Mixing Like The Audio Pros - Pt. 2

[JackA]

Van Halen - Runnin' With The Devil
Remixed with American pride!! Not sure the ending is any different than published.
Sounds better than ever!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/runningdevil.mp3

Van Halen - Jump
Remixed, only #1 US hit. Not sure the ending is any different than published...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/jump-rm2.mp3

Wings - Hi Hi Hi
Remixed. Probably best listened to via headphones!!
Like the distant guitar about 2:30, right channel...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/hihihi-rm.mp3

Wings - Helen Wheels (aka Hell On Wheels)
Another attempt at remixing. You'll notice the intro is more vibrant!!
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/wheels.mp3

Comments welcome, except negative ones!! :-)

Thanks!

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>Van Halen - Jump
>Remixed, only #1 US hit. Not sure the ending is any different than published...
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/jump-rm2.mp3

>Comments welcome, except negative ones!! :-)

Sorry, Jack, reality sucks.

I didn't know most of the songs you listed in your original post, but vaguely
remembered "Jump" from long ago. I recalled it being kind of a cute tune with
a good hook, so I played your mix.

"Oh," I thought to myself. "This is just silly rock and roll," and stopped the
playback after about 30 seconds.

Still, I was curious when the original was released, so I googled it and came across
a youtube post of what was apparently Van Halen's original music video for Jump --
the typical lip-sync to a playback of the original studio recording. "I wonder what
that sounds like..."

The difference is more than night and day, it's more like winter/summer, or even
life and death. Sonically it was so captivating that with some delight I listened
all the way through and never felt compelled to stop playback. There was enough
sonic detail that within their genre I could appreciate the band's writing and
peformance.

Your mix (and it might not be entirely your fault) is lifeless in comparison. I
couldn't hear anything that would hold my interest for more than a few seconds. What
you posted sounds like it's several cassette generations down, sans the tape hiss
and flutter. All the musical content is dead gone.

The commercial mix is full of energy, life, and fun. It even seems to have parts
that are missing from your mix (a synth line and part of the drum kit, to name a
few).

So what went wrong? Seems like there might be two primary problems: the source
tracks you're using are worthless -- whatever process was used to get them did great
sonic harm, along with being incomplete.

Perhaps your monitoring is really wonky, if you feel your mix sounds better than at
least the youtube vid I found. (And if you feel your mix is better, I'd be
interested in your point-by-point analysis as to why it's "better".)

I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt to an extent, but do compare your mix to the
original for several factors: sonics, panning, musical content, how it makes you
feel. Hard as it might be if you've put some real time and effort into this, do
try for an honest comparison. I suspect most mixers here have had a least one
humbling experience along the way as they were learning the craft. I certainly have.

Sorry, but this gets a failing grade and needs a do-over -- likely with much better
source tracks, if you can get them.

Good luck with it,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Luxey]

Without going into detail ...

.... lost are the body of keys, depth and nuance of vocals, power of drums, ...
.... but then, we got all the unnecessary and inessential presence.

One good thing, though - It is louder, no doubt about that.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 7:43:24 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> Without going into detail ...
>
> ... lost are the body of keys, depth and nuance of vocals, power of drums, ...
> ... but then, we got all the unnecessary and inessential presence.
>
> One good thing, though - It is louder, no doubt about that.

You got that right!! Tell Frank, these sound better than what the officials offered as karaoke [told me multi-tracks still exist; same with Queen)]! I'm sure he heard them! Fat chance!!

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 7:43:24 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
>> Without going into detail ...
>>
>> ... lost are the body of keys, depth and nuance of vocals, power of drums, ...
>> ... but then, we got all the unnecessary and inessential presence.
>>
>> One good thing, though - It is louder, no doubt about that.

>You got that right!! Tell Frank, these sound better than what the officials offered
>as karaoke [told me multi-tracks still exist; same with Queen)]! I'm sure he heard
>them! Fat chance!!

Karaoke playback? OMG. That crap makes me slam my palms against my ears. If that's
your benchmark, all bets are off.

