Dang Ed that snare!💪Pauls guitars. vocal efx *chefs kiss*. Love this style of video, the discussion of the choices... the why behind the moves... great stuff
I kind of liked both mixes for different reasons, Paul's seemed 'bigger' but not as clear as Ed's, as is often the case with these things when you have more going on. Both mixes felt like there was too much low-mid body on the snare except for the quiet section, i guess this is down to the original recording but I found this really distracting - I felt it needed a little bit of thinning out. For reference this was on ADI-2 DAC and PSI A17. Both are great mixes though, well done!
Happy New Year legends! Both mixes were great! Paul’s mix sounds radio ready, little too wet in some sections but the use of effects is smart and tasteful! Ed’s mix is also awesome, love how fat you got the natural snare without samples but still sounds consistent! Just a thought, I know the chapters is probably a pain in the ass to do on here but for the mix offs it would be good to have chapters for the mixes to easily a/b Keep up the good shit love your content!
To be honest, in the mix comparisons we purposely don’t do this because we want people to listen to our comments rather than just skip to the tracks. A) because that’s the point of the podcast - sharing our experience, and B) because from a UA-cam audience retention POV, people skipping tot entrants will F’ our AVD stats and therefore video performance.
Happy new year, the mixes are back! The progress you guys have made is insane. 2 great mixes but Paul's is next level, less really is more. I agree with the reverb, in the verse the lack of reverb makes it sound a little too sparse and the vocals not embedded in the mix. Wet meant depth to my ears
Two nice mixes. I listened on computer speakers and some cheap monitors in a room I know well. I agree (or rather I can hear what you are describing) with pretty much all the feedback you gave each other, but I would like to make special praise for the Ed's vocal tone and the way that his drums sounded *more* like a whole drum kit on both computer and monitors (just a bit loud in the balance for me). Shout out to Paul for enhancing the groove (this soft rock song has a cool sway / groove to it) by making the guitars sizzle more (this is where the energy lies in this instance). On my monitors, Paul's sounded more groovy and energetic and more like a record, but also a bit sterile and OTT on higher mids / top end, and it didn't translate to laptop speakers as well. Where as Ed's sounded like it translated more consistently. As a guitar player, I have a very 'made to be broken' rule: I believe vocals, drums and bass are more important than guitars. For rock, I am looking for the guitars to add energy, which is where Paul did really well here. If there is lead work (there is lovely lead work in this song) I want it to be enunciated clearly (as per generic convention) and I think that neither of you managed that your mixes ... it felt like these parts were swallowed up when the production arrangement was asking for something else. Cheers, Richey
Just to see the brakeable rule, as a guitarist, I kove the chance to make guitars loud as fuck. You need good tone and playing and arrangements. Bands need to be more like AC/DC basically. Fucking tremendous tones fron golden era gibson and gretsch and Marshall heads and cabs set right, then arrangements like Walk All Over You where the vocals come between riffs and then most of all killer playing with huge transients on Malcolms clean settings with as thick strings as having a wound G string; that means it never farts out and allows massive dynamics. The groove in those hands only add to the groova and the typical syncapation with the 4x4 drums is all that is AC/DC. So because of all these circumstances, Walk All Over You has so loud guitars with that defined grit to the guitars, it's hard to think any guitars ever got better than that. Layering is the prime enemy of this opportunity to crank, but genres as well, and playing that takes away from the groove if it gets too loud. I'd say Paul worked it all out well and explained the issue. However, I agree woth another comment to embrace the rocking potential of the song. The playing and tones in the song is such a far cry from that massive transient Malcolm Young thing that it's hard to make loud guitars work, for example but I think both Ed and Paul could make this a little more rocking. Grab and enhance more aggression that is there if you want to take it. But it's more of genre aim more than anything. I don't enjoy this soft aim, and I wouldn't collaborate with people from that soft realm. I basically would try to convince them to say "hey fuck listen to how massive Somebody To Love by Queen is! That's not hi-fi for scared little 11yo girls. But I bet they don't get put off by it.". It's aggressive emphasis in all performances, but the production is hot. Wide chugging guitars and especially the solo with great room micing, is, really loud on that, btw.
