R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP10 discussion thread  (Read 21186 times)

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #60 on: March 01, 2007, 12:16:00 pm »

grant richard wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 05:32



NIZZLE

i dig your mix!  couple of questions.

1. how did you treat your drums? specifically the snare and the overheads/rooms?  did you use samples?  did you replace or blend?  what about the toms?

2. how did you treat the rhythm guitar?

thanks!

grant



Glad you dig the mix.

First: I mixed this in Protools on my powerbook (Loaded with RAM) with Sony MDR-7506 headphones.

The Drums - snare has a gate on it but only using about 10-15% of bleed reduction. A Tape emulator plug in is being used(Massey TapeHead) and I'm compressing it at 3:1 qith 3 dB of reduction with the digi compressor(sounds like a DBX 160X to my ears). I also have an L1 brick wall limiter on it using it sparringly with barely a dB of reduction. I'm using this track in parallel with a "dry" snare track(with TapeHead) - blending the two to taste and bussing them to a new fader where I applied the Ohm Boys "Hematohm" plugin and pitched the snare down to taste(to add sack). There is a snare sample that is triggering a Waves rennaisance reverb....
Oheads - I used a Rennaisance Compressor at 5:1 with a fast attack and med release. About 6dB of reduction(just to duck snare and kick hits) - Doing this brings the cymbals closer, but more importantly - it vibes out the high end of the kit.

Rooms - Put a gate on the "shit mic" and sidechained the gate with the snare track(it opens only when the snare hits). I used the snare Rennaisance reverb for the rest of the room sound.

The overall drum mix was then subbed to 2 stereo faders. One was squashed and limited and the other was left as is. I then blended the 2 stereo traccks and sent the result to yet another stereo fader where I applied final EQ (Just a little Pultec sheen at 8k and at 60Hz)....strapped an L2 on the result and that's the drum sound.

Gtrs - I didn't care for the amp sounds - I heard what they were going for(AmpegV4b with a D12 on it - QOTSA sound), but it didn't hit the mark for me  - too flabby. I used the DI's (one of which had serious 60 cycle hum on it)..I used the Waves Restoration X-NOISE plug and removed 60 cycles and it's octaves until it's almost gone. I "re-amped" the DI's with the Amplitube plugin and tried to approximate what the initial intent of the gtr sound was.....I Eq'd to taste and put the Massey Tape Head plug on them. No compression - I rarely compress saturated gtr sounds as it seems uneccesary to my ears.

Also - The 2 buss has alot to do with the sound of the Drums and Gtrs - I used the Massey TapeHead, then a Pultec Program EQ plug - I enhanced 30Hz and 15K to taste. After that, I used the T-Racks Compressor at 3:1 with not quite 2dB of reduction - then an L2 to raise the over-all level BUT with absolutely NO Gain Reduction...I mix (and trackfor that matter) at relatively low levels(-6 peaks). so - my mixes are very low in level - I used the L2 to get the level to a point where I feel the program audio is hitting the amplifier for the speakers enough to drive them properly.

With all of this said - I used alot of "heavy handed" approaches to get the sound I got - Every song is different, every style of music requires different things....I try to approach every mix with as little processing as posible BUT I will man-handle, beat down, and ravage any piece of audio if it helps me achieve whatever it is I need to have happen.

Hope your well.

-t

Logged

spoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #61 on: March 01, 2007, 01:19:54 pm »

Nizzle wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 11:16


Also - The 2 buss has alot to do with the sound of the Drums and Gtrs - I used the Massey TapeHead, then a Pultec Program EQ plug - I enhanced 30Hz and 15K to taste. After that, I used the T-Racks Compressor at 3:1 with not quite 2dB of reduction - then an L2 to raise the over-all level BUT with absolutely NO Gain Reduction...I mix (and trackfor that matter) at relatively low levels(-6 peaks). so - my mixes are very low in level - I used the L2 to get the level to a point where I feel the program audio is hitting the amplifier for the speakers enough to drive them properly.



Nizzle, I have a question.

It seems clear that you have/had experimented with your tools enough to come up with these techniques...

