R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: j.hall on April 23, 2007, 10:19:04 am

Title: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 23, 2007, 10:19:04 am
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: iCombs on April 23, 2007, 11:05:05 am
*EVERYBODY UP FOR THE KICKOFF!!!*

Technically, this may have been the roughest I've worked on in the world of IMP.  Auto-Tune...clipping...arrangement...definitely a big challenge.  That said, the song is there...the hook is good and the instumentation fits well.

I'm going to post commentary on everything I hear this time...I didn't get a chance to on the last IMP because I was busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest, but things are a little slower this week, so I should be able to get to reviews once everyone gets them up!

I'm excited!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: garret on April 23, 2007, 11:20:15 am
iCombs wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 11:05



Technically, this may have been the roughest I've worked on in the world of IMP.  Auto-Tune...clipping...arrangement...definitely a big challenge.  That said, the song is there...the hook is good and the instumentation fits well.



Agreed... and after a quick listen to the submitted mixes, I realize I may have gotten lost in the details and missed on the overall track balance.  Mine's dark.  Really dark... Hmm.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: ATOR on April 23, 2007, 02:15:51 pm

For me the biggest challenge was the arrangement. I spend half of my time on it, cutting it like a butcher  Twisted Evil

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 23, 2007, 02:23:12 pm
thus far, i'm really disappointed in the mixes.....

the auto-tuning wasn't even remotely close to what i'd call bad.  the arrangement wasn't either.  the tracks were handled decently, and aside from some clipping (which i had zero problem handling) they sounded ok.

to date, this is the best rhythm section IMP has seen/heard.

i did my mix in 3 hours.

garret, your mix is dark, but chris j's is DARK!!!!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Nizzle on April 23, 2007, 03:26:27 pm
j.hall wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 19:23



the auto-tuning wasn't even remotely close to what i'd call bad.  the arrangement wasn't either.  the tracks were handled decently, and aside from some clipping (which i had zero problem handling) they sounded ok.



I agree with J re: vocal tuning - it was fine as is, BUT the Kick was a drag to deal with and the Snare wasn't much better. The gtr tracks(mics) were out of phase(couldn't even make them work when manually aligning the waveforms) - no point in blending them - just choose one...But what was surprising to me was that in the midst of this meandering, sprawling piece - were all the ingredients of a very memorable song. The form(IMHO) is all wrong, BUT all of the necessary parts are there to be assembled....Since I do these for fun and not for $, there is only so much time I'm willing to put into them and rearranging the whole thing isn't something I'm going to fool around with  - But I did "snip" some stuff out as well as try and make something exciting happen with the never-ending-guitar-wankathon that seemed to go nowhere ending.... The singer has a very appealing recorded voice....

my 2 cents.

-t





Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 23, 2007, 03:34:26 pm
thanks for sticking up for my melodyne skills Smile
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: iCombs on April 23, 2007, 03:54:26 pm
j.hall wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 13:23


the auto-tuning wasn't even remotely close to what i'd call bad.  the arrangement wasn't either.  the tracks were handled decently, and aside from some clipping (which i had zero problem handling) they sounded ok.

to date, this is the best rhythm section IMP has seen/heard.


I can hear the Auto-Tune clearly in the chorus, and it bugs me.  I've got no problem with a little touch of it to make sure your vocal harmonies are tight, but this felt like overkill.

I will agree with you that the rhythm section is WAY tight.  The groove is solid as hell.   I like the bits of the song, but I didn't think the arrangent was as tight as it could've been.  I thought the guitar solo at the end was especially egregious, as it came out of nowhere, and didn't do a lot to reinforce anything that the vocals had done.  

I'm sorry the mixes are disappointing, but I think that points (in some ways) to systematically flawed tracks.  I don't want to sound like a super-negative dickhead, but it felt like an underdeveloped song and decent tracking session with some good sized flaws.  I've definitely worked on worse (and I mean a LOT worse), but I kept wanting more support from the tracks themselves.  The more I mix the more I learn that if it's not there in the tracks, you can't really put it there in the mix.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Careful Collapse on April 23, 2007, 04:18:13 pm
I thought the bass guitar track was really good.  I wonder how many punchins it took...

I did have a bit of trouble with the kick however, because there's no snap to it whatsoever
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 23, 2007, 04:19:30 pm
knowing the player, i'd say he nailed it in one continuous take, or fixed very minor things here and there.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: ShakesTheClown on April 23, 2007, 04:26:50 pm
I finally got to this about noon today.

Lots of subtle automation.

I really fought the guitars and the bass alot.

Concerning the bass I believe my room has some issues so I don't think I'm hearing it very well.

Burning through this in about 3 hours it didn't occur to me to check the phase on the guitars.  I assumed they were double tracked.  Perhaps that would have helped.

Kick and snare were not exactly what I like to hear but since I had no replacement software I had to deal with it.
This is maybe my 3rd IMP and I've heard some cool mixes from people but for some reason I can't bring myself to do anything drastic.

I approach this by assuming that this is a real session for a client that I do not know so I try to keep the insanity to a minimum. (working with someone I am familiar with I am not so reserved.)

Perhaps next time I won't play it safe.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 23, 2007, 04:33:09 pm
it's supposed to be a real life simulation......

i do change arrangements when i feel it's appropriate.  i mix every IMP as if i'm submitting it to a client for approval.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: garret on April 23, 2007, 04:36:03 pm
I'd like to not focus on something that should be minor like the level of autotune, when the overall impact of the mixes, how well they work for the song, etc., are much more important...

But I have to chime in that I do think this vocal track is overtuned.  When used carefully, melodyne can make a vocal just sound like a damn fine performance.  No artifacts at all, just a take you nail to the absolute best of your ability.

Grant: I tune my own vocals too, and I know how much better you feel when you know they're in tune.... but trust me that melodyne can do better at making you sound natural, yet in pitch.

If you want, send me the raw untuned vocal, and I'll tune it and post for comparison, and share my melodyne tricks.    I've been thinking of starting a melodyne techniques thread anyway... hmm.

Then again, maybe it doesn't matter.  In a mix, I'm sure 99% of the general public wouldn't hear the tuning as a problem... but perhaps it depends on what audience you're trying to attract.  If you're aiming for mainstream radio, yah, this is fine... but maybe the indie pop crowd is a touch more demanding of natural sound?

Just a thought.

I haven't had a chance yet to really listen to the mixes.... but quick impressions are that J's is big ass as usual, and iCombs is very solid...