@MrACangusyoungDC It's a hard thing to balance, especially as the vocal has to take center stage. That 2-3k region where the guitars have a lot energy but is in direct conflict with the vocal. In a battle of mix conflict, to an extent something has to win and something has to lose. For me, when dealing with a solo artist, the aggression has to come from the recording. If it's not there then you are artificially making it aggressive with eq or compression which may make you come across as a "harsh" mixer if it wasn't as aggressive in the rough. On the leads I took a gamble and I'm pretty sure I added in the arturia sansamp just to give them more bite. Or I added it to whatever felt a bit soft to me. The issue is that the energy in these guitars comes a lot from that 2-3k area which if overcooked can start becoming fatiguing on midrangey speakers like smart phones or laptops. It also clashes with the vocal which for a mix like this, can't really happen as it's gotta be out front. Maybe I played it a bit safe with the 2-3k but to my ears I pushed it as far as I could translation wise. AC/DC is a band where the guitars are just as important as the vocal so they can mask the upper mids of the vocal and it's accepted but after listening to the released version of Roses, it's a classic "vocal up" mix so that AC/DC approach wouldn't have worked. Maybe I could've backed off on the guitar bus compression or maybe added in a heavy la3a parallel for more energy but at that point I'm over thinking the guitars and that's when it's easy to lose perspective. I think a lot of this is more artist dependent. If it's pop punk or a heavy rock band where the guitars are super important then you adjust based on their preference but I think this specific mix was more about finding a pop balance where everything could have it's place without compromising the lead vocal
@WorkingAudioTools yes, I totally get it. Or we all understand it, perhaps. And after thinking more, again, the guitars can't become all that more rocking, so I think the Paul mix has everything right on guitars except maybe for some tiny movements or automation, without knowing the track myself. But then there's something about the drums and percussion that is a bit straight and round. There's no stick attack on the hihat and such. It can't become something like Ain't It Fun by Paramore, that is a good reference for punchy pop rock, but the balance or whatever of Ed made it best in that aspect. Though I'd wish for less clean and boomy snare, overall. Again, the half-way Paul/Ed thing, maybe. But I can mention that the best thing l've come across, via Puremix Fab Dupont, regarding samples, is using UVI drum replacement. It tracks hits perfectly and creates a live midi feed with velocity where you then can load old virtual drum instruments inside the plugin. A drum plugin such as that has close and OH and room mic balance where you can crank the room. The control of all this and knowing the sounds is great. The velocity tracking of the UVI and interplay with the drum plugin also makes it less samply. It's perfect if you have virtual drums and know them, like I know 6 kits of XLN AdD2, and feel I would add a great amount of the Blue Oyster Bonham gunshot PAH!
It's great to hear you guys back on the Mix comparisons again. A really enjoyable listen. My back-seat-driver opinion? I loved both for different reasons... Paul's mix - I loved it. As you guys discussed already, the high-end was a little too pearcing, for my ears anyway. The guitar treatment was excellent, and I'd have liked to see some of the bass runs given a bit more prominence for added groove. Some of the drums could be louder, for the same reason ;) Ed's mix - I loved most of it, especially the drums, the calmed-down vocals, and the allowance for call/response bass lines against the guitars, for a great groove. What I didn’t like - my goodness, the finger squeeking on the guitar strings; those were really distracting and could've been dampened down a good bit. The tambourine; I only noticed it as distracting later on, near the tail end of the song, but I felt that was too loud. Loved it otherwise; especially capturing the groove so well.
Ive had this guitar issue, I pan two guitar 100% Left and right, then send them to a bus. EQ the tone, then DIMENSION-D, Studio D Chorus or Waves S1 Imager any of the 3 will work to widen or pull in sides, C4 only for the low end (90HZ to about 250HZ to control palm mutes if needed) and maybe high pass 80HZ on the sides.. This trick has helped me tuck and widen the guitars to fit the mix, Commonly used in Rock and Metal.
They came with signing up for a 3-day live stream mix-off/mastering tutorial collaboration with SSL and Mastering.com. Mastering.com may have the files still available.
I thought both were solid mixes and I was listening to them in my car at a fairly loud volume. My taste would have had those vocals on “bridge verse” between chorus down just a teensy bit to make the chorus punch a bit more on either of them. But honestly, it was definitely solid and subject to further tweaking by both you and the artist. Mixing *is* about the whole picture. This is supposed to be where all the elements work together to form a greater whole. That’s why it’s called a “mix”. I still don’t like using the word “separation” when talking about mixing because it’s not about “them on its own”. Distinction is a better word. But at the end of the day - fucking hell, I’m sounding like Paul there 😆 - everything has to work together in balance and harmony and with purpose. Both of you have worked very hard for this. Hopefully 2025 will be the year where good things happen for the both of yous. Pints are still on me. Chin-chin lads =]
Guys, thank you for the great content! I hope you have an amazing year. I was wondering, would you consider mixing a song from a completely different genre-especially one you're less confident with? It would be interesting to see how you handle that challenge, and it might also be very informative. Also, I don’t recall if you’ve discussed this before, but what’s your opinion on specializing in one genre versus mixing across multiple genres?
We did make a video discussing this topic and we basically concluded that it's best to pick a lane and master it. Mix music that you are connected to and niche down. Once you've mastered your niche, then you can start exploring other avenues
Happy New Year chaps. Two great, yet different mixes. Just goes to show that different ears and musical minds have different likes/preferences when mixing. Probably the music that inspired us would influence those mix decisions ? You guys have different likes musically, all of which would have influenced your ears yeh ?
In this mix I would say our instrumental skill set were the biggest influence. Drummer vs guitarist. You can definitely tell the drummer mixer from the guitar mixer in this comparison haha
@WorkingAudioTools Yep. I remember my band's demo mixes at Riverside Studios in Glasgow, the mix engineer then (Johnny) was a drummer, and our early demos were drum leaned, if that makes sense. Bias always comes in doesnt it, in some shape or form. Mixes and Opinions, same biases. Can mix engineers truly separate their preferences from the "what the song or client really needs" ? We have to like what we mix ? or do we ?
