R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: IMP16 discussion  (Read 28711 times)

SingSing

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 157
Re: IMP Goof!
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2008, 01:59:01 PM »

osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 13:40

More of a case of not reading and having generally a static work flow. Hopefully, this is my lesson learned.

Anyway. Yes all the automations, edits, would have to be redone. I couldn't do it today, and it would be NO fun. I could resample the speed, but I wouldn't want to submit that blindly either. Too late in any case. Hope you all enjoy it anyway, although I asked J. to take down the file in embarassment.


It might be a good choice not to convert the samplerate. I did it in one of the earlier, but all EQ points got completely wacko. It sounded like an awful hishelf at +15 from 4k. It sure was ugly. On the other hand, it could be worth a try, right?

All the best,

Stefan
SingSing
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2008, 02:02:02 PM »

UnderTow wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 17:52


I did a quick mix but my brain just isn't functioning. I won't upload it as I don't feel it is good enough.




Ah buggrit. I had a few of glasses of wine and finished my mix. Smile

(I hope I don't regret it tomorrow. Heh)

Alistair
Logged

audio~geek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: IMP Goof!
« Reply #47 on: January 21, 2008, 02:10:48 PM »

Just for fun I put your mix into Protools and tried Elastic audio on it, I was quite surprised with the results.

Maybe you will be too.
http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP16-Osumosan-varispee d.mp3

I used the varispeed algorithm and it brought it back to the right pitch and speed.

Would have sounded even better with the original wav, not mp3-aiff-wav-mp3 converted.

Billybehdaz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #48 on: January 21, 2008, 02:17:00 PM »

Since I have the day off I'm going to listen to all the mixes I can and give my 2 pennies, here goes....


Podgorny - intro is nice.  Like the guitar build in first verse/pre-chorus.  Harmony kind of loud in chorus, sounds like you tuned it - I had to it was really grating on me, I guess that's the age of autotune.  Not sure about the breakdown, that effect seems kind of out of place for the vibe of this tune.  Overall very nice, same tonality that I went for.

Audiogeek - Sounds a little tubby in the low mids.  Vox need de-essing big time.  Bass a little loud, possibly contributing to what I hear as "tubbyness".  Didn't tune the harmony, just kept is low.  Good call as it was badly out of tune in spots.  Stopping the tape, eh?  Again, not sure if it fits this tune.  Overall nice tones and balances except for the previously mentioned bass.

McSnare - nice intro edit, get right to the point.  Like the snare.  Vox a little "dull" in tone, I like the brighter vox of the other mixes.  Very nice bass, what I tried to do but didn't quite achieve.  Breakdown - same thing I did.  Nice drum fill edit, same for the "vox only" edit.  Really nice overall!

telectric - lead guitar really loud in intro - a different perspective I guess.  Vox are dull.  Snare kind of buried in chorus.  Vox maybe a little loud overall.

GrantRichard - your tune right?  Not as bright as the others, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe too much mids overall for my taste.  Lots of kick.  Nice low end.  Got rid of the "beat box", eh? Did you sing this?  What's the deal with the harmony?  Obviously the singer can sing, but the harmony had several spots that were out of tune.  Hard for me to listen to the "untuned" version.  I guess I've listened to too much modern pop.  Overall a nice mix and a different tonality than the others - more middy.


ElectricWarrior - Lead guitar pretty loud in pre-chorus and chorus.  Gives is a different feel.  Same comments on harmony as previous mixes where it was out of tune.  Sounds like lots of verb on the vox, kind of softens them too much.  Lots of cymbals, that's how mine turned out as well.  Harmony is really bothering me in the end, too loud and it grates.


sstillwell - pretty bright.  Vox not so bright, doesn't seem to fit the tonality of the rest of the mix.  Not a mix to listen to loud, high end is piercing.  Sounds good at a low level though.  Something funny with the Vox in second verse - rewinding.  Not sure what you did, but the double is way off pitch at times, I'd fix that.  Nice level balances overall, just too much top end for my taste.

boedoconstrictor - Very nice so far, not as bright as some of the others.  Vox a little loud in the chorus for my taste.  Like the kick and snare, I'd be interested to know what you did.  AAAAHHHH, the friggin out of tune harmony!!!!  Maybe my favorite so far (EXCEPT FOR THE HARMONY), no fancy tricks, just a straightforward solid mix.

Drew - lots of kick and snare, I like it.  Vox a little dry and up front in the chorus.  No harmony at all?  Good call if you didn't want to tune it, however the choruses sound a little bare after hearing it with the harm over and over.  Maybe a double for the choruses at least?  Hard to say much else, another really good mix IMO.

