R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP7 discussion.  (Read 17332 times)

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2006, 01:05:12 pm »

dconstruction wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:35

I'd really like to hear from those persons that mixed this song deemphasizing the background vocals.  To me, and to the artist, they are THE sound of this song - and the album.  What led you to underplay or even ignore those tracks?


Not sure if my mix fell into this category but - heres my take on it.

I didn't bury he bvox in the mix....nor did I leave them out, but I would have liked to have made them louder. but generally speaking, the pitch in the lead vox and the bvox pitch(and vibe) was abit to "loose/ wild" for me and I had to base my lead vox level and bvox level accordingly. I didn't have too much time to alot for mixing, but even with the little time I had, I spent some  tuning the lead vocal abit.(I notice a few others did some tuning and a couple did some AT graphical(type) tuning with some good results).

I also chopped out some "instrumental sections" that either seemed unnecessary(or to long) or seemed like a band was just "vamping" over the chorus changes without adding any excitement. as i recall the "vamp sections" only had a clean electric playing the chorus instrumental "hook"...but the sound, nor the octave, nor the overall vibe made the section go anywhere for me.

with all that said...I thought the song was good, the engineering quite good and it was a pleasure mixing it and is really a pleasure to hear all of the different approaches/ sensibilities of all involved.

Hope all are well.
-t
Logged

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2006, 01:15:31 pm »

scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 09:51

how many folks feel comfortable critiquing their own mixes as well when they post their thoughts? I think i will



I consider myself obligated to find room for improvement every single time I finish a session or mix. I can only learn through pushing myself, ya know?

Still, I don't know how much time I'm going to have to devote to critiquing these mixes and I think discussing my own work would be lower priority.
Logged

chris carter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2006, 01:32:49 pm »

I also did not feel that the song needed a dramatic arrangement change; I thought it was rather strong.  There were a couple parts that maybe were muted to help with the build and release, but these were more of the subtle variety.  As well, I'm really a producer first in real life and a mixer second.  As such, I have to have faith that the producer did his/her job and the artist/label is happy with it and it's not my place to go and completely screw with it.  Some subtleties here and there?  Sure, but I feel like I have to represent the song as the producer wanted it presented as much as possible.  In fact, where I muted the strings in the break, that is normally something that I would check with the producer first, but in this situation it wasn't possible.  Similarly, it frustrated me to no end to not get clarification from the producer as to the start and finish of the tune.  The end utterly confused me and so I extended what was printed and did a fade since I couldn't ask.  I didn't print the fade in the final mix because I would never do that unless I produced the record or the producer told me how/where he/she wanted the fade - so in this case I leave it for the ME.

As opposed to J Hall, I didn't consider this an album cut, but rather a potential single (although, labels want 3/4 of all albums to be potential singles these days... so not a risky stretch for me!).  Hence going for a very aggressive radio sound, nothing risky, and tried to emphasize the the hook as much as possible.... screw art - commercial commercial commercial radio radio radio sales sales sales was my approach.  The early chorus after a short first verse was also an indicator to me that the song was intended to be very commercial and get the listener excited early on.  In accordingly, I made sure my mix was aggressive and exciting from the get go.  The radio factor is another reason why I fought off the temptation to hack off the beginning mandolin - kinda need that.