A/B'd both mixes on my A8H's... Paul's mix, very good except for the drums which seem a bit distant, especially the snare which is lost in the mix (atmos folded?). Ed's drums are more upfront, I agree about the low mid problem, but the whole mix sounds punchier. Only criticism is that the tambourine is a bit too loud and as a result got a bit distracting. Well done both of you. 😎
Both mixes sound nice! As far as I can remember Paul mentioned something about too much low frequencies in the snare in Ed´s mix, and I could hear that very clearly on my iPad Pro 12.9" (5th gen) where it took a lot of focus. Was not as easy to hear that on my iLoud MTM mk2´s (calibrated) or my Neumann kh120ii + kh750 setup (MA1 calibrated). (Btw. I´m in a acoustically untreated room) I can also understand what Ed means that Pauls mix sounds wet. Could it have something to do with the type of compression used on the guitars that helps creates this feeling together with the overall reverb used? I agree that you guys can meet in the middle of both of your mixes from being a tiny touch too wet and a tiny touch too dry, but overall, great job guys!
Happy 2025 guys! Both mixes sound great. I like the b.v.'s in Ed's mix. The bass in Paul's mix is so well controlled! If Ed's mix sounds a little dry, Paul's mix just a touch too wet for the genre. Personally I don't like too much tonality of the snare (Ed) and the vocal ss's sound too artificial in the chorus (Paul) (original mix?). It's all subtle guys. Very impressive! Cheers
We were able to find the original released mix after we uploaded the video to UA-cam as tunecore has claimed full monetisation on this video ua-cam.com/video/47s5EDuRHP0/v-deo.htmlsi=Wo4XanUosZXZ8RgP That's the released version
@WorkingAudioTools I have loaded all 3 mixes into Expose 2. Below 350 Hz your mixes are up to 3 dB quieter than the commercial master. Above 450 hz your mixes are around 2 dB louder. Up to 650 Hz Paul's mix has around 2.5 dB more side signal compared to Ed's.
Being completely honest. Myself and Ed aren't the biggest fan of the commercial master. Has very poor mono compatibility & too much low end to our preference. I would say mine and Ed's mix are subjectively better than the released master. Completely subjective but just our viewpoint
listening to the released version it has a lot more lower octave than both your mixes (which I do prefer as it gives a heavier vibe), the vocal processing is also darker and this helps to focus it in front of the mix where i feel both your mixes have the vocal blended to fit the guitars rather than guitars blended to fit the vocal. Paul's panned guitar sounds and balance/width I much prefer though over the original. Ed's snare is pretty spot on I think its the main elements around it not punching through enough for me (kick, bass+vocal). everyhting else i feel is just preference and not really a problem.
Over all I like both mixes but each mix has things that I like more like… pauls vocals sounds more radio ready but the guitars are a little process heavy and Ed’s guitars sound natural and correct for the style of the music but the snare had a bit too much thud and it seemed a little behind the beat just a bit But I learned from this experiment and I’m glad you guys did this because the listener got to hear the same tracks mixed by two different mixers and two different studios both had good eq and compression and balance so it came down to the taste and choices of the mixers thanks Ed and Paul because one day I hope to be where you guys are at in your careers
@ You did for me because I’m not going to school to be an engineer so I have to gather information from the internet and I’m thankful that guys like you are willing to share your knowledge
Good work guys - both mixes are good. I don't like the amount of bottom on the snare in the released version on Spotify - too much for me; Ed's mix incorporates those lows but fits in the mix much better. I do prefer Ed's vocal mix over Paul's - the amount of saturation on the lead seems too much and the level of the double too high at times. I'd really like you guys to time box each mix - i.e. decide on the max amount of time to spend on a specific mix up front.
to me both sound great, Ed's sounds more "country" though where that bit of musicality is replaced with more technical goodness from Paul in terms of clarity, probably from the more overall forwardness as Ed mentioned creating the more sharply defined space. good stuff fellas
Paul MIX thoughts: I think Paul's main issue derives from psychological factors. It feels like he mixes with a fear of sounding bad-something that often happens when relying too heavily on headphones, leading to excessive cutting of frequencies that might sound problematic. Overworking low mids and lows. I used to do this a lot. Musicians with less mixing experience often influenced me, offering non-technical opinions, but in terms of musical perspective was great, which is the essence at the end. Or the songwriter or the composer himself that might not have such a technical knowledge on sound design, etc. It’s always interesting to hear how people perceive musical balance-it can be a valuable mixing lesson for all of us as engineers. Overworking is our biggest enemy. The goal should be to pursue musical intention and emotion. I learned this by working on speakers and focusing on the relationships between instruments, vocals, roles, feelings, moods, and adjectives. The intention should be to choose what you want to highlight, rather than simply removing what you don’t like. Many of us tend to focus too much on frequencies and lose sight of the bigger musical picture. Paul has a lot of mixing techniques up his sleeve, but I feel he overworks things. I used to have this problem as well, and I can totally feel how difficult it is to surpass it. Sometimes, the key is to focus on the music itself and the feelings it evokes, leave from the perfect listening position, trick yourself, try to have other people hearing the track next to you, to feel how they feel while listening. Having too many options with headphones and speakers can also distort our perception. Ideally, I think we should mix 70-80% of the time on one pair of our favorite fullrange speakers, with another 10-20% on a midrange reference speaker pair, and only occasionally check on headphones for clicks or pops, or small details but less than 10% of our time. Headphones often lead us to focus on specific frequencies rather than the overall musical result and feelings. Loosing the big picture. Sharing my personal opinion with all the best intention
Appreciate the feedback but a little concerned as nobody else has made that comment so far. Overall the response has been that it's very well balanced and it looks to have translated pretty well. It's a pretty simple mix tbh. Sounds like you have your own theory about how I mixed it but I didn't mix it the way you think I did. Less critical details, more big picture stuff
@WorkingAudioTools My conclusion came from comparing it with Ed's mix. I noticed it immediately and felt it was an important point since I often hear this in Paul's mixes. It's just my opinion-don’t take it negatively. I hope it sparks some ideas. I prefer not to read other comments, as I don’t think it adds to what I can offer. Here’s a subjective example to clarify: In Ed's mix, the drums are upfront. Even though they stand out, you can't say it's an unbalanced mix. Because it adds something intentional to the mix. It feels like a deliberate choice. In my view, mixing isn’t just about ticking boxes or making everything perfectly balanced-it’s about conveying emotion and transmitting it to the auditioner. I felt this with Ed's mix.
