# Which Mastering Version do you prefer?



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

Hi there!

I'd like to make a blind test to see which sound is preferred by the majority. First a comparison with a few short examples and then one full track.

The one mastering was done by a professional mastering engineer, the other one by myself in the bedroom (literally) with mostly free software (except the magical Gullfoss).

My publisher and me preferred my own versions that I made after being unhappy with the 'professional' ones so I'm just curious how universal this preference is.

Please just go by what you *like* the most without trying to guess which one is the professional and rating based on that.

Thanks for your time! 

*Short side-by-side examples suite:*

One version VS the other - always the same mastering person's work in the same order.
Just keep in mind whether you generally prefer the 1st or the 2nd...

https://clyp.it/ocxdllfn

*Comparison with a full track:*

Master 1 - https://clyp.it/ufx1jvko

Master 2 - https://clyp.it/y0fwjk5l


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Feb 2, 2020)

I think, the first one is better, given the situation. However, I cannot fully attest to the low frequencies at the moment as I am not in my studio. I am listening on headphones. 

As is usual with trailer music (some of my own mixes too), there is much HF boost and this causes HF smearing and lack of clarity. Funnily, this is usually changed when the track is used in a trailer. 

The second master is way too bright and I can hear distortion in a couple of places. 

My guess is that the first one is yours and the second one is from the mastering engineer who enhanced it further, but in the process, it sounds not as optimal. 

I have had similar problems from mastering of my trailer tracks. In any case, the trailers use stems so I am not too worried about this. 

Over all, I find that trailer music is way too harsh and often not very pleasing but it seems to have caught on. And, I write trailer music myself! It has been difficult to escape this chain of thought.


----------



## brojd (Feb 2, 2020)

I voted for number 2.

1 had a bit overpronounced bottom end and didn’t sound very ”wide” or ”open”
2 felt much better in those departments but feels a bit harsh in the highs sometimes.

wellwell, that’s my 2 cent


----------



## Ivan M. (Feb 2, 2020)

Master 1 dfefinitelly, the 2nd one is too harsh in the upper frequencies. You need to fix this in the mix, eq/dyn eq the instruments (especially brass)


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 2, 2020)

I prefer 1 by quite a bit.
The second one is somewhat too bright... you can hear the noise from that the solo strings very clearly, much more than in the second example.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

Ivan M. said:


> Master 1 dfefinitelly, the 2nd one is too harsh in the upper frequencies. You need to fix this in the mix, eq/dyn eq the instruments (especially brass)


So, you find both too harsh, or only 2nd, as I understood it? Because it's the same mix both times I think, just different mastering.


Bluemount Score said:


> I prefer 1 by quite a bit.
> The second one is somewhat too bright... you can hear the noise from that the solo strings very clearly, much more than in the second example.


Did you mean "first example"? Because to me the noise is brought up by the brightness of 2nd one which you mentioned too...


----------



## Bluemount Score (Feb 2, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> Did you mean "first example"? Because to me the noise is brought up by the brightness of 2nd one which you mentioned too...


I mean this one, which I prefer (overall and because it's not so noisy).
Low end might be a little much but to be honest, I don't mind that here.


DarkestShadow said:


> Master 1 - https://clyp.it/ufx1jvko


----------



## sostenuto (Feb 2, 2020)

Prefer Master 2 ... listening on Yamaha Studio Monitors. Richer, deeper, fuller ___ _ but my impressions must be discarded hastily as my 'seasoned' ears suffer from notable hi-freq fall-off_ (Rt more than Lt).
Must try to work with this daily, yet definite handicap. 
Enjoy this type of clear A/B comparison which demonstrates what differences can be discerned. 
Will try again later with Senn HD fones .....

(edit) Fones add sense of better balance with Master 2 as well. 'Clarity' of Master 1 noted, but seems too much separation than would be noted in live performance. Master 2 not muddy, but better 'integrated'. 
Ha ! Noted @ dohm comment below and shows how much my current impressions must be taken with added salt  Glad to enjoy concerts with noted proportion of seasoned attendees as well. 
THX!


----------



## dohm (Feb 2, 2020)

Without question, I like Master 1. There is more clarity in the instruments and the bass is controlled. Better balance all around. Are you sure it is just a mastering difference (i.e., stereo bus only) and there are no differences in the tracks or stems levels? It sounds like each example has a slightly different mix to me. If you are interested, I'm listening in a decent room with ATC SCM25A monitors.

