Welcome all Ye AAMSites!

[ChicoBluez]

Liked what I heard. If you have something mastered with AAMS, would you post some of it. I'm very intrested in what stock or personal references others are using.

Thanks!

Chico

[Franky Boy]

Originally Posted by ChicoBluez

Liked what I heard. If you have something mastered with AAMS, would you post some of it. I'm very intrested in what stock or personal references others are using.

Thanks!

Chico

I've just started the new CD project. Because the material will be officially registered with Buma/STEMRA I cannot post samples of it before it's finished and registered. This will probably somewhere in 2009.

However, it's not so difficult to decide for yourself what reference in AAMS works for your productions. For example, I've taken songs from Abba (1982), Sarah Brightman (2003) and the Bee Gees (2001). Using all three as reference material in AAMS I found clear differences in the result. Abba had a bit more mid range, Sarah Brightman a bit more treble. I particularly liked the Bee Gees equalization. It sounded very balanced to me. So every CD, wherever recorded has its own equalization. You may come to a point where you want to start using your own.

[TonyB]

Originally Posted by Franky Boy

I've just started the new CD project. Because the material will be officially registered with Buma/STEMRA I cannot post samples of it before it's finished and registered. This will probably somewhere in 2009.

However, it's not so difficult to decide for yourself what reference in AAMS works for your productions. For example, I've taken songs from Abba (1982), Sarah Brightman (2003) and the Bee Gees (2001). Using all three as reference material in AAMS I found clear differences in the result. Abba had a bit more mid range, Sarah Brightman a bit more treble. I particularly liked the Bee Gees equalization. It sounded very balanced to me. So every CD, wherever recorded has its own equalization. You may come to a point where you want to start using your own.

You're right. The way I see it it's like trying to catch 2 moving targets....your source material and the reference material.

I've been working on a CD of 9 songs. I've been "mastering" 6 of them so far in the process. Of the 6 songs, I'm only using 2 AAMS-mastered songs. The other 4 sound better when I mastered them myself.

Why? Probalby because I couldn't find the right match between the source and a reference. Kind of like e-Harmony!

Anyway, I've been promising up upload some A/B's of these songs. I promise I'll do that in the next day or so. Some of these songs you've heard on the Bash My Song forum.

[brandondrury]

The way I see it it's like trying to catch 2 moving targets....your source material and the reference material.

That's exactly my problem. If the two don't line up properly, you end up with something worse than what you had before.

I guess I need to go ahead and finish my little catalog of mp3 samples from all references.

I noticed that ChicoBluez post a tune he had done using the "rock" preset and it sounded fine (although it was clear the rock preset took some low end out....which totally baffles me). I put the "rock" preset on one of my mixes and it sound horrible. My track was super dull and super thin in the bottom end. It's clear that the rock preset simply wasn't compatible with that mix even though the mix was fairly solid, in my opinion.

Brandon

[Franky Boy]

I really don't experience them as two 'moving targets'. The reference material is what you attune your source to (naturally). Of course much depends on the source material. However, I would be careful using different reference styles on songs for the same CD.

Although I don't consider AAMS a 'wonder button' it can sure help in the mastering process; it's sure worthwile experimenting with it.

[brandondrury]

The reference material is what you attune your source to (naturally).

Uhhhh.....kinda. Yes and no.

I believe that mixing is about making the tracks you have already captured sound as musically effective as possible. I'm not going to debate that there are certain limitations or at least guidelines based on what "the standard" is. However, there is quite a bit of variation from which to play within acceptable land and AAMS simply doesn't take this into account.

For example, the Goo Goo Dolls "A Boy Named Goo" has relatively little low end in it. It's not a bad thing at all. It's part of the character of the album. However, Fuel's "Sunburn" has dramatically more low end. So which "standard" should a person be mixing to? The answer is both and neither. They both great sounding recordings for the radio/pop/rock genre in the mid 90s but both albums sound quite a bit different. To put too much energy into replicating either one is a mistake that will result in poor sounding mixes in my personal experience.

