R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: j.hall on January 09, 2007, 06:50:55 pm

Title: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 09, 2007, 06:50:55 pm
have at it.  tons of submissions and it's only 6:00 pm
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: iCombs on January 10, 2007, 02:32:03 am
I'd like to kick things off...

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.  I am definitely from the stereo drum camp, and I know I did it because I've wanted to for a long time but I never actually wanted to do the tracking work.  Plus, the drum parts were condusive to doubling i.e., they weren't fill-heavy.  Thoughts as to why people chose to do it the ways they did?

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.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 10, 2007, 04:42:35 am
Hello,

My Comments on few first submissions:
Don't take personal:)

Greg_Dixon_IMP9.mp3
   SN: Phasing issues
   HH: Are you using two HH tracks? Why you have HH hiting each beat? sounds  weird.
   BD: Boxy, not Deep, probably also Phasing issues
   Base: Too much annoying, overtones no crossover with Guit, feels hell limited with bad limiter.
   Guit: Positioned good, sounds a little bit weak. No Lowpass EQ above 8k, too noisy.
   Vox: Positioned too far, no focal point emphasized with EQ and dips in same freq on Guitar.
   Overral: separation is not good.
   Arrangement: Quite too much noise for me, sorry and too much variation.

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.

IMP9_judah.mp3:Not able to play mp3, will re-download.

IMP9chrisj.mp3:
   SN: sounds like Greg_Dixon_IMP9.mp3
   HH: EQ good, HH play each hit.
   BD: i cannot feel it.
   Base: My god, base takes whole spectrum:) and hell limited:) huge overtones and limiting distortion.
   Guit: No separation from bass, nothing interesting
   Vox: Limited spectrum, sounds distant.
   Overral: Mixing with eyes and using spectrogramm could bring better results:) terribly much base:)
   Arrangement: I liked very much ending with coming um guitar! great idea.


IMP9dconstruction.mp3:
   SN: Snare is ok, for elctronica style.
   HH: HH don't work with snare. In Elecctronica it requires teribble filtering. Not big fan of this style althru. You can use STYLUS, it is simple and no need to think.
   BD: BD is not well defined. More bigger BD required.
   Base: Too thin for my taste.
   Guit: Too far, but works good in this arrangement, just cannot comment much on guit.
   Vox: My god... De-Esser!!!!!
   Overral:, i liked this arrangement and style it have some interesting aspekts, one thing let me smile is Rhodes with Delay in opposite speaker.

IMP9henchman.mp3:
   SN: one of best snares here, unfortunately too thin and too much voltage rising speed will create distortion in consumer DA Converters, consider using layering, parallel compression, sustain attenuation techniques, etc
. Neve EQ and good compressors make difference: use Focusrite D3 if you don't have hardware.
   HH: Sounds ok to me
   BD: Sounds ok to me
   Base: Sounds better then my, more clear.
   Guit: Sounds ok.
   Vox: Great treatment.
   Overral: Great Separation, maybe too good:)
   Arrangement: i like thease effects.

imp9-maxim.mp3: Not able to play file, will re-download.
macmandude_imp9tk1 192.mp3: Not able to play file, will re-download.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Tom C on January 10, 2007, 04:46:36 am
Hiya everybody.

Probably everyone (myself included) needs some days to go through
all the submissions, so I think I'll post my general thoughts
about MY mix (TomC-IMP9.mp3) and why I did or did
not things to it.
It'll give you also an idea what my feedback to your particular
song is based on.

About the song:

- at times, it's a mess and that's good. I see the guys playing
  that song very late in the night in some not so noblesse bar,
  lots of smoke in the air, some seamen around, the air
  smells whiskey and rum.
  Cleaning it up would have destroyed that mood which IMO makes
  up the song.
  If you don't belief me just listen to it after, let's say, some
  glasses of good old Scottish Single Malt whisky (no, that blended
  crap from Georgs's Bushland won't work).

- I like the song a lot, but somehow couldn't emotionally connect
  to the vocals in the verses which should be a bit more
  emotional. Monsieur Johnny Melodyne added some background vox
  to make it more interesting, give it more life.
  And of course there was lots of vocal riding.

- I love the chorus vocals, they support the mood of the song very
  good. Not much to do there

...back to listening...
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Thomas Lester on January 10, 2007, 08:05:39 am
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 guess I'm in the third camp.  I mixed on set of drums, but in stereo (panned).

-Tom
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 10, 2007, 08:47:01 am
I completely replaced BD track with Sound Replacer and with sample from DFH2.

I mixed 3 original tracks for snare, but aligned them first with Sound replacer replacing to the hit from another tracks.
so D1 top was present 3 times and replaced 2 times with hit from D2 top and D1 bottom.

As for HH i choose best track from two and left it.
Not used OH.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 10, 2007, 10:21:13 am
Thomas Lester:

your mix is very well balanced.  overall, i'd call this a good rough mix.  nothing about the mix makes me want to listen past the first vocal line.

to me, the charm of this song IS it's loose playing, sloppy vocal performance, and two drum kits.

with that in mind, you have to realize that few others will agree with me.  you have to make all these elements that people typically think of as a negative and spin them into a positive.

how exactly does a mixer do that.  well, i'd say by making everything wrong, and some how piecing it back together as right.

your outro with the noisey melody, makes that part seem far away.  with the way your mix is built, that part should absolutely dominate.  this song gives you so few moments to capitalize on, that walking away from one of them is fatal.

basically, i think you took a subdued song and turned up the subdued.

on a positive note (cause being negative all the time is just rude)

your balance really is great.  most of the mixes i hear out of these IMPs have low end, or low mid problems, i'm not hearing any of that in your mix.  the kick drum sounds great, and the bass is balanced with it very well.

overall, i think you did what you set out to do, i just don't think you went nearly far enough for this particular song.

not that my mix is killer, but certainly reference it for something with 10 times the sonic vibe then yours and see if you agree with my comments at all.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: scott volthause on January 10, 2007, 10:27:11 am
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.



When I first loaded up the tracks, I knew deep down that these were two performances that needed to be panned hard L and R. Unfortunately, my brain rejected the notion, for some odd reason, so I went with the standard "drums up the middle" approach. I did use both overheads though, in a mock stereo arrangement, in some places.

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.


I was working fast through it, and it was a decision I made early on that I wanted it to be in a location, not just dry. It started with a light room on the drums, and turned into a variety of stuff being sent to the room, then a number of delays, and then even a plate on the snare. It was an accumulation, if you will.

Or maybe more like an avalanche.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 10, 2007, 10:35:11 am
iCombs: I'm definitely in the 2 kits, L/R camp.  I tracked it that way.  The beat is so simple - by both necessity and design; the singer was drumming - that I think it lends itself to this treatment.  One, being simple, it's easy to do without worrying too much about swift, head-spinning flams, and two, it adds a complexity and interest.

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.

On an overall note, I'd like to congratulate the Texas boys for their contributions.  This is a generality and not meant to be too jingoistic, but the tracks from Scott Oliphant, Nick Evans and Wes Pitzer are some of my favorites so far (there are so many!).  Nick's mix wins the Completely Unofficial and Ultimately Meaningless Dynamics Award.  That first verse is so tiny and "real" - great contrast with the big chorus.

Not that other regions are all that shabby.  The Central/Mid West Region is representing well.

I have some problems with the former Soviet states, I have to admit.

So many mixes....looking forward to digging in on my monitors soon.

L


[edit: I mislabeled Nick's mix and didn't give him proper credit]
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Adam Miller on January 10, 2007, 10:49:19 am
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,


Laughing Laughing  Laughing

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: garret on January 10, 2007, 11:00:58 am
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.



I gave a quick listen with both kits active, but decided they were so similar that the flammy effect of different timing problems in each take was killing the groove... I ended up mostly using set 1 of drum tracks, but as you can hear in my mix, I went nutty from there...  With the drums as provided, I just wasn't hearing the groove of the tune supported well enough.  The vocal, bass, and guitars get something great going, but the drum tracks just kept letting it down.

So I did some shenanigans... a tempo sync'd delay on the hat, a ton of subtractive editing (letting the kit elements come in slowly for drama -- kick first, then add snare, the hat in the chorus, etc...).   I also threw the kick through a delay, and edited in a few measures of that when I thought the drums were sounding dull again...  Oh, and there's also a bit of extra special sauce on mix to tighten things up.  Bonus points to the first person who can identify what it is.

Yah, it's excessive tweakery, but I'm happy with the results. Wink  Whatever works, eh?

-Garret
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Cary Holding on January 10, 2007, 11:07:28 am
I’ve been pretty busy with paying gigs – I wish I had more time for this.

Listening to the mixes, panning the two kits was a great idea – one that never occurred to me.  I suspected they were two takes so I simply picked one.  I’ll consider that trick when and if it ever comes my way again.

I took that ambient delay regen part from the ‘Chop’ track and reversed it.  I used that for the intro and timed it so the guitar starts to come in just as the verse starts.

I used a guitar amp sim on the bass guitar to get some distorted cabinet sound.

For the guitar track, I comp’d a second guitar track for the second verse and most of the rest of the song.  I didn’t just want to use both mics and hard pan them – I want to create the sense of a real second take.  For the second verse, it’s actually the playing that was on one of the other verses.  Same for the repeat of the chorus.  I don’t know if I’ve explained that clearly, but close listening should reveal it.

There is some pretty cool stuff going on in the mixes I’ve listened to.  I’d like to comment on all, but for now:

J hall – I love the sound on the chorus vocals.
Henchman – great idea for the tambourine!
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: ATOR on January 10, 2007, 11:07:49 am
Last night I skipped through the submissions and found that these recordings handle mix abuse very well. It just will not sound wrong whatever weird things you do.

It made me realise that I took a wrong approach. I tried to make it sound good while instead I should have mixed it in 30 minutes with focus on enhancing the mess instead of cleaning up.

I'll try the alternate way to find out if I'm right.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Thomas Lester on January 10, 2007, 11:09:13 am
Hey J -

Thanks for the report on my mix.  I'm honored that you'd dedicated a whole post to just me  Razz

BTW...  my link broke on the submission list, here's mine:  http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP9_tlester.mp3

I didn't spend a tremendous amount of time on this, but I think I did accomplish what I was setting out to do.  I approached the dirty rhodes as more of a ghosty pad.  This was my intention from the start after first brought the faders up.  I like it featured, like in your mix, too.  I immediately heard (in my head) a kind of "With or Without You" type ending.  And actually...  after going back and listening to the ending of "With Or Without You", I think I could have ridden the rhodes up a bit more in the end.

I've had a lot of fun listening to the various versions.  This was my first IMP.  I wish I had more free time to do this kind of thing, but it was very fun.  I plan on doing 10 when it's ready.

