I would have done a better job for free than that $100 mix....

ya that's how I feel too!!

This.

Sounds anaemic

Me to haha. Yeah it was turrible. He should be ashamed to charge anything at all for that work.

Agreed

You would have to join his class for that since he can't just give out the stems from these bands out for free

Yep, that could be a great idea

I would do it! good idea!

@@EthanRom he could, one song 🤷

The verses sounded like gubbins, but chorus sounded alright. I would be gutted if i paid for any of those mixes. Having said that, if i wrote that song I'd do the right thing and just delete it.

@@brownmoney27 Well yeah.. that goes without saying. It sounds like secular Christian rock or something.

It's recorded music bro.

@@NeonBeeCat Not sure what you're trying to say here

​@@NeonBeeCatBro what

@@dylangilman mixing is very important in recorded/digital music as opposed to live acoustic music, often times it matters more than composition nowadays, ear candy will always be ear candy even if the idea is rather weak.

@@dylangilmanu clearly don’t know music recorded music would clearly require a mix and limiting . Rather than live where you would need leveling.

😂

Mixing 101, how NOT to mix.

next do one with a student and 3 freelancers

You didn't hire me. 😢

Let me mix it for you

the "download" thing dosnt work. Cant download the pdf

Hi, I would love to try my hands at mixing this track @HARDCOREMUSICSTUDIO

For me the longer reverb is the only thing saving this mix. 1 and 3 are very similar, with some backing elements coming through more clearly on 3. Both have the same huge issue, of the vocals being way too loud and burying any complexity that exists musically, but on mix 1 the reverb at least moves the vocal back a bit in the mix, helping stop it overwhelming every other element like the vocal does in mix 3. Honestly all of these mixes are unbalanced and whoever is charging 1000 quid for a mix like this, is getting away with murder

1 had more audible guitar parts in the chorus (tho the vox to me sounded more dry); 3 felt much fuller overall, which yeah the reverb seemed to be doing heavy lifting lol

I made this same remark on the video where he was comparing masterings.

@@IfeeSound Ahh sorry, I just skipped everything to just hear the masters 😅❤

I was thinking the same thing. It didn't seem like the mixing engineers were mixing for the correct style, especially mix #2.

yea, I don't think you should mix styles you don't like. Even though mix 2 sound bad, I actually find it less annoying than the other two lol. But I know that this is because I absolutly don't like this genre at all

​@@Jaburu I always figured mixing engineers would develop an appreciation for lots of different genres as a consequence of their work 🤔

count me in, version 1 it is.

@dfasht 3 Had mud and way too much verb on the vocals. one was clearly mixed for the chorus, and not volume automated in the verse so all the levels were jacked up in the verse. and number 2 ... we don't talk about no. 2 xD.

Yeah I also thought the Mix 1 was better balance for the genre

That was my initial impression as well. The fact that the reverb was more tame gave it a little more of an edge imo, but that’s just my opinion listening on cheap earbuds.

Definitely mix 1 ya

I personally found the opposite

Yeah, I see a lot of people saying the opposite but the reverb is just way too heavy on the vocals.

Yeh, reverb was cavernous

The 3rd mix has all the focus on the vocals like it should be for me it sounds the best im listening on airpods but the 1st one clearly the beat jumps on top of the voice misleading the focus of the listener

What are the issues?

@@persona8991 1 they clearly didn't automate as the levels are good at the chorus but fall apart in the verse. 2 ... do I even need to comment on mix 2?. 3 was muddy and swimming in reverb. That's just the biggest single issue with each. For 1k, you shouldn't be able to listen to a mix for 10 seconds and immediately pick out something clearly wrong with it.

@@persona8991sounding terrible is the issue

I'd love to hear that, too!👍🏾

Put it on the chopping block

agreed

The version 3 is The better version

Yes

Definitely. Vocals are tuned and tight...and harmonies are well balanced

Agree. Everything in #3 is better balanced and that allows the vocals to sit better.

#URM

Yes, that sounds like a lot of fun.

v2 shouldn't be even worth 10$

The V2 was worse than the rough mix, at the very least because it was so startlingly different. They were given a rough mix with aggressive guitars and just didn’t get close to that same energy lol. I really wonder if all of these would have been better with a couple revisions which is common/expected.

@@Googahgee Surely v2 must be worse than what you'd get just by setting levels properly with no fx applied at all...