SingSing - loud!  No acoustic, I like the lead guitar in the pre-chorus/chorus.  Like the drums, really nice.  I CAN'T TAKE THE OUT OF TUNE HARMONY ANYMORE!  Sweet lead guitar, I'd be interested to know what you did.  Very "modern" mix.


That's it so far.  I'll try to review more later if I have some time.  Nice job everyone, it's cool to hear all the different mixes!



Logged

SingSing

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 157
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #49 on: January 21, 2008, 02:31:59 PM »

I accidentally upped the wrong version in the submission thread. The correct one is there now. IMP16_SingSing.mp3 is the correct version.

Sorry for stealing your bandwidth....


All the best,

Stefan
SingSing
Logged

sstillwell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #50 on: January 21, 2008, 02:45:08 PM »

Awright...busted.  I was mixing at fairly low volume.  After I cranked it up (and shaved my head with the highs in the process), I saw you were right.  I redid it and posted on my site(only if you're interested, I stand by my original mix for purposes of this discussion) at http://www.stillwellaudio.com/sounds/imp16-sstillwell-2.mp3 .

As far as intonation goes, I was getting my "doubling" by using the free GSnap plugin to tune the "untuned" vocals, and then mixing with the already-tuned vocals in the project, since they will have different tuning speeds and response curves, hopefully making it a bit more interesting.  I guess it was a little too "interesting". Sad  GSnap is fairly decent, but it's no substitute for a serious tuning package.  Everything else I did with pitch-shift automation.  Unfortunately, I don't have Autotune or Waves Tune...I tend not to use them if I can avoid it.

Thanks for the input!

Scott
Logged

audio~geek

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #51 on: January 21, 2008, 03:05:21 PM »

I was gonna say, your mix is BRIGHT

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: IMP Goof!
« Reply #52 on: January 21, 2008, 03:32:37 PM »

osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 12:40

More of a case of not reading and having generally a static work flow. Hopefully, this is my lesson learned.



yeah man....it happens, no worries.

Logged

Electric Warrior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 514
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #53 on: January 21, 2008, 03:47:01 PM »

you're lucky that it happened now as this is just for fun. lesson learned, no damage done.
Logged

J-Texas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #54 on: January 21, 2008, 03:51:02 PM »

I always learn so much from these things. After listening to a couple (when I should be working) I made a few of tiny tweaks in levels, pan, and a bit of air on the OH and room mics... and would have been much more satisfied. Live and learn. I love it.

Logged
Jason Thompson
www.4141studios.com

osumosan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
Re: IMP Goof!
« Reply #55 on: January 21, 2008, 04:34:31 PM »

So working in Logic, I just created a 48k session and imported the 44.1k mix and bounced to a new file, seeing that the 44.1k session transposed the 48k files, the reverse should be true. So I uploaded a -fix file (sorry for the bandwidth usage). If you would like to hear a bit more bottom, well, you know why.
Logged

SingSing

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 157
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #56 on: January 21, 2008, 04:45:39 PM »

So here we go. Got my laptop and a pair of Sennheiser HD280 and Koss PortaPro, so take these words with a truckload of salt. Overall this IMP seems to have a much wider range of interpretations which is really fun. Is it just me, or is the lead vocal tuned a bit different compare to the instruments (or vice versa... =)?

Orifice
Nice whoomp in the intro. You certainly got the the bottom end working very well. The lead vox is very clear and upfront. That's the way I usually like it. Very nice and punchy toms. Very big acoustic which is very different from my interpretation of course, but I really like your take on it. Background vocal is really up there competing with the lead in a very nice way. Is that a hi-passed slap delay or just verb on the snare? I'm not sure I dig it, at least not in the verse where it's very 'obvious'. In the bridge you use the lead double, but it sounds almost phasey. I had almost forgotten about it  Laughing  I guess most of you will use the drummachine... I didn't care too much for it.

Really solid electric/acoustic mix. I kind of miss some low mids, but I was fighting like a maniac to find them myself. If you indeed did use the lead double...try muting it. I think the mix will be even stronger without it. If you didn't use it, I don't know what the heck messed up that lead....   Razz
Great job!

