed price, less talking and more doing. Done!
the v2 is worst than the raw mix. how can we able to charge for such a bad result ?
After this i'd say it would be cool to see how'd you would aproach this. You yourself said these don't seem to be that great.
Indeed. That would be nice!
yee i'm also curious rn
Agreed! I really liked the recent one hour mix video. Something like that could be awesome!
@@mrcoatsworth429 That "hour" mix was even better than all the mixes he was comparing.
@@istankimjong-unbutcantstan3398 yeah it was for sure.
Great idea for a video! I will be on soundbetter... you've convinced me with this video. Thank you.
Thank you for this eye opening video. Did the mixing include vocal editing and tuning considering the soundbetter prices ? This very aspect is often confusing whether it is a production or mixing duty.
I did this once, paid three different people to mix one song. Two of them were huge pros with tons of credits, and one of them was more independent and didn't coast as much. The independent one BLEW the other two out of the water. The other two mixes were literally pathetic. They are used to getting studio quality recordings, and don't want to bother with anything but, So while they SHOULD be able to come up with a great mix, the simple fact is, they're not willing to bother.
Yeah you have a good point there. It very well could be complacency!
@@DaftFaderAlso could be passing the Buck to engineers who are beginners at the studio. I remember when I booked stupio time. The owner of the studio gave me some engineer who didn’t know what he was doing I guess cuz didn’t take me serious but once they saw I wasn’t some trash then they stepped in but by then the experience at that studio was soured to me
Very good point
That's what I'm guessing. Big dogs are probably thinking "meh, the credits on this won't be worth much and whoever recorded this can't tell the difference" which is a horrible attitude.
@@manbearpig87 They probably know it'll take a bit longer to get perfect than if it was perfectly recorded, and spend the same time, no matter how much work it needs. So if you're unlucky enough to send them something that needs a bit more work than average, they will spend their set time on it and you get back what ever they did in that time, finished or not.
Personally I'd rather them say "I need a day extra to get it right" and pay for the time, if they are that set on working by a time constraint rather than per mix, but if this is how they are operating they should really charge for time rather than per mix to begin with, so the end user actually gets what they wanted. I mean if you're paying someone to mix your song, the expectation is it'll sound right once mixed, if they're not delivering what the customers are expecting, because of an unstated time restraint, then they've got their business model all wrong imo.
Although in this case it was a four track mix, so even a top pro, who can only spend a very limited amount of time on it, should be able to get that right. The kind of mixes they might usually be doing could easily be upwards of 50 tracks, if a full band is recorded live, with multiple mics per instrument, and multiple rooms mics etc.
Version three is night and day the best. like you just have to listen, you can tell that it was balanced. personally i had no issues with the reverb on version 3. The vocal and the instrumental were in sync, like space properly maintained. version one is also really cool, but its version 3 for me.
Absolutely. Mix #1 the drums are a little too forward and slightly harsh, like a loud aggressive rock mix, but it's not an aggressive song. Mix #3 is more cohesive and balanced - I could make a few nitpicks, but overall it's a much more professional quality.
#3 was drenched in reverb and has too much low end. Not good.
I love these videos. Thanks
Version 3 seemed to be the best to me. Version 1 was close but the snare drum lacked clarity and didn’t feel as good in version 3. Version 2 was disjointed throughout and sounded more like a rough lol.
In my own frustration I’ve done this “test” not for UA-cam, but on my own time. For the most part, the cheaper end ones were significantly worse than my roughs. In terms of the slightly higher end ones, it’s kinda win some and lose some. Eventually I started to mix on my own
3 is the best to my ears. 2 is just thin but clearer than the rest 1 sounds over compressed and a bit muddy but your right, none of them are that great. Thanks for sharing.
100% agree.
I want to say I agree with the overall order of them. As I listened I thought #3 was the best overall, and for the verse, although it WAS close and #1 perhaps had the edge for the chorus. And yes, although #3 won, it wasn't worth twice the price of #1.
To me #2 sounded like it was mixed by someone more into EDM or even hip-hop, not rock or pop - they REALLY wanted to have that kick drum and bass pumping over everything else.
#3 was drenched in reverb. Not good.
