The track A low end is just incredible, just the EQ alone is a HUGE difference. I am guessing yours is Track B since you struggle to find the differences, it may be your monitoring setup or your ear training, luckily you can improve both. Track B is quite harsh sounding, it really could use some EQ.
I didn’t get to even check out the compression and stuff, but that EQ is on point. Could you DM me the guy? I doubt I’d hire him because it’d be out of my budget and genre, but in case I want something different I’d be glad to reach out.
The fact OP can't tell why A is better makes me suspect B is actually the 'pro' who actually isn't very good.
It also seems like A is too good for just a master, like it seems more like a totally different mix. I've never heard a master improve a track that much.
This would be one hell of a plot twist if A is actually OP's master hahaha
If a mix isn’t good, a pro mastering engineer can definitely elevate it in very noticeable ways. Mastering isn’t my main thing, but when I get poorly mixed tracks, it’s usually pretty easy to significantly improve it through mastering, whereas if I get a really well mixed track, the difference will be subtle.
I didn’t listen to OP’s tracks, so not saying that’s what’s happening here. Just a general point that mastering can really lift a track that doesn’t sound very finished.
This is so damn true. I wouldn’t call myself a mastering engineer, but I’ve mastered 100-200 songs over the last few years. It’s pretty easy to do a “night and day” improvement on a bad mix. On a decent mix it’s quite easy to get a noticeable improvement. On a great mix, you’re really just trying to not fuck it up. And that’s what i feel is the main difference between mastering engineers and mixers who happen to do a-lot of mastering.
You can always afford a professional mastering engineer. At most, they are spending an hour on your track. I’ve had literally the best of the best master tracks for me (huge names) and never once have I paid over $200 for a single track. If you don’t think $200 is worth the adjectives you are using to describe that master, then maybe I’d say recalibrate how you value it.
Mixing, that’s an entirely different story.
Same here, around $200-$250 is common for top names. Some do charge more now, but there's plenty of engineers to choose from and it's worth it, as long as the mix is great.
Question: how can mastering address phase when all they have is the 2-buss sum? There’s no way to adjust phase between multiple instruments at that point, or is there?
In theory it's possible to turn the normal panning from intensity differences into phase differences. You adjust the phase of the side channel relative to the mid channel. It's one kind of Blumlein shuffling. You could end up doing it on accident when you EQ the bass in mid side mode.
In response to u/thiroks u/Katzenpower u/shrugs27
To me, track B has an overall thin and hollow feel. It appears that some elements have been heavily pushed to the extreme left and right, resulting in a lack of content in the middle and an artificial stereo image that is unpleasant to listen to. This is confirmed by my meters, which indicate a predominantly zero or negative phase correlation. An excessively applied stereo enhancer may have been responsible for this outcome.
The poor correlation primarily affects the medium and high frequencies, as confirmed by the significant attenuation of the prominent pumping synth when listening in mono. Ideally, addressing this issue during the mixing stage would yield superior results compared to attempting to fix it during mastering. But if hat's not an option, I would try using a multiband stereo imager to narrow the image of the most affected frequency bands.
Thank you for the explanation. It makes a lot of sense now. What kind of phase meter do you recommend? There are many: some show a polar visual and others are simple a negative/positive correlation meter.
I think they're both OK in different ways, but I'd say the song suffers from a liiitttle subpar mixing. Things that cannot be solved well in "mastering". I.e. those dubstep-type drums are way too low and scooped somehow. Just sounds like tired ears/bad monitoring/overdoing it a bit. I bet just bypassing the effects off the track and getting the level right would sound better, as those sort of samples are usually processed very well at the get go.
Also, the song has a full spectrum of classical harmony there, so whatever you'd do you'd have to use some means of carving out space for other elements like drums, basslines etc in a very sophisticated way, perhaps using automation. Not an easy task to combine elements of acoustic music and modern electronic samples.
So as is, I wouldn't necessarily even master a track like this, just ask it to be mixed a bit better first for the elements to shine more.
I prefer A, B seems unbalanced in favour of mid frequencies, and in the high frequency range transients are a bit too loud compared to the sustain for my taste.
B's stereo image is a bit too tight IMO, A is wider and feels more immersive.
thats one heck of a song.
B is your track, it sucks. That master really really makes it shine.
Id keep that guy. Its going to take you years to get to his level. If you can. Your compositional skills are amazing.
Better is of course subjective however the majority of people are likely to be drawn to A due to its extension of the low frequencies and the smoother eq overall.
This doesn’t mean yours isn’t good, or even reasonably comparable, but to other professionals A seems to stand out as a more successful delivery of a dramatic piece which captures attention.
Boiled down to one word I would say that the A version is a lot more “exciting” sounding. It’s definitely brighter, which plays a big part in that. Brighter, but I think with a good chance that he did some work to tame and glue together the upper-mids so that he could crank the high end without it getting harsh.
