Group Mastering

[Phi Lion]

Is anyone here interested in a situation where by a mix is uploaded and several of us download it and create a filter with Har-bal and compare the results.

I know the ituit Q is great but i think most of us still do a little tweaking after the fact and this might be a good way to take it to another level.

[AntonyR]

Interesting idea - however, mixing changes should start with the mix itself before applying changes globally to the track via Har-Bal. For example, if the final mix has a large peak at 500Hz, everyone will most likely reduce that peak in Har-Bal. The question is why is that peak there? Is there a specific instrument in the mix at that frequency that is causing it or is it a combination of things all clashing resulting in a peak at that point. Anyone can use Harbal to make an existing mix more flat in terms of it's response, but that doesn't mean that the track will really sound much different.

I have got to the point in my mixing whereby when I click initQ there is such a small change made, due to the balance being right to start with, that there is no noticeable change in the overall sound of the mix if I A/B the original or the initQ'd version.

If you could provide the raw tracks of a song (without processing) and everyone loaded this and mixed and then used Harbal - that would be a more interesting exercise.

Just my thoughts....

Antony

[SynthRiot]

A mastering contest (just the spectrum/tonality) ...

I love the idea very much !
Who is going to judge the results ?

Nitro

[Phi Lion]

Might be cool if we used it as an opportunity to learn and compare instead of finding a winner if we were to go ahead with it.


Might be cool to try single instruments as well.

I know ive produced amazing results on individual instruments.

And in other cases, if we have access to the actual mix.
See how we can correct the mix after looking at the spectrum in Har-bal.
As was previously said.
Ive wondered about that myself for quite some time.

[HarBal]

I like the idea irrespective of which route (ie. HB on final mix or HB on individual tracks prior to mix down). In a sense, perhaps it would be a good idea to do both as in the later case a lot might also depend on mixing decisions made by whoever is mixing it. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if the mix levels were documented and must be adhered to.

As for judging, I'd suggest a popular vote from the participants. That would certainly be the most likely to give the least biased outcome and the multitude of different monitoring environments would test the transportability of the mix far better than a panel of judges in the one environment.

Paavo.

[Gordon Gidluck]

I like the idea irrespective of which route (ie. HB on final mix or HB on individual tracks prior to mix down). In a sense, perhaps it would be a good idea to do both as in the later case a lot might also depend on mixing decisions made by whoever is mixing it. The only way that wouldn't be the case is if the mix levels were documented and must be adhered to.

As for judging, I'd suggest a popular vote from the participants. That would certainly be the most likely to give the least biased outcome and the multitude of different monitoring environments would test the transportability of the mix far better than a panel of judges in the one environment.

Paavo.

Let me echo the sentiment that first and foremost it should be an educational excercise!

Perhaps we could start with a mixdown and then request some supplemental tracks if the concensus is that it needs some more vocal or something.

I have participated in something like this on a mastering board, and it helps to remove bias if the submissions are numbered. ie. only identify your entry after they are judged.

Also, if all participants are required to comment on all entries, that would provide useful feedback to each participant.

Gordon

[Phi Lion]

Any more interest in this guys?