iCombs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 02:32 |
It seems like the mixes seem to come out of camps...i.e., those that mixed both drum tracks out in stereo and those that mixed a single drum track up the middle. |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 02:32 |
It seems like the mixes seem to come out of camps...i.e., those that mixed both drum tracks out in stereo and those that mixed a single drum track up the middle. I'd kinda like to hear some reasoning from both sides on this topic. |
iCombs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 02:32 |
Also, there seemed to be a trend towards reverb on this one, and I was wondering why. I only used one delay in the whole song, and that was on the crazy, fuzzed out rhodes. Just wondering what y'all were hearing as far as space that I wasn't. |
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 09:42 |
SN: one of best snares here, unfortunately too thin and too much voltage rising speed will create distortion in consumer DA Converters, |
dconstruction wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 10:35 |
I'd be interested in hearing from those that chose not to use both kits. Sounds to me a lot of those that went the one-kit direction had issues with the performance and used the two kits to comp a part. |
Adam Miller wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 09:49 | ||
|
Thomas Lester wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 10:09 |
Hey J - Thanks for the report on my mix. I'm honored that you'd dedicated a whole post to just me BTW... my link broke on the submission list, here's mine: http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP9_tlester.mp3 |
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 11:33 |
Have i said something funny? |
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 13:04 |
garret - whoa, kind of crazy. am i hearing this right? drums gone? not sure what's happening here. sped up? comes together a little more in last chorus. would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how you got here or what you were going for. |
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:04 |
Cary - some weird high pitched screech thing going on. hi hat sounds a little "tweaked" high end wise. snare replaced? maybe not. I'd be interested to know why folks immediately replaced the snare, or other drums. they seemed to be totally workable. |
spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:21 |
Me too. I want to know what his thinking was like. I totally loved this, whether by design or a happy accident. I think this one was the cat's meow! Regards, spoon |
Cary Holding wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:50 |
I have done very little in the way of beater and resonant mic on kick drum. I found that resonant track surprising. It was not at all what I thought I'd hear. I didn't use it. |
Quote: |
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'd like to understand more about your comment on the high pitched thing. Reading a comment like that doesn't give me a nice fuzzy feeling. |
garretg wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 13:53 | ||
Whew, I convinced one person... that's a relief. All my tweakery was by design... I decided early on to just go for it, dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead. I'm more of a songwriter/producer than anything else, so the major problems that jumped out at me were: 1) the verses are all identical... I think the lyrics are even the same? I think tunes need to evolve constantly, so fixing this was one of my major objectives. At the same time, I wanted to improve the dynamics, making the tune build up naturally... 2) the drums are, imho, a letdown... they don't do enough to support the stunning vocals, guitars, etc. Maybe because I've never been a drummer, I'd rather hear no drums than weak drums. There's enough rhythmic interplay in the guitars (especially the bass double, which ended up central to my mix) that I think the tune can survive long stretches without em. To solve the first problem, I tweaked the verses like this: -- first verse, just the kick... -- second verse, bring in the snare, just on the 4s, and make it big (though maybe not big enough now that I listen again) -- third verse, drop out the elec guitars so the vocal and bass are features, and the arrangement can seethe, burn and collect itself for a big last chorus. I also brought in some echoes of the vocal from a previous verse. For the second problem, I built some extra rhythm tracks with tempo sync'd delays, then comp'd together a more inventive arrangement. I didn't do any time-correction or sample replacement.. what you're hearing is just a subset of the original tracks, plus two tracks I manufactured -- the hi hat, and a doubled kick drum (the double is an eight note later I think). I wanted the choruses to bounce a bit, to get some contrast with the straight verses, so I brought the funky delayed hi hat way up... Last bunch of indie rock shows I've been to, something strange going on... these kids, they dance. Dismemberment plan a few years back, I swear I saw someone moonwalk. Speeding up the track was a last minute whim... A few weeks back, there was a thread on PSW about how common varispeed was in the tape days. After some fiddling, I figured out that I could use r8brain to do a very clean "sample rate varispeed." So given that this tune was played slower than I'd prefer (booze will do that, as I can attest from experience), I figured I'd try it out. I think mine is just a few bpm faster than the original... the sample rate I used to varispeed was 42500. -Garret |
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 15:06 | ||
|
spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 15:07 |
