"Terminal A" Mix-off Showdown - Part 3...New Blood

[Brad McGowan]

After the first Mix-off Showdown thread happened, I received a lot of interest from other people to try their hand at mixing the song "Terminal A" by my band, Plot Against Rachel.

Here's a link to the previous two chapters for those of you that missed the drama:

ITB Mix-off Showdown! djui5 vs. DigitalDrugLord
ITB Mix-off Showdown part 2: Revised Mixes

I received four different submissions over the course of the last couple weeks that I was finally able to convert to MP3. Each mixer received the same set of tracks and completed a mix without performing any mastering. Everyone was on their honor to do so at least.

Take a listen to the tracks and vote for your favorite. Let's get some good discussion going about what people like/dislike about these mixes versus the previous round of submissions (including my own which is being mastered as I type this). After a few days of discussion and voting I'll reveal which mixers made which contribution. At that point I'd like to get the mixers talking about their tools and techniques and how they approached the various challenges they faced in mixing this song.

I think this has the potential to be a really interesting and informative thread, so let's keep it friendly and on topic.

thanks,
Brad

[Brad McGowan]

Tracks are 192 kHz MP3's, Lame encoded. Sorry I forgot to label each MP3 as "1", "2", etc. You'll have to keep track of which is which in your MP3 player.

[H-Rezz]

Hey Brad,

I take it this is no longer an ITB showdown and these files include OTB mixes as well, no?

I will have a listen later and give my thoughts .....

[stevep]

Cool !!!!






steve

[Brad McGowan]

I was careful not to say whether these were ITB or OTB mixes. We'll see if anyone can figure it out.

Brad

[Matt Grondin]

I'm going to try and use as much discretion as possible and speak as vaguely as I can since one of the mixes is mine, but some of the mixes (I'll let you'll determine whether you agree) seem to me to be much louder than others... you sure there was no mastering used? Maybe the buss compressor was hit harder or the console had more headroom.

The lack of volume matching might cause some listeners to be more inclined to one mix over another just because of the lack of a reference point in their playback systems. Mastering would obviously change things, for better or for worse, and it would definitely level the playing field as far as the initial first impression goes, since as we've all learned, louder isn't necessarily better, but it can be a lot more impressive to some people. Just a thought. Thanks Brad for organizing yet another informative thread. Later.

[Brad McGowan]

It appears I may have left out a submission. It's been a long month... Is it even possible to modify the poll or will I have to start a new thread?

Brad

[indie]

Well, I can say without a doubt, I didn't use ANY mastering!

[stevep]

To me an MP3 that is pushed to loud sounds distorted .....


whats the point of gaining a couple of DBs... it just leads to distortion and loosing the punch



I think people here can tell if a song was mastered properly or just ran through an L2 or some in house DAW limiter , loudness machine ect .................

[Brad McGowan]

Having heard my song mixed about 10 different ways I've made a very important realization. It's really something that should have been extremely obvious all along, but sometimes it takes an exercise like this to drive the point home.

To me the mixes really don't sound all that different. Sure there are level differences and different choices in use of effects, compression, etc. But sonically--the mixes all have a consistent vibe. They all sound like the song that I recorded, which is essentially a collection of tracks with each having the sonic imprint of the room, microphone, and preamp that I used to capture the sound. There is no escaping THAT sound. It's there on every single track in every single mix no matter who performs the mix. That simple obversation really made an impact with me on how important it is to track sounds well and capture the tones you want to be part of the overall picture, because in the end there no way to escape those initial choices, for better or worse.

I think that is ultimately why some people liked none of the mixes in the previous installments of this saga. Some of the tracks for the song just lacked lustre...plain and simple. The raw tracks themselves did not bring the rock.

Thoughts?

Brad

[Mike Caffrey]

I listened through laptop speakers, which may skew my perception but.....

iTunes played them 4, 1, 2, 3.

#4 didn't excite me too much. The vocals sounded way too dry.

#1 I kind of liked the best, but the main guitar riff was too low and the rhythm guitar was too loud. Cranking that rhythm guitar was a cool choise, but I think it was pushed a little too far.

#2 had some weird ducking in the guitars going on. Sounds like a multi-buss compression approach with too much compression in the guitar buss. Maybe 1176s? I got a sound like that once with 1176s.

