Mix engineers not doing their job!!

[Richard Ellis]

Something I found on Wikipedia that makes me mad.......
"Ninety five percent of people listen to music in their car or on a cheap home stereo; 5 percent may have a better systems; and maybe 1 percent have a $20,000 stereo. So if it doesn't sound good on something small, what's the point? You can mix in front of these huge, beautiful, pristine, $10,000 powered monitors all you want. But no one else has these monitors, so your likely to end up with a translation problem." Chris Lord-Alge, Mix Engineer.
!@#$%%%$#@#....Sounds like someones' falling down on the job to me!!
_________________________________________Rick..... ....

[Cousin Billy]

I have a Patricia Barber SACD which sounds great on my cheaper stereo, but is unlistenable on my main system. It seems the engineer had the mic inputs too high. It may have sounded great on their monitors, but not on mine. YMMV.

[wg_ski]

The last 3 Tori Amos CDs sound like they were mixed so they could be played back on small decorative speakers. You know - the ones women would pick out if left to thier own devices. Play them on a system with real, honest, 20 Hz bass and it sounds like your head is going to implode . On a powerful car sub, or a stack of lab horns it's almost beyond belief.

What's one person's loss is a bass freak's gain.

[Brett]

Originally posted by Richard Ellis
Something I found on Wikipedia that makes me mad.......
"Ninety five percent of people listen to music in their car or on a cheap home stereo; 5 percent may have a better systems; and maybe 1 percent have a $20,000 stereo. So if it doesn't sound good on something small, what's the point? You can mix in front of these huge, beautiful, pristine, $10,000 powered monitors all you want. But no one else has these monitors, so your likely to end up with a translation problem." Chris Lord-Alge, Mix Engineer.
!@#$%%%$#@#....Sounds like someones' falling down on the job to me!!
_________________________________________Rick..... ....

Though the result sucks for the very small percentage of use that care about how it sounds, he actually is doing his job correctly.

I am surprised anyone is surprised by this at all.

[J.R.Freeman]

Originally posted by Brett
Though the result sucks for the very small percentage of use that care about how it sounds, he actually is doing his job correctly.

I am surprised anyone is surprised by this at all.

Brett, I find your surprise toward this surprise, surprising!

Seriously though, I agree. Mixing for the average system is prudent. For those who feel their systems are exposing flaws in the mastering process: is the flaw in the recording or reproduction? Certainly there are cases where it is the fault of the recording, but odds are that some forms of program material are better at exposing the faults of a reproduction system. Maybe a OB woofer array with active bottom end shaping can keep up with Mozart, but runs out of steam when Sir Mix A-Lot sings about the shape of bottom ends!

JF

[vpharris]

Here's a Rolling Stone article about this sorry state of affairs from a couple of years ago: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...fidelity/print

Richard... if you hadn't noticed that new recordings don't generally sound too good, maybe it's ok.

but maybe you did?

[Andy G]

it would be interesting to see what a top end gourmet cook would produce for a soup kitchen..... or McDonalds !!

most studios I have been in will do their main mix on pretty decent speakers, then see what it sounds like on not so decent speakers. this is one reason that the NS-10 was quite popular, it was closer to what real people (not us) listen to.

unfortunately, what real people listen to seems to have dropped in quality somewhat over the last 10 years or so, thus creating further disparity between a "proper" system and the type of system many people really use to grate out their sound.

where should the cd mixing engineer aim at??.. tough question !!

some will aim at commercial reality, others will try to aim for some sort of higher ideal, then it gets handed to the mastering department

[Brett]

Originally posted by J.R.Freeman


Brett, I find your surprise toward this surprise, surprising!

Seriously though, I agree. Mixing for the average system is prudent. For those who feel their systems are exposing flaws in the mastering process: is the flaw in the recording or reproduction? Certainly there are cases where it is the fault of the recording, but odds are that some forms of program material are better at exposing the faults of a reproduction system. Maybe a OB woofer array with active bottom end shaping can keep up with Mozart, but runs out of steam when Sir Mix A-Lot sings about the shape of bottom ends!

JF

Less popular music on smaller labels has a better chance of sounding better for a host of reasons, including care taken, quest for HQ SR, target audience (cares more on average perhaps) etc etc. Mainly talking jazz and classical here.

For commercial modern music, the target audience is typically younger and more likely to use an ipod, car stereo or other simpler lower SQ system. So, if you were the producer which mix would you want? The one that the majority of buyers will prefer because of the chosen means of listening, or the 0.01% of us that care more?
If I were the producer and getting points on sales, I'll sell the lower SQ version that will hopefully increase sales and laugh all the way to the bank.

Perhaps, for artists that also care about their work's SQ, we may see 24/192 versions available for download in addition to the usual versions. Maybe.

[THUMP LUMP]

It isn't that the mix is bad. It's the mastering. The "in" thing now is to compress it withing an inch of it's life and render it at virtually digital "0". Transients and dynamics are gone. A good demonstration of what is going on right here

[vinylkid58]

http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazin...ness_Wars.aspx

Jeff