R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP6 discussion  (Read 8422 times)

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2006, 06:34:13 pm »

i was also dismayed by the sonics of the drum tracks...

i ducked the snare out of the overheads using m/s compression with the snare itself keying. then i made the kick's attack pop with a heavy dose of trans-x. i multed all the drums and put gates on some of them, and parallel compressed two tom tracks. i used only two dedicated eqs on this entire mix, a high shelf went on the snare. like every eq process i do lately, it was bounced in parallel as dual  i.i.r. to give it similar characteristics to linear phase eq.

dik's comment on stacking guitars... i started the mix in mono... so i made sure it would indeed work as "one guitar" before i stereoized it.. [it really helps that my daw has "equal power" pan law.]

i stole the concept from the beatles:  mixed all mono first, then the stereo mixes were derived directly from the mono mixes. according to the history, the stereo mix sessions tended to go relatively quickly and with relative ease.  that is how i did the stereo here, and the strategy gave me the results i expected.

in terms of stereo, i do quite a bit of phase inversion and crosspanning,..usually i use a lot of delays, but as these tracks were not perfectly aligned, and there were so many, i did not need any dedicated delays.  i did slide a few tracks around.. then locked it up to keep the sample accuracy thoughout further processing.  


jeff dinces

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2006, 06:47:49 pm »

My 2 cents on the tracks

Oheads were out of phase with one another
Snare was ok - though thin sounding
Kick was a bit tough to deal with.
As I recall, ther were no toms hit in the song. No Toms...no need for a track
Wish there were room mics
Generally speaking - the drums weren't all that kicking ass.

Bass was ok

Guitars were recorded very well - kudos on a great gtr sound.....I didn't touch any eq on them.
Vox were a little "loose"...I thought they sounded best "sunk in" the song.
Harmony vocals were out of time...I tried to convince myself it was intentional - but had to tighten them up rhythmically. Pitch wise -  a bit too loose for me - but they sounded pretty good sunk in the mix.

I have to agree 100% with whomever commented on the unecessary "breaking up" of the vox and gtrs....Although it looks tidy and thought out. It didn't make mixing easier(for me) -in fact - I spent 15 minutes putting the gtrs and vox "back together".

I really enjoyed hearing all of the variances in the mixes...

-t
Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2006, 06:54:24 pm »

Nizzle wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 18:47

Oheads were out of phase with one another

i think it was the snare that was out of phase with the overheads; it would be if it were miced from underneath.  i inverted the snare (also ducked it out of the overheads as i mentioned already). i think i got it working properly that way.
chrisj wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 15:38

Whatcha doing on the lead vocal in the acoustic section?
ugliness, i know... it was an effect of multed tuned versions with the original vocal crosspanned and polarity inverted. made a smooth warbly distortion with some motion in the stereo,  bigger and closer sounding from the exagerrated details. so then the distortion really sticks out, spoiling the intimacy.  my original intent was to avoid that part seeming too sappy, but the vocal in the second acoustic break section needed to be less distorted, imo.

i substituted a revision for my original download link that has cleaned-up vocals in the second acoustic break (before j locked the thread). if you hit the link now you can download it.  

jeff dinces

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2006, 07:01:03 pm »

I think I do recall flipping the phase on the snare, but I definitely flipped phase on one of the oheads as I felt like my equilibrium was out of whack while listening to them alone.

-t
Logged

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2006, 07:40:56 pm »

Nizzle wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 19:01

I definitely flipped phase on one of the oheads as I felt like my equilibrium was out of whack while listening to them alone.

-t


Crap... now that I listen to the overheads, and flip phase back and forth, it's obvious how much more focused they are with one track inverted.

Dang, I should have caught that.  Alway learning stuff...

I checked the phase of the kick and snare against the oheads, but never though to check the overheads L and R against each other.

-G
Logged
tomorrow is already here - http://www.worksongs.net/

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2006, 08:04:37 pm »

if you zoom in on the waveform, you can see that the oh's are out of phase

i do that as a rule on drum tracks

if god didn't want us to look at sound, it wouldn't have given us daws

i too thought that the out of time vocals were intentionally sloppy, so i ended up burying them

i set up submixess for the gtrs, the bv's, the drums (with augmented kick), and ac/gtr

the bv's were tuned with melodyne

nothing on the mix buss

i ended up cutting a part of the bridge out afterwards

thanks for letting us butcher your song, scott

Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2006, 10:47:04 pm »

Argh. I saw people still posting mixes today (well before midnight) so I decided to do a quick mix. Then did something really stupid (don't ask) and had to start again. Now I find the thread is locked. Sad

Oh well, I know I'm too late but if anyone is interested: http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&uf id=DCE3E7F254BA3E93

Alistair
Logged

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2006, 11:09:15 pm »

For anyone that may have tried to recently download my file, unfortunately my server just crashed for some reason... but I've got it up and running again.

I also feel like an idiot for not checking the phase on the overheads, so I have uploaded a new corrected version.

I left the version number the same because the download thread is locked and I can't change the URL, but I have added a comment to the file to differentiate it from the old one.

