chrisj wrote on Wed, 22 November 2006 17:42 |
Stuff is a little bit split up into different effects, like piano-vox-voice edge-resonant voice tones-predelay etc etc. It's not real cohesive, it's all in different places. |
UnderTow wrote on Wed, 22 November 2006 16:39 |
On the other hand, someone complaining about 192 Kbps MP3s managed to make the piano mono. Talk about missing the big picture. |
cerberus wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 10:30 |
i do deserve this kind of abuse... i sent an apology to j.hall, and i'll stay on topic from now on. |
Quote: |
so you think it's mono? i know you don't "hear" what you expect, the piano is not crawling off the walls, ok....but do you feel the song? ears are just an entry point for me on this. the soundboard of the piano spread out to fill the whole room was not part of the vibe for me. maybe that works for elton john, but i took this differently. i left the white sequined jacket and the hair plugs out. the protagonist here does not afford a 100 foot wide piano for a stadium, it is a stark scene to paint here, not a carnival ride, imo. |
Quote: |
the piano micing's suggestively exagerated proportions focusing on the innards of the piano.... you miss that? it held no meaning to me in this context. i felt the instrument should be solid and true sounding...and cut straight to the heart...one singer, one piano (contained in a large wooden enclosure, open the lid to taste...but the listener sits or stands outside, right?) and of course there was the room. physically much larger than the piano. |
Quote: |
so i mixed it "honestly", meaning i tried to keep the purity of the message unadulterated by gratuitous ear candy. this song is at a place for me that everyone has been at or will be at some time in life... it could have been acapella and still be the same song for me... |
Quote: |
it happens that the piano is superb, really superb playing and i am touched by it, the player's sense of rhythm and dynamics really make the instrument sing like a full orchestra... |
Quote: |
but it is still just in a supporting role for the message, imo. |
Quote: |
so it needed to fit that way for me, not ever to compete with the vocal for the listener's attention. when the singer is silent, i want the listener to think about what he said, not get so "entertained" as to lose the message as it's being delivered. |
Quote: |
but mono? like i am some kind of old fart? ok hit me again please. tell me it sounds like an old table radio; at least i would know i have evoked some feeling with it. |
Quote: |
alistair... i listened to yours on an ibook this afternoon... you are good, i liked it; but what is with showing off the reverbs ? now that i hear it on real speakers, that is a very nice reverb i hear, it makes me wonder if your empty warehouse is made of metal or brick? fantastic sound, but for me, the song is hiding behind your stadium-sized vision. |
gatino wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 18:49 |
undertow: can you tell about your process with the vocal. thx! |
ScotcH wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 19:30 |
Alistair (UnderTow): When you get a minute, can you elaborate on the "artefacts" you mention? |
rankus wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 15:37 |
jHall: Vocal sits well in the room. Very organic, I suspect you did very little to this mix ? Nice. |
j.hall wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 15:58 |
, i did a ton of stuff. |
garretg wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 23:56 |
GATINO: Interesting.. Don't you hate critiques that start with that word? Honestly, I'm not sure if I love this, or hate this... Compared to many others, the vocal is odd... very midrangy and distant... but it works somehow. Okay listening to it a second time, I like it more. The vox verb predelay is very similar to what I did. Where I think this track misses the mark is in the piano treatment... I think this song has to work both as a vocal tune and as a piano tune... you should be able to get lost in that quarter note rhythm of the piano, but in this mix, I can't. Maybe the piano is just too quiet and mono? |
ScotcH wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 13:30 |