I noticed that some folks thought it was odd for me to use a limiter on the mix I posted (obviously, the final mix doesn't have it and I would never dream of giving that to an ME).  I actually thought that reaction was odd!  I started doing that years ago on the advice of some very good mastering engineers and mix engineers.  The idea being that these days the amount of insane limiting for volume is so incredibly severe that there is no way on earth it's NOT going to f*ck with your sound, mangle it, destroy it, etc.  So from the mix guys' perspective it let's you know what to expect so as to compensate as best you can.  And if you use a generic limiter (in my case, the stock Adobe Audition limiter) you will know the 'worst case scenario'.  It's easy to make a mix sound bright and punchy with definition and everything - it's another thing to make a mix that will sound that way after it's limited to Pluto and back.  From the ME's they don't get as many nasty surprises to deal with when they slap 100000dB of limiting on it (have had plenty of convos with MEs about that happening to them.... label wants it "loud", mix just won't handle it unless they start multibanding it and doing all sorts of crap).  The labels love it (and actually gripe to me about mix folks who don't give them a reference mix with the limiter) because despite what we think of A&R (LOL!) they know that the limiter will screw with things and they could care less what the actual mix sounds like, they want to know what their finished record will sound like!  They readily admit to me that although the reference version with the limiter is only an additional version I give them, that's what they really listen to.  They don't really bother with the final mix (other than to confirm it works) because from an evaluation standpoint, it's meaningless to them.  Not to mention that in this IMP situation we are comparing final mixes to final mixes, but in the real world they can't do that.  They are comparing to the finished Green Day or Killers or Beyonce or Kelly Clarkson or whatever.  Kind of like how a friend of mine builds care engines.  He can talk about the potential of a certain engine and how great it is (all of which flies over my head...), but then when I ask him what it all really means he says, "it doesn't mean anything, the best engine in the world is crap until you see how it performs in a car on the road!"  So in that vain, I consider it better to evaluate a final mix WITH a limiter as it's closer to what the the consumer gets.  And I don't make records for engineers (unfortunately), I make them for consumers to buy Smile  Since this was a "real world" type experiment, I tried to be as real world as possible and the limited version is the version the artist and label would be listening to to evaluate.  Blah blah blah, suffice to say that I've downloaded most of the mixes from other folks and slapped the same limiter on them so that all of my listening would be "in context".

Dconstruction - I know what you mean about the bgvox.  I immediately wanted those up, but I had issues of clarity.  Going for the commercial sound I was shooting for, it was critical that I have plenty of intelligibility in the vocals so the lyrics can be heard (as they are good lyrics as well).  But the combination of the performance style, the gravely voice, and the screaming, made it harder to understand if I had the bgvox more in-your-face - especially on crappy playback systems.  So I tried to split the difference, erring on the side of being able to understand all the words.  As well, I think the melodies in the chorus (the vocal melody and the guitar lead that follows) are the selling points of this song and I wanted them to grab the listener and not let go.  So I needed as much melody as I could must from the chorus vocal and if it go too shouty, I started to lose that hookiness.  Anyway, that's my take on it Smile  BTW - good job on the production, I would offer that I did play it for a few friends (some clueless consumers, some successful artists) and the general consensus was that they really liked it.

I have learned one thing from this whole experiment and that's that I HATE not talking to the artist and producer.  For me, music is all about personality and I need to know what the personality of the artist is in order to deliver that.  I need to know what kind of attitude the producer was trying to generate.  This had me guessing and I don't like guessing!  I don't like the idea that I could have totally misinterpreted and done the exact opposite and inadvertently UNDONE much of what they were trying to accomplish!  Although, it is cool to see all the different approaches everyone took with no direction Smile Smile Smile
Logged
Chris 'Von Pimpenstein' Carter
Producer | Mixer
www.vonpimpenstein.com

spoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2006, 01:34:48 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 10:19


Would it be cleaner if people PM me for clarification and then I post those clarification as part of my original review?

And speaking of cleaner posts, should I post all the reviews in one thread or break them up?

Thanks for the input.

Regards,
David


Thanks for the help.  Surprised  (in that Jason Lee sort of sarcasm)

Here are my review notes. Some are comments on things, others are just observations...like if someone shortened a part.  
REMEMBER, these comments are based on MY sense of aesthics.
Your Mileage Will Definitely Vary!

Regards,
David

ATOR -shorten first chorus edit.  Nice vocals.  Changed lead on chorus.  Banjo in picazzo out.  Edit last chorus.  Changed ending.  NICE MIX.

Calvin - Nice sparse begining.  Bass heavy.  Nice chorus, background vox comes in later (1st), shortened.  Nice vocal verse, bass heavy.  Nice chorus voxen (2nd).  Nice bridge.  Break like mine. Banjo!  Nice fade idea, choppy fade.

Cerberus - Nice intro, clicks.  Midrange -y gritty vox.  Low verse bass.  Low chorus vox, nice chorus instr.  Electronic beats break, banjo.  Nice outro chorus, except LOW voxen.

Chris Carter - Smashed chorus...pumping.