JL

Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2006, 02:52:16 am »

hi scott;

i noticed in your mp3 there is a sort of keyboard-pad-like sound playing under the acoustic section, what exactly is that?

jeff dinces

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2006, 07:04:30 am »

scott volthause wrote on Tue, 29 August 2006 22:57

Original Mix

Fornever




Hi Scott,

There seems to be some weird squeaking in the MP3 on all the loud transients. It makes it very painfull to listen to. What did you encode the MP3 with?

Alistair
Logged

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2006, 07:33:30 am »

Part One: about me

'allo mesdames et messieurs,

First of all, I don't like this genre of music, that's why I've
participated: the learning experience is even better when you
have a little distance to the music.
I had a huge distance!

The downside is I probably smoothed things where you
headbanging guys would have distorted it even more.

The part of the song I like most is the acoustic part, that's
why I build the song around this and (as ChrisJ mentioned) made
it a bit bigger, maybe I've overdone it a bit.

My vocal approach for this part was to go 'in your face', a
bit like Nickelback, therefore I kept it dry.
Unlike most of you I didn't want to add to much reverb to
the vocal section just befor the acoustic part, I didn't
want an acoustical 'break' here. (BTW, I think this first
vocals suck anyway (and the first few guitar chords as well),
if I was the producer I'd made some more takes.
Maybe he wasn't warmed up at that time. I spend about 95% of
the mixing time with that vocal part. Go figure...).

I re-aligned the vocals for that harmony at 2:50 and removed
one track so the harmony wasn't overcrowded.

The guitars were just fine, I pushed them a bit around 200 Hz
and paned them out of the way of the singer.

The bass got a bit more level around 100 Hz and a pass
below 40 Hz to keep things clean.

I didn't notice the out of phase oheads, maybe because I've paned
them wide before the first listen. (Note to self: check this in the
future, dumb-ass).
The snare got a bit more punch in the lower regions, the kick
a pass below 30 Hz.

PS: Scott, thanks for providing this song. And even I don't like
that particular genre, I notice myself humming the chorus from
time to time, so you guys must have done something extremely right.

[Edit because of speeellllinnngg]
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2006, 07:39:02 am »

Part Two: about you

Here are my notes after listing to some the mixes.
I try to be honest and hope nobody 's offend by this (at
least I won't and hope to get some honest feedback as well;
I want to learn and improve, that's why I'm here) and I
only mention the things that got my special attention
(in a positive or negative way) and is not meant in comparison
to my mix (which has most probably even more issues).

It's nitpicking anyway because the mixes are all quite good.


Time references:

Single guitar (SG): 0:00 - 0:03 and later occurrences
Doubled guitar (DG): 0:07 - 0:10 and later occurrences
vocals 1 (V1): 0:15 - 0:30 and later occurrences
Vocals 2 (V2): 0:30 - 0:59
Vocals 3 (V3): 1:00 - 1:30
Vocals 4 (V4): 2:46 - 3:01
Vocals 5 (V5): 3:01 - 3:19

ATOR: like the guitar and drums, to much difference in reverb between V1 and V2

Rankus: love the more dry and IYF vocals, guitar too much ducked at V4, vocals a bit
miss-aligned there. Even I'm not a fan of that particular sound it's a nice idea and a
welcome change at 3:35. Very good bass level.

dikledoux: for my taste a bit too much reverb in V1.

cerberus: like your re-amped guitar sound at DG, but it's too different to SG, maybe you
should treat SG the same or in a similar way.
Vocals are good but could be a tad louder compared to the guitars (are you a guitar player?),
vocals a bit misaligned at V4 + V5.

ChrisJ: like the vocals (similar to mine) and the overall sound, I'd like the harmony (V5)
vocals better with the highest voice not leading.

LouMan: I like this a lot, everything 's there and still lots of space to breath.
vocals a bit misaligned at V4 + V5.

Adam Miller: big, fat&loud. Not much top complain here.

Vkorehov: cool and spacey acoustic section, like that reverb a lot. Not much top complain here.
BTW, there is a rest of different song before the mix.

J.Hall: unlike others I don't care about the compression, songs like this one can
handle that. I think the reverb/delay in V2 don't work for this song (to clean),
but it sounds very good and interesting. Have to find out how you did that.
Bass and drums are very good, I have to give it a listen again to find out what you did
there.

NickT: big'n'loud (how should someone master this?). Not much to complain here.
Same as for Chris, I'd like the harmony vocals (V5) better with the highest voice not leading.

Garret: avoided the intro vocals completely, that's a clever move that would've saved me a lot
of time. Nice idea with the drums at 3:35, but I think it's a bit overdone. Guitar/bass/drums
are good.

Nizzle: reverb in the acoustic section similar to J.Hall, sounds cool but my personal taste
is more IYF. Lots of energy, has a nice live feeling.

Okay, that's all for now. I'll give my ears a rest and will listen to the rest of
the songs later.

[Edit:] note to self: in future IMPs block at least half a
day to listen and to make notes.

Logged
Tom

.signature failure

Calvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2006, 07:40:18 am »

This was a fun exercise.  I have very little mix experience, and I was forced to use headphones 'cause one of my monitors is out, but I wanted to participate nonetheless.