And perhaps someone is pulling your leg in the reply above. The "Jump" mix you
linked to seemed pretty quiet compared to the commercial release, though I did not
measure the crest of either. And who knows what the youtube codec is doing.

Frank

--

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:00:47 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 7:43:24 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> >> Without going into detail ...
> >>
> >> ... lost are the body of keys, depth and nuance of vocals, power of drums, ...
> >> ... but then, we got all the unnecessary and inessential presence.
> >>
> >> One good thing, though - It is louder, no doubt about that.
>
> >You got that right!! Tell Frank, these sound better than what the officials offered
> >as karaoke [told me multi-tracks still exist; same with Queen)]! I'm sure he heard
> >them! Fat chance!!
>
> Karaoke playback? OMG. That crap makes me slam my palms against my ears. If that's
> your benchmark, all bets are off.

Crap? You remove the singing and the music becomes crap? Nonsense, you are just jealous, probably never heard a multi-track in your entire life.

Jump (song) should be louder, I did some peak trimming on it, so Luxey, at least, has a good ear.


If you don't like my crap, you can always ignore it, but it seems you can't.
I do not mind constructive criticism one iota, but you just provide nonsense, that has no value to anyone.

Jack

>
> And perhaps someone is pulling your leg in the reply above. The "Jump" mix you
> linked to seemed pretty quiet compared to the commercial release, though I did not
> measure the crest of either. And who knows what the youtube codec is doing.
>
> Frank
>
> --
> .

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 7:43:24 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
> Without going into detail ...
>
> ... lost are the body of keys, depth and nuance of vocals, power of drums, ...
> ... but then, we got all the unnecessary and inessential presence.
>
> One good thing, though - It is louder, no doubt about that.

Actually, they are about the same volume (from KARAOKE version CD this time)...
I just prefer more stereo content; like the drummer to be highlighted:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/jump.mp3

Jack

[[email protected]]

7:43 AMLuxey wrote:

"One good thing, though - It is louder, no doubt about that. "

Not for those of us who want our volume set at 12 o'clock,
loudhead!

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "Jump (song) should be louder, I did some
peak trimming on it, so Luxey, at least, has a good ear. "

Criminal.

Of course Jump can be louder. Let the LISTENERS make
it louder - with their VOLUME!!

stronzo mama mia...

[[email protected]]

Frank Stearns wrote: "I didn't know most of the songs you listed
in your original post, but vaguely remembered "Jump" from long ago.
I recalled it being kind of a cute tune with"


So this corroborates what I said on here some months
back: rec.audio.pro ain't exactly stocked with 99-percenters-
music-wise!

[Gareth Magennis]

"JackA" wrote in message
...

Van Halen - Runnin' With The Devil
Remixed with American pride!! Not sure the ending is any different than
published.
Sounds better than ever!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/runningdevil.mp3

Van Halen - Jump
Remixed, only #1 US hit. Not sure the ending is any different than
published...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/jump-rm2.mp3

Wings - Hi Hi Hi
Remixed. Probably best listened to via headphones!!
Like the distant guitar about 2:30, right channel...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/hihihi-rm.mp3

Wings - Helen Wheels (aka Hell On Wheels)
Another attempt at remixing. You'll notice the intro is more vibrant!!
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/wheels.mp3

Comments welcome, except negative ones!! :-)

Thanks!

Jack




Jack, I have said this once before and I will waste my time saying this
again.
Your mixes sound horrible. Either your ears are shot and you have to pump
so much upper mid into them so you can hear any details, or you are simply
taking the ****.


I suspect though you think the old mixes sound crap because you can't hear
them properly.
So you remix them with shed loads of nasty upper mid/highs and then think
they sound much better.

You really do have a fundamental problem here, but of course you are in
denial.

Like anyone would be.



Gareth.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 7:04:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Jump (song) should be louder, I did some
> peak trimming on it, so Luxey, at least, has a good ear. "
>
> Criminal.
>
> Of course Jump can be louder. Let the LISTENERS make
> it louder - with their VOLUME!!

