R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP9 discussion thread.  (Read 15214 times)

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2007, 07:09:33 pm »

j.hall wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 00:22

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.



Nope, one habit of mine is to sing harmonies while listening to
a song (my wife hates me for that).
I liked it that much that I tweaked to original(!) track with
Melodyne the same way. Nothing added at all.

j.hall


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


Yep, me too. Compared to pitch shifting in 'normal' audio
processing software Melodyne sounds amazing.

Logged
Tom

.signature failure

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2007, 07:13:30 pm »

Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 23:34


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



As stated above, I used Melodyne to process the original tracks.
Nothing added from my side.

If there are any doubts I can provide the processed track
so you can pitch it down again and compare.
Logged
Tom

.signature failure

starscream2010

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2007, 10:37:36 pm »

Haven't had time to listen to everyone's mixes but have listened to most and, as always, I am digging the diversity that IMP creates.

It's interesting to see how people different people tackle the same recorded material and I do have to say that Texas was definitely representing on IMP9 and I enjoyed mixing this tune Smile

More in-depth notes to come...
Logged
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... "

Nick Evans

www.nickolusevans.com

Cary Holding

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 55
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2007, 11:03:00 pm »

gatino wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 18:09


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.



Thanks man.

I don’t see anything out of the ordinary when it comes to the snare.  I’d say everyone has something they try to hit when it comes to EQ and processing.  The top snare is gated, compressed, and has a freebie plug called GlaceVerb.  It’s a weird plug and I only used it on this track.  I’d say the majority of the snare sound is that reverb.  The bottom snare track didn’t have anything crazy, light compression and high pass EQ.  I really slammed the OH track with Blockfish

The only thing I did to the final mix was some minor EQ touchup and some limiting with Voxengo Elephant.
Logged
Cary

Greg Dixon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2007, 02:09:30 am »

spoon wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 07:12



Greg Dixon- Dry little drums.  Vox has a nice treatment, but a bit low.  Bass is a bit wooly.  Overall a very warm feeling mix...was this intentional...has a nice 1/2" tascam 8 track feel. Like the outro's feel.  Didnt use the tamborine huh.



Thanks, I like the 8 track description. The vocal just has a bit of plate reverb and a delay from Echo Boy. I used a Waves Ren De-esser to tame the sibilance. I also put another de-esser before the vocal reverb (which I've never tried before), as the sibilance was really setting off the reverb and making it too obvious for this track. There is a bit of tambourine in there.

During the fade, I kept boosting the 'chop' part and faded out the snare to make the drums more ambient.

dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 08:48



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).




It's funny, I didn't hear it as dark, but compared to the others it is. Personally, I'm really bored with overly bright mixes.

My gut feeling was that polishing it, would make it sound a bit amateur, where as I felt it was intentionally rough and that was why it works. To me, the soul of the song is the Vocals and basses. Everything else was just for colour.

I agree that the Rhodes could have been louder.

I found it interesting to do a mix I hadn't tracked and where I had no input from the artist. I took the approach of assuming they had tracked things basically the way they wanted it to sound and that I was there to bring out the charm of the track. I also wanted to avoid the whole 'hey look at what a great mixer I am' temptation in a situation like this. Actually that's my general approach, to be invisible unless asked to do otherwise. I'm always looking for that timeless quality.

This is the first IMP I've been involved in, as I hadn't been able to download the files previously. I only saw this one on the day it was due and spent a couple of hours on it, in the early evening.

I really enjoyed this and look forward to the next one.
Logged

Vladislavs Korehovs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2007, 02:40:00 am »

j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 17:22

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!


Idon't think what it creates somethink usefull bu transposing existing tracks. It souunds syntatical and thin i have used like this and was dissapointed. Now i use MPEX with Formant mode in Nuendo instead, sounds better.
Logged

LSilva

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2007, 08:06:37 am »

dconstruction wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:48



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?




The burp at the end was just a missed detail.  Pretty much the only automation I did in the whole mix was to get rid of the guitar count in.

You're right about the drums.  I didn't spend enough time on them. I focused mainly on trying to preserve the vibe of the tune.  I didn't want to try and transform it into something polished and kill the vibe in the process.

