17-09-2016, 12:41 PM
Okay, one doesn't absolutely necessarily have to obey the 'rules' to get things done. But audio and music production can be described as a process, and as in every process, there is good practice and bad practice.
Behind all of this is a huge amount of science dating back as far as ancient Greece. Then, based on this (constantly evolving) science, all sorts of audio production related organizations (ITU, AES, EBU etc) give recommendations (publish papers), how this science should be applied in the real world. Before this of course, the wise elders of these guilds have reqularily a fierce debate about this stuff. Like AES convention for an example. Audio engineers then adopt these recommendations into their workflows, and manufactures design and build equipment fit for these recommendations. It just kind of makes it easier for everyone, even the 'not scientists', to get the most out of their equipment and best possible quality (tech wise) with the tools available.
There is of course an ideal solution for every individual situation, but following the 'standards' gets us very close to the optimal solution to begin with. In fact (in real life) the only thing one has to do, is to decide which standard to follow, and then possibly set up room correction for monitor speakers. And modern autocalibrating digital speaker systems do even this for you. Then you can get 'creative'. Or you can get creative right away, and hope it will sound good.
Eventually I calibrated my speakers according to EBUR128, and set up room correction for nearly flat frequency response. I had to spend some money on tech stuff, like calibration microphone and SPL meter, and this felt just awful. This meant, that material at -23 LUFS-I or music peaking at -18 LUFS-S should be optimal with these settings. But for me this was too loud, and took down my speakers a few dBs. Later, I found out this recommendation is primarily for large main field monitors in big acoustically 'perfect' control rooms, and EBU recommends something like 3-6 dBs lower for near and mid field monitors in smaller rooms, and engineer should set this by ear. Just as I did. Damn, they just have everything covered. So, everything was perfect. Except almost all contemporary records sounded too sharp, or plainly just bad, to my ear, because they we're mastered to sound bright and sparkling on consumer level equipment. Once again, I had to train my ear to get used to the treble and start mixing at lower levels. Because I wanted to make mixes that sound good in the ears and systems of other people, so I could some day get paid. Still, I think commercial masters sound horrible on my system, but if my mix is feels quite all right, then they can be mastered to match that commercial frequency response. But I realize that this is a property of my system, and not fault of commercial masters, as they are made for consumer level audio equipment. I'm getting used to this, and my stuff gets better day by day in other peoples opinions in general. At least I hope so. But because I'm conforming to the sound generally accepted as good, not the other way around. And I can still enjoy those dynamic 24-bit 'HD tracks' in with my system in my own peace. Now I only use the calibration level, when I dial in initial tones for individual channels soloed, and then take the master monitor level down 6-12 dBs more for actual mixing. At this very low level it is easier for me to judge levels, panning, possible build up resonances and so on, and my ear doesn't get 'bored,' which usually leads to some weird eq solutions in my case. Although, this method tends to lead me leaving the reverbs at too high levels, as many here have given me feedback.
I don't think there is nothing wrong with going solely by ear, but I wasn't happy with my results, and starting to learn more of the tech side took me a giant leap to better direction. There are of course the stories of those legendary American hit producers and mixing engineers how just make pure gold by the ear, but after reading some books and interviews it turns out that they seem to know a lot of the pure tech stuff, or hired separate engineers to set up their systems. And having some knowledge of this stuff or a correct set up doesn't make mixes automatically great, but only gives a good starting point and saves a lot of time and trouble. As jeffd42 stated, the tracks usually need treatment to make them into a better sounding mix, even if the individual tracks sound good to begin with.
