R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP7 discussion.  (Read 18603 times)

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2006, 04:11:05 pm »

Hey Rankus, thanks for the comments.

I’m comfortable with the dynamics of my mix, but I’m listening to what you have to say at the same time. You know how it is, two guys, two opinions.

Here’s what I compressed, just for fun-- I don't really remember settings though:

Vox-- LA-4A cascaded into a Tube Tech LCA-2B.

Kick-- (2 tracks submixed) -- Tube Tech LCA-2B.

Snare--(3 tracks submixed)-- Massey CT4 demo, plus a little bit of trashy BF76 in paralell, mixed in underneath.

OH-- None

Rooms— None

Piano and Organ— None

BGV— None

Guitars-- None

Bells—Massey CT4?? I forget, I was looking for lots of color though.

Bass-- It's actually not a comp, but running it out through a tube pre/EQ did change the dynamics a bit.

2 Buss— None

I mixed OTB on a Soundcraft Ghost. EQ is all a combo of the board and the Massey EQ-- except for a bit of digital lo and hi passing on a track or two (which the Massey can't do.)

I figured at 16/48 this was a great chance to eval the Massey stuff. I'm going to purchase the CT4 Comp and the EQ I think.

Also, I gained down a lot of tracks via audio suite. Serious thanks to Dave McNair who has mentioned that approach here before... it helps.

So that’s that-- mastering would definitely get the mix with no limiting.

Interestingly, I tried to be very conservative with the limiter.

I used the Massey L2007 demo set to -1db of reduction on peaks. I did this based on what J. does with Maxim because that makes a lot of sense to me for eval mp3’s. Last time I think I just went with a completely nude two buss—here I decided to try something different and check out a very affordable tool in the process.

Anyway, I certainly wasn't trying to master the mix-- but I'll have to think about this for IMP8. I just keep my hand on the volume when I go through these— so at best I’m unscientifically leveling the playing field as I go.

So anyway we're at an interesting place here because some of us are saying no limiting, while some of us are trying to use it super conservatively (maybe that’s an oxymoron with brick wall stuff,)  and the others may have just gone balls out.

I'd sort of hesitate to slap more rules on this thing-- I know J. doesn't want to have to police the posts so to speak.

Chris Carter, I didn't mean to suggest you were trying to beat anybody-- everybody's got the benefit of the doubt from my end.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2006, 04:23:27 pm »

chris carter wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 14:07


J Hall - No, I think it sounds absolutely horrible!  Can I make that clear enough?  Bad, horrible, squashed, etc.  


cool!

let's not discuss any more then.
Logged

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2006, 04:27:42 pm »

I'm interested in why so many take issue with 2 buss stuff for the IMP's....Isn't it safe to assume we all form our opinions about mixes from the music we listen to? Isn't it also safe to assume we are listening to mass produced CD's that are mastered? Who cares what the Mix Engineer does.....Everybody's mix levels are going to be vastly different, so I don't see any reason to limit(pun intended) the expression of the Mix Engineer. I propose we assume the level of the mix has to do with the way the Mix Engineer wishes to present the song(for better or worse).

I can say for myself - My 2 buss dynamics/EQ/Whatever are all integral to th overall sound I'm trying to achieve. I for one do not add anything for the sole purpose of volume(for the IMP's)....But I'm fine if someone else wishes to...I will assume it's for the sake of the mix and not the volume.

-t
Logged

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2006, 04:41:07 pm »

[Disclaimer: in my comments I mixed up Banjo and Mandolins, if I wrote
Mandolin and there's no Mandolin there I meant Banjo and vice versa Very Happy]



My very subjective findings:

ATOR: drums a bit bright, good vocals, good groove factor, mandolin a bit loud, cool
bass in the bridge, nice ending

Calvin:
interesting minimalistic intro, nice B4,good and powerful e-guitars

Chris Carter: huge/good bass, intro has a bit too much delay on vocals, good strings,
good vocals, too much compressed

