Reference Tracks for Mixing and Mastering

secondwindow

secondwindow

Power User
For mixing and mastering music, what reference tracks* do you currently like using for rock music with vocals and guitar/bass/drums?

* professional releases that you compare your own recordings to, striving to sound as good
 
I guess everybody ignored this.

FWIW, I use reference tracks differently from a lot of people. I don't generally use them to try to "match" the sound in any way. I do have a few that I just really love and think are among the best recorded/produced/mixed/mastered songs in history, but they're there to recalibrate my ears, not actually to make comparisons.

I picked the songs I did because they define an "edge" of what I consider acceptable/good for my tastes. The reason is that as long as I know where the "edges" of "good sound" are, then as long as I'm inside them, I can just play and accept what I like. As a result, you're not necessarily going to see my favorite music or the "these are absolutely amazing and the epitome of the style" songs (though a couple get close).

Here are some of mine and what I use them for:

Massive Attack - Angel and MXMS - Gravedigger: Angel is the limit for over-the-top bass, Gravedigger is just about on the line. The reason I have 2 is that the rest of the spectrum is different, and they hit differently (Angel is also on the limit of scooped, Gravedigger is on the limit of a warm tilt). I've been to concert venues that can't play these tracks accurately. I also used them to pick out my in-ears that actually reach down into the subs without distortion, and I used them as part of fine tuning the placement and delay of my subwoofers.

Counting Crows - Angels of the Silcences: It's distorted, bright, and over-limited/clipped....right on the edge of a "loudness war casualty", but still a great song. There are louder songs that were "louderized" better, but this one is the limit for when the artifacts overtake any potential benefit of loudness.

Lord Huron & Phoebe Bridgers - The Night We Met: it's a great sounding pop song with a bit of an indie feel, but the reason I actually use it is that there are several subtle sound design-y details (like the running water sound, but there are others) that most sound systems can't fully resolve. If I'm working on something and obsessing over some small detail and it's less obvious on my system than those little details, they won't be heard and should either be exaggerated or cut completely.

David Bowie - Space Oddity: There are parts that are flat-out out-of-phase and sound wonky. I've heard some people use it as an example of how wide something can be. For me, it's almost the opposite - it's an example of what not to do with stereo/spacial tricks. And, it's a reminder that sometimes a bad sound still fits the track and not to be too dogmatic about these rules if you have a good reason to break them....and how good the song has to be to get away with that.
 
marsonic said:
I guess everybody ignored this.

FWIW, I use reference tracks differently from a lot of people. I don't generally use them to try to "match" the sound in any way. I do have a few that I just really love and think are among the best recorded/produced/mixed/mastered songs in history, but they're there to recalibrate my ears, not actually to make comparisons.

I picked the songs I did because they define an "edge" of what I consider acceptable/good for my tastes. The reason is that as long as I know where the "edges" of "good sound" are, then as long as I'm inside them, I can just play and accept what I like. As a result, you're not necessarily going to see my favorite music or the "these are absolutely amazing and the epitome of the style" songs (though a couple get close).

Here are some of mine and what I use them for:

Massive Attack - Angel and MXMS - Gravedigger: Angel is the limit for over-the-top bass, Gravedigger is just about on the line. The reason I have 2 is that the rest of the spectrum is different, and they hit differently (Angel is also on the limit of scooped, Gravedigger is on the limit of a warm tilt). I've been to concert venues that can't play these tracks accurately. I also used them to pick out my in-ears that actually reach down into the subs without distortion, and I used them as part of fine tuning the placement and delay of my subwoofers.

Counting Crows - Angels of the Silcences: It's distorted, bright, and over-limited/clipped....right on the edge of a "loudness war casualty", but still a great song. There are louder songs that were "louderized" better, but this one is the limit for when the artifacts overtake any potential benefit of loudness.

Lord Huron & Phoebe Bridgers - The Night We Met: it's a great sounding pop song with a bit of an indie feel, but the reason I actually use it is that there are several subtle sound design-y details (like the running water sound, but there are others) that most sound systems can't fully resolve. If I'm working on something and obsessing over some small detail and it's less obvious on my system than those little details, they won't be heard and should either be exaggerated or cut completely.

David Bowie - Space Oddity: There are parts that are flat-out out-of-phase and sound wonky. I've heard some people use it as an example of how wide something can be. For me, it's almost the opposite - it's an example of what not to do with stereo/spacial tricks. And, it's a reminder that sometimes a bad sound still fits the track and not to be too dogmatic about these rules if you have a good reason to break them....and how good the song has to be to get away with that.
Click to expand...
Interesting post.
How do you think those would fare at YouTube quality?
Makes me want to go check, I will when I have time.
 
One album that springs to mind that I like listening to for its sonic qualities is The 2nd Law by Muse - I'm not the ultimate Muse fan but from a production point of view it is quite impressive - in my opinion of course.

For straight up rock guitar tone - I quite like Vivian Campbells sound on the first Last in Line album.
 