-Tom


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 10, 2007, 12:33:41 pm
Adam Miller wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 09:49

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,


Laughing Laughing  Laughing




Have i said something funny?
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: ATOR on January 10, 2007, 12:42:30 pm
Yup I was right. I pushed up the faders, ran a couple of tracks through a tubedriver, added a phaser and within 30mins I had a mix that I like way better than my old one. It still sounds like shit but this time it's supposed to sound like shit Very Happy  

(I also took special care of getting extra high voltage rising speeds Twisted Evil  )

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: garret on January 10, 2007, 01:31:30 pm
Dang, there's a ton of submissions... been listening/reviewing for an hour, and I'm only half way through.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 10, 2007, 01:42:09 pm
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  Razz

BTW...  my link broke on the submission list, here's mine:  http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP9_tlester.mp3





you link is fixed in the submission thread.

no sweat on the post, i plan to pick three more entries to review

i've listened to all of them, just need to go back and pick the three i think show different things worth discussing.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 10, 2007, 01:44:39 pm
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 11:33



Have i said something funny?


i think in general you are focusing a lot on the technical, which is what we are trying to get away from.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: scottoliphant on January 10, 2007, 02:04:44 pm
My thoughts:
Love the tune. right up my alley, have recorded / played with folks who have the same "vibe" or "style" or whatever you want to call it. I've been trying to use these imps as a way to really look at the song from the outside and find the emotional thing within the song, and then try to bring that out. It's harder on stuff I work on, and am deep in the weeds with. Something I'm striving to get better at. It's easier here, when the song is fresh to my ears. I didn't use any sound replacement, or editing of drums / other intruments. I don't think it detracted much from the song for this guys audience, or for me. I latched on to the "anthemic" quality of the song, and wanted to try and bring that out. kind of an arcade fire / spiritualized / wolf parade thing in my mind while working.

My comments:
Everyone did a nice job, please don't take anything personal =) just wanted to give my honest reaction to the mixes.

greg dixon - nice use of the high double pass part. kind of old school there. could have done something more with the tamborine part? kudos for a "quiet" mix, nicely done.

nick evans - beginning seems a little sparse to me without the guitar, maybe cause i've heard it a hundred times the other way. something weird seems to be going on with the vox? see first verse "of a story stupid crippled and ancient", gets a little illegible, de-essing? there was quite a bit of sibilance there. in the first verse, it's very left speaker heavy, not a bad thing, jut an observation. the distorted rhodes seems to overpower the chorus in the end, which to me seemed the real anthemic / meat part of the song. good job though.

ATOR - little delay eh? nice. makes the drums feel like they were playing 8ths. missed a big crescendo at the end (and on quite of few of these). liked the removal of the drums at end, interesting take. nicely done

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.

maxim - low end! sounds like there is another bass sub part of something. losing the kick in the bass. the drum kit sounds like a snare, instead of kit. Vocals get louder in second verse? Interesting echo thing going on. whoa flanger! interesting take.

nizzle - high end seems a bit tweaky? seems to distract me, especially on the HH. makes drums seem a little mechanical. nice wide stereo spread. nice delay dive towards end, and effects work. good job

spoon - interesting panning. seems like more "life" could have been brought out of the drums. are the 2 guitar tracks panned opposite? makes for a slightly boxy sound. good job

icombs - a little limited =) ? kind of took something away from it for me. everything was brought way up against the speaker like i had my face pressed against the glass.

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.
hephaluem - HH and kick! interesting. almost sounds like a breakbeat thing, minus the fills. end sounds a little overlimited to me

judah - after some of the "bright" mixes, this one was like a throat lozenge. in a good way. losing kick. good job

mark fasse - nothing really jumping out at me as bad, but nothing else jumping out either. you've set the levels fairly well.

singsing- weird phasor or something on the bass? losing snare, maybe too much limiter for this exercise. the bass takes over for me at the end.

six wax - the balance seems weird on this, like something was flipped out of phase or something (right side?). the vocals sound way up, like it's a headphone mix, not sitting well for me in mix. I appreciate the phil spetcre-esque "bah-bah bah bah" at the end with the tamborine.

tlester - very pro-sounding "tight" mix. drum samples? doesn't totally fir the style of the song for me, or my aesthetic, but you've done a good job.

vkorehov - kind of late 80's / 90's sounding to me, take that for whatever it's worth. May be my personal aversion to the chorus like effect on the guitar. something weird happening to the drums in the chorus. same weird vocal thing, over essed maybe? interesting adding of the upper harmony. missing balls from the kick

chrisj - big ol bass.  seems to overpower the center of the mix a little. losing the drums in the chorus, and kick throughout

dconstruction - your tune! nicely done. maybe it's a little bias now we know it's you =).  nice tight lows. like the compressed drums. Was this mastered? only thing for me is the vocals lack any bottom, but probably for effect. thanks for the tune! good job again

henchman - wow, that's sparkle. I feel like I'm listening to a drum machine and an 80's cover band. chorus is nice.well balanced, just not my cup of tea

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

macmandude - the amp sim like effect on the vocal has some frequencies that are fatiguing for me. i like the overdriven bass. nice kick and tight drums. well balanced

tomc - the vocals are a little to phone line effected for me, along with the rest of it. I feel like there was a lot of high / low passing, and i'm getting mainly mid on the whole mix. the drums aren't doing anything for me, but as a drummer, I'm obsessive about drums.

wes pitzer - the tight little snare is a little funny for me in the chorus. the vocals seemed to have lost a lot of the mid and lows. the "pod" guitar as "main focus"in the end chorus takes away from the big emotional finish of the song. nice overall


thanks again! was fun
scott







(edited by the moderator to add carriage returns between reviews)
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: spoon on January 10, 2007, 02:21:53 pm
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

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.


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Cary Holding on January 10, 2007, 02:50:26 pm
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.



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.

Regarding the drums, those are the original drum tracks - not replaced.  I may have a little 12k high shelf on the OH.  I'll take a look later.

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.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: garret on January 10, 2007, 02:53:13 pm
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



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. Smile   There's enough rhythmic interplay in the guitars (especially the bass double, which ended up central to my mix after I reamped the heck out of it) 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
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: garret on January 10, 2007, 02:54:17 pm
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.



Agreed... I used only the beater track... I wonder what the story was with the resonant kick.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: scottoliphant on January 10, 2007, 03:06:11 pm
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.
It's not a personal attack, was just trying to give an honest review of what I heard. We all need to take things with a grain of salt, and need to expect to thicken up our skin a bit when we open ourselves up to critique by 20+ people with different aesthetics. Someone else may love your mix. Everyone may hate my mix. I'm open to whatever, and accept that due the nature of the beast. I wasn't trying to be mean, just report on my experience with the track. I heard some weird high pitched thing, maybe it was the mp3 compression, maybe it was just me, but i assumed not since i didn't hear it anywhere elsewhere. I'll check again when i get back home and see if i can be more specific.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: spoon on January 10, 2007, 03:07:35 pm
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."

Alot of my comments are rhetorical in that I am just observing what some people used and didnt use versus what I did or did not use...that Tamborine comment is exactly that.


Anyway, gold star to Garret...

spoon



garretg wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 13:53

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



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. Smile   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


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Cary Holding on January 10, 2007, 03:09:03 pm
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 15:06

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.
It's not a personal attack, was just trying to give an honest review of what I heard. We all need to take things with a grain of salt, and need to expect to thicken up our skin a bit when we open ourselves up to critique by 20+ people with different aesthetics. Someone else may love your mix. Everyone may hate my mix. I'm open to whatever, and accept that due the nature of the beast. I wasn't trying to be mean, just report on my experience with the track. I heard some weird high pitched thing, maybe it was the mp3 compression, maybe it was just me, but i assumed not since i didn't hear it anywhere elsewhere. I'll check again when i get back home and see if i can be more specific.


Thats fine Scott, I wasn't offended.  It's just if there's something wrong that I'm not hearing, I want to be able to understand why.  Thanks.  Smile
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: spoon on January 10, 2007, 03:12:11 pm
I think this one came out VERY well.  
I think every submission could be released to the public (with some minor mastering).

Well bowled sirs, well bowled!


Here are my notes and observations:

ATOR- Very nice.  Nice vox, clear, not silabant.  Nice Rhodes panning. Great balance. Nice polished mix. Didnt use the tamborine huh.##

Cary- Very smooth intro, nice touch.  Tight drums, nice (replaced ?).  Nice Vox, but low...chorus even lower. Good instrument balance. Like the "additional guitar" added in 1st verse. Nice polished mix. Didnt use the tamborine huh.##

Chrisj- Raw...like that.  The guitars are in a midrange-box-room.  A bit bass heavy...puts the drums in the back abit much as well as the other accent instruments; very appearant in the outro.  Nice vocal treatment. abit low though.  Like the instrument growth on the second chorus. Didnt use the tamborine huh.

dconstruction- Are the leftside drums replaced?  Very drum-machine sounding...interesting effect.  Vocal forward, nice...the verse vox treatment makes the chorus vox seem muffled.  Like the delay on the Wurlitzer...very smooth.  Used the Tamborine.

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.

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.

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.

Henchman- Nice crisp, tight drums.  Wonderful vox treatment on verse...nice presence.  Good balance overall.  Chorus vox is abit low.  Nice chorus instrument balance.  The FX on the chorus rhodes was very nice (filetered delay with some reverb?).  Smart outro. Didnt use the tamborine huh.

HephaLuemp-  Raw intro.  Did you mono all the drum tracks?  Very nice verse vox, nice treatment and volume.  Nice chorus vox.  I like what you did to the rhodes at chorus time, fills up the track nicely.  Sounds even better on the outro.  Used the tamborine!

iCombs-  Great instrument balance....use of both drums. The vocals have an interesting squished quality to them...did you do anything out of the ordinary to them? Didnt use the tamborine huh.

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.

LouMan- Very nice balance, instruments and vocals...drums seems a bit low only during the chorus.  Phasey chorus vocals blend with the rhodes nicely. Didnt use the tamborine huh.

MarkFasset- I like the vocal FX...I could use a little more volume.  I like the bass heavy kick...creates a driving quality that moves the song along.  I like the fade out of the last chorus vox, nice touch.  Hey, used the tamborine.

Max-  Cool FX on the right channel mimicing the wurlitzer.  Nice reuse of that instrument too.  Great vocal treatment.  A bit bass heavy, demotes the drums a bit.  Like the outro FX on the bass.  Hey another tamborine.

Mark Evans-  Nice sparse intro, tight and dry.  Good balance...more verse vocals ( touch), great at the chorus.  Rhodes a bit much at the chorus.  Good overall feel.  Used the Tamborine.

NickT- Tight drums (replaced ?).  Nice crisp feel to the mix, good balance.  Like the vocal treatment and presence. Smooth outro.

Nizzle-  Very spacious mix.  Love the Wurlitzer FX.  Wish the vocals had a bit more volume.  Good song balance.  Nice vibe...again very spacious, gives it the "live" feeling.  The chorus vocals need more volume.  Love the "fly-bys" in the 2nd chorus.

