R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP9 discussion thread.  (Read 14260 times)

scottoliphant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 721
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2007, 03:50:09 pm »

Quote:

no samples used on this mix. you're just hearing some extreme compression on the right side kit.
cool, I did something similar, crushed the hell out of both left and right kit.  no samples. I loved the bottom snare mic.

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2007, 04:01:51 pm »

Scott Oliphant:

this is probably the closest mix to my own out of the lot.  not saying mine sets the bar, just saying it's fairly similar in the drum approach.  from there it goes another place.

so, aside from the drums, which i like your drum treatments a lot.....it sounds like a live band playing in an empty theater or medium sized club.

now, that feel can work for this song, however, your drums are a touch distorted, compressed and slammed right up front.

so either i'm sitting in the theater with two drummers right next to me and the whole band is up on the stage, or the drums were and after thought to a stereo mic being placed in the theater.

basically the point is this, you have to match all your physical spaces.  sure, you can have one or two elements outside of that (rich costey is incredible at doing this on the muse rec ords....mars volta as well)

here is what i would have done after getting those drum sounds.

realizing that a touch of distortion is the key ingredient to your drum sounds, and the dual kit panned is another.  i'd thin the bass out a touch (just a touch) and pan it hard left, just to see how that felt.  i'd for sure compress it in a bad way.  make it sound very wrong.

i'd use the pan knob as my weapon of choice on your mix.  EQ, compress to taste and jam all the elements right up front.  then pan them around till the whole thing just works.  with the drums you have, any time based effects (verb especially) will most likely not work.

think of those drums as the heartbeat and the bass as blood.  the rest of the elements have to do their thing, but rely heavily on the drums and bass for "life support"
Logged

dconstruction

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2007, 04:48:59 pm »

I’m not going to make any “300-500hz” comments ‘cause I know I’d be speaking out of my ass.  I’ll try to limit my comments to the general approach and feel of each mix.  And, as with all Internet bloviating, feel free to ignore me entirely.

ATOR: a “distant” mix, with a lot of ambience, flanging, etc.  Nice, big use of the chorus vocals – pretty much as I imagined them when tracking.  I think you took a cue from the “retreat” of the vocals in that last chorus and played to a subtler end, with the exception of the big swell of the Chop guitar.  Used the tambourine as a hit in the last chorus, which is fine, I suppose.

Cary: Like ATOR, you used the Chop ambience up front.  Nice idea.  Drums up the middle, and perhaps a bit too “sparkly” for my taste on this song.  I think the faux second guitar is a great idea and lends a good depth to the song.  Even still, the verse seems a bit narrow to me, and I was hoping for more expansion in the chorus.  Didn’t happen.

ChrisJ: One of the several mixes that kept the guitar count-off in the mix.  Plus a bit of a noisy start.  Why?  The bass may be a bit too forward, and seems all one big, furry frequency.  The drums seem buried and distant.  I do like the size of the chorus vox.  Overall, this seems to be a “veiled” mix.  The Wurly, Rhodes and Guitar all seem clouded a bit – and whoa! did you mix that one Chop guitar hit loud.  Was that on purpose?  

Dconstruction: My mix.  Actually, about my fifth mix.  This was my “reset switch” mix in which I pulled up the tracks fresh, just like all of you, in an attempt to forget I tracked the thing.  I had a previous conversation with J.Hall about the strategy in approaching this mix, and I do think you’ll hear a similarity of intent in our two mixes.  The vocals are a little spitty – I probably could have de-essed further.  And some of the delays on the Wurly bug me.  I’m awestruck by the ability of some of you to get such fullness out of a kick drum.  I’d like to learn the tricks of doing so.  I’m just now figuring the snare out.  Kick will be next.  To answer Scott, no this wasn’t mastered.  I did have the Waves SSL comp across the 2-bus (about 4db reduction, 30ms attack) running into a multi-band comp that was doing very little (<1db reduction on all bands; maybe up to 2db on bass).  And to answer Spoon, no: no drum replacement.  I tried to get two good, distinct and “normal” drum sounds out of each pair.  On the right, I gated and EQ’d only.  On the left, I gated and compressed.  Then I bounced those down to mono tracks and screwed with them, blowing out the right side and running the left through about three additional compressors to get them very present and snappy.  I succeeded only about 70%.

Garret: A real risk taker, here.  I worry that you’ve strayed too far, though.  It’s a pretty small mix, stereo-wise.  The drums have no kick that I can tell and sound over-all fairly band-limited.  I miss the “power” of some of the other mixes.  And I find the call-and-repeat vocals distracting.  They’re very similarly treated, placed at about the same spot in the stereo field and at nearly equal loudness, maybe stepping on each other.  This approach doesn’t work for me.  Please forgive me, but this sounds like a “toy” mix.

