Think you know what your music sounds like ? Think again...
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- Do your masters and mixes stand up against the best out there ?
If you don't use this simple strategy, you'll never know for sure...
productionadvic...
"Obvious" by Jack Nicholson & Josef Sykora
Contact: www.jacknicmusi..., joe@josefsykora.co.uk
i was with the 2nd version from the beginning...
This blew me away when you said the only difference is in level, great video!
I didn't immediately notice the difference until I did a quicker A/B and then it became much more obvious (pun intended): very subtle difference but the vocals sat better on the first version, clearer, wider, slightly more saturated. I actually laughed out loud after the reveal. A real eye opener!
Hahaha this blew my mind, felt pretentious bc on the second version I thought I noticed differences especially in eq and compression, I thought the frequencies of the guitar were being pumped much heavier, I thought the warmth was different, this is a great video thanks for what you do.
Rather compelling evidence. My immediate reactionary thought was that the first sounded fatter, bigger, better but as I listened objectively the first sounded kinda bloated and the second sounded better, clearer and more defined low end and a somewhat softer (rounder) top end. Rather remarkable what one half db can trick us into hearing. Thanks Ian, this is extremely helpful.
I had no idea Jack Nicholson did pop tunes. Wow!
This is pure amazing.
Huh - with 'Obvious' I thought the lower track sounded more dynamic. I actually thought the kick drum had more punch to it.
I guess I've trained myself to equate 'quieter' with 'more dynamic range'. Which may or may not be a good thing.
I really hear a difference, the obvious song feels exhausting to my ears and kinda harsh (high freq issue), while the katy perry song doesn't and I would start sing with it right away. ''normal people'' wouldn't hear this though, but for me it is a big difference. It kind of shocks me how many mastering engineers dont hear these details either. It got me wondering who makes these amazing masterings on radio music then ..
For those who want to do a quick A/B comparison,
1st Audio - 1:08
2nd Audio - 1:35
Those who can't hear difference save a lot money not buying fancy hi res players and headphones. They also enjoy their lives as it is without participating in a never ending chase titled "do I really hear any difference or is it just my imagination plays tricks on me".
We are most susceptible to sounds at the 3 to 4 khz range and this is the sound of a baby crying. This evolutionary trait works at low volumes. Against a wide frequency range background, we can pick out things that are important to our survival. As for the difference in frequency response of our hearing when things are louder, this is basic mechanics. We would have had to be designed and be vastly more complex to keep frequency response equal at all volumes.
Really interesting Ian. Thanks for taking the time to post, much appreciated.
I saw the difference on the meters as soon as the second one was played.
The Perry track seemed very muddy in the low end and a little muffled in the 12-14KHz area.
Excellent video Ian.... opened my eyes in a big way....
Great video, Ian. I picked up the remote and turned up the volume on the second version that you played in the beginning. Looking forward to trying out Perception. Keep up the great work!
This is such an eye opener. Even a 0.5 dB of gain reduction can make our ears to fall into that EQ delusion. When I first heard both the version, i felt the second audio was slightly softer (less than 1 dB) than the first. At the same time, I felt the first audio as brighter and punchier.
There's a lot more constant high-end in "Obvious" (almost as if the EQ version of fader creep happened), while "Teenage Dream" (though sausaged) has more rhythmic space in the track, where the strongest perceived high-end is presence/sparkle on the vocals; "Obvious" gets the low mids weakened as a result of "fizz fatigue" .
Great advice here. Will use this for sure.
this is why i like sample magic ab
Another informative lesson. Thanks!
I choose the second version, it has a lot more dynamics. And the first sounds more squashed, I'm in FM processing, and well known in loudness wars. Although you can a pretty transient and loud signal. FM dsp's have a bad reputation, my presets are made with less is more philosophy. Same for radio streams, all it gets is a dynamic eq and a limiter with a soft knee. And no more than 3 db of compression. You don't need loudness on a stream.
Thanks Ian for an excellent video!
What they do to someone like Katy Perry's (otherwise really good - listen to her acoustic stuff) voice in the name of pop/autotune/compression/loudness is a complete tragedy.
Yes the bass may be thick and wide, but immediately after the level-matching, the entire mid range sounded completely flat and 1 dimensional compared to that of Obvious (considering it also has pretty heavy processing on the vocals).
Thank you @ianshepherd!
I'm listening on a laptop and i like the second one more...weird
Very useful video!
Thank you!
Fletcher - Munson curve?... thanks Ian ...always great comparisons!!!
You blew my ass mind
I really appreicate these videos Ian, as I am learning how to properly mix my own tracks. Thank you for your knowledge!
P.S. I spy Steam, I didn't know you played!