ChrisJ - Nice intro, beats.  Vox low or EQ'd funny.  Like the drum 'slop', nice drum tone.  Vox distorts on fortissimos. A bit bass heavy, chorus instruments buried.  Nice bridge. Electronice beats break, banjo, nice drum slop.  Nice guitars on outro chorus.  Nice outro FX.

Dikledoux - nice levels (vox too).  Minimal growing chorus.  Nice verse with piano...echo picazzo.  Shortened last chorus.  Electric beats break,  banjo.  Nice organ ending -stop.  VERY NICE MIX.

iCombs - Used regular beginning.  Chorus voxen too low.  Verse vox low. electric beats break, banjo.

jhall - Nice vocals.  Nice snare.  Pumping/ducking on Chorus.  Verse pumping.  Electric beats break, banjo.  Nice chorus voxen.  Ending one outro chorus early.

Mario - Nice intro, vox. Nice drums, good chorus.  Good verse, vox.  Bridge piano muddys, overwhelms.  Break like mine. BANJO.  Good outro chorus.  Extended organ outro.

Maxim - BASS HEAVY.  No intro drums.  Bass heavy.

Nizzle - Electric beats into, nice.  Pumping chorus -shortened first one.  Nice drums.  Pumping chorus.  Bass heavy break..low guitars.  Electric break, banjo. Electric ending w/FX nice.

Randy Hansen - Too much reverb (Beg) for style?.  Muddy chorus, low drums, w/banjo.  Kept electronic drums in verse, real drums low.  Bass low and muddy?  Muddy/reverb guitar on break, acoustic to loud, levels.  Electronic beats break, banjo.

Rankus - Nice intro, growly bass.  Chorus voxen low, nice chorus levels.  Nice verse, articulate bass.  Low chorus voxen.  Strange break eGuitars.  Break close to mine.  BANJO.  Took off background vox on outro and removed one outro?.  Fade out.

Rattleyour/Liam Nelson - Nice intro, vox.  Nice Chorus, piano (fx -cted) over organ, bring in dist guitar line -nice, (fuzz?).  Nice verse.  Nice piano chorus two, w/eGuitar again.  Bells on break, ok.  Close break to mine, used organ here.  Low eGuitars.  Slightly muddy bass on chorus.  Nice FX ending.

Scott Oliphant - Weird click count, nice intro.  Nice chorus, good bass articulation, good piano in 2nd half.  No bass on verse, not bad, by 2nd half something felt missing.  Nice 2nd Chorus, again nice piano on 2nd half, organ too.  Nice bridge.  Loud bass break.

ShakeTheClown - Nice intro, vox.  Nice Chorus, vox abit low.  Verse bass abit muddy/loud.  Nice bridge.  Electronic beats break, banjo.  Volume/pumping issues on outro chorus vox.

starscram2010 - Full intro, nice vox.  Chorus has slight pump, low voxen.  Nice verse, low vox.  Chorus two, side -chained kick?  Nice bridge.  Electronic beats break, banjo.  Pumping kick outro chorus, low voxen.  Nice FX outro.

THP1 - Nice intro, vox.  Nice chorus, very slight pumping.  Nice verse, bass growl.  Break nice.  Electric beats break, banjo.  Outro chorus nice, some pump.

TomC - Nice intro drums, too much FX on Vox.  Chorus vox late, from outboard processing?  Nice chorus.  No background vox on Chorus.  Bridge nice, late vox.  Break like mine.  BANJO!  Nice organ outro w/mandolins.

UnderTow - Nice intro, bass heavy.  Good chorus, lots of Voxen FX, uses banjo.  Verse vox, low or bass too loud.  Nice 2nd chorus, organ now.  Bridge bells, lots o FX on voxen.  Nice break, explosion, FX.  BANJO.  Nice vocal reverse RVB tail on into to last chorus.  Nice play on last chorus.  Fun.  Good use of background vox on outro...to much FX on the same.

Urick - Nice intro, vox.  Nice chorus, shortened.  Nice verse.  Nice 2nd chorus, shortened for bridge.  Nice bridge.  Nice break (cut the bridge).  BANJO!

