This is my favorite kind of audio production video. Not the direct comparison or specific structure, but the fact that you present us with these samples and allow us to experience and process it for ourselves. You're not telling us to do this or don't do that, but more so check this out see what you can learn from it. I really appreciate that. I think my big take away is that when I compare one of my mixes to others I'll think "oh this was too bright" or "oh this was too boomy" or boxy or whatever. Sometimes this is true but sometimes thats just part of the character of the mix. For me it was refreshing to see that your mixes aren't identical, and the results of the mastering aren't identical either. It's okay if mixes have differences. The point is to learn from the mastering and make the mixes to the best of your ability. This is going to help me with confidence and speed in my future mixes. Not because you taught me a new way to eq snare but because you've expanded my understanding of mixing. Great vid, thanks Jordan.
Favorite part was at 11:17 - applying the mindset of a mastering engineer to your mixes so that you have greater control of the final product. Really cool stuff!
I think this is an excellent example of how great mixes make great masters. Your mixes were already excellent, and the master just pushed over the edge. Really cool to hear!
Honest opinion: What they used to call mastering was an art form. It used to be for not just fine adjustments but also to bring more 'air' and subtleties of the music closer to the listening experience, producing a much clearer result. Nowadays mastering is basically brickwalling so the tiny little smartphone amplifiers can pretend to sound good. I can hear an enormous difference between your original mixes and the mastered versions. Widely apparent reduction of some higher frequencies which automatically raise the perception of lower-mid frequencies being louder. An also clear reduction of the dynamic range of your original mix - something I don't like - and the major damage done in my opinion is on the clarity of the snare snap you've worked so hard to achieve. Gone. It really depends on the person who is mastering -- in my opinion it takes years to become good at it, and back in the 1990s some of the best quality big-name / big-label artists spent big money in hiring mastering engineers who had deep knowledge of the BASICS of sound. I'm not saying it sounds horrible at all, I just think the examples shown did a disservice to the valuable "clarity" that was once present, in the name of having a sound wave that looks like a square tip sharpie line on screen. While I completely understand why this needs to be done nowadays, I still don't agree with it - after all it should be all about the music, shouldn't it? And btw I highly appreciate your channel, I've learned a lot here 👍
"[...] clear reduction of the dynamic range of your original mix" Special thanks for that to Rick Rubin and CLA for being on top of the loundess war (and ofc to Dan Worrall for winning it*). Seriously though, as you mentioned, it is ofc intertwined with mastering mainly for phone speakers/earpods/car stereos. * if you don't know the video I am referencing, it's quite entertaining: ua-cam.com/video/s_ANEQu5Lto/v-deo.html
snare snap gone. wow, I was just typing this same thing 20 seconds ago after comparing the master to the mix and yes, if they compress those transients too much, it's of course going to lose the punch. And yes, they get addicted to just limiting the poo out of it so it can... compete. Seems gone are days when a recording actually SOUNDS like a real band. I thought the mix actually sounded pretty good if the vocal had just a tad more body to it in that first song.
You must have only listed to the first track. It's mastered for the sound of the track. The second song had more highs and snare snap after the master than before. Same as the older song he showed. It depends on the song mostly.
@@CallMeSmigl that definitely pushed it forward but it started much earlier than that. Nirvana's Nevermind album used drum samples to help keep the drum volume up. This was in 1990 so long before Rick Rubin got popular. Also Rap/Hip Hop and other styles of music used mainly pushed the limits further because electronic instruments don't have near the dynamic range that recording live instruments does. Also you have to understand modern music fills the entire spectrum where as older recordings lost most all of the deep sub bass and crisp highs in the final mix. Also speakers in general sound very different than older speakers. I own speakers for many different decades. The newer the speakers the deeper the bass and so they make music to fit what it's played on that is true.
On the first mix, I like the added low mids and also, when A/B-ing the mix & master, I like that they smoothed out some of the 3-5k harshness in the guitars.
This was really interesting -- seeing your first hand honest reaction and listening to the differences. The first song -- I personally think the mastering engineer was too heavy handed and I didn't like it as much as the original/non-mastered version, but like you said, they didn't ruin the drums. The others were closer to the original mix. Good stuff Jordan.
I would have preferred something in between. The raw mix was a bit too scooped for my taste, the master a bit too "wooly" sounding. But both sound still great, in my opinion.