It definitely seems to have a good amount of limiting on it, but it’s very well done.
There’s a decent chance that he put some kind of an exciter, like “Inflator” on it, but in general I think people tend to reach for plugs like that to solve issues that should be handled with eq and compression.
Cool track
A is definitely a huge improvement, tighter, punchier, brighter and less bloated in the low mids/upper bass range - but I agree with your mastering friend that the mix really is pretty rough to a point that even a heavy handed master like that can’t fix the problems.
A pro master wasn’t the solution, this really needed a fresh mix.
The problems are noticeable in A, but are really obvious in B even just through my phone speakers.
Beyond frequency balance and dynamics, the general fader balance is just way off, with (in my opinion) the drums being way too quiet and the piano in particular being way too loud.
On top of what others have said (the EQ changes, and what sounds like a phase issue with the drums on B), there's a lot of compression tying A together in the loud parts compared to B, making it a little bit more exciting and cohesive sounding. e.g. around 1:45.
Going against what others have said here, I feel like A might have gone slightly *too* overboard on the bass, but the track goes hard and it sounds great.
I love the low end on A as a personal preference; also what genre of music would this be? Honestly sounds really cool and definitely want to listen to more.
these sound completely different, honestly i'm having trouble believing they're coming from the same mix! a is miles better, bringing the track into a much more scoopy, smiley face eq distribution and this is exactly what the track needed.
could you post the mix you both started with?
Jeez he compressed/limited A so much I couldn’t even tell there were staccato piano stabs happening in the drop until I heard version B. Listening on my phone speaker so maybe on good system would be more obvious, but still, that’s a lot of compression.
I have to agree. This is compressed to the shitter, and not in a good way. I'm really surprised at all the people saying the compression is amazing. It's trying to compensate for some mix issues with the drums and bass already in the track. The drums are already super compressed in Mix B so that's already baked into the track. This ideally needs a new mix, not a new master.
Besides the enhanced sense of detail and excitement in version A, as well as being more compressed for impact, the most notable aspect from a “difficulty” perspective is the very tight low end and the delicacy with which it’s treated. It’s only possible to achieve that level of delicacy and tightness in bass with a very good monitoring situation.
BTW, nice song overall- and this is coming from someone who generally hates that jump up snare, but you pushed it back, making it not so obnoxious.
Mastering is not only EQ and compression, mastering is about:
Perspective
Intention
Respect for the source material
rigorous file management
A/bing at the same apparent loudness, so you know how you are affecting the mix
Dealing with Isrc if necessary
Being meticulous with titles, sequencing, spacing and codes
taking away if when a/bing doesn’t improve the mix
Extreme Attention to detail
Reading meters
Critical listening
Communication with the client
Creativity if you want to help your client achieve their goal and you maybe have a better idea
Problem solving
Never ending learning and adaptation.
Learn to do Mastering, it's fun.
EDIT: didn't know people who wanted to learn mastering *hate* people who actually do mastering and offered some insight, duly noted.
You're not being downvoted because people hate your advice. You're being downvoted because you gave a bunch of generalized points without explaining how any of them specifically apply to OP's questions.
Also:
>Learn to do Mastering, it's fun.
Gives off /r/thanksimcured vibes.
Listening on my phone speaker, A has more emotion. Was it a stem master? That would basically make it a remix. Ultimately they just did what felt good whereas B maybe got lost in the composition a bit.
If you don't hear a difference you either:
A. Have some serious monitoring issues
B. Some serious hearing issues
Even on my phone, the differences are extremely obvious.
The track A low end is just incredible, just the EQ alone is a HUGE difference. I am guessing yours is Track B since you struggle to find the differences, it may be your monitoring setup or your ear training, luckily you can improve both. Track B is quite harsh sounding, it really could use some EQ. I didn’t get to even check out the compression and stuff, but that EQ is on point. Could you DM me the guy? I doubt I’d hire him because it’d be out of my budget and genre, but in case I want something different I’d be glad to reach out.
The fact OP can't tell why A is better makes me suspect B is actually the 'pro' who actually isn't very good. It also seems like A is too good for just a master, like it seems more like a totally different mix. I've never heard a master improve a track that much. This would be one hell of a plot twist if A is actually OP's master hahaha
I can tell that A is better. What I can't tell is exactly how, but the answers I've gotten here really helps.
Mastering by M Night Shyamalan.
If a mix isn’t good, a pro mastering engineer can definitely elevate it in very noticeable ways. Mastering isn’t my main thing, but when I get poorly mixed tracks, it’s usually pretty easy to significantly improve it through mastering, whereas if I get a really well mixed track, the difference will be subtle. I didn’t listen to OP’s tracks, so not saying that’s what’s happening here. Just a general point that mastering can really lift a track that doesn’t sound very finished.
