bandso
The page says to "please vote for your favorite master", so doesn't that make it a "master vs master" comparison and pick your favorite one?

Actually I think he is baiting us so that would make it a Master Baiter.

Hear here also liked the original...but for the "mastered" #4 was my choice for the dynamics and cymbals being brought out a bit more so..in da mix...2 was close second...
 
And I like the number 4 because it is even..and 2 could be said is half of...thus not whole..holy 4 first choice.
 
 
lol.
 
Thanks 
 
Cheers!

Well, at least there's a unanimous opinion about which one is best...not!

When do we find out what is who's doing, on and or how was it done, by whom or what?
 
and our opinions only matter to ourselves who have them, and like them that way.

Sir Les
When do we find out what is who's doing, on and or how was it done, by whom or what?

We're still getting lots of responses coming in daily. We'll give it about another week or so and then post the results!

hueseph

stevec

Soundwise

hueseph
if you had taken the time to match volumes you would have found that the transients were in fact more prominent in 2 and 4.

You can tell that just by looking at waveforms as well.

Exactly.     
 
I was listening on headphones, at work.  Level matching simply wasn't an option....    However, it was a real-world/outside the studio listening experience, as 99% of the target audience is likely to do.   
 

As a consumer, you turn up your player to a comfortable level. As a critical listener you should do the same for each individual track. Even then, you stated that you found the transients in 2 and 4 to be muted when clearly this is not the case.

Geez....    OK, OK, I'll go back an re-listen...   
 
OK, I'm back.  Yes, I did like 2 and 4 better with a little more volume, no surprise there.  Between the two of them I preferred # 2 though the difference between them isn't that drastic.   
 
But overall, I still stand by my original assessment in that # 3 is my favorite, even when level matched.   The drums have more snap which for a song like this is important IMO.   And given the genre and target audience, I wouldn't necessarily expect listeners to adjust their playback volume, but rather that the mastering process have that target audience in mind - I'm picturing a lot of portable devices in noisy environments.
 
I grew up on vinyl...  I do know what dynamics are and am familiar with the loudness war.   But I'm also a realist - while I think things have improved to some degree over the last few years in regards to over-compressed, distorted and/or lifeless masters, it's certainly not what it was in the 70's, nor do I ever expect it to be.   At least not as long as lossy compression and cheap ear buds rule the land.   
 

Thanks Joey

stevec

hueseph

stevec

Soundwise

hueseph
if you had taken the time to match volumes you would have found that the transients were in fact more prominent in 2 and 4.

You can tell that just by looking at waveforms as well.

Exactly.     
 
I was listening on headphones, at work.  Level matching simply wasn't an option....    However, it was a real-world/outside the studio listening experience, as 99% of the target audience is likely to do.   
 

As a consumer, you turn up your player to a comfortable level. As a critical listener you should do the same for each individual track. Even then, you stated that you found the transients in 2 and 4 to be muted when clearly this is not the case.

 
 
Geez....    OK, OK, I'll go back an re-listen...   
 
OK, I'm back.  Yes, I did like 2 and 4 better with a little more volume, no surprise there.  Between the two of them I preferred # 2 though the difference between them isn't that drastic.   
 
But overall, I still stand by my original assessment in that # 3 is my favorite, even when level matched.   The drums have more snap which for a song like this is important IMO.   And given the genre and target audience, I wouldn't necessarily expect listeners to adjust their playback volume, but rather that the mastering process have that target audience in mind - I'm picturing a lot of portable devices in noisy environments.
 
I grew up on vinyl...  I do know what dynamics are and am familiar with the loudness war.   But I'm also a realist - while I think things have improved to some degree over the last few years in regards to over-compressed, distorted and/or lifeless masters, it's certainly not what it was in the 70's, nor do I ever expect it to be.   At least not as long as lossy compression and cheap ear buds rule the land.   
 

The dynamic range of Vinyl is lower than what the CD format is capable of, FYI.  
 
And this test was done with Lossy Compression.  

Yup...    But I think it was more the mindset than the technology that perhaps gave vinyl a different "feel" than CDs.  Though I also think it took a few years for CDs to catch up to their potential.
 

NeoSoul
The dynamic range of Vinyl is lower than what the CD format is capable of, FYI.  

Theoretically speaking that is. In reality, CDs have much less dynamic range then vinyl records used to. But you already know this.