Jeff (cerberus): Thanks! I used Tori Amos and Sarah McLachlan as references (all I had on CD), which are obviously very poppy sounding, hence the brightness perhaps? |
garretg wrote on Fri, 24 November 2006 00:56 |
but the sense of space is confused. |
Quote: |
I miss the studio piano sound... |
UnderTow wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 12:33 |
Actually, like most (european) churches or cathedrals, the walls are made of brick/rock. |
rankus wrote on Thu, 23 November 2006 20:33 | ||
Tastefully |
garretg wrote on Fri, 24 November 2006 00:56 |
VIKING: Very solid, professional mix. great piano sound... maybe the vocal is a touch high in the mix for my tastes. |
cerberus wrote on Sat, 25 November 2006 01:14 |
jhall... sublime and powerful. huge and intimate. present and deep. i so much like how the piano is wet like rain, like tears, the vocal is proud, the reverb paints the room. this one made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. the vibe feels classic and modern and hyper-present... i heard a lot of things that i would describe as "evidence of a recording", but still it felt like i was there watching it happen, or the perfomers and room were here. it is the most visual mix i've heard so far. and so far, the best because not only don't i find objectionable flaws, but it lifts me up. ok, i'll do the others later, it would hardly be fair... now i think my own sucks badly in every way compared to j's; he painted it like a master. not a poem, or even music, but art. |
chrisj wrote on Sat, 25 November 2006 16:58 |
(I liked J's too, but I'm still waiting to hear what his special purpose was for this IMP) |
ScotcH wrote on Fri, 24 November 2006 23:49 |
gatino - The vocal delay is too prominant for me, sounds like a cave. |
TheViking wrote on Sat, 25 November 2006 01:23 | ||
Good comment. It's funny because this issue comes up a lot for me. Usually when the mix is 'just right' for me, I send it off to master and the vocals seem to get quieter or something. It happens EVERY TIME. So, I just got used to a louder blend of Vox in my mixes. Maybe this is too much, as you've commented. But I wonder what a healthy dose of vocals is these days? Anyone else have similar experiences with vocal levels? Thanks again for all the comments. This IMP was really awesome and it's great to hear a bunch of different opinions on this stuff. |
chrisj wrote on Sat, 25 November 2006 10:58 |
Can I hand you a towel, there? |
cerberus wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 05:46 | ||
|
maxim wrote on Sat, 25 November 2006 16:00 |
kevin wrote: "..But I wonder what a healthy dose of vocals is these days?" thanks for the track, btw imo, the vocal level varies from style to style, and culture to culture eg, i like french pop mixes, especially, the blokes, but, compared to australian music, the vocal levels are about 6 db higher on average |
Quote: |
Funny that this should get brought up. I was listening to Zep 4 not too long ago and was actually a little shocked at how far back in the mix the vocals actually were. |
iCombs wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 13:31 |
I was listening to Zep 4 not too long ago and was actually a little shocked at how far back in the mix the vocals actually were. I know I get constant beef that my vocals aren't far enough up front. But I just can't stand the feeling that the vocal is jumping up out of the track, and I can't stand mega-hyper-overcompressed vocals, either. And I'm a little hyper sensitive to sibilant vocals, so I'm really careful about how I boost the top of my vox tracks...so what's a boy to do? |
gatino wrote on Sun, 26 November 2006 22:18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