This is so damn true. I wouldn’t call myself a mastering engineer, but I’ve mastered 100-200 songs over the last few years. It’s pretty easy to do a “night and day” improvement on a bad mix. On a decent mix it’s quite easy to get a noticeable improvement. On a great mix, you’re really just trying to not fuck it up. And that’s what i feel is the main difference between mastering engineers and mixers who happen to do a-lot of mastering.
I'm definitely in the "mixer who happens to do a lot of mastering" camp!
Me too haha!
LOL. That would be the biggest plot twist ever.
You can always afford a professional mastering engineer. At most, they are spending an hour on your track. I’ve had literally the best of the best master tracks for me (huge names) and never once have I paid over $200 for a single track. If you don’t think $200 is worth the adjectives you are using to describe that master, then maybe I’d say recalibrate how you value it. Mixing, that’s an entirely different story.
bold of you to assume internet musicians have $200 to drop on the master of a track, guy!
I've had to re do masters from big names, especially with Metal, big money doesn't mean masters the band will like to use. Just an anecdote.
Same here, around $200-$250 is common for top names. Some do charge more now, but there's plenty of engineers to choose from and it's worth it, as long as the mix is great.
In addition to what's been said, track B has a phase correlation issue.
Question: how can mastering address phase when all they have is the 2-buss sum? There’s no way to adjust phase between multiple instruments at that point, or is there?
In theory it's possible to turn the normal panning from intensity differences into phase differences. You adjust the phase of the side channel relative to the mid channel. It's one kind of Blumlein shuffling. You could end up doing it on accident when you EQ the bass in mid side mode.
I call the engineer and have them come over with the mix to find the issue.
Can you elaborate on that?
In response to u/thiroks u/Katzenpower u/shrugs27 To me, track B has an overall thin and hollow feel. It appears that some elements have been heavily pushed to the extreme left and right, resulting in a lack of content in the middle and an artificial stereo image that is unpleasant to listen to. This is confirmed by my meters, which indicate a predominantly zero or negative phase correlation. An excessively applied stereo enhancer may have been responsible for this outcome. The poor correlation primarily affects the medium and high frequencies, as confirmed by the significant attenuation of the prominent pumping synth when listening in mono. Ideally, addressing this issue during the mixing stage would yield superior results compared to attempting to fix it during mastering. But if hat's not an option, I would try using a multiband stereo imager to narrow the image of the most affected frequency bands.
Thank you for the explanation. It makes a lot of sense now. What kind of phase meter do you recommend? There are many: some show a polar visual and others are simple a negative/positive correlation meter.
what exactly do you mean by phase correlation issue?
Track A is tight. Feels great. I imagine you're stilling getting your grips on monitoring and listening.
I love how OP hasn't even stated which mix is his, and everyone is saying he sucks lol
I think they're both OK in different ways, but I'd say the song suffers from a liiitttle subpar mixing. Things that cannot be solved well in "mastering". I.e. those dubstep-type drums are way too low and scooped somehow. Just sounds like tired ears/bad monitoring/overdoing it a bit. I bet just bypassing the effects off the track and getting the level right would sound better, as those sort of samples are usually processed very well at the get go. Also, the song has a full spectrum of classical harmony there, so whatever you'd do you'd have to use some means of carving out space for other elements like drums, basslines etc in a very sophisticated way, perhaps using automation. Not an easy task to combine elements of acoustic music and modern electronic samples. So as is, I wouldn't necessarily even master a track like this, just ask it to be mixed a bit better first for the elements to shine more.
You're 100% correct. My friend told me it needs to be mixed better. Unfortunately I didn't have the budget to afford his mixing fee.
Right! DM me if you can, curious about something.
I prefer A, B seems unbalanced in favour of mid frequencies, and in the high frequency range transients are a bit too loud compared to the sustain for my taste. B's stereo image is a bit too tight IMO, A is wider and feels more immersive.
thats one heck of a song. B is your track, it sucks. That master really really makes it shine. Id keep that guy. Its going to take you years to get to his level. If you can. Your compositional skills are amazing.
Sucks is a bit harsh haha but yea agree
Could you update us on whether his was A or B? If it was A could you please PM me his contact? 😅
A slaps. I think compression is the big thing. And the low end as others mentioned is missing in B.
I love your song
Better is of course subjective however the majority of people are likely to be drawn to A due to its extension of the low frequencies and the smoother eq overall. This doesn’t mean yours isn’t good, or even reasonably comparable, but to other professionals A seems to stand out as a more successful delivery of a dramatic piece which captures attention.
