"3D-sounding music" mixes.

[Slugworth]

That's actually a possibility. On Airgigs a buyer can advertise a song for sellers to make offers/compete for.

 

[Mark Richards]

One YouTube studio guy runs higher than that Mark, and calls it "high resolution audio." Anything beyond 48kHz is asking for intermod issues.

Yep. Agree. "High resolution audio" is a big audiophile thing. All the "golden ears" that can afford $20,000 stereo systems, and $5,000 headphones swear they can hear a significant difference between CD standard and Hi-Res.

 

[Slugworth]

 

[Slugworth]

Here's one of mine that is currently in progress that is being mixed by two separate AG's sellers. This is his third mix so far after I provided him with input each time of what I felt should be changed. From the start I told him to please aim for a 3D sound as much as possible. This is only a mix and has not been mastered. The changes that I intend to recommend for his next mix is to slow the delay/echo rate to about half of how he set it. Also there's an acoustic lead guitar part at the end that is still pretty low in volume. I am open to suggestions for improvements prior to finalizing , please.

renew-nimo.wav

drive.google.com

The other seller should be sending his next mix by tomorrow.

This song includes the super-popular rock instrument the Rain Stick. hahahaha

 

[-mjk-]

This song includes the super-popular rock instrument the Rain Stick. hahahaha

It has potential. I wouldn't mind taking a crack at it myself. Sounds fun.

 

[-mjk-]

swear they can hear a significant difference between CD standard and Hi-Res

I can hear the difference (sometimes) between 16bit and 25bit, but not the sample frequency.

 

[Slugworth]

It has potential. I wouldn't mind taking a crack at it myself. Sounds fun.

Thanks MJ. That would be great! I can send you the stems later after I return home from work, if that’s okay?

 

[Mark Richards]

I can hear the difference (sometimes) between 16bit and 25bit, but not the sample frequency.

I have several gratis releases from Chesky Records, a Grammy Award-winning independent audiophile label that focuses on "creating the illusion of live musicians in a real three-dimensional space", and are very good at doing that.

My open back reference headphones (Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, AKG)/studio system do show a smoothness and openness in Chesky releases, due as much, if not more, I suspect, to the equipment quality and mic techniques they use to capture the music initially.

As you know, 24bit provides about 140 dB dynamic range; 16 bit provides about 96 dB. Mathematically, the sampling rate is straight forward statistical sampling: the larger the sample size, the closer to the reality of the universe being sampled. The technical issues and requirements to achieve that level of accuracy and quality are way outside my wheelhouse, but it seems using state of the art gear, Chesky has met the challenge.

That said, as I understand it, Chesky records at 192kHz/24bit resolution and distributes at 96kHz/24bit resolution (targeted to the audiophile market). But I also have a few 44.1kHz/16bit versions of their releases, and any difference between the CD-standard version and the same release in hi-def is subtle at best. I hear it as being a bit smoother (i.e., a function of the wider dynamic range/headroom). Maybe a $5,000 headphone brings out something more; but I don't have any intention of ever finding out.

 

[-mjk-]

Thanks MJ. That would be great! I can send you the stems later after I return home from work, if that’s okay?

At your convenience Nick. Thanks.

 

[-mjk-]

My open back reference headphones (Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, AKG) do show a smoothness and openness in Chesky releases, due as much, if not more, I suspect, to the equipment quality and mic techniques they use to capture the music initially.

To me, sometimes it sounds a bit grainy. Not sure how to describe it. But for sure CDs are still a very viable medium for music, and a lot better than what's being streamed on most services.

 

[Mark Richards]

Since this thread is has been moved now to Recording 101, I thought for anyone wishing to get into the tall weeds on digital/Hi-Res recording, this is what the Recording Academy has written on the subject (c. 2018). [For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the Recording Academy, they're the folks who award the Grammy.]

 

[Mark Richards]

There's nothing new about 3D mixing, as mj had pointed out. Even monophonic records released prior to the introduction of stereo (about 1960) have imaging (depth and height), clarity, balance, and dynamic range: it's called "high fidelity".

There's a whole generation of "music lovers" that have no idea what high fidelity is. They get their music over laptops, smartphones, cheap earbuds, and crappy headphones.

Good point, Mark....Does the above also correspondingly create a degradation in the amount true professionals who dedicated their life to audio engineering? I’m sure some would say absolutely yes. I think I am on the side of it’s at least debatable.

@Slugworth, here's a clip of multi-Grammy winner Chris Lord-Alge mixing the vocal for multi-Grammy winner Carrie Underwood. Watch carefully and you'll notice CLA hardly looks at the board settings. He * uses his ears * to dial in the mix. That's what separates the pros from today's wannabees who essentially do "paint-by-numbers" mixes by relying on charts, graphs, and pre-sets to tell them when the mix is "right".