@@LukeSawardMusic "Exactly how much reverb" is a trend that comes and goes, generally on a roughly 10 year pendulum.
It really comes down to what sounds good to the person mixing down their tracks. As long as they have a basic understanding of the "Do's and Don'ts when mixing along with a basically decent DAW they can probably mix their own music and be pretty happy with their mix. Mastering the final mixdown is other half of the equation and you really need to have an understanding of what mastering is to get it right because it's more than just adding loudness and throwing some EQ at the mix.
Gotta firmly disagree with you on this... The difference is in the margins. What sounded good to me at 23, I just wouldnt be able to get there without a solid 20 years of mixing experience.. I think of all the 'advanced' mixing techniques Ive picked up along the way and, well if you heard a mix from back then vs now, Id say the difference is quite clear. It takes way more than a cursory understanding of mixing and personal tastes to get a great mix. it takes years, and years of trial and error and a all consuming curiosity in the science of sound, and the respect for the craft to put in the extra blood sweat and tears for that last 5%. Whatever clown did mix 2, I guarantee has never used a compressor or a filter, gated; edited nothing, certainly has no understanding of mid/side, sidechaining, multiband sidechaining, resonant frequencies, transient shaping, inter-sample peak,.. and so on, and so forth :)
@scottfindley1345 Hey we can disagree. Not a problem. I'm in my 60's and I've played live shows and done studio work for over 40 years. I have not been to school to understand how to mix but I've mixed at the least a few thousand live shows and when it comes to mixing you have to stick to basic guidelines of understanding trouble frequencies that's can come back and bite you in the mix as a whole just like you would dealing with live shows and yeah you have to know which instruments need what kind of compression to make things deliver. I've heard people mic off their band in their practice room and after trial and error they actually came off with mixes that would damn well rival some of the stuff I've heard on the radio in a 2 track mix which comes down to my next point. It comes down to having a good set of ears and a decent pair studio monitors or headphones while mixing recordings. As far as using the tools that normally come with the software for a daw or even plugins you purchase for your studio in the end it really comes down to the discretion of the person mixing it that they understand what they're doing. You also have to have a basic feel that is part of that equation also. Some people can play Dream Theater chops in their sleep within a few short years of learning their instrument while some people are lucky to play simple three-chord songs even after years of playing. Some people have a natural feel for what they're listening for and some people have to learn it while others no matter how much they learn just don't have what it takes to make it happen. Going back to my original remark. If someone has a decent ear and a basic understanding of what they're doing they can mix down with a pretty damned decent outcome. Studios and software today are much more involved then you throw in the modern-day digital recording compared to recording on old reel-to-reel equipment that doesn't have the same characteristics and absolutely you can get better recordings today I totally agree with your remark about how things sound today compared to how they sounded back in the earlier days before we had the stuff we have now. You won't get an argument out of me on that remark.
@scottfindley1345 There is something else to take into consideration. Some of the older recordings may not have that polished sound but they have that raw sound that delivers quite well. I can't stand listening to a lot of the modern country mixes today because it just doesn't have a soul to it and it sounds too processed AND it all sounds two cookie cutter and the same but just like a cup of coffee with sugar or a cup of black coffee everybody has a preference. When you're talking about mixes of yesterday how far back are you going? 1940s? 1950s or 1960's? There are a lot of killer mixes even from the early 70s that rival today's mixes. They may not have had the fancy bells and whistles of these modern-day DAW stations with these powerful computers and extreme bandwidth and low S/N noise ratios of modern-day equipment but in the end it's what is pleasing to the ears.