Rankus- Dry tight groove.  Like the drum treatement.  The vox is very nice, but a tad low.  Nice chorus vocals.  Like the outro treatment on the Rhodes.  Used the Tamborine!

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.

Scott Oliphant-  Spacious mix...I am a sucker for reverb.  I like the vocal treatment.  The drums have a crisp snare, did you replace it? Good overall balance.  The chorus seemed just a tad unfocused.  Fun outro (filters and such).  Backwards Tamborine!!

singsing-  Good drum treatment.  Song has a dry immediate feel.  Very nice vocals on verse and chorus.  Tamborine!

six wax-  Nice warm, tight drums, good balance with nice vocal treatment. Chorus sounds dood, too.  Like the outro treatment Tamborine!

tlester-  Nice drums, crisp and tight (did you replace the snare?).  Nice Vox sound all around, immediate and intimate verse vox.  No Tamborine.

TomC-  Box sounding mix, lots of mids.  Nice vocal harmonies (what did you use?).  Small drums. Nice chorus vox.  Tamborine!

Undertow-  Big drums (replaced?)...sound good.  Bass makes the verse vox sound low.  No Tamborine.

VKorehov-  A bit of a muddy mix...cant tell if it is from the bass or the guitar FX.  Overall the feel is very intimate and foward even with the ambient guitars.  Given the busy mix, the vox appear to be a tad low in volume.  No Tamborine.

Volthouse- The mix sounds pressed.  It has good balance with the bass and guitars fight ever so slightly for the same space.

Redfro- Very nice balance.  Vox is a bit low or the bass is a bit high.  The mix has a bit of a dark quality over it which I assume is by design...what did you use?  Like the chorus vocal FX.  Breaks up the conservative classic-ness of the verse.  Yay, Tamborine! (walking even.)
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: garret on January 10, 2007, 03:15:58 pm
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."



Thanks very much.  I did use the tamb, btw... starts around 2:45.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 10, 2007, 03:39:38 pm
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.



distortion is a combo of things.  Lo-Fi on vox, massive amounts of compression on the drums with release times that are too fast.  tambo is in there at the end.

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



no samples used on this mix.  you're just hearing some extreme compression on the right side kit.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: scottoliphant on January 10, 2007, 03:50:09 pm
Quote:

no samples used on this mix. you're just hearing some extreme compression on the right side kit.
cool, I did something similar, crushed the hell out of both left and right kit.  no samples. I loved the bottom snare mic.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 10, 2007, 04:01:51 pm
Scott Oliphant:

this is probably the closest mix to my own out of the lot.  not saying mine sets the bar, just saying it's fairly similar in the drum approach.  from there it goes another place.

so, aside from the drums, which i like your drum treatments a lot.....it sounds like a live band playing in an empty theater or medium sized club.

now, that feel can work for this song, however, your drums are a touch distorted, compressed and slammed right up front.

so either i'm sitting in the theater with two drummers right next to me and the whole band is up on the stage, or the drums were and after thought to a stereo mic being placed in the theater.

basically the point is this, you have to match all your physical spaces.  sure, you can have one or two elements outside of that (rich costey is incredible at doing this on the muse rec ords....mars volta as well)

here is what i would have done after getting those drum sounds.

realizing that a touch of distortion is the key ingredient to your drum sounds, and the dual kit panned is another.  i'd thin the bass out a touch (just a touch) and pan it hard left, just to see how that felt.  i'd for sure compress it in a bad way.  make it sound very wrong.

i'd use the pan knob as my weapon of choice on your mix.  EQ, compress to taste and jam all the elements right up front.  then pan them around till the whole thing just works.  with the drums you have, any time based effects (verb especially) will most likely not work.

think of those drums as the heartbeat and the bass as blood.  the rest of the elements have to do their thing, but rely heavily on the drums and bass for "life support"
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 10, 2007, 04:48:59 pm
I’m not going to make any “300-500hz” comments ‘cause I know I’d be speaking out of my ass.  I’ll try to limit my comments to the general approach and feel of each mix.  And, as with all Internet bloviating, feel free to ignore me entirely.

ATOR: a “distant” mix, with a lot of ambience, flanging, etc.  Nice, big use of the chorus vocals – pretty much as I imagined them when tracking.  I think you took a cue from the “retreat” of the vocals in that last chorus and played to a subtler end, with the exception of the big swell of the Chop guitar.  Used the tambourine as a hit in the last chorus, which is fine, I suppose.

Cary: Like ATOR, you used the Chop ambience up front.  Nice idea.  Drums up the middle, and perhaps a bit too “sparkly” for my taste on this song.  I think the faux second guitar is a great idea and lends a good depth to the song.  Even still, the verse seems a bit narrow to me, and I was hoping for more expansion in the chorus.  Didn’t happen.

ChrisJ: One of the several mixes that kept the guitar count-off in the mix.  Plus a bit of a noisy start.  Why?  The bass may be a bit too forward, and seems all one big, furry frequency.  The drums seem buried and distant.  I do like the size of the chorus vox.  Overall, this seems to be a “veiled” mix.  The Wurly, Rhodes and Guitar all seem clouded a bit – and whoa! did you mix that one Chop guitar hit loud.  Was that on purpose?  

Dconstruction: My mix.  Actually, about my fifth mix.  This was my “reset switch” mix in which I pulled up the tracks fresh, just like all of you, in an attempt to forget I tracked the thing.  I had a previous conversation with J.Hall about the strategy in approaching this mix, and I do think you’ll hear a similarity of intent in our two mixes.  The vocals are a little spitty – I probably could have de-essed further.  And some of the delays on the Wurly bug me.  I’m awestruck by the ability of some of you to get such fullness out of a kick drum.  I’d like to learn the tricks of doing so.  I’m just now figuring the snare out.  Kick will be next.  To answer Scott, no this wasn’t mastered.  I did have the Waves SSL comp across the 2-bus (about 4db reduction, 30ms attack) running into a multi-band comp that was doing very little (<1db reduction on all bands; maybe up to 2db on bass).  And to answer Spoon, no: no drum replacement.  I tried to get two good, distinct and “normal” drum sounds out of each pair.  On the right, I gated and EQ’d only.  On the left, I gated and compressed.  Then I bounced those down to mono tracks and screwed with them, blowing out the right side and running the left through about three additional compressors to get them very present and snappy.  I succeeded only about 70%.

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.

Gatino: Another in the drums-up-the-middle school.  The vox is nice and forward.  Another “narrow” mix, for me.  Though everything sounds OK, nothing is really speaking to me here.  The kick seems lost, too.  I think a lot was left on the table with this mix.

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).

Henchman: Whew: watch that voltage rising speed (I kid; I kid).  VERY sparkly drum sound.  Yet, the vox is kinda dull, boxy.  All I hear is that splash of the snare and tambourine.  I like the tambourine, actually; I figure if you’re not going to use the two kits, then the tambourine does a good job of adding to the chorus part.  I don’t hear much chorus vox at all.  That’s a shame.  Were you the one that gave up on them because of intonation?  Hmm.  Another fadeout.  Overall, I don’t know if this mix, if I may be so bold, indicates that the song was really understood.  I think it misses the mark, not technically, but spiritually.

HephaLuemp – First off, why keep the bass squeak and guitar count-off?  Drums up the middle, but this time, they’re approached more like a drum machine.  Did you quantize these?  There’s still the little lag in the hats during the break at the top of the song, but the drums seem more mechanical.  That kick is super floppy.  This is a compliment; I like it.  I think you realized that the drums were there for their character more than their part.  The chorus vox are a bit spitty (mine are, too), but with the delay, it becomes distracting.  Ah, you used the blip on the Chop guitar, too.  That wasn’t mean to be in the mix.  Is there a reason you (and several others) kept it?  All in all, this mix sounds much like my tracking mix, though with much better (and mono) drums.

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.

J Hall: You brought out an interesting ring in the leftside snare.  I didn’t like it at first, but it’s grown on me.  I can feel the kick in this one.  What did you do there?  I feel my mix’s kick is a bit, uh, unendowed.  This represents the song well.  I like the big second half of the last chorus.  Without it being overtly obvious – with the exception of the introduction of the Chop guitar – it gets bigger, somehow.

Judah: A darker mix.  This seems to fit again into the group of mixes that, given a few aesthetic choices, “gets” the song and portrays it well.  Nothing’s “wrong” with this mix, to my ears.  Maybe a touch soft around the edges, but certainly not “wrong.”  Good job.  

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?

MacManDude: Midrange!  I hear a weird, high-pitch, scratchy distortion on the guitar.  Almost as if there’s a second track of really screwed up fizzy stuff tucked under the original.  Almost sounds ring-modulator like. I’m not sure about that stuff.  Nice tight drums, though.  I can’t make a decision on the vocal treatment.  Do I like it?  I don’t know.

Mark Fasset: A narrow mix.  Though the chorus vox are panned wide and the guitar’s pretty far off to the right, I still hear this mix as constrained, pinched up the center.  It sounds small.  

Ugh.  Can’t continue right now.  Too.  Much.  Same.  Song.

More later.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Thomas Lester on January 10, 2007, 04:53:08 pm
scottoliphant wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:04

tlester - very pro-sounding "tight" mix. drum samples?


Nope....   that was just the D2 drums, just EQ'd and a little compression.   Some reverb added as well.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: UnderTow on January 10, 2007, 04:55:07 pm
spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 21:12



Undertow-  Big drums (replaced?)...sound good.  Bass makes the verse vox sound low.  No Tamborine.



Indeed, no tamborine. And there is something else missing too. Smile

About the drums: No, no samples used. Just loads of compression, EQ and limiting. I actually changed my mix a bit since I uploaded: I removed the third compressor on the kick drum. Lol! Smile Still it has 2 compressors, 3 EQs, a tube maximizer (kind of a tube emulation limiter) plus another compressor on the drums bus plus another EQ and another limiter plus the two compressors+limiter on the stereo bus.

So when you listen to the kick drum in the MP3, you hear 6 compressors, 3 limiters and 4 EQs in series. Oh and 3 reverbs. Lol. Smile

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Tom C on January 10, 2007, 05:09:51 pm
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!



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.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: garret on January 10, 2007, 05:16:42 pm
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.



Ouch! Thanks for being honest... I figured I was going a bit far with things, and figured it might not go over well.

-G
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: iCombs on January 10, 2007, 05:34:16 pm
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.


For whatever reason, I love that "POP" at the top of each note...I really like the sound of the hammer hitting the tine, though I don't like it when they get so bright that it sounds like thumbtacks are on the hammers...just enough high boost to brighten it up and a shit-ton of compression to bring out that pop.

I was actually really torn about that ending...I was really tempted to fade it out, but when I heard that bleghchttpppt, I liked it in the delay, so I kept it.  