I gotta get home and listen to these.  I mixed this (mostly) on a new set of avantone mix cubes, which I haven't learned yet.  If anything, I expected my mix would translate too bright, given that the mix cubes lack a bit in the very high end.   So I'm afraid the problem exists between the desk and the chair.

-Garret
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 23, 2007, 04:44:13 pm
iCombs, do you have a sub?

your mixes consistantly give my sub a serious work out.  whatever you are doing in the 20 - 40Hz range is too big IMO.

i'm hearing lots of interesting arrangements ideas.  i was expecting this from such an easy song to cut.

ATOR, you have some really solid ideas, i think overall your arrangement misses the mark, but the background vox shifting around was a great idea.  i would have just cut the phrase shorter.  the solo doesn't work at all over the section you put it on, but i liked that you tried to keep it.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: iCombs on April 23, 2007, 05:05:58 pm
j.hall wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 15:44

iCombs, do you have a sub?

your mixes consistantly give my sub a serious work out.  whatever you are doing in the 20 - 40Hz range is too big IMO.

i'm hearing lots of interesting arrangements ideas.  i was expecting this from such an easy song to cut.

ATOR, you have some really solid ideas, i think overall your arrangement misses the mark, but the background vox shifting around was a great idea.  i would have just cut the phrase shorter.  the solo doesn't work at all over the section you put it on, but i liked that you tried to keep it.



I do not have a sub ATM.  I'm looking at getting one to go with the Tannoy System 800s and using those as my midfields...and honestly, I always err on the side of a little too much bottom...I'd rather have my ME reduce that bottom than boost it.   (As long as I keep all the bass frequencies in perspective.) The last mixes I sent for mastering came back with the same comments.  I'm honestly a little afraid of subs...partly due to the fact that my last monitors were Mackie HR824's...which went pretty strong down to about 40...and I always mixed really thin on those...the Dynaudios don't go as far, but are SO much more revealing in the mids that my mixes translated better IMMEDIATELY.

At any rate...nope.  No sub.

I did just get Voxengo SPAN...and as I recall I saw a lot of really low stuff on that, but again, discounted it (left it for the ME, as it were).
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: ShakesTheClown on April 23, 2007, 05:19:47 pm
Maybe this is a discussion for another thread but...How big does the low end need to get!?  I've never been in a room with a kick drum that sounds as big as I've been hearing in these mixes.

I too usually decide on huge low end but decided against it this time as it sounded unnatural to me.

However....bigass kick drums is where it's at.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 23, 2007, 05:21:11 pm
hey guys,
just to clarify..........

the only thing i tuned was the lead vocal.  maybe a bit artifacty, but not near as much as the background vocal.   the background vocal was sent to me like that.  those were the result of editing multiple takes together to make up one phrase (as i understand it).  

i've been discovering my mixing vibe to be developing into a very very FM radio sound, just cuz that's the kind of music i write.

myspace.com/grantrichard  
j mixed those tracks (except for "can't you see")

this was not my band, it was a friend's band who volunteered this mix to me simply because i had nothing to do, and i wanted something to practice on.

the bass player is a one-taker, the best player i know....SERIOUSLY.  you guys ever need a session player (drums or bass), PM me, i'll hook you up with them.  they are incredible players.

and in his own words: j's mix 'slays'.  haha

here is the band:
myspace.com/motorcarcourtney

the name of the song is fantasy.  it was mixed by the lead singer jonathan dimmel (he also played the drums on this track).

i'm very new to mixing and this forum is a God-send for me!!!!  you all rock!

grant
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: chrisj on April 23, 2007, 05:34:41 pm
j.hall wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 14:23

garret, your mix is dark, but chris j's is DARK!!!!


All the better to match my black, scheming heart  Twisted Evil

Downloading everything and looking forward to hearing everyone's mixes in the next couple days. I got mine the way I wanted it, at least from where I was standing the other day when I mixed it- no apologies for pissing J off with it Wink that said, one thing I did NOT do this time was use the clock-radio type monitors- it was big mains all the way. Everything actually has different kinds of treble boost, it's just that I was extremely wary of making the mix sound obnoxious and post-90s because I thought that would suck Smile

If J's mix can not piss me off in turn even though his yen for treble was much greater than mine, I'll be very very interested in how that was done. I wanted big, not bright. More in the critiques, not to get into a big mix-direction wrangle before I even hear anyone else's tracks...
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on April 23, 2007, 05:36:04 pm
j.hall wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 20:23


to date, this is the best rhythm section IMP has seen/heard.



Yep, besides the sound of kick&snare it was very tight, and that
bass player is a hack. What a nice groove and the melodies support
the song perfectly. Way to go.

Let the listening marathon start...

Tom
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: garret on April 23, 2007, 05:36:05 pm
grant richard wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 17:21

hey guys,
just to clarify..........

this was not my band, it was a friend's band who volunteered this mix to me simply because i had nothing to do, and i wanted something to practice on.




Aha!  sorry for the confusion.  
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Careful Collapse on April 23, 2007, 05:51:12 pm
Quote:

How big does the low end need to get!?  I've never been in a room with a kick drum that sounds as big as I've been hearing in these mixes.
 

I usually opt on the side of more bass than less bass, with the understanding that a mastering engineer will have an easier time removing bass than adding it (as was already suggested.)  Plus, I don't think this particular kick drum had a lot of mid range to it, anyway.  I tried pushing up 3k or so but it took a LOT just to get a worthwhile change so I just ended up just focusing on what it already had.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 23, 2007, 06:39:26 pm
Quote:

I tried pushing up 3k or so but it took a LOT just to get a worthwhile change so I just ended up just focusing on what it already had.


IMO, we should do what is required to get the sound we want.  Push up as much 3k as needed.  Use two EQ's if necessary.  A wise man once said 'stop watching the meter'.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Careful Collapse on April 23, 2007, 07:48:14 pm
Well eventually I thought "maybe there's no beater because they don't want a beater sound?"  So I went with it.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: chrisj on April 23, 2007, 08:21:06 pm
Okay, here comes Evil ChrisJ... not really, but what with feeling defensive about J's initial remarks, and also with a lot of 'WTF???' moments in some of the mixes, this wasn't one of my happy happy joy joy crits. Remember, I'm just this bozo with a copy of Logic Express, not even Logic Pro: if you LIKED what I did, woohoo, if you hated it, feel free to ignore all of my ravings. That said, I went on a real tear this time and am talking at length about practically every entry, and have publically disagreed with J's choices in gruesome detail  Twisted Evil

Enjoy- and I look forward to getting my own public floggings over MY choices, which however I've hopefully shed some light on. This is gonna be an interesting discussion, the mix authors SPLIT into at least two major camps, both of which found support in the tracked material. Serious bloodbath potential Smile I ask only this: flame me back but go into equally gruesome detail as to why I'm wrong!  Laughing

IMP 11 crit thread

briefcasemanx- Feels good, relaxed. Stiffens up a bit in the choruses, and starts to sound crunchy and modern, which everybody knows I'm not a fan of Wink The drums feel a little bit like they're a drum machine, and I'm not sure why except that the tones have an aura to them that feels clicky. I don't like all the high percussion, it tends to become just 'sizz-sizz-sizz-sizz'- makes me wonder if the original tracks really were 44.1K and SRCed to 48 poorly. That's a crit of the tracks, though, you just haven't fixed it for them.