@@flash001USA Hey man.. did you listen to #2? take a listen to if for reference. I can appreciate the all natural, all analog,tape style mix. This aint that. Theres no compression, where there aught to be.. leaving horriffic transients . Even if this guy was just totally old school, doesnt beleive in that kind of things, naw. This was the mix of someone who, just doesnt know the tools, r have the experience. its as clear as night and day. I imagine it went somehting like this: (young man walks into control room with resuime in hand), (loudmouth jackass: Allright kid, youre gonna make me some money today! just sit down, youre gonna mix this sone. Youre only 3 weeks into your fullsail 'college' experience? perfect!! ok, the slidey thingies here make it louder and softer, you know the EQ in your car? same shit. Just do a few passes until it sounds good to your eare and were done." Theres seems to be no filters in place at all. in areas where compression is badly needed - it sounds like a FOH mix (and a shit one) that was mixed on a FOH console in a big empty untreated room. With no crosschecking. I dont favor an overly poppy modern mix generally, all jacked up and hyperlimited. I mean its got its place (usually horrible, commercial EDM) so, for modern times. just off the top of head, and aside from all the AMAZING but obscure underground dance music that comes out, Air's Pocket Symphony, anything from Flaming Lips, Phoenix, Miike Snow, but the real hayday was the late 70s and early 80s, just before the digital revolution (though that era did yield some pretty interesting, if not cold sounding records just after the start of that transition.. but of the era, Thriller is hard to beat, On the Floor, Old Steely Dan, old Michael McDonald (thats right, and no, Im not ashamed. lol) and lots of Jazz Fusion stuff from ther 70s is my jam... think Herbie Hancock, Jeff Beck, Stanley Clarke, that steeze. hope that helps (probablly not.. lol)
@@scottfindley1345 "Allright kid, youre gonna make me some money today!" Scott I'm laughing my ASS OFF on that remark because I literally can picture that exact scenario happening in the real world. Yeah I did listen to the mixes and I did it through a set of my Samson headphones that were EQ'ed through my Sonarworks Reference 4 software and did I pick up on some of the things you were pointing out. Here's my opinion. With a lot of the modern radio music but definitely not all of it, they will use a lot of programmed electronic drums and even some canned bass tracks which isn't my cup of tea but that's their preference but most of these electronic drum and bass tracks are pretty much captured from some of the best tones possible so they should be pretty easily mixed and easily produced and yet on some of this stuff in radio rotation they still managed to drop the ball on the over-all mix and to me it sounds like souless lifeless elevator music. Now with that said I am also aware that the radio stations do color the music to some extent too because they have their own compression and EQ'ing they use to keep their transmissions under control so they don't have to deal with over modulation on AM or over deviation with FM with but even so, how can someone not nail a mix with sampled instruments? I don't know how old you are but I'm going to take a guess and say you are at least 50 and this is what you possibly do for a profession from what you have pointed out. The reality is this: A lot of people (provided they have a decent ear and a decent DAW) or even a decent old school reel to reel studio and this is myself included can get acceptable and good mixes on their own stuff especially if they take the time to listen to reference music from bands and artist from their own style but here is what separates a "PRO" studio engineer from someone with a home studio-------> EXPERIENCE with many different styles of music and how it should be perceived by the end listener. That's one of the biggies! Yeah even a person with a home studio needs to have a basic understanding of compression and basic EQ'ing and how and where to use it and of course understanding the frequencies that can ruin a mix where it's boomey or tinny sounding or my fav-o-rite golden rule which is to not over-do the damned mix with too much effect. Brother in the end it comes down to making sure everything in the mix can be clearly heard and when people hear it that they smile. The rest of the technical stuff as far as tweaking or setting levels for different platforms is the devil in the details and platforms like UA-cam can be one of the best freebie classrooms anyone could ever attend! I started off with a 4-track cassette studio with a Tascam DA-30 DAT for bouncing and expanding tracks then I moved up to more of a professional setup with a 8-track Fostex reel-to reel with decent outboard effects and compressors etc and once the digital age hit I was there and once again upgraded my system! Can I mix and can I master? Yeah but I would not want to do it professionally for a living outside of my own music not because I couldn't pull it off but because I don't have the necessary experience across the board with all of the different musical styles out there.
Will you make your version of this song?
And when will this song be released?
I would love to get multitracks for this as I want to see the experience mixing this
also, 100$ for such a bad mix as V2 is? i should really price myself better XD
This is gonna sound silly but I want to earn money from music composition and stuff like that. How do I get customers? How often do you get commissions and how much do you make average?
Learned a lot from your "blind" master mix comparison. Sounds like on this one you are comparing them similarly, i.e. as you would a mastered version, rather than comparing a pre-master mix for which one leaves enough dynamic range (and therrfore less bus comprssion) to allow a master engineer to do their magic? Would be very interesting to see if you sent all 4x to 4x different mastering enginners and let them choose which one they'd like to master. Then compare the final results! :) (Of course also "blind", tagging which one they ended up choosing to master.)
