R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP9 discussion thread.  (Read 14262 times)

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
IMP9 discussion thread.
« on: January 09, 2007, 06:50:55 pm »

have at it.  tons of submissions and it's only 6:00 pm
Logged

iCombs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2007, 02:32:03 am »

I'd like to kick things off...

It seems like the mixes seem to come out of camps...i.e., those that mixed both drum tracks out in stereo and those that mixed a single drum track up the middle.  I'd kinda like to hear some reasoning from both sides on this topic.  I am definitely from the stereo drum camp, and I know I did it because I've wanted to for a long time but I never actually wanted to do the tracking work.  Plus, the drum parts were condusive to doubling i.e., they weren't fill-heavy.  Thoughts as to why people chose to do it the ways they did?

Also, there seemed to be a trend towards reverb on this one, and I was wondering why.  I only used one delay in the whole song, and that was on the crazy, fuzzed out rhodes.  Just wondering what y'all were hearing as far as space that I wasn't.
Logged
Ian Combs
Producer/Engineer
Lightspeed Group, Inc.
----------------------
"Mista apareeatah... can I have maar beass at all frequencies?"

Vladislavs Korehovs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2007, 04:42:35 am »

Hello,

My Comments on few first submissions:
Don't take personal:)

Greg_Dixon_IMP9.mp3
   SN: Phasing issues
   HH: Are you using two HH tracks? Why you have HH hiting each beat? sounds  weird.
   BD: Boxy, not Deep, probably also Phasing issues
   Base: Too much annoying, overtones no crossover with Guit, feels hell limited with bad limiter.
   Guit: Positioned good, sounds a little bit weak. No Lowpass EQ above 8k, too noisy.
   Vox: Positioned too far, no focal point emphasized with EQ and dips in same freq on Guitar.
   Overral: separation is not good.
   Arrangement: Quite too much noise for me, sorry and too much variation.

imp9_gatino.mp3
   SN: Maybe can be used somethere but not here, and have too much highs in "Loud" spectrum 1-2k, consider using 800-1000Hz boost
   HH: Same as above, but here EQ was applied in non benefitial point, consider 5k, and don't overlap with snare!
   BD: Boxy, remove 300-400Hz, please
   Base: Sounds ok, but overlapped with guit.
   Guit: Sounds Ok, sounds too roomy (too much at 300 Hz).
   Vox: DE-ESSER - there is such tool:). Positioned good, better then mine.
   Overral: separation is not good.
   Arrangement: I like endings, very interesting.

IMP9_judah.mp3:Not able to play mp3, will re-download.

IMP9chrisj.mp3:
   SN: sounds like Greg_Dixon_IMP9.mp3
   HH: EQ good, HH play each hit.
   BD: i cannot feel it.
   Base: My god, base takes whole spectrum:) and hell limited:) huge overtones and limiting distortion.
   Guit: No separation from bass, nothing interesting
   Vox: Limited spectrum, sounds distant.
   Overral: Mixing with eyes and using spectrogramm could bring better results:) terribly much base:)
   Arrangement: I liked very much ending with coming um guitar! great idea.


IMP9dconstruction.mp3:
   SN: Snare is ok, for elctronica style.
   HH: HH don't work with snare. In Elecctronica it requires teribble filtering. Not big fan of this style althru. You can use STYLUS, it is simple and no need to think.
   BD: BD is not well defined. More bigger BD required.
   Base: Too thin for my taste.
   Guit: Too far, but works good in this arrangement, just cannot comment much on guit.
   Vox: My god... De-Esser!!!!!
   Overral:, i liked this arrangement and style it have some interesting aspekts, one thing let me smile is Rhodes with Delay in opposite speaker.

IMP9henchman.mp3:
   SN: one of best snares here, unfortunately too thin and too much voltage rising speed will create distortion in consumer DA Converters, consider using layering, parallel compression, sustain attenuation techniques, etc
. Neve EQ and good compressors make difference: use Focusrite D3 if you don't have hardware.
   HH: Sounds ok to me
   BD: Sounds ok to me
   Base: Sounds better then my, more clear.
   Guit: Sounds ok.
   Vox: Great treatment.
   Overral: Great Separation, maybe too good:)
   Arrangement: i like thease effects.

imp9-maxim.mp3: Not able to play file, will re-download.
macmandude_imp9tk1 192.mp3: Not able to play file, will re-download.

Logged

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2007, 04:46:36 am »

Hiya everybody.