EDIT: I went back and listened to the later sections of Master 1 when it gets louder. If it were me, I would tone down some of the big bass hits just a little (~2dB) and take a little edge out of the high end (or reduce levels on the contributing sample/sound. Not much...just a touch. Nice track!


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

dohm said:


> Without question, I like Master 1. There is more clarity in the instruments and the bass is controlled nicely. Better balance all around. Are you sure it is just a mastering difference (i.e., stereo bus only) and there are no differences in the tracks or stems levels? It sounds like each example has a slightly different mix to me. If you are interested, I'm listening in a decent room with ATC SCM25A monitors.


Well, perhaps the mastering engineer worked from the stems indeed... in one track he turned down a whole section (solo strings) to vanishing point which was not discussed with my publisher and made me furious haha.
So yea, but in any case, that would actually give me even more points because I wouldn't only have done a better job at mastering but also the mix. 
But no worries, not looking for ego boosting. Literally just interested in how the difference is being perceived. If the professional master is being liked more it's simply indicative of subjective differences between me and others. But it looks like it's quite an even race. For now...


----------



## ptram (Feb 2, 2020)

I prefer Master 1. More airy, more dynamic, less Ultramaximizer-sounding.

By the way, very nice piece!

Paolo


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Feb 2, 2020)

I've only listened to a few seconds of each so can't comment in depth but #1 has issues in the low end which are better in #2 but whatever EQ was used in the top end of #2 really bothers me. That boost may have worked if whoever did it used a more appropriate EQ. I'd go with #1 with more control in the low end.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> I agree with what you said 👆
> 
> IMHO: First off, there’s a lot of potential in this track. I really like a lot about it, especially the early sections of each movement before the choir enters.
> 
> ...


Many thanks for the detailed thoughts and compliments! 

I see what you mean with structure... the piece doesn't really have many building qualities but rather "sections". That's just kinda the way I write mostly, probably due to listening 90% to production and trailer music and 8% to film-scores and 2% classical music. 

There actually was no TV or other media context for this piece. It was written for a publisher yea, but he gave me total freedom and no brief what so ever. In fact, this piece is extremely personal, just like a musical diary, inspired by an event that disturbed me quite a bit. It's supposed to feel a bit painful emotionally and I find the static and repetitive nature of the piece supports that - in some way the thing that inspired is something that keeps coming back in different forms and while always being kind of the same thing - just like the piece. 

For me it works and I wouldn't change a thing about the composition and mix (except the last loud section which drove me nuts), just like you wrote at the end - it's very subjective in the arts... 

But thank you again for the in-depth thoughts!


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 2, 2020)

From a quick listen on my very humble non-studio equipment, I prefer #1. But I still think #1 has too much low end for my taste. I'm guessing #1 is yours, because why else make the thread? But maybe that's just my wishful thinking, rooting for the "underdog" in this little mastering contest.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> From a quick listen on my very humble non-studio equipment, I prefer #1. But I still think #1 has too much low end for my taste. I'm guessing #1 is yours, because why else make the thread? But maybe that's just my wishful thinking, rooting for the "underdog" in this little mastering contest.


Well, #1 could also be the other master.  Don't necessarily see why I must have chosen mine as 1 but well - thanks for your opinion.


----------



## Dr.Quest (Feb 2, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> Well, perhaps the mastering engineer worked from the stems indeed... in one track he turned down a whole section (solo strings) to vanishing point which was not discussed with my publisher and made me furious haha.



Wait, how and why would a Mastering Engineer work from stems? That's a mix Engineer and 2 different things. Why would you have a mix done without being there? Or are you making a joke I don't get?
Nice piece though. Kind of sizzling highs in both. I'll have to listen again when I have time.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

Dr.Quest said:


> Wait, how and why would a Mastering Engineer work from stems? That's a mix Engineer and 2 different things. Why would you have a mix done without being there? Or are you making a joke I don't get?
> Nice piece though. Kind of sizzling highs in both. I'll have to listen again when I have time.


Thanks! 
I don't see what's weird with it... of course it's not mixing per se, but some slight adjustments might still be done quickly when you have the stems. The solo strings in one track were killed which doesn't work without working from the stems, so I guess the mastering engineer hired as such took his duties a bit further. :D 

And I would never have a mix done, I'd rather not work with a label who mixes tracks... in this case my publisher just hired a mastering engineer who did the version I posted and the rest of the album. In the end my own masters were preferred and released.