Fantomas- Feels nice and polished- things sit well. I'm hearing the details of the organ more than usually, which is neat- the chorus thickens up nicely with the guitars. I'm finding the vocals are sitting back a bit- by which I mean, they're part of the whole 'everything in its place' thing. There's a problem with that which Boedo also ran into, and it's this: too slick and it slips right by without the listener noticing anything. What bits do you think ought to stick out obnoxiously? Because I'm not hearing ANYTHING stick out. In a way that's an amazing feat of polishing, and if you're listening critically there's less to fault, but the song gets boring with too much of that, and there's no worse fault really. Also it's an odd thing to do, making a half-fade and half-ending. I think that's about downplaying the slightly wonky ending so it's less noticable, but I don't think it worked.

Grant Richard- Compression pumping the snare- yeah, this is gonna be a RAWWWK mix. Boy, it sure sounds modern. I have a problem here because I'm not wanting to hear this, the way about five different things are going 'poke-poke-poke-poke' at me with extreme highs, the way the background of the chorus is a wall of white noise guitars. I think it's a pretty decent take at a 'modern rock' mix- for a better take, listen to what J does- with some lapses like the band-mute trick and various studio tricks flying about. I also think this is a terrible thing to do to an emotive song, because it turns it into a goddamn fleet of chrome jet bombers cruising along, and I totally don't connect with the point of the song that way. Maybe it's just me.

iCombs- Whoa, high impact snare man! However, the whole top end of the track is acting like a giant scissors. snikt-snikt-snikt-snikt go the hat/bells/ac.guit etc. I hear this mix setting new records for everything louder than everything else, I'm just not that into the way that feels here. I always figure there's something really wrong if I want to turn it off, and it's not as bad as that but everything is just... too... loud (yeah, I'm just too OLD, ok, carry on then). I could hear cookie monster vocals over this background without too much trouble, but damn- I just can't agree with this one. It's almost in that 'XTC Oranges and Lemons' zone which I do like, but it has a more rocky feel and less poppy. I like the skill just not where it went...

macbraddy- Ow! Loud much? If you're hotter than modern hot CDs out of Sterling Sound, something's wrong. So aggressive... I can get behind the way you're not obliterating the vocal, that's a saving grace for me, and I'm impressed that you're not dynamic inverting even when at this level, but the whole thing is making me really tense. Even bits that are supposed to feel _relaxed_ are making me tense, both from sheer loudness and from the aggression of all the mix elements. It makes me wonder if the mix would still hold together if it wasn't smashed totally flat. Bear in mind I'm not shy about extreme hot level myself- but it has to be used so the relaxed bits aren't dropping out. When the relaxed bits are beating your head in, this is called unclear on the concept Smile

TomC- Pretty big and pounding. This time instead of going snikt snikt snikt, it goes whump whump whump with a throbbing bass and kick. VERY LOUD VOICE. I can't disagree with that, I make similar choices, but not quite as much as this I think. It's right on the brink of TOO loud, which for a lead vocal is really getting up there. I don't want to have to cringe back from the vocalist. Funny qualities in the acoustic guitars. In general, sort of 'packed up'- it's squished into too small of a space like what you'd expect from mastering, I'm not feeling any depth and space to speak of out of this. I'm not sure this would balance that well if everything was quieted down so you could hear it.

Shakes the Clown- Turned it right up- this one isn't bus-smashed. Right away I hear a huge yen for bigness. I respect that. Echoing vast snare, those funny vocal verb tricks- oh yes, we have the big soundstage going on here. I do like that, what I'm missing is the impact, for instance on the backbeat. It gets lost in the size a bit. I'd also like to have the singer even more in my lap to contrast with all the distance elsewhere. I also note that here's someone else who got fond of that organ backdrop! I think some of us went rather dark by modern standards specifically to try to blend things with that organ without killing it. You got the organ sounding and feeling full-size, Shakes- kudos. The trick then becomes getting drums, vocals, lead guitars etc to still jump up and be upfront and aggressive, because everything can't sit back with the organ. You _can't_ stay aware of the organ all the time, as cool as it is. Almost anything in the foreground will mask it. That's life as an organist in rock settings Wink

ATOR- Ow. (just the edge on the guitars, no biggie). Hey, I'm loving the backbeat- that is a MONSTER snare sound. It's kind of bigger than the lead vocal, though. I'm constantly wanting the lead vocs to be bigger, but liking the groove on the drums anyway. The chorus starts hurting my head again- purely as a factor of how loud it is, not anything too specific. Neat arrangement trim! If the song had to be shorter that's a good way to do it. I'm less fond of all the vocal drop-ins everywhere, though I can tell why they're there. Some VERY COOL guitar layering, especially the bit where the screaming high note comes in. All in all, I don't like the _concept_ of compressing all the spaces of this song, but I sure am impressed by this _way_ of doing that. Very very slick. The only thing to watch out for is this- with every moment packed with exciting stuff, there isn't the contrast and it all sort of blurs together. There's some of that here, for exactly that reason- no breathing space. I wonder how brief breathing space could be and still work as a contrast?

ChrisJ- Yeah, it's black as the heart of hell. Somebody spank this boy and take his pipe organ away Wink

Garret- Okay, immediate need to do weird thing Very Happy not bus smashed. This feels kind of sparse in the verse, naturally what with the drums missing! I like some of this aggressive arrangement, other parts not. Nice introduction of drums, annoying reverb hit on the vocals. Most of the time I like the sound of the voice, though. Boy, that's an aggressive remapping of the harmony vocal but that's like changing the song- are you that sure that the new part is better and that you've tried to appreciate the intent of the old one? I had to get crazy with automation to make the harmony be heard at all times, but I still liked the notes used. I just get the sense that it's possible to dig deeper into what the original music was attempting- like with the vocal verb sting, when the voice gets that loud, is the song really trying to make it suddenly be far away, or is the vocalist more hitting that line super hard and emphasizing it? What would be a line where the song would like it to be suddenly far away? (not 'YOU'RE GOOONE', reverb would be saying 'I'M gone! see ya!')