1 and 3 are equal. The difference in midrange was within the tolerance of professional. I feel the midrange is what separates one mixer from another. This proves you can get a good mix for $500
I’m a student of audio production currently in my 8th month of school and even I was underwhelmed by the quality .
is it worth doing? i'm interested in doing audio engineering how should i go about doing that?
I am in the exact same situation and this is exactly how I felt too, the future is looking bright for us both 😂
@@nathax8174 no ai will take care of mixing soon
@@nathax8174 I think if it is worth it or not is a personal decision. I’m not chasing fame or money and it’s just something I want to do so for me it is worth it. I also don’t think Ai will take over mixing least anytime soon. There is as much feeling that goes into mixing as there is technical skill.
@Rhythm Reboot ok thanks for the response. I've been very passionate about music and I'd love to have a job dealing with music in someway
On my speakers, V1 sounds harsh, V2 sounds too scooped and pumpy, And V3 has a tad too much 500hz but sounds better and fuller. if there was a 75% V3 mixed with 25% V1 it would probably be a good mix
unless ur using the reverb to create a room for the vocal reverbs should really only be cranked up on adlibs and extra tracks in the background theres a lot of ways to use reverb but thats how i use it
If you use Ozone 10 it would be a better mastering + Lurssen Mastering Console VST and mix is done - in between of these two plugins can be added some "saturation" from processor effect TR5 ONE. VST plugins are amazing
I also don't think this mix is worth $1000, and $100 for the worst one is also too much I think lol
To be honest, the raw tracks sound amazing as they are. They took some care in make those tracks.
In this instance 1 sounds good because of the crispiness. But 3 is the better mix.. its just bassier because of the reverb but the vocal will sound better on the phone & various other sources because of how the high-end is cutting through the mix on first listen. music is subjective and the 3rd is wide and full. You cut out some mud on the side eq on the third one and cut down/automate the reverb on vocals and its an easy fix on the second revision of the third mix. The first one will take more time to sound as full as the third mix on another revision because the mix is a little more raw to me... but perfect example of less is more sometimes and that's why we have revisions to make all ears happy 😊
I have been DIY'ing rap/beats on reaper with stock & free plugins for about 5 years (some years not as heavily as others). I have some experience recording/mixing vocals for a friend who did the rapping. Started out the whole shabang trying to make metal songs for myself. I have a pretty cheap setup, but I've learned a lot of things a long the way and am starting to hear these differences, and qualities that made my old works bad. Although I don't think i'm something to write home about yet, I have definitely improved exponentially in the last month or two since i finally made the jump to start sharing my music/beats with the world. Watching this gives me some hope knowing that mix #2 cost $100. Although the other mixes had some qualities Im not sure I could achieve yet, and he still said they weren't great lol.
Listening on HS7s I definitely like 1st the most! I like this "cloudy" - as you call it - feeling and reverb. Gives nice vibes to songs. But overall - as a mixer, I would ask band what they like it to be, because reverbs+delays are matter of preference of the band, and without knowing what they really want you can't judgde mixers based on amount of reverb.
2nd is terrible. Sounds like my first attempts on mixing ever years ago :D
I agree. I love that sound too!
I also liked the 1st version more, the atmosphere was great and it sounded more cohesive.
The 3rd version was too commercial sounding, very similar to the 1st one but the vocals were too loud and kinda too dry for my taste. 3rd version was like a music video version and 1st version more like an album version.
I like the 1st too, but it sounds like they mixed it for the chorus and didn't automate for the verse so the verse sounds all out of whack. The chorus from the 1st is by far the best section out of every mix though!
I use B&W 805 D4 with Trinnov ST2 the 1st one sounds dull to me, but it definitely sounds good on HS7s because of the frequency responses. The reason I will choose V3 as my first pick is it sounds awesome on both verse and chorus parts. V1 is more likely only focusing on chorus. and yes for sure 2nd is by a drunk mixer...Tried to find positive part but failed.