----------



## Tod (Feb 2, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> *Comparison with a full track:*
> 
> Master 1 - https://clyp.it/ufx1jvko
> 
> Master 2 - https://clyp.it/y0fwjk5l



I liked Master 1 by far, it has a lot more dynamics.


----------



## ironbut (Feb 2, 2020)

I thought master 2 sounds more cinematic. I could easily imagine myself in a theater listening to it rather than in my studio (which was where I actually was).
Maybe it wasn't the way I would like it eq'ed for just listening for pleasure?


----------



## Tod (Feb 2, 2020)

Dr.Quest said:


> Wait, how and why would a Mastering Engineer work from stems? That's a mix Engineer and 2 different things.


Aah, so these are actually 2 different mixes? If so that would explain the differences in dynamics I was hearing, I couldn't understand how it could be done with just mastering.


----------



## ironbut (Feb 2, 2020)

Dr.Quest said:


> Wait, how and why would a Mastering Engineer work from stems? That's a mix Engineer and 2 different things.



At the AES Convention a few years back, I listened to a panel of mastering engineers and they were asked if they would work from stems.
All of them said they have but preferred not to.


----------



## JEPA (Feb 2, 2020)

I voted nr. 1. More clarity as the second one, more dynamics. For my taste, better.


----------



## Dr.Quest (Feb 2, 2020)

Tod said:


> Aah, so these are actually 2 different mixes? If so that would explain the differences in dynamics I was hearing, I couldn't understand how it could be done with just mastering.


Yes. If they are 2 different mixes then you can't really compare them for mastering differences at all.


----------



## Joël Dollié (Feb 2, 2020)

Master 1 is way better. The high frequencies in master 2 are really way too much and it sounds odd.

EDIT: Just listened to the ending part specifically, the perc is better punchier and clearer in Master 2 but other than that for the most part it's just too overprocessed sounding in my opinion. Even master 1 sounds a bit too hyped for my taste but it doesn't go completely overboard wheras master 2 kinda does to the point it gets uncomfortable. The overall levels/choir presence/mids and treble balance are worse in 2 imo.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

Dr.Quest said:


> Yes. If they are 2 different mixes then you can't really compare them for mastering differences at all.


OK, then we can just call it "sound" overall and any mixing difference was done by the pro-mastering guy anyway, so it's not like someone else gave him a more screwed up or improved mix beforehand. And as someone else mentioned - working from stems and doing some adjustments can be part of a mastering engineers work.


Joël Dollié said:


> Master 1 is way better. The high frequencies in master 2 are really way too much and it sounds odd.
> 
> EDIT: Just listened to the ending part specifically, the perc is better punchier and clearer in Master 2 but other than that for the most part it's just too overprocessed sounding in my opinion. Even master 1 sounds a bit too hyped for my taste but it doesn't go completely overboard wheras master 2 kinda does to the point it gets uncomfortable. The overall levels/choir presence/mids and treble balance are worse in 2 imo.


Thank you for checking it out! Yea, I'm kinda bothered by the production I did in the ending part, fairly hyped - could've been much better. Actually in Master 2 I get the feeling I just drove through a large tunnel and have this sound-canceling pressure on my ears. Couldn't even pay attention to the perc yet due to my shock haha - maybe at least something learn from the perc integration in example 2 there... Well, now it's clear that the 1st one is mine, but on page 2 it should be fine.


----------



## Joël Dollié (Feb 2, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> OK, then we can just call it "sound" overall and any mixing difference was done by the pro-mastering guy anyway, so it's not like someone else gave him a more screwed up or improved mix beforehand. And as someone else mentioned - working from stems and doing some adjustments can be part of a mastering engineers work.
> 
> Thank you for checking it out! Yea, I'm kinda bothered by the production I did in the ending part, fairly hyped - could've been much better. Actually in Master 2 I get the feeling I just drove through a large tunnel and have this sound-canceling pressure on my ears. Couldn't even pay attention to the perc yet due to my shock haha - maybe at least something learn from the perc integration in example 2 there... Well, now it's clear that the 1st one is mine, but on page 2 it should be fine.




Ah, Nice one, I think most people agree you have the best one haha :D

Yeah, personally if I had to master this I would tame that treble right off, making sure everything is more organic.


----------



## Andoran (Feb 2, 2020)

I think generally #1 is a better master, especially dynamically and in the mid to hi frequencies. Master #2 has a bit more width and better definition in the low end, unfortunately to accomplish that it seems to have over emphasized the high end at around 3k to 8k making it very harsh in the mid high end. If it were me I would do spot eq on the percussion/bass tracks in the mix for better definition and much less hi frequency boost in the master.