ChrisJ:
drums a bit strange sounding, nice e-guitars, nice vocals but a bit dark, nice bridge.
Your wrong-sample-rate version was somehow interesting, too, and brings me some
strange ideas for IMP8

Dikledoux: good vocals, like the delay on the strings, drums could have a bit more punch
good and powerful guitars, outro a bit out of sync.

iComps: nice bass and drums, could be overall a tad brighter, good groove, nice bg vocals,
vocals could be a bit brighter

J.Hall: great vocals/bg vocals, good groove factor, snare could have a bit more bottom,

Maxim: way too much bass around 65 Hz, overall nicely glued together, great string reverb,
vocals could be a bit more dominant and brighter.

Nizzle: different intro approach with the e-drums, good vocals, outro a bit loud.

Randy Hansen:
good intro vocals, loudness difference between first verse and chorus
a bit too much, I'd remove an instrument or two in the choruses (accordion) to have
a clearer direction

Rankus: good drums, mandolin a bit to loud, good vocals bg/vocals, e-guitars in the
bridge a bit dull

Rattleyour: good vox and background vox, B4 a bit overdone, but okay for the fade out,
good groove

Scottoliphant:
good drums, good vocals, good e-guitars, mandolins(?) in
bridge a bit loud, overall good balance

ShakesTheClown:
nice intro vocals, chorus a bit crowded, good bridge, e-guitars could
be a tad louder

Spoon: different but interesting intro, good vocals and overall balance, chorus a bit
flat, nice bridge

Thierry:
good vocals, lots of power and good groove, well balanced, mandolins after
bridge a bit too loud

Undertow: nice bass but a bit to loud, bg vox a bit too much reverb, good groove,
good e-guitars, cool reverse reverb on vocals after the bridge, VERY cool last
chorus

Urick: drums a bit bright, good bass, could have a bit more punch and dynamics.

Vladislav: nice bass and drums but a bit washy a very low frequencies, mandolins a
bit too loud for my taste, good e-guitars, good vocals

I'm sure I've missed a lot of details worth commenting, but reviewing 20 submissions
needs a lot of time so I picked only the (to me) most interesting things.


Logged
Tom

.signature failure

iCombs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2006, 04:49:52 pm »

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 13:33

think modest mouse


FISRT THING I DID.  Seriously.
Logged
Ian Combs
Producer/Engineer
Lightspeed Group, Inc.
----------------------
"Mista apareeatah... can I have maar beass at all frequencies?"

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #50 on: September 20, 2006, 04:51:19 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 19:34


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.



ATOR wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 19:48


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.



Thanks guys, my DAW seems to have an issue there when rendering
to disk (in fact, I've placed the vocals a bit early to make them
more alive), maybe one of the plugs is too processor heavy (the
vocals had the most plugs anyway).
I'll investigate that.

Note to self: listen to your own mix when it's rendered to disk
more carefully.
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2006, 05:22:30 pm »

i've never critiqued any single mix in these things. and no one has asked me for my opinion of their work either.

the general consensus of mine is that i over compress, that's the #1 comment of my work in every IMP we've done thus far.......

anyway......i'm going to give a critique of every one's mix at the same time and break my silence.

i'm a bit disheartened with the direction IMP is going.  seems like we're getting more and more about "look at this sweet flanger" and less and less about actually mixing a song.

this is supposed to be a real world situation where you pretend there is a client you'll have to answer to, while still expressing yourself.

here is the critique.

no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song.  your job as a mixer is to sell the song.  no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it.  you have to make people want to listen.  find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them.

by no means am i saying that my mixes does this.......

i simply saying, from what i've heard, no one else is really doing it.

i also think that many of you have mild to significant acoustics problems in your mix environments and it not only colors your own mix, but it colors your comments on other people's work.

if any one wants specific comments from me about your mix, i'll be happy to supply that.  at this point, i just don't see IMP being as constructive of an educational tool as i originally planned.

all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering.
Logged

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2006, 05:38:51 pm »

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 22:22



all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering.