Last edited:
Dave Merrill said:
Interesting post.
How do you think those would fare at YouTube quality?
Makes me want to go check, I will when I have time.
Click to expand...

I own them all, so I haven't really tried.

If you know what to listen for to hear the artifacts caused by lossy encoding, Angels of the Silences is going to sound even worse and would be over the edge for me. I can't stand the mp3 I "ripped" in high school. The copy I listen to is a FLAC I ripped with dBpoweramp after I bought the CD again a few years ago.

Random side-note: surviving lossy encoding a little better is one good reason not to slam everything up to digital zero for release, but you actually have to listen to things through the encoder/decoder to figure out how badly they're going to be affected or how much headroom you need to leave for them to not suffer as badly as they can.

The Lord Huron track is so different on YT that I'm not convinced it's the same master. There is a difference in level (I actively avoid normalization when I'm listening...I'm perfectly capable of turning a volume control and want AC/DC to be louder than Elton John), but even after equalizing their levels to the best of my ability, things are just missing from the YT version I tried (I also tried playing my FLAC a little quieter than the YT video and it still had more detail). It is also worth considering that my ref track is the one off the 13 Reasons soundtrack and the one that came up on YT was the "official audio" from the band. It is absolutely possible they're different masters or that the 13 Reasons version has additional sound design that the show's post team added, re-mixed, etc.. But, there's nothing glaring that I noticed in the "big" sounds, it's in those subtle things. But, I was also only listening for the subtle things. YMMV. I've missed things like vocals being muted when I was listening intently for things like drum compression timing during a mix project before....we can all make mistakes.

Considering how lossy encoding works (a lot of super-sharp filters that supposedly only filter out frequencies that would be masked anyway), it's possible that the loss of detail comes from that. But, I don't hear too many of the obvious lossy tell-tales (which mostly come from the side-effects of that filtering), or at least I wasn't bothered by them.

Second random side-note: IMHO, lossy music is not worth paying for. Period. I think it's fine for voice-only podcasts. While it's not always terrible for music depending on the specific songs, it's a serious vexation to my soul that I flat-out will not pay for. If you're talking about finding reference tracks that you actually get value out of...just buy them. CD audio is fine. So is anywhere that sells FLAC, ALAC, Wav, or Aiff.
 
marsonic said:
I guess everybody ignored this.

FWIW, I use reference tracks differently from a lot of people. I don't generally use them to try to "match" the sound in any way. I do have a few that I just really love and think are among the best recorded/produced/mixed/mastered songs in history, but they're there to recalibrate my ears, not actually to make comparisons.

I picked the songs I did because they define an "edge" of what I consider acceptable/good for my tastes. The reason is that as long as I know where the "edges" of "good sound" are, then as long as I'm inside them, I can just play and accept what I like. As a result, you're not necessarily going to see my favorite music or the "these are absolutely amazing and the epitome of the style" songs (though a couple get close).

Here are some of mine and what I use them for:

Massive Attack - Angel and MXMS - Gravedigger: Angel is the limit for over-the-top bass, Gravedigger is just about on the line. The reason I have 2 is that the rest of the spectrum is different, and they hit differently (Angel is also on the limit of scooped, Gravedigger is on the limit of a warm tilt). I've been to concert venues that can't play these tracks accurately. I also used them to pick out my in-ears that actually reach down into the subs without distortion, and I used them as part of fine tuning the placement and delay of my subwoofers.

Counting Crows - Angels of the Silcences: It's distorted, bright, and over-limited/clipped....right on the edge of a "loudness war casualty", but still a great song. There are louder songs that were "louderized" better, but this one is the limit for when the artifacts overtake any potential benefit of loudness.

Lord Huron & Phoebe Bridgers - The Night We Met: it's a great sounding pop song with a bit of an indie feel, but the reason I actually use it is that there are several subtle sound design-y details (like the running water sound, but there are others) that most sound systems can't fully resolve. If I'm working on something and obsessing over some small detail and it's less obvious on my system than those little details, they won't be heard and should either be exaggerated or cut completely.

David Bowie - Space Oddity: There are parts that are flat-out out-of-phase and sound wonky. I've heard some people use it as an example of how wide something can be. For me, it's almost the opposite - it's an example of what not to do with stereo/spacial tricks. And, it's a reminder that sometimes a bad sound still fits the track and not to be too dogmatic about these rules if you have a good reason to break them....and how good the song has to be to get away with that.
Click to expand...
I hadn't received a reply yet, so figured I wouldn't be. Glad you replied - this is just the kind of info I was hoping for.

I like the idea of listening for the "edges" in reference tracks rather than just trying to match what sounds "good".

I'm familiar with the Bowie and Counting Crows tracks, but not the others. I'll hunt those down.


Thanks!
 
Aivoryuk said:
One album that springs to mind that I like listening to for its sonic qualities is The 2nd Law by Muse - I'm not the ultimate Muse fan but from a production point of view it is quite impressive - in my opinion of course.