Thing with no1 is that it was mixed for the chorus and sounds like they didn't automate anything for the verse, so the verse sounds all out of whack, otherwise it'd be my favorite ... well it is my favorite because the others wern't right either lol ... but the chorus was pretty good for no.1 so it had the best section out of all of them I guess xD.

I honestly don't know why he said there's not much difference between 1 and 3. The difference is night and day to me. Everything is flat and at the same level on 1. Not dynamic or lively at all. Nothing stands out. Super boring and dull vocals that almost sink to the back of the mix at times. The current trends are awful. The examples of student mixes in the link that supposedly beat these mixes didn't impress me much either.

Agree with #3. The sound in the verses was noticeably different from mix #1. Much fuller and warmer sounding to my ears. I did agree with him that the choruses in #1 sounded better, but to me the difference was very minimal, compared to the obvious difference during the verses.

#3 was drenched in reverb. Not good.

​@@LukeSawardMusiclol

@@LukeSawardMusic but the space was better for it, also the guitars sounded so much better on mix 3

Yep., the first and third sound nothing alike, not sure what he was talking about.

What was the name of the forum?

Why? I am new to this and would love to hear your opinion on why you dont like any of them. To my ears v1 actually sounded pretty good

This is gonna sound silly but I want to earn money from music composition and stuff like that. How do I get customers? How often do you get commissions and how much do you make average?

Yeah you have a good point there. It very well could be complacency!

@@DaftFaderAlso could be passing the Buck to engineers who are beginners at the studio. I remember when I booked stupio time. The owner of the studio gave me some engineer who didn’t know what he was doing I guess cuz didn’t take me serious but once they saw I wasn’t some trash then they stepped in but by then the experience at that studio was soured to me

Very good point

That's what I'm guessing. Big dogs are probably thinking "meh, the credits on this won't be worth much and whoever recorded this can't tell the difference" which is a horrible attitude.

@@ManBearPig87 They probably know it'll take a bit longer to get perfect than if it was perfectly recorded, and spend the same time, no matter how much work it needs. So if you're unlucky enough to send them something that needs a bit more work than average, they will spend their set time on it and you get back what ever they did in that time, finished or not. Personally I'd rather them say "I need a day extra to get it right" and pay for the time, if they are that set on working by a time constraint rather than per mix, but if this is how they are operating they should really charge for time rather than per mix to begin with, so the end user actually gets what they wanted. I mean if you're paying someone to mix your song, the expectation is it'll sound right once mixed, if they're not delivering what the customers are expecting, because of an unstated time restraint, then they've got their business model all wrong imo. Although in this case it was a four track mix, so even a top pro, who can only spend a very limited amount of time on it, should be able to get that right. The kind of mixes they might usually be doing could easily be upwards of 50 tracks, if a full band is recorded live, with multiple mics per instrument, and multiple rooms mics etc.

Honestly, Fiver person should literally just import stems. Use presets for everything. Don’t change anything. And hit bounce. And the results will be way better. And mix 3 had a sound idea and went for it. I feel like 3 focused on the vocals too much.

Gotta firmly disagree with you on this... The difference is in the margins. What sounded good to me at 23, I just wouldnt be able to get there without a solid 20 years of mixing experience.. I think of all the 'advanced' mixing techniques Ive picked up along the way and, well if you heard a mix from back then vs now, Id say the difference is quite clear. It takes way more than a cursory understanding of mixing and personal tastes to get a great mix. it takes years, and years of trial and error and a all consuming curiosity in the science of sound, and the respect for the craft to put in the extra blood sweat and tears for that last 5%. Whatever clown did mix 2, I guarantee has never used a compressor or a filter, gated; edited nothing, certainly has no understanding of mid/side, sidechaining, multiband sidechaining, resonant frequencies, transient shaping, inter-sample peak,.. and so on, and so forth :)