I'd also like to point out that this is my most obscenely compressed mix to date.  I can't remember 100% of what I did, becuase I was bouncing and grouping stuff as I went, and I was really flying by the seat of my pants...this is literally my only mixdown of this track, and I did it in about an hour at 3 in the morning last week.  it really screamed for a crunchy treatment to me...kinda like "Revolver" drums sort of crunchy, but more extreme.  A lot of tracks got bounced out through a pair of TAB V78's in series, and then into both channels of my drawmer 1968 for even more crap.  The bass is damn near a square wave in my mix, but it all the sudden grew this sense of "room" when i put it through that mess of steel and glass.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 10, 2007, 05:34:38 pm
Tom C wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:09

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!



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.



Sing????
Do you sing yourself or singing makes existing tracks different?
I have never used Melodyne deeply.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 10, 2007, 05:36:29 pm
Quote:

I wonder what the story was with the resonant kick.


I can't really remember.  I know at some point, I wasn't digging the reso head alone and decided to try micing the beater.  In retrospect, I should have worked harder on the reso mic, moved it around some more.  At the time, though, we were so focused and frustrated by just getting a part.  Seriously, we spent hours tracking, first the singer and some SERIOUSLY out of time tom fills, then with a drummer not in the band, either as a member or in terms of style or feel.  It was a revelation to hear just the snare, kick and hats.  I never refocused on the sound of the kit.

I think I used just the beater, too, on the first kit.

L
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: gatino on January 10, 2007, 06:09:29 pm
my comments about the vox in each mix pertain primarily to the verse. i'll spew my rant on the chorus vox in my next post. i seem to be against the crowd on that issue.

JHall - first thing that struck me was the snare, i tried to get used to it but in the end i found it distracting during the verse (too loud, for one), but it worked for me in the chorus. vox/guitars/fx/keys sound great. the bass sounds like it's in another room however.

tlester - the count-in! hehe. guitars too soft. i like these guitars, they need to be up, i think.  they were up more in the ending tho, cool. drums/bass/fx sound good.

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.

note: i read the rules after this mix, i didn't know we could cut and paste. i wantd to with the fx. next time...

UnderTow - another count-in! nice intro and verse, vox is excellent. good transition to chorus here too, but not enuf fx in chorus. however, i really like what you did to the rhodes and that came out more in the end (doesn't sound like fallen power lines anymore tho, hehe). overall i like this mix too.

scottoliphant - from the get-go this one just didn't do it for me. i'll leave it there.

NickT - over-compressed/limited. this made it difficult for me to listen and enjoy.

Hepha Luemp - intro: more keys please. otherwise good balance throughout. vox sounds very good, verse and chorus! fx too. i like the extra space the vox had in the chorus and the fact you dealt with intonation issue the way you did. drums sound boxed tho, no space. outro is good. i do like this overall. nice!

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.

dconstruction - thx again for the song. i really like it. however, sorry to say i can't groove to your mix and lo-fi drums. there's too much i didn't like so i'll leave it alone.

scott volthause - the b3-like treatment on the wurly threw me off immediately. a little less and it might have worked. verse vox too far away, i want them close on this one. works during the chorus tho. drums and bass good mix foundation.

LouMan - wurly too soft for me. verse vox too far away on this one too. chorus vox...yikes!! no no no to that treatment. nuff said here.

chrisj - another one with a soft wurly on the intro, why?! verse vox could be more in your face. chorus vox discrepancies are masked, cool. bass a bit much thruout chorus and outro, boomy, so it gets to me after awhile.

16 more mixes on the 2nd page! i'll leave those for another day
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: gatino on January 10, 2007, 06:18:18 pm
my rant on the chorus vox... first, to be sure, i really like mr. marcus' voice. and that sound he gets when he runs out of breath is cool. now, i can understand the opinions about not touching the loose feel in the rhythm, but not the vocal intonation problems heard in the 3 chorus vox.

in the verse we get this awesome performance from mr. marcus then the chorus comes and wham! that's just way too distracting. it doesn't have a "good feel." it's simply not a good thing. call me a snob if you like, i don't care. i would not let that out a studio door without going thru melodyne first or new takes when possible.

few singers have excellent intonation but at some point poor intonation has to be dealt with. that point is reached here.

a few years ago i heard chili peppers, wow was this dude off that night. if he was my bud asking i would have told him so. hell, i tell myself all the time...i just keep working at it. slight discrepancies here and there might not hurt but bad intonation always messes what might otherwise be a great performance.

question: would you play your guitar or bass out of tune? i doubt it. you tune up before the take, right? so why is poor intonation ok on the vox? i mean, it's not a live concert or something that might grant jusification. nah, fellas...

that's it, jump on me.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 10, 2007, 06:22:20 pm
Tom C wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:09


The vocal harmonies were done with Melodyne, it's a 5 minute
thing (copy the track, sing the harmonies and adjust the
pitch. Great program BTW).
Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to listen to the rest of the
mixes tonight.




if ou sang a vocal part, you are disqualified.

melodyne can EASILY take a lead vocal track and create harmonies off it.  i do it ALL THE TIME!
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: NickT on January 10, 2007, 06:26:44 pm
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.



Thanks Spoon. Those are the original drums comped, eq'd and panned. I tried to get a sense of space on this mix.  

gatino wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 17:09


NickT - over-compressed/limited. this made it difficult for me to listen and enjoy.



Hmmm...Didn't think I hit this one that hard!  Twisted Evil

Thanks for listening.

I am making my list...so many mixes!

NickT
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: scottoliphant on January 10, 2007, 06:35:38 pm
Quote:

that's it, jump on me.
don't think anyone is going to jump on you, that's what's cool, we should all be allowed to voice our opinions and thoughts. especially with imp, we have ~25 different mixes from the sang song, how cool is that. somehow i missed your track? sounded pretty good on phones, will check out on the monitors later
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Tom C on January 10, 2007, 07:09:33 pm
j.hall wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 00:22

Tom C wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:09


The vocal harmonies were done with Melodyne, it's a 5 minute
thing (copy the track, sing the harmonies and adjust the
pitch. Great program BTW).
Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to listen to the rest of the
mixes tonight.




if ou sang a vocal part, you are disqualified.



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

j.hall


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


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

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Tom C on January 10, 2007, 07:13:30 pm
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 23:34


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



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

If there are any doubts I can provide the processed track
so you can pitch it down again and compare.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: starscream2010 on January 10, 2007, 10:37:36 pm
Haven't had time to listen to everyone's mixes but have listened to most and, as always, I am digging the diversity that IMP creates.

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

More in-depth notes to come...
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Cary Holding on January 10, 2007, 11:03:00 pm
gatino wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 18:09


Cary Holding - love the opening fx, but keys too soft and should be up the middle. vox cool! bass is up more on this one, nice. the transition to the chorus is one of the best, if not best. love the snare, what did you do here? guitars at end are awesome. this mix has some real warmth, feels really good to me. i hope you'll respond to my comments with some details about what you did to the overall mix.



Thanks man.

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

The only thing I did to the final mix was some minor EQ touchup and some limiting with Voxengo Elephant.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Greg Dixon on January 11, 2007, 02:09:30 am
spoon wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 07:12



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



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

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

dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 08:48



Greg Dixon: A dark mix, but immediately more enveloping than, say, the previous.  Used both kits, left and right.  This sounds A LOT like my tracking mix.  I think the Rhodes could have been brought more forward.  And maybe capitalize on the chorus vox a bit more; there’s not a lot of verse/chorus distinction, which both the Rhodes and multiple vox serve, in my mind.  I kinda like the fade, too.  The first one to try that (that I’ve heard).




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

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

I agree that the Rhodes could have been louder.

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

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

I really enjoyed this and look forward to the next one.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 11, 2007, 02:40:00 am
j.hall wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 17:22

Tom C wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:09


The vocal harmonies were done with Melodyne, it's a 5 minute
thing (copy the track, sing the harmonies and adjust the
pitch. Great program BTW).
Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to listen to the rest of the
mixes tonight.




if ou sang a vocal part, you are disqualified.

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


Idon't think what it creates somethink usefull bu transposing existing tracks. It souunds syntatical and thin i have used like this and was dissapointed. Now i use MPEX with Formant mode in Nuendo instead, sounds better.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: LSilva on January 11, 2007, 08:06:37 am
dconstruction wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 16:48



LouMan: Nice, different vocal treatment.  Very forward.  Again, a darker mix than many.  Drums are kinda buried for my tastes; I can’t really hear the kick in the chorus.  It’s getting difficult to comment!  Anything else would be just a matter of taste.  You were another person to use a fade – but then left that Rhodes burping at the end.  Was there a reason for that?




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

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

Thanks for the comments.

Lou


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: gatino on January 11, 2007, 10:45:38 am
spoon wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 14:12


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


thx!

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

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

i'll check out your mix when i go thru the 2nd page.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: ScotcH on January 11, 2007, 11:12:37 am
gatino


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


spoon


ScotcH - nice keys from the get-go, drew me in, but the vox and guitars a bit soft for me. what did you do to the bass? too much attack for me, esp. in the outro.


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

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

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

Looking forward to other comments! (and mine are forthcoming as well).
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 11, 2007, 12:00:36 pm
OK, here's the second installment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lindsay
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: gatino on January 11, 2007, 12:20:30 pm
Vladislavs Korehovs wrote on Wed, 10 January 2007 03:42

imp9_gatino.mp3
   SN: Maybe can be used somethere but not here, and have too much highs in "Loud" spectrum 1-2k, consider using 800-1000Hz boost
   HH: Same as above, but here EQ was applied in non benefitial point, consider 5k, and don't overlap with snare!
   BD: Boxy, remove 300-400Hz, please
   Base: Sounds ok, but overlapped with guit.
   Guit: Sounds Ok, sounds too roomy (too much at 300 Hz).
   Vox: DE-ESSER - there is such tool:). Positioned good, better then mine.
   Overral: separation is not good.
   Arrangement: I like endings, very interesting.



i missed this interesting technical response.

snare: i didn't boost those freqs.

hihat: didn't boost those either.

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

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

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

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

hey, just having some fun here. haha

thx!
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: starscream2010 on January 11, 2007, 02:08:40 pm
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 11:00



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





Wow, thanks Smile

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

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

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

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 11, 2007, 02:45:07 pm
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007


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



Thanks,

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

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

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 11, 2007, 02:53:02 pm
gatino wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 11:20

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

imp9_gatino.mp3
   SN: Maybe can be used somethere but not here, and have too much highs in "Loud" spectrum 1-2k, consider using 800-1000Hz boost
   HH: Same as above, but here EQ was applied in non benefitial point, consider 5k, and don't overlap with snare!
   BD: Boxy, remove 300-400Hz, please
   Base: Sounds ok, but overlapped with guit.
   Guit: Sounds Ok, sounds too roomy (too much at 300 Hz).
   Vox: DE-ESSER - there is such tool:). Positioned good, better then mine.
   Overral: separation is not good.
   Arrangement: I like endings, very interesting.



i missed this interesting technical response.

snare: i didn't boost those freqs.

hihat: didn't boost those either.