Mr. Mia (smile), this is where we differ. What I've been doing has been going on since man invented the "record". It is nothing new. The absence of it tends to put people asleep. Allow me to demonstrate, if you will.

Let's take the song, "Baby Blue", from an early "Straight Up" Badfinger CD.
Had the mint stereo 45. Ron Furmanek did the mastering.
This is what the waveform looked like, as published...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/babyblue-b.jpg

This is what a "Maximize Volume" (Goldwave) does...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/babyblue-v.jpg

This is after I dynamically increased it, and it doesn't even "look" like I trimmed peaks...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/babyblue-a.jpg

This is what a dynamic increase sounds like...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/babyblued.mp3

Now, if I posted the UK stereo mix, even Frank Stearns would say "Yuck!!", assuming he even heard it.

See, with a volume control, you have no real control over sound. "Peaks" never sold music. You have Peak, you have Average, and you have RMS power. I shy away from fiddling with the Average and RMS music power.
Later, the "boys" at Abbey Road digitally enhanced it, just like I did. Seems people favor what they did. And it's MAINLY what Sterling Sound did/does (as well as many others, these days. I'd rather have it without enhancements, because it's tough to undo what others have done. I bitched to them (Abbey) about their Kiki Dee CD, I THOUGHT it'd sound great, but just louder.

Jack


>
> stronzo mama mia...

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "JackA" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Van Halen - Runnin' With The Devil
> Remixed with American pride!! Not sure the ending is any different than
> published.
> Sounds better than ever!...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/runningdevil.mp3
>
> Van Halen - Jump
> Remixed, only #1 US hit. Not sure the ending is any different than
> published...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/jump-rm2.mp3
>
> Wings - Hi Hi Hi
> Remixed. Probably best listened to via headphones!!
> Like the distant guitar about 2:30, right channel...
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/hihihi-rm.mp3
>
> Wings - Helen Wheels (aka Hell On Wheels)
> Another attempt at remixing. You'll notice the intro is more vibrant!!
> http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/wheels.mp3
>
> Comments welcome, except negative ones!! :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
> Jack, I have said this once before and I will waste my time saying this
> again.
> Your mixes sound horrible. Either your ears are shot and you have to pump
> so much upper mid into them so you can hear any details, or you are simply
> taking the ****.
>
>
> I suspect though you think the old mixes sound crap because you can't hear
> them properly.
> So you remix them with shed loads of nasty upper mid/highs and then think
> they sound much better.
>
> You really do have a fundamental problem here, but of course you are in
> denial.
>
> Like anyone would be.
>
>
>
> Gareth.

Gareth, you moaned about Helen Wheels (claiming frequency adjustments would fix it), but NEVER did you mention ANYTHING about the opening being weak. I had to discover that myself. If you think my sound stinks, fine, but I fail to hear ANY of your audio work, unless you're too shy to post it. And, it's people like Frank and yourself that drives people away from usenet.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA:

You've got things all SDRAWKCAB !

You don't "dynamically increase" things via peak
limiting!

And I think you've got the whole Equal Loudness
concept turned around. The lowest dimple of that
crooked smiley curve indicates where the average
hearing is MOST sensitive, not least. It curves up
to suggest how loud the lows and upper highs have
to be to sound EQUALLY loud to that upper mid-
range.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:00:52 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA:
>
> You've got things all SDRAWKCAB !
>
> You don't "dynamically increase" things via peak
> limiting!
>
> And I think you've got the whole Equal Loudness
> concept turned around. The lowest dimple of that
> crooked smiley curve indicates where the average
> hearing is MOST sensitive, not least. It curves up
> to suggest how loud the lows and upper highs have
> to be to sound EQUALLY loud to that upper mid-
> range.

Mr. SDRAWKCAB (smile), never once did I hear you calling up record manufacturers claiming their "hit" records stink, because of compression that was used.
No, it was I who had to hear the fading of songs, as audio fidelity improved and questioned why. Remember, I'm on your side, but I can't have so many variations of volume, forcing LISTENERS to continually change volume (turn that up, turn that down, etc.), because I was too lazy to do my job. If these (early) CDs sounds so audio superior, maybe you can explain why they are sold so cheap? You believe record companies never fooled with LP audio, but I know different. Actually, I'm not sure what Goldwave's Lite Dynamic increase does, but I'm very glad Chris (author) offered it.