Thanks for the comments.

Lou


Logged
Lou Silva

gatino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2007, 10:45:38 am »

spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:12


Gatino- Good overall balance.  Love the chorus vox.  It seemed to be driven by the snare, was that your intention? Didnt use the tamborine huh.


thx!

yeah i wanted the snare prominent, but i thought i didn't bring it out enuf in the chorus like a few others here did. there were some mixes where the snare sounded awesome during the chorus.

i didn't "get" the tambourine part, it just sounded hit or miss to me. dcon did say they were drinking and that part sounded like it. had i known we could cut and paste i would have done something with it...next time.

i'll check out your mix when i go thru the 2nd page.
Logged

ScotcH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 329
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2007, 11:12:37 am »

gatino


Scotch- Nice balance and finally someone uses the double bass. Good vocal treatments. Nice panning on bridge before 2nd verse.
Polished mix. Smooth outro. Didnt use the tamborine huh.


spoon


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.


Thanks guys.  My approach was to basically make each track sound good in the mix, bring out a bit of punch on the drums, and don't do anything drastic with the actual sounds.  I treaded the doubled bass part as another guitar part, which is why it has so much attack, to really cut through.  I can see how the guitar is a bit low, but the vocals seem big to me??

I used LCR panning on this only, except for the pan sweeps ... this is the only "mixing majic" that I felt the tune needed

For the drums, I really wanted to use both kits, but they just seemed too inconsistant, and that was too distracting (maybe 'cause I'm a drummer!).  I ended up using kit 1, along with HH and OH from kit 2 for some different ambiance.  I also sent the snare 2 out to reverb, which I though added a bit variation to the effect.  Oh, and the tamb just seemed like a random track ... didn't get it at all, so I didn't use it Smile

Looking forward to other comments! (and mine are forthcoming as well).
Logged
Arek Wojciechowski - Laundry Room, Basement, Garage, Bedroom, etc.

dconstruction

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #54 on: January 11, 2007, 12:00:36 pm »

OK, here's the second installment:

Maxim: Different treatment on the Wurly.  Don’t know if it was necessary, really.  I do think inserting the Wurly phrase throughout the verse is a novel and rewarding idea.  There’s some sort of whispering delay/reverb behind the main vocal that’s distracting me, though.  The guitar sounds muted, round and distant, though it’s certainly present.  Kick seems lost, though I like the overall neutral and natural timbre of the drums.  Only one kit used.  Sounds like you’ve made the Wurly the focus, instrumentally.  Wow, you’ve transformed the Chop guitar.  Now it’s a tinkling waterfall flange thing.  And then the end – big, pappa bear bass.  

Nick Evans:  One of my favorite, favorite mixes.  But you’ve given Marcus a lisp!  I love the small band feel in the beginning, and how it explodes in the chorus.  Kudos, kudos!  And the drums are so tight and natural.  Man, everything is present, separated and big.  Perfect - just put back some of those esses.  Right now, this is my #1 mix.  I’m listening again….Oh, yeah: that opening note of the chop guitar.  Did you have a reason for keeping that?

NickT: A pretty trebly drum sound.  Did you use a lot of the OH?  It sounds smallish.  Those sibilants are driving me mad in the delay returns.  Very distracting.  This is another “narrow” mix, in my estimation.  Again, I get very little sonic differentiation between the verse and chorus.  This is another “left a lot on the table” mix for me.

Nizzle: And now we return to stereo drums.  Whew, THIS is a vocal treatment.  It’s pretty engaging, interesting.  I don’t know if I’d be that heavy-handed with it, especially when it seems to *reduce* the impact of the chorus vox.  Overall, I like the ambiance.  It remains spacious, but still very present.  I guess the drums are pretty dry.  Where’d you get that NASCAR sample?  It’s great!  And another bleghchttpppt.