@@mrcoatsworth429 Understood -- but, if the band agreed that the original/unmastered mix sounded good to them I feel the mastering should keep it in that ballpark. I agree the midrange and lowend could have been filled out a bit more -- but just a touch.
Definitely agree. The mastering engineer nuked the upper mids which took away the clarity of the vocals and guitars. Upper mids did need to be tamed with that mix, but not as much as they were.
Might be cause I'm watching on the phone, but here the master sounds much more open and intelligible, more dense as well. The original mix feels very closed up and congested in comparison, but that might change a lot on other devices
In that first example, I felt like the mastering engineer added a bit too much low mids to your mix. In either case, still a very interesting comparison!
This was a great video Jordan. Very informative as always. I used to try and do everything myself....and it sounded like it. LOL . Always better to get a second set of ears on it. Thank you
i much prefer the emery master over the first mix. easier on my ears. the 2-5k region is a little more fatiguing on the mix version. however i do prefer the cymbals more in your mix. i also like the better low end and the increase in oomph in the master. you still did an absolutely incredible job though, and i am always a huge fan of your mixes!! seems like your mix was perfect for a good mastering job. as auras, i kinda like them both! they both have good qualities that the other changes a little. i think i like the high end refinement in the master, but i don't think your warmer mix is bad in any way. i think it's just preference. and you're right, it's more of a classic sounding mastering treatment. the intervals master is good too, and so is your mix. i have been increasingly more concerned about drum transients when i master. thank god for the Pro-L!! you can really tweak that stuff. i have made the mistake of negatively impacting drum transients in my master for the sake of loudness and now i am really focusing on that. i like a loud master too! i am not squeamish about dynamics processing, as long as nothing is getting ruined. people get really afraid of loudness. sometimes clients of mine will like what i do, and then they'll import things into their DAW and do some metering and THEN decide that it's too dynamically impacted. i think the idea of loudness bothers people a lot more than the actual sound of it.
Oh wow, I was literally just struggling with this exact topic. As a beginner it's always hard to tell how much the mix should do and how much the master should do so I'm excited to check this out.
Thanks so much for this video! Very insightful. The topic of loudness on the master has always been a bit tedious. It’s great that you analyzed them near the end 👍 I don’t understand why there are guidelines calling for -14 dB LUFS when it seems nobody wants to follow them. I turn off normalization on streaming platforms and it seems most of my reference tracks hover around -7 dB to -6 dB. WAY louder. But I guess, who actually drives the speed limit, right? 🤷♂️
The point is mastering isn't about trying to "guess" what the artist is going for, but serving the music and the intent. In other words, taste plays a role but communication can be as important as any processing (and knowing what *not* to do in mastering).
Great video, it's not often we get to compare before/after mastering. Some of them I liked better after mastering, like the one that was "darker" -- but as a general rule I don't understand why everything has to be so loud/squashed. I believe it would all be better listening with more dynamic range. Loud mixes are so fatiguing, but the market demands loud even though it's technically worse.
We opened for Emery in Hawaii earlier this year. Solid dudes, put on a hell of a show. I got annihilated in that pit. Thanks for putting out these videos brotha!!!
I think the mastering engineer from the first track has put the mix through a band selective compression, which acts as a compressor and dynamic EQ at the same time. The mastering exempted the transients to preserve them from getting lost during the limiting stage, and that's why guitars and midrange sounds smashed while the bottom end pops.
I'm struggling right now cause I've learnt a lot about mixing thanks to Jordan's advice but I want to master my songs by myself to get to the final product and I'm quite lost...I'd love Jordan to help us a little bit with this, even if he is not a master engineer I'm sure his advice would be aweesome.
A month ago, I mixed a song for a band. Then they sent it to mastering to a some random guy. When they received the master, they contacted me to listen it because for them, it sounded worse. I did A/B comparison like here and noticed the mastering guy cut the low end below 100Hz and cut between 1KH to 5KHz, so it sounded to crispy, with no body and very squashed. At the end, the band paid the guy but they are not using his track, and they are reaching now another and more experienced Master Engineer.
Thankyou for sharing this. I've been hoping to get some reference mixes, pre mastering, for reality checks. I feel like alot of people are referencing against heavily processed masters and a skewed target.
Bummed on the first master, ngl. Emery is literally my favorite band but I feel like the mastering engineer kinda beat it up and made the guitars less clear and articulate.
Really Cool vid. To me your mixes sound #better than the master every single time. But you have a great attitude abt it + I'm not familiar with the songs. I may have a bias for the mixing process as well. Thank you ! Great vid !