It's apparent that my mix has less low end than most if not all of the other mixes.  I guess I can attribute that to mixing in the cans, but then again maybe it's me. Confused

I thought the guitars were well tracked, the drums were OK, but I really did not like the bass.  If there was one element of this tune that I would have liked to re-track, it would be the bass.  I'm interested to learn what everyone did to create a usefull bass track.  I ended up playing around with a freeware envelope control plugin ("Dominion") to try to control and beef up the bass.  Mixed results, I would say.

Like many of you, I thought the tune could use a little editing.  Also like many of you, I felt the letdown following the big vocal buildup in the bridge.  My solution (only a partial one) was to fly in another few bars of big vocals to fill the void.  If I had more time, I would have cut out that last verse and got to the big ending quicker.

chrisj asked about the vocal reverb.  It's another freeware plugin impulse response processor named "SIR".  The sample was a bright hall lifted from a Kurzweil KSP8.  I spent about 2 seconds selecting the reverb and adjusting the predelay a bit.  I was out of time.  So, if you liked the reverb, I lucked out.  I liked the vocals, but I don't think I did them justice.

Chris also mentioned that my track is on the quiet side.  Very true.  I made no attempt to "master" the mix.  I figured a bunch of AEs with a clue would know to crank up the volume if needed.

Anyway, great fun.  I look forward to the next one.  I'll try to post comments on the other mixes once I get my monitor situation squared away so I can give everything a proper listen. Smile

Cheers,    

Calvin
Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2006, 08:49:53 am »

Tom C wrote on Wed, 30 August 2006 07:39

cerberus: like your re-amped guitar sound at DG, but it's too different to SG, maybe you
should treat SG the same or in a similar way.

i feel the song changes mood often: disgust, pity, raging anger, blazing glory... so  i exaggerated the tonal contrast between guitar parts intentionally,...there are so many great tones still buried in there, i wanted it to sound "symphonic".


Quote:

Vocals are good but could be a tad louder compared to the guitars (are you a guitar player?),
air guitar only Embarassed   the vocals would need to be "refined" to be louder... and more carefully panned, i think. i like some of the harmonies guys like rick and patrick emphasized...the minor ones especially. i did notice now i can lower the guitars by .1 db for a better balance, good idea!
Quote:

vocals a bit misaligned at V4 + V5.
the human factor, chaos, there are plenty of parts that are tight, but again, some contrast, relief which matches the other types of contrast i tried to create... similarly i wanted the snare to snap rather than thump, so that the snare, kick and cymbals all had tonal contrast with each other too.

Quote:

thought the guitars were well tracked, the drums were OK, but I really did not like the bass.  If there was one element of this tune that I would have liked to re-track, it would be the bass.  I'm interested to learn what everyone did to create a usefull bass track.  I ended up playing around with a freeware envelope control plugin ("Dominion") to try to control and beef up the bass.  Mixed results, I would say.


where i did not succeed as much with the contrast/orchestral spectrum idea is the bass.  the ratio between slappy attack, buzziness and warm full tone is very hard to work out without leaving a hollow dip between the bass and everything else..,or spreading the bass too far up into nether regions north of 150 hz,  the "murk and headphase" regions for bass, imo.  this bass seems dynamic in a narrow range, so if i try to compress this bass to make it more present, it just "sits there" and gets boring after a minute or two... i noticed that on many of the mixes: the bass is present, but it doesn't dance.

i think i'll try a dominion type device (trans-x in my case) and also convert the bass to midi and perhaps try to augment it with samples or synth. the experimenting will take time, but i think the bass player would still recognize their own (excellent)performance.  was this bass recorded through a compressor?  or the particular bass isn't the right one for the genre, or the player doesn't whack it hard enough?  or  perhaps it should have been amped and d.i. together at once?

jeff dinces

Vladislavs Korehovs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP6 discussion
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2006, 08:56:12 am »

Hello Guys.
It was not the Reverb...
MOre precisely it was a string part with some ambient reverb. But reverb was not so important, PAD itself was ambient.
There was 2 PADS one with Strings and other with some FX.

Overally i like Adam Miller mix the most.
One of few people who could not get phasing issues on Snare and not make it sound Dull by pushing compression treshold to much.

I'm sorry but i don't like most of vocals.
I expect this song to require in front of your face vocals and not covered with Tons ov reverb. I don't think so much reverb on vocal will suit to any musical style because vocal usually is the
most nealy placed element. In this style guitars are also as important as Vocal is. But this doesn't mean what Vocal shoudl be covered with Reverb. The best use of reverb is not to use it a lot:))

I have also was very surprised how Vocal was treated.
I have been using VAmp to get verse vocals sound band limited.
He was using some Band Limiting, overally quite same approach by two diferent people, and this is very interesting.

My top end sounded a little bit Dull because i have a little bit overused AC1 on Master Buss (and it is the only one processing i have on master buss). i have already remixed it.
Yes we usually have to Balance Harsh mix vs Mix with Dull top.
and it is usually quite easy to overdo, and more relevant to mastering.  But i think Analog Channel shoudl be done on mixing stage, because it affect our treatmeent while we mixing...
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up