Electric Warrior
Off the bat more 'indie' sounding than Orifice. You haven't done any soundreplacing that I can hear. Nice lead vocal sound. But I feel the verb is a bit too big or at least has a too long predelay. I think I can hear the lead double in the bridge...don't like it. You've really done your best sticking to the original sound of the tracks while giving them the necessary treatment. Maybe it is heresy to talk about imaging when listening through cans, but what the heck....I think you're mix would benefit from better stereo definition. The clicks at 3:17 and 3:20 should be removed. Overall pretty middle of the road but an OK execution.

Drew
Band in a room and a seriously nice kick sound, but I feel the bass is not really working together with the kick. Very good dry lead vocal sound, though maybe a bit too far back in the mix. Your effort to mix the electric and acoustic really worked great. Best acoustic sound this far. No use of lead double which is highly appreciated. No use of BG vox which is kind of lends certain authority to the lead. It works very well in this context.

Very different from Orifice, but still a very well executed mix that feels very organic. Great work, and I think it will be even better if you slap a nice comp/lim on the 2-buss!

Greg Dixon
You've certainly found the low mids I was desperately looking for. Very nice lead vocal that sits nicely. All elements during the verse are very well executed. The stereo image sounds very good. I still can't over that lead vocal. You nailed it man! I'm missing some definition in the kick. There seems to be a lot of subsonic information but not very much punch. You used the drummachine in the break without me noticing at first, and that's a compliment. Through these cans the mix seems a bit bassheavy, but I wouldn't bet anything on it.

I'm beginning to see a pattern.... You're also using the electric acoustic approach, though with a very different approach compared to the others. Overall a good sounding mix. You should be proud son...   Laughing

McSnare
You sure got a big snare there!  Razz
You've obviously done this before. Very pro sounding and nice and solid bottom end. The lead vox, though sitting very nicely in the mix, is a bit too heavy in the low mids. It sounds a bit honky perhaps... Great BG vox in the chorus. I really like how you put it very far behind the lead, yet it's poking through. I love how you've used the scissors. You cut away 'my' at 2:15, which when I heard it made perfect sense. It lends a bit of relaxation....tasteful and song-enhancing editing. Drummachine pan worked very nice with the acoustic. I won't even comment on the fill, damn you! You've made many really good choices. Again, that break at 3:18 really does it for me.

Arrangement and mixwise it's flawless, the only thing that's a bit off is the low mid, and I'm not even sure about that. Top of the line!

TELERIC
You're MP3 doesn't work here. Better check it....

TGoodwin
Mono?!   Rolling Eyes

The lead vox ducks because of the limiter. This one really slaughters the original tracks. It definitely is very different.... Good? I don't know, let's agree it's different. I like your kick, but I can't really hear the bass. The snare sounds like a highpitched conga. The lead vox might have an OK sound, but it's hard to hear since it's buried most of the time. The harmony is almost louder during the chorus. I should stop now. I think you can do better than this, unless of course this actually was your interpretation and I've got my head somewhere it shouldn't be. If you ask my wife, it is there...

Maxim
Now this is promising. I like that acoustic sound, what FX did you use there? Maybe that bass should wait a bit longer? The drums deserve a bit more space, at least in the chorus. The kick is perhaps a bit strong compared to the rest of the kit, but you seem to have nailed the sounds. I like the timbre of your lead vox, maybe it's just a tad low mid heavy. I think you should push it more forward and maybe add a little verb to make it a bit bigger. I'm not sure I like the distorted lead, at least not the part where it's completely 'broken'.

A decent mix, good work throughout and definitely the driest, but still you've got a good stereo image going. Nice work....

Audio Geek
That lead must be essy...cause these cans ain't easily revealing that kind of information. Instrumentation very much centered. It seems almost only the drums are panned in the intro. A bit more space during the verse. I find the lead vocal to low in the verse, but you found a nice level in the bridge. Then it backs off a bit again when the chorus gets going. I kinda like your drum sounds, they sound a bit rough which is a nice contrast to the rest of the more 'safe' sounds. The kick is rather punchy and works very well with the bass.

You kept true to the original tracks as far as I can tell. You've used them pretty nicely. Middle of the road and OK execution.

Amazing Slowdowner? Hahaa... you caught me off guard there. And all of a sudden we got our selves a stereomix...and there comes mono again.... You should use that tape-stop plug more if it helps with the imaging!  Laughing

BoedoConstrictor
Similar soundscape as that painted by Orifice though you've found a more punchy low-end....and you've used less compression/limiting. Nice opening...everything is nicely executed. Nicely treated lead vox. Now why did you use the lead double? You could try to double the harmony instead... Treat each channel differently and hardpan them L-R and see what happens. Or put the regular down the middle and make hard L-R copies that you hi-pass. Anything is OK, and I'm sure they won't compete with the lead the way it does now. Bring that lead forward where it deserves to be, and this mix will benefit greatly from it...you're almost there. Smile You've really nailed the drums man! I like that kick and snare. Very good mix...but make way for that lead and you've got a winner.