OK - you start with the kind of correspondence you were looking for(feel free to use my mix as a starting point)....I'll follow your lead and post. I'm curious/ excited about what it is your after....

-t
Logged

scottoliphant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 721
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2006, 05:45:12 pm »

Quote:

"look at this sweet flanger" and less and less about actually mixing a song.
I agree with this. I hear lots of reverbs, and weird delays that I'm not sure we'd use in real life? Every time an old bandmate of mine would make a flyer for our band, he'd throw about 15 photoshop filters on a perfectly good poster.

Quote:

i also think that many of you have mild to significant acoustics problems in your mix environments and it not only colors your own mix, but it colors your comments on other people's work.
Isn't this the indie forum?  Smile we can all strive to get better / improve our environments, things like this help (me at least).

starscream2010

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #54 on: September 20, 2006, 05:48:34 pm »

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 16:22

i've never critiqued any single mix in these things. and no one has asked me for my opinion of their work either.

the general consensus of mine is that i over compress, that's the #1 comment of my work in every IMP we've done thus far.......

anyway......i'm going to give a critique of every one's mix at the same time and break my silence.

i'm a bit disheartened with the direction IMP is going.  seems like we're getting more and more about "look at this sweet flanger" and less and less about actually mixing a song.

this is supposed to be a real world situation where you pretend there is a client you'll have to answer to, while still expressing yourself.

here is the critique.

no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song.  your job as a mixer is to sell the song.  no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it.  you have to make people want to listen.  find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them.

by no means am i saying that my mixes does this.......

i simply saying, from what i've heard, no one else is really doing it.

i also think that many of you have mild to significant acoustics problems in your mix environments and it not only colors your own mix, but it colors your comments on other people's work.

if any one wants specific comments from me about your mix, i'll be happy to supply that.  at this point, i just don't see IMP being as constructive of an educational tool as i originally planned.

all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering.


Honestly, I would like your opinion on my mix and be brutal, as  always  Smile  

Also, I don't feel as though I am to a point in my mixing to where I can offer criticism, be that constructive or not.

I entered IMP because it seems like a cool way to hear, how other people do things differently and because I only learn by doing, reading, listening... so, this is an easy way (for me) to learn ways to improve my skills.

I really enjoyed listening to everyone's take on the tune and hope that we can continue to do these in the future.

Nick


p.s. The mix I submitted WOULD be how I would given it to a client if I were to be paid for it  Embarassed, well with the exception that I would have brought the vox up abit.
Logged
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... "

Nick Evans

www.nickolusevans.com

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2006, 06:00:22 pm »

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22


no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song.  your job as a mixer is to sell the song.  no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it.  you have to make people want to listen.  find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them.



Agreed, but these two are also the hardest parts to do.
We try to learn how to mix here, and it's easy to lose the
songs vision when you try to get the technical side correct.
It's like learning an instrument, it needs some time until
you're able to forget the handcraft and see the art.
It's a good point, and one I'll try to work on that.

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22


i also think that many of you have mild to significant acoustics problems in your mix environments and it not only colors your own mix, but it colors your comments on other people's work.



That's something you could help a lot, you have a good room
and the experience to tell where the most obvious shortcomings
of our rooms are.

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22


at this point, i just don't see IMP being as constructive of an educational tool as i originally planned.



Maybe if you'd tell in what direction you'd like to see IMP
going we can try to make it like that.
It's all up to us.

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 23:22


all i see is engineers, engineering, for other engineers, to geek out about engineering.


Bunch of nerds Very Happy
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

iCombs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2006, 06:04:42 pm »

I also think, if I might piggyback on j.'s comments, that there's not a whole lot of discussion regarding WHAT about the song made you make the mix decisions you did.  Was the bassline so irresistably funky that it had to get pushed up?  Was there some crazy hi-hat pattern that glued the drumkit to the rest of the song?  I know that, for me, the macrodynamics of this song were what interested me.  There are 3 or 4 distinct dynamic levels if you look at it in terms of verses, choruses, breakdown, and the last chorus (which was like a regular chorus on steroids in my head).  I wanted to make those levels very distinct and apparent.  The sheer amount of instrumentation in the chorus made the "big" thing really easy to do in terms of deciding HOW I wanted to do it...all I had to do was find a spot in that wall of stuff for each instrument.