Generally impressed by both. In the first mix, the reverb stuck out too much throughout. Also in the choruses I was hearing too much bg/doubling vocals in the left speaker particularly the sibiliance, so maybe more de-essing, high shelf, or handle the haas treatment differently on that. In the 2nd mix, I would have rather heard more density from the bass/guitar combo so maybe you took out too much of the "mud" frequencies like 300-600hz? I didn't have a problem with the bassy snare. It gave it character and made it sounds 80s, like Def Leppard, though you could have brought the 150hz down a couple db and it still would have been groovy. Overall I liked the density/richness of the first mix, and the clarity/upfrontness of the 2nd mix. Cheers.
I'm a guitarist too to be fair, but I think Ed's mix absolutely needed more rock attitude. (Paul's too so please don't think I'm just dogging you Ed) Right from the start it's too soft. That intro needs big rock guitars with that thick bass little lick in the intro that go back and let the vocals shine enough. But they just weren't quite there. Then when she starts singing with some attitude again have them guitars rocking again. To be fair though there also isn't as much gain on the guitar/bass tracks as I would like. The tele tones need to be fatter and gritter. I know they need to fit in the mix eq wise and you want everything to sound really nice and well rounded. But you have to allow the guitars have that high frequency grit/twang from the distortion. When the guitars clean up a little and lay back I feel like the bass tone could use more grit to help the bass stick out and help with the groove. I guess that's a taste thing but to me I think that would fit the song well.
It's a hard thing to balance, especially as the vocal has to take center stage. That 2-3k region where the guitars have a lot energy but is in direct conflict with the vocal. In a battle of mix conflict, to an extent something has to win and something has to lose. For me, when dealing with a solo artist, the aggression has to come from the recording. If it's not there then you are artificially making it aggressive with eq or compression which may make you come across as a "harsh" mixer if it wasn't as aggressive in the rough. On the leads I took a gamble and I'm pretty sure I added in the arturia sansamp just to give them more bite. Or I added it to whatever felt a bit soft to me. The issue is that the energy in these guitars comes a lot from that 2-3k area which if overcooked can start becoming fatiguing on midrangey speakers like smart phones or laptops. It also clashes with the vocal which for a mix like this, can't really happen as it's gotta be out front. Maybe I played it a bit safe with the 2-3k but to my ears I pushed it as far as I could translation wise. AC/DC is a band where the guitars are just as important as the vocal so they can mask the upper mids of the vocal and it's accepted but after listening to the released version of Roses, it's a classic "vocal up" mix so that AC/DC approach wouldn't have worked. Maybe I could've backed off on the guitar bus compression or maybe added in a heavy la3a parallel for more energy but at that point I'm over thinking the guitars and that's when it's easy to lose perspective. I think a lot of this is more artist dependent. If it's pop punk or a heavy rock band where the guitars are super important then you adjust based on their preference but I think this specific mix was more about finding a pop balance where everything could have it's place without compromising the lead vocal
Reverb seems to be hard to get right for me and from these mixes it's good to see it's a prefence thing as well. You should get the guys from Studio Life on for a chat.
my subjective opinion , although I like Paul more as a UA-cam personality Ed's mix "hits" 'better' although the vocals were 'better' "highlighted" in Paul's mix (even when disregarding the BGV's)... is my opinion... edit: spelling :(
The track is "Roses" by Christiana Alaire, released by MAD Records in September 2024.
Thanks. Yeh, we found it when UA-cam gave us a copyright strike for using the song 🤣 Credit and link is in the description.
Dang Ed that snare!💪Pauls guitars. vocal efx *chefs kiss*. Love this style of video, the discussion of the choices... the why behind the moves... great stuff
Glad you enjoyed it!
I kind of liked both mixes for different reasons, Paul's seemed 'bigger' but not as clear as Ed's, as is often the case with these things when you have more going on. Both mixes felt like there was too much low-mid body on the snare except for the quiet section, i guess this is down to the original recording but I found this really distracting - I felt it needed a little bit of thinning out. For reference this was on ADI-2 DAC and PSI A17. Both are great mixes though, well done!
Thanks for your feedback.
Yeap, for me, Ed's Drums & Bass, with Paul's Guitars and Stereo field use in general
Happy 2025!
HNY
Happy New Year legends! Both mixes were great! Paul’s mix sounds radio ready, little too wet in some sections but the use of effects is smart and tasteful! Ed’s mix is also awesome, love how fat you got the natural snare without samples but still sounds consistent!