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

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

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

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

hey, just having some fun here. haha

thx!


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

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


As for 300HZ, original part have Boost already:))
so i think mostpeople cutted low-mids, except you probably.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Tom C on January 11, 2007, 03:07:00 pm
My very subjective findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Tom C on January 11, 2007, 03:15:41 pm
dconstruction wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 18:00


TomC: Those drums are really small.  Like someone left Ringo in the closet.  



Yep, I noticed that when I'm not so happy with the drums
I have the tendency to bury them too much in the mix.
I've to work on that.

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.



Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't check for the
breathing. Good point.

I've used the harmonies the way how I saw the band performing it:
the singer sings, and from time to time the guitar player
walks close to him and adds some spare harmonies into the same
mic. Of course with the cigarette still in his mouth.
Think Keith Richards here Smile

Thanks a lot for your time, it's mucho appreciated.


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 11, 2007, 03:42:53 pm
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.



Yes, exactly.
Applied Marshall JCM2000 Impulse and mixed with original sound.
You have a great listening skill.
I haven't used Reverb, but have used Delay on guit. in general i agree... Just wanted to make it sound more interesting:(
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: ATOR on January 11, 2007, 04:44:00 pm
These are my notes. Just the things that came to mind when listening.

A lack of groove makes me wanna turn music off, to me it's worse than scratching fingernails on a chalkboard. The mixes where it’s really annoying are labelled LOG: “Lack Of Groove”


Greg Dixon
Sounds good. LOG. Vocal could be louder. Chorus could use more lift.

iCombs
Nice vox, drums are a little thin. LOG. There's no lift in the chorus.

Garret
Looks like you messed up the samplerate. I like the  arrangement but it could lift off a bit earlier, the overall sound is kinda boxy, drums are weak, the extra git part is nice

Gatino
Why a 48k mp3?  Drums lack power. Guitar a bit too loud. I miss the BG vox in the chorus. Leadvocal has some ugly highs as if it’s been de-essed too much but with a too long attack time.

HephaLuemp
LOG. The kick is big but it drags down the song and makes the lack of rhythm very annoying. The sound of the rest is good. I like what you did with the FX tracks.

Judah
The wurlitzer hook could be louder. Drums are distant. Guitar is too big, it masks the rest. LOG

Mark Fasset
Less kick more bass would be nice. Louder backing vocals would lift the chorus more

ScotcH
LOG. Was the guitar that doubles the bass that much out of time? The snare lacks punch. Nice idea to put the bg vox left.

Scott Oliphant
It's not a coherent mix to me. You took the parts in a  different direction: distorted drums, clean guitars, very ambient vocal. For me they don't fit together.

SingSing
The mix is very dull (lack of high freqs) accept for the vocal sibilance. I like the intimate feeling it has. The sound reminds me of playing in an overly damped rehearsalstudio.

TLester
Nice and direct as if played in a very small room. LOG

VKorehov
Track is swimming in guitar with delay, it attracks all  attention. I think the rest sounds pretty  good.

ChrisJ
Bigger and louder drums would be great. Balance between  instruments is off.

DConstruction
Why a 48k mp3? The different drumsounds left and right tear the mix in two. Tapedelay on the Wurlitzer is nice. The mix sounds good but the splitted drums give me a headache.

Henchman
great punch in snare, a bit thin though. Nice vocal, too distant in chorus. A little less/shorter reverb would  make the track connect more.

Undertow
The drums are amazing, you can get a kick out of everything. The fx Rhodes and the chop guitar could be more present to make the chorus different from the  verse

Macmandude
I don't like the compression/distortion, the different instruments have become a single wash of sound.

Rankus
Sounds good, I'd like a little less reverb here an  there. You made the snare and guitar bigger than the  lead vocal. I'd like to see that the other way around.

Cary
Sounds good. LOG. I like a little less/shorter reverb  to make it more direct. The chorus vocals are too soft.

Maxim
Bass is overpowering and makes the mix very thick and sluggish. I like the extra Wurlitzer parts. Snare sounds little boxy. The chorus could be bigger.

Nizzle
LOG. Very big mix. Vocal a bit sibilant, doubling could be duller and softer so it's less distracting. Reverb on Wurlitzer and Chop git is too big it washes away the whole mix. Chorus could be bigger. I Like the racecar fx, what's that? You left in the Rhodes burp.

LouMan
The vocal reverb distracts from the vocal itself. Guitar is very big compared to drums. I don't like the sibilant harsh chorus vocal sound. Lacks kick.

Nick T
The vocal delays are distracting. I like the presence of the drums, too bad they are mono without any stereo room sound, they don't fit the rest. LOG.  

J Hall
Very big mix. LOG. Instruments are good separated and still make a whole. A little less compression would have left room for the chorus to be bigger than the verse.

Volthause
LOG. Vocal has sibilance and is low in level mostly because the snare is in it's way. Mix sounds distant and blurred especially the last chorus.

Tom C
Nice to hear a mix that isn't soaked in reverb. Mix is dull, Nice harmonies on vox. Much sibilance on vox. Instruments could be bigger in chorus. Drums and bass are very soft.

Spoon
LOG. Instruments balance is off. Long reverb makes mix blurred.

Nick Evans
Nice and Dry. Good drumsound. Rhodes and Chop guitar are earsplitting loud.

pitzter redfro
It all fits into a nice whole. Chop guitar is too loud.

six wax
LOG. Snare is very big and  drums are a bit dull but  it works. The snare is too big for the extra reverb in the last chorus though. I like the vibe. Leadvocal stands out very nice and sounds good.



Ok that's it. Don't take it personal, it's just what I would do differently if they were my mixes.

It's nice to hear so many versions of a story.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 11, 2007, 05:09:18 pm
Don't know if this is kosher, but I'm listening to my iTunes here at work and came across two instances of double-tracked drums done well (certainly better executed than on this tune).  Thought I'd share.

I guess I should make some sort of disclaimer that these tracks are presented for demonstration purposes only.  If the holder of the copyrights on these tunes wants them removed, please contact me and I'll immediately remove them.  Thanks.

http://www.dmeterstudios.com/audio/requiem.mp3
http://www.dmeterstudios.com/audio/Old_Soul_Song.mp3

Lindsay

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: scottoliphant on January 11, 2007, 05:17:32 pm
requiem is from the m.ward CD post war I've been digging so much lately. cool CD. TONS of verb, which kind of inspired me to see if i could make it work.

Mike Mogis did both of these records (and i think m.ward toured with bright eyes for a bit?)


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: maxim on January 11, 2007, 06:24:28 pm
tom wrote:

"Guitar intro sounds like 're-amped' with NI guitar rig"

that's the wurly


Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Tom C on January 11, 2007, 07:18:18 pm
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





Oops, I meant the wurly, sorry.
But Guitar Rig is correct?

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: maxim on January 11, 2007, 09:05:04 pm
spot on!
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: six_wax on January 12, 2007, 03:01:35 am
I had no idea how difficult it would be to listen to 20 of these in a row and still keep seeing the forest for the trees!

I'll try to do more concise reviews, but it's interesting to see the different spins that mixers put on it... The accumulation of a dozen or more pretty serious artistic decisions turns out to effect the perception of the music greatly! To me, these cumulative differences in OVERALL VIBE are far more important than little technical things like the drums being too compressed, etc. As a mixer, it's like I can see, "Now, if I had gone that direction..."

One thing that impacted the vibe of the tune greatly was weather or not the drum performances were edited. There's a couple mixes where this is plain as day, and the simple groove almost gets robotic. Split the drums wide, and it becomes doubly artificial.

Different treatments of the guitar interested me as well: Some people pushed it up and featured it, or made it edgier & more rockin'. Wasn't how I heard it at all; Changed the color of the tune. It's another choice... That goes on to effect all your choices.

Vocal treatment & level impacted the sense of intimacy and performance greatly as well. Some smashed him down and nestled him in with the band, others pushed him up front, showcasing it. This alone made the song... FEEL different, MEAN different things  to me.

Frankly, I kind of went with my gut, and only evaluated a couple of the bazillion different avenues. I mixed it pretty quickly, and skimmed past a couple perspectives that others delved deeply into. I would've loved to have been able to have a dialog with the artist --as I usually do-- about what they were going for. I'm sure that would have influenced my decision-making greatly.

Thanks to everybody else who participated for showing me what I missed, and "what might have been"!
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Cary Holding on January 12, 2007, 10:34:06 am
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"!


I'll echo that.  Smile
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: UnderTow on January 12, 2007, 03:46:23 pm
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?  



I am not sure what you mean. The Wurly has some distortion, tape emulation and EQ on it but nothing further and no editing. Or did you mean the Rhodes? The Rhodes is heavily effected.

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.



Heh. Thanks. Smile There might be a bit too much low-end/low-mid. I'll be upgrading my acoustics, monitors and DAs soon. I hope to get a better idea of what is going on in the low-end once that is done.

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: UnderTow on January 12, 2007, 03:51:22 pm
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.



I think you mean me. Pleasant Groove is the name of the band. Smile
Thanks for the comments. As I said in my previous post, I hope to be able to better judge the low-end in the not so distant future. Smile

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: UnderTow on January 12, 2007, 03:55:38 pm
ATOR wrote on Thu, 11 January 2007 22:44


Undertow
The drums are amazing, you can get a kick out of everything.



Thanks! Smile

Quote:


The fx Rhodes and the chop guitar could be more present to make the chorus different from the  verse



Good point. It could indeed be more distinctive.

I'll be listening to and posting comments on all the mixes this week-end.

Cheers,

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 12, 2007, 04:14:24 pm
UnderTow wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 14:51



I think you mean me. Pleasant Groove is the name of the band. Smile



Not to be too picky, but it's Pleasant Grove.

L
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: ScotcH on January 12, 2007, 05:16:04 pm
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 16:14


Not to be too picky, but it's Pleasant Grove.



Dammit ... you're alwasy so picky.



Wink
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 12, 2007, 05:22:12 pm
ScotcH wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 16:16


Dammit ... you're alwasy so picky.

Wink




Not to be too picky, but it's "always."

L
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: UnderTow on January 13, 2007, 08:42:33 am
dconstruction wrote on Fri, 12 January 2007 22:14



Not to be too picky, but it's Pleasant Grove.

L



Oops!

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: chrisj on January 14, 2007, 03:55:59 pm
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 Very Happy

IMP9ChrisJ- big, flat- not shallow, but sort of limp. Nice intelligibility on the vocal.

IMP9-spoon- Leaner, more crisp with the bright things going on. The guy is a mystical lunatic emanating from out of a deep cave. Backbeat feels good.