The situations is further complicated when you use the same band. If we make a reference of Finger 11's "Greyest Of Blue Skies" and then did a reference of Finger 11's "Them vs. You vs. Me" we'll end up with a drastically different sounding record. The Greyest of Blue Skies album has TONS of RMS energy up in the bitey guitar region while the Them vs You vs Me album is so much smoother sounding. Greyest of Blue Skies has one of the best sounding ROBO huge modern kick drums on the planet that is super deep with tons of attack. The newer album has a more vintage style kick drum sound. Both sound damn good in my opinion but they are trying to do different things with each album/mix. To impose the curve on one or the other does not guarantee that either of those curves is right for the mix you are doing.

However, I would be careful using different reference styles on songs for the same CD.

That would sort of defeat the purpose of mastering. If the goal is a consistent sounding album (the number one purpose of mastering) it wouldn't make sense to use a different reference for individual songs. The hard part is finding a reference that does what you think it should to your mix.

Brandon

[Franky Boy]

I don't believe one should look for a "standard", simply because I don't believe there is a standard for mastering. So I don't consider the "styles" that come with AAMS as standard references.

I've been "feeding" different CD's to AAMS as references and I used those references for my own mixes. To me the results have been encouraging so far.

However, I must point out that this is my first CD project where I use AAMS, so I can probably tell you a lot more when this project is finished (hopefully early next year).

[brandondrury]

I don't believe one should look for a "standard", simply because I don't believe there is a standard for mastering. So I don't consider the "styles" that come with AAMS as standard references.

I agree with this.

Brandon

[Ruzz]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

That's exactly my problem. If the two don't line up properly, you end up with something worse than what you had before.

I noticed that ChicoBluez post a tune he had done using the "rock" preset and it sounded fine (although it was clear the rock preset took some low end out....which totally baffles me). I put the "rock" preset on one of my mixes and it sound horrible. My track was super dull and super thin in the bottom end. It's clear that the rock preset simply wasn't compatible with that mix even though the mix was fairly solid, in my opinion.

Brandon

Yes, yes yes and uh yes.

I was going to post a new thread entitled "AAMS: Time to fess up"... but I find you guys are already saying almost exactly what I was going to say. So after singing AAMS praises for a while here, I gotta say... I'm less than impressed with my latest attempts at using it.

I mentioned a while back I was gearing up to do a full CD - 14 tracks worth... in the event it came down to 12. Chico/TonyB will remember me asking about full album mastering with AAMS etc - the point being, I'd had some considerable success with single-song mastering but zero experience with completing a full CDs worth...

Anyway... I mastered the whole lot with AAMS and it gave me nothing but grief. Presets I'd used before that worked well with nearly the same kind of material sounded utter shit. Should mention here the album is all female vocal/americana/rockish/ballad stuff with just a couple of tracks that go elsewhere (one notably more orchestral sounding and the other more "dance D+B", sounding).

The whole thing turned out to be a friggin nightmare. Brandon mentioned low end being cut away... this happened on nearly every track (various presets). Even worse, a few tracks had super-boosted uppermids/top-end - hihats on steroids, cutting guitar peaks... the original mixes were nothing like that. I even began to wonder if my last AAMS install had gone tits up. TonyB mentioned reverting to his originals a few times - I realised I was going to have to do exactly that and eventually decided I was better off doing that on every track.

Are they perfect now? 'course not. But they're way better than the results I got with AAMS. Yes, I'm a little more than pissed off. I just don't know what to use as references/presets now.

As a complete change of approach (and hopefully without veering to far off topic)... I'd be interested in feedback on any/all of the following. My usual approach is to "mix as I go" while tracking. This is not a full mix job - just "prep" you could call it. I find that gives me less work later.

At some point I'll stop and listen critically to each track (maybe some pitch correction, de-essing, timing corrections on my shitty guitar playing, etc). And of course, EQ the entire mix, track by track - usually creating holes for vox and lead instruments.

All this work is done listening on my Tannoy Reveals (while tracking) and later, final mix and mastering on two separate systems -
1 - a Yamaha RX-V350 amp (set to stereo) driving a couple of Sony HiFi speakers (nothing grand, cheap as chips) and ...
2 - a Denon PMA-355 driving a pair of Jamo E850 speakers.