Just a thought, I know the chapters is probably a pain in the ass to do on here but for the mix offs it would be good to have chapters for the mixes to easily a/b
Keep up the good shit love your content!
To be honest, in the mix comparisons we purposely don’t do this because we want people to listen to our comments rather than just skip to the tracks. A) because that’s the point of the podcast - sharing our experience, and B) because from a UA-cam audience retention POV, people skipping tot entrants will F’ our AVD stats and therefore video performance.
Happy new year, the mixes are back! The progress you guys have made is insane. 2 great mixes but Paul's is next level, less really is more. I agree with the reverb, in the verse the lack of reverb makes it sound a little too sparse and the vocals not embedded in the mix. Wet meant depth to my ears
Thanks for the feedback and happy new year!
I listened on my Bose QC Ultras and both mixes sounded good on them. Any criticism would be purely preference. You both did a good job.
Music to our ears!
Two nice mixes. I listened on computer speakers and some cheap monitors in a room I know well. I agree (or rather I can hear what you are describing) with pretty much all the feedback you gave each other, but I would like to make special praise for the Ed's vocal tone and the way that his drums sounded *more* like a whole drum kit on both computer and monitors (just a bit loud in the balance for me). Shout out to Paul for enhancing the groove (this soft rock song has a cool sway / groove to it) by making the guitars sizzle more (this is where the energy lies in this instance). On my monitors, Paul's sounded more groovy and energetic and more like a record, but also a bit sterile and OTT on higher mids / top end, and it didn't translate to laptop speakers as well. Where as Ed's sounded like it translated more consistently. As a guitar player, I have a very 'made to be broken' rule: I believe vocals, drums and bass are more important than guitars. For rock, I am looking for the guitars to add energy, which is where Paul did really well here. If there is lead work (there is lovely lead work in this song) I want it to be enunciated clearly (as per generic convention) and I think that neither of you managed that your mixes ... it felt like these parts were swallowed up when the production arrangement was asking for something else. Cheers, Richey
Thanks for your feedback
Just to see the brakeable rule, as a guitarist, I kove the chance to make guitars loud as fuck. You need good tone and playing and arrangements. Bands need to be more like AC/DC basically. Fucking tremendous tones fron golden era gibson and gretsch and Marshall heads and cabs set right, then arrangements like Walk All Over You where the vocals come between riffs and then most of all killer playing with huge transients on Malcolms clean settings with as thick strings as having a wound G string; that means it never farts out and allows massive dynamics. The groove in those hands only add to the groova and the typical syncapation with the 4x4 drums is all that is AC/DC.
So because of all these circumstances, Walk All Over You has so loud guitars with that defined grit to the guitars, it's hard to think any guitars ever got better than that. Layering is the prime enemy of this opportunity to crank, but genres as well, and playing that takes away from the groove if it gets too loud. I'd say Paul worked it all out well and explained the issue.
However, I agree woth another comment to embrace the rocking potential of the song. The playing and tones in the song is such a far cry from that massive transient Malcolm Young thing that it's hard to make loud guitars work, for example but I think both Ed and Paul could make this a little more rocking. Grab and enhance more aggression that is there if you want to take it. But it's more of genre aim more than anything. I don't enjoy this soft aim, and I wouldn't collaborate with people from that soft realm.
I basically would try to convince them to say "hey fuck listen to how massive Somebody To Love by Queen is! That's not hi-fi for scared little 11yo girls. But I bet they don't get put off by it.". It's aggressive emphasis in all performances, but the production is hot. Wide chugging guitars and especially the solo with great room micing, is, really loud on that, btw.
@MrACangusyoungDC It's a hard thing to balance, especially as the vocal has to take center stage. That 2-3k region where the guitars have a lot energy but is in direct conflict with the vocal.
In a battle of mix conflict, to an extent something has to win and something has to lose.
For me, when dealing with a solo artist, the aggression has to come from the recording. If it's not there then you are artificially making it aggressive with eq or compression which may make you come across as a "harsh" mixer if it wasn't as aggressive in the rough.
On the leads I took a gamble and I'm pretty sure I added in the arturia sansamp just to give them more bite. Or I added it to whatever felt a bit soft to me.
The issue is that the energy in these guitars comes a lot from that 2-3k area which if overcooked can start becoming fatiguing on midrangey speakers like smart phones or laptops. It also clashes with the vocal which for a mix like this, can't really happen as it's gotta be out front.
Maybe I played it a bit safe with the 2-3k but to my ears I pushed it as far as I could translation wise.
AC/DC is a band where the guitars are just as important as the vocal so they can mask the upper mids of the vocal and it's accepted but after listening to the released version of Roses, it's a classic "vocal up" mix so that AC/DC approach wouldn't have worked.
Maybe I could've backed off on the guitar bus compression or maybe added in a heavy la3a parallel for more energy but at that point I'm over thinking the guitars and that's when it's easy to lose perspective.
I think a lot of this is more artist dependent. If it's pop punk or a heavy rock band where the guitars are super important then you adjust based on their preference but I think this specific mix was more about finding a pop balance where everything could have it's place without compromising the lead vocal
@WorkingAudioTools yes, I totally get it. Or we all understand it, perhaps.
