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.
@@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.
Version 1 sounded the best to me, more forward feeling. It could be better with less reverb time on vocals, but very nice comparison - Keep up the good content !
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
Sometimes mixing engineers tend to have a certain genre (or collection of genres) that they specialize in. When I'm hearing the mid-scoop mix I can tell that that mixing engineer probably is more used to mixing hiphop/r&b due to more enhanced low-end and the general frequency profile. The same thing would happen if you asked a rock mixing engineer to mix a bebop jazz record.
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
Mix 1 and 3 does sound similar but the vocals on 1 seemed a bit brighter and legible. Mix 3 kind of sounded like it was drowning in reverb and pushed the vocals to the background. I would have kept them dryer but added more excitement using a limiter and compression.
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
@@persona7-7-7 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.
Mix 1 was better balanced to my ears. It was wider and I like that it wasn't over compressed and flat sounding. For this genre of music I think #1 took it. I see how the vocals sounded better in 3 and maybe thats what is pushing you that way. But I think asking for a revision on version 1 could have got you all the way there on version 1. And that's a fair mid level prices for a mix of mid level quality.
@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.
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.
Best thing I did was hold an audition for my album mix, had like 60 people on a forum mix one of my songs and I chose the best, ended up paying $150 persong AUD for 10 songs, and it came out extremely good. I would have paid him more if I had more money, but some people posted saying they would only take $250 min... and they sucked arse compared to the guy I chose. Know your place basically.
The first mix is definitely more balanced. I would argue the 3rd mix has just a bit too much low end all over where as the low end in the first mix is heard everywhere you'd expect to hear it not just blanketed over the track. I'd stand by mix 1 as the best. Great video and that song is pretty awesome too 🤘
V1 // Tries to maintain a coherent balance between across elements - sounds like the engineer was really striving for a tonally balanced mix with no one element taking centre stage - and largely achieves it. Good stereo field use too. V2 // I'm genuinely amazed (and intrigued) how the engineer made it sound this bad...even if for $100 V3 // Engineer wants to the vocal upfront more (and often that's how vocal mixes should be) but IMO the mix, especially the vocal needs more EQ cut work amongst other things. Otherwise it's fairly well balanced but doesn't utilise the stereo field as much as V1. If V2 was anything other than the $100 then we're all in the wrong game people... Great content BTW - loved your similar video on mastering services. Keep it going!
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.
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.
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?
It would’ve been very cool and even more helpful if you could’ve added one of your mixes for comparison of how to improve beyond the three you had. Make that your next video, but spend the same amount of time that you normally would on a regular mix project
You should make a mixing league with us. I would really would love to "compete" against other producers to get better and to see were my skills are right now :D + free feedback from you would be great :)
If people are paying 100 for that I must have my marketing wrong on fivver....Interestingly I like the reverb on v3, but I also don't like how dry modern rock mixes can be. but this depends on the song and what the client wants.
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.
I paid a studio from Nashville to mix and master my song and they did the worst job! Highly recommended! The first time the song was missing the background vocals and the keyboard pads. Because I was a new customer they'll do it again for free, oh ok. Second time around they missed the keyboard pads and was so over EQed it was ear piercing, I had to mix and master the song myself.
I agree. They started sending emails about their mixing classes. I sent them two of the same emails politely telling them how bad of a job they did and how to improve. They read the second email (obviously 😀) and I actually got my money back. I forget the name, I can go look it up but it was a polite conversation so I don't want to flame them. Honestly, I think they were high. The second time around was awfully unlistenable.
mix 3 sounds the best IMO, it really gives that full sound of filling up the space in the mix (and my headphones) rather than leaving that space to be desired.
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.
I did this once, paid three different people to mix one song. Two of them were huge pros with tons of credits, and one of them was more independent and didn't coast as much. The independent one BLEW the other two out of the water. The other two mixes were literally pathetic. They are used to getting studio quality recordings, and don't want to bother with anything but, So while they SHOULD be able to come up with a great mix, the simple fact is, they're not willing to bother.
@@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
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.