The voclas had a very "pop" presentation. I'd say academically perfect, but as a produciton choice, I think maybe not right for the music. I this mix would have had a copule mods made to it if the artist or producer was present. There'd be some huge gains from minimal changes.

#3 The vocal dwarfed the drums. It sounded like two different mixes - vocals and everything else. That was distracting enough that I didn't really pay attention beyond that.

If I had to pick one, it would be 1 or 2 based on listening to laptop speakers, but they each have details that I'd change.

[Matt Grondin]

Originally Posted by stevep

To me an MP3 that is pushed to loud sounds distorted .....


whats the point of gaining a couple of DBs... it just leads to distortion and loosing the punch



I think people here can tell if a song was mastered properly or just ran through an L2 or some in house DAW limiter , loudness machine ect .................

No worries... most people on this board know what's up, but some people still think that louder equals better, and I'm not just referring to A&R guys. All these guys that insist on blasting their stereo buss, particularly the ones who stay in the box, are proof that some people genuinely think that it needs to be loud to be better.

However, mix #1 is probably the loudest, yet I think it sounds great. It's just hard to have reference, for me personally at least, that's all.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

To me the mixes really don't sound all that different. Sure there are level differences and different choices in use of effects, compression, etc. But sonically--the mixes all have a consistent vibe. They all sound like the song that I recorded, which is essentially a collection of tracks with each having the sonic imprint of the room, microphone, and preamp that I used to capture the sound. There is no escaping THAT sound. It's there on every single track in every single mix no matter who performs the mix. That simple obversation really made an impact with me on how important it is to track sounds well and capture the tones you want to be part of the overall picture, because in the end there no way to escape those initial choices, for better or worse.

Can someone make this a sticky!

[Matt Grondin]

Originally Posted by djui5

Can someone make this a sticky!

Yeah, that old adage "Fix it in the mix" was invented by a lazy-ass tracking engineer

[djui5]

Originally Posted by dobby12

Yeah, that old adage "Fix it in the mix" was invented by a lazy-ass tracking engineer

hahahahha

[Matt Grondin]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I listened through laptop speakers, which may skew my perception but.....

iTunes played them 4, 1, 2, 3.

#4 didn't excite me too much. The vocals sounded way too dry.

#1 I kind of liked the best, but the main guitar riff was too low and the rhythm guitar was too loud. Cranking that rhythm guitar was a cool choise, but I think it was pushed a little too far.

#2 had some weird ducking in the guitars going on. Sounds like a multi-buss compression approach with too much compression in the guitar buss. Maybe 1176s? I got a sound like that once with 1176s.

The voclas had a very "pop" presentation. I'd say academically perfect, but as a produciton choice, I think maybe not right for the music. I this mix would have had a copule mods made to it if the artist or producer was present. There'd be some huge gains from minimal changes.

#3 The vocal dwarfed the drums. It sounded like two different mixes - vocals and everything else. That was distracting enough that I didn't really pay attention beyond that.

If I had to pick one, it would be 1 or 2 based on listening to laptop speakers, but they each have details that I'd change.

Mike, the stuff from your studio sounds really good, and I think you've got a killer outboard selection. Keep up the good work. Oh hey, I did notice one typo though you might want to have your webmaster correct... Soulive is one word, not two... I bet that session was KILLER... Eric Kraz with Neal playing keys, Adam Deitch on drums with Chaka on vox... I wanna hear that recording. Ok, later.

Oh yeah, and why the HELL did iTunes play number 4 first... computers are freakin' weird... why wouldn't it be sequential? That will possibly confuse some people.

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I listened through laptop speakers, which may skew my perception but.....

iTunes played them 4, 1, 2, 3.

.

Thanks for you comments Mike. I've been using the FATSO on overheads technique since you showed me at Tape Op and am really digging it. It really helps reign in the snare drum and keep the toms big and loud.

Brad

[krid]

I prefer #1 (not because it's the loudest).
But drums are too mono for my taste, the kick is too low, the snare needs a bit more snap.

I didn't really like the 3 other mixes.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by dobby12

Mike, the stuff from your studio sounds really good, and I think you've got a killer outboard selection. Keep up the good work. Oh hey, I did notice one typo though you might want to have your webmaster correct... Soulive is one word, not two... I bet that session was KILLER... Eric Kraz with Neal playing keys, Adam Deitch on drums with Chaka on vox... I wanna hear that recording. Ok, later.