Thanks for doing this video JV! And thanks for comparing at matched volume too. I've found the exact same thing working with a separate mastering engineer. They normally have a gut instinct to do something that I've become blind to during mixing.
Personally, I think they went a touch TOO far in upping the low mids in that first song. I would have liked to hear it w/o that much say split the difference and do 50% cuz on my Adam A5X monitors, it sounds juust a wee bit muddy. It's good but it sounds like too much and it also seems to have lowered the vocal relationally to the music which may be no big deal. Just sounds like they upped the low mids and limited it some. I mean, maybe multiband compressed it but it just sounds too dark for me. Your mix sounds a bit too scooped by comparison so I think they did okay. If I had to choose one to listen to all day, I'd prob go with the fatter one. I still think they went too far on that. Wonder if they did it to try and compensate for the vocals sounding a little tinny also? Also, listening volume makes a difference because to get a slamming drum, you sometimes need to turn DOWN the bass and guitar and I think the snap of the drums is actually lost in the mastered one. What do I know? Interesting vid, though!
In the first track, I somehow hear the master as dull and lacks clarity due to its "warmth". Also the vocals were pushed down to the bottom of the mix. I like mixes that sound more open and not overly cushioned by limiters.
What was track 3? I’d like to hear more of their material 👊🍻 great vid… first master didn’t sound great compared to the mix imo… the 2nd and 3rd tracks much better
In the first song they killed the drums transients and punch... your mix sounds better despite the fact that should be a bit darker, but not so far as the master is actually.
@@BrofUJu agree, that's why I mix/master at once my own stuff, as some few metal producers do (such as Jacob Hansen for instance) even if the balance/eq I get is not always the most perfect and smoothest one.
I know this is subjective, but without a limiter on your master bus, what is your volume usually peaking at? I think I am mixing too quiet even though some say levels don't matter that much.
Do people really master using individual tracks? That sounds like mixing to me. I've only ever thought mastering engineers would accept the stereo mix. Am I wrong? Honest question. Not being a smartass.
@@brandoncooke6564 there is a thing called "stem mastering". Stems aren't the same as multitracks (like individual snare, overhead or bass DI tracks). Stems are basically completely mixed parts, like the complete drum track or all guitars as one track. So stem mastering is basically mastering from ~5 tracks. I don't think it's that common, however, I have seen studios offering stem mastering.
thanx for sharing this. are your mixes bounced with limiter on (like what you listen to when mixing) or without (like the bounce which matering guy gets?
I agree with user cm2. What you folks call "mastering" sounds like over-modulated mud through a pocket transistor radio. And I know it's not entirely the engineers' fault: ignorant artists, producers, and labels want their next track to be the loudest yet, but that's not how things work. Case in point: When "My Heart Will Go On" from Titanic returns a higher integrated LUFS number than a track off of AC/DC's "High Voltage", something's wrong.
all the comments say too much low mid has lousy reference speakers, i like all three but the last one has less ear fatigue, if i want loud i just raise my volume!!!
Two things: 1. I've noticed some of your tracks are kind of hot before mastering. Is that a common thing or is it better to leave a lot of headroom? What's your philosophy on this? 2. I have tried a little bit to master my own tracks through clipping and limiting. I get them to a great place and throw a loudness meter on them and it says they are peaking at like -2 which is the standard for most streaming sites. However, when I upload to like a loudness penalty site it always says that my tracks are gonna be drastically turned down. Do you maybe know what that is? Is my loudness meter lying to me? I am confused.
I do leave some headroom... I'll usually print the final mix around -14 to -12db RMS... then the mastering engineer will take it up another couple DB. regarding the streaming stuff, i have no idea... i don't do mastering so I've never looked into all of that. All I know is that the mastering guys I use are still making the stuff LOUD. The peak value isn't really important if streaming sites are adjusting for that... it's the average loudness that matters, and i think that to compete today, it still needs to be pretty loud.
Yea I get that mastering engineers are good at adjusting tonality, but do you really have to murder the transients to get that effect? Can we please go back to the days of watching UV meters bounce instead of them being pinned at -1 dBFS all the time?
