Hammer Down Mix and Faux Master by Doug

[Blitzzz]

Yes, sure. Go to: http://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm#D...HammerDown and click on "MP3" in the "Full Multitrack" line and you end up here:

http://www.previews.cambridge-mt.com/Ham...review.mp3

Now click on the arrow to the right in the HTML-player. It's not the wav-File but it will do the trick.

[Max Headroom]

if your wondering what a Faux Master is, it's basically me throwing a limiter and minor multiband compression and eq on the mixdown so that it's loud enough to be played on different systems.

In other words, you're adding significantly more distortion than already exists in the mix. It simply makes life more difficult assessing the mix for what it is.

Here's my definition:

Faux = F***up lol.

Being unable to master is nothing to be ashamed about.

Why don't you simply peak normalise it to, say, -2dBFS and let us deal with the loudness by simply turning the amps up?

Actually, given the high degree of skills necessary to master, I'm frankly surprised it isn't a posting criteria that no stereo buss processing be applied. This is a mixing forum after all. It would certainly help overcome the ridiculous loudness war that folk engage in around here. And it would deal immediately with those who are gullible to falling prey to the "Loud is perceived good even when it isn't", mantra.

While I'm on the subject of assessment, why are you posting even more data reduced low quality audio material than needs be, complete with the codec's additional associated artefacts and distortions? Where's the love?

[Max Headroom]

Yes, sure. Go to: http://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm#D...HammerDown and click on "MP3" in the "Full Multitrack" line and you end up here:

http://www.previews.cambridge-mt.com/Ham...review.mp3

Now click on the arrow to the right in the HTML-player. It's not the wav-File but it will do the trick.

Thanks for getting back to me, and so swiftly, Blitzzz.

It's a 192kbps file. Are you aware of how a lossy codec deals with bass under this extreme rate of data reduction? The file is presented for preview purposes so we get the gist of the multi before downloading it. It's definitely not for reference purposes because of it's mega inferior audio quality. Anyone who uses it for reference is automatically setting their standards to a low level.

Would it be wise to base judgement on audio which has only 14% of the original material remaining?

That said, most people are sitting in a far from decent acoustic space anyway to make an informed judgement on their own mixes, let alone to critically assess the qualities in a reference sample. If you're sitting in a -36dB null at 74Hz (let's ignore the Q) and a pop of +23dB at 107Hz, the reference isn't going to be much good either! The smaller the room, the bigger the train smash. And don't get me going on the subject of headphones or I could be here all day

Perhaps some might like to have access to the 16bit PCM for reference? Posting on Bandcamp for example, with a minor charge, would help those more committed participants while helping to fund your own expenditures. Make it a 2-way street, sort of thing. Only an idea

[dcp10200]

if your wondering what a Faux Master is, it's basically me throwing a limiter and minor multiband compression and eq on the mixdown so that it's loud enough to be played on different systems.

In other words, you're adding significantly more distortion than already exists in the mix. It simply makes life more difficult assessing the mix for what it is.

Here's my definition:

Faux = F***up lol.

Being unable to master is nothing to be ashamed about.

Why don't you simply peak normalise it to, say, -2dBFS and let us deal with the loudness by simply turning the amps up?

Actually, given the high degree of skills necessary to master, I'm frankly surprised it isn't a posting criteria that no stereo buss processing be applied. This is a mixing forum after all. It would certainly help overcome the ridiculous loudness war that folk engage in around here. And it would deal immediately with those who are gullible to falling prey to the "Loud is perceived good even when it isn't", mantra.

While I'm on the subject of assessment, why are you posting even more data reduced low quality audio material than needs be, complete with the codec's additional associated artefacts and distortions? Where's the love?

Funny thing about this, I'm not actually pulling any reduction on my limiter. I can post a non master version of this if it would make you cringe less. The reason we don't post using external links is to prevent dead links and other issues from happening, here is Mike's explanation http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/misc....help&hid=9.

[dcp10200]

My non limited second mix is in the OP, also for reference this is basically what the format of my mastering chain was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZlasr3e9Q

[Roy]

Sometimes people read "Mastering" and freak out. It sounds pretty good to me and I don't hear any added distortion compared to the non mastered version. At least nothing negative.

[dcp10200]

Sometimes people read "Mastering" and freak out. It sounds pretty good to me and I don't hear any added distortion compared to the non mastered version. At least nothing negative.

I've also noticed that the people who complain about only being able to upload in MP3 are the same people that end up with low quality mixes...

[Blitzzz]

Thanks for getting back to me, and so swiftly, Blitzzz.

It's a 192kbps file. Are you aware of how a lossy codec deals with bass under this extreme rate of data reduction? The file is presented for preview purposes so we get the gist of the multi before downloading it. It's definitely not for reference purposes because of it's mega inferior audio quality. Anyone who uses it for reference is automatically setting their standards to a low level.

Would it be wise to base judgement on audio which has only 14% of the original material remaining?

That said, most people are sitting in a far from decent acoustic space anyway to make an informed judgement on their own mixes, let alone to critically assess the qualities in a reference sample. If you're sitting in a -36dB null at 74Hz (let's ignore the Q) and a pop of +23dB at 107Hz, the reference isn't going to be much good either! The smaller the room, the bigger the train smash. And don't get me going on the subject of headphones or I could be here all day

Perhaps some might like to have access to the 16bit PCM for reference? Posting on Bandcamp for example, with a minor charge, would help those more committed participants while helping to fund your own expenditures. Make it a 2-way street, sort of thing. Only an idea

Hey Maxine, I´m not running this site and I can't really change how things are delivered or stored. I could put the master up on dropbox but as Doug has already said it wouldn't be a permanent solution and therefore its probably not a good idea.

I should have written an FAQ for this song but I'm pretty busy at the moment. You can basically use any song from As daylight dies or The End of Heartache from Killswitch Engage as a reference if you want your mix to be in the right ballpark. My priority list for a mix would be:

- The vocals are the king of this song and by far the most important part - just like in 99,9% of all songs out there
- The guitars drive the song, especially the main riff. Give them enough room but get them out of the way of the vocals
- Try to bring out all the small details from the drums - there are lots of them
- The Synths are there to keep the song interesting. Give them a place in the spotlight every now and then but let the guitars and vocals be the stars
- Try to play with the stereo field and dynamics in the verse, bridge and chorus. In the original mix the verse is quite narrow and has a lower energy, while bridge and chorus have more power and are wider.

A good mixer would do all of this without me having to tell him what to do but there are lots of beginners on this site that get lost in details. Maybe this list helps someone to keep their focus

Ah, and for all the beginners out there: Don't kill the vibe of the guitars. Sure you can make your small cuts so they fit into the mix but don't kill all the mids or low mids just because a guy in a video on youtube told you that this is generally a good idea. It's not

[wesleyamltd]

SSL Master buss emulation on it rather than my usual Neve emulation.

[/quote]

Sounds legit. I find that when mixing toms you really have yo exaggerate the space to help them breathe in the stereo field. Everything sounds balanced, the LDGTR aren't overly loud, and I can hear the synths in you chorus' and everywhere else too.
I find that the Neve emulations are pretty colored and its like using a sledge hammer for putting up paintings. With this sound in particular harmonic distortion can work against you if used too liberally. I use console one for my emulations and Steven Slate what do you use?

Good Job dude.

[Jimdolorian]

Hello

Nice mix overall, loud and clear, maybe it needs a tad bit more lows or it is a bit too bright (maybe a taste thing though).

Take care !