VKorehov - Regular into, nice levels vox, delay ok.  Muddy/pumpy kick on chorus, bass dissappears, no background vox.  Muddy sustained bass on verse.  Pumping 2nd chorus. Bridge with no drums, strange.  Electric beats break.  BANJO!!  Nice bass before last chorus.  Wholly pumping kick.

Volthouse - Smashed, dullish vox, bass a bit heavy on into.  Chorus nice, vox smashed.  Bass a bit heavy.  Overall sonics abit dark, veiled.  Nice fade out, abit erratic at the end.
Logged

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2006, 01:44:00 pm »

Nice comments  Twisted Evil

Mine are coming this afternoon. Will be a combination of nice observations and whiney bitches, ideally one each for each track Very Happy

ATOR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2006, 01:48:18 pm »

I bit the bullet and did some heavy listening. Here are my comments:


Undertow
My favorite, this mix sounds great and grooves the hardest. The arranging is very good. Nice guitars. I hear you added some smurf backing vocals. The euphoric ending with the piano breakdown is amazing.

Scot Oliphant
The drum ambience is too loud for me. Bassgit a bit thin. Good separation and balance.

V Korehov
Midlows and low could use some cleaning up (lowend ac guits?), nice reverb on leadvocal, OHs sound weird.

Nizzle
Haha nice drumcomputer intro. I like the Big Drums esp in the verses, in the chorus they need more space, you can’t make everything big. Too much compression on Ohs. Little too much reverb.

Dikledoux
Nice! I’d like more kick. Nice touch with the pizzicato delays.

Rattleyour
Very dry. Separation and balance are great. I hear you decided to drop the organ underwater (and that's a good place for organs Razz )

Spoon
After the distorted faraway drums in the intro I expected huge drums in the first verse, you put me on the wrong foot there. Balance is good. The snaresound has too much 500Hz.

Calvin
Your mix sounds good I think, too bad you messed it up with heavy limiting. The kick lacks presence. I’d like the organ and bass less prominent. In the last chorus the instruments become cluttered.

Scott Volthause
Drums too far away. Ugly compression. Irregular weird sounds from kick.

Shakes the Clown
Very ugly compression artefacts. Chorus could use some cleanup. Sounds good where it’s not compressed.

Rankus
Drums are just kick and some stereo ambience with a ghost centre. This did make a lot of room for the lead vocal though.

Maxim
Bass is too loud (are you a bass player?). Vocal a bit dull, drums too soft, melody git too loud. Could use more attention to balancing the levels of the tracks.

Ian Combs
Snare bit dull. Lead vocal too dull and too soft in chorus. Delay on guitar in instr chorus makes it messy.

Starscream
Vocal could be more upfront. Ugly 2bus compressor/limiter abuse, why mess up a good thing?

Randy Hansen
Midlow could use some cleanup, I think it’s mostly the bassguitar. The accordion takes up too much space. Too thick reverb on ac guitars in part before break (cut midlows on return). Did you enhance the stereo image? You're past monocompatibility and lost the center.

THP1
Bass distortion edge is a bit distracting. Good balance. Silky smooth double bass in break, did you use some sort of transient designer on this?

J Hall
Signature J.Hall snaredrumsound. Too much compression. Kick could use more bottom end. Nice el. guitars in bridge.

Urick
Sibilance on leadvocal. Short delays on leadvocal little too loud for me. El guitars too locked up.

Chris Carter
Oh man, you should get a limiter constraining order for destroying you mix like that Razz  Apart from that I think that underneath this mess is a good mix.

Chris J
The mad scientists last scramble  Laughing  Well you can only leave it up to you to invent some freaky algorithm to make drums sound like this. I like it, they should be more upfront and the rest should be made to fit it. It would be the song everyone recognises when they hear 1 bar of drums.

Tom C
Leadvocal timing seems a little later, probably because of the fx. The dry leadvocal sound could be a bit louder or brighter to improve intelligibility. Instrument balance is good.

Cerberus
Very stereo drums, too bad the snare disappears in mono (Try fixing that in mastering Twisted Evil ) I’d like a louder kick. E guitars are a bit loud. Leadvocal is to soft.