You often say you put compressor and slate mastering FGX on your mix bus then send it for mastering. Just my opinion but you should put nothing on your mix bus, that should be done in mastering process. Try sending your mastering engineer one without nothing on your mix bus. Let the master glue thr mix or you will have compression on top in compression and saturation on top of saturation. Just try it
While you, of course, can do this, I would HIGHLY suggest that you allow a different set of ears to help either mix it or master it. No matter how long it has been since you last listened, they're still your ears. You can't hear what you couldn't hear.
hm, i miss the freshness from the mix in the Master. There's more Bass, but i miss depth, Clarity and the overall feeling from the Mix,also transients don't feel natural .. imho..
The first song: Im listening on samsung Pro Buds (just to give this a normal listernerw experience. And your original mix sounded much better then the master. The master cut the shine and volume on your vocals. The punch of the drums (mostly snare) was clipped making it lose it's punch and high mid slaps. I think rock n roll should evolve and therefore i feel the emphasis of the low end was appreciated, but not fully. Its still a rock song. Not heavy 808 trap/rap song. 2nd song: The classic works. If you got a great mix, it simply needs to be dynamically treated in bits.
Most of the mixes sound way better while most of the masters in this case are just loud with no quality or dynamics left at all just a wall of mush. But that seems to be the norm with this loudness war mentality seen so often today, which I wish would just end already, get back to dynamic classic mastering with fine brush strokes which make the mix sound even better as should be, not worse with this over compressed limited mess they call mastered today. You can tell just by the wave form which one will sound better. Loud Does Not Mean Better.
Wow I'm only 2:30 in and I can wholeheartedly say your mix sounds WAY better than the mastered version. The mastered version sounds kinda muddy and there's too much low mid buildup going on. Your mix version sounds cleaner and clearer to me
First track: the mixed version sounds better than the mastered. I'd sent it back if I was the band. Mastered versions looks like a brick. Master Engineer: Dynamic? Nah, who needs it? Forget it. The louder the better.
That's just how it is. It's not the mastering engineers who keep making tracks louder and louder. It's the clients. Generally, louder sounds better to people. A mastering engineer won't tell a client to piss off because they like a loud track. Also don't look at wave forms, dude. Judge it with your ears.
Coming at it from an audiophile perspective, all the masters sound immediately worse than the mixes. Brick walls have their place in the mixing process of individual tracks or stems, but cramming a full mix into one only gives you more distortion, pumping of the majority of the mix, and a screwed up soundstage. And with modern streaming services normalizing audio based on perceived loudness instead of peak level, all that brick wall loudness only gets your audio penalized and turned down by the streamer. Ironically it's the audio with wider dynamic range that is allowed to play louder peaks on streaming services.
your mixes were awesome, all the 'mastering' squeeze just money from the process. no value added. especially the first song muddy 'master' lol it is a ripoff. home studio master.
This is my favorite kind of audio production video. Not the direct comparison or specific structure, but the fact that you present us with these samples and allow us to experience and process it for ourselves. You're not telling us to do this or don't do that, but more so check this out see what you can learn from it. I really appreciate that. I think my big take away is that when I compare one of my mixes to others I'll think "oh this was too bright" or "oh this was too boomy" or boxy or whatever. Sometimes this is true but sometimes thats just part of the character of the mix. For me it was refreshing to see that your mixes aren't identical, and the results of the mastering aren't identical either. It's okay if mixes have differences. The point is to learn from the mastering and make the mixes to the best of your ability. This is going to help me with confidence and speed in my future mixes. Not because you taught me a new way to eq snare but because you've expanded my understanding of mixing. Great vid, thanks Jordan.
Favorite part was at 11:17 - applying the mindset of a mastering engineer to your mixes so that you have greater control of the final product. Really cool stuff!
I think this is an excellent example of how great mixes make great masters. Your mixes were already excellent, and the master just pushed over the edge. Really cool to hear!
Honest opinion: What they used to call mastering was an art form. It used to be for not just fine adjustments but also to bring more 'air' and subtleties of the music closer to the listening experience, producing a much clearer result. Nowadays mastering is basically brickwalling so the tiny little smartphone amplifiers can pretend to sound good. I can hear an enormous difference between your original mixes and the mastered versions. Widely apparent reduction of some higher frequencies which automatically raise the perception of lower-mid frequencies being louder. An also clear reduction of the dynamic range of your original mix - something I don't like - and the major damage done in my opinion is on the clarity of the snare snap you've worked so hard to achieve. Gone. It really depends on the person who is mastering -- in my opinion it takes years to become good at it, and back in the 1990s some of the best quality big-name / big-label artists spent big money in hiring mastering engineers who had deep knowledge of the BASICS of sound. I'm not saying it sounds horrible at all, I just think the examples shown did a disservice to the valuable "clarity" that was once present, in the name of having a sound wave that looks like a square tip sharpie line on screen. While I completely understand why this needs to be done nowadays, I still don't agree with it - after all it should be all about the music, shouldn't it? And btw I highly appreciate your channel, I've learned a lot here 👍
"[...] clear reduction of the dynamic range of your original mix"
Special thanks for that to Rick Rubin and CLA for being on top of the loundess war (and ofc to Dan Worrall for winning it*).