i think the time will soon come when in-yer-face vocals will be pass Post by: ATOR on November 27, 2006, 07:55:44 AM really intimate, as if I'm sitting behind the piano myself. I like the sound. It's very mono, I'd like the piano to be more stereo. There's some low-end resonance in the plosive vocal-area. There are two weird sounds around 4:00 and 4:15 Chris J Bring on the big verbs! Sibilance and plosives could be tamed more. Maybe you could put in a larger pre-delay to make the vocal sound closer. I like the idea of drenching the vocal in reverb, the one man big as a choir idea. Fantomas Vocal and piano have a silk-like quality but lack something in the high >8k region. I like the delays. Could use plosive control. Vocal struggles to be on top of the piano in some places. Garret Big lush warm reverb on the vox. Low end of the reverb blurs piano a little bit. Dry Vocal could be louder, sometimes it almost drowns in the piano and the reverbs. Tick in latest Baby. Gatino And the price for biggest reverb goes to... I like it. Did you use a separate reverb for left and right or have different delays before the l+r reverb tails? Piano could use more definition and presence. Vocal sounds good. iCombs I like the subtle delays but I wouldn't use them throughout the whole song. Piano sounds great. The singer sounds much closer than the piano, but could be bigger, the piano is a little overwelming. J Hall Wow, bigger than life piano and vocal, sounds grand. Especially in the quiet parts. In the louder parts, the compression clamps down the vocal and piano and takes away a lot of the dynamics and excitement. The space is great too. Matt Russell Piano vand vocal are in a very different in space. To me it also sounds as if the dynamics from the piano and the vocal are separated, they don't follow each other like in the raw recording. They both sound good though. The vocal gets smaller when it should get louder and bigger. Piano starts to distort at loud parts. there's a small tick just before 1:00 Maxim A Frankenstein piano Vocal and piano lack top end. The extra vocals are so horribly out of tune it gets real funny Could use some extra plosive control. I'd like a little less reverb on the piano, right now it's blurring the mix. Rankus Piano is a little heavy in the mid-lows and too big for the vocal. Vocal could me more in the spotlight, now the piano attracks most attention. I like the delays on the end. Rattleyour Vocal is very distant (little dull and too wet) almost 10m/30ft behind the piano. Piano sounds good. I'd like it all to be closer. Vocal sounds weird in the last loud part, as if it goes out of phase. Scotch Sounds good. Little too much sibilance. There's a separation between piano and vocal dynamics. You can hear the compression clamp down the vocal in louder parts. I mis the piano and the vocal dynamics, the song loses a lot of excitement and tension without them. tick just before 1:00 Starscream Piano has a nice big space without being distant. Vocal sounds good too. Already in the beginning I hear compression clamping down the piano and the vocal and this gets real ugly as the song proceeds. Sounds great where there's no compression. The Viking I like the dynamics, the balance piano/vocal and the fullbodied sound. Sibilance is distracting in vocal and delay. It's a bit heavy in the midlows and lacking high end but nothing a little mastering can't fix. Tigeba Hey you didn't pan the tracks like the rest of us did Sibilance needs taming. Too bad the compression kills the dynamics, space and excitement. I like the delay. TPolce Nice space. Sibilance needs taming. Vocal gets clamped down when it's loud. In the louder parts the piano overwhelmes the vocal. In some parts there's some flanging on the vocal Undertow Vocal sounds great and big. Good space. You did a great job at controling the dynamics without compression artefacts. It did rob the song of excitement and it sounds weird when the vocal has the same loudness when he's whispering and singing on the top of his lungs. The same thing goes for the piano, at the end he's banging the keys but the loudness is the same as normal playing. I like the subtle reverb automation. ------------------------------------ Dynamics To me the dynamics are very important in this song, it's what creates the tension and makes the differences between parts of the song. There are no extra instruments. It's just piano and vocal and the dynamics make the song. I do like the mixes with a fullbodied vocalsound like J.Halls, I don't know how he did it but I guess compression is a big part of it. In most mixes with compression already working at the start the vocal gets clamped down and ugly in the louder parts except for Undertows mix. I think he used automation before compression and it sounds great al throughout the song. I'll have to try