Mario
Drums sound almost as if only roommics were used and are very prominent. Lot of instruments got lost in the mix. Leadvocal sounds good. The vocals need more volume and space in the chorus (cut out voc freqs in guitars etc). Some instruments in the bridge could use some hpf.


Overall nice work. I'm surprised nobody came up with a drumcomputer and acoustic bass groove with loud accordions. It seems we all have made more or less the same choices.

I'll definitely be making some changes to my mix now I've heard the other entries.


The song is great, I've been listening to it for two hours straight and I still like it.

Thanks everyone.
Logged
Pieter Vincenten - ATORmastering

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2006, 02:02:54 pm »

chris carter wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 10:32

 So in that vain, I consider it better to evaluate a final mix WITH a limiter as it's closer to what the the consumer gets.  



Hey Chris, greetings from a fellow Oaklander.

My only thing with your use of limiting is that I fell like it prevents me from really hearing your mix with all those brickwall artifacts, which is too bad because it seems like there's cool stuff going on.

I don't mean that as a dis at all.

Anyway, I understand the impulse... I've been beat out on test mix gigs by guys who absolutely pancake their eval mp3. Some bands just hear louder as better-- all issues of fair comparison aside.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2006, 02:23:14 pm »

chris carter wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 10:32

 So in that vain, I consider it better to evaluate a final mix WITH a limiter as it's closer to what the the consumer gets.  



if you have stuff mastered and put in front of the public that sounds like that i'll be happy to point you in the right direction for some killer ME's

seriously man, you have good skillz, there is a line where you make the mix louder for artists and A&R to listen to, and one that ruins your mix.  you are so far on the other side of the line i stopped your mix and moved on.

vlado won't even let that much distortion through his door, and that's saying alot considering his masters are distorted to hell and back.

the fact that your chorus has no lift and actually feels quieter to me due to the smash fest, is not a good thing.

if i try to pick apart your mix without the limiter i'd say the chorus has stellar lift, it's just getting absolutely killed the way it is now.

my only artistic comment is that your mix felt like more of an R&B approach then a folkie singer songwriter type feel......and honestly, that's just a matter of taste, so whatever.

as for mixing it as an album cut or a single, that differentiation means nothing to me.

i mix everyting to sound the way i want it to sound and to best serve the song.  there is not a different approach for a single then an album cut.

if you insist that your limiter sounds awesome, that's fine....all that tells me is you haven't listened to it.  and hey, if your clients love it, then no one here can say jack about it.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2006, 02:33:34 pm »

dconstruction wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 11:35



In the meantime, I'd really like to hear from those persons that mixed this song deemphasizing the background vocals.  To me, and to the artist, they are THE sound of this song - and the album.  What led you to underplay or even ignore those tracks?


i picked this tune because of the BGV and the passionate vocal performances.

i was curious to see what people did with them.

personally, i think the only way the tune drives forward is with the BGV up about as loud as the lead.  think modest mouse
Logged

starscream2010

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2006, 02:48:16 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 12:34



starscream2010 - Full intro, nice vox.  Chorus has slight pump, low voxen.  Nice verse, low vox.  Chorus two, side -chained kick?  Nice bridge.  Electronic beats break, banjo.  Pumping kick outro chorus, low voxen.  Nice FX outro.




Cool thanks. I'm still working on the whole 2buss compression "thing". Maybe I need to adjust the attack time... It's definitely going to be some trial and error on my part, probably more error for a while....  Very Happy

The vox were low at times and I KNEW that I should've fixed them but ran out of time.

No side-chaining. No drum replacement (almost, a first for me) I tried using a alot more automation then I have in the past and I definitely like it, just trying to get more comfortable with it. Used alot of voxengo tapebus, urs eq & comps and a sonalksis 315 on the master.

I automated the fader(read that Andy Wallace does this a bit) on the 2buss, so that in the choruses I brought the volume up 1db and in the verses back down, to see if it made things a bit more dynamic and that might have hurt me more than helped.

Quote:


Starscream
Vocal could be more upfront. Ugly 2bus compressor/limiter abuse, why mess up a good thing?


I agree about the limiter, don't normally do that, just limited to bring the overall volume up.