(if I'm reading into j.'s comments correctly...this would be ther place where you'd normally insert technical discussion as it pertains to HOW you did what you did)

also, and I mean this with no offense to anyone, but I heard a lot of mixes that had TONS of tracks stripped out.  I'm not any kind of genious, but I think that for the most part, if they sent it to mix, they want it in the mix.  Granted, when stuff gets doubled and tripled and stacked, it can make for a muddy mess where one or two tracks would have done just fine, but I heard a few mixes (need to organize all the files I dl'ed and see whose is whose) where there was no accordion.  There were plenty of mixes where the breakdown was cut.  That's a pretty ballsy call for a mix engineer to make without at the very least the producer's involvement, IMO.  Seems like something that would be a no-no in a professional environment without the consent of the artist.
Logged
Ian Combs
Producer/Engineer
Lightspeed Group, Inc.
----------------------
"Mista apareeatah... can I have maar beass at all frequencies?"

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2006, 06:05:01 pm »

j.hall wrote on Wed, 20 September 2006 17:22


no one has done a mix that makes me want to keep listening to the song.  your job as a mixer is to sell the song.  no matter how amazing the song is, you can always kill it.  you have to make people want to listen.  find the lelements that truly speak to a listener and exploit them.

by no means am i saying that my mixes does this.......

i simply saying, from what i've heard, no one else is really doing it.


I tried something harder. I was trying to make a mix that would make my WIFE want to keep listening to the song Laughing

She's hated all the songs so far, whether it's IMP, WIMP, WOMP, WUMP or CaPE, with a few exceptions (loved Team Headbang and Team Industry from CaPE). This can make it challenging as I play the bloody things over and over, adjusting them Very Happy

I do hear what you're saying, J- it seems like this is a very important thing and can't be overemphasized- the challenge for you is in figuring out how to get people to UNDERSTAND it, mostly to understand where they're missing it. It's not that people aren't trying, they are always trying to do something to make the song so cool people will want to hear it. There's just that little detail of HOW to worry about... and that is what this is all about.

I love it as much as I hate it when I get just slammed with criticism in these things, but it has to be detailed, it has to be a conversation. That's why I joked about 'nice crit', because saying either 'nice this' or 'horrible that' is nearly useless- you have to describe what is happening that you like or don't like, always within the context of your own limited understanding.

I'm really looking forward to hearing your criticisms but only if they aren't 'nice/sucks'. It sounds like you can bring a different level to the crit table. Please do. I had a guy in a CaPE mastering wanting more 'wind and sea', or was it 'beach and tides'? I'd love to hear someone get funky like that with the IMP entries.

I'll do my best- struggling to find time to listen to all the entries. I'm up to DMXR100, alphabetically.

chris carter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #58 on: September 20, 2006, 06:14:33 pm »

By popular demand, here is my final mix that I actually printed to disc and before I threw it in an editor to add limiting for reference and the fade out (although, you can grab your speaker knob and create your own fade wherever you want Smile)

So this is what would actually go to the mastering engineer.

http://www.millraceonline.com/samples/weekendsandholidays_cc _FINALMIX.mp3
Logged
Chris 'Von Pimpenstein' Carter
Producer | Mixer
www.vonpimpenstein.com

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP7 discussion.
« Reply #59 on: September 20, 2006, 06:20:42 pm »

chrisj wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 00:05

saying either 'nice this' or 'horrible that' is nearly useless- you have to describe what is happening that you like or don't like, always within the context of your own limited understanding.



I don't know J.'s intentions, but I think this is a good direction.
Actually I knew what and why I liked or didn't like something in
a given mix, but I just mentioned the what and completely failed
to go beyond this.
Good point.
No, VERY good point!
Logged
Tom

.signature failure
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13   Go Up