Producerher vs. Moosely or Analog vs. Alshihad...you decide

Jay Kahrs · 14th October 2003

Gotta read that tag with voice of some demented backwoods wrasslin or monster truck ad...

http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=9212

Discuss.

Please.

Seriously.

heinz · 14th October 2003

well, besides getting a bad link when I try to download the files...

128kb MP3 file for a fidelity comparison? Oy. What encoder was used? What were the settings? The encoding alone could destroy the top end.

seems pointless without the uncompressed versions.

Jay Kahrs · 14th October 2003

No idea about what encoders were used. Still, the differance in the mixes is really striking. His original intent was to match my analog mix by staying in PT and not leaving the box. Since his mix is so different it's not really a contest and the MP3's aren't hiding that.

I gotta work with him on getting higher rate MP3's up or sending out a few CDR's to people.

heinz · 14th October 2003

Ok I was able to get the files...

Mix 1 - sounds like rock, I like it.

Mix 2 - not tragic but top end is extra crispy and sports a narrower image. creatively fun though.

not stressing over the bit rate, just that when you guys put up your work I like to dig into the details. Given all the energy and thought that goes into a good mix, it's like drinking through a straw when I really want a beer bong.

drmad69 · 18th October 2003

#2 sounds like a de-esser was used.

The symbillance in #1 is far more pronounced, all over.

Blindly, I couldn't tell you which one was which, but #2
sounded more processed.

ttauri · 18th October 2003

I don't have a practiced ear for rock, but mix 2 would be my pick from two things: the bass on mix 1 sounds a little hollow compared to 2, and the reverb on the snare (room? or effect?) comes off more pleasing in 2.

I'd lean toward 2 being analog 'cause good bass sound's been more elusive for me in the box. But could be a matter of taste, could be that I've become used to digital, or could be a factor of time spent getting the mixes close.

Hats off to both mixers.

Peece,
T. Tauri

Jay Kahrs · 19th October 2003

Here's the new thread on PSW with Producehers finished "matched" mix.

http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=9212

29th October 2003

Mix 2 sounds a little thicker on the bottom to me but, overall they both sound great. Not the way I would have mixed them. Thank God we are all different.
What I clearly do not hear is that "mix buss issue" that is so hot now. They both sound like pros did the work.
This alone has removed the D2B from my wish list and made me realize I need the improvment not my gear.
Ears...ears...ears....
How come I keep forgetting this?
I am a true slut!

Keep up the good work guys and thatnks for the effort to do this.

DPasch

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I want to go MAC, Current Users: How did you decide between Desktop or Laptop?	EDF	Music computers	35	19th October 2011 10:53 PM
Bricasti users I/O s Digital or Analog which do you use ?	KevWind	High end	44	22nd February 2011 05:27 PM
Vovox Mic Cable vs Standard Mic Cable spoken-word test (WAV's posted) - you decide!	James Lehmann	Gear Shoot-Outs / Sound File Comparisons / Audio Tests	64	18th October 2010 05:11 PM
Summing out of a DAW into an Analog mixer. Are you using mono or stereo output busses	limey222	Music computers	10	28th August 2009 04:14 PM
On the cheap or Boutique...you decide...(i can't)	loosejaw	Music computers	5	7th January 2009 12:43 AM

14th October 2003	#2
heinz Lives for gear Joined: Mar 2003 Location: chicago Posts: 1,025	well, besides getting a bad link when I try to download the files... 128kb MP3 file for a fidelity comparison? Oy. What encoder was used? What were the settings? The encoding alone could destroy the top end. seems pointless without the uncompressed versions.

14th October 2003	#3
Jay Kahrs One with big hooves Joined: May 2002 Location: Earth, NYC metro Posts: 5,899 Thread Starter	No idea about what encoders were used. Still, the differance in the mixes is really striking. His original intent was to match my analog mix by staying in PT and not leaving the box. Since his mix is so different it's not really a contest and the MP3's aren't hiding that. I gotta work with him on getting higher rate MP3's up or sending out a few CDR's to people.

18th October 2003	#5
drmad69 Gear maniac Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 261	#2 sounds like a de-esser was used. The symbillance in #1 is far more pronounced, all over. Blindly, I couldn't tell you which one was which, but #2 sounded more processed.

18th October 2003	#6
ttauri Lives for gear Joined: Aug 2003 Location: Knife, Fork, Bottle, Cork Posts: 761	I don't have a practiced ear for rock, but mix 2 would be my pick from two things: the bass on mix 1 sounds a little hollow compared to 2, and the reverb on the snare (room? or effect?) comes off more pleasing in 2. I'd lean toward 2 being analog 'cause good bass sound's been more elusive for me in the box. But could be a matter of taste, could be that I've become used to digital, or could be a factor of time spent getting the mixes close. Hats off to both mixers. Peece, T. Tauri

19th October 2003	#7
Jay Kahrs One with big hooves Joined: May 2002 Location: Earth, NYC metro Posts: 5,899 Thread Starter	Here's the new thread on PSW with Producehers finished "matched" mix. http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=9212

29th October 2003	#8
Guest Guest Posts: n/a	Mix 2 sounds a little thicker on the bottom to me but, overall they both sound great. Not the way I would have mixed them. Thank God we are all different. What I clearly do not hear is that "mix buss issue" that is so hot now. They both sound like pros did the work. This alone has removed the D2B from my wish list and made me realize I need the improvment not my gear. Ears...ears...ears.... How come I keep forgetting this? I am a true slut! Keep up the good work guys and thatnks for the effort to do this. DPasch