Mixing and mastering for iPods

nicollins · Post by **nicollins** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:31 pm

I was hoping the Forum?s knowledgeable readers might have some answers to a few questions that have been puzzling me lately. This is my first posting ? please forgive any violation of etiquette. I know this is a long text, but I was advised that it was more suitable to the Forum than as a letter in to TapeOp.

CD sales are down, digital file sales are up, and ring tones would appear to be fastest growing sector of the music ?industry?. Everywhere I go people are listening to music through earbuds. At home the component stereos and bookshelf speakers of my youth have been replaced by docking stations and low-power, plastic-encased speakers attached to computers. In short, the audio quality of consumer playback technology has degraded significantly over the last decade, even as many aspects of recording technology have improved, or at least not deteriorated as much (better A/D/A converters, higher quality affordable microphones and mixers, high bit rate digital editing, etc.) While TapeOp has devoted considerable attention to how recording technology has transformed in the last few decades, there?s been less discussion about changes to the listening chain, and how they have affected production practice. Specifically, I?m curious as to how engineers and producers address the following issues:

1) Earphone stereo imaging. When I was more active in mixing records (in the 1980s) I would use headphones to check details, but was suspicious of judging stereo balance through them: panning that seemed quite acceptable over speakers sounded too extreme on headphones; conversely, a stereo image balanced on headphones shrank over speakers. So when mixing for the iTunes store or other digital file distribution, for which iPod headphones and small-footprint docking stations are the dominant playback devices, do you reference the stereo image on headphones or studio monitors?
2) Earbud frequency response. I grew up with the legend of Motown engineers broadcasting to an AM radio in a car outside the studio to check the final mix, and I worked in studios where massive monitors were supplemented by Auratones and NS10s that (theoretically) better emulated the consumers? sound systems. Do you now check mixes on the ubiquitous, uncomfortable and not very good-sounding earbuds? Or do you stick with the sound of loudspeakers? And how do you address the extreme disparity in playback sound between earbuds and dance club speaker systems? Car sound systems?
3) File compression. There?s no question that MP3 compression compromises the sound quality of a CD-ready master. Do you check MP3 conversions of your mix before finalizing it?
4) Ring tones. Do you generate alternate mixes specifically for ring tone distribution, given the ludicrously lo-fi, high distortion playback chain? Or do you assume that it always sounds bad, so why bother?
5) Mixing or mastering? As I recall from the days of ?all three formats?, variations in final product delivered for CD, LP and cassette replication were usually taken care of at the mastering facility, not in the mixing studio. If you do address the variables above ? stereo balance and EQ for earbuds, file compression artifacts, cellphone distortion ? are they handled in the mixdown process, or deferred to the mastering stage?

I?d be interested in any other observations readers might have about shifts in production techniques that they feel have been triggered by changes in consumer listening habits, rather than by changes in musical styles or recording technology.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:54 pm

i just try and make stuff sound good on a good system. people listening on earbuds or whatever aren't likely to be overly concerned with the fidelity in the first place, so why cater to them?

and in my experience, my laptop speakers have exponentially less resolution than my cheapo sony bookshelf speakers, which have exponentially less resolution than my main monitors. point being if it sounds good on the monitors i'm not likely to hear anything wrong with it anywhere else.

granted, i am old and set in my ways, so maybe my perspective is woefully out of touch.

masonpitzel · Post by **masonpitzel** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:50 pm

These are all valid questions, but at this point I feel I should mention that any recording engineer who's concerned about their work holding up as a ringtone should be shot.

JohnDavisNYC · Post by **JohnDavisNYC** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:01 pm

a great record will sound good on any playback system... and not just some indie bullshit like 'it's only about the song, DOOOOOD!'... a mix with excellent sonics will translate to anything, because it is GOOD sounding... it will transcend the limitations of the reproduction system. 'Sea Change' sounds great on an ipod, amazing monitors, or a PA... same goes for any great sounding record.

not trying to be harsh, i just believe that a good mix has nothing to do with what the listener is going to hear it on.... because EVERYONE listens on different speakers in different rooms.

just make it GREAT>

john

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:14 pm

exactly!

if your stuff doesn't sound good after mp3 conversion (relative to other stuff), then chances are it doesn't sound as good as you think it does, anywhere.

rwc · Post by **rwc** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:32 pm

I think trying to guess how people will listen to your music and mixing accordingly is a terrible idea.

A great mix transcends the medium, it has to.

mscottweber · Post by **mscottweber** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:49 am

I think there is some validity to what the OP is suggesting. Its true, a great mix is a great mix, period. But ringtones and myspace playback do alter the sound significantly, and if an engineer (during mixing OR mastering) has the power to make a version of the song that will sound better on those than the original mix would, why wouldn't he/she? We can go on and on about how sad it is that people don't care about sound quality and how mp3 is causing kids to starve in China, but why not at least try to make the crappy mediums sound slightly less crappy?

