Ableton Forum

TomKern wrote: I'm not gonna waste precious bass energy just to balance my mix so that these barbarians get a slightly less subpar representation of what my music actually is supposed to sound like.

And that's NOT what I was suggesting. I was suggesting using the available tools and approaches to get tolerable translations. If you lose your great sub on some computer speakers or phone that might be acceptable, but on a pair of Genelec's (I know at least one real world as well as great track that does this) then that's one compromise the producer should have made: to get better translation.

You can have your cake and eat it too, with multiple mixes. That's one reason why remixes are great.

Stromkraft wrote:

TomKern wrote: I'm not gonna waste precious bass energy just to balance my mix so that these barbarians get a slightly less subpar representation of what my music actually is supposed to sound like.

And that's NOT what I was suggesting. I was suggesting using the available tools and approaches to get tolerable translations. If you lose your great sub on some computer speakers or phone that might be acceptable, but on a pair of Genelec's (I know at least one real world as well as great track that does this) then that's one compromise the producer should have made: to get better translation.

You can have your cake and eat it too, with multiple mixes. That's one reason why remixes are great.

I'm only saying I don't cater to them, doesn't mean I'm purposefully making it bad for them.
I'm designing the balance assuming very mediocre bass response on the play back device (like 200 USD stereos or 50 USD headphones), but I ignore edge cases that would not have any decent bass response at all. (like phone speakers for example)

It obviously depends very much for what target you are going: A widely played pop hit?
It better play everywhere and especially on those little shitty devices because that's what a pop audience uses.
Bass heavy dub step (or other modern dance music)?! I'm not gonna make any compromises for systems that are not suited for that style of music. The audience that counts in that genre has nice stereos or good headphones. And that's not even speaking about the walls of sound in the clubs with their huge subs.

Why would I over-compress the attack of the kick just so that it can punch through the bass while playing on tiny speakers? I'd give up significant listening enjoyment on most systems, for enabling playback on a small minority, while knowing it will sound like crap on them anyways.

And sure multiple released mixes (different thing than a remix), like most of the audience would even understand what they are for. This would only lead to frustration when people pick the wrong one.
And that's not even considering the fact that it would be more work for me, catering to a small group of people I don't even respect. I have not become a musician to be everything to everyone.

TomKern wrote: I'm only saying I don't cater to them, doesn't mean I'm purposefully making it bad for them.

A perfectly valid approach.

TomKern wrote: Why would I over-compress the attack of the kick just so that it can punch through the bass while playing on tiny speakers? I'd give up significant listening enjoyment on most systems, for enabling playback on a small minority, while knowing it will sound like crap on them anyways.

Well, you sure don't sound like you make mixes like I make them. I have no idea where you got that from. Certainly nothing I wrote. I don't see your scenario as typical at all, or even necessary. Of course, how mixes play depends heavily on material. Sometimes you need to make musically guided choices and compromise might not work for a specific track. But that's a given.

TomKern wrote: And sure multiple released mixes (different thing than a remix), like most of the audience would even understand what they are for. This would only lead to frustration when people pick the wrong one.

No! REMIXES! Why are you inventing stuff I'm not suggesting?

There are no "wrong" remixes. There are only remixes. How you focus them is up to you or the remixer.

Stromkraft wrote:

TomKern wrote: Why would I over-compress the attack of the kick just so that it can punch through the bass while playing on tiny speakers? I'd give up significant listening enjoyment on most systems, for enabling playback on a small minority, while knowing it will sound like crap on them anyways.

Well, you sure don't sound like you make mixes like I make them. I have no idea where you got that from. Certainly nothing I wrote. I don't see your scenario as typical at all, or even necessary.

I just gave one example of what compromise usually means. Tiny speakers cram all bass energy together (not a technical term ) which means the bass often overpowers the kick. Unless you wanna go all Daft Punk on the parallel compression, over-compression of the attack of the kick is a common quick fix that way too many young producers abuse. This leads to the kick being noticeable on the smallest of speakers, but on big speakers it just sounds harsh and not organic at all. And if you listen to these mixes on headphones they lead to this awful knock in your head that can ruin the whole experience.
So yes, if you for instance listen to a lot of techno this is unfortunately a pretty typical situation.

TomKern wrote: And sure multiple released mixes (different thing than a remix), like most of the audience would even understand what they are for. This would only lead to frustration when people pick the wrong one.

No! REMIXES! Why are you inventing stuff I'm not suggesting?

There are no "wrong" remixes. There are only remixes. How you focus them is up to you or the remixer.

I am confused by your definition of remix. A remix is for me when someone takes stems from other artists and and makes a different version according to his/her taste, usually with the goal to boost their own name recognition.
It's a pretty common thing in dance music.

I thought what you were suggesting was to make different mix-downs of a track and release them as "radio-edit" and "club-version" or something like that.
I think most people who are not themselves musicians wouldn't know what the difference between those entails, and when picking the wrong one would be frustrated by the result.

Anyways: I just wanted to share my take on the whole topic of making the final mix so that it "translates" to all listening environments. As in, I think it is ok to ignore some listening environments to make the final result sound much better on most others.

But I'm not particularly emotionally invested in convincing you (or others) of seeing it my way.

So it's all cool

Late response:

TomKern wrote: I thought what you were suggesting was to make different mix-downs of a track and release them as "radio-edit" and "club-version" or something like that.

Version Galore
Well, I was imagining something like that. There's nothing strange making your work available for different outlets, but it's heavily dependent on your music whether it's fit for this.

I don't really think we disagree what we think a remix is or isn't. It's simply a version with a different focus, no?

Remixes
If you think about a typical "radio mix" that could be in a shorter "pop" length and have a bass you can hear anywhere, more or less. It could be as simple as adding harmonics to the low end or a second bass with more middle energy or it could be a complete revamp of the whole track. A remix, as I see it, is is an artistic thing and could be anything really.

A "club mix" for contrast — which really is a mix for DJs to use as I see it — could lean more heavily on the kick and bass and forego the mentioned treatments as well as have a longer intro. Of course adding harmonics actually can work here as well. Which specific technique one uses really depends on the track in question.

Hyper-competition
I can imagine doing specific mixes for streaming services/radio for some tracks. In that type of outlet you're in hyper-competition and I could probably be compelled to present the core attraction of my track much earlier and I'd have to forego my taste for long rhythmical buildups and slow starts for that particular mix. For another mix geared for being beatmixed by some DJ, I'd leave that stuff in. I'm not sure I'd add it for that reason though. Probably not.

And as I'm already doing different mixes I could focus each remix a bit, without getting over-specific because we as music producers have to face that once it's out there we have no or little control over how, when and why our tracks are getting played back and certainly not over what sound systems people use. We can only make sure our mixes (and our mastered and released versions) have a chance to translate as best as we can.

"To translate" can of course mean a sub bass just don't have the same role (as it's not there really), but something else, another instrument, is still there to drive the track when the bass element is not heard.

TomKern wrote:

Stromkraft wrote:

TomKern wrote: Why would I over-compress the attack of the kick just so that it can punch through the bass while playing on tiny speakers?…

Well, you sure don't sound like you make mixes like I make them. I have no idea where you got that from. Certainly nothing I wrote. I don't see your scenario as typical at all, or even necessary.

I just gave one example of what compromise usually means. …

Compromises
Yes, but I still don't see that particular compromise as relevant here. I understand the issue, but it's not something you can't make other choices about. Maybe this is something you see other producers do? I have a list of things to avoid and one of them is over-compression. And I still compress a lot, just not for those reasons or overdoing it.

TomKern wrote: Anyways: I just wanted to share my take on the whole topic of making the final mix so that it "translates" to all listening environments. As in, I think it is ok to ignore some listening environments to make the final result sound much better on most others.

I don't disagree with you on that, but as I see it a great mix have a greater chance to translate also without big compromises.

I welcome your perspective, Tom. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

Stromkraft wrote:Late response:

[In my best announcer's voice, with a ton of BIG hall reverb] TomKern has left the building!

chrk wrote:

Stromkraft wrote:Late response:

[In my best announcer's voice, with a ton of BIG hall reverb] TomKern has left the building!

Oh, no!

Stromkraft wrote:

chrk wrote:

Stromkraft wrote:Late response:

[In my best announcer's voice, with a ton of BIG hall reverb] TomKern has left the building!

Oh, no!

viewtopic.php?p=1723003#p1723003
Hasn't been on here since.

chrk wrote:

Stromkraft wrote: Oh, no!

viewtopic.php?p=1723003#p1723003
Hasn't been on here since.

It's summer though. Anyone successful on the northern hemisphere is offline. Wha… Hold on there…

TomKern admitted he was TomViolenz posting under a different name, after he had already been banned from the forums. As we are quite serious when we say all bans are permanent (regardless of what user name you use), he will not be posting anymore.