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA:

Just use your ears(and a good loudness/avg
weighted meter plug-in) to match the loudness
of all your tracks on an album.

And although it has fallen on the deaf ears of
this news group, along with those in many a
moderated forum, I'll repeat: I have no problem
with JUDICIOUS use of compression in production.

I do have issue with chopping off 4-8dB of peaks
just to boost what's left up to input-stage melting
voltages(!) ON TOP OF prior rounds of compression.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:31:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> JackA:
>
> Just use your ears(and a good loudness/avg
> weighted meter plug-in) to match the loudness
> of all your tracks on an album.
>
> And although it has fallen on the deaf ears of
> this news group, along with those in many a
> moderated forum, I'll repeat: I have no problem
> with JUDICIOUS use of compression in production.
>
> I do have issue with chopping off 4-8dB of peaks
> just to boost what's left up to input-stage melting
> voltages(!) ON TOP OF prior rounds of compression.

Look, before CDs hit the market, I was collecting vinyl.
An Elton John CD (when I purchased my first CD player), had way more tape hiss than the same vinyl LP I had. I thought, screw it, and returned the CD player, Sales person thought I was nuts.

I find a favorite Philly hit, Steve Hoffman did the CD mastering; sounded so nice on (MCA) vinyl, yet washed out sound on CD. That's when I decided to dynamically increased the CD version, it brought it closer to what I experienced on vinyl.

As I preach, not many are interested in high quality sound. And since neither of us know what the songs sounded like while recording, we have to take a best guess if they were tampered with. Why these multi-tracks give me SOME idea how songs could have sounded.

Plus, you must dislike FM Stereo radio since it alters sound, even manipulates stereo.

I'm guessing, maybe by Y2K, everyone was digitally altering music, since early computers were too slow to process audio. Now, when my mastering "looks" like the blades of a comb, as others do, then you can chop my head off, save Isis the trouble!!! :)

Jack

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:00:47 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> JackA > writes:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 7:43:24 AM UTC-4, Luxey wrote:
>> >> Without going into detail ...
>> >>
>> >> ... lost are the body of keys, depth and nuance of vocals, power of drums, ...
>> >> ... but then, we got all the unnecessary and inessential presence.
>> >>
>> >> One good thing, though - It is louder, no doubt about that.
>>
>> >You got that right!! Tell Frank, these sound better than what the officials offered
>> >as karaoke [told me multi-tracks still exist; same with Queen)]! I'm sure he heard
>> >them! Fat chance!!
>>
>> Karaoke playback? OMG. That crap makes me slam my palms against my ears. If that's
>> your benchmark, all bets are off.

>Crap? You remove the singing and the music becomes crap? Nonsense, you are just
>jealous, probably never heard a multi-track in your entire life.

You don't quite understand -- Karaoke sounds like crap because of the processing
used to extract the voice. Hopefully there's a little music left but not often. What
music was left is then too often killed off by half-functioning bar playback systems
in horrid acoustics. I'm not expecting mastering studio sound, but jeez, bar owners,
fix the blown horn diaphragms and relocate that one speaker that's down the hall by
the restrooms.

Alternately, sometimes music-minus-one sessions re-create a popular tune for karaoke
use, but often those are pale imitations of the original. Again, crap.

Never heard a multitrack? Guffaw. Probably heard one or two or several thousand when
I mixed them -- everything from 4 to 48 tracks. You're such a jokester, Jack.


>If you don't like my crap, you can always ignore it, but it seems you can't.

Largely I have ignored it because I don't really know that much of the genre well
enough to comment. But I did visit "Jump" because of a passing familiarity.

>I do not mind constructive criticism one iota, but you just provide nonsense, that
>has no value to anyone.

Oh, but I did -- I alerted you to elements missing from your "Jump" mix (and the
idea that you should check your source tracks).