this first but it looks like for me the ideal vocal would have volume automation to even out the input of the compressor -> compression (+parallel compression?) to get a fullbodied sound -> level automation to recreate the dynamics. I'd like to know how you approached the dynamic aspect especially J. Hall and Undertow. A combination of these two approaches with some added dynamics would make my ideal mix. All in all this mix proved to be a lot harder than I thought it would be. I'll have to have another go (or two) at it because my ideal mix is still out there somewhere. Post by: tigeba on November 27, 2006, 11:51:47 AM I decided to do a non-traditional panning, which a few people commented on. In truth, I wussed out because my original idea was to go hard left with dry vocal and all wet on the other side for a really retro vibe, but I think it was either a little too distracting or I was a little too chicken. The vocal and the piano are still a bit offset to give each other space. Not so sure if it worked 100%. I believe the squashified piano some have commented on is actually me using a lot of the room track on the piano, as the stereo piano really only has about 2 db of compression max. It was one of those last minute decisions after the whole mix was already done, and I should have just left the room track off! Guess this is why you should always sleep on a mix, eh? As far as the vocal goes, yep is it bright, but I feel it is fairly similar to a lot of my favorite tracks. I believe knowing what the raw track sounds like is a bit biasing. FWIW, I used Ben Folds - Still Fighting It as sort of a reference. Obviously a singer with a brighter and higher voice, but that was sort of what I was going for. I will try to listen to everything tonight and post comments for all the tracks, and I look forward to the "How I did X" thread. Post by: ATOR on November 27, 2006, 01:58:30 PM
Thanks Garret! Nice to hear. I agree with your suggestions. Post by: garret on November 27, 2006, 05:36:35 PM
I don't have any experience (yet) sending stuff off for mastering/duplication... but when I do my own d.i.y. mastering, I find the opposite to be true.... peak limiting seems to draw out the vocals, and I have to go back to the mix and drop the vocal a half db to compensate. I don't do a lot of eq in my d.i.y. mastering, though, so maybe that's the rub.. perhaps your mastering engineer of choice keeps knocking the upper mids down, and you keep cranking em to compensate? Or, perhaps it just depends on the mixer and the style of mixing... As for the overall question of appropriate vocal levels.. I always thought I was in the very loud camp, but after listening to this IMP, I'm not sure. I'm a singer, usually balladish stuff too, so you'd think I'd want more me more me. I don't work professionally doing mixing work, and I don't listen to what's on the charts much, so maybe I'm out of touch with what the kids are expecting to hear these days. -Garret Post by: UnderTow on November 27, 2006, 06:16:43 PM
Yeah the vocal is indeed a bit loud. My vocal perception is definetly skewed at the moment. I'm doing alot of TV work with heavily compressed voice overs so when I ran out of time, I thought I could get away with the mix the way it was.
I like the thickness on the vocal. Maybe thats that TV skewing messing with my judgement. And yes, the delay is out of time. I should have taken the time to get it right.
Thanks. Again that TV voice thing ... There is no automation in this mix. I ran out of time to get the details right. One of the things I should have done is set the vocal reverb send pre-inserts so that the natural dynamics of the singing would have made the reverb more dynamic. Unfortunately that means I would have had to do some processing on the send for which there was no time. I'm not sure what you are hearing. What did you think I had done?
Nope, no automation. I think things might get a bit clearer when I explain everything I did: There is the equivalent of 17 plugins in this mix (although some steps are combined within plugins). There is alot of compression going on.
My intention was to automate the output volume of the vocal track and I think that would make a more exciting mix.
I'll give full details in the techniques thread.