Gatino: Another in the drums-up-the-middle school.  The vox is nice and forward.  Another “narrow” mix, for me.  Though everything sounds OK, nothing is really speaking to me here.  The kick seems lost, too.  I think a lot was left on the table with this mix.

Greg Dixon: A dark mix, but immediately more enveloping than, say, the previous.  Used both kits, left and right.  This sounds A LOT like my tracking mix.  I think the Rhodes could have been brought more forward.  And maybe capitalize on the chorus vox a bit more; there’s not a lot of verse/chorus distinction, which both the Rhodes and multiple vox serve, in my mind.  I kinda like the fade, too.  The first one to try that (that I’ve heard).

Henchman: Whew: watch that voltage rising speed (I kid; I kid).  VERY sparkly drum sound.  Yet, the vox is kinda dull, boxy.  All I hear is that splash of the snare and tambourine.  I like the tambourine, actually; I figure if you’re not going to use the two kits, then the tambourine does a good job of adding to the chorus part.  I don’t hear much chorus vox at all.  That’s a shame.  Were you the one that gave up on them because of intonation?  Hmm.  Another fadeout.  Overall, I don’t know if this mix, if I may be so bold, indicates that the song was really understood.  I think it misses the mark, not technically, but spiritually.

HephaLuemp – First off, why keep the bass squeak and guitar count-off?  Drums up the middle, but this time, they’re approached more like a drum machine.  Did you quantize these?  There’s still the little lag in the hats during the break at the top of the song, but the drums seem more mechanical.  That kick is super floppy.  This is a compliment; I like it.  I think you realized that the drums were there for their character more than their part.  The chorus vox are a bit spitty (mine are, too), but with the delay, it becomes distracting.  Ah, you used the blip on the Chop guitar, too.  That wasn’t mean to be in the mix.  Is there a reason you (and several others) kept it?  All in all, this mix sounds much like my tracking mix, though with much better (and mono) drums.

iCombs: Again, another mix similar to my original tracking mix, but a lot more punchy.  I like the subtle presence of the bass-doubling guitar.  Boy, that Wurly’s compressed, isn’t it?  The attack is hard.  This is solid, good-sounding and well-balanced mix that does the song justice.  Ah, you kept the ending bleghchttpppt from the Rhodes.  I cut that out.

J Hall: You brought out an interesting ring in the leftside snare.  I didn’t like it at first, but it’s grown on me.  I can feel the kick in this one.  What did you do there?  I feel my mix’s kick is a bit, uh, unendowed.  This represents the song well.  I like the big second half of the last chorus.  Without it being overtly obvious – with the exception of the introduction of the Chop guitar – it gets bigger, somehow.

Judah: A darker mix.  This seems to fit again into the group of mixes that, given a few aesthetic choices, “gets” the song and portrays it well.  Nothing’s “wrong” with this mix, to my ears.  Maybe a touch soft around the edges, but certainly not “wrong.”  Good job.  

LouMan: Nice, different vocal treatment.  Very forward.  Again, a darker mix than many.  Drums are kinda buried for my tastes; I can’t really hear the kick in the chorus.  It’s getting difficult to comment!  Anything else would be just a matter of taste.  You were another person to use a fade – but then left that Rhodes burping at the end.  Was there a reason for that?

MacManDude: Midrange!  I hear a weird, high-pitch, scratchy distortion on the guitar.  Almost as if there’s a second track of really screwed up fizzy stuff tucked under the original.  Almost sounds ring-modulator like. I’m not sure about that stuff.  Nice tight drums, though.  I can’t make a decision on the vocal treatment.  Do I like it?  I don’t know.

Mark Fasset: A narrow mix.  Though the chorus vox are panned wide and the guitar’s pretty far off to the right, I still hear this mix as constrained, pinched up the center.  It sounds small.  

Ugh.  Can’t continue right now.  Too.  Much.  Same.  Song.

More later.
Logged

Thomas Lester

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 677
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #33 on: January 10, 2007, 04:53:08 pm »

scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:04

tlester - very pro-sounding "tight" mix. drum samples?


Nope....   that was just the D2 drums, just EQ'd and a little compression.   Some reverb added as well.

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #34 on: January 10, 2007, 04:55:07 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 21:12



Undertow-  Big drums (replaced?)...sound good.  Bass makes the verse vox sound low.  No Tamborine.



Indeed, no tamborine. And there is something else missing too. Smile

About the drums: No, no samples used. Just loads of compression, EQ and limiting. I actually changed my mix a bit since I uploaded: I removed the third compressor on the kick drum. Lol! Smile Still it has 2 compressors, 3 EQs, a tube maximizer (kind of a tube emulation limiter) plus another compressor on the drums bus plus another EQ and another limiter plus the two compressors+limiter on the stereo bus.