I provided one very good suggestion: at this phase in your learning, it really would
benefit you greatly to do that honest comparison, going point by point why you think
your mix is better. Such an exercise would be most revealing.

And if you really drilled into it that way -- A-B'ing yours against the original
(rather than relying on emotional memory) -- you might really learn some useful
things.

Try it.

Frank
--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>Frank Stearns wrote: "I didn't know most of the songs you listed
> in your original post, but vaguely remembered "Jump" from long ago.
> I recalled it being kind of a cute tune with"

>So this corroborates what I said on here some months
>back: rec.audio.pro ain't exactly stocked with 99-percenters-
>music-wise!

Not sure what that's supposed to mean. There are all sorts of pop and rock
production people. They could often learn things from the minority -- classical and
acoustic folks. For one thing, we can suggest ways on how not to not to smash the
hell out of everything with limiting and compression. Isn't that your flag?

Frank

--

[Frank Stearns]

writes:

>JackA:

>Just use your ears(and a good loudness/avg
>weighted meter plug-in) to match the loudness
>of all your tracks on an album.

>And although it has fallen on the deaf ears of
>this news group, along with those in many a
>moderated forum, I'll repeat: I have no problem
>with JUDICIOUS use of compression in production.

I do agree with the above paragraph. It's the way I typically work. And,
fortunately, I've found a couple of good mastering engineers who agree and clients
who understand.

I kinda feel sorry for the cinderblock waveform crowd, but it speaks much about a
huge lack of general music education, even something basic in elementary school.

>I do have issue with chopping off 4-8dB of peaks
>just to boost what's left up to input-stage melting
>voltages(!) ON TOP OF prior rounds of compression.

A possible silver lining is high crest factors melting voice coils on cheap
speakers, and then providing silence.... Yes, I know, wishful thinking.

Frank

--

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> And although it has fallen on the deaf ears of
> this news group,

The ears aren't deaf, they're just sick of the hobby horse **** you
spew. This has been explained to you numerous times, and if you hadn't
ridden in on the dumb**** short bus, it might have sunk in.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> So this corroborates what I said on here some months
> back: rec.audio.pro ain't exactly stocked with 99-percenters-
> music-wise!

Yeah, most people here grew up and expanded their listening beyond the
pop music they were fed in junior high. You probably haven't learned a
thing since your six years in junior high. You've already admitted
that you didn't learn a thing in your five years at a two-year
college.

[None]

> wrote in message
...
> Not for those of us who want our volume set at 12 o'clock,

You were whining about how you wanted to set the level with your own
volume control. Now you're whining that you don't want to use the
****ing volume control.

> loudhead!

Dumb****!

[geoff]

On 18/03/2015 1:56 p.m., JackA wrote:

> Look, before CDs hit the market, I was collecting vinyl. An Elton
> John CD (when I purchased my first CD player), had way more tape hiss
> than the same vinyl LP I had. I thought, screw it, and returned the
> CD player, Sales person thought I was nuts.

You were. Your vinyl replay chain had limited top-end.

>
> I find a favorite Philly hit, Steve Hoffman did the CD mastering;
> sounded so nice on (MCA) vinyl, yet washed out sound on CD. That's
> when I decided to dynamically increased the CD version, it brought it
> closer to what I experienced on vinyl.

But was it closer to the original master ?

> As I preach, not many are interested in high quality sound. And since
> neither of us know what the songs sounded like while recording, we
> have to take a best guess if they were tampered with. Why these
> multi-tracks give me SOME idea how songs could have sounded.

Al contraire. We here are MOST interested in hi-fi sound. The difference
is that the rest of us know what it is, and how to obtain it.

>
> Plus, you must dislike FM Stereo radio since it alters sound, even
> manipulates stereo.

I think we all agree on that one.


geoff

[geoff]

On 18/03/2015 3:23 p.m., JackA wrote:

> So, point me to a CD or anything you mixed. As they say, the proof is
> in the pudding!!! I mix for Stereo reproduction, unlike MANY fail to
> do!!!
>
> Thank you for understanding!!

Maybe your $25 phones have a partial short as well as a 3k dip. Pretty
much all of my CDs are very successfully stereo, even one from a 1965
recording.