Agreed. This was a very good learning experience. Kevin, thanks again for the great material! Jeff, I still owe you an email response. Things have just been very hectic resently ... Alistair Post by: j.hall on November 27, 2006, 10:45:04 PM
i wanted to break IMP down to it's core. the concept here is to remove the mystery from the mixing process. the mystery being what the tracks were like raw when you hear a great mix and think, "how the hell do they do that?". this way, we all have the tracks, put our best fooot forward, and get a chance to say, "hey ________ that kick drum is killer, how did you get that kick to do that?" since you know EXACTLY what it started out as, and can hear what it ended up as. well, the more i thought about it, the more i realized that i put the cart before the horse. if we reduced the track count to something very minimal, but had a killer performance, by a great writer and player, recorded really well, MORE could be learned then just taking a high track count and playing with it. i knew that people would get this IMP a sneer at it, thinking it was too easy. but listen to how wildly different all the mixes are. THEN, stop listening to them from a technical stand point. and START listening to them to see if the mix itself makes you want to KEEP listening. that's what a mixer's job is. to put the whole thing together in a compelling way. to make the listener want to keep listening. some of these mixes do, some don't. that was the point of this particular IMP. small track counts, remove many things from your process......HOWEVER, they complicate things greatly because they force you make each element mean something......there are not enough tracks to call one "texture", everything we had here HAD to support the theme. so, with that in mind, perhaps you should listen to some, or all, of the submissions again with a different perspective. i'd like to see people change their lists to "which mixes kept me listening, and which didn't.....AND WHY" and don't give me a bunch of technical babble, tell me what about it was great or wasn't great. "the way the vocal comes off the speakers captures my attention" stuff like that. NOT, "the 5k spike in the vocal really annoys me" find the vibe, and the vision you dig, and then find out how the mixer did it!!!! Post by: gatino on November 28, 2006, 12:27:08 AM
sounds good. can you start us off? being completely green i wasn't planning it this time around, but i'll jump in anyway later this week. Post by: ATOR on November 28, 2006, 08:00:41 AM
You're making a great point here. I usually made mixes the way I thought they were supposed to be from a rather technical view. Even if a mix turned out good they never really excited or grabbed me. With your comments from the previous IMP in mind, this was the first mix that I made 'What do I need to keep listening' my primary goal. For me that meant dynamics that really drag you in and adding FX because I get easily bored I think you still need the technical guy around for fixing the annoying 5k spike in the vocal but my mixing will definitely change for the good with the 'make me move' guy in the drivers seat. Thanks J. Post by: mattrussell on November 28, 2006, 08:02:47 AM
thanks for saying this j. it's pretty much why i haven't jumped in and said too much. vibe is everything and each mix has a different one. some are good and make me want to hear the whole thing and some are bad and make me want to shut it off after two lines of vocal. connecting with the song is the whole deal and those who spend time nit picking over the tiniest of details are missing the point. that said, i still like polce's, UnderTow's and frankly, i still like my mix. this has been a great IMP. whatever you choose to do for the next one, please try to make it as interesting as this one. Post by: j.hall on November 28, 2006, 12:18:02 PM
at one point in my life i was quite the tennis player. my personal coach was a bit unorthodox, which made for a perfect match with me and him. anyway, he told me something i've never forgotten that can be applied to this topic. he said at the peak of my physical ability, "at this point, you will only lose matches because your mind could not keep up. your body is trained, it's now up to you mind to do the work. at a certain point, the game becomes 80% mental and 20% physical simply due to the fact that your body has been trained and conditioned for this level of work" so, assume i'm your mixing coach. i'm telling you that you've trained your ears in a technical way, and you've focused your auditory mind to a technical one, that is no longer the issue. NOW, you have to take all that technical knowledge and apply it to the REAL task. the hardest one there is, art! it's time to make the technical the 20% and the art 80% this, is exactly what IMP is all about. Post by: ScotcH on November 28, 2006, 01:40:04 PM