So when you listen to the kick drum in the MP3, you hear 6 compressors, 3 limiters and 4 EQs in series. Oh and 3 reverbs. Lol. Smile

Alistair
Logged

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2007, 05:09:51 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 21:12


TomC-  Box sounding mix, lots of mids.  Nice vocal harmonies (what did you use?).  Small drums. Nice chorus vox.  Tamborine!



The boxy sound was intentionally, but after listening to some
of the other mixes I'm not sure anymore if it was one of my best
ideas.
The vocal harmonies were done with Melodyne, it's a 5 minute
thing (copy the track, sing the harmonies and adjust the
pitch. Great program BTW).
Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to listen to the rest of the
mixes tonight.

Logged
Tom

.signature failure

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2007, 05:16:42 pm »

dconstruction wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:48


Garret: A real risk taker, here.  I worry that you’ve strayed too far, though.  It’s a pretty small mix, stereo-wise.  The drums have no kick that I can tell and sound over-all fairly band-limited.  I miss the “power” of some of the other mixes.  And I find the call-and-repeat vocals distracting.  They’re very similarly treated, placed at about the same spot in the stereo field and at nearly equal loudness, maybe stepping on each other.  This approach doesn’t work for me.  Please forgive me, but this sounds like a “toy” mix.



Ouch! Thanks for being honest... I figured I was going a bit far with things, and figured it might not go over well.

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

iCombs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 537
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2007, 05:34:16 pm »

dconstruction wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 15:48

iCombs: Again, another mix similar to my original tracking mix, but a lot more punchy.  I like the subtle presence of the bass-doubling guitar.  Boy, that Wurly’s compressed, isn’t it?  The attack is hard.  This is solid, good-sounding and well-balanced mix that does the song justice.  Ah, you kept the ending bleghchttpppt from the Rhodes.  I cut that out.


For whatever reason, I love that "POP" at the top of each note...I really like the sound of the hammer hitting the tine, though I don't like it when they get so bright that it sounds like thumbtacks are on the hammers...just enough high boost to brighten it up and a shit-ton of compression to bring out that pop.

I was actually really torn about that ending...I was really tempted to fade it out, but when I heard that bleghchttpppt, I liked it in the delay, so I kept it.  

I'd also like to point out that this is my most obscenely compressed mix to date.  I can't remember 100% of what I did, becuase I was bouncing and grouping stuff as I went, and I was really flying by the seat of my pants...this is literally my only mixdown of this track, and I did it in about an hour at 3 in the morning last week.  it really screamed for a crunchy treatment to me...kinda like "Revolver" drums sort of crunchy, but more extreme.  A lot of tracks got bounced out through a pair of TAB V78's in series, and then into both channels of my drawmer 1968 for even more crap.  The bass is damn near a square wave in my mix, but it all the sudden grew this sense of "room" when i put it through that mess of steel and glass.
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 #38 on: January 10, 2007, 05:34:38 pm »

Tom C wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:09

spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 21:12


TomC-  Box sounding mix, lots of mids.  Nice vocal harmonies (what did you use?).  Small drums. Nice chorus vox.  Tamborine!



The boxy sound was intentionally, but after listening to some
of the other mixes I'm not sure anymore if it was one of my best
ideas.
The vocal harmonies were done with Melodyne, it's a 5 minute
thing (copy the track, sing the harmonies and adjust the
pitch. Great program BTW).
Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to listen to the rest of the
mixes tonight.



Sing????
Do you sing yourself or singing makes existing tracks different?
I have never used Melodyne deeply.
Logged

dconstruction

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2007, 05:36:29 pm »

Quote:

I wonder what the story was with the resonant kick.


I can't really remember.  I know at some point, I wasn't digging the reso head alone and decided to try micing the beater.  In retrospect, I should have worked harder on the reso mic, moved it around some more.  At the time, though, we were so focused and frustrated by just getting a part.  Seriously, we spent hours tracking, first the singer and some SERIOUSLY out of time tom fills, then with a drummer not in the band, either as a member or in terms of style or feel.  It was a revelation to hear just the snare, kick and hats.  I never refocused on the sound of the kit.

I think I used just the beater, too, on the first kit.

L
Logged

gatino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2007, 06:09:29 pm »

my comments about the vox in each mix pertain primarily to the verse. i'll spew my rant on the chorus vox in my next post. i seem to be against the crowd on that issue.

