Which mix do you prefer? (Improving Back to the Rock album)

[Timbo]

Or you could do what I did to the album. Same thing I did with Farewells muddy sound. Rip the songs as wav, import them into audacity, which in my opinion is far better than any audio editing software out there. And it's free. Crank up the distortion to your liking. Some songs you need to then dial the bass down in the built in EQ. Bema seat, Angel of light, and Adoni could have been on Jekyll and Hyde in my world. Love it! Farewell sounds like I can only imagine it sounded like for you guys that actually went to the show- loud!

[Boray]

Yes, I have thought about doing something about Farewell as well. Farewell and Back to the Rock is the two Petra albums with the worst mastering in my opinion.

[Timbo]

I agree. What's up with that? Do you know how sad it is that we, the fans, have to buy these records and mess with them in audio editing software to get them to sound decent? Every Petra record from "Petra" to "Jekyll and Hyde" sounded good even though some were not my favorite records. So what has happened? I wish Bob or somebody in the Petra camp could get their hands on the original raw recording of Farewell and mix it correctly.

[loengard]

To my ear, "A" sounds better, but not by much. The drums have more kick and the bass is more pronounced.

[Muleya]

When asked to choose, I chose A. But find the difference subtle at best. While the additional highs sound pleasing initially, as I get older I find that more treble tends to lead to ear-fatigue earlier, at least for me. Whether or not that would be the case here, the only way for me to know would be to actually do it.

BUT, I generally listen on my iPod, which is already a compressed version of the song and some audio quality has already been lost. Further, it's generally in my car, through factory speakers...long gone are the days of my youth when I put an Alpine stereo, amplifier and JBL speakers in my car!! Given those circumstances, adjusting bass and treble on the car is adequate! Or even using the EQ on the iPod, though I'm not overly impressed with its quality and don't use it much.

I have a decent stereo system at home (not awesome, but decent), but I'm sad to say I rarely use it to listen to music. It's in the same room with the TV, and either my wife or kids are watching TV, or I'm busy doing something else!! However, playing a CD on that system is the best listening experience I have access to, but this method would not alter the CD, so short of buying a 20-band EQ, I"ll have to settle for adjusting bass and treble!!

[Mountain Man]

Prefer A. It has a little more punch, the vocals stand out more, and there's more separation between the instruments. B sounds muddy, like it was run through a compressor so that everything is the same volume.

[neonpachyderm]

Haven't listened to the samples (I'll do that after my speed boost goes into effect), but I really enjoyed BTTR as recorded. _Farewell_ sounds like they simply took a two-track board tap from the show and pressed it. It was rushed to market (to have available while ON the tour); it needs help.

[brent]

The question is which one sounds better....all subjective.

I know what John mixes on and I know about where he monitors based on how it sounds. It is a mix that sounds very different at high volumes than low. It gains dimension and brightness at high volumes, just as J&H does. I tend to mix dark for this reason. The only way to listen to rock is loud. Listening to it low is like listening to rock guitar played through a Line6 or some other simulator.

[Boray]

The only way to listen to rock is loud.

That is also ...subjective. And what loud is ...is also subjective.

[brent]

True. But, loud, like 80dB SPL-C at 2 meters is where that mix gels IMO.