IMP9_six_wax- Laid back, sort of grooving along. Makes me bob to the rhythm. I'm not very interested in the vocal, it feels like I can safely ignore it.

Imp9 - Nick Evans- Hissing and looming forward at me. Everything is extra super big, but I'm not sure why. I can't figure out why this is the way it is.

wes_pitzer_redfro_imp9- Look, a kick! Some sort of wispy little guy singing incongruously over a big hulking indie rock machine.

imp9_garret- Huh? huh again? You should be making the music with this kind of ingenuity Very Happy I'm just...um Smile you astonished. Whether I ever want to hear this again... I guess either I'd freak out and love it, or not bother. I can't decide what the groove sounds like. Not a big hulking indie rock machine, a small mechanical accordion with a hole in it, under a big spotlight. Very Dada.

IMP9_gatino- Sorta trashy. Very 'star' vocal treatment, always center of attention. It sounds like it wants to be a blues rock track but can't figure out what it's singing about. Something incongruous there.

IMP9_SingSing- Yay squished! Everything is coming from some inexplicable place. It's all like, drums, suddenly really loud hat, there's the guitar squished into the corner, woops there it went. Strangely, something about it feels right for the song... which is a big deal...

IMP9Henchman- You're scaring me with these drums dude, I'm not sure I ever need drums that emphatic Very Happy they're overwhelming everything so I can't concentrate on the vocal, and I don't hear a song, just a drum sound.

TomC-IMP9- Hey, suddenly a track isn't trying to KILL ME! Laid back. The harmonies are annoying me and going to the wrong notes, like major and minor in the wrong places. It does feel like it's about the song, with the sound effects on the back burner- except the harmonies, couldn't resist the harmonies, those are probably why the rest of the song is making room. If you did that with just one lead vocal it would feel like a song, though it wouldn't feel modern at all. But who really cares if I enjoy the feel of the song? Apart from the harmonies, feels very good and sets a mood.

macmandude_imp9tk1 192- Technical foul- space in the mp3 name Wink hey, suddenly we're AC/DC! Total disconnect between song and mix. This is brilliant work at forcing these indie guys into leather and spandex and lining up Marshall Stacks behind them and turning on the fog machine and a red spotlight, unfortunately the song wants a blue spotlight. Eek. God, this is a good AC/DC imitation, though. GOOD ENGINEERING that I don't want to hear on this song at all.

IMP9-ATOR- Creative moves immediately on display. Sounds kinda slick. Part of that is the bright hats and the gloss on the sound. Vocal sounds slick, like old Bowie or something, in a bright spotlight with a plate reverb on him, like he should be angsting in high drama, but it gets confusing when the song refuses to become high drama. You sit around waiting for something to happen to step into that spotlight, but it just goes on and everything feels like a backing part. Needs more exciting track- fails to click with the track as it is.

IMP9dconstruction- Are we Nine Inch Nails? We think we might be. I do like the way it sounds like improvisation is paramount this time- the guy does say so, right in the lyric. This is extremely weird and yet, something about it feels like it's part of the song. I could think of other mixes I enjoy listening to a lot more, but I like the way this understands the song. I don't think these guys are anything like as butch as these drums, though.

IMP9_judah- Nice and laid back here, not obnoxious. It feels a little uninvolved- this is about making everything sound nice and appropriate for people playing in a room, and tracks from The Band would sound awesome this way, or bluegrass, something that's not supposed to be a wacky studio mutation. Even the really tweaky tracks are tamed. I don't think the song stands on its own that well this way, it needs more of an environment.

imp9_scott_oliphant- We like big drums! big drums go crunch! Like the AC/DC guy only without the guitars. Singer is singing with a PA in a gym. Feels like a high school talent show that unexpectedly blows people away with a surprisingly hot band. Maybe it's just the drummers killing everybody with volume. I hear a band, don't hear much of a song.

imp9-maxim- Casiotone sonics? (dist wurly) We are pasting bits of wurly about. There's a foundation to this song that's mostly bass-oriented, and the vocalist is right there, intimate and upfront. It does feel unfinished, which is probably why the wurly cutnpaste. There is just something not there, which is mystifying because it's not like all the tracks were left out. Some of the other tracks do more as far as bolting bits of music together in a striking way. This is more understated, which turns out to not help the understated indie guys much.

Greg_Dixon_IMP9- Straight. Straight straight straight. No horrible tricks, no ugly sounds. The vocalist needs a lot of help, he sounds and feels tiny. bigness goes from kick=big to vox and overdubs=small. There's virtually no startle factor here, everything is very smooth. I want more startlement from the vocalist, like when he tosses off a line unexpectedly it should startle, it should have a front edge. Maybe not the backing vocals tho.

IMP9_LouMan- Also pretty normal. Slick vocalist! This sounds gothy! It sounds like something, no question about it. A bit understated maybe, but something about this feels like 'hey, what band is this?'. It feels like a genre that I don't know about but a good example of it. I am very impressed with this one. I think it has to do with the way things are emphasized, the way there's no attempt to make everything be emphasized at once. Stuff has a specific character and sets a tone which works with the lyric, the vocal performance etc. The backing music has similar ebbs and flows of energy to the vocal performance.

IMP9-Pleasant_Groove-Luzern-UnderTow- longest mp3 name award. Sort of beefy and butch. Like the song as a disco version... I'm not sure I've generally liked the drums-heavy versions, perhaps because the mood of the song doesn't feel pounding and heavy. This mixer would do excellent dance and house music, everything works for that style.

Imp9NickT- Let's be really loud! Very Happy 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.

VolthauseIMP9- Big cavernous snarling growling thing. I feel sorry for the feeble little vocalist singing out of a pit filled with such savage instruments Very Happy metal mixer much? Again with the big drums. They're cool sounds, but the song doesn't support them much. It makes it feel like there's not much of a song there.

imp9-cary- Need to express self with sound design rears its ugly head again Wink 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.

IMP9-ScotcH- Bright and clean-sounding, crisp- something about this feels too crisp for the vocalist to sit into. There's a plainness here that reminds me of some types of electronic music. It's a bit empty. It feels like a demo, or like it came out of a white room or a studio with guys standing around in white lab coats. Part of that is the high clarity on things like voices and hihats.

JHallImp9- Big-n-crunchy, much need to have the hihats go bapbapbapbapbap at you. This is another drum-heavy mix, like an indie version of AC/DC without quite the guitar focus. The chorus lifts, it sounds like a B-side except you wake up for the chorus. There isn't enough space in the verse for the singer, the drums are just too overwhelming. They feel right for the song, except there isn't a song except when the vocal takes over with a melody line. There's a song when the chorus melody comes in, or when the verse digs into a melody line, otherwise there's just drums.

IMP9_VKorehov- Let's play with the guitars! Actually this makes an interesting bed for the song. It's all about the wash of guitars, which anchors the song firmly in indie-land, for me. I like the way the drums are strong but very much a secondary element. I am noticing that the vocals don't seem that important, I'm listening to the guitar washes instead. The guy could be singing anything over it- that's a handicap, the best mixes I heard needed THAT vocalist singing THAT stuff to be right.

Greg_Dixon_IMP9-1- On the small side. There's an intimacy to this, though. The vocal is smaller than it could be, but apart from that it goes with this little, cozy mix. It's a bit like Henry Cow or something- the idea being indie guys making personal music on little portastudios, music you have to listen into, you have to reach out for this music to get it. One thing about it, the song works with that treatment, if you like that sort of thing. Very personal, very intimate, very cozy.

IMP9_tlester- Bright and aggressive, like a very big clock. it's like the vocalist is meditating on mortality to the tick tick tick of the hat, with other elements staying out of the way so you can get a sense of how the guy feels about it. For that alone this is not bad. I can feel mood in the voices, which is a damn good thing. I think I'm impressed here. The only thing is that the mood feels subtly off, in that I don't quite get the lyrics on this one, it feels like they're somehow singing something else, that the meaning of the lyrics is somehow not there.

imp9_mark_fassett- I hear various effects doing various things. The low end goes 'tonk', the wurly echoes. Sort of like the vocalist singing his song while around him, faintly odd sonic things happen. Like he's stranded in a strange town, lost, and bemused at the odd things he sees. It doesn't seem like they knew the streets at all. Disconcerting mix, slightly puzzling, which the song's arrangement very much helps to convey.

IMP9_HephaLuemp- Big and punchy, sort of crunchy, super-hot vocal. Why is this fellow not Rod Stewart? With this treatment he should be singing Maggie May or some boozy party song. There's nothing feeble or off-kilter about this one, all the odd elements are presented as if they are bedrock solid, it doesn't recognize its own incongruity. Rather than looking for the song, this time I'm looking for the indie... looking for a recognition that some of this stuff is more arbitrary. it's presented as if we're supposed to think it's a rock hit, and it's not really that.

Whew!
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: iCombs on January 14, 2007, 06:15:04 pm
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 Very Happy

*content edited for purposes of reply*

Whew!


Good GOD, Chris...what are you on and why aren't you sharing?

well played...but *snif* don't you like me?

Crying or Very Sad

J/k...though it would be really funny to get the semi-drug-addled Gonzo response to my track.  If you've got the time.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: chrisj on January 14, 2007, 09:07:58 pm
I thought I had everybody. Why don't I have yours then? I could do it IF you do a 'review each track' post yourself Wink but seriously, I thought I got everything up to and after the deadline, so I don't know how I missed you.

No drugs, sorry Smile but I grew up on 'em, and Hunter S. So blame my sordid youth Smile
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: redfro on January 14, 2007, 09:24:29 pm
Man, so many mixes, so little time...

Hopefully I'll get a chance to give a deeper review for everyone, but it's interesting how different some of the versions are. And I really like some of the things people have going on. But as a mixer I don't think it's my place to make creative changes to the material. So, in general, I feel the versions with large source material changes aren't being true to the artist.

But I want to thank everyone for the hard work they put into the mixes and critiques. This is the first IMP I've had time to do, and hopefully I'll be in on some more of them.



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...
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 14, 2007, 10:42:07 pm
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...


Kind-of: Joe Butcher (of UFOFU) used to play pedal steel with Pleasant Grove, then moved on to play with the Polyphonic Spree.  Joe, BTW, is a hell of a IDM artist, which is funny: you don't often think of pedal steel players also dabbling in glitch/electronica.  You may be more familiar with Ben and Brandon Curtis, also of UFOFU, but who went onto to form Secret Machines.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: redfro on January 14, 2007, 10:49:12 pm
Yeah, I know Ben and Brandon...but all of that was a long time ago.

Denton used to be such a cool music town. Now....just a couple of clubs doing mostly out-of-towners.

Oh well...
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Cary Holding on January 15, 2007, 09:33:12 am
chrisj wrote on Sun, 14 January 2007 15:55


imp9-cary- Need to express self with sound design rears its ugly head again Wink 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!


Thanks for the listen.  I know these reviews take a lot of time and I appreciate all those who took the time to do it.