Thanks for the critiques guys Smile
Logged
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... "

Nick Evans

www.nickolusevans.com

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2006, 02:55:03 pm »

IMP7 Comments:

On the song in general:

Great song good tracking… Too easy to mix… could have done a “yardstick mix” on this one.  I was originally considering mixing with no effects just levels/pans, but broke down and added some verb to the drums…

I mixed 100% ITB. Bussed all the acoustic instruments to one stereo bus and pretty much left that alone. Bussed vox etc as well… Paralell comp on the drums. UAD1 La2a on the vox and bass. I had to work very fast so I cannot recall many specifics… if anyone has particular questions I will recall and have a look ..  But in general my approach was all faders up from the get go, mixed around the vocal, and tried to use no effects at all if possible. (By effects I mean chorus, verb, delay etc… I used plenty of comps. And EQ’s)

General Notes:   All the mixes are outstanding this time folks!  I’d say that this is an indication that the IMP is serving its intended purpose of sharing knowledge by listening and comparing …. I feel that we should either make mastering (smashing and EQ’ing the two track) mandatory, or an automatic disqualification, as it makes things impossible to compare when some have smashed and others have not….

Final comment: All I can say is that on the next one I am REALLY gonna try hard!… the competition in here is REALLY heating up!   My ass is sore from being kicked so hard!




J Hall:  Conservative , “organic” mix. Nicely done. Suits the song.   2 buss comp pumping in choruses slightly, but may be suitable. (Possibly intentional?)

Under Tow:  Good mix, but.  The choruses seem a little too empty… there were lots of instruments to fill things up with.. I would interpret the artist intention as having a bigger chorus.  Neat treatment on the ending… wish I had time to do something there.

Scott Oliphant: Natural drum sound suits the song.  What can I say.. good mix! Watch the lower mids a bit dark, but not a prob. for the ME.

Nizzle: “Hip Hop” drum samples sounded a tad weird at first but grew on me… 2 buss comps pumping a tiny, tiny, bit in the choruses…. Breakdown works for me. Nice overall balance.

VKorehov:  Nice drums.  Nice mix.  Vocal sounds great.  Instruments could have been fleshed out more in the choruses (louder), but I only say this because I am looking deeply for some comment. Great job.

Randy Hansen:  A tad dark overall.  I would suggest a little less verb, and don’t be afraid to high pass instruments that don’t need so much bottom in the mix, like acoustic gts, and piano / accordion etc.  A little boost on the top end here and there would be good as well. Good level balance in the instruments though.  Good job.

Ator:  Nice mix!  Great attention to detail, found stuff to showcase that I did not even notice.. LOL   Neat ending as well.

I combs:  A bit tubby in bottom, but nothing an ME could not handle.  A boost here and there in the top end (or even on the overall mix) would be good.  Balance of instruments is good.  Good job.

ChrisJ: Wrong sample rate… plays…. back…. too… slow… Interesting, almost works!

Maxim:  BIG bottoms. Interesting editing for a stripped down feel. This mix definitely stands out against the other submissions… Don’t be afraid of treble to balance out the bottom.


Dikledoux:  Snare is “popping” in a good way.  There’s some good top end happening here folks. Perhaps a little out of balance with the low end? A tad over done? I dunno… the ME may be able to balance this nicely… .Bass is tight.  Great job.

Rankus:   (That’s me)  Would have backed off on the bass drum a tad if I had time for a recall.  And would have worked on de-essing the lead vox a little more. Tried out the new neve 2 buss comp from UAD on this, and I think it’s a little mushy / slight pumping in the choruses… will not be purchasing that comp.

Rattle Your:  My only complaint about this is mix is lack of dynamics.. smashed pretty hard on the track comps, but done well… should leave some dynamics for the mastering engineer….Sweet ending.  Next IMP I am getting out my limiter Wink  Good shit dude.

TomC:  Vocal sounds a little “hazy” a tad too much ambience for my taste.. did you re-amp them? Seems to be some “air” (as in speaker) going on here?  Again as with some other mixes a bit more top end (globally on the 2 bus) would balance this mix a bit better.  Overall balance is good. And thanks for hosting my mp3… cheers buddy.

