28-10-2014, 01:17 AM
(27-10-2014, 12:02 PM)Olli H Wrote: In generally I prefer mixes with more dynamic, but in this case I'm not making statements.
These are different mixes and. I'm just comparing these two mixes in the same loudness level. I listeneded again, and I think that the first mix is more coherent soundwise.
- For example in the first mix drums and bass create better pair.
- And also I like more the vox panning desiciouns in first mix.
- In second mix there's more low-end, but I think that hi-end and low-end are better pair in the first mix.
- First one has better precence of the band.
- In the second mix the vox is more floating alone in front of band.
- To me neither mixes has harsh top end.
Normally I match references with TT dynamic range meter or bx_meter, but I'm not making it to science. Instead I'm constantly listening level matched versions against my mixes. In this case I didn't bring them into DAW, but I volume mateched them by ear with QuickTIme volume slider. As I'm doing this kind of level matching all the time when I'm mixing, I feel that I'm not so easily fooled my minimalistic differences in level.
I don't listen so much radio. I listen music mainly directly from CD, and CD player's are not doing level matching. So the stupid demand for loudness is not yet over. You (Dave) gave Alan a sportman's challange to make a more dynamic version. How about responding with another challange? As you're a professional mastering engineer, you're probably very familiar with how to make things loud. Ignorant clients demand that, don't they? So, after you've done your mix-version with -14 LUFS level, how about making a loud mastered version, where you try to match Alan's loudness level and quality. I know that I won't be able to do that.
I agree I think the first mix is the best out of the two.