Yeah, I think I understand where you’re coming from. Kind of like airbrushing the beauty mark off of Cindy Crawford’s lip.  Music can be so baffling.  You have the majority, who determine where ‘good’ is.  You also have the “music is an art, therefore there are no rules’ club.  I tend to be in the first group, but respect the second.

Chris J - I thought it was just me, but others have commented on the same thing – the bass and low mids were extreme.  I can only assume this was intentional because I know you’re an aspiring mastering engineer.  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.  Nice treatment on the background vocals.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: gatino on January 15, 2007, 12:55:33 pm
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.


if you've seen a jackson pollock up close and personal you'll see the genius in the stroke as well as overall. how he got those vein-like strokes is boggling to me. but, as cool as they are those individual strokes serve a higher purpose.

to me, the difference here is that in several imp9 mixes the noise tracks (call them individual strokes) seem to take precedence over what's really important. with the way they're treated they don't serve the higher purpose, the song form. the vocal track, which i'm sure everyone agrees is utmost, is overwhelmed.

so i'm with you on "where ‘good’ is" and those who say “music is an art, therefore there are no rules" often miss the forest for the trees. i guess i'll repeat the old mantra, know the rules before you break them.  

p.s. please forgive if this sounds like know-it-all bullshit, i'm just stating what i think. no pretense here, i'm lowest on the totem pole around here.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: rankus on January 15, 2007, 02:19:46 pm


Sorry folks, but it looks like I will not be able to find time to review this imp.  I am just wrapping up two projects in the middle of another and starting an album this weekend... (NOT complaining though)...

Just sad that I can't take the time to do a review of all the tracks on this imp... Back for the next one for sure!

Thanks to the one or two of you that reviewed mine... (Chris you missed mine as well... not a complaint, just a heads up that your filing system has holes lol) I don't deserve one anyway.

J:  Contact me if your looking for a track for next IMP... I have a couple of real dandies.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 15, 2007, 05:11:32 pm
I want next IMPalready now:((((((((

It is a pity to wait so long:((

I want to say thsnks to Everybody making this IMP and future ones.

BR, Vladislavs
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: SingSing on January 16, 2007, 11:02:48 am
Here's a quick runthrough....late night so I had to use my Sennheiser HD-600's, whatever that's worth... My view of course, so no hard feelings. Thanks to JHall and dconstruction for putting it together. Thanks also to Pleasant Grove for a nice song!  Smile

Greg Dixon
Laid back, drums very stereo separated whereas the rest of the tracks seem to reside in the center. OK 'in-the-middle-of-the-road' mix though a bit on the safe side.

Nick Evans
Nice drum and bass treatment. I miss the guitar during the intro... Good stereo separation and lead vox comes out nicely. Opens up to really wide stereo in the chorus, perhaps a bit too much? Nice work!

iCombs
Nice opening noise. Distorsion on the vox? The most 'dirty' mix so far, in a good way that is.... Coherent!

Garret
This is weird!! Tuned up one step and interesting destruction noises. Distorsion and overdrive all over the place. No drums during the verses (or at least only small elements are kept and they're put back really waaaayy back). Takes over the 'weird & dirty' first place spot.

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.

HephaLuemp
Interesting drums! The beefiest kick so far and the snare pops out of the cans. A nice blend of roughness and safety. Good job!

LouMan
Very prominent lead vox verb with long predelay. Not sure it works for me. Phaser on the bgvox during chorus. Instruments sound like 'band in a room' with the singer in another biiiig room.

Mark Fassett
This mix grows on me. Very much a bass & vox mix with the guitars put back and safely filling out the side. Not sure the lead vox delay is the best choice, but still a good mix.

ScotcH
Is that the alternate bass high in the mix, or just EQ'ing the main bass? Nice definition and wooomp in both the bass and kick. Good vocal treatment. Let's the original recording shine through. Good work.

scott oliphant
Squashed wide and verby drums. Big vox verb which takes a bit getting used to, but the song grows. Interesting with the slap on the snare at the end. Evolving, nice work.

six wax
From the startoff this one beats me...not really into this kind of lo-fi mix. Gets going a bit more in the chorus but the big snare kind of gets in the way. Good vocal, though cut maybe a bit  too high? Very nice and different ending.

TLester
Dry, in-the-face mix with some glitter and sparkling happening in the chorus. Good drum treatment, just a bit of snap...in a good way. Like this one a lot, it let's the song speak for itself.

VKorehov
Those guitars with big verb and delay aren't exactly my cup of tea. The contrast between them and lead vocal distracts. OK drums and vocal treatment though there are many nasty vocal ducks during the choruses.

ATOR
First pad comes along, wonder how you did that....  =)
Chorused guitars put way back. Interesting doubled hats, and good drums overall. Not sure I really like the rather prominent lead vox verb in the verse. Good use of the guitar noise in the intro.  Nice to see good use of the tamb in the last chorus. Nice mix that grows. Tasteful swell at the end.

Cary
This one starts off with swell... Too big or prominent drum verb in my opinion...actually too big/prominent vox verb as well. Vox too low in the chorus, what was your point there? Good drive in the mix. Strangely the drum verb gets better throughout the song.

ChrisJ
Very prominent bass throughout the song. The drums are waaay back. That contrast is rather interesting. Good vocal treatment. Did you put a phaser on the lead vox or is my mind just fvcking with me after listeing to this song a bazillion times?

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.

Henchman
Good drum treatment. That snare is really snappy, perhaps too snappy in this environment? Nice use of the tamb during the chorus. Generally a well thoughout mix. Good work.

Maxim
Another thrasher! Good, farty bass!  =)
Interesting use of the wurly. The mix really makes space for the welltreated lead vox during the verse. The snare pops out a bit too much during the chorus in my opinion. There's a kind of fade during the end chorus, what's that about? Same thing after the second chorus where the drums make a big comeback....  =)
Perhaps the chorus vox could come up a bit? Interesting work!

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!  =)

Nizzle
Very wide. Interesting approach with all that separation and on top of that a lead vox with slap delay. Then against all odds, it collapses in the chorus. Dry vox and guitar in center. Nice panning during 2nd chorus and tasteful weird fx on the rhodes. Not really sure what to think of it, but nice work nonetheless.

Undertow
Perhaps the most coherent mix. Very nice drum and bass treatment. Where the hell did you find that punch? Very sparse rhodes use in the chorus. Good vocal treatment, but perhaps just a teenyweeny spitty through my cans. Interesting to use that gating and fx on the rhodes during 2nd chorus. Overall a very good straightforward mix.

Spoon
Another with prominent lead vox verb, and it works just fine. Good drum implementation and overall sounds. Maybe a bit on the safe side but still nice work.

JHall
Now, here are some hard driving drums! And you used them both, and aligned them! Strangely you actually managed to do all that and yet they're coherent.  =)  But....in my view the drums get a bit too much attention in this mix. The chorus vox are cool with that overdrive. An interesting blend of cool noises and a really well done mix. Different yet appealing.

TomC
What a contrast  =)
Small sounding instruments overall...almost nonexistent drums. Chorus on the lead vox might not be the first choice in my book. Yet you abandon the vox fx in the chorus. Not sure what to make of this one.... Maybe work on an acapella version with melodyne?

Redfro
Good sounding drums and bass. The lead vox seems a bit weak, too much hi-shelf EQ? The panning hi-eq vox delay in the chorus didn't fit. Nice guitar use in the 2nd chorus, though they drown out the lead vox. Got potential, and perhaps some less vox EQ'ing would do the trick?

Volthause
Another slammer. Nice drum work, though maybe a bit short release on that comp? Overall very nice sounds and things blend together nicely.


Guess that sums things up...don't think I've forgotten anyone.


Good work everyone!

Stefan
SingSing

PS. Made an alternate mix if anyone cares to comment. A bit sloppy on the automation, but I hope the idea comes across.
http://www.singsing.se/imp/imp9_singsing_2.mp3
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: dconstruction on January 16, 2007, 11:53:14 am
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.



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.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: gatino on January 16, 2007, 12:11:11 pm
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.


mono, haha...and here i was trying to practice L-C-R mixing. oh well...  thx for the input
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: ATOR on January 16, 2007, 12:43:43 pm
singsing

ATOR
First pad comes along, wonder how you did that.... =)


It's a piece from the Rhodes part just after the first chorus. One version left, one right, timestretched differently to make it stereo. Both ran through a stereo filter with an LFO on the cutoff frequency. I also used the decay of the last guitar part.

I like your new mix, lots of added detail.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: rankus on January 16, 2007, 02:06:59 pm
SingSing wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 08:02



Guess that sums things up...don't think I've forgotten anyone.

Stefan
SingSing




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?
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: iCombs on January 16, 2007, 02:10:17 pm
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?



Who the hell just said that?
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: SingSing on January 16, 2007, 02:28:51 pm
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.




I just figured since you're involved with the band and recording you probably have some insight to the direction of their material.   Smile
Well go figure, not a clue on those drums or that bass (must've mixed that up....)! I just realized you probably didn't lo-cut the vox either.   Very Happy

I find it the most fun to listen to the way-out-there mixes. 'Middle of the road' (aka mine) are so expected, but the ones that really catches my attention (at least in the short term) are a bit off the beaten path. Btw, I get kind of a Beck feeling from this song, in particular the lead vox...and perhaps a bit of the Flaming Lips as well with the somewhat odd arrangement/chord progressions. Some more instruments/elements and it would be even more fun. Once again, thanks to you and the band.

Thanks for the comment, I just had a new listen to my altmix and there are elements that can definitely be polished....to say the least. Yeah, those reprises at the end might be a tad tacky.  Cool

Take care,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: SingSing on January 16, 2007, 02:37:10 pm
gatino wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 18:11

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.


mono, haha...and here i was trying to practice L-C-R mixing. oh well...  thx for the input



Haha, sorry about that one Gatino! But this was through my cans, so I'm probably completely off the target here...  Very Happy  Don't listen to them bigshots about L-C-R, they're probably just making that up.   Razz

I had a new listen (thru my cans again), and actually that mono remark was a bit off. But 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
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: SingSing on January 16, 2007, 02:48:09 pm
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?



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.....   Rolling Eyes

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
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: SingSing on January 16, 2007, 02:56:38 pm
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.


Btw, what delay is that? Ronin?

Cheers,

Stefan
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: chrisj on January 16, 2007, 03:28:46 pm
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 Smile

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
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 16, 2007, 04:45:26 pm
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 Smile

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

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...
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: rankus on January 16, 2007, 06:00:58 pm
SingSing wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 11:48

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?



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.....   Rolling Eyes

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


Thanks Stefan!  I don't feel invisible and un-loved anymore. Smile
Cheers, Rick

PS:  Your right about the mix being very plain and "vanilla" .. I did not know where else to go with it honestly.... That's why I love these IMP's.  They give me another way(s) to look at things...
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: chrisj on January 16, 2007, 06:33:04 pm
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...



