Jet B: 'Suit You' kapu mix

[kapu]

The first thing [...]

Thanks for feedback!

The treble issues I've had emerged from me starting to mix at lower listening levels, which makes me leave a bit more high end. I now have to compensate this and sometimes I forget.

I use libav and sox for similar measurements, although they give slighlty different readings. Oversampled peak values have little or no meaning unless they're way off, as they're highly depended on the decoder, and there's always some internal overhead in playback systems for this.

Spotify uses ReplayGain +6 dB for normalization, which is very close to -9 LUFS Short Term, but no peak normalization. It's ReplayGain +4.5 (-10.5 LUFS Short Term) dB for YouTube, and iTunes is very close to ReplayGain 0, but they use their own algorithm (SoundCheck) for this.

If the forum playback platform introduces some normalization, then I would propably optimize the mixes for it. Or not for following reasons.

About loudness in general. I know the benefits of higher headroom. But high headroom mixes aren't 'crank-able', meaning that the transients will 'make ear hurt' in loud listening. When delivering masters for clients, I usually make Spotify optimized version, and then loud commercial CD level, which usually ends up somewhere between -6 and -5 LUFS Short Term for loudest parts. And they practically always choose the louder version after their personal car stereo or ear buds test. This has nothing to do with loudness in comparison to others, but simply how loud they can crank it up in their personal environment. Even when they know it will suffer from stream service normalization in comparison to others. If you listen to Spotify charts, basically all contemporary pop music is still being normalized down usually 3-4 dBs, even when the benefits of more dynamic masters are now widely known, producers still choose the louder masters because of the low peak-to-rms ratio in the money making chorus makes the song more 'crank-able'. And the sad truth about stream service normalization is that it isn't there to propagate more dynamic sound material, but to make sure that the commercials bang out louder.

So my personal experience about more dynamic material is actually just the opposite. It sounds great and detailed in a controlled studio environment, but by no means does it make me want to crank it up as the transients start to 'make ear hurt'. Loud master makes me want to crank it up, as it sounds relatively uninteresting at lower listening levels, and seem to translate better with consumer playback systems.

I don't know about ruining speakers, but when I expanded my system to discrete surround I AB-compared the 15 year old main speakers to new identical ones, and couldn't hear any significant difference, and I've been cranking a lot of loud, clipped and distorted stuff through them during the years. On the other hand, I've destroyed a good minihifi set during my teens by listening more dynamic rock records from late 80s and early 90s, when the speakers main function was being the limiter. ^_^

Don't know what you mean by mix being close to pink noise, but I (and the rest of the world) use pink noise to calibrate audio systems. This leads to a situation, where audio engineered in a pink noise calibrated system will translate properly in a pink noise calibrated playback systems thus making the 'even' frequency balance close to pink noise, if the mix is dense.

There are of course a lot of issues with the mix, but I don't think they have nothing to do with the loudness. Although some are my deliberate aesthetical choises. The intro guitar is crappy for the contrast and the effect. I propably won't do any changes to this, as I kinda messed my project file while making the alternative mix.

Thanks for pointing out this loudness thing, and I'm well aware of the pros and cons of both sides. I've read the Katz book and tried the philosophy, but I just wasn't happy with the sound. Tried listening the 'great' dynamic records, and they just didn't make me 'feel it'. The LUFS values or high crest factors didn't justify the sound, that I felt was just crappy and weak. For me it's the punch and impact when listened at beer level, not the clarity or detail. This of course depends highly on the genre, and I try to aim for both, but if it comes to a choice between the two, I always go for punchy smashy squishy things. I just can't help it. ^_^

EDIT: Since May 2017 Spotify has shifted to ReplayGain +3 (close to -12 LUFS Short Term).

[mick2015]

That alternative mix is crazy, bro! haha Nice one. Sounds like a mutron bi-phase. Rock on.

[Spadaro_Music]

Cool! Like the creative approach!

[kapu]

That alternative mix [...]

Thanks! I find it somehow appealing in a twisted way, when robotic androids are singing about human things and feelings. ^_^

Cool! Like the [...]

Thanks! I kind of started with very subtle changes, but that escalated very quickly. ^_^

[braddersthemod]

I really like the alternative mix! Very creative.

[kapu]

I really like [...]

Thanks! I know it's a little ridiculous, but I hope in a good kind of postish modernish way. ^_^

[thedon]

Hi Kapu !
I'm working on this mix too listing toy your mix Sounds great ,Love the 80's snare especially how did you get that sound ?
Like Your ideas with the alternate Art full version love the keyboard hits they sound like one of my old Korg keyboards

Well Done

[kapu]

Hi Kapu ! [...]

Thanks! I replaced the original kick and snare with low tuned 80s style stock samples from Logic Pro X, and the gave them the usual 1176-smashing treatment. The synth hit sound is a generic orchestral hit from a Yamaha keyboard, but I think they're probably very similar. ^_^

[takka360]

Very distorted

[kapu]

Very distorted

Thanks! ^_^