@@user-se1wb4qp7v HS7 are actually almost the cheapest speakers out there :D
I'd be pissed I if get something like that for USD1k.
Yep, the drum sounds so bad.
Amazing video , loved it
I like when a lot of the instruments have full, warm overlapping frequencies and they're glue compressed into one sound that is mostly mono with slight amounts of stereo effects to create dimension. It makes the basic track feel like it has a ton of unity and guarantees itll transfer to any sound source. After that you can make unique, standout sounds with more defined sound signatures and panning and whatnot to make it more exciting on hifi, headphones, and in cars. I felt like all of these tracks felt like a bunch of very clean stems playing at the same time. Tons of track separation. It ends up not geling well. I would probably slam the whole thing into a glue compressor or even a limiter that changes with each segment to capture changes in energy. I'm also confused by some of the criticisms offered in the video and if the quality of the music itself has some part to play. I wonder if this is a case of a bad set of recordings being mixed poorly and then reviewed poorly. If i was asked to work on the project im watching unfold id probably opt not to just because it seems like a mess.
The only thing ill say is the quietest track was the most tasteful. It had the highest dynamic range and if there's anything good about this song it's that it presents a journey from ethereal and chill to deep and intense. If i got this record for listening I'd probably want the mix that gives it more depth since its really more geared towards that individual deep listening. Definitely not a party and radio track, so skip the pop mix.
try to listen "quietest track" on low volume. vocal sits too deep.
@@mugenDelta I just listened at a few different volumes but I didn't hear anything like that, I actually heard a lot more space for the vocals to breathe between the other instruments. People really ought to learn to master their own music so they don't get scammed by all of the "mastering engineers" out there.
@@za4310 look, your experience is different. i do not want to spend my and your time on this.
i wish you all the best while you do right things. everything else does not matter. your point of view is good for you and i respect it.
i think you just nailed the problem myself and a lot of budding producers face when mixing everything on headphones or in a perfectly treated studio room on monitors... strive for that crystal clear punchy mono sound first, then pan your tracks etc. on 200$ headphones things can seem balanced but how many ppl are going to be listening to your mix on 200$ headphones etc? excellent point. the "car" test is also a good one. ideally 2 or 3 "car" systems actually.
@@darrinsiberia yep. Not a hard rule though. I think anyone who makes music should strive for a sound you can actually tolerate as "music to listen to" through whatever you feel like listening with. Theres tons of aphex twin stuff that doesnt translate great out of your iphone but in headphones its a vivid, immersive environment. Its pretty sweet. I think you just gotta know your own goals and standards. You dont need to worry about what anyone else feels about your stuff if it's what youre intending to do.
would have been nice to see your mix after hearing all of their mixes
I personally don't think any of these mixes are up to industry standards, perhaps amatuer. Which is interesting, because if I paid 1,000$ on a mix, I'd expect to get back a radio ready mix.
The 3# version is giving a lot of feed back as far as reverb or air
I think at the end of the day if Version 3 had a bit more LUFS range, there would've been a lot more noticeable quality difference. I think we've entered that era of making sure loudness is loud for the sake of "Spotify said so" or whatever. Either way, I'd still pay a g for it, so long as I could do revisions. Revisions for people that you're getting paid by online are only customary because a lot of people don't know what the hell they want even in pre-production and have severe "demoitis" when listening to their own track anyways.
I just spent years learning to record, mix, master, and take photos myself. Let's me spend as much time as I want and have 100% creative control over anything I want to do. I ain't paying nobody for nothin'
Sometimes it's good to get another good ear on a song. But I hear what you're saying.
It is so hard to judge a mix in this type of contest. First of all, the mixer is just taking a job without involving himself with the song and the artist vision, which in my opinion is what matters the most. Additionally, I am assuming that those are just Mix v1 of the song for each of those mixers. In that sense, V3 is totally the best (1k USD). It is the most even mix of all three. You can hear the vocals and every single instrument through the entire song (imagine what would happen on Mix 3 or even 4). V1 has serious issues of dynamics especially in the verse after the 1st chorus where vocals just went down in volume. Saying that I trully belive that is not fair for any of them to be judged with these parameters (except for Fiver's version because it sounds worse than the rough mix).