Post by **TapeOpLarry** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:32 am

Check out T Bone Burnett's ΧΟΔΕ deal. I like that you could have 24/96 wave files! Bring 'em down to the studio and it would sound pretty damn nice I bet. Can't stand that Johnny Cougar though. From Wikipedia:

ΧΟΔΕ (or Code) is a brand name for the high-fidelity audio DVD-Video disc developed by Grammy Award-winning record producer T-Bone Burnett. The brand is meant to give listeners a comparable experience to hearing studio master recordings and to offer a higher resolution alternative to the smaller, lower quality MP3, the iTunes Store's AAC, and Compact Disc formats. A Code disc is a DVD-Video disc with standard 24-bit/96kHz PCM audio, and is played from a DVD player or a DVD-ROM drive. The disc also includes files in 24-bit/96 kHz WAV, AAC, and MP3 formats for use on personal computers and portable media players.[1] John Mellencamp's Life, Death, Love and Freedom was the first album released in the format on July 15, 2008. Elvis Costello has also expressed interest in releasing in the format.[2]

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:13 am

msweber wrote: if an engineer (during mixing OR mastering) has the power to make a version of the song that will sound better on those than the original mix would, why wouldn't he/she?

because then it would sound like shit on any kind of decent system.

if i'm mastering your record and i make it so the bass sounds really nice and full on your laptop speakers, your car is going to explode the first time you play it there.

if it was the old days and your ME was mastering your record "so it sounds really good on a walkman" would you not feel like it was shortchanging the vinyl? whereas if they just made it sound good, period, it'd sound really good at home on your turntable, and you'd listen to it on your walkman and it would still sound just fine.

TapeOpLarry wrote:Check out T Bone Burnett's ΧΟΔΕ deal. I like that you could have 24/96 wave files! Bring 'em down to the studio and it would sound pretty damn nice I bet. Can't stand that Johnny Cougar though.

i picked that up yesterday. great idea, unfortunately this record is hardly an example of hi fidelity. i think it sounds kinda crappy actually, but hey! the sound of the snare clipping the shit outta the converters is presented to you in a full 24 bits of glory, so that's nice i guess.

mscottweber · Post by **mscottweber** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:29 am

I'm talking about multiple versions of the song, each one tailored to a specific listening environment. You could have one mix that is meant only to be made into a ring tone, one mix that is solely used as a myspace upload, and then a regular mix that would be available to the public (cd, digital download, vinyl, etc.). Of course the ring tone mix would sound terrible played through a regular system, but that particular mix would only be available as a ring tone, and the same for the others.

losthighway · Post by **losthighway** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:37 am

I think both the mp3 and AAC format often have more potential fidelity than is utilized. With a good encoder and a high sample rate gets you somewhere that the ear buds or the car stereo are more detrimental to the listening experience than the format. Done well they are virtually exchangeable for WAV files. Part of the reason I think a lot of us hate on those formats is because they are so frequently done horribly. (F the Myspace Media Player right in the A!)

Meanwhile, we live in an age where you can go buy a Terabyte (!) hard drive without batting an eyelash at the price. Ipod's have over 200 gb (bound to go up). You can listen to 16bit Wav's on Ipods. The FLAC format is extremely successful to the degree that it is used. The way information can be transmitted and saved is in constant evolution. I think these things are bound to get even better.

Meanwhile I record in 24bit and I listen to 16bit cds. I have no interest in a 24bit cd. Total unnecessary overkill if you ask me.

nopenopenope · Post by **nopenopenope** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:26 am

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:i picked that up yesterday. great idea, unfortunately this record is hardly an example of hi fidelity. i think it sounds kinda crappy actually, but hey! the sound of the snare clipping the shit outta the converters is presented to you in a full 24 bits of glory, so that's nice i guess.

I, too, was completely underwhelmed by it. Easily my least favorite sounding T-Bone related album. not a good way to start off a new hi-fi format...

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:45 am

msweber wrote:I'm talking about multiple versions of the song, each one tailored to a specific listening environment. You could have one mix that is meant only to be made into a ring tone, one mix that is solely used as a myspace upload, and then a regular mix that would be available to the public (cd, digital download, vinyl, etc.). Of course the ring tone mix would sound terrible played through a regular system, but that particular mix would only be available as a ring tone, and the same for the others.

Ok... lots of people listen to music in their cars, with the windows down. How can we get it loud enough to hear every single nuance of a mix? Think that brickwall limiting or clipping converters would help?

See... We've been down this road before. It's led to some pretty shitty sounding records.

So, for my next record, I'm releasing 25 mixes.

1. The CD mix
2. The iPod mix
3. The MySpace mix
4. The Ringtone mix
5. The laptop speaker mix
6. The car stereo mix
7. The "boom" car stereo mix
8. The mono mix for clock radios
9. The audiophile mix
10. The "left speaker is broken in my car" mix
11. The "right speaker is broken in my car" mix
12. The "smiley face eq compensated" mix
13. The "consumer's home stereo configuration favors the right side" mix
14. The "consumer's home stereo configuration favors the left side" mix
15. The cassette dupe mix
16. The "inappropriate level and crossover point" subwoofer mix
17. The open backed headphone mix
18. The sealed headphone mix
19. The "loudness" button engaged mix
20. The "speakers too close to the back wall" mix
21. The sheetrock walls mix
22. The plaster walls mix
23. The P.A. system mix
24. The "oops, left speaker polarity reversed" mix
25. The "oops, right speaker polarity reversed" mix

Have I left anything out?

Fuck all that. Just make your shit sound good.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:48 am

oh man, subatomic, can i master that for you?

*bills by the hour*

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:11 am

I don't have any budget for mastering. Is there a plug-in I can use to make the mixes sound better on MySpace?

Message Board

Mixing and mastering for iPods

Mixing and mastering for iPods

Who is online