Probably everyone (myself included) needs some days to go through
all the submissions, so I think I'll post my general thoughts
about MY mix (TomC-IMP9.mp3) and why I did or did
not things to it.
It'll give you also an idea what my feedback to your particular
song is based on.

About the song:

- at times, it's a mess and that's good. I see the guys playing
  that song very late in the night in some not so noblesse bar,
  lots of smoke in the air, some seamen around, the air
  smells whiskey and rum.
  Cleaning it up would have destroyed that mood which IMO makes
  up the song.
  If you don't belief me just listen to it after, let's say, some
  glasses of good old Scottish Single Malt whisky (no, that blended
  crap from Georgs's Bushland won't work).

- I like the song a lot, but somehow couldn't emotionally connect
  to the vocals in the verses which should be a bit more
  emotional. Monsieur Johnny Melodyne added some background vox
  to make it more interesting, give it more life.
  And of course there was lots of vocal riding.

- I love the chorus vocals, they support the mood of the song very
  good. Not much to do there

...back to listening...
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

Thomas Lester

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 677
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2007, 08:05:39 am »

iCombs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 02:32

It seems like the mixes seem to come out of camps...i.e., those that mixed both drum tracks out in stereo and those that mixed a single drum track up the middle.


I guess I'm in the third camp.  I mixed on set of drums, but in stereo (panned).

-Tom

Vladislavs Korehovs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2007, 08:47:01 am »

I completely replaced BD track with Sound Replacer and with sample from DFH2.

I mixed 3 original tracks for snare, but aligned them first with Sound replacer replacing to the hit from another tracks.
so D1 top was present 3 times and replaced 2 times with hit from D2 top and D1 bottom.

As for HH i choose best track from two and left it.
Not used OH.

Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2007, 10:21:13 am »

Thomas Lester:

your mix is very well balanced.  overall, i'd call this a good rough mix.  nothing about the mix makes me want to listen past the first vocal line.

to me, the charm of this song IS it's loose playing, sloppy vocal performance, and two drum kits.

with that in mind, you have to realize that few others will agree with me.  you have to make all these elements that people typically think of as a negative and spin them into a positive.

how exactly does a mixer do that.  well, i'd say by making everything wrong, and some how piecing it back together as right.

your outro with the noisey melody, makes that part seem far away.  with the way your mix is built, that part should absolutely dominate.  this song gives you so few moments to capitalize on, that walking away from one of them is fatal.

basically, i think you took a subdued song and turned up the subdued.

on a positive note (cause being negative all the time is just rude)

your balance really is great.  most of the mixes i hear out of these IMPs have low end, or low mid problems, i'm not hearing any of that in your mix.  the kick drum sounds great, and the bass is balanced with it very well.

overall, i think you did what you set out to do, i just don't think you went nearly far enough for this particular song.

not that my mix is killer, but certainly reference it for something with 10 times the sonic vibe then yours and see if you agree with my comments at all.
Logged

scott volthause

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2007, 10:27:11 am »

iCombs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 02:32


It seems like the mixes seem to come out of camps...i.e., those that mixed both drum tracks out in stereo and those that mixed a single drum track up the middle.  I'd kinda like to hear some reasoning from both sides on this topic.



When I first loaded up the tracks, I knew deep down that these were two performances that needed to be panned hard L and R. Unfortunately, my brain rejected the notion, for some odd reason, so I went with the standard "drums up the middle" approach. I did use both overheads though, in a mock stereo arrangement, in some places.

iCombs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 02:32


Also, there seemed to be a trend towards reverb on this one, and I was wondering why.  I only used one delay in the whole song, and that was on the crazy, fuzzed out rhodes.  Just wondering what y'all were hearing as far as space that I wasn't.


I was working fast through it, and it was a decision I made early on that I wanted it to be in a location, not just dry. It started with a light room on the drums, and turned into a variety of stuff being sent to the room, then a number of delays, and then even a plate on the snare. It was an accumulation, if you will.

Or maybe more like an avalanche.
Logged

dconstruction

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2007, 10:35:11 am »

iCombs: I'm definitely in the 2 kits, L/R camp.  I tracked it that way.  The beat is so simple - by both necessity and design; the singer was drumming - that I think it lends itself to this treatment.  One, being simple, it's easy to do without worrying too much about swift, head-spinning flams, and two, it adds a complexity and interest.

I'd be interested in hearing from those that chose not to use both kits.  Sounds to me a lot of those that went the one-kit direction had issues with the performance and used the two kits to comp a part.