Well bravo sir, BRAVO! Here are my notes on your submission: "Garret- If the drum treatment was intentional, I LOVED it...lo-fi, querky with a good bit of cheese. Overall the song has a wonderful lofi quality to it...while still maintaining a good instrument balance. I wished the vox was up just a bit. I love the vibe this mix created. Like the echo on the second verse...just to mix it up even MORE! Didnt use the tamborine huh." |
spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:12 |
JHall- Very spacious drums...seem even wider. Nice vocal treatment. A touch more volume maybe. Like the distorted (slightly) backing vocals. Track as a whole has a distortion to it...what did you use? Didnt use the tamborine huh. |
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 13:04 |
jhall - another stereo drum spread! like it. nice energy. nice tight bass and imaging. the snare on the right side, is there a little higher pitched sample mixed in? It almost has a woodblock kind of "tic toc" thing going. the distortion in the chorus would be a little much for me on the vox, but i see what you were going for. the end is got a lot of groove, nice job |
Quote: |
no samples used on this mix. you're just hearing some extreme compression on the right side kit. |
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:04 |
tlester - very pro-sounding "tight" mix. drum samples? |
spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 21:12 |
Undertow- Big drums (replaced?)...sound good. Bass makes the verse vox sound low. No Tamborine. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
Tom C wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:09 | ||
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. |
Quote: |
I wonder what the story was with the resonant kick. |
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. |
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. |
gatino wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 17:09 |
NickT - over-compressed/limited. this made it difficult for me to listen and enjoy. |
Quote: |
that's it, jump on me. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 00:22 | ||
if ou sang a vocal part, you are disqualified. |
j.hall |
melodyne can EASILY take a lead vocal track and create harmonies off it. i do it ALL THE TIME! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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). |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 17:22 | ||
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! |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
gatino wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 11:20 | ||
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! |
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 18:00 |
TomC: Those drums are really small. Like someone left Ringo in the closet. |
dconstruction |
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. |
Tom C wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 14:07 |
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. |
maxim wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 00:24 |
tom wrote: "Guitar intro sounds like 're-amped' with NI guitar rig" that's the wurly |
six_wax wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 03:01 |
Thanks to everybody else who participated for showing me what I missed, and "what might have been"! |
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 18:00 |
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? |
Quote: |
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. |
Tom C wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 21:07 |
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. |
ATOR wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 22:44 |
Undertow The drums are amazing, you can get a kick out of everything. |
Quote: |
The fx Rhodes and the chop guitar could be more present to make the chorus different from the verse |
UnderTow wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 14:51 |
I think you mean me. Pleasant Groove is the name of the band. |
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 16:14 |
Not to be too picky, but it's Pleasant Grove. |
ScotcH wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 16:16 |
Dammit ... you're alwasy so picky. |
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 22:14 |
Not to be too picky, but it's Pleasant Grove. L |
chrisj wrote on Sun, 14 January 2007 14:55 |
IMP 9 Buzzsaw- really got to do reviews but there are so many entries and so little time, thanks to the new plugins. My entry uses four new plugins. By now there are eleven... including ones that fix the problems with murkiness and all that... but it's been happening instead of reviewing the tracks. I'd like to see more people do this, so I'll start. This is Awful Chris, due to lack of time, so I hope nobody's too hurt. Should at least be fun to read in a Gonzo Hunter S sort of way. Please, return the favor, kindly or not *content edited for purposes of reply* Whew! |
redfro wrote on Sun, 14 January 2007 20:24 |
PS...Hey, Lindsay....didn't one of the guys in Pleasant Grove used to be in UFOFU? Used to see them a bunch back in the day... |
chrisj wrote on Sun, 14 January 2007 15:55 |
imp9-cary- Need to express self with sound design rears its ugly head again Big thumping and gloss. Sounds like these are supposed to be normal people playing MOR music of some kind. This is the Journey version. I'm totally missing the edgy, half-cocked weirdness and amateurism that I know is present in the tracks. It feels stable. In one sense that works, but in another sense it glosses over aspects of the song that are capable of getting attention! |
Cary Holding wrote on Mon, 15 January 2007 08:33 |