Woah ... dude, you just blew my mind! I drive a race car, and the same advice comes up all the time ... drive the track in your mind, and your body will follow ... don't focus on the details, like gas pedal, shifting, etc. I can see how this can be applied to mixing. Once you know HOW to tweak an EQ or comp, let your perception of the artistic aspects of the mix drive the decisions you make when you move the controls. I'm going to take the time to relisten to the mixes again, and redo my mix with what you wrote in mind. I'm really looking forward to more of these! Great opportunity for noobs like me to get feedback! Thanks! Post by: gatino on November 30, 2006, 10:39:34 AM
hehe... the only verb i used was on the vocal, front and center. there were very short delays (w/o verb) on the vox going left and right trying to make it phat. (i think doubling the vox would be better, but they didn't give us that.) thx for the comments. i've learned a lot from everyone. Post by: rankus on December 01, 2006, 02:44:49 PM
I noted this in my comments. I mentioned that "I found this mix engaging" etc. to the mixes I thought captured this elusive phenom.... specifically to address this because I agree with J 100%... I believe the term used is "suspension of disbelief", whereby the listener forgets they are listening to a recording and "buys into" the song completely. This was my goal with this IMP (Don't worry J we are listening) I hope I managed to at least come close (plosives aside) It would be really nice if others kicked in their comments as J has asked... It may be painful to hear, for the mixer and probably just as difficult for the commenter... but this is why we are here. Growth sometimes requires some pain, so suck it up you pansies and let me/us have it with both barrels! Don't let this important IMP go out with a whisper! Post by: ATOR on December 01, 2006, 05:59:07 PM
Maybe I was naive in believing human beings normally put one compressor over a vocal There was no way you could have reduced the dynamic range that much and still have it sound good with a single compressor so I assumed you used automation. I've taken another shot at the mix and this time I put 3 compressors over the vocal and got a big vocal without obvious compression artefacts. Sometimes more is more. Post by: ATOR on December 01, 2006, 06:52:54 PM
I've been thinking about this a lot and it reminds me of a masterclass I had from guitarist Jim Hall. It was about creating music and getting loose from scales, chords and their functions. We had to completely detune our guitars so we couldn't use our mind or motoric fingerpatterns to find notes. Then we had to play a note and listen to it. Then play another and listen to the sound of those two notes. He basically made us bypass all the technical stuff and make beautiful sounds. I thought it was bullshit back then, why make it hard on yourself when you know what scale to play and what goes well with a II-V-I progression. I took the technical approach and I guess that's why I never turned out to be a good guitarplayer and eventually quit because playing became boring. Now I'm on my way back to making music, this time in mixing, with another J. Hall and I realize I'm being put back at the same crossroads: make technically good music or make inspired music from the heart. Making music from the heart scares me but this time I know where the other road leads. It's time to detune my guitar Post by: j.hall on December 01, 2006, 07:55:18 PM early next week looks promising. Post by: maxim on December 01, 2006, 09:38:43 PM "...make technically good music or make inspired music from the heart" both Post by: gatino on December 01, 2006, 11:12:22 PM
music is inspired first and technical last. form and analysis comes after the fact! i believe the german sixth (or italian, french, whatever your pref) chord was originally nothing more than a happy accident. know what i mean? Post by: UnderTow on December 12, 2006, 06:05:49 PM First up, te recording and performance are very nice. This, in a sense, was more challenging than having loads of tracks to play with. Things had to be right because there was no where to hide. I listened to the material to get an idea of what to do. I don't listen to much music with vocals so I asked my girlfriend for something. She gave me Christina Aguilera - Hurt. That helped me decide to go for a big pollished pop sound. Techniques: Tracks loaded into Sonar 6. Piano panned hard left and right and sent to a bus. Room track not used mainly because it was mono and it would be harder to integrate it into an artificial reverb instead of just faking the whole