Nizzle- Loud. Right. Bright, also. We are clearly as modern as next week. That said, the tones sound okay. I think we have another 'remap the chorus harmony' and again I'm not convinced the new line is better for the song- why would that bit lift, to be cheerful? The original line resolves on 'for me', except you have to crank the fader to hear it because the track dies. The overall mix is kind of glossy but I could do with more body and upfrontness from the vocals- I want them to come off more like people and less like additional harmony instruments. They blend in very slickly and I tend to like lead vocals to not merge with the song so much. Check out TomC's mix to hear just how loud vocals can be in a pop song. You can clobber the song with the vocals, it's great Smile

Rankus- Hit-you-in-the-chest kick! This is gonna be drum-centric. They sound real good, I'm loving the balance, and I'm not losing the vocal too much. I like. The chorus gets softer, though- it washes out, without doing anything especially wrong- unlike say J's mix, the wall of guitars isn't there. I don't actually mind that much here, because this song feels softer to me- reminds me of Journey or something. I _hate_ Journey and Rush guitar walls because they're processed and bland, but on a song like this maybe that's just the thing. I just have a feeling that this mix works with the feel of the song really nicely. OH yeah. This one I'm truly enjoying. There's a sort of expensive, slick, polished quality to it that suits it right down to the ground. Huge respect Very Happy

SingSing- Immediately turned it down! Ow. The immediate feeling I get is of a sort of wild abstract sound picture- the guitar pick brite is super hot, the vocal's all reverbed (and strangely hacked up in arrangement- WHY lose 'with no-one to rescue me', that's the whole point of the lyric!). Everything's a cocaine nightmare, very glamorous, resonant with strange atmospheres. I can easily imagine songs that would be great like this, but I totally can't get it about this one. The meaning goes away, it's a chrome shell of sound, the song as a chrome android. Which is to say, I didn't like this mix Smile

Boedo- Much more normal. I'm feeling the contrast between the upfront dry vocal and elements like the reverberating snare crack. It feels solidly polished- maybe a little static. The polishedness is like a 'don't touch, you'll get fingerprints all over it' sort of polishedness, there's something sort of empty here. Maybe it has a lot to do simply with the fact that the snare verb feels SO empty and cavernous? I do think the 'it drives me crazy every night' part stepped up and put out an extra effort, though- I felt it dig into that bit like it meant it, and that helps a lot. Still, there are other places that feel like they're just so polished and controlled that they're on _cruise_ control, the energy doesn't have any surprises in it. I'm a big fan of the sheer artistry of this execution, it just worries me that the song can end and I can be like 'next!' without any hesitation. If the energy surged along with the meaning of the words it can go to a place where you want to listen to the song obsessively over and over- when it's so utterly polished nothing catches. Too slick, man, it slips through your fingers and is gone...

carefulcollapse- Heavy. The bass and kick here are really dominant. It's a problem that they dominate even the lead vocal. If the bass and kick together can beat up the lead vocal you have problems. Yikes, they kicked the lead vocal out of the verse and went to another part! Eek. Not good! Bad to have the rhythm section beating up the lead vocalist and the song. It was totally about 'HEY GUYZ, listen to what we can do! BA DA DOMMM'. The poor guy was trying to sing a song, you guys, and you booted his ass off the stage. Nope. Oh look, they kicked the vocals off the chorus too! *ROFL* oh MAN... no, not okay. Next time work WITH the vox and the song, not throwing all kinds of modulations and stuff at the hapless song. This is right in that 'you can't DOOOO that' zone, like the guys that remapped the harmony vocals, only worse. There's a song there- maybe it doesn't do such exciting things, but it IS the song. This mix dismays me as bad as mine dismayed J Very Happy

jdier- Whoa, captain buss compression! Why is the intro guitar way louder than the full band? By the time the vocal comes, it's settled down some, and I'm liking the feel of it, though this is not a heavy feel at all- it's very yacht rocky- but then so is the song, no wonder I like it. The vocal steps back when it gets loud- and the chorus steps back too, instead of getting loud. That's not good, you can't have your quiet bits upfront and loud, and the loud bits quiet and suppressed, it's backward. There's a lot to like here, always in the quiet bits, but as soon as things try to get loud it just sucks back into the depths of the speakers. Total, total dynamic inversion. I do think I'm hearing a nice springiness in the lows probably as a result of this compression, but it's at too high a cost if the dynamics invert that bad. If I was mastering this I would SO ask for a no-comp version, just because it sounds quite good except for the extreme dynamic inversion. That's something I'd almost never do because I figure mixers are going to get it the way they want it using whatever they got, but in this case it's like auto-gain-control, it's not helping.

J Hall- Best guitar wall of the lot. No question. I'm not getting into the ambience on the vocal- with the intimate delivery of these vocals, why aren't they dry? That's me not agreeing with the choice of a more 'live concert' feel. It gives the mix an 'empty' feel like Boedo's, and in a way I can see why that would make sense, but the thing is, the song and the emotions of the singer are NOT EMPTY, totally not. The guy's drowning in feelings- dude, you try it, my life has paralleled this song more than I like in recent months. In a way I feel like interposing a 'rock and roll gig' vibe over the top of this track is way off base. I'm hearing it on the lead guitar solo as well. Before you dis on my tonal balance because it doesn't crackle like a live performance (as yours DOES, really well), check that- like on the guitar solo, from about 3:33. Your lead guitar sounds more like a stage performance, but the changes in tone it undergoes are a lot less than the track has to offer because it's focused around that bridge-pickup, screaming-guitar moment it does, the shred area. There's a whole warmth-and-intimacy thing the lead guitar does, and this is a tradeoff, you lose it in exchange for the wall-of-PAs live sound. Just because the song has potentially big guitar walls doesn't mean that's what the point of the song is, I don't agree with that choice. I'm being kind of fierce because, well, the first thing I heard out of you sounded like 'you guys all suck, and ChrisJ REALLY sucked!'. More like, you chose something that was VERY different from some of us, and I'm not at all persuaded that the song had to have it. It's damn well executed, like Boedo except he was 'uber slick' and you are 'uber RAWWWK'. But that's not the only way to approach this song, seriously. I count maybe six guys who went for that intimacy, warmth thing in various ways and five who went for the RAWWWWK thing. I don't call that a mandate, so try more to understand what the duller mixes are trying to do. For instance, you'll hear way more top-end on the acoustic guitar and high percussion than on the dirt guitars in the wuss mixes, and you might also hear (I counted two guys here) a really big full bed coming from that pipe organ. You get that going, there's no room for dirt guitars at all, and if you brighten it it sounds totally wrong.