If the artist was actively commenting with the mixer and the producer, then it would be okay, that's what you got and of course is not that impressive.
About the amount of reverb in a song I think that is more an aesthetic aspect and taste. I guess what makes a great mix engineer be a great engineer It's how they interpret the artist's and producer's vision using technical parameters like selecting the right reverb, EQ or the compressors or any technique they have to increase the vibe of the song.
Love how straightforward the intro is. That's how you make an intro, UA-cam guys.
Thanks for the pretty interesting video! I'm a little surprised that you think it is a nightmare that the mixer intensely communicates with the client. As far as I learned, my clients are pretty happy with that but I do not mix but record backing tracks. Lack of confidence indeed is an issue for Fiverrguys ;-}
man! I'm charging too little!
Interesting video! I kinda feel that no matter how good a mixer you are it still comes down to the personal preference of the client. In the end that's who's paying for it. It's unusual but there are instances of historically bad mixes like Metallica's And Justice for All seeing the light of day. Apparently, that had a lot to do with Lars Ulrich's mix preferences.
I wouldn't have been happy with any of the mixes lol unreal
Hello, first time on your channel. Do more videos like this, I like this type of videos very much
That was super interesting, thanks for that. I guessed it right within seconds of hearing it. The $100 one was obvious. The $1000 stood out straight away cos it just sounded most like a "record", even though for my taste the drums were a bit quiet and the vocals were a little too up front. Interesting overall
Couldn't get past how much reverb was in 1 and 3 (I'll just ignore 2 like it doesn't even exist), so my choice would be 1 just on that account. It's very weird to me that a pro mixing engineer would deliver something that poor. However I believe if I hired that person I'd be allowed to review the mix and ask for changes and I'd certainly exercise that right. This was very enlightening and made me feel good about my humble mixing skills, maybe I'm not the total amateur I thought I was.
It would be nice, if You could mixed it yourself to show how it can be better. it is needed
Plot twist: his own mix wasn't any better.
I loved some details in secondary guitars in the 550$ mix, and also it sounded a bit denser, more integrated than the 1000$ mix, but I only listened those via iPhone. Honestly, I don’t yet consider myself a professional engineer but IIm’m absolutely sure that I’ve done a better work than all of those for $300-ish. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider my rates and impression.
It's a good song and a nice comparison video. All the best ;)
That Fiverr mix should've been 50 bucks and that's being generous
25
@@skylerfelix7609 2.5
They should be paying you for the experience cos they clearly have never mixed before xD.
@@DaftFader Basically, those were probably the best stems that guy has ever touched. He should call himself lucky for getting access to those stems
The 2 higher prices was not close to hitting the mark considering the demo, 500 should be expected to sound ok against a world class mix, really. Above 500 you are paying for a mixer brand as well, and should very much expect a stellar mix, not sure this was a stellar mix, it was alright.
version 3 for me, i like that its not so wide. it just sounds more appealing to me.
would love to mix this one! great song!
You can have your song mixed at Abbey Road in London (yeah THAT Abbey Road) for $375 USD (a little more if you specify one of their mixers). Why would anyone go anywhere else?
I haven't tried it but I have heard their mixes and masters from the online service are awful. They just have interns do it. Again...unverified anecdotal info. Just something to think about. Have you tried it?
It’s not the 60s man
I've heard a mix that someone got from abby road's online service and it wasn't great at all, it had a fair few problems. It was a youtube vid like this one, and one of the cheaper fiver mixes they got was actually miles better!
Because your getting an intern in a production room doing it if your paying 375. Your literally a suckered for the marketing lmao
Why don't you use LUFS to normalize each version before comparing them?
I think you should do it, and ignore loudness differences, because the final loudness will be set by the mastering engineer (and probably by the streaming platform).
some people only think about the money, i would love to try and mix for free so i can learn through experience, it doesn’t always have to be able the money. music is beautiful, make it beautiful as well.
People talk about Tonal balance and there are plugins out there that apparently can help with this. Do they really work ? I don't think about it when I am mixing but when u use these plugins it shows u where ur midrange, low, and high end should be for particular music . What is ur thoughts on Tonal balance plugins.. ? Or anyones thoughts.