R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP8 mix discussion.  (Read 8190 times)

gatino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2006, 12:49:50 pm »

undertow: can you tell about your process with the vocal. thx!
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2006, 12:52:41 pm »

gatino wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 18:49

undertow: can you tell about your process with the vocal. thx!


Sure but I thought we would have a different thread to discuss the actual techniques used. Anyway, I'll be writting up everything I did a bit later on.

Alistair
Logged

ScotcH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2006, 01:30:20 pm »

Thanks for all the comments so far, guys ... keep them coming!  I'll post my impressions this weekend after I get a chance to listen to all the submissions.

ChrisJ:  You mention the dry piano.  I inverted the phase on the room mic ... it sounded better to me that way.  maybe this had the effect of drying it up a bit?  This was also my first time using a convolution reverb (the free SIR plug) ... very cool, but also not much time to play with different impulses (since I don't have a library, I had to net hunt!).  The main L-R piano tracks are completely dry!  Thanks for the feedback!

Jeff (cerberus):  Thanks!  I used Tori Amos and Sarah McLachlan as references (all I had on CD), which are obviously very poppy sounding, hence the brightness perhaps?

Alistair (UnderTow):  When you get a minute, can you elaborate on the "artefacts" you mention?  Do you mean the bench thumps, etc or other noises?  If so, what techniques can be used to fix these?  The sibilance control is just the Cubase/SPL deEsser.  Given more time, I guess a more active approach would have been better Smile

Logged
Arek Wojciechowski - Laundry Room, Basement, Garage, Bedroom, etc.

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2006, 02:32:44 pm »

ScotcH wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 19:30



Alistair (UnderTow):  When you get a minute, can you elaborate on the "artefacts" you mention?



There are some clicks in the recording which I don't feel belong there. Like at 0:56 in your mp3 (for timing reference). I used the smooth function in SoundForge to remove them.

Alistair
Logged

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2006, 04:37:05 pm »


Happy Thanksgiving American buddies!

IMP 8 Comments:

In general I don’t think there is a “bad” mix here in IMP8 … Everybody has stepped it up a notch due to the ongoing efforts of J Hall and the others that help to make this happen… I thank you all for the kick in the pants… this is a VERY valuable exercise IMO.  



Ator:   I like the added “choir effect” in the intro, but could have used less of it once the Vox kick in.  Neat delay effects as well, but could have used less of that as well…  The affectations tend to distract from the Vocal. Other than that well done.

ChrisJ:   Dark Vocal verb… Kinda works but could back it off a little. (Vox sound detached from the “room”)  Overall good balance in the mix. Could have left some more dynamics…


Garret:    Again dark verb tends to detach the vocal from the piano.  Vox a tad muddy. But this may be my personal bias towards bright verbs.  Good balance.  Could have left some more dynamics…

iCombs:    Best so far (going down the list).  Vocal sounds engaging and sits well with piano… Lots of dynamics YES!  …. Woops, delay starts to become a tad distracting… One or two spots would be OK (keep it subtle)


jHall:   Vocal sits well in the room.    Very organic, I suspect you did very little to this mix ?    Nice.

Max:   Big verb intro…. Harmonizer has trouble with polyphonic piano leakage adding some unpleasant artifacts, but I see where you’re going… I tried to tune the vocal and had similar issues .. (Vox were close anyway)  I always look forward to your submissions… your willing to take chances, although in a “real world  mix for hire” with client expectations you would be doing a re-mix….  (But this you already know)  Cheers mate!

Rattle:  Vox a tad muddy. Could use a touch of upper mid boost?  Dunno. But, nice balance and ambience.

Mat Russell:  Whoa LOUD.  (That’s ok just first impression)  Nice and dry and in your face… a touch of sibilance in the vocal that could be dealt with.  Another favorite!  (Although could have left some more dynamics which I consider to be part of the artists expression.) (personal taste I suppose)

Nizzle:  Another clean and simple one.  Verb a bit distracting in a few places , and could be a bit brighter overall.  But his is just me looking for something to critique…..

Starscream:   Engaging from the first word!  Nice.  Good “vibe” dude.  Could have used some more dynamics though….

Viking:  Are you allowed to compete?  (LOL just kidding)  Delay tends to accent plosives… Piano is best so far….but I take it this was an "artist demo" / "pre-production", rather than final product?  I’m jealous… I'm working on emo and metal right now….

Fantomas:   Engaging, but delay is slightly distracting.  This one has some vibe, but technically I want to comment on vocal EQ .. could be a bit brighter for my taste.

Gatino:   Piano sits nicely , but vocal  verb is too over the top.  Back off on the verb and this mix would be great.

Tigeba:   I like this one .  Good dynamics… I don’t know why so many chose to flatten this track so much… There’s one spot where the delay gets out of hand a little, but otherwise nice one!