@scottfindley1345 Hey we can disagree. Not a problem. I'm in my 60's and I've played live shows and done studio work for over 40 years. I have not been to school to understand how to mix but I've mixed at the least a few thousand live shows and when it comes to mixing you have to stick to basic guidelines of understanding trouble frequencies that's can come back and bite you in the mix as a whole just like you would dealing with live shows and yeah you have to know which instruments need what kind of compression to make things deliver. I've heard people mic off their band in their practice room and after trial and error they actually came off with mixes that would damn well rival some of the stuff I've heard on the radio in a 2 track mix which comes down to my next point. It comes down to having a good set of ears and a decent pair studio monitors or headphones while mixing recordings. As far as using the tools that normally come with the software for a daw or even plugins you purchase for your studio in the end it really comes down to the discretion of the person mixing it that they understand what they're doing. You also have to have a basic feel that is part of that equation also. Some people can play Dream Theater chops in their sleep within a few short years of learning their instrument while some people are lucky to play simple three-chord songs even after years of playing. Some people have a natural feel for what they're listening for and some people have to learn it while others no matter how much they learn just don't have what it takes to make it happen. Going back to my original remark. If someone has a decent ear and a basic understanding of what they're doing they can mix down with a pretty damned decent outcome. Studios and software today are much more involved then you throw in the modern-day digital recording compared to recording on old reel-to-reel equipment that doesn't have the same characteristics and absolutely you can get better recordings today I totally agree with your remark about how things sound today compared to how they sounded back in the earlier days before we had the stuff we have now. You won't get an argument out of me on that remark.

@scottfindley1345 There is something else to take into consideration. Some of the older recordings may not have that polished sound but they have that raw sound that delivers quite well. I can't stand listening to a lot of the modern country mixes today because it just doesn't have a soul to it and it sounds too processed AND it all sounds two cookie cutter and the same but just like a cup of coffee with sugar or a cup of black coffee everybody has a preference. When you're talking about mixes of yesterday how far back are you going? 1940s? 1950s or 1960's? There are a lot of killer mixes even from the early 70s that rival today's mixes. They may not have had the fancy bells and whistles of these modern-day DAW stations with these powerful computers and extreme bandwidth and low S/N noise ratios of modern-day equipment but in the end it's what is pleasing to the ears.

@@flash001USA Hey man.. did you listen to #2? take a listen to if for reference. I can appreciate the all natural, all analog,tape style mix. This aint that. Theres no compression, where there aught to be.. leaving horriffic transients . Even if this guy was just totally old school, doesnt beleive in that kind of things, naw. This was the mix of someone who, just doesnt know the tools, r have the experience. its as clear as night and day. I imagine it went somehting like this: (young man walks into control room with resuime in hand), (loudmouth jackass: Allright kid, youre gonna make me some money today! just sit down, youre gonna mix this sone. Youre only 3 weeks into your fullsail 'college' experience? perfect!! ok, the slidey thingies here make it louder and softer, you know the EQ in your car? same shit. Just do a few passes until it sounds good to your eare and were done." Theres seems to be no filters in place at all. in areas where compression is badly needed - it sounds like a FOH mix (and a shit one) that was mixed on a FOH console in a big empty untreated room. With no crosschecking. I dont favor an overly poppy modern mix generally, all jacked up and hyperlimited. I mean its got its place (usually horrible, commercial EDM) so, for modern times. just off the top of head, and aside from all the AMAZING but obscure underground dance music that comes out, Air's Pocket Symphony, anything from Flaming Lips, Phoenix, Miike Snow, but the real hayday was the late 70s and early 80s, just before the digital revolution (though that era did yield some pretty interesting, if not cold sounding records just after the start of that transition.. but of the era, Thriller is hard to beat, On the Floor, Old Steely Dan, old Michael McDonald (thats right, and no, Im not ashamed. lol) and lots of Jazz Fusion stuff from ther 70s is my jam... think Herbie Hancock, Jeff Beck, Stanley Clarke, that steeze. hope that helps (probablly not.. lol)

