Hi reader, i just found this

and im astonish... this sound much much better than the original...
this things, lead me to keep thinking that audio world have a lot of foolish people trying to get your money... i know we are in a diffent "world" lets say... an "emulated analog" one (not even for me but meh) ..

whats your thoughts?

 

Hmm, i think Modern Mix- and Masteringtools maked it possible. 25 Years is a long Time.

 

I agree, I take that into account... but they have in those days the analog gear... dont u think that makes a difference or so?

 

Here's the thing. Anyone can almost always beat someone else's mix after listening to it. Because they have a target. The first engineer was trying to figure out what the client wanted and considered acceptable, or their sound. The second engineer will use the first ones mix as a reference track and makes them match, and then improves it whatever way they want.

I didn't watch the video. But it is the answer to your question, imo. If they both do the same mix separately without listening to the other's mix, you have to dig into the details. Maybe one mixes the genre all the time and one doesn't, or one's style fits the music better, and yes , sometimes one has better gear or training and experience, too. You aren't going to figure that stuff out from a random track. There is way more to compare a results based job than comparing a 1-off event.

 

agree with u in all of that except for the job done, i hear slipknot all my life, and the first version lets say, from robinson was good but it was cause the song kick ass itself... with this mix its sound everything... i mean.. EVERY THING... if u have time i invite u to try to hear the DJ in the version robinson did, and the guy of youtube did... its super clearly, a big differnce that makes u say " this version sound better"... theres things that was buried and with this youtube version its there with its place perfectly...

 

after watching tons of mixing videos off sister site, i'm of the opinion that theres a million ways to sound good and a million ways to sound bad. the big well known mixers consistantly create mixes in the million of possible good mix column.

 

No way bro. If you think this is mixed better than their releases I think you are crazy. Yes, it sounds more live; but not more polished. I thought this was going to be a ICP video. If you had said it was Slipknot I would have listened

A lot of people didn't like this album but this is one of my favorites from them. I do not think they ever played it live because they couldn't. lol. the mixing on that record is so damn clean and precise. You also have to remember translation. You can't pick one streaming platform and a targeted mix and compare it to something that needs to sound great on anything. You can listen to this album in your car, on your phone or whatever. It is nearly flawless.

 

Last edited: Feb 12, 2024

That's a bold claim, i think it sounds like shit from a technical point of view, even amateruish (it's narrow, it's harsh, it's distorted, lacks detail) BUT it does sound a lot more agressive for the same reason.

I don't know, i'm not a slipknot fan so a more ballanced and well put together sound wins for me, it's easier on the ears imo, and that might be the reason why it was done that way. A professional engineer would probably favour a sound that gets closer to what people are listening to at the time, something a bit more universal even if the music itself is ment to be agressive. If you take a look at rock or metal from the 2000's frequency-wise, the original mix kinda follows that "model" so to speak.

 

I posted this a while back in this thread: https://audiosex.pro/threads/have-you-dabbled-in-your-own-mastering.24935/

Outside of my day to day workload, one of the things I do is work as a sound designer from time to time. The type of work I take on is less involved with music and on a more technical level (tone design in use for medical equipment for example). You'd be surprised how much effort goes into designing something as simple as a tone that is less than half a second long, but when you consider that this small bit of audio is going to be in a machine that is literally saving lives and must be audible not just in terms of amplitude but also to denote a recognizable event from large distances away, it gives you a sense of appreciation for anyone who really takes the words "audio engineer" seriously.

It's not something I went to school for but it's also the kind of work you can not "fake" (there are spec manuals over 70 pages long to describe just a single tone alone). In other words, you have to know what you're doing. I never envisioned doing this type of work, but through my love for working with audio I became technically proficient in it.

I think it can be hard for a lot of us to give ourselves some credit because at the end of the day, making music and working with audio is something we love to do and because of this, it may not seem like work. But the truth of the matter is... it is work. The average bedroom producer knows more about audio engineering and production techniques today than some audio engineers did 20 years ago. If you've dedicated even a few years of learning how to make music on a computer, you've probably reached a level of proficiency that would have taken you much longer to do just a few decades ago. Think about that for a second.