space. Vocal pre-processing: First I loaded the vocal into SoundForge and hipassed all the pops at arround 300Hz. I also selected all the big ticks and used the smooth function in SF to remove them. Vocal chain: - PSP MasterQ Hipass at 120 Hz 24 dB/Oct. HiShelf at 10Khz + 2.8 dB. - Voxengo Voxformer in dual band mode. Cross Over at 1.4Khz. About 2 - 3 dB of compression on the low band. 0.5 to 1.5 dB on the high band. De-Esser set to 6Khz about 2 dB of De-Essing. Alot of the "Presence" knob but set to 100Hz. This give back the weight that was hipassed by the MasterQ. - VC-64 Vintage Channel 3 - 4 dB of De-Essing at 3.3 Khz. 2 - 4 dB of compression quite fast attack, slow release, ratio 1.4:1, smooth mode. Another HiPass at 91 Hz, 3 dB boost at 160Hz 3.4 dB Boost at 5Khz (Q 0.7 in both cases). - Sent to Global Reverb and Vocal Reverb. - Output to Master Bus. I should have done some volume automation so that it started off a bit softer and grew with the song. Next time better. Vocal reverb - Wizooverb W2 set to Choir Cathedral IR with 4.2s time. - PSP MasterQ: Hipass at 60Hz, LoShelf at 840Hz -2 dB, -1.5 dB at 250Hz Q 0.4. LoPass at 7.8Khz 12/Oct. The vocal reverb goes to the master bus but also to the global reverb. One thing I should have done is set the vocal send to the global reverb pre inserts so that the reverb gets bigger when the vocals gets bigger. I forgot ... :/ Piano bus: - VC-64 Vintage Channel: Between 1 to 3 dB of compression (Attack 14.5ms, release 100ms, ratio 1.5:1, mode smooth and optical. Hipass at 30Hz. - PSP MasterQ: Another Hipass at 30Hz 24 dB/Oct. LoShelf at 700Hz -0.6 dB, -2 dB at 270Hz Q 0.4, +2 dB at 90Hz Q 0.3, +0.7dB at 6Khz Q 0.3 - Output to master bus and send to Global Reverb Global reverb: - Wizooverb W2 set to Large Chamber IR with 1.6s time. - PSP MasterQ: Same as Vocal verb EQ. There is a short amount of delay at one point on the vox. I just used the Sonitus delay for that. Stereo bus: - Waves SSL Stereo bus comp: Between 0.5 - 3.5 dB of compression. (Attack 1ms, Release Auto, Ratio 4:1) - Voxengo Warmifier set to 6550 emulation. (For fake analogue warmth) - Voxengo Warmifier set to 12AT7 emulation. (For more fake analogue warmth) - Voxengo Elephant set to EL-3 mode. Max 0.7 dB limiting on the left channel at the loudest peak. DC filter 18 Hz Butterworth which gives a nice sound to the low-end IMO. r8brain free for sample rate conversion to 44.1Khz. Alistair Post by: j.hall on December 15, 2006, 05:06:47 PM i promise to get more involved to better steer what i want people to learn. sorta hard to get there when the "teacher" never shows up for class. HAHAHAHA Post by: chrisj on December 15, 2006, 09:55:03 PM Post by: j.hall on December 17, 2006, 04:19:15 PM we all know that commenting takes a time investment. i'll make it happen......eventually. as for understanding, well......i think that mainly boils down to if the comments i give make much sense to the specific approach you like to take to music. i think many people on here think i over compress. though, more often then not, i have to tell my clients that's i can not compress it anymore then i am.......yes, i have many people ask me for more. so, any of my comments need to be weighted against MY work. my actual work should speaks volumes as to what i might have to say about some one elses work. Post by: garret on December 17, 2006, 04:59:01 PM
I don't think you over compress, but I do get a feeling of muscularity from all your mixes. I can always pick out your mixes from the set... this time around, btw, I listened to the tracks blind... (I imported em all into my daw, hid the track names, and took notes by track number only.) The thing I'm most interested in knowing is if you think my mixes are ever hitting that elusive magic that you describe so well... personally think I get there sometimes, but I don't really know. -G Post by: cerberus on December 18, 2006, 01:44:53 AM the ugly truth is that i spent half the time tuning-up the vocal. not even mixing. i thought it would be fun and challenging to do what at first seemed impossible; and to see if i could pass off this trick in front of other engineers. (now, i expect you can hear it if you know...) whatever it sounds like... it took a LOT of effort.. [stereo? i ran out of time...i threw a "hail mary pass" at it...] did i say that already? the tuning part is why. some of you noticed some oddness.. it does come through on one or two long notes. but i am a little proud of at least that. some said my piano treatment was less than thrilling, which means i need to improve the compromise more. but i learned that it is possible to tune these vocals to use pitch, not just timbre and dynamics and overall low-mid-high balance and stereo... and get away with it. most of this time i spent was on an aspect of the song that nobody guessed... and.... now i wonder. was it a selfish approach? wrong for the song? did it occur to anyone to actually try and re-tune the vox? of course it soured the piano slightly... that was how ii wanted to make it work.. that it could sound really sad and i wanted just the right amount of tension and drift in the pitch for each phrase and in some cases note by note. anyone else? jeff dinces Post by: chrisj on December 18, 2006, 07:51:09 AM Post by: ATOR on December 18, 2006, 10:01:40 AM
