Auto-Analyzer for Final Master Mix, is there one?

I don't imagine an effective way of doing this. Maybe if all music sounded identical in the first place. I encountered a hi-fi guy thread elsewhere in which someone is a proponent of 'unmastering' music for hi-fi purposes, re-EQing to a uniform energy curve. Ignores all intent along the path.

I know, it's all my fault! With the firepower I already have, the odds are I'm not using some of those plug-ins things to their full capabilities.

It would be fun to be able to see exactly where the differences are between my tracks and my benchmarks though. That's a good suggestion Jesse. Maybe I'll begin asking a few friends to have a quick listen and make suggestions.

I realize that in a way it's a cheat, but I was thinking of it as a way that I might learn faster exactly what steps I need to make in order to get closer to those benchmarks. I'd see it as more of a learning tool, and maybe a quick master mix helper you could then tweak to taste.

An RTA is a great tool for solving and pointing out system problems, I would never mix wedges without one. From a musical standpoint it's pretty useless and you will be pretty shocked how little information it really gives you on a loud or dynamic mix that isn't sparse. You also need to understand how the filters work and interact and when you see how that translates in musical terms you will see how little it tells you about a mix!

I hear that pope. I really would like a thorough analysis of everything I do, tracking levels, saturations, phasing, reverb EQ, panning, mix bus compression, etc. But if I could see where the important sonic differences are between my recordings and my benchmarks, it would be a good beginning to improve my mixes.

After that, I could probably set up a template that gets me 85% of the way there quickly.

Martin,

I think you will get to the place you want faster, and learn more, by doing a remake of those songs recorded by yourself. Import the song into your DAW. Listen carefully. Learn the parts-or have musician friends learn them- record them and mix it. Listen to your version and note the differences. Were the differences in instrument choice, mic placement, mix placement in the stereo field, reverb/dely type, frequency differences, compression, depth-width-height- etc. etc.

While it would be great to have software tell you the shape of the room, whether a plate or hall reverb was used, how much bus compression, how much high end lift on the vocal etc. etc.- I don't think it's going to exist, and any simple frequency curve software isn't going to tell you those things anyway.

There may be things holding you back to getting as close as possible, but in the end you can only use the tools you have. So, using them and getting close as possible by redoing it is the best way imo.

I would think this is as good a time as any to book studio time with a 67 and use theirs. Same for tracking a real drummer. Yes, this money could go for more gear, but with studio time so cheap now if you need a drummer and a U67 why wait? Your time performing your songs won't take many takes and a pro drummer, particularly if you've programmed the drums already but just don't like how your drum sequencer sounds, won't take long either. 

No doubt you're right Jim. The difference is obviously that we're trying to approach that at home, or in our basements or project studios, so it's only natural we look to the gear that was used to make those recordings. I agree that it's taken my focus away from the quality of my writing and performance. I guess I need to start playing out more. That shakes things up real quick.

That's one reason I've worked hard to catch up. When I was a recording artist, I never paid attention to he gear, only the music, and maybe suggested a few things on a mix. Later, when I began producing jingles in he late 80's, I used top studios and engineers, but I began to look at the gear and the process, and started making some creative choices. Having some success, I bought my own gear to write and produce the lower budget commercials in my place, to save money. It worked beautifully, but I had to get a little deeper into it all. I had Neumann mics, Lexicon Reverb and delay, DBX compressors, a Yamaha soundboard, NS 10's,and an Adcom amp, and 2 track and 8 track tape recorders. All considered "vintage" now, ha!

I left the music business for more than a decade due to illness and only came back five years ago. I didn't even know what a plug-in was then! So now that I've caught up somewhat, and combined my writing, playing, engineering and producing, I do get lost in wearing too many hats sometimes. Recently, I've tried to get a satisfying basic production set up I can just use for a while, but yet again, I want a different mic, a better converter, and on and on.

I'll have to just force myself to get back to playing music first, wish me luck, gear is a tender trap :-)

* that's one reason for my post, I'd love to have a quick tracking and mixing template that gets me the sounds I want, so I can focus on the music more than the gear and production again. I also hope to reach out and get some help with all this soon.

[

Martin, you know I love your work as writer , performer and I think your ahead of the curve as a producer/ engineer; but as I have said before there are no shortcuts! Most of us have worked as pros have spent as much time developing our skills as you have as a musician. However as a musician you have an advantage over the Frey!
Listen study, but remember most of what we do is in the world of thinking like an arranger, spend your time studying and thinking like an arranger, that will get you further faster not trying to see the parts, that's the wrong sense listen that's what will get you there, listen my friend it's a long road but that's the quickest route.

If you are trying to mix in an untreated apartment I would look at some acoustic treatment.
No template or plugin will fix that.