@@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.
Version 1 was the best out of those three. Version 3 had too much reverb going on and was overcompressed which made the verses seem almost perceptively louder than the choruses. Version 1 kept the verse to chorus balance better i.e. feels like it lifts into the chorus. When you said you preferred the verse of version 3 better it's because it sounds louder at that point but in the overall picture, it shouldn't be louder in the verse otherwise it won't lift into the chorus properly. Also making mid EQ cuts on Version 1 using CLA NS-10's, well, I'm not surprised you're trying to cut the mids on those as they're a very mid forward and inaccurate nearfield monitor. Version 1 all the way... Version 2 was very amateur so I'm glad it was the $100 mix but how that engineer could compare their mix to the artists rough mix and think it was better is beyond me. one other suggestion for level matching mixes in future, use ProTools Gain Audiosuite plugin in RMS mode to measure the same chorus of each mix, then match them all to the lowest RMS value, then turn up your monitor volume.. done.
1 and 3 are equal. The difference in midrange was within the tolerance of professional. I feel the midrange is what separates one mixer from another. This proves you can get a good mix for $500
I love these comparison mixing/mastering videos. I'd be really interested in one where you not only have different prices for humans mixing/mastering, but if you added in some of the AI options. I've seen videos where people did blind comparisons of human mastering vs. AI mastering when they first came on the market and they didn't do great in comparison, but it's been a few years and you have to imagine there's been improvements since then.
Loudness match them next time. Easiest way to get the volumes comparable with each other, and it helps you hear how the mixes will respond when normalized on streaming services.
I just spent years learning to record, mix, master, and take photos myself. Let's me spend as much time as I want and have 100% creative control over anything I want to do. I ain't paying nobody for nothin'
On my speakers, V1 sounds harsh, V2 sounds too scooped and pumpy, And V3 has a tad too much 500hz but sounds better and fuller. if there was a 75% V3 mixed with 25% V1 it would probably be a good mix
I personally don't think any of these mixes are up to industry standards, perhaps amatuer. Which is interesting, because if I paid 1,000$ on a mix, I'd expect to get back a radio ready mix.
Version three is night and day the best. like you just have to listen, you can tell that it was balanced. personally i had no issues with the reverb on version 3. The vocal and the instrumental were in sync, like space properly maintained. version one is also really cool, but its version 3 for me.
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.
I want to say I agree with the overall order of them. As I listened I thought #3 was the best overall, and for the verse, although it WAS close and #1 perhaps had the edge for the chorus. And yes, although #3 won, it wasn't worth twice the price of #1. To me #2 sounded like it was mixed by someone more into EDM or even hip-hop, not rock or pop - they REALLY wanted to have that kick drum and bass pumping over everything else.
3 is the best to my ears. 2 is just thin but clearer than the rest 1 sounds over compressed and a bit muddy but your right, none of them are that great. Thanks for sharing.
Couldn't get past how much reverb was in 1 and 3 (I'll just ignore 2 like it doesn't even exist), so my choice would be 1 just on that account. It's very weird to me that a pro mixing engineer would deliver something that poor. However I believe if I hired that person I'd be allowed to review the mix and ask for changes and I'd certainly exercise that right. This was very enlightening and made me feel good about my humble mixing skills, maybe I'm not the total amateur I thought I was.
It is so hard to judge a mix in this type of contest. First of all, the mixer is just taking a job without involving himself with the song and the artist vision, which in my opinion is what matters the most. Additionally, I am assuming that those are just Mix v1 of the song for each of those mixers. In that sense, V3 is totally the best (1k USD). It is the most even mix of all three. You can hear the vocals and every single instrument through the entire song (imagine what would happen on Mix 3 or even 4). V1 has serious issues of dynamics especially in the verse after the 1st chorus where vocals just went down in volume. Saying that I trully belive that is not fair for any of them to be judged with these parameters (except for Fiver's version because it sounds worse than the rough mix). If the artist was actively commenting with the mixer and the producer, then it would be okay, that's what you got and of course is not that impressive. About the amount of reverb in a song I think that is more an aesthetic aspect and taste. I guess what makes a great mix engineer be a great engineer It's how they interpret the artist's and producer's vision using technical parameters like selecting the right reverb, EQ or the compressors or any technique they have to increase the vibe of the song.