I fixed a long out of tune note in the vocal but the out of tune piano spill that accompanied the tuned vocal made me ditch it. Instead I doubled the chorus lead with detuned versions to sort of mask the out of tune notes. Post by: j.hall on December 18, 2006, 10:15:46 AM if he hits a bad note, focus less on the bad note and focus more on how to capitalize off it. bob dylan has been doing this to great success for YEARS. this is a perfect example of when to take your technical prowess and put it away for a moment. Post by: j.hall on December 18, 2006, 10:45:43 AM your piano treatment is really nice. right off the bat, i want to listen a bit further to see how things develope. you used the sharp attack of the piano to your advantage in a nice way. the bottom end of the piano is pretty thin, but can be excused for the moment. the vocal comes in. this is when i would turn it off. the vocal effects don't match the piano. 90% of the listeners (educated in audio or not) want a solo piano and vocal performance to sit in the same space. mentally, they are visualizing a guy at a piano, playing and singing at the same time, i.e. elton john. i think we all agree on this. so, with that in mind, your vocal treatment, doesn't match the piano. the plosives on the vocal mic are distracting. roll off the vocal mic until the bottom of his actual voice rolls off. i want to hear that vocal compressed hard to give it the same edge your piano has. visualize these two elements as one. marry them, literally. think of all the stereotypes you have a piano playing singer and ldo not hesitate to play into them. if the piano has a sharp attack, make his vocal identical. in songs like this i will pay closer attention to lyrical content. if the song has a darker lyrical point, i might make the mix dark to instantly put your mind into that place. OR, i might make it very bright and smooth to keep a person from killing themselves when they really dig into the lyrics. you have to focus a mix like this around the only elements you have....piano, vocal, lyrics. if you have time, i'd like to hear a recall, i do not expect it, but it would be cool to hear how my comments shift your focus and see what you might do with it now. i'm going to do two more of these in the next few days. Post by: chrisj on December 19, 2006, 12:37:26 AM
I'd like people to have the impression that I'm a good person to ask for stuff, so of course you can have that- here. http://download.yousendit.com/795460CF0EE14AFE Here's what happened. I ditched the no-EQ experiment in order to do the stuff you asked for- more bass on the piano, de-pop roll-offs and such things. There's an air boost on the vox, a really narrow sheen boost on the piano, a 'body' boost low in the vox and the bass boost on the piano. I started throwing on compression (actually a sort of limiter I like) on the vox and pushing it a lot harder, slowing down the attack, and the articulation and animation of the vocals started to jump up until I was able to make it go in front of and dominate the piano, or set back and lay behind the piano. So I made them match like you suggested. I think it worked, man- thanks bigtime- can you follow up on the revision and render an opinion on whether you think it worked? Post by: j.hall on December 19, 2006, 11:00:26 AM
certainly. the piano is more inviting, i'd still go bigger on the bottom, but this works. the vocal is so much better. it's a touch muddy, but i can live with it. i'm wanting the vocal to be compressed a bit harder with a slow attack. you've got it super smooth, which is great, i'm just wanting some edge to it. yeah chris, this is really good. any of the above comments are just nit picking. as the track developes i'm less prone to comment on the the slightly muddy vocal tone. if this mix were on a record i'd think nothing of it. thanks for doing the recall. i hope my comments were helpful to you for future application. the track just ended, man that is night and day compared to your first version, SO MUCH more inviting and intimate. you made me keep listening, which is hard to do for a song i've heard a thousand times. Post by: chrisj on December 19, 2006, 05:41:40 PM Looking forward to the next IMP... |