But then we can fight this out further down the thread, I gotta give J a chance to explain how wrong I am Very Happy

Bottom line- maybe the biggest range of possible mix spaces and vibes yet! In a lot of ways, the different vibes actually WORK, too. We have to be patient with the enemy vibes amongst us Smile

That should set the cat among the pigeons!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: rankus on April 23, 2007, 09:23:49 pm


Great post Chris.  I agree with all your perceptions ...

I am in the middle of two albums, so I may not have a chance to do a detailed critique of everyone's this time around... I am dloading everything though and will have a listen to them all again tomorrow night at the studio (day off today)... Hopefully I can write a couple of lines for each...

PS:  Thanks for the props Chris... I really connected with this tune ... the electric guitars were irritating for me, hence they were tucked in (agreeing with your comment on needing more of them in the choruses.) Loved the tuning on the vocal by the way.. made for a "modern" esthetic. Smashed the crap outta that and put her right out front.



Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 23, 2007, 10:23:14 pm
chrisj,

Thanks for the input.  I am just learning how to mix so every mix is a struggle and lesson for me.  on my last imp I was the guy who could not control his reverb and this time it is the compression.  

I am also still struggling with my monitoring set up.

Thank you very much for the comments.

Jim
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 23, 2007, 11:53:09 pm
thanks very much for your comments chris!  i appreciate them a lot!  

i totally agree with the high end thing, now that i'm hearing everybody's stuff.  that is something i struggle with: carving out space for things.  

thanks for keeping me in check, this is a good learning experience!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: garret on April 24, 2007, 12:07:31 am
Alright, after listening to my mix and some references again, I think my mix does need a few db more of top end (5khz and up),  but that's it.. To my ears and aesthetic, I'm pretty close to what I want to hear.  

It's interesting to me how much variety there is in the tonal balance of the mixes... I guess that's mastering territory, so we should ignore it, but it's hard for me to get past.   J, I like your mix, but I find it fatiguing to listen to because there's so much going on around 4khz.  But maybe that's part of the rawk fury, gotta make the ear drums bleed, etc.

Chris, I hardly touched the harmony bg vox, honest... I moved around four notes to add some variety to a couple of the repeated holds, that's all.  One mistake I realize now is I should have featured the bg vox in the last bit, when starts doing something interesting... other mixers caught that and I missed it.  Ack.

The change I made to the intro might not work, but to my ears the original doesn't either... with that little guitar trill, the tune just seems to stumble together, rather than beginning with intention.  I swear there aren't enough notes, like something got cut short in the editing process... Thanks for your feedback, and three cheers for the dark mix gang.

-G
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: maxim on April 24, 2007, 02:28:18 am
lots of deleting of guitar parts for me

thanks for the tracks

(as usual, would love to know what you think, chris...)
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Antman on April 24, 2007, 04:52:51 am
Wow, this makes the weaknesses in my mixing horribly apparent.

This is my first one of these I've done, what a learning experience. If I had more time I probably would have ditched that kick and snare though and replaced it with something else. But regardless, it was cool trying to make those work.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 24, 2007, 09:44:31 am
few thoughts on some of the first mixes I have listened to:

jhall - I really wish I could get my head around how you EQ and compress the vocals to get them to sit so well in the mix without being loud.  I am not a huge fan of the thick verb, but the voice sounds is killer.  The Snare is also really well EQ'ed, never hard to hear, never walking on anything else or over powering.  (would you share your EQ curve applied on voice and snare?) With the guitars, I am loving the thick sound you get on them.  very nice.  Almost like you called the guy back in to double the part.  Of the 4-5 mixes I have listened to, yours has my favorite bass sound so far.  Very natural, full and musical.  If it were my song I would beg you to back off the verbs, but that is all to taste, and I think the mix is really nice.

Rankus - Initial impressions are that I really like the band sound a lot.  I am not liking the lead vocal.  The same things that I did not like about mine, I also do not like about yours.  It seems like it has to be too loud to cut where j's sits so nice without the need for excessive volume.  Drums sound great and the kick is especially pleasing to my ears.  I also like your choice to keep the backup vocals closer to center.  Sounds nice and natural to me.

Boedeo - Another vocal EQ that I like.  Much like j's and very UNLIKE mine, it sits well without a lot of volume.  I do not like the snare eq, seems to compete with the vocals and guitars.  A bit too dark, not enough actual snare sound or crack.  You seem to have a lot of sounds in that same eq range that you have the snare and that tends to tire my ears out.  The kick and bass seem to occupy the same space sometimes and the bass guitar loses out and get's lost or sounds muddy.  Really like that lead vocal sound though (would you share your eq curve?)

chrisj - My favorite part is the guitar sound right after the first verse... sticks out over all the other mixes as the best sound and most ear catching.  Very well done.  I also like your choices on effects.  Very tasteful but not too stripped down.  However, the intro is muddy and distracting.  The lead vocal I feel lacks body and warmth.  Sounds too much like a guy sitting alone in a room (perhaps by design.)  On the kit I do not like the snare sound, it sticks out too much for me... too loud, sounds like it's own instrument, not like part of a drum kit.  Also, the kick get's lost for me.  Your mix sounds like you sectioned the song off into 5 or 6 different parts, mixed them all separately then pasted them together.  Some wild swings that I found distracting.

Briefcase - Another great vocal treatment (can you share your eq curve.)  In general I like the entire sound.  The only things that I do not like are the snare and sometimes the EQ balancing on the kick and bass guitar.  For the snare I feel like the reverb is too thick.. or too quick.  I would have liked to hear you patch the snare send through a delay in front of the reverb to give it a little room to breath...  It sounds too much like a drum machine snare...  This REALLY bugs me since I like the rest of the mix so much.  I like the kick and the bass each on their own, but a few time when the mix get's busy I feel like I lose the bass guitar or it starts to sound... not muddy, but maybe sluggish.  Great mix though.

I will post comments on the other mixes as I get some time to listen.

Thanks again to j. and everyone else here.  I am addicted to IMP!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: rankus on April 24, 2007, 01:05:13 pm
grant richard wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 20:53



now that i'm hearing everybody's stuff.  
~snip~
this is a good learning experience!