Rankus: Snare reverb.  Slap!  Slap!  This is a generality, and not really related to Rankus’ mix, but, you know, listening to this, I really think that stereo drums were the way to go.  You have so little to work with throughout the stereo field.  Great use of the chorus vox to spread things out.  I think if you’re going to go with the single-drum treatment, it really needs to smack.  The part is pretty anemic by itself – it needs help.  I hate to keep congratulating Nick Evans, but that’s one of the best single-kit sounds I’ve heard.  As for this mix, it’s good.  Another good, solid mix that’s filling up the middle.  There are a lot like this, not bad; not great.

Redfro: This is a mix that again sounds close to my tracking mix, albeit with one kit.  Sounds good.  The verse vocal is small, but intimately so.  I don’t know how successful the swishing, sibilant delays are in the chorus.  They sure add space, but sound like a chorus of shushing librarians in the corners.

N.B.: I’m going to take a break to remind everyone that these are my opinions only.  And I’m not Bob Clearmountain.  Or even Bob Murkyhill.

ScotcH: The most prominent use of the bass-doubling guitar.  Whew, I should have rerecorded that part!  But I do like the sound of it.  So what’s going on with the drums?  Sounds like the hats are wide L/R, but the rest of the kit is up the middle?  Did you use both HH tracks?

Scott Oliphant: When I first heard this mix, I couldn’t dig into the amount of reverb on the main vocal.  But now, with a few consecutive listens, I “get” it – and like it very much (this is very similar to my reaction to the vocal treatment on My Morning Jacket’s stuff).  I read J. Hall’s critique, and I understand his point.  I don’t really agree with it.  I hear this mix as a Yin/Yang deal: the drums deliberately contrasting with the vocals.  And then, in the ending chorus, the whole mix is swimming and swirling and moving.  The reverse tambourine is BRILLIANT.  

SingSing: What is that blzzzeeeeet at the top of the song?  Egh.  Hypodermic needle to my ear.  Nice contrast between verse and chorus.  Wow, that bass is really growling and gurgling.  Overall, this is a sonically interesting mix, but lacks drive for me.  And that flanging mosquito noise is killing me.  I keep trying to physically turn away from it – and I’m on headphones, so I can’t!

Six Wax: Somehow, you’ve made the hats sound like a small ride.  I kinda like that.  The vocal is very forward, while the drums are muted and distant, though that snare has some girth.  Hey!  The tambourine makes an early appearance!  I like that - you used the tambourine as a percussive hit AND you kept the loose, colored feel of it.  Best of both worlds.  A dark, distinctive mix that I think accomplishes the goals you set out to achieve.  Like the swell/fade ending, too.  Bleghchttpppt!

Spoon: There are some sibilant spittings in the vox delay/reverb that I’d try to address.  You know, even though the guitar is in stereo, it sounds less “big,” and more “smeared,” like a big blanket in the middle of the mix.  Drums are a little reserved in the choruses.  This is another in the large group of B mixes for me – not an A or a C.  A solid B – good enough for grad school.

TLester: The count off.  That’s still funny to me why that was kept.  Regardless, here’s a good example of the one drum kit approach.  Tight, snappy, but not late-80s sparkly.  But the verse vocal seems a bit squashed, kinda lumpy.  Though, that muted sound does contrast well with the chorus.  

TomC: Those drums are really small.  Like someone left Ringo in the closet.  Ah, the harmonies.  You know, I like them, but I would have been a little more judicious in their use.  You’ve made some weird choices, to my ears, of when they come in and out.  Also, when doing this trick, you might want to edit out the breath noises from the harmony track – it’s a tell that the harmonies are mechanical when both voices inhale together – and a third apart!  This to me is another narrow mix.  I miss the power, width and impact of some of the other mixes.  Man, I wish the drums were more present – the tambourine is overwhelming them, even.

UnderTow: Now that’s an interesting take on the Wurly.  You made it sound like two instruments.  Was there a particular reason for breaking up the phrases like that?  Nice, solid single-drum sound.  The bass is really big and potent, too.  Maybe too big?  Whatever, it’s certainly THERE.  And your kick sound is thumping, too.  I’d like to steal some of that girth.