It's the best I have. Mixes/masters are then tested on:

1 - a pair of cheapo computer speakers ("Cambridge" it says on the back) fed via a mono feed (just to check mono is ok).
2 - A pair of Dell computer speakers (again cheap shit that came with a Dell PC)
3 - an iPod (having MP3-ed the mix)
4 - similarly, my Nokia phone
5 - in the car - no idea what the system is but it's the bog standard shit that came with the car from new.

Now, this is in no way a pro setup - but it's what I have right now. I pay particular attention to how the stuff sounds in the car... seems reasonable that most people are listening in cars these days and I want the sound to be reasonable in that kind of space.

Back to AAMS... when I realised I was getting nowhere, I switched to using the "ALL Music RMS" reference (which I supposed would be a preset that was near enough a general all-rounder) and ran a few of the tracks through that. In the car it (they) sounded dreadful - ultra crisp top end and distinct sloppy/loose sounding bottom end... I mean completely weird. Back in the house, on the Jamos, bass was a little tighter but that top end was completely uncontrollable (most noticeable on the higher vox notes).

So, like I said, I went back to doing it myself. There is no way that the original mixes are that far apart in terms of overall sound. And having tried different AAMS presets and then one AAMS preset on a bunch of them... all of which gave me grief... I don't see how AAMS - using its own reference database - can successfully do an album... for me, anyway.

What I think I'll try next is...

When I have one (perhaps two or three, but certainly one) great sounding track mixed and mastered to my liking that plays reasonable well ("inoffensively" I like to say) on a number of systems, I think then I'll make a reference from it (or them) and run all the tracks through that.

As ever, comments are more than welcome...

Ruzz

[brandondrury]

I'm glad I'm not alone here. I was beginning to think I was doing something wrong. AAMS hasn't been working for me and therefore I have not be using it. I don't think my songs need much in the way of enhancing, but conforming my mix to that of some other tune is not the right approach to solving any subtle problems that may be there.

I spit out the text file of the AAMS analysis. It was appauling just how aggressive it was working. I remember there was a 6db cut at 120 and then a 4dB boost at 160Hz. Why?

My usual approach is to "mix as I go" while tracking. This is not a full mix job - just "prep" you could call it. I find that gives me less work later.
I always mix as I go too and then scrap it when I get serious. I guess it really depends on how you define "mix as you go". Since I've started using my Distressor EL-8x, I've also been mixing as I go. It's called "do nothing but set levels". I'm positive I could do an entire album with no EQ now if I really wanted to as long as we used Superior Drummer 2.0 or equivalent on the drums.

Now, this is in no way a pro setup - but it's what I have right now. I pay particular attention to how the stuff sounds in the car... seems reasonable that most people are listening in cars these days and I want the sound to be reasonable in that kind of space.

Cars have a peaky frequency response by nature of the acoustics and this has a way of exposing flaws even more so than home stereos. I just picked up
Audio-Technica ATH-M50 and I've been checking my mixes on them before rendering. I've been VERY happy with the results from them. I've caught several mistakes that are common in my mixes that my Mackie HR824 / room combination ignores. My kicks are always too loud in the Mackies and sometimes the top end is more harsh than I realize. I was able to hear this instantly with the Audio-Technica ATH-M50s.

I haven't done a robo serious mix since I've picked up the headphones yet, but the fact that they already saved me one revision is a tremendous first step.

When I have one (perhaps two or three, but certainly one) great sounding track mixed and mastered to my liking that plays reasonable well ("inoffensively" I like to say) on a number of systems, I think then I'll make a reference from it (or them) and run all the tracks through that.

That's supposed to be the way it works. We'll see!

When there is no budget for mastering an album and I am forced to do it, I must admit that it takes me about 30 minutes to do. All I'm really doing is picking out my favorite mix and adding maybe 1-2dB of EQ to the next mix to give it a similar vibe. I repeat that for all the songs until I'm finished. Then I make sure all of them appear to be the same volume.

Then I'm done. I think it may be faster and better for me to just stick with that.

Brandon