So IMO, it's not debatable at all. To make professional mixes requires not only possessing the tools of the trade, but also and most importantly knowing the sound of high fidelity and possessing the ears and talent to capture and reproduce it.

 

[Slugworth]

Thanks Mark. I watched that video. He’s definitely not watching any meters or comparing charts.

 

[Slugworth]

MJ graciously worked on my song Renew-2 recently. This is the Drive link

Renew Mix 6, 2025-10-07, 24 bit, 48 kHz Mastered.wav

drive.google.com

 

[-mjk-]

Thanks Mark. I watched that video. He’s definitely not watching any meters or comparing charts.

He makes ridiculous, large movements so he can hear the effect of that particular frequency in the EQ and then backs it off. In both cases in the video (reference to the "telephone" sound) and the high end, he goes way too high and then backs it down to fit in the mix. That's the way.

 

[Mark Richards]

MJ graciously worked on my song Renew-2 recently. This is the Drive link

Renew Mix 6, 2025-10-07, 24 bit, 48 kHz Mastered.wav

drive.google.com

@Slugworth, I've listened over my custom studio reference system and headphones, my Auratone 5C cube speakers, my small JBL speakers, a variety of mid-level consumer headphones, as well as audiophile headphones in the $300 - $700US range. The song translates very well across the board at all volume levels.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. mj nailed it brother!

The mix has toe tapping excitement, energy, clarity, width, depth, spaciousness, and dynamic range. Adding the intro, and re-aligning the tracks so there's dead silence where intended, add significantly to creating interest, as does the juxtapositioning of the drums and the percussion. The vocal is superior. The low end (bass and kick) are clear and solid; don't step on each other; and their harmonics don't muddy up the low mids. And subtleties in the instrument mix also add interest, particularly using audiophile headphones (as in "wow! I hadn't noticed that before").

Cudos to mj for a job well done. And to you for a song that now has real commercial potential.


ps I couldn't care less whether this mix aligns with some hypothetical "ideal" curve. That's completely irrelevant. Why? Because the mix just works. It brings out the best in the song and the performance.

 

[Slugworth]

He makes ridiculous, large movements so he can hear the effect of that particular frequency in the EQ and then backs it off. In both cases in the video (reference to the "telephone" sound) and the high end, he goes way too high and then backs it down to fit in the mix. That's the way.

I certainly wouldn't have thought about that technique but after watching and hearing him do that it makes perfect sense.

 

[Slugworth]

I agree with you Mark. "The song translates very well across the board at all volume levels." Same when played on my various listening devices. MJ came up with the edit of the percussion intro that gets the listeners attention right away. Also, this song hasn't sound this tight before as mixed by others. Thanks again MJ.

This particular song has two versions. MJ mixed the later version which I refer to as Renew-2. The original version was acoustic guitar and vocals (Laura) only. It was my second time recording acoustic and I didn't record to a click. I recorded to close the mic which caused overtones and unwanted distortion. It was a mess and bugged the sh!t out of me a long time.

Long story short I hired someone to record acoustic tracks (doubled and fully panned) to an 80-bpm click. Laura rerecorded it a couple weeks ago. On (her first name) provided keys for it last week. Ivan made the percussions recently. I sent MJ a basic version of this song a few weeks ago and his thought is it could work well with drums and bass also. He hasn't heard this fuller version yet, which doesn't have bass or drums. I edited Ivan's percussions as well as keys to build throughout the song, My aim was to make a more 3D sounding mix using eq, reverb, and placing instruments throughout the stereo field. I haven't ruled out bass and drums for this one. On only charges $10 per song for keys so I figured I would go this route first.

There's a few lines that Laura needs to revise when she returns from vacation. Some of her original lines from over a year ago are more fitting than her recent recording. I had to stretch the old lines which were at around 92-bpm and are noticeable in this mix.

The Drive link to my mix https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tUeXAwNCzAYTjW4dHAzHq7bGU7iK9TO4/view?usp=sharing

 

[-mjk-]

I certainly wouldn't have thought about that technique but after watching and hearing him do that it makes perfect sense.

When I'm trying to find a problematic frequency I will usually boost some frequency and then sweep up and down until the problem frequency becomes very obvious. Then I leave it there and pull the gain down (cut). That's the easiest and fastest way to do it, as long as we're talking studio and not live band.

 

[-mjk-]

I would be happy to tell what I did with this tune over in the Recording 101 forum, if there is any interest.