Seriously though, as you mentioned, it is ofc intertwined with mastering mainly for phone speakers/earpods/car stereos.
* if you don't know the video I am referencing, it's quite entertaining: ua-cam.com/video/s_ANEQu5Lto/v-deo.html
snare snap gone. wow, I was just typing this same thing 20 seconds ago after comparing the master to the mix and yes, if they compress those transients too much, it's of course going to lose the punch. And yes, they get addicted to just limiting the poo out of it so it can... compete. Seems gone are days when a recording actually SOUNDS like a real band. I thought the mix actually sounded pretty good if the vocal had just a tad more body to it in that first song.
You must have only listed to the first track. It's mastered for the sound of the track. The second song had more highs and snare snap after the master than before. Same as the older song he showed. It depends on the song mostly.
@davidmarles9409 been a while so maybe I'm wrong.
@@CallMeSmigl that definitely pushed it forward but it started much earlier than that. Nirvana's Nevermind album used drum samples to help keep the drum volume up. This was in 1990 so long before Rick Rubin got popular. Also Rap/Hip Hop and other styles of music used mainly pushed the limits further because electronic instruments don't have near the dynamic range that recording live instruments does. Also you have to understand modern music fills the entire spectrum where as older recordings lost most all of the deep sub bass and crisp highs in the final mix. Also speakers in general sound very different than older speakers. I own speakers for many different decades. The newer the speakers the deeper the bass and so they make music to fit what it's played on that is true.
On the first mix, I like the added low mids and also, when A/B-ing the mix & master, I like that they smoothed out some of the 3-5k harshness in the guitars.
That intervals mix and master were my favorite. Powerful with a lot clarity.
You are a prooooo!!!! You show everything yo do and that is something that is so unique. Love to learn from you!
This was really interesting -- seeing your first hand honest reaction and listening to the differences. The first song -- I personally think the mastering engineer was too heavy handed and I didn't like it as much as the original/non-mastered version, but like you said, they didn't ruin the drums. The others were closer to the original mix. Good stuff Jordan.
I would have preferred something in between. The raw mix was a bit too scooped for my taste, the master a bit too "wooly" sounding. But both sound still great, in my opinion.
@@mrcoatsworth429 Understood -- but, if the band agreed that the original/unmastered mix sounded good to them I feel the mastering should keep it in that ballpark. I agree the midrange and lowend could have been filled out a bit more -- but just a touch.
Definitely agree. The mastering engineer nuked the upper mids which took away the clarity of the vocals and guitars. Upper mids did need to be tamed with that mix, but not as much as they were.
i agree. to ears the first mix sounded better compared to the Master. The Engineer went too ham on that one
Might be cause I'm watching on the phone, but here the master sounds much more open and intelligible, more dense as well. The original mix feels very closed up and congested in comparison, but that might change a lot on other devices
I appreciate you shining some light on that. Definitely helpful.
In that first example, I felt like the mastering engineer added a bit too much low mids to your mix. In either case, still a very interesting comparison!
Agreed. Maybe somewhere in between the two would have been nice? It was, for me, a little muddy in the master.
Very interesting! Thank you for showing this comparison Jordan.
This was a great video Jordan. Very informative as always. I used to try and do everything myself....and it sounded like it. LOL . Always better to get a second set of ears on it. Thank you
i much prefer the emery master over the first mix. easier on my ears. the 2-5k region is a little more fatiguing on the mix version. however i do prefer the cymbals more in your mix. i also like the better low end and the increase in oomph in the master. you still did an absolutely incredible job though, and i am always a huge fan of your mixes!! seems like your mix was perfect for a good mastering job.
as auras, i kinda like them both! they both have good qualities that the other changes a little. i think i like the high end refinement in the master, but i don't think your warmer mix is bad in any way. i think it's just preference. and you're right, it's more of a classic sounding mastering treatment.
the intervals master is good too, and so is your mix. i have been increasingly more concerned about drum transients when i master. thank god for the Pro-L!! you can really tweak that stuff. i have made the mistake of negatively impacting drum transients in my master for the sake of loudness and now i am really focusing on that.
i like a loud master too! i am not squeamish about dynamics processing, as long as nothing is getting ruined. people get really afraid of loudness. sometimes clients of mine will like what i do, and then they'll import things into their DAW and do some metering and THEN decide that it's too dynamically impacted. i think the idea of loudness bothers people a lot more than the actual sound of it.