What have you found the L2, as a makeup gain device, offers over say just pushing the output up.  This sounds interesting as a technique.

Regards,
David
Logged

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #62 on: March 01, 2007, 01:50:46 pm »

[/quote]

Nizzle, I have a question.

It seems clear that you have/had experimented with your tools enough to come up with these techniques...

What have you found the L2, as a makeup gain device, offers over say just pushing the output up.  This sounds interesting as a technique.

Regards,
David
[/quote]

Hey David - I guess I'm using the L2 instead of raising the master fader just so I have the added security of setting the brick wall at .1dB which ensures I won't have any overs...Remember, not all transients are reflected in the digital meters and it's easy to F-up and go over...So - when submitting mixes for artist approval - I'll strap on the L2 and  raise the level without causing any gain reduction(or very very little)....Because I  mix at such low levels - I wouldn't dream of submitting a mix to an artist for sign off without raising the level enough so that the preamp/amp for the playback system is getting hit hard enough by my program audio...a super low level out of a CD player - into a stereo sounds very wimpy to my ears AND let's not forget the psychology behind volume and perceived excitement to the listener.

best,

-t


Logged

M Carter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #63 on: March 01, 2007, 02:01:35 pm »

so Tom -

done all in the box?  

getting levels up is where I have the most problems.  do you start with the limiter across the 2 bus, just to keep overages under control?  Or do you slap that across later?

Matt
Logged
Matt Carter
General Manager
Manhattan Sound Recording
www.manhattansoundrecording.com
(212) 564 8248

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #64 on: March 01, 2007, 02:05:04 pm »

Red Tape wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 03:03


Where were the overheads and royer rooms placed?
Was that an edit at 0:48 on the bass di - I hear a click/pop thing there.



Hmmm ... I would have to re-open the files to have a look at that pop... they have been archived though... My guess is that it was either an edit that was missed, or more likely the bass player hit the string a little hard and smacked a pick-up....

The Overheads were placed using my secret technique (not really a secret...Andy Johns used this as well, but I only found this out later)

I place one overhead directly over the snare looking straight down just high enough to avoid stick swing.  In most cases this comes out to be about 38-42 inches... This mic picks up the Hi Hat and crash on this side of the kit as well.

The second overhead is placed directly above the floor tom looking straight down.  This will pick up the ride and right side crash as well. (Here's the important part)  The mic should be equal distant to the snare as the first OHD.  You can use a tape measure, or a mic cable to measure this.  This overhead will end up a lot lower than the first one. That is OK.  The reason for the measured distance to the snare is to ensure that the snare ends up in the center of stereo image.

The room mic(s) .. was a Royer placed about 4 feet out from the front of the kit facing away (but it's figure 8 so it picks up both sides anyway)  The height was about chest level.

No compression or EQ on the way in... I even leave the phase until mixing. (as long as nothing is obviously out of whack... then I move a mic or two)

My room is about 15 x 12 with 10 foot ceiling, which I consider to be small, so it has been pretty heavily padded with carpet, broadband absorbers in all the corners and the ceiling has some "clouds" of office dividers... I mention this because I have been tweaking the room for three years to get a good drum sound out of it... gradually adding more absorption until it was just right. (it's not just a great kit good drummer, and good micing... the room is a big player too)

Thanks for the question! Smile
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

spoon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #65 on: March 01, 2007, 02:08:19 pm »

Nizzle wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 12:50


Hey David - I guess I'm using the L2 instead of raising the master fader just so I have the added security of setting the brick wall at .1dB which ensures I won't have any overs...Remember, not all transients are reflected in the digital meters and it's easy to F-up and go over...So - when submitting mixes for artist approval - I'll strap on the L2 and  raise the level without causing any gain reduction(or very very little)....Because I  mix at such low levels - I wouldn't dream of submitting a mix to an artist for sign off without raising the level enough so that the preamp/amp for the playback system is getting hit hard enough by my program audio...a super low level out of a CD player - into a stereo sounds very wimpy to my ears AND let's not forget the psychology behind volume and perceived excitement to the listener.
best,
-t



Oh, that's clever.  I like that.

Am I correct in assuming if the material is getting sent to Mastering, you do not apply this technique?