Urick:  Vocal could have used a little de-essing.  This mix is heavily compressed but not in a loud kind of way.. this tends to make things smaller sounding…. But good balance in the mix .. nice job.

Chris C:  Mastered?  It’s difficult to comment on the mix (not just on this submission but the others that were smashed and EQ’d as well)  Comps are pumping heavily in the choruses on this one….  

NOTE: Next IMP I will not even listen to mastered mixes… I will pass on them…. Not out of pissiness but rather a realistic comparison is not possible…. Apples to apples please folks…

Shakes:  This mix is a lot like mine!  You win! (just kidding)  Nice preservation of the drum room tone.  2 buss is pumping a bit in the choruses… (Very noticeable around 2:00) (Seems to be a trend) High end in balance with bottom end nicely. Good job!

Spoon:  Interesting treatment on drums during intro. Instrumental balance feels slightly out of whack, but decent last minute entry. Like the treatment of the outro!

Thp1:  Good mix!  Late entry so I have little time to comment but it rocks.  Again with the limiting though!

Looks like I have missed one or two (Scotts for sure)  I will try to get back to this tomorow or later today...

Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

chris carter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2006, 03:07:57 pm »

I think I have completely miscommunicated the limiter thing.

J Hall - No, I think it sounds absolutely horrible!  Can I make that clear enough?  Bad, horrible, squashed, etc.  And Rattlyour - not a competition thing to make it sound more appealing, I think just about everything tends to sound worse with massive limiting... and I didn't view IMP as a competition either Smile

The limiter gives me a worst case scenario of what will happen in mastering.  If I was doing it to impress people I'd use a better limiter.  And given the context of this environment (ie. engineers) I just wouldn't have used it at all.  I would expect everyone elses mixes to have more dynamics, less distortion, etc., than mine (and if they don't, then something is definitely wrong with their mix).  But I was trying to be "real world" about it and the limiter is not there to impress ANYONE and I fully expected to get bashed for it by a bunch of engineers. It's kind of hard to swap a mix out with the current hit-o-today when they are 8dB apart.

One of the best experiences I've ever had was watching David Bianco mix and I was like, "Dude, that snare is shattering my glasses", but of course, he was right because with a really full bodied song like the one he was mixing the snare was going to get slapped by the limiter in mastering.  Lesson learned (I guess that's why he has a Grammy and I don't!).

I look at the limiter thing as akin to checking your mix on a boombox or on computer speakers.  I do those too, please don't shoot me for it Smile

So that said, since it's been mentioned a few times now, I'll post a link to the final mix when I have a chance.  You do have a good point that from a learning perspective it is harder to know what different people have done to their mixes with the limiter - which I guess is really the point of this thing!!

Actual final mix sans limiter coming sometime today (hopefully).
Logged
Chris 'Von Pimpenstein' Carter
Producer | Mixer
www.vonpimpenstein.com

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2006, 03:35:53 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:19


And speaking of cleaner posts, should I post all the reviews in one thread or break them up?



Have a look at the IMP6 discussion, listing all people in one
posting with some comments and/or questions is IMO a good way
to keep everything clean.
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

Calvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2006, 03:41:16 pm »

rankus wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 14:55

 I feel that we should either make mastering (smashing and EQ’ing the two track) mandatory, or an automatic disqualification, as it makes things impossible to compare when some have smashed and others have not….



I completely agree with this notion.  Last time, I used no limiting and made no attempt to make my mix louder, and my mix was waaaay quieter than nearly all the other mixes.  So, this time I break out the limiter (figuratively speaking - ITB only), with not-so-good results.  Very Happy

I'd vote for no "mastering."
Logged

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2006, 03:43:22 pm »

dconstruction wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 18:35


In the meantime, I'd really like to hear from those persons that mixed this song deemphasizing the background vocals.  To me, and to the artist, they are THE sound of this song - and the album.  What led you to underplay or even ignore those tracks?


Even there are some heavy guitars in there I think the overall
instrumentation and flow of the song are more on the softer side,
and the bg vocals do not support this, that's why I left them out.
Of course that's a personal preference and if the artist wouldn't
like it I'd include it again, but I like it better this way.
I excluded other tracks as well. Less is sometimes more.
Logged
Tom

.signature failure
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13   Go Up