Some of the early stereo was crude, due to technology limitaions of the
time.

But this ahs already been explained to you, and explained to you, and
explained to you, and explained to you ......

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

JackA > writes:

>On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 9:42:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
>> JackA > writes:
>>

-snips-

>John, if anything, a karaoke version should sound WAY better, because you do not
>have to worry about masking any singing!! Why I love Big Band music, so dynamic,
>void of singing!!

Sure, big band music is fun. Two weeks ago I did a live show with the Glenn Miller
Orchestra when they came through town. They've been touring for 65 years! (No, not
all original personnel. Mostly young and quite good players who love the music.) But
right there was a basic musical lesson on the importance of a strong melody. All
those old tunes had excellent melodies -- Tuxedo Junction, Chattanooga Choo Choo, In
the Mood, et al -- you might not care for the genre, but the melodies stick in your
head!

>Sorry, you're not John, but Frank, forgive me. You probably were ****ed off when I
>claimed ANYONE can mix music. And that is a fact, not a fantasy!!

Not ****ed, simply amused. A lot of us here make good bank when the
do-it-yourselfers think they've got it all handled then at the last minute panic.
They just can't get the sound they want, and they finally realize they have no idea
how to get that sound anyway.

An old friend from up north who is an excellent musician and even a pretty good
engineer landed a deal with Sony Records this year, one of their world music labels.
But Sony bumped a release deadline forward as part of the deal. "I need help!" he
pleaded. "You mix choral music so well, can you just mix this one song for us?" So I
did, and suddenly now I have three more to mix, and possibly one more. He regretted
not bringing me in months ago to do the entire project, but now time is too short.
And I won't work so fast as to compromise results. I simply don't need to do that
anymore anyway.

So, Jack, you're right. Anyone can mix. Anyone can paint, write, act, sing, play
music. It's all part of human expression, and that's great. But the broader
question is whether anyone else will want to hear or view that effort, and
whether they'll want to keep viewing or hearing that effort over the years to come.

>Actually, FYI, you know the 2011 Pop song, Pumped Up Kicks (Foster The People),
>that had like 30 >darn tracks, overloaded my old laptop!!

Sorry, never heard of that group or the tune. But I can tell you that these days in
the pop/rock field 30 tracks is mostly just the basic rhythm section. Add another
30-50 tracks for vocals, lead instruments, and other "knick knack" overdubs. Tracks
are cheap these days. That's a good thing, but it's often also a far worse bad
thing.

>So, point me to a CD or anything you mixed. As they say, the proof is in the
>pudding!!! I mix for Stereo reproduction, unlike MANY fail to do!!!

I'll point you to a dusty old website, worked on in trade with a client several
years ago, but sadly never quite finished. It needs updating with new stuff, but
I've gotten busy enough that I do not want more business brought in by a slick
website! (Probably the biggest change not documented in that site is my move from
analog to ITB mixing, which I now fully embrace.) But anyway, go to
www.mars-mobile.com. Mouse down the menu stack on the left. When you touch "Music
Samples", it will expand into three options. Check out the first one, "Choir and
Orchestra Mix Demo". Play Track 1, The Faure Requiem. Probably not your kind of
music at all, but it will give you a tiny, tiny taste of what goes into a typical
production. BTW, The Faure mix demo (Track 1) was ITB, while the much older
Hindemith mix demo (tracks 2-12) was analog.

>Thank you for understanding!!
You're welcome.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[JackA]