I think this is the most important factor of the iMP. Aside from any text feedback from others,... Simply hearing your mix up against one that you may like better is very educational.  Something that can't be done with comments or feedback.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 24, 2007, 03:44:32 pm
chrisj wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 19:21



I'm being kind of fierce because, well, the first thing I heard out of you sounded like 'you guys all suck, and ChrisJ REALLY sucked!'.


i never said the mixes "sucked" and i certainly never said yours "sucked more"

don't put words into my mouth.

i ALWAYS have a very specific agenda for each IMP.  i choose the songs carefully, and i add my thoughts WITH thought.

your mix is in fact too dark.  this isn't something we can write-off as a personal preference.  it's simply too dark.  it has very little clarity due to it's lack of treble.

you can make a mix feel dark, and still have it be present (see Failure's Fantastic Planet).  your mix is globally dark, so honestly, it's a very simple fix.  don't read any further into then that, and don't put words into my mouth, i do a fine job of that on my own.....

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 24, 2007, 03:50:35 pm
garret wrote on Mon, 23 April 2007 23:07



J, I like your mix, but I find it fatiguing to listen to because there's so much going on around 4khz.  But maybe that's part of the rawk fury, gotta make the ear drums bleed, etc.



no, that slipped by me.  you are totally right.  and honestly, mastering would only minimize that and not cure it.

i mixed the song very fast on purpose, but the 4k should have been caught.........it's all in the guitars
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: mcsnare on April 24, 2007, 03:53:45 pm
J. you have a great ear for vibe and feel and space. What's a little extra 4k on guitars between friends?
Dave
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 24, 2007, 04:08:33 pm
jdier wrote on Tue, 24 April 2007 08:44



jhall -  (would you share your EQ curve applied on voice and snare?)



just to clarify, the ony verb on my entire is mix is a reverse verb on the lead vocal in the verses.

the EQ on the vocal is only one part of my vocal sound, but here it is

i used EQ3

+2.9dB @ 162Hz, Q 1.0
-3.8dB @ 464Hz, Q 1.0
+5.2dB @ 2.44k shelf, Q 1.0

there is no EQ on the snare.  just an EMI limiter, and a black beauty sample blended in, that's also compressed.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 24, 2007, 04:20:17 pm
no eq???? that's crazy talk!   Very Happy
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: chrisj on April 24, 2007, 05:09:54 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 24 April 2007 15:44

your mix is in fact too dark.  this isn't something we can write-off as a personal preference.  it's simply too dark.  it has very little clarity due to it's lack of treble.


In retrospect- yeah, that got by me. I've referenced it to the 'clock-radio' speakers I sometimes use and this time didn't use, and it was too dark. Mind you, I do flat-out like stuff (usually older stuff, pre-1975) that is also Too Dark, we can still admit my personal preference can include that. What we can't actually say is that I can get away with it- mea culpa, that don't fly post-1972 Smile if I'd been checking on the mini-speakers like a smart guy my confidence in the thick dark vibe would have eroded.

I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth, looks like I got the wrong impression- or, the right impression but shouldn't have described it that way. I gotta work on being less defensive, criticism is my friend. This time it beat me about the head with the 'why didn't you check on the weeny speakers?' point when I took time to think about it a bit.

Interested to know what the secret motive for this one was. I find that I can usually learn something just floundering about, but when I learn what the J Secret Motive is, that's when the lesson sinks home, because usually then I can put my failings in that context Smile

As to no EQ- hey, mine has no EQ on the overheads, kick, toms, and the organ Smile what you're hearing on the overheads and snare is 'bright ambience', it's a sort of twisted reverb. What you're hearing on the organ is 'Ensemble', set to crush the computer under the load of 24 or so voices of organ ensemble...
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on April 24, 2007, 05:23:34 pm
Let the listening marathon begin:

IMP 11 mcsnaremix.mp3
I like this one a lot, instruments are nicely separated, very good
sounding low end kick/bass wise, sounds clean and professional.
Vocals could IMO have a bit more energy, a little more fader riding
would do the job.

Grant-Richard_Original-fantasy6.mp3
Low end could be more defined, I'd like to hear better what the
(really good) bass player is doing, especially in the chorus parts.
Interesting idea at the beginning the second chorus, draws back me
attention to the song nicely.
I like the guitar sound of the solo a lot.

IMP11_BoedoMIX.mp3
Good and solid mix with a nice vocal sound and a good bottom end.
Don't like the snare sound, it's a bit to dominating and sits somehow
behind the OH.

IMP11- Shakestheclown.mp3
I miss the bottom end on this one a bit, it sounds a bit
boxy and laid back because of that. Add some power there and the song
will have much more energy and impact.
Even I'm not a big fan of reverbs some of the vocal effects sound
quite cool.

IMP11-RANKUS.mp3
Intensive and in-your-face vocals, I like that a lot. Drums are a bit
kick-heavy, but the overall drum sound is good.
You could use the stereo field a bit more, it's almost mono.

iCombs_-_IMP11.mp3
Kick-wise similar to RANKUS, and the snare is a bit to dominat and plays
(reverb-wise) behind the rest of the kit.
Good use of the complete stereo field.
You tried (successfully) to make everything big, but I think the individual
instruments do not gel together very well because of that, it sounds more
like a couple of solo players mixed together.
I'd like to see the band as one unit.

IMP11-ChrisJ.mp3
Somehow dull as it was recorded behind a carpet (the drums even behind a
closed door), and that breaks the mix.
That's a pity because I like the vocals a lot, not very intense but with
a nice sound.

IMP-011-TomC.mp3
Oops, that's me. Great mix of course!

briefcasemanx_-_PMC_11.mp3
Another "I'll kill your sub-woofer" mix. Vocals are totally different to
mine, but I like that approach a lot, clean, a bit laid back but
really good sounding.
I'm missing the OH, overall the mix could be a bit brighter.

imp11-garret.mp3
You did a lot of experimentation with this one, but I think it
took away too much energy of the original recording.
Overall a bit dark.

IMP_11_macbraddy48.mp3
Wow, that's LOUD.
I like the overall sound, but that LOUDNESS takes a lot of energy away,
especially at the bottom end, and the lack of dynamics makes the song
a bit fatiguing.
Interesting and good sound vocals in the verses.

imp11_-_singsing.mp3
The lack of low end makes the sound unbalanced and bright, so it's hard
to judge the song. Maybe the excessive use of reverb wouldn't show up
that much if the overall balance would be better.
Did you steal some vocals?

IMP11_Greg_Dixon.mp3
Solid and save mix, but I think it could be a bit brighter.
I'd like to hear the kick supporting the (nice) bass a bit more.

imp11_jdier.mp3
Sounds very compressed and is therefore missing some of the dynamics.
The low end is missing, you didn't do justice to that great bass player.

imp11JHall.mp3
Mister kick is back. A completely different, more psychedelic vocal
approach, but it's working good in your mix. Best BG vox so far.
The kick sounds nice but is IMO to big for the bass, it somehow
slows down the beat. The guitars are a bit bright for my taste.

IMP11-Nizzle.mp3
A bit bright, but with a nice overall balance and a good vocal sound.
I'd like to hear the vocals (especially the BG vocals) in the chorus
a bit more, they are lacking energy.

imp11_carefulcollapse.mp3
Dunno if I like the extra chorus or not, but it's (as the other 'remixed'
parts as well) an interesting idea. Maybe I'm too used to the 'normal'
flow of the song to judge this.
Vocals get a bit drown in the chorus.

imp11_maxim.mp3
The loudness between the instruments/vocals seems a bit off and that
makes the mix unbalanced. I'd bring out the vocals more and the guitars
less.
And I actually like to hear the drums witch are more or less none existant.

IMP11-Blueboy-V1.mp3
Overall a good and save mix with nice vocals.
For my taste the snare is bit to thin/bright, it doesn't gel well with the
rest of the kit.

IMP11 - Fantomas.mp3
Nothing to complain here, like the balance and the sound of the instruments
and vocals. In the first chorus I'd adjust the dynamics of the rest better
to the rhythm guitar, they are a bit to dominant there.

IMP11-ATOR.mp3
Another one I like a lot, good sound and balance of the instrument.
I'd like to here the singer a bit better, it often competes with the
guitars. Interesting and good idea with the background vocals in the
last chorus, the rearrangement works good in your mix.

Most probably I'll dream of that song tonight...

Tom

PS: Thanks for all the feedback, I'm learning a lot from all your findings.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 24, 2007, 05:48:09 pm
you're killing me with all the bass player "notes"

stop it, i'm trying to take this seriously.......HA
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 24, 2007, 05:53:40 pm
chrisj wrote on Tue, 24 April 2007 16:09



Interested to know what the secret motive for this one was.



in time.

this one was a bit obscure in it's motive, and has some obvious things that many have figured out already.

the obvious stuff was the already cut arrangement, clipped tracks, and other tracking issues......

the more obscure one will develop as this thread goes on.

i will say this, my disappointment lies in the fact that i wanted to hear every one bring their biggest, slickest, "FM radio" sound to the party.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on April 24, 2007, 06:04:58 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 24 April 2007 23:48

you're killing me with all the bass player "notes"

stop it, i'm trying to take this seriously.......HA


But that bass player is really a very........

Okay, I'll stop it.



For now.


Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 24, 2007, 06:09:29 pm
Tom C wrote on Tue, 24 April 2007 16:23

Let the listening marathon begin:

imp11_jdier.mp3
Sounds very compressed and is therefore missing some of the dynamics.
The low end is missing, you didn't do justice to that great bass player.





Thanks for the note.  I am waiting for someone to throw the old Steve Martin gag at me:  "Yeah, I remember when I got my first compressor."

I mixed everything fast and all on reaper with a brand new set of plugs that I have never used before...  Does not excuse the compressor abuse.

Thanks for the notes though.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: macbraddy on April 24, 2007, 06:11:38 pm
Wow! Yeah -- I guess my mix is loud. I hadn't realized it until listening to it up against all of yours. I suppose part of the problem was that for the longest time (in fact all of the time) I was mixing at 44.1 trying to find ways to tighten it up a bit. Nudging the snare forward in time a bit etc.. trying to create drive and whatnot. I guess I was over compensating.

This was really fun though. My first imp mix, offically. Quite a learning experience. Great song too -- It had an old school Sunny Day Real Estate kind of vibe to it. That's what I was shooting for -- And probably why 44.1 sounded right for so long to me.

Brad
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: mcsnare on April 24, 2007, 06:20:09 pm
I spent a fair amount of time moving the bass to get it tighter to the drums. No slag on the bass player, I just like it tight and hearing the bass ahead of the drum groove drives me crazy. I also moved the acoustic for tightening, and did some very minor drum edits for groove.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Greg Dixon on April 24, 2007, 07:24:20 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 07:53



i will say this, my disappointment lies in the fact that i wanted to hear every one bring their biggest, slickest, "FM radio" sound to the party.




That's the sort of direction I would expect to get from the client before starting work on the mix.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 25, 2007, 03:01:44 am
Quote:


That's the sort of direction I would expect to get from the client before starting work on the mix.


not a bad idea.  maybe on a future imp, we could all go for the same pre-determined thing. that way we can eliminate 'i didn't like your vibe' comments.  

we can aim for how we execute the vibe that has been chosen.

just a thought
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 25, 2007, 04:35:21 am

Have i missed this IMP or i still have one day?
i think deadline is 26?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on April 25, 2007, 04:59:23 am
Greg Dixon wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 01:24

j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 07:53



i will say this, my disappointment lies in the fact that i wanted to hear every one bring their biggest, slickest, "FM radio" sound to the party.




That's the sort of direction I would expect to get from the client before starting work on the mix.



I agree, if you have a special agenda (besides the obvious things
given by the tracks) it would help to know this.
When I have no further information I mix to my own taste, and that
can differ a lot from what you or others think is tasteful.
And vice versa.

Tom

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 25, 2007, 09:44:48 am
Some more thoughts on mixes:

ATOR - Good sounds and interesting arranging ideas, not sure the new arrangement makes it better, just different.  Like the overall sound though

iCombs:  Love kick, love the long guitar delay on the verse... might patch that return into a verb to make it's cut off more subtle, but I love the idea and implementation.  Vocal verb and EQ is really nice too.  When it get's to the chorus everything is a bit too built up and busy.  not enough room to breath.  Might suggest a different snare treatment for the chorus to make room for all the added sounds.  Really nice though.

Garret:  The vocal effect right before the chorus is too much for me.  too over the top.  Snare (and whole kit) sound a bit dark and muddy.  not enough punch.  I like the different things you did to the arrangement stripping it down, but in the end I feel like your mix never reaches the peak that it could.  I love the things you did with the drum fills.  Really well done.

Antman:  Not sure I like the off centered vocals.  The mix is dark and sometimes I lose the kick.  There also seems to be a bit of a build up in the low mids... Not sure.

Shakes:  The snare reverb return could be EQ'ed a bit.  It sounds very much out of place.   I love the subtle vocal delay.  I might like to hear that return put through a verb for a bit lusher finish.  Overheads seem overbearing at times.  Bass sound is killer and the drum fills are great sounding too.  I really like this mix but by the end it seems to be a bit too thick and dark.  Some great sounds though.