What about that first guitar octave part (in the chop track? That is like crazy loud. Leaving that type of thing in a mix reminds me of those abstract painters. The guys who throw paint at a canvas haphazardly and call it genius. True, it does get our attention. |
SingSing wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 10:02 |
dconstruction Once again, thanks for the tracks. I guess this one ought to be some kind of benchmark for what was the goal with the song... Completely obliterated bass. Good use of both drum tracks. Bet it took you some time to align them =) Cool LFO on the last chorus. I think you're lead vox treatment is good, but perhaps cut a bit too high. Interesting use of the chorus vox. Good work, one of the best and definetely one of the most radical. |
SingSing wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 10:02 |
Gatino Back to normal again... Bit of a mono big room feeling, yet the mix as a whole sounds a bit hollow and small, dare I say mono? Thru my cans the lead vox is a bit spitty. Seems you've been working on the lead vox tuning which in my view takes away a bit of the intimacy and feeling of the song. |
singsing |
ATOR First pad comes along, wonder how you did that.... =) |
SingSing wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 08:02 |
Guess that sums things up...don't think I've forgotten anyone. Stefan SingSing |
ignored invisible guy wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 13:06 |
I'm just wondering why my entry seems to be completely invisible to everyone? Am I on everyones ignore list or something? |
dconstruction wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 17:53 |
Thanks! Though I don't know about the "benchmark" comment (or the "one of the best" part, either). Certainly radical. I think the LFO is me jacking with the feedback and time on the delay on the Wurly. And as for aligning drums, I didn't at all. No cuts, no edits, no pulling or stretching: those are the tracks. I think also the "obliterated" bass is actually the doubling guitar, which is pretty far gone. I'm listening to your latest mix. There's a lot more vibe and direction in it. To my ears, a much better, more focused mix. I love the little breaks you've added. That tambourine at the front made me smile. My only complaint is that I miss the harmony vox in the last chorus; they're pretty low. And I might not keep the vocal reprise at the very end. Still, great job. I like it. |
gatino wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 18:11 | ||
mono, haha...and here i was trying to practice L-C-R mixing. oh well... thx for the input |
rankus wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 20:06 |
You missed mine as well Stefan.... I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering why my entry seems to be completely invisible to everyone? Am I on everyones ignore list or something? |
dconstruction wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 17:53 |
Thanks! Though I don't know about the "benchmark" comment (or the "one of the best" part, either). Certainly radical. I think the LFO is me jacking with the feedback and time on the delay on the Wurly. |
chrisj wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 14:28 |
I've done a remix as well, because it upset me to have people going 'I thought you were an ME, what's with the bass' and all. Actually I see mixing as very different from mastering because I don't see mastering as creative- I see it as a technical challenge of retaining the spirit of the mix while typically making it way louder. Mixing is more creative and I wanted the song to be a big throbbing wave with the singer riding it- but this was also affected by another thing. I was right in the middle- okay, at the beginning- of replacing all my plugs with my own brand, and at the time I mixed it, I had this: Nypass: a highpass with an unusual algorithm Drive: really smooth overdrive/saturation, which tends to build lower mids rather than upper mids like most digital distortions. You're hearing a lotta 'drive'. Pressure: a compressor with vari-mu, also really soft-textured and pillowy, you're hearing them crushing the hell out of the drums, which does not make them come forward- that's the idea of this comp plugin, it can stay deep Pafnuty: Chebyshev 3rd harmonic in trace amounts, makes things hot and wild sounding, used on drums and Chop Slew: slew limiting, which is good at getting stuff not to sound ITB, but also minimizes treble and accentuates body, low-mids and bass. Everything has some slew limiting except high percussion. As you can see, I wasn't done! I had no boosts worth a damn, only Logic channel EQ which I'm not happy with for that, and I didn't have any brighteners, only, um, murk-eners. Also I was using Spitfish, Freeverb and the Logic flanger. This is what I should have done, anyone hating the bassy one please check to reaffirm your waning faith in my basic auditory sanity http://www.airwindows.com/m/IMP9chrisjRemix.mp3 This remix has: DeEss, Pressure, Boosts (pick attack), Boosts (8K vocal gloss), Spike (expander), Nypass, BrightAmbience (a convolution plug), Pafnuty, Drive, BassDrive, Boosts (1K bass articulation), Boosts (1.5K intelligibility), Slew, Air, Slick, and TapeFat (also a convolution plug). I'm not using Punch (a dynamic-sensitive highpass), BucketBrigadeDelay (convolution, like a MemoryMan) or TapeDelay (convolution, delay but cleaner than TapeFat which is real sloppy) The non-Airwindows plugins are my recompile of Freeverb, but I'm not done with that yet- also, the Logic Flanger (which is what was on the original lead vocal, just a bit). All those Airwindows plugins should be for sale as soon as I can thrash things out with Kagi, as AU plugs. Probably 20$ a pop. Chris |
SingSing wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 11:48 | ||