Oh yeah, and why the HELL did iTunes play number 4 first... computers are freakin' weird... why wouldn't it be sequential? That will possibly confuse some people.

Thanks.

I see if I can get the typo fixed.

The was aslo Ron Long on bass, and no digital instruments - Wurltizer, Rhodes, real Clav and a vintage Mutron in great condition. Soulive with a bass player.... definitely something to hear. The track should be out in September.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Thanks for you comments Mike. I've been using the FATSO on overheads technique since you showed me at Tape Op and am really digging it. It really helps reign in the snare drum and keep the toms big and loud.

Brad

Glad to hear it worked.

[Brad McGowan]

All,

I just replaced Mix3 with a new MP3. I was informed by the mixer that I had accidentally posted the "drums down" version", which neither he or I had intended to post. Sorry about that.

To contine with my careless screw-ups...I'm going to add a fifth submission that I inadvertently left out. For now it's only a 160 kbps MP3. But I will get that straightened out.

Doh!

Brad

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by dobby12

Yeah, that old adage "Fix it in the mix" was invented by a lazy-ass tracking engineer

hahaa yeah, I and others said it all along on the other thread.. if the tracks are not there, no one will be completely satisfied with the mixes.

Ofcourse everyone knows this , I congratulate Brad for coming out and saying it.. i´m sure his tracking/arranging will only benefit from this exercise.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I listened through laptop speakers, which may skew my perception but.....

May?!

Dude...

C'mon!

You can't honestly compare what comes out of a laptop speaker to something that's even moderatly 'full-range' like a circa' 1987 boom box...let alone good transducers like the ones perched on either side of the meter bridge!

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

May?!

Dude...

C'mon!

You can't honestly compare what comes out of a laptop speaker to something that's even moderatly 'full-range' like a circa' 1987 boom box...let alone good transducers like the ones perched on either side of the meter bridge!

That's why I didn't comment about low end.

Not that I'd mix on these speakers, but I would be surprised if my impressions were exactly the same, jsut to a different degree if I was listening in my tuned control room.

When I check my own mixes later, if I find things I don't like, they're always the same on all the speakers I check them on.

In our modern world of crap for quality, don't laptop speakers matter the most anyway?

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

In our modern world of crap for quality, don't laptop speakers matter the most anyway?

[Matt Grondin]

From the lack of posts, it seems that everyone else is tired of this song too Brad. Oh well, it was a valiant attempt.

[Brad McGowan]

Yeah this song blows. Hahaha...

Let's spice things up a bit. This round of mixers all mixed through consoles using outboard gear. I'm going to go on record and say that using outboard gear definitely yields a more compelling and musical mix sound due the distortions it adds. Whether you get your dirt from a mixing console or some compressors or even by running the whole mix through a preamp like I did...it seems to be beneficial.

Did anyone else notice that this round of mixes had a different vibe than the last set?

Brad

[Brad McGowan]

So the mixers were:

SteveP
dobby12
Pete Min
indie
Jay Kahrs

As to who mixed what I'll have to let those guys tell you. I did like what Jay did to the snare track and the clean guitars. What did you end up using to breathe some life into the snare?

Brad

[StoneinaPond]

Brad,

Since #5 does not appear on the list, I can't vote for it.

But to my ears that's the best.

I think the mixer made the best attempt at making a troublesome song, arrangement wise, more cohesive and interesting in the first 2/3rds of the song, where the meandering vocal seems to go nowhere over a very sparse background.

So overall, the mixer has made the song feel more like a complete song, rather than a sketch, followed by a full final chorus.

Which goes to prove that you can fix some things in the mix.

Thanks for the effort.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Yeah this song blows. Hahaha...

Let's spice things up a bit. This round of mixers all mixed through consoles using outboard gear. I'm going to go on record and say that using outboard gear definitely yields a more compelling and musical mix sound due the distortions it adds. Whether you get your dirt from a mixing console or some compressors or even by running the whole mix through a preamp like I did...it seems to be beneficial.

Did anyone else notice that this round of mixes had a different vibe than the last set?

Brad

Do we get to know who did which mix?

How do you know that the mixes were better becuae of the console and not solely the mixer?

I do think a console makes a huge difference, but I don't know how you can tell unless the same individual mixed it both ways.