Oh wow, I was literally just struggling with this exact topic. As a beginner it's always hard to tell how much the mix should do and how much the master should do so I'm excited to check this out.
Interesting. I liked your original mix better for the first track. But for the second track, I liked the master better.
Thanks so much for this video! Very insightful. The topic of loudness on the master has always been a bit tedious. It’s great that you analyzed them near the end 👍 I don’t understand why there are guidelines calling for -14 dB LUFS when it seems nobody wants to follow them. I turn off normalization on streaming platforms and it seems most of my reference tracks hover around -7 dB to -6 dB. WAY louder. But I guess, who actually drives the speed limit, right? 🤷♂️
The point is mastering isn't about trying to "guess" what the artist is going for, but serving the music and the intent. In other words, taste plays a role but communication can be as important as any processing (and knowing what *not* to do in mastering).
Great video, it's not often we get to compare before/after mastering. Some of them I liked better after mastering, like the one that was "darker" -- but as a general rule I don't understand why everything has to be so loud/squashed. I believe it would all be better listening with more dynamic range. Loud mixes are so fatiguing, but the market demands loud even though it's technically worse.
☛ Grab your FREE mixing cheatsheet and get on my list for the best audio training on the web: hardcoremusicstudio.com/mixcheatsheet
Spot on with the drums! Surpringsly many pro master engineers fail to place the drums in the correct spot in the mix.
We opened for Emery in Hawaii earlier this year. Solid dudes, put on a hell of a show. I got annihilated in that pit. Thanks for putting out these videos brotha!!!
you're nailing it. powerful pressure waves, i appreciate the lesson.
I think the mastering engineer from the first track has put the mix through a band selective compression, which acts as a compressor and dynamic EQ at the same time. The mastering exempted the transients to preserve them from getting lost during the limiting stage, and that's why guitars and midrange sounds smashed while the bottom end pops.
I'm struggling right now cause I've learnt a lot about mixing thanks to Jordan's advice but I want to master my songs by myself to get to the final product and I'm quite lost...I'd love Jordan to help us a little bit with this, even if he is not a master engineer I'm sure his advice would be aweesome.
A month ago, I mixed a song for a band. Then they sent it to mastering to a some random guy. When they received the master, they contacted me to listen it because for them, it sounded worse. I did A/B comparison like here and noticed the mastering guy cut the low end below 100Hz and cut between 1KH to 5KHz, so it sounded to crispy, with no body and very squashed. At the end, the band paid the guy but they are not using his track, and they are reaching now another and more experienced Master Engineer.
Thankyou for sharing this. I've been hoping to get some reference mixes, pre mastering, for reality checks. I feel like alot of people are referencing against heavily processed masters and a skewed target.
I feel the main difference is that the masters have more energy than the mixes.
Bummed on the first master, ngl. Emery is literally my favorite band but I feel like the mastering engineer kinda beat it up and made the guitars less clear and articulate.
Really Cool vid. To me your mixes sound #better than the master every single time. But you have a great attitude abt it + I'm not familiar with the songs. I may have a bias for the mixing process as well. Thank you ! Great vid !
Thanks for doing this video JV! And thanks for comparing at matched volume too. I've found the exact same thing working with a separate mastering engineer. They normally have a gut instinct to do something that I've become blind to during mixing.
Personally, I think they went a touch TOO far in upping the low mids in that first song. I would have liked to hear it w/o that much say split the difference and do 50% cuz on my Adam A5X monitors, it sounds juust a wee bit muddy. It's good but it sounds like too much and it also seems to have lowered the vocal relationally to the music which may be no big deal. Just sounds like they upped the low mids and limited it some. I mean, maybe multiband compressed it but it just sounds too dark for me. Your mix sounds a bit too scooped by comparison so I think they did okay. If I had to choose one to listen to all day, I'd prob go with the fatter one. I still think they went too far on that. Wonder if they did it to try and compensate for the vocals sounding a little tinny also? Also, listening volume makes a difference because to get a slamming drum, you sometimes need to turn DOWN the bass and guitar and I think the snap of the drums is actually lost in the mastered one. What do I know? Interesting vid, though!