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 2, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> Don't necessarily see why I must have chosen mine as 1



No, I meant #1 is clearly better, and if yours wasn't clearly better you likely wouldn't have made this thread and your publisher wouldn't have gone with your version instead of the other one.

Congratulations to _having _a publisher by the way .



DarkestShadow said:


> Actually in Master 2 I get the feeling I just drove through a large tunnel and have this sound-canceling pressure on my ears.



Just wondering, can you hear that with headphones too or just on speakers? I can hear it on my speakers, but not on the ultra cheap gaming headphones that I have plugged in at the moment.
I'd be curious what causes that. Haas effect panning maybe?


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 2, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> What libraries did you use? Not only do the strings sound lovely but your composition for the strings is phenomenal 👏 The string motif could be the basis for a film score and reminded me of Steven Price’s score for David Ayer’s Fury. I’m not sure what any publisher is gonna do with this though and would not sell your rights away so easily for that melody line. IMHO you should start paying more attention to film and film scores and seek out that path.


Thanks again!!  The libraries are CSSS & CSS. I think that's it for this piece, at least for the lyrical parts which you seem to be referring to. But they are heavily processed and hours went only into programming dynamics.

The melody line is nothing too fancy IMO, I have no problem with ideas and this one isn't even in the top 1000 of my favorites (I have folder with several days run-time full with better ideas).

And this piece and all my other music is only in the best hands with a publisher. With a 98% likelihood I will never score any movie. I don't know why anyone would ever want to do something like that unless for money or lack of internal inspiration. It's like music slavery to me - the music must *serve* the movie and cannot live and unfold on it's own. It must adhere to the *masters* - the movie and it's director and chain of producers. Of course there are also some directions from most publishers - but anywhere near as many restrictions as with film scoring. In fact, in this case there were no notes or directions at all. So that's exactly my place...


MartinH. said:


> No, I meant #1 is clearly better, and if yours wasn't clearly better you likely wouldn't have made this thread and your publisher wouldn't have gone with your version instead of the other one.
> 
> Congratulations to _having _a publisher by the way .
> 
> ...


Well, clearly better is always subjective.  We're just two guys who thought it was better... but based on this thread it seems that most people agree! Yay! 

Well, I have a great publisher for this one... who didn't kick me after throwing a fit about the masters but asked me to give it a try myself to hear my vision and went with mine altogether. 

And - I only use headphones. Cheap (around 70 euro I think) but good for the price range based on the people in the music store and my ears. So - interesting... maybe the mastering guy used your cheap gaming headphones?? 
I think it's too much frequency reduction certain areas causing this effect... although I have to look up the haas effect - no idea what it is.


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 3, 2020)

DarkestShadow said:


> And - I only use headphones. Cheap (around 70 euro I think) but good for the price range based on the people in the music store and my ears. So - interesting... maybe the mastering guy used your cheap gaming headphones??



Interesting. I was thinking along the lines of frequency cancellation due to negative phase correlation, but I'm not exactly sure what happens if you listen to that on headphones. And I'm certainly no mastering expert, far from it.



DarkestShadow said:


> I think it's too much frequency reduction certain areas causing this effect... although I have to look up the haas effect - no idea what it is.


I think Alan Meyerson explained it in the video linked above your post. Worth a watch imho.


----------



## John Longley (Feb 3, 2020)

Both are saturated, with more audible clipping in the first version. Low mids are more natural, but the limiting is very prominent. This could be made worse by the lossy encoding/streaming. 

The second one has less low midrange saturation, but the presence lift is a little distracting. 

I have no idea the direction given, so I can't comment professionally. 

Re: Stem mastering. 

It is a solution to the wrong problem, but sometimes it is still useful. The real solution, is to deliver the right mix. However, in cases where the mixer is maybe not confident or experienced enough, it can help. No real mastering engineer wants stems, but sometimes it's the lesser of evils. I would rather mix the track or master the track, but stem mastering leads to a lack of control for everybody  In cases of stem mastering, very clear goals need to exist or we lose the plot quickly.

*Listened quickly on Tyler Decades.


----------



## purple (Feb 3, 2020)

#1 is better to me. Listen to the drums in the first example... Sounds maybe even a bit distorted in the second version? Might just be me hearing it that way but it certainly sounds crunchy and loses the sound of the drum a bit. Second example is also more muddy, but the first could probably still use some mud treatment, maybe better to do that in the mix rather than the master.


----------