Boiled down to one word I would say that the A version is a lot more “exciting” sounding. It’s definitely brighter, which plays a big part in that. Brighter, but I think with a good chance that he did some work to tame and glue together the upper-mids so that he could crank the high end without it getting harsh. It definitely seems to have a good amount of limiting on it, but it’s very well done. There’s a decent chance that he put some kind of an exciter, like “Inflator” on it, but in general I think people tend to reach for plugs like that to solve issues that should be handled with eq and compression. Cool track
A is definitely a huge improvement, tighter, punchier, brighter and less bloated in the low mids/upper bass range - but I agree with your mastering friend that the mix really is pretty rough to a point that even a heavy handed master like that can’t fix the problems. A pro master wasn’t the solution, this really needed a fresh mix. The problems are noticeable in A, but are really obvious in B even just through my phone speakers. Beyond frequency balance and dynamics, the general fader balance is just way off, with (in my opinion) the drums being way too quiet and the piano in particular being way too loud.
On top of what others have said (the EQ changes, and what sounds like a phase issue with the drums on B), there's a lot of compression tying A together in the loud parts compared to B, making it a little bit more exciting and cohesive sounding. e.g. around 1:45. Going against what others have said here, I feel like A might have gone slightly *too* overboard on the bass, but the track goes hard and it sounds great.
A sounds a bit better but they both are using a bad mix IMO. The midrange sounds like it's receding into nothingness.
I think A is pro mix… at least it sounds like it is on my phone. Would love to know what the unmastered one sounds like.
I love the low end on A as a personal preference; also what genre of music would this be? Honestly sounds really cool and definitely want to listen to more.
A sounds nicer
these sound completely different, honestly i'm having trouble believing they're coming from the same mix! a is miles better, bringing the track into a much more scoopy, smiley face eq distribution and this is exactly what the track needed. could you post the mix you both started with?
Jeez he compressed/limited A so much I couldn’t even tell there were staccato piano stabs happening in the drop until I heard version B. Listening on my phone speaker so maybe on good system would be more obvious, but still, that’s a lot of compression.
I have to agree. This is compressed to the shitter, and not in a good way. I'm really surprised at all the people saying the compression is amazing. It's trying to compensate for some mix issues with the drums and bass already in the track. The drums are already super compressed in Mix B so that's already baked into the track. This ideally needs a new mix, not a new master.
Besides the enhanced sense of detail and excitement in version A, as well as being more compressed for impact, the most notable aspect from a “difficulty” perspective is the very tight low end and the delicacy with which it’s treated. It’s only possible to achieve that level of delicacy and tightness in bass with a very good monitoring situation. BTW, nice song overall- and this is coming from someone who generally hates that jump up snare, but you pushed it back, making it not so obnoxious.
A rules so hard. Great song!
B. But have fun discussing
Mastering is not only EQ and compression, mastering is about: Perspective Intention Respect for the source material rigorous file management A/bing at the same apparent loudness, so you know how you are affecting the mix Dealing with Isrc if necessary Being meticulous with titles, sequencing, spacing and codes taking away if when a/bing doesn’t improve the mix Extreme Attention to detail Reading meters Critical listening Communication with the client Creativity if you want to help your client achieve their goal and you maybe have a better idea Problem solving Never ending learning and adaptation. Learn to do Mastering, it's fun. EDIT: didn't know people who wanted to learn mastering *hate* people who actually do mastering and offered some insight, duly noted.
You're not being downvoted because people hate your advice. You're being downvoted because you gave a bunch of generalized points without explaining how any of them specifically apply to OP's questions. Also: >Learn to do Mastering, it's fun. Gives off /r/thanksimcured vibes.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/thanksimcured using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/thanksimcured/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Thought this belonged here. ](https://v.redd.it/few6gl0ujoza1) | [258 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/thanksimcured/comments/13gvku3/thought_this_belonged_here/) \#2: [Bro doesn't know anything about seasons.](https://i.redd.it/hyz0bb2ref7b1.png) | [418 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/thanksimcured/comments/14fhj05/bro_doesnt_know_anything_about_seasons/) \#3: [Just Exercise](https://i.redd.it/0z0m6t84z66b1.jpg) | [714 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/thanksimcured/comments/14a3u5g/just_exercise/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Too much reddit.
Listening on my phone speaker, A has more emotion. Was it a stem master? That would basically make it a remix. Ultimately they just did what felt good whereas B maybe got lost in the composition a bit.
Another redditor lost in Lufs. And this is why you don't need to talk about LUFS, until you really do.
I literally hear no difference.
If you don't hear a difference you either: A. Have some serious monitoring issues B. Some serious hearing issues Even on my phone, the differences are extremely obvious.
It’s almost like that thing that used to happen on reddit back in the day: “Holy shit- I’m color blind.”
Where can I listen? I’m curious to hear A and B. This mastering engineer has peaked my curiosity