Great…
The mix is better than the master. But the old saying goes "If you have a good mix, you don't need a master..."
2:00 I prefer the original mix better than the mastered track, but that's just me.
I prefer the master the mix has a pretty harsh resonance around the 3k region
Interesting. Some heavy notch filtering reduction in that first song in the master. That 3/4 KHZ range.
Thank you, really helpful just to hear them ABed like this.
By the way I love that intervals song. I would have never noticed the snare. It sounded like being in room with the drummer??
I love that album by Auras!
The Master is way better. Whoever mastered this did a great job. Good comparison :)
Thank you man that was awesome. All of it is..
In the first track, I somehow hear the master as dull and lacks clarity due to its "warmth". Also the vocals were pushed down to the bottom of the mix. I like mixes that sound more open and not overly cushioned by limiters.
Mixes are much better than the masters
Thank you for sharing this! I learned a lot - again! =)
Wow!!!! Very instructive video!!!! Thank you!!!
What was track 3? I’d like to hear more of their material 👊🍻 great vid… first master didn’t sound great compared to the mix imo… the 2nd and 3rd tracks much better
Nice info. I thought the first master actually did mash the snare into the mix, and also it could have been a little brighter.
Solo mode X-OR might be better for this type of comparison in the future!
In the first song they killed the drums transients and punch... your mix sounds better despite the fact that should be a bit darker, but not so far as the master is actually.
Sadly happens with a lot of metal now I find. Even some of the Periphery and Monuments stuff is absolutely slammed into the limiter.
@@BrofUJu agree, that's why I mix/master at once my own stuff, as some few metal producers do (such as Jacob Hansen for instance) even if the balance/eq I get is not always the most perfect and smoothest one.
I know this is subjective, but without a limiter on your master bus, what is your volume usually peaking at? I think I am mixing too quiet even though some say levels don't matter that much.
I actually felt the orginal mix sounded better than the mastered version. More clarity and not so muddy.
Were these examples mastered by using just a stereo-mixdown, or were they mastered by using stems of the different instruments/vocals?
Just a stereo mix.
Do people really master using individual tracks? That sounds like mixing to me. I've only ever thought mastering engineers would accept the stereo mix. Am I wrong? Honest question. Not being a smartass.
@@brandoncooke6564 there is a thing called "stem mastering". Stems aren't the same as multitracks (like individual snare, overhead or bass DI tracks). Stems are basically completely mixed parts, like the complete drum track or all guitars as one track. So stem mastering is basically mastering from ~5 tracks. I don't think it's that common, however, I have seen studios offering stem mastering.
Great stuff.
Most mind blowing thing is u mixed for intervals. Thats hype af
One of his former students mixed the latest Intervals record.
@@mrcoatsworth429 dude double hype
Can we have your mix of Emery?!!!!
Can someone please let me know who mastered "Binary Garden?"
Imho the first master basically ruined the great mix. I really wonder how they did those decisions.
thanx for sharing this. are your mixes bounced with limiter on (like what you listen to when mixing) or without (like the bounce which matering guy gets?
these are all the exact mixers I sent to the mastering engineers
I agree with user cm2. What you folks call "mastering" sounds like over-modulated mud through a pocket transistor radio. And I know it's not entirely the engineers' fault: ignorant artists, producers, and labels want their next track to be the loudest yet, but that's not how things work.
Case in point: When "My Heart Will Go On" from Titanic returns a higher integrated LUFS number than a track off of AC/DC's "High Voltage", something's wrong.
Good video 👍
Comment dropped! Nice video.
Fun content!
all the comments say too much low mid has lousy reference speakers, i like all three but the last one has less ear fatigue, if i want loud i just raise my volume!!!
Two things:
1. I've noticed some of your tracks are kind of hot before mastering. Is that a common thing or is it better to leave a lot of headroom? What's your philosophy on this?
2. I have tried a little bit to master my own tracks through clipping and limiting. I get them to a great place and throw a loudness meter on them and it says they are peaking at like -2 which is the standard for most streaming sites. However, when I upload to like a loudness penalty site it always says that my tracks are gonna be drastically turned down. Do you maybe know what that is? Is my loudness meter lying to me? I am confused.
