Rosetta 800 to Mackie HR824. Gave them another listen. IMO they're still in the same order: Echo1=RMS, Echo2=C1 but maybe I'm wrong.
Anyhow here's what I hear - Echo1 sounds much flabbier in the bottom end, I wouldn't say muddy, but there's something going on in bottom end and lower mids that leans towards flabby/muddy, and the upper mids come squealing/buzzing through too much.
Echo2 sounds more refined, more like an album, the bottom end is hella tighter, and the upper mids are tucked in and balanced more, it's less gritty and buzzy, more listenable.
Compare the two tracks beginning at that pre-chorus fill at 00:49-00:59, that's where I hear a big example of what I'm talking about. The bass just 'recovers' quicker in Echo2, less flab.
Even though I'm using superalitives this is all fine tooth comb stuff, but that's my 2 cents. I would also have to ask - what are
you monitoring it on?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bang In blind tests 4 out of 5 guys in here, one being a mastering engineer, chose the RMS as the better master. |
So quick question, do you intend these mixes to be the final master, from which you go to duplication with, or are you still going to mastering with this. If you're going to bring it to mastering perhaps the less compressed one is the better choice.