Logged

Nizzle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #66 on: March 01, 2007, 02:13:39 pm »

spoon wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 19:08

Nizzle wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 12:50


Hey David - I guess I'm using the L2 instead of raising the master fader just so I have the added security of setting the brick wall at .1dB which ensures I won't have any overs...Remember, not all transients are reflected in the digital meters and it's easy to F-up and go over...So - when submitting mixes for artist approval - I'll strap on the L2 and  raise the level without causing any gain reduction(or very very little)....Because I  mix at such low levels - I wouldn't dream of submitting a mix to an artist for sign off without raising the level enough so that the preamp/amp for the playback system is getting hit hard enough by my program audio...a super low level out of a CD player - into a stereo sounds very wimpy to my ears AND let's not forget the psychology behind volume and perceived excitement to the listener.
best,
-t



Oh, that's clever.  I like that.

Am I correct in assuming if the material is getting sent to Mastering, you do not apply this technique?








Correct - The L2 is never instantiated when rendering 24bit mixes(whether ITB or to 1/2")that are to be sent off the ME.

best,

-t
Logged

chrisj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 959
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #67 on: March 01, 2007, 02:21:43 pm »

M Carter wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 01:14

did somebody say recalls?


If J asked me for a recall I already know it would be to fix the kick (haven't been asked though). Honestly, I didn't find a groove to ruin- I must not be understanding the stoner/dirge rock thing, because most people did seem to think there was one, even a good one. It sure isn't very peppy.

Tom C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 377
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2007, 02:35:44 pm »

Disclaimer: I'm in a (acoustically) completely new room now with new speakers,
so I still have to get used to the new (and still changing daily) environment.
Take everything with a grain of salt]


[Names below are taken from the file name, so they may differ
from your nickname]

adammiller:
Love the drums and the deep dark bass. Nothing to complain, maybe making
it overall a bit more dirty would make me feel more 'with the band'.

iCombs:
Nice low end (albeit could be a tad cleaner), maybe a bit to dominating.
Vocals could be a bit more wet in the verses to lead me better into the
chorus.

Nizzle:
Again love the low end and that you use the amped bass, could have a
bit more mids, when I close my eyes I see a singer behind some big
drums and a bass player. I'd love to see a lead guitar player as well.

redtape:
Sounds honest and on the save side, that makes the verses a bit boring
(what they are anyway) but works good in the chorus.
Love the vocals.

grant_richard:
For my taste dominates the bass/kick to much, this wall of low end makes
the singer tiny. The sound itself isn't bad, less bass and more mids
would present the whole band better.

Anonymous:
Similar to redtape, great chorus but the verses could bite more.

maxim:
Lead guitar in the verses sounds a bit de-tuned, but I love the overall feel
it creates. Low end a bit muddy in the chorus. I like your vox/bg vox a lot,
especially the idea at the end of the second verse. That creates dynamically
a nice counterpoint to the following chorus.

NickT:
I like this one a lot. Toms could have a bit more low end, but overall
nothing to complain from my side.

Fantomas:
I like this one, the singer's finally here without being too much in may
face.

JHall:
As I already told you, I'm in love with the way you've married drums and
bass, that makes your mix big and interesting to listen to and pushes things
forward, especially in the verses which are the weak point in most mixes.
The vocal reverb differences between verses and chorus could be a bit less
drastic.

Rankus:
This is my favourite so far. The only thing I'd change is I'd make drums
a little less bright, but that's just personal taste.

singsing:
Overall good mix, but I see the band in a big room with not much
audience here, I'd like to see it more in a small club.
Chorus could more bite compared to the verses, there's not much
difference dynamic wise.

ATOR:
Losing fight psychedelic version. Different but interesting interpretation
of the song. Vocal levels a bit of sometimes, but I like your overall  
interpretation. Makes me feel like 70ties again.

