Sorry I must seem like a dog with a bone, but this has got me intrigued. I've just been listening to the audio from this clip and the finished song together in Protools and found some interesting stuff.

One thing I just noticed so I thought I'd write, listen to the video, between 1:36 and 1:38 there's some phasing followed by a major change in sound quality, like a crossfade from the finished mix to the desk mix. Following that point the sound becomes duller, quieter and less produced sounding. Maybe they faded up the mic ready for Butch to speak, but I reckon the studio monitors must have been very low or we'd really hear them considering how quiet he's talking, so I don't think it's just that.

I think at times the sound is very similar to the finished mix considering the poor quality of the YouTube audio. At other times it is very different as you say. I tried nulling them which was partly successful, in the low and mid frequencies at any rate. Interestingly the YouTube track is a bit slower, not lower in pitch, but it gets out of sync. Don't know what that's all about, but God knows what it's been through by the time it's been video'd, DVD'd, YouTube'd and Audio Hijacked from a browser.

Maybe we're both right eh?

Brandon

Think you're misunderstanding me. I can see they have the tracks there, I just wonder if when they punch out the solo'd tracks and back to the full mix the video dubber has swapped the desk mix we think we're hearing for the finished record. Wouldn't be difficult would it? And just listen to the difference between the section where he fades out the solo and the following shot after fade to black where we hear the full band again, quite drastic to my ears.

I'm totally down with your blog man, I just think this video has had a bit of trickery applied maybe.

it occurs to me watching the video that whenever we hear the full band mix they’ve probably swapped it with the finished and mastered mix

So how do you explain at 0:07 when Butch Vig solo's just the vocals. This is impossible without having access to the real tracks, but a testament to how close the tracking is to the real mix.

Brandon

By the way, I'm not trying to bring down the blog at all, totally agree with what you say.

Mastering (big M not small m) will do a few things: make it a bit louder thus enhancing certain subtle dynamics; when played at a high level/volume, the bass/kick will not distort or crack; and will make sure that each track of the album is at a consistent level/volume. it is not meant to enhance a mix.

great sound engineers would always want to push the envelope, expand creatively. that is why they are great.

I have heard if a song is to be played on radio it needs to be mastered

I don't feel there is anything in particular about the radio that necessarily requires mastering any more than listening on a cd.

Audio is audio in that regard.

With that said, this article is not an anti-mastering article. This is a get-the-tracking-badass, get-the-mixing-bad-ass, and then think about mastering.

With a good mastering engineer there is no reason to assume that you wouldn't benefit from letting him take a listen and maybe catch a few problems. With that same logic, there is no reason you wouldn't benefit from having a commercial for the album's release on TV either. The limiting factor in both examples is money.

Brandon

Some unmastered songs that some of the local bands here put out sound as good as any pro mixed/mastered song so i agree that mastering is generally overstated in that context, but having never been part of a pro production process i cant say, maybe they go about it diffrently and it needs mastering.

I have heard if a song is to be played on radio it needs to be mastered, maybe people should see mixing as the final stage if needs be and a mastering engineer to give the song a more radio friendly sound?