How could I miss your mix?! Nah, haven't even found that feature yet! I even downloaded the whole songlist twice and must've missed your mix both times....strange..... Well, takes off rather laid back with nothing in particular standing out (much like all the straight forward mixes of this song). Kind of like that panned snare verb, though it might be a tad to prominent...perhaps a couple of dB down? Overall very pleasant drum treatment according to these two ears. Well balanced mix and the feeling I get is very much band-in-a-room playing. Definitely up there with the better 'mainstream' mixes. Doesn't add a whole lot to the original raw tracks, but let's the performance shine through. Though the lead vox is rather low it comes through very good. Love the rhodes fx in the choruses, and especially in the 2nd chorus where it coexists really nice with the guitar in the center. Good job R! Take care, Stefan SingSing |
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 16:45 |
Sorry to dissapoint: Check you monitors or more likely buy them:) I got BM5A pair just for 800$ But i now think you can get genelecs much more cheaper... Somebody told mine was muddy(and i agree comparing to others), but this is just muddnes forest... |
Pr.Tiouz wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 07:02 |
Hi, I just discovered this forum today from a gearslutz post about IMP9, and i immediatly like the mood coming from this place. I'm a sound ingeneer from a little studio in Marseille (France), i'm 33 years old and i'm more interested in improving my skills than buying gear (though if i could i would also by gear ). so i immediatly made a mix for the IMP9 you can find it on the server at IMP9_Pr_Tiouz.mp3. This is a 5 hour mix made in the middle of the night, so now it's late and i'm gonna take a rest but i would be really pleased if anybody can throw an ear to it. See you tomorrow Best regards Matthieu |
SingSing wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 09:58 |
Hi Matthieu, not sure what server its on... Could you post the entire URL? Thanks, Stefan SingSing |
SingSing wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 13:37 |
...the mix seem rather heavy in the mids (and in particular the upper mids). That's probably what makes the mix come across as a bit small. Take care, Stefan SingSing |
gatino wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 17:27 | ||
ok. if i put the mix thru SPAN (freq analyser) would i see a larger peak in the upper mids? |
chrisj wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 17:33 |
Sorry, I'm not going there. I can tell from this what you don't like! |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 16:00 |
Vladislavs Korehovs: for all the technical prowess you ooze all over this forum i honestly expected to be blown away. unfortunately, i am not. first off, the effects on the guuitar are making your entire mix smeared. the EQ and such is great, the FX are not. your drum sounds are good, but they don't exist in the same physical space as you guitar and since the guitar is up in the mix it creates an out of balance mix. the drums in general don't have much edge, but that doesn't really mean they are bad. i actually think your drum sounds are solid and should have dictated the sonic vibe a lot more then they are. i like what you've done in the outro, take the guitar effects off and i might be totally sold on it. the lead vocal needs more edge. right now, it just doesn't jump out at me. in fact, it's making want to turn the mix off. it sounds like you edited the drums for timing, which if i can hear that, it's not a good thing. however, i don't think this one element is ruining anything for me. i'd actually like to hear this mix develope. if you feel my comments are helpful, and worthy of your time, i'd certainly enjoy hearing a recall. it is completely up to you and your schedule. |
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 06:11 |
I have not edited drums, only aligned snare tracks in order to avoid what? Phasing issues right:) |
Thomas Lester wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 06:50 | ||
I'm not sure I understand this comment. What was out of phase on the drums? They all sounded in-phase to me. What alignment of the snare did you find necessary for phase issue? |
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 09:09 |
Try it maybe you haveen't heared drums which are in Phase, so you don't notice when those are out of phase. |
Quote: |
ChrisJ Imp9NickT- Let's be really loud! Could I hear this mix again on a song about taking too much crack and peeling your lips off? Belongs on Lou Reed songs. The vocalist is too serene for this mix. There's nothing glossy or sentimental about it, which is a wrench considering the way the lyrics are sort of misty and emo. I don't think this harshness works with the song, and I'm surprised not to hear it on the harshest background elements where it DOES work. |
Quote: |
From SingSing NickT Bright and squashed mix with lots of snare verb and some short panned lead vox delays. The snare is maybe a bit weak/phasy, but the drums in general are just fine. Interesting kick, how did you do that? Sounds like no other mix, so thumbs up for that! =) |
j.hall wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 23:03 |
SingSing: i listened to your mix 3 times from start to finish. well done man, i dig everything about it. granted, no one here should be looking to impress me, nor should my opinions be carried with any extra weight then for what they are. i think the sonic vibe you went for, you pulled off without missing any detail. makes me happy to hear an IMP submission like this. very different from what i wanted this song to do, and it works really well.....nicely done. |