Well done mate! Cheers
Hi. I first came across your work through another favourite you tube channel, Produce like a Pro - Warren Huart. Today, I’m looking into better home mastering my own tracks, because I simply can’t afford the services of a good Mastering Engineer. Anyhow, I started reading posts on your blog (Production Advice), then watched a couple of videos from your channel, and I have to say, it was worth the trip and the subscription. Some great advice, information and hands-on practical examples. I might have to buy your e-book/course too, if I find out how much everything costs - can’t find prices anywhere. Fine work, well explained
Thanks, glad it's helpful !
great video! you opend my eyes
thanks!
I preferred the second clip, and then I felt kinda bad when he said that the first was supposed to be the better clip.... Then I heard the explanation, and I felt much better... This is probably because I thought the music ITSELF sucked horribly, so naturally the lower the volume, the closer I'm getting to not hearing it at all... MUCH BETTER!!
Ian, nice vid!
I immediately thought "Obvious" was better than "Teenage dream" even with the level difference.
With the levels matched it's even more obvious how much better "Obvious" is.
There seems to be more clarity and more "impact" or punch. It is a bit brighter as well, although it is lacking the heaviness in the bottom.
In teenage dream it is more bottom heavy which is good but it does feel a bit dull and lacking the same impact and separation.
Teenage dream to me seems to have that recognizable over compressed sound which causes everything to sound a bit dull.
I'd say your master of "Obvious" sounds better but the energetic (mixed range) vocal from Katy makes a salable difference.
I just listened to this in today's Brainstorm/Green Needle and Yanny/Laurel world and I'm not even sure what my ears are any more.
***** You never shown us the finely finished home studio of yours after "Building a Home Mastering Studio - Part 3 - Acoustic Treatment". We want to see the first look, start-up, monitors and gears.
its not just volume that makes a difference in how a song sounds, its also the frequency content, kate perry´s song has much more midrange content, for which the bass and high freq are just the icing on the cake. Incidentally the midrange is the frequency that we hear the best and are most attuned to. Also a song that has much midrange content can be raised in volume much more. Due to the high ranges getting harsh quickly and the bass losing all cohesion. The song has to be written with this in mind though. you cant just take any song and raise the middle.
Im not talking about the volume in any case, im talking about content, what is there. Kate perrys song simply has better composers working on it.(sonically.) What notes are played, in what octave, the quality of the instrument and so on.
***** These things have great impact on volume. Keeping the simplicity, giving space, while making it sound good.
I would simply assume kate perrys team have greater experience doing this. Its a better job.
***** I have really little opinion of either song, i just meant that the kp song sounds louder and more in your face because its mid freq section sounds significantly fuller.And that would be because of how its "composed". Whether that sounds better or worse, is a matter of taste. My comment is perhaps more directed to composers and perhaps mixers than engineers. In no way was what i said a critique of your work or a comparison between you and the kp dude.
Humm, though to be clear, when i say i have little opinion of either song, its just that its really not to my taste, i do not dislike them, its just that there are too few things in them that garner my interest.
Oh, i agree with you. On the first part. The second part, depends on the song.
I think I'm getting old. I liked the lower track. :)
Thanks for your valuable tips! This seems backwards to me. I think it would have been better to level match in reverse, increase your level to the Perry song. That way if you are trying to attain her 'sound' you are comparing apples to apples. I realize you can increase the level later - adding an uneccessary step IMO. Also I noticed her meters were pushed deep into the red, some nasty artifacts could pop out in your version if you did the same. Just my thoughts. Cheers!
Thanks Ian. What is that eq display in the upper right?
Your room sounds better! :)
nice trick , but i noticed the vu meters cuz i always look at it as dynamics and level is the most important thing for compressors and gates and eqs and levels and everything ...but i didnt expect you would make a video based on that czu it makes no relevance waht so ever for a hearing test at 0.5db difference . So your video proves that im hearing well enough for a mixer , and that my room and speakers are dead on correct and good
+Ian Shepherd there is nothing in it my friend , you are nit picking ... take an SPL meter measure that , good luck cuz of background noise that fluctuates a lot more than your 0,5 db
+Ian Shepherd i dont want to get in to fight over this , its clear that instruments pick it up , but as i said i wont lie i cant hear that 0,5 db difference
I've heard difference of 0,5 dB on some cheap computer speakers, and the things i heard, ian emediatelly after described, so i guess there was something on it. Granted i thought that its a very small difference, more like a feeling. Maybe try listening it in some other environment on some other speakers of lesser quality too. Perception is a weird thing...
It's not nit-picking. I'm listening through a compressed CZcams video (as we all are) on a pair of decent (but not ultra high-end) Sennheiser headphones (HD 439) on a laptop's integrated motherboard sound (Sound Blaster Recon 3Di) and I can tell a difference. It's probably even more apparent in person without CZcams's compression and such.
***** well you tube cuts frequency's above 16khz , not sure if that is so important for Loudness testing.
Ian, hello, FYI, not sure you're familiar with the muti-track that were used for projects such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero (they were extracted and set loose to the public), but you soon find what sound quality other failed to give on CD (MANY artists were released). I'm sure Bob Katz is a AES member as well as Bob Ludwig. Ludwig, when he remastered Dire Straits (20bit Super Bitmapping), Sultans Of Swing, the lead vocals were too low, this was noticed by others at CD review. I'd like to think Katz and Ludwig take great pride in their work, but you never seem them addressing complaints at CD reviews.
Hey Ian thinking of buying this plugin, However i've noticed in these videos there is a few seconds delay when A/Bing the tracks. If I load this plugin into two channels in my DAW and quickly A/B between the two tracks will they play back instantly or will there be a few seconds pause? Thanks
I closed my eyes and in my honest opinion the first clip sounded thinner whereas when you played the bottom clip it sounded as if the drums were louder. Why is this?
That's so amazing!
Hi Ian! I already bought your plugin and is great!!!! But I don't know how to set it up to compare to different songs. Where I can go to watch a video for that?
:)
Thalaiva...
Hi Ian, great tutorial.
A question: as soon as you hit the 2nd clip i was under an imppresion that it is quieter, but also the upper mids had more presence and clarity - am i getting deaf or i dont have to worry? Is it my room even though its treated it still requires some tweaking :)
All the best.
+Ian Shepherd and you have done a marvelous job there Ian.
In my mixes i used to cheat - when new part comes in, after some time i can duck/recude volume of it to make room for next, new part. I believe its just simply beacause my and listeners brain just simply remembers the characteristics of the sound well enough, that it doesnt have to hear it as loud anymore yet still be focused on it. then rince and repeat if needed for next parts. Its just a dB or 3 but makes a lot of space in a mix for everything.
What i dont understand is that when i mix on the low levels sound appears to me in an opposite way to what you suggested - i get much more clarity on the highs (that shimmer if you will) and low is much more present. The more volume i add the more mids i get.
So far i was putting it on my monitors (Rokit 6 and Yamaha HS8) but thanks to you my mind opened again to new possibilities. The more i know the less i know as Socrates said. Isn't music just a great tool to make you improove yourself? :)
Once again - great tutorial Ian. Thank you for that.
+Konrad Unold I actually preferred the 2nd Obvious clip as I found the top end distracting
I actually think that Obvious had a kind of intrusive bass line, it warbled in my ears
The bass is nearly lost on NS10's or on my Thunderbolt monitor speakers.
The bottom one definitely sounds better, it's cleaner and seems to have more distinctive sounds.
I believe this is because the second one has the "loudness" removed from it (look up the loudness war)
You can't "remove" loudness.
Hi, Ian i must say i don't understand how you can not compare the two versions when they are not the same volume. Maybe i am listening after the "wrong" things. When i compare katy perry's track versus the other track, i can instantly hear the katy perry track feels way better produced, and to me i'm not even thinking about how "loud it is" you can just tell it is a much thicker production, a much bigger "better" lowend, depending on your preferences of course. Versus the other song which kickdrum forexample feels like a cheek kiss in comparisin (Sorry, the creator of that track!). I guess what i'm trying to say is, one could hear the weaknesses even tho the commercial track was louder, i guess what i'm trying to understand is. How this would help? Maybe it would help if one mastered his own track, and took the unmastered track leveled them the same, and heard the mastered clipped/distorted/changed it's sound for the worse. Anyway always enjoy watching your videos! :)
Can someone help me to understand on what track he put the controller on? I see the source on both of the songs (including the katy perry song) but i don't see where the controller is placed. Also, thanks Ian for providing this great knowledge!
The Controller is on the stereo output - Wavelab has a dedicated "Master" section. Glad you like the vid !
My ears must be terrible (well, I know my hearing above 11.7kHz is non-existent). Because I picked the bottom as sounding "better." Didn't seem as compressed as the top, the low end kick was cutting through without creating a disorienting pulsing with the synth. (Posted immediately after you suggested to go back and listen again)
The Katy Perry track sounded squashed (in the sense it's hitting the ceiling and trying to go further). I've always wondered by folks keep mixing to get close to the ceiling for a track and ruin some detail and integrity, as opposed to leaving it up to the end user to simply turn up their stereo or playback device.
Apologies if I took up a few posts to make my comments. Simply giving my feedback. Another great video post, Ian!