Version 3 seemed to be the best to me. Version 1 was close but the snare drum lacked clarity and didn’t feel as good in version 3. Version 2 was disjointed throughout and sounded more like a rough lol. In my own frustration I’ve done this “test” not for RU-vid, but on my own time. For the most part, the cheaper end ones were significantly worse than my roughs. In terms of the slightly higher end ones, it’s kinda win some and lose some. Eventually I started to mix on my own
This is a great video format man. Just from a RU-vid engagement perspective, enjoyment level is high because people play along. You should do more of these.
Listening on HS7s I definitely like 1st the most! I like this "cloudy" - as you call it - feeling and reverb. Gives nice vibes to songs. But overall - as a mixer, I would ask band what they like it to be, because reverbs+delays are matter of preference of the band, and without knowing what they really want you can't judgde mixers based on amount of reverb. 2nd is terrible. Sounds like my first attempts on mixing ever years ago :D
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.
I had ONE experience with Soundbetter, and it was not good. I contacted them to master 5 songs for my First EP. Used a "so-called Nashville Mastering Engineer". Since it was my first attempt at doing this, I wanted to use a "pro". Here's what I got besides paying him $325......I sent him mp3 tracks. He never suggested that I should instead send him WAV files. Remember I already TOLD him upfront it was my first time. SO, when I got them back, they sounded "Loud". Ya know why? Cause they WERE! I put them in my Project Page in Studio One, and WAH-LAW, they were ALL loud, with the highest loud one being 5.4 db too loud, also double-checking them with a Waves Loudness meter. SO I had to adjust all of them myself before I released that first 5-song EP. I decided to take a quality Mastering course, took me 3 mos, from a known and respected Mastering Engineer for a long time. Fast forward to today. I now have 36 songs released, and 5 more I will release in early to Mid-May. I mixed and mastered all of them myself. It can be done. Thanks for the Video.
The 2 higher prices was not close to hitting the mark considering the demo, 500 should be expected to sound ok against a world class mix, really. Above 500 you are paying for a mixer brand as well, and should very much expect a stellar mix, not sure this was a stellar mix, it was alright.
Makes me wonder what my attempt would sound like in comparison. I could be wrong, but I think most untrained ears would be pretty happy with 1 and 3. Maybe not perfect mixes, but I think that’s similar to my skill level if not a bit better. I think the things you noticed about too much reverb/wetness is an issue of using the same general techniques across multiple genres which is something I think many would struggle with(including me).Version 2 gives me a bit of confidence in where I’m at in my mixing journey. Cool video!
I'm one of those mixers that usually don't mix annything to completion before sending the first mix. I feel like it makes the process more of a cooperation because often the band have a vision and it's hard for me to guess that vision fully. I find it a lot easier to change stuff upp aswell as early as possible instead of having a lot of automation, and everything sitting right where I want it and someone comes and wants a big change... getting the band in early helps me not having to mix it twice. that said I would never send a bad bad first mix to a client. just maybe one where vocals aren't automated or all the small delays in between stuff haven't been sent yet
I think the bass specifically on version 1 had better definition and clarity. I would've asked for my money back on the $100 mix, it objectively sounds worse than the rough mix.
It really comes down to what sounds good to the person mixing down their tracks. As long as they have a basic understanding of the "Do's and Don'ts when mixing along with a basically decent DAW they can probably mix their own music and be pretty happy with their mix. Mastering the final mixdown is other half of the equation and you really need to have an understanding of what mastering is to get it right because it's more than just adding loudness and throwing some EQ at the mix.
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 RU-vid 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.
just started watching but damn, mix 2 has so many issues. Hope it's not one of the more expensive ones. The crest ratio is incredible high. If you want to master this a little louder, you'd completely change the mix.