And after thinking more, again, the guitars can't become all that more rocking, so I think the Paul mix has everything right on guitars except maybe for some tiny movements or automation, without knowing the track myself. But then there's something about the drums and percussion that is a bit straight and round. There's no stick attack on the hihat and such. It can't become something like Ain't It Fun by Paramore, that is a good reference for punchy pop rock, but the balance or whatever of Ed made it best in that aspect. Though I'd wish for less clean and boomy snare, overall.
Again, the half-way Paul/Ed thing, maybe.
But I can mention that the best thing l've come across, via Puremix Fab Dupont, regarding samples, is using UVI drum replacement. It tracks hits perfectly and creates a live midi feed with velocity where you then can load old virtual drum instruments inside the plugin. A drum plugin such as that has close and OH and room mic balance where you can crank the room. The control of all this and knowing the sounds is great. The velocity tracking of the UVI and interplay with the drum plugin also makes it less samply. It's perfect if you have virtual drums and know them, like I know 6 kits of XLN AdD2, and feel I would add a great amount of the Blue Oyster Bonham gunshot PAH!
@MrACangusyoungDC think SPL drum replacer I use does a similar thing. Seems to follow a lot of the dynamics
It's great to hear you guys back on the Mix comparisons again. A really enjoyable listen.
My back-seat-driver opinion? I loved both for different reasons...
Paul's mix - I loved it. As you guys discussed already, the high-end was a little too pearcing, for my ears anyway. The guitar treatment was excellent, and I'd have liked to see some of the bass runs given a bit more prominence for added groove. Some of the drums could be louder, for the same reason ;)
Ed's mix - I loved most of it, especially the drums, the calmed-down vocals, and the allowance for call/response bass lines against the guitars, for a great groove. What I didn’t like - my goodness, the finger squeeking on the guitar strings; those were really distracting and could've been dampened down a good bit. The tambourine; I only noticed it as distracting later on, near the tail end of the song, but I felt that was too loud. Loved it otherwise; especially capturing the groove so well.
Thanks for your feedback
Happy new year guys!
HNY!
Ive had this guitar issue, I pan two guitar 100% Left and right, then send them to a bus. EQ the tone, then DIMENSION-D, Studio D Chorus or Waves S1 Imager any of the 3 will work to widen or pull in sides, C4 only for the low end (90HZ to about 250HZ to control palm mutes if needed) and maybe high pass 80HZ on the sides.. This trick has helped me tuck and widen the guitars to fit the mix, Commonly used in Rock and Metal.
Thanks for the tip
You guys should run mix competitions to get more viewers
They’re a LOT of work neither of us can be bothered doing for basically no benefit to us (if I’m being honest).
Where do we get the multitracks guys?
They came with signing up for a 3-day live stream mix-off/mastering tutorial collaboration with SSL and Mastering.com. Mastering.com may have the files still available.
I thought both were solid mixes and I was listening to them in my car at a fairly loud volume. My taste would have had those vocals on “bridge verse” between chorus down just a teensy bit to make the chorus punch a bit more on either of them. But honestly, it was definitely solid and subject to further tweaking by both you and the artist.
Mixing *is* about the whole picture. This is supposed to be where all the elements work together to form a greater whole. That’s why it’s called a “mix”. I still don’t like using the word “separation” when talking about mixing because it’s not about “them on its own”. Distinction is a better word. But at the end of the day - fucking hell, I’m sounding like Paul there 😆 - everything has to work together in balance and harmony and with purpose.
Both of you have worked very hard for this. Hopefully 2025 will be the year where good things happen for the both of yous.
Pints are still on me. Chin-chin lads =]
Appreciate it Derek!
Guys, thank you for the great content! I hope you have an amazing year.
I was wondering, would you consider mixing a song from a completely different genre-especially one you're less confident with? It would be interesting to see how you handle that challenge, and it might also be very informative.
Also, I don’t recall if you’ve discussed this before, but what’s your opinion on specializing in one genre versus mixing across multiple genres?
We did make a video discussing this topic and we basically concluded that it's best to pick a lane and master it. Mix music that you are connected to and niche down.
Once you've mastered your niche, then you can start exploring other avenues
Where can we get these multitracks?
They were for a free live mix workshop SSL and Mastering.com held a while ago.
Paul, what made you choose to make soundstage decisions on the Sonys over the Hifiman HE1000s?
Had to do most of this mix away from the studio. I use Sony's when I'm mixing portable as I'm not going to risk any damage to the HE's
@WorkingAudioTools Fair enough! Thanks for the reply and great mixes
Happy New Year chaps. Two great, yet different mixes. Just goes to show that different ears and musical minds have different likes/preferences when mixing. Probably the music that inspired us would influence those mix decisions ? You guys have different likes musically, all of which would have influenced your ears yeh ?
In this mix I would say our instrumental skill set were the biggest influence. Drummer vs guitarist. You can definitely tell the drummer mixer from the guitar mixer in this comparison haha
@WorkingAudioTools Yep. I remember my band's demo mixes at Riverside Studios in Glasgow, the mix engineer then (Johnny) was a drummer, and our early demos were drum leaned, if that makes sense. Bias always comes in doesnt it, in some shape or form. Mixes and Opinions, same biases. Can mix engineers truly separate their preferences from the "what the song or client really needs" ? We have to like what we mix ? or do we ?