Rankus (that’s me):   I took J’s advice and tried to get into the vibe on this one.  I went with big piano to represent the big empty city, and had the vocal up front and kind of drier (ok some delay) …  I felt the singer was coming from a very “lost in a big cold city with no love” kind of vibe, and tried to convey that sonically. (As well as preserve the dynamic of the piece while compressing….)

Scotch:  Another favorite.  Walking a fine line with the vocal compression, but it works for me… Embrace the dynamics more on the piano …..

Under Tow:  A whole different vibe here.  I like it.  Nice job on the Vox.  Piano could have a bit more bottom, but only because I’m looking for something to critique… This is one of the best here!


Let’s do something really heavy next time.


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

NelsonL

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1233
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2006, 05:10:24 pm »

Wow, I'm getting killed here.

Somebody send flowers to my ma.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2006, 06:58:18 pm »

rankus wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 15:37



jHall:   Vocal sits well in the room.    Very organic, I suspect you did very little to this mix ?    Nice.




no, for having only 4 tracks, i did a ton of stuff.
Logged

mattrussell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2006, 07:29:47 pm »

i have a list of comments for each mix as well, just been eating too much turkey to spend the time now...zzzZZZzzz..for now i'll just say that i'm somewhat surprised about the comments i received for my mix.  thanks to those who like it.

so far, i'm digging UnderTow's and Tom Polce's (nizzle) very much.

way to go again to the engineer that tracked it and to the singer/songwriter.  wonderful song to work on.  j, thanks for posting this one.  had fun with it.  this song will be stuck in my head for a while.  






Logged
matt russell
producer/engineer
boston, ma
http://www.gainstructure.com

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2006, 09:33:56 pm »

j.hall wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 15:58



, i did a ton of stuff.


Tastefully
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

Gabriel F

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2006, 09:53:32 pm »

chrisj can you elaborate a little bit about the weird high end you re hearing because i didnt add any hi end only a gentle 2.5db at 6-8 k on the voice.
I hear some artifacts on the mp3 a nasty peak at aprox. 15k this wasnt added by me i believe it was because i was hurry and i encode it the wrong way because i forgot to encode for best quality and instead encode it in fast mode (took less than 3 seconds in wavelab).
Do you think my mix is bright? because i think is on the dark side i did this on purpose but i should have made the voice a touch brighter and back off the 220hz boost i did.

I was really frustrated because i have encoded a 192kbps version that sounds with way less artifacts and couldn find a server for upload it. And i didnt hear the 128kbps mix before uploading it (shame on me Embarassed )

Your mix sounds nice my only complain would be to back off the reverb Razz .
Logged

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2006, 10:50:05 pm »

Oh, that must have been it. Weird, I've never known lossy coding to do that. Fast encoding at a lower bit rate, huh?

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2006, 11:01:27 pm »

chris wrote:

" ...pitch shift echo FX....This performer is too sincere and it's like it's mocking him, so it doesn't work that well"

there was no intention of mockery, but, i agree, in retrospect, the "drunken munchkin chorus" was a mistake

the intention was, as someone else mentioned, to create "angst"

this is a beautifully written and executed song, but, imo, too "beautiful" for the content of the story

so the intention was to create a sense of disharmony and angst underlying the apparent beauty of the sentiment

i'm only glad that this is NOT "real world"
Logged

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2006, 12:56:55 am »

I listened to all tracks several times, listening for a couple things... first, we should do no harm.  It's a good tune, and they're excellent tracks.  So it shouldn't be hard to make a mix that's listenable, start to finish, with nothing obviously wrong jumping out.   Put simply, it just has to work...    Then, I looked for some magic... I liked how J put it a few months back.. does this mix make me want to come back and listen again?  So I'm separating tracks in two piles.. those that work for me, and those that don't.  Happy Thanksgiving to you, and chin up, no matter what pile I put ya in.  

Mixes that work  for me:

VIKING: Very solid, professional mix.  great piano sound...  maybe the vocal is a touch high in the mix for my tastes.

RANKUS:  Oooo, I like this one.   Maybe because it's similar to mine.  Smile  Warm, natural vocal and piano sounds... the low end of the piano is great.

SCOTCH: Vox a touch high to my taste, and the piano sounds rather narrow and midrangy... I'm missing the low end some mixes have.  But overall it's a good mix... nicely balanced and cohesive in its own way.

ATOR: A+ for creativity. I love what you did with the sampled ooooo.  gorgeous pad sounds (I'm stealing that for some of my own tunes). Good call flying in another version of the vocal, heavily eq'd, for some extra vibe... I really like the repeated phrase that's band limited more than the straight doubling... the double sounds odd to me, but the delay repeats are great.     I think this could be my favorite mix if you dial back a few of your most aggressive moves, and fix the primary vocal treatment (the high end sounds way too hyped to me)...  very cool mix thoughThis could be stunningly great with a few more adjustments.  I think I need to call you about mixing some of my tunes when I win the lottery... taking something that's more than a little on the schlocky side and making it seethe and burn, well I need that too sometimes.. Smile

CERBERUS: Dynamics and tonal balance are tightly controlled in this one, but the sense of space is confused. Vocal seems very dry, but all I hear is the room mic for the piano... I miss the studio piano sound... Plosives are also a bit distracting.  But the mix works in its own way.