@@scottfindley1345 "Allright kid, youre gonna make me some money today!" Scott I'm laughing my ASS OFF on that remark because I literally can picture that exact scenario happening in the real world. Yeah I did listen to the mixes and I did it through a set of my Samson headphones that were EQ'ed through my Sonarworks Reference 4 software and did I pick up on some of the things you were pointing out. Here's my opinion. With a lot of the modern radio music but definitely not all of it, they will use a lot of programmed electronic drums and even some canned bass tracks which isn't my cup of tea but that's their preference but most of these electronic drum and bass tracks are pretty much captured from some of the best tones possible so they should be pretty easily mixed and easily produced and yet on some of this stuff in radio rotation they still managed to drop the ball on the over-all mix and to me it sounds like souless lifeless elevator music. Now with that said I am also aware that the radio stations do color the music to some extent too because they have their own compression and EQ'ing they use to keep their transmissions under control so they don't have to deal with over modulation on AM or over deviation with FM with but even so, how can someone not nail a mix with sampled instruments? I don't know how old you are but I'm going to take a guess and say you are at least 50 and this is what you possibly do for a profession from what you have pointed out. The reality is this: A lot of people (provided they have a decent ear and a decent DAW) or even a decent old school reel to reel studio and this is myself included can get acceptable and good mixes on their own stuff especially if they take the time to listen to reference music from bands and artist from their own style but here is what separates a "PRO" studio engineer from someone with a home studio-------> EXPERIENCE with many different styles of music and how it should be perceived by the end listener. That's one of the biggies! Yeah even a person with a home studio needs to have a basic understanding of compression and basic EQ'ing and how and where to use it and of course understanding the frequencies that can ruin a mix where it's boomey or tinny sounding or my fav-o-rite golden rule which is to not over-do the damned mix with too much effect. Brother in the end it comes down to making sure everything in the mix can be clearly heard and when people hear it that they smile. The rest of the technical stuff as far as tweaking or setting levels for different platforms is the devil in the details and platforms like KZfaq can be one of the best freebie classrooms anyone could ever attend! I started off with a 4-track cassette studio with a Tascam DA-30 DAT for bouncing and expanding tracks then I moved up to more of a professional setup with a 8-track Fostex reel-to reel with decent outboard effects and compressors etc and once the digital age hit I was there and once again upgraded my system! Can I mix and can I master? Yeah but I would not want to do it professionally for a living outside of my own music not because I couldn't pull it off but because I don't have the necessary experience across the board with all of the different musical styles out there.

is it worth doing? i'm interested in doing audio engineering how should i go about doing that?

I am in the exact same situation and this is exactly how I felt too, the future is looking bright for us both 😂

@@nathax8174 no ai will take care of mixing soon

@@nathax8174 I think if it is worth it or not is a personal decision. I’m not chasing fame or money and it’s just something I want to do so for me it is worth it. I also don’t think Ai will take over mixing least anytime soon. There is as much feeling that goes into mixing as there is technical skill.

@Rhythm Reboot ok thanks for the response. I've been very passionate about music and I'd love to have a job dealing with music in someway

Indeed. That would be nice!

yee i'm also curious rn

Agreed! I really liked the recent one hour mix video. Something like that could be awesome!

@@mrcoatsworth429 That "hour" mix was even better than all the mixes he was comparing.

@@istankimjong-unbutcantstan3398 yeah it was for sure.

Metric A/B is a great plugin for this.

#3 was drenched in reverb. Not good.

@@LukeSawardMusic "Exactly how much reverb" is a trend that comes and goes, generally on a roughly 10 year pendulum.

25

​@@skylerfelix7609 2.5

They should be paying you for the experience cos they clearly have never mixed before xD.

​@@DaftFader Basically, those were probably the best stems that guy has ever touched. He should call himself lucky for getting access to those stems

100% agree.

Yep, the drum sounds so bad.

Plot twist: his own mix wasn't any better.

Absolutely. Mix #1 the drums are a little too forward and slightly harsh, like a loud aggressive rock mix, but it's not an aggressive song. Mix #3 is more cohesive and balanced - I could make a few nitpicks, but overall it's a much more professional quality.

#3 was drenched in reverb and has too much low end. Not good.

I wouldn't have been happy with any of the mixes lol unreal

Sometimes it's good to get another good ear on a song. But I hear what you're saying.

I agree. I love that sound too!

I also liked the 1st version more, the atmosphere was great and it sounded more cohesive. The 3rd version was too commercial sounding, very similar to the 1st one but the vocals were too loud and kinda too dry for my taste. 3rd version was like a music video version and 1st version more like an album version.

I like the 1st too, but it sounds like they mixed it for the chorus and didn't automate for the verse so the verse sounds all out of whack. The chorus from the 1st is by far the best section out of every mix though!

I use B&W 805 D4 with Trinnov ST2 the 1st one sounds dull to me, but it definitely sounds good on HS7s because of the frequency responses. The reason I will choose V3 as my first pick is it sounds awesome on both verse and chorus parts. V1 is more likely only focusing on chorus. and yes for sure 2nd is by a drunk mixer...Tried to find positive part but failed.

@@user-se1wb4qp7v HS7 are actually almost the cheapest speakers out there :D