A/B'd both mixes on my A8H's... Paul's mix, very good except for the drums which seem a bit distant, especially the snare which is lost in the mix (atmos folded?). Ed's drums are more upfront, I agree about the low mid problem, but the whole mix sounds punchier. Only criticism is that the tambourine is a bit too loud and as a result got a bit distracting. Well done both of you. 😎
Thanks for your feedback. 🤘
Both mixes sound nice! As far as I can remember Paul mentioned something about too much low frequencies in the snare in Ed´s mix, and I could hear that very clearly on my iPad Pro 12.9" (5th gen) where it took a lot of focus. Was not as easy to hear that on my iLoud MTM mk2´s (calibrated) or my Neumann kh120ii + kh750 setup (MA1 calibrated). (Btw. I´m in a acoustically untreated room)
I can also understand what Ed means that Pauls mix sounds wet. Could it have something to do with the type of compression used on the guitars that helps creates this feeling together with the overall reverb used?
I agree that you guys can meet in the middle of both of your mixes from being a tiny touch too wet and a tiny touch too dry, but overall, great job guys!
Thanks for your feedback
Happy 2025 guys! Both mixes sound great. I like the b.v.'s in Ed's mix. The bass in Paul's mix is so well controlled! If Ed's mix sounds a little dry, Paul's mix just a touch too wet for the genre. Personally I don't like too much tonality of the snare (Ed) and the vocal ss's sound too artificial in the chorus (Paul) (original mix?). It's all subtle guys. Very impressive! Cheers
Thanks for the feedback and happy new year!
We were able to find the original released mix after we uploaded the video to UA-cam as tunecore has claimed full monetisation on this video
ua-cam.com/video/47s5EDuRHP0/v-deo.htmlsi=Wo4XanUosZXZ8RgP
That's the released version
@WorkingAudioTools I have loaded all 3 mixes into Expose 2. Below 350 Hz your mixes are up to 3 dB quieter than the commercial master. Above 450 hz your mixes are around 2 dB louder. Up to 650 Hz Paul's mix has around 2.5 dB more side signal compared to Ed's.
Being completely honest. Myself and Ed aren't the biggest fan of the commercial master. Has very poor mono compatibility & too much low end to our preference.
I would say mine and Ed's mix are subjectively better than the released master. Completely subjective but just our viewpoint
@WorkingAudioTools I agree. I don't prefer the official master neither. Maybe 1 dB more bass on your mixes ;)
listening to the released version it has a lot more lower octave than both your mixes (which I do prefer as it gives a heavier vibe), the vocal processing is also darker and this helps to focus it in front of the mix where i feel both your mixes have the vocal blended to fit the guitars rather than guitars blended to fit the vocal. Paul's panned guitar sounds and balance/width I much prefer though over the original. Ed's snare is pretty spot on I think its the main elements around it not punching through enough for me (kick, bass+vocal). everyhting else i feel is just preference and not really a problem.
Thanks for your feedback
Over all I like both mixes but each mix has things that I like more like… pauls vocals sounds more radio ready but the guitars are a little process heavy and Ed’s guitars sound natural and correct for the style of the music but the snare had a bit too much thud and it seemed a little behind the beat just a bit
But I learned from this experiment and I’m glad you guys did this because the listener got to hear the same tracks mixed by two different mixers and two different studios both had good eq and compression and balance so it came down to the taste and choices of the mixers thanks Ed and Paul because one day I hope to be where you guys are at in your careers
Appreciate the kind words 🙏 We do this to hopefully inspire others so glad we achieved that with this video!
@
You did for me because I’m not going to school to be an engineer so I have to gather information from the internet and I’m thankful that guys like you are willing to share your knowledge
Good work guys - both mixes are good. I don't like the amount of bottom on the snare in the released version on Spotify - too much for me; Ed's mix incorporates those lows but fits in the mix much better. I do prefer Ed's vocal mix over Paul's - the amount of saturation on the lead seems too much and the level of the double too high at times. I'd really like you guys to time box each mix - i.e. decide on the max amount of time to spend on a specific mix up front.
Yeh, we could do a timed mix challenge in the future for sure.
to me both sound great, Ed's sounds more "country" though where that bit of musicality is replaced with more technical goodness from Paul in terms of clarity, probably from the more overall forwardness as Ed mentioned creating the more sharply defined space. good stuff fellas
Thanks for the feedback
Paul MIX thoughts:
I think Paul's main issue derives from psychological factors. It feels like he mixes with a fear of sounding bad-something that often happens when relying too heavily on headphones, leading to excessive cutting of frequencies that might sound problematic. Overworking low mids and lows. I used to do this a lot. Musicians with less mixing experience often influenced me, offering non-technical opinions, but in terms of musical perspective was great, which is the essence at the end. Or the songwriter or the composer himself that might not have such a technical knowledge on sound design, etc. It’s always interesting to hear how people perceive musical balance-it can be a valuable mixing lesson for all of us as engineers. Overworking is our biggest enemy.
The goal should be to pursue musical intention and emotion. I learned this by working on speakers and focusing on the relationships between instruments, vocals, roles, feelings, moods, and adjectives. The intention should be to choose what you want to highlight, rather than simply removing what you don’t like. Many of us tend to focus too much on frequencies and lose sight of the bigger musical picture.