VKorehov: LOTs of guitar ambiance here.  You were the one grumbling so loudly about the guitar performance, and yet you make it nearly the entire focus of your mix.  I can see why you were upset, ‘cause some of the guitar’s timing does make for some weird flams in the delays.  I’d counter, though, by asking why you insisted on making the guitar that forward?  The Rhodes is nearly non-existent and the Wurly seems a weak afterthought.  The Double guitar can’t be heard until the end.  I think you went into this mix with a too-concrete formula for what “Indie” is (as evidenced by your four rules) and just missed the point.  Drums sounds are pretty good, though.

Volthause: Reverb!  Again, there are some distracting sibilant moments in the vocal’s delay/reverb returns, but hey, it was a very sibilant track.  That snare sound is good, but might be anachronistic in the context of this mix, maybe. I do like how it seems to tighten up in the chorus.  A good, solid conveyance of the track.  And thanks for using the tambourine.

And I’m done.  My apologies to anyone I’ve offended.  Thank you all for working so hard in making this one of the most diverse and instructive IMPs yet.

Lindsay
Logged

gatino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 132
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2007, 12:20:30 pm »

Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 03:42

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.



i missed this interesting technical response.

snare: i didn't boost those freqs.

hihat: didn't boost those either.

bass: yeah it overlaps with guitar, don't they always?! hehe

guitar: yup, it's in the same room verb i put other stuff. again, i didn't boost that freq.

vox: de-esser used in voxformer, not enough for your taste i see. cool.

overall: separation...i like my bands to stay together.

hey, just having some fun here. haha

thx!
Logged

starscream2010

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2007, 02:08:40 pm »

dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 11:00



Nick Evans:  One of my favorite, favorite mixes.  But you’ve given Marcus a lisp!  I love the small band feel in the beginning, and how it explodes in the chorus.  Kudos, kudos!  And the drums are so tight and natural.  Man, everything is present, separated and big.  Perfect - just put back some of those esses.  Right now, this is my #1 mix.  I’m listening again….Oh, yeah: that opening note of the chop guitar.  Did you have a reason for keeping that?





Wow, thanks Smile

Um... yeah, I did this pretty quickly and by the time I realized that I de-essed the vocals too much, it was too late to go back and correct. I've since fixed this, just not in time for IMP Sad

The first chop note on the guitar:
I dug it because it kind of comes out of nowhere and it caught my attention, that's really the only reason I kept it.

I really enjoyed mixing this track and am glad that you're digging it. After hearing the original, I kind of felt like I "didn't do enough" but, overall I'm happy with it.

Logged
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... "

Nick Evans

www.nickolusevans.com

Vladislavs Korehovs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2007, 02:45:07 pm »

dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007


VKorehov: LOTs of guitar ambiance here.  You were the one grumbling so loudly about the guitar performance, and yet you make it nearly the entire focus of your mix.  I can see why you were upset, ‘cause some of the guitar’s timing does make for some weird flams in the delays.  I’d counter, though, by asking why you insisted on making the guitar that forward?  The Rhodes is nearly non-existent and the Wurly seems a weak afterthought.  The Double guitar can’t be heard until the end.  I think you went into this mix with a too-concrete formula for what “Indie” is (as evidenced by your four rules) and just missed the point.  Drums sounds are pretty good, though.



Thanks,

Guitar - because there was no more any Foundation part and for such solid mix as my, there should be adequate foundation part.
I was thinking Rhodes is FX. Haven't considered it as a PAD maybe falsly, next time i will add PAD myself and will have no problems with muddnes of base if used as a PAD. Still i don't know   if it works well if you bring Rhodes before Guit. You would get too much annoying PAD Function and no foundation function.

>Drums sounds are pretty good, though.
Thanks. I'm happy with snare much more then in prev. IMP

Logged

Vladislavs Korehovs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2007, 02:53:02 pm »

gatino wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 11:20

Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 03:42

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.



i missed this interesting technical response.

snare: i didn't boost those freqs.

hihat: didn't boost those either.

bass: yeah it overlaps with guitar, don't they always?! hehe

guitar: yup, it's in the same room verb i put other stuff. again, i didn't boost that freq.

vox: de-esser used in voxformer, not enough for your taste i see. cool.

overall: separation...i like my bands to stay together.

hey, just having some fun here. haha

thx!