ICOMBS: Good balanced mix, though the vox could use a bit of fader riding (jumps out of the mix at times).  Nifty little delay effects I can just barely hear... I like em that way.. they don't throw off the overall balance, and there's something to discover during further listening.

MATT RUSSELL: Very nice... deep and rich, and perfectly balanced.  The vox might be a touch high in the mix... but otherwise this is quite good.   Good job with the plosives...  

JHALL: Good balance between vocal and piano... vox is bright, but I like it... it's not distracting like some of the hyped vocals on other mixes..   Okay maybe I'd like it a little wee bit duller. Smile

NICK EVANS: Not too shabby.. under control, dynamic, intimate, and powerful... not much to complain about here... okay maybe a couple plosives got through...


Mixes that don't quite work for me:

LIAM: Lacks dynamics.... vox is a bit quiet and muddy. i can hear the compressor over clamping at times, which is distracting.  Piano seems overly distant.

UNDERTOW: Vox a bit loud, or maybe just too bright for my tastes...  makes for a hard listen start to finish... other than the vox (which might be a matter of taste), I think this is an excellent mix.

CHRISJ: Not sure about this one... something weirdly distant and ringy about the vocals.  Yet for how far away they are set with reverb, the >10khz is still very pronounced (which is kind of unnatural).

TPOLCE: Vox has a lot of top end, overhyped at ~10khz to my ears...   something phasey in there too... at 2:52 for instance. A bit of autotuning there?  Otherwise, a lot of good things going on here.. the piano sounds great, and the overall tonal balance is solid.

TIGEBA: The dynamics in this one are clamped down pretty hard...  vox is bright bright bright, but somehow still sounds fairly natural.   But the track is very narrow... maybe you just used a lot of the room mic?  I miss hearing the hifi/studio piano sound in there.  I think I hear some nifty vocal fx going on, but they're so quiet I can't pick em out.

GATINO: Interesting.. Smile  Don't you hate critiques that start with that word?   Honestly, I'm not sure if I love this, or hate this... Compared to many others, the vocal is odd... very midrangy and distant... but it works somehow.   Okay listening to it a second time, I like it more.  The vox verb predelay is very similar to what I did.   Where I think this track misses the mark is in the piano treatment... I think this song has to work both as a vocal tune and as a piano tune... you should be able to get lost in that quarter note rhythm of the piano, but in this mix, I can't.  Maybe the piano is just too quiet and mono?

MAXIM: Gotta tame those plosives... and the vocal doubling here is interesting, but in a strange way.  it adds some vibe, but also creates harmony that is too out of tune for my ears (like at 1:24 or so).   I hear something reversed at the start, really quiet... cool.   Overall the meat and potatoes here is very well balanced... I just question that out-of-tune effect, and the plosives are very distracting.

FANTOMAS: Something in the vocal chain (a de-essor?) has given the singer a  lisp. Be very careful about that... it's easy to make singers lisp with too much processing in the sibilance area.   Plosives seem untamed...   Good creativity, with the occasional delays and such... Overall, not too shabby... balanced and dynamic.


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

gatino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2006, 01:29:40 am »

garretg wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 23:56


GATINO: Interesting.. Smile  Don't you hate critiques that start with that word?   Honestly, I'm not sure if I love this, or hate this... Compared to many others, the vocal is odd... very midrangy and distant... but it works somehow.   Okay listening to it a second time, I like it more.  The vox verb predelay is very similar to what I did.   Where I think this track misses the mark is in the piano treatment... I think this song has to work both as a vocal tune and as a piano tune... you should be able to get lost in that quarter note rhythm of the piano, but in this mix, I can't.  Maybe the piano is just too quiet and mono?


interesting comment (no, i don't hate critiques that start with that word). the piano tracks were panned 50% left and 50% right (oops). in retrospect i think it should have been hard left/right. i agree the piano performance was about as important as the vocal, but it was much more dynamic than the vocal, so i thought dynamic balance was key. maybe i missed. judging from your post maybe i didn't so much as i thought.

at the outset i said i would use Sarah Mclachlan's "Angel" as my reference. they seemed similar in intent and so the larger verb on vox. however, it was probably too much compared to the piano's space (btw, i didn't feed the piano to verb aux). although, imho other's treatment in this IMP put the vox in a smaller space than the piano. i guess i did the opposite.

thx for your comments!
Logged

maxim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5828
Re: IMP8 mix discussion.
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2006, 02:36:00 am »

garret wrote:

"...and the plosives are very distracting"

i knew there was something i forgot to do

normally, these would have been fixed before i got to the mix, so it's not part of the automatic workflow

i think there should be a thread called 'what i learnt from imp8?'

i learnt that not all crazy ideas should be followed up and/or kept in the mix
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up