3foot6:
Sounds a bit thin, I'd like to be more pushed by the bottom end

ChrisJ:
Kick sounds somehow broken and out of time. I had similar timing issues
last IMP and it broke my mix, too.
I like the vocals a lot (especially the verses)

M_Carter:
Lacks a bit dynamic wise, I'd like to hear more punch in the vocals
and the drumers kick. The overall balance isn't bad, but too
much on the save side (I'm known to make that error often, too).

will_f:
I like this a lot, lots of energy. That guitar panning/FX is a bit
annoying, tho.

Greg_Dixon:
Very raw and good. I know that the tracks need some processing
to make them sound good, but you managed to do it in a way as
if not much processing was done, great job!

jdier:
A bit to much ambiance, especially compared to the vocals.
Nice vocals but not loud enough to attract my attention.

scott_oliphant:
A bit harsh and bright, competes to much with the (very good)
vocals.

spoon:
I like the verses a lot, but the chorus seems a bit unbalanced,
the rhythm guitars and bg-vocals are louder as the main
vocals. I like your drum sound.

Henchman:
Lots of energy, low end is a tad to much, but I like it.
Nice vox, too. Overall sound maybe a bit too clean and
polished for that song.

Liam_Rattleyr:
Very cool kick sound, and the vocals aren't bad, either.
Vocals in the chorus could be a bit louder, tho.

Thanks a lot to everyone for the time to comment on the
songs, I appreciate this a lot.

Tom

Logged
Tom

.signature failure

M Carter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #69 on: March 01, 2007, 02:44:12 pm »

@ Recalls

I admittedly didn't really put enough in to the mix because of other pressing life matters.  After taking J's advice and running with it, I'm already much happier with the results.  I appreciate the lack of technical speak in the reply in lieu of attempting to convey the approach taken in the mix.

back to the work grind....

So far my favorite mixes are J's, Adam's and Nizzle's.  So far though none of the mixes are impressive as far as the guitars go, and I kind of feel like it's mostly because of the source material, meaning the player.  It just doesn't have any kind of punk rock swag to it.
Logged
Matt Carter
General Manager
Manhattan Sound Recording
www.manhattansoundrecording.com
(212) 564 8248

Will F

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #70 on: March 01, 2007, 03:34:13 pm »

Thanks for all the comments so far. This is awesome and the feedback so far is well....upon listening back, pretty spot on. It's amazing how much something stands out after it's been pointed out to you.
I did the mix at my day job during my free time on a Mac I normally use for video editing. I used all the standard digi plugs plus some Massey stuff which I love.
Even though I can't re-submit I am going to do a mix at home where the setup is much nicer and I can run through a console and some nice outboard. I really want to compare the results from mixing at different locations on different gear. Plus I won't have to rush.
Again I love this, I'm learning a lot and can't wait for the next one!

-Will
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #71 on: March 01, 2007, 03:43:04 pm »

M Carter wrote on Wed, 28 February 2007 23:35

J - advice taken to heart  (you may be right about the meter watching, but I avoid EQ graphs like the plague).

did you drink a pot of coffee before replying with all that?  those were some of the more passionate replies I've seen from you.




HAHAHAH.  actually, i was in a huge hurry last night, but forced myself to pay attention and give each mixer something useful....or hopefully useful.
Logged

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP10 reviews (spoon)
« Reply #72 on: March 01, 2007, 03:45:35 pm »

spoon wrote on Wed, 28 February 2007 23:55



That is funny.  I dunno.  I love compression...really I do.
I smash tons of things...really...I just dont have any examples now.

For most songs I prefer to have them breath on their own rather than make them breath...not that some things cant/shouldnt have life breathed into them...

I am just not a fan of an entire track pumping (just me).  The radio does that too.  It creates a false feeling of my ears compressing (you know when the rock show is dangerously loud) which is probably why I am not into that.

Sometimes I cut drums on nuke, but I am doing it to a mult(s) so I can keep clean and dirty versions.

I would think Chicago would have plenty of AEs into that sort of thing (Aside from Albini and his crew).

I dont get out much...Cheers J.