Paul has a lot of mixing techniques up his sleeve, but I feel he overworks things. I used to have this problem as well, and I can totally feel how difficult it is to surpass it. Sometimes, the key is to focus on the music itself and the feelings it evokes, leave from the perfect listening position, trick yourself, try to have other people hearing the track next to you, to feel how they feel while listening.
Having too many options with headphones and speakers can also distort our perception. Ideally, I think we should mix 70-80% of the time on one pair of our favorite fullrange speakers, with another 10-20% on a midrange reference speaker pair, and only occasionally check on headphones for clicks or pops, or small details but less than 10% of our time. Headphones often lead us to focus on specific frequencies rather than the overall musical result and feelings.
Loosing the big picture.
Sharing my personal opinion with all the best intention
Appreciate the feedback but a little concerned as nobody else has made that comment so far. Overall the response has been that it's very well balanced and it looks to have translated pretty well. It's a pretty simple mix tbh. Sounds like you have your own theory about how I mixed it but I didn't mix it the way you think I did.
Less critical details, more big picture stuff
@WorkingAudioTools My conclusion came from comparing it with Ed's mix. I noticed it immediately and felt it was an important point since I often hear this in Paul's mixes. It's just my opinion-don’t take it negatively. I hope it sparks some ideas. I prefer not to read other comments, as I don’t think it adds to what I can offer.
Here’s a subjective example to clarify: In Ed's mix, the drums are upfront. Even though they stand out, you can't say it's an unbalanced mix. Because it adds something intentional to the mix. It feels like a deliberate choice. In my view, mixing isn’t just about ticking boxes or making everything perfectly balanced-it’s about conveying emotion and transmitting it to the auditioner. I felt this with Ed's mix.
Thanks, Ilias.
Generally impressed by both. In the first mix, the reverb stuck out too much throughout. Also in the choruses I was hearing too much bg/doubling vocals in the left speaker particularly the sibiliance, so maybe more de-essing, high shelf, or handle the haas treatment differently on that. In the 2nd mix, I would have rather heard more density from the bass/guitar combo so maybe you took out too much of the "mud" frequencies like 300-600hz? I didn't have a problem with the bassy snare. It gave it character and made it sounds 80s, like Def Leppard, though you could have brought the 150hz down a couple db and it still would have been groovy. Overall I liked the density/richness of the first mix, and the clarity/upfrontness of the 2nd mix. Cheers.
Thanks for your feedback
I'm a guitarist too to be fair, but I think Ed's mix absolutely needed more rock attitude. (Paul's too so please don't think I'm just dogging you Ed) Right from the start it's too soft. That intro needs big rock guitars with that thick bass little lick in the intro that go back and let the vocals shine enough. But they just weren't quite there. Then when she starts singing with some attitude again have them guitars rocking again. To be fair though there also isn't as much gain on the guitar/bass tracks as I would like. The tele tones need to be fatter and gritter. I know they need to fit in the mix eq wise and you want everything to sound really nice and well rounded. But you have to allow the guitars have that high frequency grit/twang from the distortion. When the guitars clean up a little and lay back I feel like the bass tone could use more grit to help the bass stick out and help with the groove.
I guess that's a taste thing but to me I think that would fit the song well.
It's a hard thing to balance, especially as the vocal has to take center stage. That 2-3k region where the guitars have a lot energy but is in direct conflict with the vocal.
In a battle of mix conflict, to an extent something has to win and something has to lose.
For me, when dealing with a solo artist, the aggression has to come from the recording. If it's not there then you are artificially making it aggressive with eq or compression which may make you come across as a "harsh" mixer if it wasn't as aggressive in the rough.
On the leads I took a gamble and I'm pretty sure I added in the arturia sansamp just to give them more bite. Or I added it to whatever felt a bit soft to me.
The issue is that the energy in these guitars comes a lot from that 2-3k area which if overcooked can start becoming fatiguing on midrangey speakers like smart phones or laptops. It also clashes with the vocal which for a mix like this, can't really happen as it's gotta be out front.
Maybe I played it a bit safe with the 2-3k but to my ears I pushed it as far as I could translation wise.
AC/DC is a band where the guitars are just as important as the vocal so they can mask the upper mids of the vocal and it's accepted but after listening to the released version of Roses, it's a classic "vocal up" mix so that AC/DC approach wouldn't have worked.
Maybe I could've backed off on the guitar bus compression or maybe added in a heavy la3a parallel for more energy but at that point I'm over thinking the guitars and that's when it's easy to lose perspective.
I think a lot of this is more artist dependent. If it's pop punk or a heavy rock band where the guitars are super important then you adjust based on their preference but I think this specific mix was more about finding a pop balance where everything could have it's place without compromising the lead vocal
Reverb seems to be hard to get right for me and from these mixes it's good to see it's a prefence thing as well. You should get the guys from Studio Life on for a chat.
When it's down to small margins like this. Let the artist decide
@WorkingAudioTools sadly I'm the so called artist too but it's fun.
No notification today ….
🤷♂️
my subjective opinion , although I like Paul more as a UA-cam personality Ed's mix "hits" 'better' although the vocals were 'better' "highlighted" in Paul's mix (even when disregarding the BGV's)... is my opinion...
edit: spelling :(
Thanks for your feedback