I do leave some headroom... I'll usually print the final mix around -14 to -12db RMS... then the mastering engineer will take it up another couple DB.
regarding the streaming stuff, i have no idea... i don't do mastering so I've never looked into all of that. All I know is that the mastering guys I use are still making the stuff LOUD. The peak value isn't really important if streaming sites are adjusting for that... it's the average loudness that matters, and i think that to compete today, it still needs to be pretty loud.
@@hardcoremusicstudio Alright, thanks for the reply your videos are super helpful! 🤘🏻
Streaming services normalise tracks to about -14db LUFS (integrated loudness) in order to make everything the same volume
spotify normalized your audio to -14db lufs but my honest advice for you is that do not care about it,if its sounds good,its good,thats all
The drums sound much better now
Yea I get that mastering engineers are good at adjusting tonality, but do you really have to murder the transients to get that effect? Can we please go back to the days of watching UV meters bounce instead of them being pinned at -1 dBFS all the time?
i prefer your emery mix over the master lol. the emery master is too muddy (granted, im listening through youtube and bose qc35)
You often say you put compressor and slate mastering FGX on your mix bus then send it for mastering. Just my opinion but you should put nothing on your mix bus, that should be done in mastering process. Try sending your mastering engineer one without nothing on your mix bus. Let the master glue thr mix or you will have compression on top in compression and saturation on top of saturation. Just try it
I've seen enough *hits subscribe
I feel like they mastering just brings out what’s missing and tames what’s obvious to the mastering dude.
I master my stuff myself and adjust my mixes accordingly so i create myself a so called feedback
While you, of course, can do this, I would HIGHLY suggest that you allow a different set of ears to help either mix it or master it. No matter how long it has been since you last listened, they're still your ears. You can't hear what you couldn't hear.
Is the big difference in volume in the room with us
hm, i miss the freshness from the mix in the Master. There's more Bass, but i miss depth, Clarity and the overall feeling from the Mix,also transients don't feel natural .. imho..
The first song:
Im listening on samsung Pro Buds (just to give this a normal listernerw experience. And your original mix sounded much better then the master.
The master cut the shine and volume on your vocals.
The punch of the drums (mostly snare) was clipped making it lose it's punch and high mid slaps.
I think rock n roll should evolve and therefore i feel the emphasis of the low end was appreciated, but not fully. Its still a rock song. Not heavy 808 trap/rap song.
2nd song:
The classic works. If you got a great mix, it simply needs to be dynamically treated in bits.
hm.. I like the raw mix much better than the master on this one...
damn I didn't know you mixed that intervals album I listened to years ago. I always wondered who mixed that. Now I can't stand that style of music
Most of the mixes sound way better while most of the masters in this case are just loud with no quality or dynamics left at all just a wall of mush. But that seems to be the norm with this loudness war mentality seen so often today, which I wish would just end already, get back to dynamic classic mastering with fine brush strokes which make the mix sound even better as should be, not worse with this over compressed limited mess they call mastered today. You can tell just by the wave form which one will sound better. Loud Does Not Mean Better.
1st track mix is better, 2nd/3rd track master is better. very good content.
Wow I'm only 2:30 in and I can wholeheartedly say your mix sounds WAY better than the mastered version. The mastered version sounds kinda muddy and there's too much low mid buildup going on. Your mix version sounds cleaner and clearer to me
The first master is a bit rough ngl
Master for listening on car stereo and air buds... ouch
man that master really had its transients squashed . Lost 90% of the punch
Get a refund.
What do you mean?
First track: the mixed version sounds better than the mastered. I'd sent it back if I was the band. Mastered versions looks like a brick. Master Engineer: Dynamic? Nah, who needs it? Forget it. The louder the better.
That's just how it is. It's not the mastering engineers who keep making tracks louder and louder. It's the clients. Generally, louder sounds better to people. A mastering engineer won't tell a client to piss off because they like a loud track.
Also don't look at wave forms, dude. Judge it with your ears.
Coming at it from an audiophile perspective, all the masters sound immediately worse than the mixes. Brick walls have their place in the mixing process of individual tracks or stems, but cramming a full mix into one only gives you more distortion, pumping of the majority of the mix, and a screwed up soundstage. And with modern streaming services normalizing audio based on perceived loudness instead of peak level, all that brick wall loudness only gets your audio penalized and turned down by the streamer. Ironically it's the audio with wider dynamic range that is allowed to play louder peaks on streaming services.
your mixes were awesome, all the 'mastering' squeeze just money from the process. no value added. especially the first song muddy 'master' lol it is a ripoff. home studio master.