David


HAHAHA, nice.

well, my biggest influences are tchad blake, rich costey and andy wallace.  all of those guys have puming mixes.  are mine pumping as cool as theirs.....not yet....but i'm getting closer.
Logged

ATOR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #73 on: March 01, 2007, 03:46:11 pm »


Here we go, hold on to your seats  Twisted Evil


3foot6
underwater guitar has got the spotlight here, louder than leadvox and everything else. Drums have a boxy rehearsalroom sound. The mix would be better if you put the spotlight on the interesting things, like on the end where the rhythm guitars mask the solo parts

Adammiller
Nice open sound, good leadvocal, good balance, at the end the lead role rhythm guitar wash makes it boring

Anonymous
empty mix at the start, I can see you want to make a good buildup but the track loses me at the start. You've made too little use of the mix elements too keep it interesting

ChrisJ
The kick sounds strange as if the compressor crapped out. Vox lead is lonely because it’s too loud. I like the space in the mix. The drums get buried at the end. I miss some DI bass body.

Fantomas
Nice ambience on the vocal. Vocal stands out from the band too much, it makes the band play at a low level.  Band balance is good. Kick could use more low end to ground the track.

GregDixon
I like it, big sounds, huge guitars. When the band gets loud the available space gets a little cramped. The guitars push down the drums and bass in a ducking style.

Henchman
Heavy deep bass, good drums, toms could use more gating and eq, they don’t fit the tighter drums. The rhythm guitars seem distant, did you use reverb on them?

iCombs
There’s something that gives me an out of phase feeling, I think it are your rhythm guitars The reverb on ‘love losing fight’ makes it messy and turns the big ending into a wash of mud. This mix could use some more eqing to give the elements their own space.

Jdier
Very big reverbs, too big for my taste. middy overall sound. This mix loses me because it’s all too distant, nothing stands out.

JHall
Big kick. I like the different treatments of the leadvox in different parts. The rhythm guitars duck the drums in loud parts. Good balance, everything has it’s place.

Liam Rattleyr
Crispy guitars, good drums. Vocal gets a little buried here and there. Nice use of fx.  Kick could lose some boxyness, it’s distracting me. Overall this could use some more lo-mid body.

M Carter
Big snare, makes the vocal seem small. It makes me wanna pan the vocal to the side to make more room for the snare. The delay on the lead rhytm guitar in the chorus makes the mix hazy.  I gotta say the snare is great, it’s the star of the show.

MacBraddy
Drums have a strong rehearsal room ambience. The vocal is very small. I like the stereo RAT bass. I’d like the guitars to be louder, it feels  kinda empty now.

Maxim
I don’t like the harmony created by the delay in the intro. Drums are too distant  and weak. Arp guitar is too loud. Basssound draggs the tempo down.  Nice idea to put the bg vox to the right. I’m not shure about muting the drum before the last chorus it’s really empty now. The finale sounds very tame with the rhythm guitar level like this.

NickT
Leadvox it a little too small and unnaturally dry. The drums sound weak. Sounds are unfinished. This sounds almost like a faders up mix.

Nizzle
This is a mastering engineers nightmare. Blasted to oblivion. Too bad ‘cause there might be a good mix underneath.

Rankus
Vocal could use some more body. For some reason this mix makes the vocal sound more dragged in tempo. Overall I’d like more lo-end en body.  Balance is pretty good, OHs are a little loud.

Redtape
Balance is way off. No kick/bass. Individual sounds need more attention and eqing. Like a bad faders up mix.

Scott Oliphant
Drums are completely fucked up with way too much compression. Vocal is small and no match for the drums, actually nothing in the mix is.

Singsing
No punch left and that’s needed pretty bad to keep me awake. Otherwise a good mix.

Spoon
Too much reverb it makes it hard to hear what the individual instruments are doing. Bass (Rat) is very prominent and thick. The mix is rather messy, needs more eq to give every instrument it’s own space.

Will F
Yes, a snare that smacks. Nice big mix.  I like the triple 8ths delay. Good balance. Yup I like this one.
Logged
Pieter Vincenten - ATORmastering

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP10 discussion thread
« Reply #74 on: March 01, 2007, 03:49:18 pm »

Nizzle wrote on Thu, 01 March 2007 10:16




JHall - Sounds like a "quick mix" done by someone who knows what they're doing.



BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!  well, minus the "knows what they're doing" part.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13   Go Up