Don't know if you need my comment, but Frequencies can be boosted not only with EQ:)

Regarding Snare and HH: SM57 ,as being told here, has reduced highs....
Can you explain why you have so many highs  in your mix?
If you haven't rised Highs then probably have cutted  lows:) hahaha or just  pushed everythig with  limiter, creating unpleseant  overtones.


As for 300HZ, original part have Boost already:))
so i think mostpeople cutted low-mids, except you probably.
Logged

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2007, 03:07:00 pm »

My very subjective findings:

Greg Dixon:
Like this one a lot, very clean and smooth. The vocals are a bit
too clean for my taste, it's played in a dirty bar and should
sound so.

iComps:
Loud'n'dirty. Gives me that smoky bar feeling. Great.

gatino:
Drums doesn't fit the mood of the song, vocals clean and still
good working, you've found a good vocal balance here.
Chops in second chorus a bit to loud and nerving. Good guitar.

HephaLuemp:
Gonna kill me with that kick drum? Love the general vibe of
your mix, but during the verses the kick distracts me.

chrisj:
Boy, what's up? Not the loudest mix this time? Hehe...
Love the guitars/bass a lot, gives the whole thing a solid
foundation. Vox in the verses could have more power.

judah:
like this one a lot. Chops a bit too loud for my taste.

Louman:
Solid and clean, but I'm missing the original vibe a bit.
Chops a bit too loud for my taste.

Mark fasset:
More reverb than most, but tastefully placed, I like that.
Maybe a bit too clean. Lots'o'bass.

scott_oliphant:
Very and good driving groove, a bit too much reverb for
my taste, enlarges the room in an unnatural way and
removes the intimacy of the vocals.

SingSing:
Good and in the face vocals, chorus nice but seems to
sing in a different room. I'd make it less different to
the verse.

tlester:
I like the drums a lot, nice balance. General vibe
could be a bit more dirty. Chops a bit too loud for
my taste.

VKorehov:
Reamped guitars? They sound nice, but a bit to much
in the back of the singer, a bit less reverb would
bring them closer.

ATOR:
I like this one a lot, simple but effective.

cary:
Dirty as it should be. One of the rare mixes where the
chops are loud and I still like them.

dconstruction:
Locomotive breath? Drums sound strange for the first couple
of beats, but after I've got used to that sound it drives
the song forward. Love the chorus, lots of power there.

henchman:
Wow, I love that drums, very powerful, they push the
song forward very good.
Verse vocals have lot of energy. I've given some of this
energy to the chorus vox.

maxim:
Guitar intro sounds like 're-amped' with NI guitar rig (I've
tried that, too, but didn't like it for my mix).
Love the vocals, but the chorus sounds like there's a
hole in the middle. I'd place one of the chorus voice in the
middle.

NickT:
Loud and powerfull. Panned verbs on the vocals are a bit
distracting (de-essing them would probably help).

Nizzle:
Nice and different vocal sound. I'd like to 'see' the singer
better when I close my eyes.

Pleasant_Groove:
Like this one a lot, maybe the bass could be a bit cleaner,
it's a bit muddy at times. Nice and interesting panning with
the chops.

JHall:
Like the drums a lot, but they could be a tad less
prominent. Good guitar sound, good overall vibe and
groove.

macmandude:
Another completely different vocal approach, a bit
overcompressed but support your general (more dirty)
approach very effective.

rankus:
Very (too?) clean, but I like the overall balance a lot.
Sounds very professional. A bit more dust'n'dirt and it
would be my favourite.

Volthause:
Not as close and in the face as I personally like it,
but you've got a good balance of all instruments, I
can see the room when I close my eyes. Not much to
complain here.

Can't.listen.to.that.song.anymore.
Must.drink.a.beer.or.two.

I noticed that I often complain about to chops being to loud,
maybe it's just a personal thing that I don't like that
frequency range.

With the growing number of submissions the feedback part
becomes more and more work, but at the same time more
teaching.
I've learnt a lot from analysing how the rest of you have
handle the parts I've had problems with.
Great IMP.
Great forum.
Thanks a lot to all of you for your time.


Logged
Tom

.signature failure
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Up