You can have your song mixed at Abbey Road in London (yeah THAT Abbey Road) for $375 USD (a little more if you specify one of their mixers). Why would anyone go anywhere else?
I haven't tried it but I have heard their mixes and masters from the online service are awful. They just have interns do it. Again...unverified anecdotal info. Just something to think about. Have you tried it?
I've heard a mix that someone got from abby road's online service and it wasn't great at all, it had a fair few problems. It was a youtube vid like this one, and one of the cheaper fiver mixes they got was actually miles better!
I think at the end of the day if Version 3 had a bit more LUFS range, there would've been a lot more noticeable quality difference. I think we've entered that era of making sure loudness is loud for the sake of "Spotify said so" or whatever. Either way, I'd still pay a g for it, so long as I could do revisions. Revisions for people that you're getting paid by online are only customary because a lot of people don't know what the hell they want even in pre-production and have severe "demoitis" when listening to their own track anyways.
Interesting video! I kinda feel that no matter how good a mixer you are it still comes down to the personal preference of the client. In the end that's who's paying for it. It's unusual but there are instances of historically bad mixes like Metallica's And Justice for All seeing the light of day. Apparently, that had a lot to do with Lars Ulrich's mix preferences.
Would be interesting to also show the reviews for those "engineers" on those websites. People say now days is really hard to get into the mixing business but man, if that is a 1000 dollars mix quality than I don't know what to say
Once sent a perfectly mixed perfectly captured band recording to a "Mastering" engineer, to "master" it. He replaced all the perfect drums with out-of-sync samples and applied distortion effects to everything. Attempting to make it sound like nu-metal or some nonsense. ;D
Why don't you use LUFS to normalize each version before comparing them? I think you should do it, and ignore loudness differences, because the final loudness will be set by the mastering engineer (and probably by the streaming platform).
No local bands are paying that. It ain’t happening. 90% of band make less than $100 to play a show and may make $100 on merch. Most it’s a hobby. They ain’t paying someone $4-10k to get an album mixed.
@@joek2904 a band releases typically one album every 3-4 years, $1,000 a song over eight-ish songs, and then another $2,000 for mastering the album is pretty average if not cheap. Also if you're a band making $100 a show and $100 in merch, you're either VERY new, VERY unpopular, or don't know how to negotiate. You really shouldn't even be thinking of a proper first album until you're at certain thresholds. This is why Demos are a thing lmao.
Holy crap, for that kind of money they should be flawless mixes, even the $100 one! For 500 + 1000 you should expect chart topping levels of mixing flavor added on top of a flawless mix! I could probably make something better than mix number two on my PC monitor ... not studio monitors, but my pc MONITOR the thing I watch youtube on! xD
@@joeambly6807 It's a four track mix. If you can't get that right you shouldn't be charging anything, did you even bother to listen to what he got for his 100 bucks or did you just come stright to the comments and start jerking off?
@@DaftFader nah dude, those price is basically the payment for 10-20 years of mixing and mastering experience in commercial, 100bucks an hour for indie release of that quality? nah, I;ve heard skillful producer than that, but imo 200-300buck per song is what they should charge if it's really a quality mix. 1000bucks... I guess if you're known in the industry with big grammy belt mixing engineer that proved you're worthy (tho mostly they sound mediocre)
Some might say the difference between mix #1 and #3 wasn't that big considering the cost, but I hear a huge difference. Once the mix is competent (which #2 wasn't), improvements may be subtle, but they glue everything together and give it a more professional quality.
some people only think about the money, i would love to try and mix for free so i can learn through experience, it doesn’t always have to be able the money. music is beautiful, make it beautiful as well.
Loudness is not necessarily important during a mixing stage. Yes you want a good amount of level, but the most important thing is a clean sound with head room, for room to master afterwards
@@kahyui2486 just a good mix in general. Balanced levels, proper mix to instruments and vocals all together. Everything included to get a good clean mix that sounds finished. If the mix is perfect, all you should have to do on the master is pull the threshold done. The more tweaking you have to do in mastering, chances are the mix isn’t balanced well or “as clean as it could be”