Sorry, I'm not going there. I can tell from this what you don't like! Wink

i think the point is more that I really hate that brittle, ITB, shattered, DAW type of mix which I admit is very popular. I like the places some people take it- it's fascinating to hear what Charles Dye does with musical density and solidness, all with fairly grating distortions- but I really hate how thin and 2D that type of thing can get, and when you take the bass out too, forget it.

My Lavry Black isn't wrecking the sound, my Channel Islands monoblocks aren't wrecking the sound, my mains might be more revealing of treble glare than a set of forgiving Genelecs but they aren't lying to me. It sounds terrific on a lot of very modern mixes as mastered by guys like Ted Jensen- which typically do not have the same fake, glarey sound I sometimes hear off DAWs.

I write tape-simulation plugins and the like BECAUSE not all mud is mud, BECAUSE sometimes you want to thicken stuff way up in specific ways. No apology from me. I meant it to be that way. Perhaps different songs and different bands would suggest a very different treatment to me...

Seriously... I have the low end completely reworked to put weight on the kick drums, I have the spotlight on the voice and enough de-ess to keep it from sizzling, I have light on the hats and a bit of top on the snares and the guts of the song, the bass and guitar thunder I wanted in the first place, I still have that in a better-controlled fashion, even more roaring and dense than before despite not having as much lows on the bass. I meant to do that. I just checked it on the Lavry/SennHD600 combination and it was the same. I want the kicks to be really big fat beefy things. It's not a mistake or a failure to achieve something else.

I guess we'll have to wait until IMP X to see how things continue to develop...
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: maxim on January 16, 2007, 08:10:49 pm
stefan wrote:

"There's a kind of fade during the end chorus, what's that about?"

that's 2-bus treatment in peak

i took a few seconds, ran it through b4 fx, followed by deep 9 phaser, then blended it with the original in a linear fade fashion

imo, this song needed some highlights, and this was one of my feeble attempts...

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: henchman on January 16, 2007, 10:40:37 pm
Sorry I haven'y had time to respond. The last week and a half have been crazy. Mixed 2 episodes of the L-Word, an hourlong Doc and a Pilot for a new series ove rthe weekend.

I've read the comments that others have made, I don't have much to add.
As far as editing the drums, well, I would have prefferred to not  to of had to do it. But again, the drumming was so incredibly inconsistent and out of time, there is, IMO, no way to get a decent mix without at least consistent playing.

And once you start editing, well, you know what happens. As far as the sounds go, again, the only way, IMO, to keep it raw etc, is to have a great room sound.
In this case, it was  a fight to get some top end in the snare, again, IMO, due bad drumming and of course the obligatory SM57 that loses all top. And the sympathetic frequency of the kick, which I was able to notch out. And then to not have any good room mics, well, it's just not a good recipe for a great, raw, natural drumsound.
And because the drumming was all over the place, using both takes was a waste of time, IMO.

Anyway, am looking forward to the next one.
Title: New user New Mix
Post by: Pr.Tiouz on January 17, 2007, 01:02:56 am
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  Twisted Evil ).

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
Title: Re: New user New Mix
Post by: SingSing on January 17, 2007, 03:58:15 am
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  Twisted Evil ).

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



Hi Matthieu, not sure what server its on... Could you post the entire URL?

Thanks,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: New user New Mix
Post by: Tom C on January 17, 2007, 06:32:15 am
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


It's on our very own IMP server, see
http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP%209_Pr_Tiouz.mp3

BTW, bonjour Matthieu, nice to have you here!
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Pr.Tiouz on January 17, 2007, 07:26:43 am
Hi Tom C,

Yes i put it there because when i was looking at comments on mix in this discussion it was hard to find the mix that was not on the IMP server.

Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: gatino on January 17, 2007, 11:27:27 am
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


ok. if i put the mix thru SPAN (freq analyser) would i see a larger peak in the upper mids?
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: SingSing on January 17, 2007, 01:06:58 pm
gatino wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 17:27

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


ok. if i put the mix thru SPAN (freq analyser) would i see a larger peak in the upper mids?




I've got no clue....but as I said, I listened thru the Senn HD600 cans so chances are that I'm not even in the ballpark.   Smile

When I have the time I'll try and check your mix myself to see what it looks like. It'd be great if you care to share your findings.

Take care,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 17, 2007, 04:38:42 pm
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! Wink



chris asked me to review his revised mix (which of course is against the rules to post recalls that are not requested by me....but whatever)

chris, i only have a few comments (and you'll need to apply my overall opinions and approaches that you already know)

1.  the bass guitar is too loud.  the vibe you are going for is not far off.  your approach was MUCH different then mine, but it can work really well.  now, the level of the bass is too much, however, if you were to really jack up the bass tone, i might change my opinion of it being this loud.  on top of all that, your mix lacks the subs i want to hear from this approach.  

2.  the drums being mixed back actually work.  whatever you did to them sounds cool and fits the overall image you want for the song, however, i think you can squeeze a touch more impact out of them, even at the lower level they are at.  think of them as trying to speak more, not necessarily drive the song.

3.  the guitar part is to clean.  you need to do something to it to glue it to the drums better.

with your current approach i'd say having the vocals be upfront, dry and clean is a great choice, but really, nothing else can take this approach.  it all needs to get wrapped around the vocal to work.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 17, 2007, 05:00:35 pm
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.

Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: j.hall on January 17, 2007, 05:03:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 18, 2007, 06:11:13 am
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.




Hello,
Thank you for your comments.
I probably agree with your comments for the most part.
Yes it should be developed more, i was actually afraid what we should not arrange songs and just mix them, next time i will also arrange song much then i have here...

As for guitar, i have tried to do it wiwthout Delay layer, but it sucks, because then everything sounds pretty simple and no space feeling, what guitar is giving, maybe i should have lovered volume for that guitar, i don't know, most probably if i had something what i can enphasize rytmically, then i could use it instead of guitar, but everything else was in high freq range so i don't considered that.

I have not edited drums, only aligned snare tracks in order to avoid what? Phasing issues right:)

I never mixed so minimalistic mixes before, so i quite new to this, for me more tracks gives more choise:(

I'm also a person who don't goes to much into FX, and consider FX as only elements which add to the solidnes of song, not becoming song itself. I don't meen my delay, but reversing tracks, some choruses flanges, etc.

Regarding Drums being disconnected, yes it is probably true, but what i can do to connect them?Smile

What about vocals? How to make more edge? Using some harmonixers? Enchancers? I made all i could with EQ. Rise volume?
yes that was my mistake, i made a Vocal down mix, i liked Vocal up what i heared here, so i shoud remix it.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Thomas Lester on January 18, 2007, 07:50:47 am
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:)



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?
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 18, 2007, 09:09:45 am
Thomas Lester wrote on Thu, 18 January 2007 06:50

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:)



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?


Sorry, but they all sounded terribly out of phase to me:)
I have aligned Top and Bottom (inverted phase first) snare and Also second drummers tracs. Used Sound Replacer Peak Align Option.
Try it maybe you haveen't heared drums which are in Phase, so you don't notice when those are out of phase.

Also you can read Sound Of Sound article about nuging drums.

to the first track.
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Thomas Lester on January 18, 2007, 10:16:26 am
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.



I'll try not to take that as an insult.  Rolling Eyes    Of course I know what drums sound like in phase!  I just don't subscribe to the "nudge all the wave forms together" thing that some are doing these days.  I think it ruins the feel of the instrument.  That's not the way instrumens behave in the real world.  

Hey, but that's me....  Feel free to keep mixing the way you want to mix.

-Tom
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: NickT on January 18, 2007, 11:33:23 am
This was an interesting tune. I have since replaced my monitors and would mix this differently...but it is what it is.

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.



Well...I was on crack and my lips are chapped...does that count?

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! =)


Kick is just comped and eq'd. A little comp on the drum buss. Thanks. The delay just got past me with my old monitors. Just didn't seem that loud or  sibilant.

OK...Mix comments:

JHall - Nice low end I like the vox treatment.

TLester - Very smooth mix. Nice tones.

Cary - Nice intro. I like the second guitar coming in later. Chorus vox could come up.

Gatino - Vox very bright. I like the stereo field.

Undertow - Heavy Bass. Not muddy, but a little loud. Nice overall mix.

Scottoliphant - More reverb than I like. Nice Drum mix.

NickT - To Freakin' Loud! After my ears stopped bleeding, I made a discovery...right in front of me...a volume knob..and yes...I could turn it down..and the world was good again!  Twisted Evil  A little bright. You must have mixed on old monitors!  Embarassed

ScottH - Bass is making attack noises. A little distracting, but the overall levels and tones are very nice.

DConstruction - Very creative. I like the vox...maybe a little bright, but nice. I would like a little more bass.

LouMan - Verb separates the vox from the mix a little. Tones are good.

ScottVolthause - Nice mix. Low mids a little muddy to my ears.

ChrisJ - Bass is really loud! It masks the drums. Chorus is nice.

Garret - Noise in this mix. Drums disappear. Vox sound nice. Pitched up?

Henchman - Nice Mix. The drums sound great. The Rhodes fx  track in the chorus is a little loud. Covers the vox.

Nizzle - Very "stereo" mix. Nice treatment.

Ator - Nice intro. Smooth mix. Vox could come up in the chorus a little.

iCombs - I like this. Attack on the bass is a little distracting but a very nice mix.

SingSing - Another smooth mix. A little bass heavy. Nice overall mix!

Rankus - Nice live feel. Like walking into a small club.

MarkFassett - Has a distant sound to it. Levels are good. Verb sets it back.

TomC - Bass is missing. Vox seem a little mid heavy.Drums are set back in the mix. Vox sound better in the chorus.

Greg Dixon - Another intimate mix. Feels like you are in the room with these guys. Nice

Maxim - Bass is loud. Nice use of the tracks for fills. Vox a little to far out front for me.

Star - Intro was different! I liked that. Chorus is a lot louder than the verse. Lost the vox in the chorus.

RedFro - Nice mix. The delay in the chorus set the vox a little to far back. Nice overall mix.

Spoon - Mix is good. I like the vox a little drier. Nice tones.

Sir Wax - Nice mix. I like the way the chorus opens up.

VlaD - Guitars sounds good but a little loud. Something in the chorus is making a noise. Not sure what that is.

These are just my thoughts.

Thanks,

NickT
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: SingSing on January 19, 2007, 09:52:20 am
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.



Thanks so much for your kind words   Smile

Any opinion like this is the kind of opinion I like...   Razz

Once again, thanks for doing this IMP thing...it's been a blast and I'm looking forward to X.


Take care,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: IMP9 discussion thread.
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on January 21, 2007, 06:57:49 am
Probsbly time to thanksgiving has come, because no more reviews:(

so Thanks to Everybody commenting my mix and thanks for effords making thease IMP happen.