JHall - first thing that struck me was the snare, i tried to get used to it but in the end i found it distracting during the verse (too loud, for one), but it worked for me in the chorus. vox/guitars/fx/keys sound great. the bass sounds like it's in another room however.

tlester - the count-in! hehe. guitars too soft. i like these guitars, they need to be up, i think.  they were up more in the ending tho, cool. drums/bass/fx sound good.

Cary Holding - love the opening fx, but keys too soft and should be up the middle. vox cool! bass is up more on this one, nice. the transition to the chorus is one of the best, if not best. love the snare, what did you do here? guitars at end are awesome. this mix has some real warmth, feels really good to me. i hope you'll respond to my comments with some details about what you did to the overall mix.

note: i read the rules after this mix, i didn't know we could cut and paste. i wantd to with the fx. next time...

UnderTow - another count-in! nice intro and verse, vox is excellent. good transition to chorus here too, but not enuf fx in chorus. however, i really like what you did to the rhodes and that came out more in the end (doesn't sound like fallen power lines anymore tho, hehe). overall i like this mix too.

scottoliphant - from the get-go this one just didn't do it for me. i'll leave it there.

NickT - over-compressed/limited. this made it difficult for me to listen and enjoy.

Hepha Luemp - intro: more keys please. otherwise good balance throughout. vox sounds very good, verse and chorus! fx too. i like the extra space the vox had in the chorus and the fact you dealt with intonation issue the way you did. drums sound boxed tho, no space. outro is good. i do like this overall. nice!

ScotcH - nice keys from the get-go, drew me in, but the vox and guitars a bit soft for me. what did you do to the bass? too much attack for me, esp. in the outro.

dconstruction - thx again for the song. i really like it. however, sorry to say i can't groove to your mix and lo-fi drums. there's too much i didn't like so i'll leave it alone.

scott volthause - the b3-like treatment on the wurly threw me off immediately. a little less and it might have worked. verse vox too far away, i want them close on this one. works during the chorus tho. drums and bass good mix foundation.

LouMan - wurly too soft for me. verse vox too far away on this one too. chorus vox...yikes!! no no no to that treatment. nuff said here.

chrisj - another one with a soft wurly on the intro, why?! verse vox could be more in your face. chorus vox discrepancies are masked, cool. bass a bit much thruout chorus and outro, boomy, so it gets to me after awhile.

16 more mixes on the 2nd page! i'll leave those for another day
Logged

gatino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2007, 06:18:18 pm »

my rant on the chorus vox... first, to be sure, i really like mr. marcus' voice. and that sound he gets when he runs out of breath is cool. now, i can understand the opinions about not touching the loose feel in the rhythm, but not the vocal intonation problems heard in the 3 chorus vox.

in the verse we get this awesome performance from mr. marcus then the chorus comes and wham! that's just way too distracting. it doesn't have a "good feel." it's simply not a good thing. call me a snob if you like, i don't care. i would not let that out a studio door without going thru melodyne first or new takes when possible.

few singers have excellent intonation but at some point poor intonation has to be dealt with. that point is reached here.

a few years ago i heard chili peppers, wow was this dude off that night. if he was my bud asking i would have told him so. hell, i tell myself all the time...i just keep working at it. slight discrepancies here and there might not hurt but bad intonation always messes what might otherwise be a great performance.

question: would you play your guitar or bass out of tune? i doubt it. you tune up before the take, right? so why is poor intonation ok on the vox? i mean, it's not a live concert or something that might grant jusification. nah, fellas...

that's it, jump on me.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2007, 06:22:20 pm »

Tom C wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:09


The vocal harmonies were done with Melodyne, it's a 5 minute
thing (copy the track, sing the harmonies and adjust the
pitch. Great program BTW).
Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to listen to the rest of the
mixes tonight.




if ou sang a vocal part, you are disqualified.

melodyne can EASILY take a lead vocal track and create harmonies off it.  i do it ALL THE TIME!
Logged

NickT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2007, 06:26:44 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:12

NickT- Tight drums (replaced ?).  Nice crisp feel to the mix, good balance.  Like the vocal treatment and presence. Smooth outro.



Thanks Spoon. Those are the original drums comped, eq'd and panned. I tried to get a sense of space on this mix.  

gatino wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 17:09


NickT - over-compressed/limited. this made it difficult for me to listen and enjoy.



Hmmm...Didn't think I hit this one that hard!  Twisted Evil

Thanks for listening.

I am making my list...so many mixes!

NickT

scottoliphant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 721
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2007, 06:35:38 pm »

Quote:

that's it, jump on me.
don't think anyone is going to jump on you, that's what's cool, we should all be allowed to voice our opinions and thoughts. especially with imp, we have ~25 different mixes from the sang song, how cool is that. somehow i missed your track? sounded pretty good on phones, will check out on the monitors later
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up