For straight up rock guitar tone - I quite like Vivian Campbells sound on the first Last in Line album.
Click to expand...
Thanks for those tips! I've listened to Vivian Campbell, but not his work with Dio. As for Muse, I'm very in the dark - only heard a few tracks from them. I've got some homework to do!
 
I've always bought CDs, never single digital tracks. However, I'm wondering if there are times I might try that - if it's a specific song I want (If can get it in a lossless format).
 
secondwindow said:
For mixing and mastering music, what reference tracks* do you currently like using for rock music with vocals and guitar/bass/drums?
Click to expand...
I listen to various tracks depending on the end result I'm trying to achieve.
(edit: I noticed that I gravitate to early 90's recordings :cool:)

For a rock mix I often revisit this:


For a rock mix with bass guitar more present:
 
Last edited:
NY Guitarist said:
I listen to various tracks depending on the end result I'm trying to achieve.
(edit: I noticed that I gravitate to early 90's recordings :cool:)

For a rock mix I often revisit this:


For a rock mix with bass guitar more present:
Click to expand...

That's a good one! For Fastball, I've only heard The Way and maybe a couple of others.

I'm really familiar with that BHTM album, need to give it a listen again soon.
 
Last edited:
I was taught to find 2-3 tracks in the same genre/feel of the tune you are working on...so the playlist keeps growing. Like the suggestions here - esp having a choice between ref tracks with low/mid/high sections to help your ears compare with your own work.
 
sskkmm said:
I was taught to find 2-3 tracks in the same genre/feel of the tune you are working on...so the playlist keeps growing. Like the suggestions here - esp having a choice between ref tracks with low/mid/high sections to help your ears compare with your own work.
Click to expand...

I think the modern/easy version of that is to listen to the spotify or YT top/suggested songs for the style. Assuming such a thing exists. That's not a bad idea, but I still don't like the idea of "matching" refs.

secondwindow said:
I like the idea of listening for the "edges" in reference tracks rather than just trying to match what sounds "good".
Click to expand...

I should give credit to Brian Lucy for the idea:

​


I always had a "problem" with reference tracks, but that interview stated it better than I have.
 
secondwindow said:
Thanks for those tips! I've listened to Vivian Campbell, but not his work with Dio. As for Muse, I'm very in the dark - only heard a few tracks from them. I've got some homework to do!
Click to expand...
Last in line is the band Vivian he has formed with previous members of Dio. some great guitars tones on the recent albums - contrast to sound of the last Def Leppard which doesn't sound very good in my opinion.
 
marsonic said:
I own them all, so I haven't really tried.

If you know what to listen for to hear the artifacts caused by lossy encoding, Angels of the Silences is going to sound even worse and would be over the edge for me. I can't stand the mp3 I "ripped" in high school. The copy I listen to is a FLAC I ripped with dBpoweramp after I bought the CD again a few years ago.

Random side-note: surviving lossy encoding a little better is one good reason not to slam everything up to digital zero for release, but you actually have to listen to things through the encoder/decoder to figure out how badly they're going to be affected or how much headroom you need to leave for them to not suffer as badly as they can.

The Lord Huron track is so different on YT that I'm not convinced it's the same master. There is a difference in level (I actively avoid normalization when I'm listening...I'm perfectly capable of turning a volume control and want AC/DC to be louder than Elton John), but even after equalizing their levels to the best of my ability, things are just missing from the YT version I tried (I also tried playing my FLAC a little quieter than the YT video and it still had more detail). It is also worth considering that my ref track is the one off the 13 Reasons soundtrack and the one that came up on YT was the "official audio" from the band. It is absolutely possible they're different masters or that the 13 Reasons version has additional sound design that the show's post team added, re-mixed, etc.. But, there's nothing glaring that I noticed in the "big" sounds, it's in those subtle things. But, I was also only listening for the subtle things. YMMV. I've missed things like vocals being muted when I was listening intently for things like drum compression timing during a mix project before....we can all make mistakes.

Considering how lossy encoding works (a lot of super-sharp filters that supposedly only filter out frequencies that would be masked anyway), it's possible that the loss of detail comes from that. But, I don't hear too many of the obvious lossy tell-tales (which mostly come from the side-effects of that filtering), or at least I wasn't bothered by them.

Second random side-note: IMHO, lossy music is not worth paying for. Period. I think it's fine for voice-only podcasts. While it's not always terrible for music depending on the specific songs, it's a serious vexation to my soul that I flat-out will not pay for. If you're talking about finding reference tracks that you actually get value out of...just buy them. CD audio is fine. So is anywhere that sells FLAC, ALAC, Wav, or Aiff.
Click to expand...
Back in the day, CD audio was thought to be the work of the devil. Only vinyl deserved to live, and only for maybe a dozen or a half dozen plays.

Not my life now, haha...
 
Henry said:
A mixing book I had recommended Chinese Democracy, the first RATM album, and a Skunk Anansi record.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

I've seen Chinese Democracy on other similar lists. I've never heard it, except for whatever may have gotten radio play. I should check it out.

Do you recall the title of that book?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom