How does one know that one mix/master is really better than another?

[hobbyist]

Once you get to the mid range of gear, then there is really no technical difference in quality that matters sonically. Of course there are features that are nice and reliability may be better along with other considerations but not anything that affects the sound to make it better.

Many people dispute that factoid.

I admit there is a difference but it is just that a difference.
What is better is totally subjective and cannot be proven logically with any objective method or measurements.

That can be proven with logic, and was done in my graduate classes in math at the uni.

So, since it is subjective, what is the fairest way to decide who is right?
Or is there anyway other than who yells loudest and longest that they are the ones who get to say what is good and bad.

Would majority vote be good? Millions of mp3 lovers would not make the pros very happy.

Should it be how much money can be made with a given kit?
That would ignore composition, performance, room, mikes, preamps, and many other factors.

So what is the best way or will this always just be an argument that has no resolution.

[IAA]

I don’t think you can say there is a “right”. Art is subjective as I think you are saying. The mechanics of producing your art matter significantly less than the outcome. It’s always been true and will remain so. As everyone seems to be saying and I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with, a great song and great performance are what truly matters. Popularity (fashion and as such transient), in art is not the same as good either!
Right I’ll go and have a coffee now and put some Mozart on.

[Drew Stephenson]

How well does it meet the objective?
Are you aiming for a realistic capture of a classical ensemble? Ok, so is one mix better than the other in terms of its ability to immerse you in a credible environment? Is there realistic front-to-back depth as well as stereo imaging? Do the fff sections hit you with the power of the orchestra but you still find yourself hunching forward for the pp bits; not because you have to, but because you're captivated.
Does the mix achieve all that but still work well on a set of laptop speakers?
If you're dealing with pop music (of any form) where fidelity is not the main goal, then entertainment generally is. Does one mix keep people more engaged than another? Dynamics, sound-staging, ear-candy, but all in support of the melody and hook.
These are all subjective things but they could easily be objectively measured with listening groups. And mixers, producers, musicians, even composers do get dropped from projects if their work isn't good enough.

[CS70]

Often, one doesn't. In abstract, it's a pointless discussion beyond the subjective. In practical terms, common scales are popularity and consensus. An both are driven by a mix of facts, individual preferences, social clues and habit.

The more technical the subject, the more facts have a place. In physics there's really no big place for feelings and individual experience (they certainly are an essential inspiration, but nobody who want to be taken seriously would use them as an argument); in art feeling and individual experience are all there is.

Most human fields are somewhere in the middle, and music making is certainly so.

[Mike Stranks]

As has been said, it's all subjective...

I'll sometimes produce what I consider a good mix from recorded tracks and then send the mix plus the tracks to another 'mixer'. I then get sent a copy of their mix, which I'll often consider to be very poor. Who's to decide which is 'better'?

I think (controversially) that, whether we acknowledge it or not, there's a high degree of nerdiness/geekiness in our little corner of the world. People with that background want objectivity - right/wrong etc. This is sometimes reflected in 'Which is best?'; 'What settings do I need to use to...?' type questions and answers that concentrate on parameters rather than sound. Of course, technically good gear is important, but in the final analysis what makes a pleasing mix ain't the type of converters used!

(Incidentally; that's why I never comment hear on anyone's mix unless a very specific question has been asked about clipping, distortion, noise has been asked and a sample to illustrate the point has been uploaded.)

[CS70]

And mixers, producers, musicians, even composers do get dropped from projects if their work isn't good enough.

Also worth saying that "different" is often perceived as "bad".

I remember reading about "Hey ya", massive hit of the late 2000s - being initially deemed a failure because it was so different from the rest of the music that radio listeners were switching away after a few seconds. Only after explicitly sandwiching it between two more regular tracks, it got its chance.. and became super popular.

As of composers and people getting dropped, my $.10 is that often has to do with personal chemistry, impressions and trust rather than any evaluation of "good" or not. Nothing unusual, social perceptions are a key to commercial success or career from CEOs to pop stars. Making a good first impression is critical.

[John Egan]

For me, mixing and mastering are about achieving a result which I think presents the song in the way I think is best. If I manage that, I am happy; if not I keep trying.
All totally subjective and, once I got reasonable equipment (not high end) not at all equipment dependent.
Regards, John

[Hugh Robjohns]

it's a question without resolution -- not because it can't be answered, but because your premise is fatally flawed.

Consider the same question but related to fine-dining rather than music...
----------
Once you get to the mid range of restaurants, then there is really no difference in quality that can be tasted at a Michelin Restaurant ...nothing that affects the taste to make it better.

Would majority vote be good? Millions of Macdonald-lovers would not make the pros chefs very happy....

And so on!
-----------



The OP's premise is based entirely on the fact that he either physically can't appreciate the 'fine-dining' aspect of high-end equipment, or hasn't had the opportunity to experience it for himself.

As a result, he opines that there's no better enjoyment to be found than scoffing a Big Mac and fries -- after all, it satisfies millions of happy customers all around the world!

However, all those who have dined in a 4* Michelin restaurant know that there are chefs who can bring so much more to food and cooking, and the pleasure of a good meal, given the means and resources.

H

[CS70]

However, all those who have dined in a 4* Michelin restaurant know that there are chefs who can bring so much more to food and cooking, and the pleasure of a good meal, given the means and resources.

H

There's only 3 stars, not 4. They're loads of fun to go, but 2 and 3 stars are often a little crazy if the objective is to actually eat. But may the thread should be moved to the lounge

[Hugh Robjohns]

There's only 3 stars, not 4.

[Watchmaker]

"Better" hmm, yes, no way to really engage with that. I think what's missing in this logic is a clear articulation of objectives and some delineation of context. MP3s as an example are a result of a compromise intended to increase distribution within the bandwidth constraints of the early internet. The codec is designed to achieve the minimum viable product for distribution purposes, not to maximize enjoyable listening. So it's better at one thing and worse at the other

If wide spread acceptance of that format is interpreted as better, then the criteria you're measuring against is not related to music production or technical decisions about tools to support that process and so there's a logical fallacy in there, yes?

Any form of program material can be presented in myriad ways and there' no argument about "better" in terms of artistic decision making. Mapplethorpe or Rembrandt are a matter of taste, not quality. A real Rembrandt is better than a painted copy is better than a photocopy, which is still better than a mimeograph, but the mimeograph may be best for a neighborhood flyer for a kids birthday party. Context is important.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Nicely argued case!

[hobbyist]

How well does it meet the objective?
Are you aiming for a realistic capture of a classical ensemble? Ok, so is one mix better than the other in terms of its ability to immerse you in a credible environment? Is there realistic front-to-back depth as well as stereo imaging? Do the fff sections hit you with the power of the orchestra but you still find yourself hunching forward for the pp bits; not because you have to, but because you're captivated.
Does the mix achieve all that but still work well on a set of laptop speakers?
If you're dealing with pop music (of any form) where fidelity is not the main goal, then entertainment generally is. Does one mix keep people more engaged than another? Dynamics, sound-staging, ear-candy, but all in support of the melody and hook.
These are all subjective things but they could easily be objectively measured with listening groups. And mixers, producers, musicians, even composers do get dropped from projects if their work isn't good enough.

Who gets to say you failed for some reason like your A/D/A was not good enough? How can they prove their claims?

[hobbyist]

Often, one doesn't. In abstract, it's a pointless discussion beyond the subjective. In practical terms, common scales are popularity and consensus. An both are driven by a mix of facts, individual preferences, social clues and habit.

The more technical the subject, the more facts have a place. In physics there's really no big place for feelings and individual experience (they certainly are an essential inspiration, but nobody who want to be taken seriously would use them as an argument); in art feeling and individual experience are all there is.

Most human fields are somewhere in the middle, and music making is certainly so.

I agree yet I seem to see some folks claiming you have to have high end gear or somehow they can prove your results are bad.

[hobbyist]

As has been said, it's all subjective...

I'll sometimes produce what I consider a good mix from recorded tracks and then send the mix plus the tracks to another 'mixer'. I then get sent a copy of their mix, which I'll often consider to be very poor. Who's to decide which is 'better'?

I think (controversially) that, whether we acknowledge it or not, there's a high degree of nerdiness/geekiness in our little corner of the world. People with that background want objectivity - right/wrong etc. This is sometimes reflected in 'Which is best?'; 'What settings do I need to use to...?' type questions and answers that concentrate on parameters rather than sound. Of course, technically good gear is important, but in the final analysis what makes a pleasing mix ain't the type of converters used!

(Incidentally; that's why I never comment hear on anyone's mix unless a very specific question has been asked about clipping, distortion, noise has been asked and a sample to illustrate the point has been uploaded.)

I sense a bit of arrogance and perhaps snobbishness when folks claim that top end gear is provably better than mid range.

I will grant that the low end stuff can be terrible by most anybodys standards.

But can anybody *prove* that high end gear is better and not merely different?

[hobbyist]

And mixers, producers, musicians, even composers do get dropped from projects if their work isn't good enough.

Also worth saying that "different" is often perceived as "bad".

I remember reading about "Hey ya", massive hit of the late 2000s - being initially deemed a failure because it was so different from the rest of the music that radio listeners were switching away after a few seconds. Only after explicitly sandwiching it between two more regular tracks, it got its chance.. and became super popular.

As of composers and people getting dropped, my $.10 is that often has to do with personal chemistry, impressions and trust rather than any evaluation of "good" or not. Nothing unusual, social perceptions are a key to commercial success or career from CEOs to pop stars. Making a good first impression is critical.

If you are doing something for money then the person paying will certainly get to say what is 'good'. But that does not mean it is any better than something else just that one person says so.

And as always, personalities and personal quirks always play a part in deciding as much as other technical factors.

[hobbyist]

For me, mixing and mastering are about achieving a result which I think presents the song in the way I think is best. If I manage that, I am happy; if not I keep trying.
All totally subjective and, once I got reasonable equipment (not high end) not at all equipment dependent.
Regards, John

Indeed. I please myself.
My nephew pleased himself.
I thought his CD productions were awful technically.

Others may have to please the guy paying for the project.

But none of that proves that someone using mid range gear is inferior to something done on high end kit. Only that they are different and somebody prefers one to the other.

[hobbyist]

it's a question without resolution -- not because it can't be answered, but because your premise is fatally flawed.

Consider the same question but related to fine-dining rather than music...
----------
Once you get to the mid range of restaurants, then there is really no difference in quality that can be tasted at a Michelin Restaurant ...nothing that affects the taste to make it better.

Would majority vote be good? Millions of Macdonald-lovers would not make the pros chefs very happy....

And so on!
-----------



The OP's premise is based entirely on the fact that he either physically can't appreciate the 'fine-dining' aspect of high-end equipment, or hasn't had the opportunity to experience it for himself.

As a result, he opines that there's no better enjoyment to be found than scoffing a Big Mac and fries -- after all, it satisfies millions of happy customers all around the world!

However, all those who have dined in a 4* Michelin restaurant know that there are chefs who can bring so much more to food and cooking, and the pleasure of a good meal, given the means and resources.

H

No.

I am saying the emperor is naked.

You could not pay me to eat some of the stuff so called high end fine dining places serve.

Who gets to say that so called allegedly fine dining is any finer than a typical mid range restaurant. How can you prove that claim??

[hobbyist]

"Better" hmm, yes, no way to really engage with that. I think what's missing in this logic is a clear articulation of objectives and some delineation of context. MP3s as an example are a result of a compromise intended to increase distribution within the bandwidth constraints of the early internet. The codec is designed to achieve the minimum viable product for distribution purposes, not to maximize enjoyable listening. So it's better at one thing and worse at the other

If wide spread acceptance of that format is interpreted as better, then the criteria you're measuring against is not related to music production or technical decisions about tools to support that process and so there's a logical fallacy in there, yes?

Any form of program material can be presented in myriad ways and there' no argument about "better" in terms of artistic decision making. Mapplethorpe or Rembrandt are a matter of taste, not quality. A real Rembrandt is better than a painted copy is better than a photocopy, which is still better than a mimeograph, but the mimeograph may be best for a neighborhood flyer for a kids birthday party. Context is important.

I agree that mp3 is terrible.

But how do you PROVE that a wav (or other file) made on high end A/D/A gear is any better than that made on mid range kit?

I agree that it is different but can you PROVE that it is better?

[Hugh Robjohns]

I agree yet I seem to see some folks claiming you have to have high end gear or somehow they can prove your results are bad.

You seem to have spent too much time on rather less reputable websites than this one!

[Mike Stranks]

I sense a bit of arrogance and perhaps snobbishness when folks claim that top end gear is provably better than mid range.

I will grant that the low end stuff can be terrible by most anybodys standards.

But can anybody *prove* that high end gear is better and not merely different?

I think you're missing the point...

If you've heard really good preamplifiers with an excellent S/N ratio and everything else that goes with them then when you then hear preamps with a less impressive performance you are far more conscious of their shortcomings compared to the 'better-specced' pres. Such is life.

An example from today... Yesterday I shot some video using a radio mic system. Not expensive but uber-portable and easy to use. As far as I was concerned it had some significant failings: poor noise floor and constant micro dropouts. All my other radio mic gear comes from higher up the food-chain. I was moaning to my wife about this earlier today and she said, "But will anyone but you notice?" Of course the answer was "Probably not, but I do!"

When you're accustomed to using top-quality gear you're more likely to perceive issues and inadequacies with more modest gear. Does that mean it's no good? Of course not - unless it's performance is not fit for purpose. Most of those here who are accustomed to using good gear are too mature to rubbish more modest stuff, but it doesn't stop them buying top-quality gear if they can afford it.

[Watchmaker]

I appreciate the dialectic being focused on *proof*.

That being the case we can start with Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation" although Newton famously did some experiments on where sight occurred. Did we see the outside world or did we process datum, or both? Where in the cognitive process did perception occur? He stuck bodkins in his eyes and closed himself up in closets for days on end trying to sort that out.

Then again, Jung, I think, has some incredibly interesting dialogues about the idea of percepts, apprehension and comprehension all being essentially catalysts for a priori knowledge which the ego perceives as truth.

We can approach the riddle from a physics perspective too as Schoedinger's cat eloquently poses a good thought experiment about states of matter being altered through - and only coming into existence because of - observation.

And again, in common law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. As you accuse snobbery, elitism whilst retreating to the redolent redoubt of doubt, I suggest the burden is on you to prove that quality is entirely subjective.

[hobbyist]

I sense a bit of arrogance and perhaps snobbishness when folks claim that top end gear is provably better than mid range.

I will grant that the low end stuff can be terrible by most anybodys standards.

But can anybody *prove* that high end gear is better and not merely different?

I think you're missing the point...

If you've heard really good preamplifiers with an excellent S/N ratio and everything else that goes with them then when you then hear preamps with a less impressive performance you are far more conscious of their shortcomings compared to the 'better-specced' pres. Such is life.

An example from today... Yesterday I shot some video using a radio mic system. Not expensive but uber-portable and easy to use. As far as I was concerned it had some significant failings: poor noise floor and constant micro dropouts. All my other radio mic gear comes from higher up the food-chain. I was moaning to my wife about this earlier today and she said, "But will anyone but you notice?" Of course the answer was "Probably not, but I do!"

When you're accustomed to using top-quality gear you're more likely to perceive issues and inadequacies with more modest gear. Does that mean it's no good? Of course not - unless it's performance is not fit for purpose. Most of those here who are accustomed to using good gear are too mature to rubbish more modest stuff, but it doesn't stop them buying top-quality gear if they can afford it.

It seems like it comes down to fit for what purpose to who? And if they can't afford the very 'best' whatever that is then they should give up and do something else.

And just because you perceive differences how do you prove that one is better and not merely different?

[hobbyist]

I appreciate the dialectic being focused on *proof*.

That being the case we can start with Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation" although Newton famously did some experiments on where sight occurred. Did we see the outside world or did we process datum, or both? Where in the cognitive process did perception occur? He stuck bodkins in his eyes and closed himself up in closets for days on end trying to sort that out.

Then again, Jung, I think, has some incredibly interesting dialogues about the idea of percepts, apprehension and comprehension all being essentially catalysts for a priori knowledge which the ego perceives as truth.

We can approach the riddle from a physics perspective too as Schoedinger's cat eloquently poses a good thought experiment about states of matter being altered through - and only coming into existence because of - observation.

And again, in common law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. As you accuse snobbery, elitism whilst retreating to the redolent redoubt of doubt, I suggest the burden is on you to prove that quality is entirely subjective.

Too philosophical for me. I am a mathematician and deal with facts and logic.

How do you prove that item A is better than item B if both are considered to be the 'best' by various 'experts'.

My math class in graduate school at uni proved a theorem that there is no best. There is no logical way to prove that A is better than B is better than C ....

So the ball is back in your court. Mathematicians have proven that you cannot logically show that one high end device is better than another one in general; although there may be some devices where this could be true is it definitely proven false for A/DA converters.

And I say that it is a rare high end device that can be proven to be better than a typical mid range device. Although admittedly if you go low enough that is possible. But you cannot go high enough to beat everything on the high end.

[Mike Stranks]

And just because you perceive differences how do you prove that one is better and not merely different?

Really?

Technical quality. So... better S/N ratio, better frequency response, flatter frequency response, less harmonic distortion etc etc etc.

I do not have 'golden ears' - 'silver-plated' at best - but even I can spot hissy preamps, preamps with less headroom, mics that produce a sound you could slice bread with, radio mic systems that sound like Donald Duck with laryngitis etc etc etc.

We're not talking esoteric audiophile $500 cables here or subjective terms like 'warmer'. Hard facts about electronic performance.