First one has more of a Stereo feel yea?
what would you use in protools to do this?
hi Ian, do you, or should I use Room Analyzer Like R.E.W. and what Level dB is best for monitoring when mixing
Forgive me in advance. But this is completely wrong! The mixes can not be compared in this way and in this case and in many other cases. Level matching is a very good way. But the way it is done here in this example are totally wrong. These mixes are to begin with completely different and 'Obvious' has not the same mid frequency as 'Teenage Dream'. One must have a vast knowledge in the field of audio to understand what's happening here. I really want to clarify that I am not for the loudness wars. I understand what the R128 is trying to tell us but when it comes to this point the purpose of it falls apart. I believe that there are dozens of thing to learn from you but this is not a way to understand loudness or become a better person or mixer.
Indeed would one like to enlighten us on what one intends and what one would suggest?
I liked numerous other examples you did, but this master does not make me happy. It might need something more in bass, not too sure, and the presence range is occasionally much too hot IMHO. Would listen to Katy Perry, would not too gladly listen to this.
i exactly felt like you did hearing the samples. I tried numerous mastering engineers and always ended up hearing weird details that the mastering engineers didn't notice. It make me wanna do my own mastering but I don't have the room/money. Looking at your comment you seem likeminded guy that knows what hes doing, could you advise me a mastering engineer where you have been very satisfied of?
How did you use the perception plugin to level match the two songs? Where did you put the Perception Source and Controller? I didn't understand the process.
And then when you hit 'balance' on the Controller it will level match the two songs?
Thanks for the reply!
Whenever music is compressed and limited to a certain degree it no longer sounds fuller, just obnoxious, like someone yelling in your ear.
I could hear the difference, and the bottom clip sounds better. If you need better sound, turn up your fucking speakers. Don't increase the gain of the audio file.
Hi Ian I'm trying to build a set of commercially released reference tracks for mastering. Apart from relatively old / classic albums, Is there any lossless format in which the tracks can be bought or do we have to rely on mp3s from Amazon or AAC from iTunes and their inevitable artifacts ? Thanks !
***** The problem with HDTracks is that most of the tracks are not available to buy in Canada :( :( :( so I guess the best option is to buy the physical cd... by the way is FLAC/ALAC the same quality as WAV/AIFF ? Thanks
Steve Galante FLAC is supposed to be lossless whereas WAV and AIFF are lossy formats.
JFMarcenaro Wav and Aiff are lossy ???
***** Oh ok, good to feel reassured :)
***** I thought they were lossy since you CAN downgrade to a lower bit-depth. Not nearly as much as a MP3, of course. Maybe my concept of "lossy" is mistaken for starters.
Enjoyed the video Ian. Happen to be struggling with my album of tunes using DSP-Quattro of recent. My issue is not so much volume comparison but tone loss when converting down to redbook from 96K 32b float. I'm bothered by the losses. Maybe Neil Young has a point. Again, I hear the clarity diff as the top one is better on your samples, I think?? Hard to tell over the Inet. Thought I would throw that in. Anyway, I have been comparing digital sound differences between the Tascam DA-3000 and my old Masterlink Alesis and I'm convinced the Alesis sounds better in the conversions especially after playback for some reason. That is until I compare a DSD file from the DA-3k. Then the the 1bit DSD format blows everything away to my ear. Unfortunately I have no mastering software currently to use it. My email is garyateirec.com and would love your comments on my notes here and any advice. Thnx, Gary Brandt Engineer/Artist 45 years.
***** For me, recording at 96 is definitely better on the Workstation Master. You know I'm talking about the mix capture. Yes, In the past I always just captured at 44.1-16 and the results were fine. It slipped right into Toast for me and I cut the CD. This time I used DSP-Quattro and 96k files and as mentioned previously. I have been unable to get the clarity this time. Your Production advise is true I think and it looks like I will now once again redo it, capturing @44.1. It's always the filtering in digital it seems that messes things up. One last question, do long CD's suffer even more for IM than shorter ones in a conversion or making a cd? This CD is 14 songs and just under an hour. Thanks for your input.
***** I know that Ian but when the conversion to red book occurs I wonder if my App is choking on something. It does not sound the same to me as a short 8 tune CD but then again I did hard drugs in the late '60s. :-)
The "Loudness war" quantified. And I must say, I think it's part mythological. Yes several DBs make a difference, but half a DB, really? I would preach dynamics to a musical crowd before volume, but then again, I'm a different genre. What works for pop might sound awful to people who actually want people to sit down and listen to a whole album without existentially wasting away in manufactured record company force.
Just look at those waves though, no dynamic at all, everything is at the same level. Horrid and tame and very much dead... And thats both of them.