On an overall note, I'd like to congratulate the Texas boys for their contributions.  This is a generality and not meant to be too jingoistic, but the tracks from Scott Oliphant, Nick Evans and Wes Pitzer are some of my favorites so far (there are so many!).  Nick's mix wins the Completely Unofficial and Ultimately Meaningless Dynamics Award.  That first verse is so tiny and "real" - great contrast with the big chorus.

Not that other regions are all that shabby.  The Central/Mid West Region is representing well.

I have some problems with the former Soviet states, I have to admit.

So many mixes....looking forward to digging in on my monitors soon.

L


[edit: I mislabeled Nick's mix and didn't give him proper credit]
Logged

Adam Miller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2007, 10:49:19 am »

Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 09:42


SN: one of best snares here, unfortunately too thin and too much voltage rising speed will create distortion in consumer DA Converters,


Laughing Laughing  Laughing

Logged

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2007, 11:00:58 am »

dconstruction wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 10:35


I'd be interested in hearing from those that chose not to use both kits.  Sounds to me a lot of those that went the one-kit direction had issues with the performance and used the two kits to comp a part.



I gave a quick listen with both kits active, but decided they were so similar that the flammy effect of different timing problems in each take was killing the groove... I ended up mostly using set 1 of drum tracks, but as you can hear in my mix, I went nutty from there...  With the drums as provided, I just wasn't hearing the groove of the tune supported well enough.  The vocal, bass, and guitars get something great going, but the drum tracks just kept letting it down.

So I did some shenanigans... a tempo sync'd delay on the hat, a ton of subtractive editing (letting the kit elements come in slowly for drama -- kick first, then add snare, the hat in the chorus, etc...).   I also threw the kick through a delay, and edited in a few measures of that when I thought the drums were sounding dull again...  Oh, and there's also a bit of extra special sauce on mix to tighten things up.  Bonus points to the first person who can identify what it is.

Yah, it's excessive tweakery, but I'm happy with the results. Wink  Whatever works, eh?

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

Cary Holding

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2007, 11:07:28 am »

I’ve been pretty busy with paying gigs – I wish I had more time for this.

Listening to the mixes, panning the two kits was a great idea – one that never occurred to me.  I suspected they were two takes so I simply picked one.  I’ll consider that trick when and if it ever comes my way again.

I took that ambient delay regen part from the ‘Chop’ track and reversed it.  I used that for the intro and timed it so the guitar starts to come in just as the verse starts.

I used a guitar amp sim on the bass guitar to get some distorted cabinet sound.

For the guitar track, I comp’d a second guitar track for the second verse and most of the rest of the song.  I didn’t just want to use both mics and hard pan them – I want to create the sense of a real second take.  For the second verse, it’s actually the playing that was on one of the other verses.  Same for the repeat of the chorus.  I don’t know if I’ve explained that clearly, but close listening should reveal it.

There is some pretty cool stuff going on in the mixes I’ve listened to.  I’d like to comment on all, but for now:

J hall – I love the sound on the chorus vocals.
Henchman – great idea for the tambourine!
Logged
Cary

ATOR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2007, 11:07:49 am »

Last night I skipped through the submissions and found that these recordings handle mix abuse very well. It just will not sound wrong whatever weird things you do.

It made me realise that I took a wrong approach. I tried to make it sound good while instead I should have mixed it in 30 minutes with focus on enhancing the mess instead of cleaning up.

I'll try the alternate way to find out if I'm right.

Logged
Pieter Vincenten - ATORmastering

Thomas Lester

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 677
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2007, 11:09:13 am »

Hey J -

Thanks for the report on my mix.  I'm honored that you'd dedicated a whole post to just me  Razz

BTW...  my link broke on the submission list, here's mine:  http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP9_tlester.mp3

I didn't spend a tremendous amount of time on this, but I think I did accomplish what I was setting out to do.  I approached the dirty rhodes as more of a ghosty pad.  This was my intention from the start after first brought the faders up.  I like it featured, like in your mix, too.  I immediately heard (in my head) a kind of "With or Without You" type ending.  And actually...  after going back and listening to the ending of "With Or Without You", I think I could have ridden the rhodes up a bit more in the end.

I've had a lot of fun listening to the various versions.  This was my first IMP.  I wish I had more free time to do this kind of thing, but it was very fun.  I plan on doing 10 when it's ready.

-Tom


Vladislavs Korehovs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2007, 12:33:41 pm »

Adam Miller wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 09:49

Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 09:42


SN: one of best snares here, unfortunately too thin and too much voltage rising speed will create distortion in consumer DA Converters,


Laughing Laughing  Laughing




Have i said something funny?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up