That's why it's not difficult for me to believe that anyone can just pick up mastering audio. It's not some kind of mystical art and it's no different than learning how to cook or draw. If you've worked with audio and dealt with producing music long enough, you've more than likely learned and applied some of the basic concepts numerous times. How far you want to take that knowledge is completely up to you.

 

agree !

 

love it too! almost every song of slipknot, i love it! and agree too in that AHIG its a wonderful job done! very "modern" lets say! even if now have some years old... but i was talking about the first cd i posted! u cant say theres no difference!!! :/

 

agree with the sound design... that why i guess exists samples packs and not all are good to use.. except as u said, someone have the ability to re-shape the tone lets say and more...
im kind of entry to there but not yet.. i have some songs launched around urban/trap genre and edm around tech-house/ techno... so i agree with that thing of "bedroom producers"... but im kind of surprised with the video i post here... that a remix and remastered of that level... beat up an analog geared guy... i know perspectives are different... but here i bring to the table the difference about this album of slipknot, compared to the one that touch robinson... which now i can say sound like shit... the DJ never get a good sound there.. i think its a mixing trouble in that thing i say.

 

The rough version is definitely better, this remaster version sounds so "barbie girl"

Here's the original:

 

You still believe that "analog equipment in those days" is superior? You haven't obviously not lived in "those days". Compared to what we have nowadays in normal bedroom studios even Abbey Road in the 60s/70s was a shitty place. What do you think makes the Beatles Abbey Road 2019 so so so so way superior sounding than the original Abbey Road album from 1969? You can take the original Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here throw iZotope Ozone at it and BAM! have a way better sounding remastering. Try it. And now: stay away from analog equipment for the rest of your life - if you want to have a happy good sounding life.

(This was free advice. Next time I will charge you.)

)))))))

 

This way of restoring a work does not take into account the historical context in which it was composed: with the technique you suggest, the final product ends up becoming anachronistic and therefore unrecognizable. It must be the work of art that dictates the rules for its restoration, not the opposite. This concept (completely unknown in music) is taken into account very seriously when carrying out architectural restorations, pictorial works, and all historical heritage in general.

Talking about Beatles, any remastering ends up sounding like Oasis

 

Last edited: Feb 12, 2024

haha , joke aside u have a point

 

i like this so, with this point... what did u think about this slipknot album "re made" by a youtube user vs the original? i can say here the art was untouched, cause the art its almost finished with the recordings... but with the new mix and master, its oviously superior, i can feel the hate in those guitars now

 

We all focus on different things. I don't really think the "new" version is necessarily any better. I just got done A/B them, the original version has better transients, is wider and has more depth. The new version focuses on the guitars and vocals, vox up front and buries the drums to make that space. In the original the double kick drums are audible as doubles in space and you can place them along with elements other elements of the kit. In the new one the double kick drums kind of mush together are less clicky and less defined.

Different tastes for different times, the new version is more pop the old one is fuck it headbanger, give you balls a tug and figure it out.

Doesn't matter 20 years ago Slipknot chose that and they got what they want. Not my cup of tea but to say the new version is better on technical terms is a long piss into a stiff headwind. Might present better on headphones or shit speakers but aside from clearer lyrics pushed up in the mix it's compromised on a lot of stuff the artist wanted present or agreed to compromise for what they wanted to present.

It's not my bowl of noodles but sonically - the original has less compromised and this is from mid 1999 so it was probably an AVID system, doesn't CLA still use his same old PT8 with TDM cards....

Just because you like bacon cheeseburgers doesn't mean cheesteaks suck, each is its own thing.

 

nice point... gonna think about it

 

It doesn't matter so much whether you are a professional or not. It matters what your goal is - performing production effects, creating desired impressions, or achieving the most natural sound possible. Amateurs can also have their own non-standard procedures that in some cases go beyond what is taken for granted or common with professionals.