But back to the original point about Qupes tracks. Level and 'tech wise' I think they're at ok levels, and could have been recorded even a bit hotter. The tone or 'sound' of the tracks is of course subjective matter, and there are some pops and artefacts due to editing, but as mixing engineers here I think our job is to make the most out of these. And honestly, the tracks here represent very closely the real life situation. I usually get a lot, a lot, worse material than this. In real life, almost always at least some tracks have wrong names, and there might be 3 different instruments edited on the same track and so on. And some tracks are missing, and no one has heard anything of the original recording engineer in two weeks. This site teaches us to get used to too good initial material, if you ask me. And for free. ^_^
Behind all of this is a huge amount of science dating back as far as ancient Greece. Then, based on this (constantly evolving) science, all sorts of audio production related organizations (ITU, AES, EBU etc) give recommendations (publish papers), how this science should be applied in the real world. Before this of course, the wise elders of these guilds have reqularily a fierce debate about this stuff. Like AES convention for an example. Audio engineers then adopt these recommendations into their workflows, and manufactures design and build equipment fit for these recommendations. It just kind of makes it easier for everyone, even the 'not scientists', to get the most out of their equipment and best possible quality (tech wise) with the tools available.
There is of course an ideal solution for every individual situation, but following the 'standards' gets us very close to the optimal solution to begin with. In fact (in real life) the only thing one has to do, is to decide which standard to follow, and then possibly set up room correction for monitor speakers. And modern autocalibrating digital speaker systems do even this for you. Then you can get 'creative'. Or you can get creative right away, and hope it will sound good.
Eventually I calibrated my speakers according to EBUR128, and set up room correction for nearly flat frequency response. I had to spend some money on tech stuff, like calibration microphone and SPL meter, and this felt just awful. This meant, that material at -23 LUFS-I or music peaking at -18 LUFS-S should be optimal with these settings. But for me this was too loud, and took down my speakers a few dBs. Later, I found out this recommendation is primarily for large main field monitors in big acoustically 'perfect' control rooms, and EBU recommends something like 3-6 dBs lower for near and mid field monitors in smaller rooms, and engineer should set this by ear. Just as I did. Damn, they just have everything covered. So, everything was perfect. Except almost all contemporary records sounded too sharp, or plainly just bad, to my ear, because they we're mastered to sound bright and sparkling on consumer level equipment. Once again, I had to train my ear to get used to the treble and start mixing at lower levels. Because I wanted to make mixes that sound good in the ears and systems of other people, so I could some day get paid. Still, I think commercial masters sound horrible on my system, but if my mix is feels quite all right, then they can be mastered to match that commercial frequency response. But I realize that this is a property of my system, and not fault of commercial masters, as they are made for consumer level audio equipment. I'm getting used to this, and my stuff gets better day by day in other peoples opinions in general. At least I hope so. But because I'm conforming to the sound generally accepted as good, not the other way around. And I can still enjoy those dynamic 24-bit 'HD tracks' in with my system in my own peace. Now I only use the calibration level, when I dial in initial tones for individual channels soloed, and then take the master monitor level down 6-12 dBs more for actual mixing. At this very low level it is easier for me to judge levels, panning, possible build up resonances and so on, and my ear doesn't get 'bored,' which usually leads to some weird eq solutions in my case. Although, this method tends to lead me leaving the reverbs at too high levels, as many here have given me feedback.
I don't think there is nothing wrong with going solely by ear, but I wasn't happy with my results, and starting to learn more of the tech side took me a giant leap to better direction. There are of course the stories of those legendary American hit producers and mixing engineers how just make pure gold by the ear, but after reading some books and interviews it turns out that they seem to know a lot of the pure tech stuff, or hired separate engineers to set up their systems. And having some knowledge of this stuff or a correct set up doesn't make mixes automatically great, but only gives a good starting point and saves a lot of time and trouble. As jeffd42 stated, the tracks usually need treatment to make them into a better sounding mix, even if the individual tracks sound good to begin with.
But back to the original point about Qupes tracks. Level and 'tech wise' I think they're at ok levels, and could have been recorded even a bit hotter. The tone or 'sound' of the tracks is of course subjective matter, and there are some pops and artefacts due to editing, but as mixing engineers here I think our job is to make the most out of these. And honestly, the tracks here represent very closely the real life situation. I usually get a lot, a lot, worse material than this. In real life, almost always at least some tracks have wrong names, and there might be 3 different instruments edited on the same track and so on. And some tracks are missing, and no one has heard anything of the original recording engineer in two weeks. This site teaches us to get used to too good initial material, if you ask me. And for free. ^_^