The Petra Zone

Which mix do you prefer?

A:
http://boray.wontek.net/petra/a.mp3 (877 kb)

or B:
http://boray.wontek.net/petra/b.mp3 (877 kb)

(And why?)


(Edit: Added "Improving Back to the Rock album" to the title 19/5)

I honestly can't tell the difference.

I like the crispness of 'A'. Version 'B' sounds slightly "muddy" to me.
I've always liked more more highs than lows in my music. I usually turn the treble all the way up and keep the bass in the middle.

I agree. A has an overall brighter tone to it and therefore, better, in my opinion.

Preacherman777 wrote:I agree. A has an overall brighter tone to it and therefore, better, in my opinion.

Me too...

Any more takers?

DeSoto wrote:

Preacherman777 wrote:I agree. A has an overall brighter tone to it and therefore, better, in my opinion.

Me too...

This morning I listend to both on laptop speakers and could not really hear a difference. I just listened to them with headphones and 1 is clearly better than 2.

adpetrafan wrote:

DeSoto wrote:

Preacherman777 wrote:I agree. A has an overall brighter tone to it and therefore, better, in my opinion.

Me too...

This morning I listend to both on laptop speakers and could not really hear a difference. I just listened to them with headphones and 1 is clearly better than 2.

It's possible to change your vote if you like.

Boray wrote:It's possible to change your vote if you like.

Done.

I voted A. It sounds like it is a bit cleaner. B sounds a bit too full, it is more bombastic. A sounds like you could produce this with just five guys and their instruments on a stage (except for the vocals).

I am surprised I can hear a difference. I have some supposed radio mixes for some Petra songs that I cannot even distinguish from the album versions on the same promo single.

sounds more to me like the levels of compression and eq are different as opposed to a different mix

After listening on my bose head phones instead of just computer speakers, I change my vote to A. Just a touch more crisp and clear. Not much, but there is a difference. So where is this going? Is one from the studio and one from the live? Or is this one version that you tweaked yourself?

OK, here it goes...

I've said from the start that I didn't like the mastering of the album, so I just remastered the whole album for my own sake.

B is the original.
A is my remaster.

All I did was to add this EQ curve to it:



And from the votes, it seems most of you agree with me. Adding the votes from this place ( http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=80448 ) (and removing one of mine), shows that 82 percent prefer my mastering while only 9 percent prefer the original. In other words - the mastering guy(s) at Abbey Road did a poor job when mastering the album.

So what now then... I can hardly share my version with you as that would be totally illegal. Instead, you have three options:

A. Don't care.
B. Always turn the treble up when listening to the album. (Not an option when playing all of your music on shuffle play).
C. Do the same thing I did. It's quite easily done and here is how to do it:

1. If you haven't already, use something like Windows Media Player to rip the album as wav files to your computer. If you don't have the actual CD, your mp3s will work as well.

2. Download and install Reaper 4beta here:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=22836
(It's the file reaper40beta6-install.exe you need for Windows)

3. Download this file and put it somewhere:
http://boray.wontek.net/petra/Back_to_the_Rock.RfxChain
(It's my EQ setting. The compressor in the chain doesn't compress anything, just limiting the output just in case).

4. Follow the instructions in this video I made for you:
http://youtu.be/RTClE9g9mJg

I was right, eq and compression changes, no mix changes. A re-mix would mean you had access to all the individual tracks of the song and the individual levels of each instrument would change.

I would not say Abbey Road did a poor job. I actually prefer a fatter, punchier sound on a studio recording, as opposed to a trebly, spiky, ear piercing one.

I guess you are the only one who voted B then. There is no compression changes. The added compressor effect is just used as a failsafe to prevent things going over 0 from distorting. And as you could see on the video when rendering - it never reached 0.