GrantRichard
The man responsible for the song, right? Thanks for the tracks, this IMP certainly was very different from the rest and a much bigger challenge than I had anticipated. It was great fun....

I don't know if my computer has messed things up, but your ID3-tag is Telesound/openeyes6loud and filename is imp16-GrantRichard.mp3. Then the mix from Podgorny has an ID3-tag that says Grant Richard/IMP16. I guess everything is in order, but just to be sure....

On to your mix.... Did you get the special version with all the LOW-END?  Smile  This one is way too bassheavy, but a few tweaks and you're there. I like the level of the lead vox in the vox and bridge, though it could come up a little bit in the chorus. You got a very nice guitar sounds overall. It doesn't sound as if you replaced the original snare. I think your mix would benefit from beefing it up a bit and get that mid schmack going. The toms sound great, though they're a bit too loud and seem to be hardpanned which sounds a bit weird. Bring them in a bit and you're home. Very respectable work and my guess is that it will be much more balanced if you bring down that low-end merely 15-20 dB....   Razz  Great mix and sounds!

Osumosan
Just a quick comment, though you chose not to participate due to the samplerate pukkuf. I like what I hear. Very nice definition and wonderful sounds. Clearly, I would love to hear this one....so when you've got some extra time.

That's it for now. I need to get me a glass of milk. I'll be back later with the rest of the submitted tracks. This could be the most diverse IMP so far. Great work guys.


All the best,

Stefan
SingSing
Logged

grantis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1407
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2008, 04:57:47 PM »

Quote:

I don't know if my computer has messed things up, but your ID3-tag is Telesound/openeyes6loud and filename is imp16-GrantRichard.mp3. Then the mix from Podgorny has an ID3-tag that says Grant Richard/IMP16. I guess everything is in order, but just to be sure....


when i bounced my preview out of PT, i used my 'project studio' name "Telesound" so i can find it easier on my iPod.  the name of the song is Open Eyes.  "6" means the version number i was up to.  there were 5 before it that weren't to my satisfaction.  "loud" just means i made it loud (maybe 2-3 db below mastered level).  when i print my mixes, they're usually allow about 10 db of headroom, so when i bounce a preview, i make them louder.

i simply changed the filename to submit for PSW, but forgot all about the ID3 tag.
Logged
Grant Craig
Nuovo Music (Me)
Skiddco Music (Where I work)
Work History (Well, some of it anyway)

osumosan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
Re: IMP Goof!
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2008, 04:58:05 PM »

Dudes! Check it out. I could have actually set the sample rate of my whole session to 48k to be correct. When I did that at first, all the start points, edits, fades, automation got screwey. But then I changed the tempo from 120 to 130.6122 and voila!

I'd reup a mix, except I did two separate mixes and edited them together. More than I can really do today while double checking all my eq points. So there you go! In a "real" session I could have brought back the mix and not lost too much work.

Whoa.

p.s. SingSing, thanks for the kind words. If you still are interested, I'll relook at the mix, since I really wanted the bass to be low and grand and an 8% hike in the formants did some harm in that regard.
Logged

grantis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1407
Re: IMP16 discussion
« Reply #59 on: January 21, 2008, 05:31:22 PM »

Quote:

GrantRichard - your tune right? Did you sing this? What's the deal with the harmony? Obviously the singer can sing, but the harmony had several spots that were out of tune. Hard for me to listen to the "untuned" version. I guess I've listened to too much modern pop.


Yeah, i sang everything.  If I remember right, this was toward the end of my vocals on a 10 song album, and i was getting quite fatigued.  i wasn't too particular about my pitch on the BGV's cuz I could just melodyne them later.  i thought i gave the tuned BGV's to J, but i guess i didn't.

i tend to go for a more raw vocal sound nowadays, ever since autotune took over the world.  the lead vocal you got was my tuned melodyne version (right J?), and i thought it was pretty loose still, but not bugging me.  to each his own i guess.  for this genre, i maybe could have pulled the lead vocal tighter with melodyne, but my perfection exists in a nonperfect world.  Wink.
Logged
Grant Craig
Nuovo Music (Me)
Skiddco Music (Where I work)
Work History (Well, some of it anyway)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 21 queries.