22-05-2015, 12:24 PM
Matt, i just spotted your post only after i'd posted my reply to your previous....so note i'm referring to your earlier one 
the word Quality means different things to different people. there's no reason why we can't mix on a pair of computer speakers if our brain is able to make up for the errors and limitations in the box and how the final output translates. but there is a point where price and performance are relative in addressing how far away we are from hearing the mix and affecting it's translation (not forgetting the Mastering engineer has a large say in that process, of course).
our ear for hearing a mix is hindered by the totality of the listening environment. you are perhaps aware that 60 percent of what we hear isn't the characteristics of the mix itself, but the room. and i might add too, that playback SPL is a major factor in your perception of the spectral delivery. so, what SPL are you using as the basis of your subjective assessment?
and you're comments are based on listening to a crippled media - you are only hearing 20 percent of what he's mixed, and in addition, you are hearing the artifacts of what he didn't mix.
i'd argue that holding a degree in music is irrelevant in your assessment.
fully. but how about getting some fundamentals sorted first, then we can accurately deduce whether or not a new methodology is effective. my notes about acoustics refers
this feels to me that you don't understand the problems of acoustics. some rooms are impossible to treat no matter what the budget nor the mind-set of the individual. but most of us would employ the Law of Diminishing Returns...and of course, the constraints imposed by the family budget and personal income category. this will automatically impose limits, and this will manifest itself in how well we can potentially mix.
i'd agree, in essence. i think my previous post covers the issues of potential failure to achieve, and some of the reasons that get in the way regarding the mixing process.
nothing wrong with passion but you've not studied acoustics nor the science of sound nor do you understand the technical constraints imposed in the equipment and how price can affect that - nor do you understand the limits/constraints of science in it's design. this is the challenge which hinders many. Matt, and indeed Pauli also, i say this with the utmost respect.
back to the thread....
the word Quality means different things to different people. there's no reason why we can't mix on a pair of computer speakers if our brain is able to make up for the errors and limitations in the box and how the final output translates. but there is a point where price and performance are relative in addressing how far away we are from hearing the mix and affecting it's translation (not forgetting the Mastering engineer has a large say in that process, of course).
(22-05-2015, 09:59 AM)londonmatt Wrote: - I'm pretty new to mixing, but I think I have a reasonable ear (my first degree was in Music) and I thought the balance you'd achieved on this song was fundamentally sound. Sure, there are some tweaks that would make it better, but that's always the case.
our ear for hearing a mix is hindered by the totality of the listening environment. you are perhaps aware that 60 percent of what we hear isn't the characteristics of the mix itself, but the room. and i might add too, that playback SPL is a major factor in your perception of the spectral delivery. so, what SPL are you using as the basis of your subjective assessment?
and you're comments are based on listening to a crippled media - you are only hearing 20 percent of what he's mixed, and in addition, you are hearing the artifacts of what he didn't mix.
i'd argue that holding a degree in music is irrelevant in your assessment.
Quote:- If you're trying a completely new approach to mixing, why would you expect it to work perfectly first time? Like everything in life, adopting the multi-buss approach will take practice over a few songs before you can realistically assess whether it's working for you or not.
fully. but how about getting some fundamentals sorted first, then we can accurately deduce whether or not a new methodology is effective. my notes about acoustics refers
Quote:- I find the implication "you need this or that bit of gear before you can *really* mix" a bit patronising, to be honest. Who decides? Would a £200 pair of speakers do? No? £500? £1000? £2000 + £1000 on acoustic treatment? What's the (completely arbitrary) cutoff point? Not saying that better monitors wouldn't help, but knowing your monitors extremely well and constantly using reference tracks is enough to get quality results.
this feels to me that you don't understand the problems of acoustics. some rooms are impossible to treat no matter what the budget nor the mind-set of the individual. but most of us would employ the Law of Diminishing Returns...and of course, the constraints imposed by the family budget and personal income category. this will automatically impose limits, and this will manifest itself in how well we can potentially mix.
Quote:Your signature quote from Edison is classic "growth mindset", which is what has driven pretty much every pioneer in their field to achieve great things. Don't give up on that.
i'd agree, in essence. i think my previous post covers the issues of potential failure to achieve, and some of the reasons that get in the way regarding the mixing process.
Quote:(Sorry if this is a bit of a weird personal rant from a complete stranger, but having studied this in some depth I feel quite strongly about it, as you can probably tell!!)
nothing wrong with passion
but you've not studied acoustics nor the science of sound nor do you understand the technical constraints imposed in the equipment and how price can affect that - nor do you understand the limits/constraints of science in it's design. this is the challenge which hinders many. Matt, and indeed Pauli also, i say this with the utmost respect.back to the thread....
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!