On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 8:37:09 AM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> JackA > writes:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 9:42:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
> >> JackA > writes:
> >>
>
> -snips-
>
> >John, if anything, a karaoke version should sound WAY better, because you do not
> >have to worry about masking any singing!! Why I love Big Band music, so dynamic,
> >void of singing!!
>
> Sure, big band music is fun. Two weeks ago I did a live show with the Glenn Miller
> Orchestra when they came through town. They've been touring for 65 years! (No, not
> all original personnel. Mostly young and quite good players who love the music.) But
> right there was a basic musical lesson on the importance of a strong melody. All
> those old tunes had excellent melodies -- Tuxedo Junction, Chattanooga Choo Choo, In
> the Mood, et al -- you might not care for the genre, but the melodies stick in your
> head!
>
> >Sorry, you're not John, but Frank, forgive me. You probably were ****ed off when I
> >claimed ANYONE can mix music. And that is a fact, not a fantasy!!
>
> Not ****ed, simply amused. A lot of us here make good bank when the
> do-it-yourselfers think they've got it all handled then at the last minute panic.
> They just can't get the sound they want, and they finally realize they have no idea
> how to get that sound anyway.
>
> An old friend from up north who is an excellent musician and even a pretty good
> engineer landed a deal with Sony Records this year, one of their world music labels.
> But Sony bumped a release deadline forward as part of the deal. "I need help!" he
> pleaded. "You mix choral music so well, can you just mix this one song for us?" So I
> did, and suddenly now I have three more to mix, and possibly one more. He regretted
> not bringing me in months ago to do the entire project, but now time is too short.
> And I won't work so fast as to compromise results. I simply don't need to do that
> anymore anyway.
>
> So, Jack, you're right. Anyone can mix. Anyone can paint, write, act, sing, play
> music. It's all part of human expression, and that's great. But the broader
> question is whether anyone else will want to hear or view that effort, and
> whether they'll want to keep viewing or hearing that effort over the years to come.
>
> >Actually, FYI, you know the 2011 Pop song, Pumped Up Kicks (Foster The People),
> >that had like 30 >darn tracks, overloaded my old laptop!!
>
> Sorry, never heard of that group or the tune. But I can tell you that these days in
> the pop/rock field 30 tracks is mostly just the basic rhythm section. Add another
> 30-50 tracks for vocals, lead instruments, and other "knick knack" overdubs. Tracks
> are cheap these days. That's a good thing, but it's often also a far worse bad
> thing.
>
> >So, point me to a CD or anything you mixed. As they say, the proof is in the
> >pudding!!! I mix for Stereo reproduction, unlike MANY fail to do!!!
>
> I'll point you to a dusty old website, worked on in trade with a client several
> years ago, but sadly never quite finished. It needs updating with new stuff, but
> I've gotten busy enough that I do not want more business brought in by a slick
> website! (Probably the biggest change not documented in that site is my move from
> analog to ITB mixing, which I now fully embrace.) But anyway, go to
> www.mars-mobile.com. Mouse down the menu stack on the left. When you touch "Music
> Samples", it will expand into three options. Check out the first one, "Choir and
> Orchestra Mix Demo". Play Track 1, The Faure Requiem. Probably not your kind of
> music at all, but it will give you a tiny, tiny taste of what goes into a typical
> production. BTW, The Faure mix demo (Track 1) was ITB, while the much older
> Hindemith mix demo (tracks 2-12) was analog.
>
> >Thank you for understanding!!
> You're welcome.
>
> Frank
> Mobile Audio
>
> --
> .

Ph. D!!?? Nice!!

Seriously, Frank, nice meeting you. Software, too, eh?

Allow me to share a story. At at firm I worked, they was using AutoCAD software. Back then, it didn't even have a file menu!! I hated computers at first, but enjoyed programming and the logic behind it. Anyway, since MS Basic was a bit too primitive, I turned to Power Basic. With it I could include assembly language coding. I developed a TSR (Terminate Stay Resident) programing for AutoCAD where you could search for files, click on them, and they'd open! Everyone began using my program! Thing is, a year later, AutoDesk included a file menu!! :)

Same with an indenting machine. External software was costly, company opted not to purchase it. I found the codes to control the machine, where you could store information for tags, create templates, hit a button and indent the tags, automatically sequence them! I offered it to the machine manufacture, but they wanted Windows base, even though I used DOS for Windows or Windows for DOS programming.

Maybe it was removed, but I don't see any location mentioned on your site!!

Will review the music a bit later, and comment.

Even with my drumming idol, Buddy Rich, you can hear the better recordings, in similar environments (re: YouTube)!!

Jack