Blues boy.  Great intro and great lead vocal treatment.  I have one beef with this mix, otherwise it is clearly my favorite so far.  The verb on the Snare during the verse sounds cheesy to me.  Too 1980's hair metal ballad.  The only other thing I do not like is the call and return on the "hold on for nothing"  I kinda get it, just do not like it.  Kit, bass, guitars, vocals... everything is great.  REally like this one.  Guitar solo edit at end is fantastic.  Just perfect.  One other thing that came and went for me sometimes were the bells.  every once in a while they bugged me.  Again, this is my 100% favorite so far.  Fix the snare verb and I am 110% on board!

Careful Collapse:  Nice overall mix, just a bit too dark for me.  I really like how you used the organ as a feature.  Worked well for me.  In the end, I dig your creative edits, but I am not sure that they add anything... or improve anything.  Interesting though.  Mix overall is pretty nice (while a bit dark)

Greg Dixon:  Vocal seems to be missing body.  I have not listened to my own for a while, but this is reminding me of what I did not like about my own vocal treatment.  The electric guitar in the verse panned over is a bit ditracting to me.  Perhaps a return to the otherside with a subtle delay or a plate verb could even it out.  When the whole band is in I love the sound you have.  The voice fits perfectly.  I like your chorus sounds a lot.

*****
Note:  I am a complete hack.  I hope none of my comments come off as offensive.  Just trying to share some reactions.
*****
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 25, 2007, 09:47:43 am
---------
QUOTE:
That's the sort of direction I would expect to get from the client before starting work on the mix.
----------
QUOTE:
When I have no further information I mix to my own taste, and that can differ a lot from what you or others think is tasteful.
And vice versa.
-----------

I like the lack of direction.  I think it adds to the variety of the mixes.  If there was clear direction I think I would grow tired of listening to 18 mixes that are all imitations of some other sound.

To me I like running blind and then having everyone share their reactions... There is not a winner or loser.  I try to learn one or two things from each mix.  Sometimes I hear a mix that I think is complete bollocks, but there is one element in it that gives me and idea or inspires me to try something.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 25, 2007, 11:52:14 am
i've thought about giving direction, but i agree with jdier, it's much more constructive to let you guys dig in.

my point in that comment was that i thought the tune just would naturally push you that way.  my disapointment was short lived.  now i'm becoming increasingly more interested in the differences.

to me, this song is just so pop there was only one way i thought of mixing it.  i hadn't stopped to think people might go "softer" with it.

so, let's do something totally different this time.

how bout i pick a couple guys (based on their mixes) to give me a list of recalls for my mix.

i have a bit of time before my next project starts (sans a bit of travel over this weekend)

would this be helpful to anyone?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Boedo Constrictor on April 25, 2007, 11:54:48 am
vocal chain:
-----------------------------

Inserts:


*BF LA2A

7db gr


*URS n series

filter 70hz

+3db 110

+2.4 1.6k

+1 10k

* Waves Renassance Eq

-4.3 at 110hz q 6.5

-5 at 595hz q3

-3.2 at233 q 3.3


* Waves RDeEsser

-----------------------------

SEND

altiverb 5 church ultrecht


i mix in protools pc xp, in house, not at the estudio, only reference whit headphones(sony mdr7506)
The mix spend me 5 hours and the next day half hour for subtle corrections(nothing relevant)
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 25, 2007, 01:14:35 pm
Quote:

how bout i pick a couple guys (based on their mixes) to give me a list of recalls for my mix.

i have a bit of time before my next project starts (sans a bit of travel over this weekend)

would this be helpful to anyone?


sounds like a good plan.  i was hoping more people would get involved in this one, so hearing a couple more mixes as recalls just might wet my whistle  Smile.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 25, 2007, 01:15:38 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 10:52


how bout i pick a couple guys (based on their mixes) to give me a list of recalls for my mix.

i have a bit of time before my next project starts (sans a bit of travel over this weekend)

would this be helpful to anyone?


I would love to do a recall, however, my initial mix provided little evidence that I should be allowed to.

How about one of the people you pick is "most potential for improvement"  I could fit there.  Nowhere to go but up.

I love this IMP stuff.  It is like taking an online masters class in mixing!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: garret on April 25, 2007, 01:51:48 pm
mixes I like best:

boedo - if you mixed this on nothing but 7506s, I'm impressed.  Nicely balanced... good dynamic mix, powerful but natural.

greg dixon - very professional.  one of my favorite mixes.  terrific dynamics and tonal balance... good job.

rankus - starts dark, but recovers quickly, and overall is very well balanced with no major flaws.

nizzle - good solid mix, if the high end were tamed a touch.  Clever edit at the end... and how about that, it actually works.  Ballsy edit, and I can admire that.

mcsnare - good stuff - muscular yet balanced.  Amazing how much snare you get away with in this mix.  Okay, maybe it's a touch hot.

briefcasemanx nicely balanced, but has a few little flaws... vox is a bit lispy and the kick is a bit much



mixes I didn't like as much:

icombs very solid mix, but the snare verb is too much

chrisj - everything except the vocal is muddy, and the snare sounds ugly. nicely balanced otherwise.

ATOR - tinny, and loaded up with triple sow cows... too far I think. (And I thought I was getting a reputation as an overly creative remixer.)

macbraddy - the vocal treatment is strange, and fights the snare throughout the tune.

jdier not too shabby, but the dynamics are flat, and snare is on the small side. Tonal balance seems a little off too.

fantasy6 very dark vocals, no bass definition, guitars out of control.. more than a little trashy.

jhall - stunning guitars... but the high end makes this fatiguing on good headphones... vocal treatment sounds distant (compare to mcnare's mix), and has to fight for its life against the snare.

carefullcollapse very good, but vocal is too quiet throughout, and gets way out of balance at times... like 2:20 where the organ is bigger than the vocal

fantomas vocals get lost too much in the choruses - otherwise this is a good mix... just goose the vox some.  good dynamics and tonal balance.

shakestheclown tonal balance is off - everything's getting lost in the high-end wash. guitar solo is disappearing...

singsing loud as hell, and the dynamics are flat... peak limited?  high end is painful.

tomC - oh man, what happened to the vocal timing?  bad news, really.

blueboy - ugh that snare sound... overall tonal balance is off.. scooped I think.

maxim - very intimate mixing choices... this could work, but the levels are out of whack, especially the vocal and lead guitar...

antman - vox is getting lost, and it's panned? feels weird over there all the time.   tonal balance isn't too bad, and the dynamics are decent in this.  Just get the vox in the middle and up a bit.

And self-criticism:

garret - creating a new intro was unnecessary wankery.  Rather narrow mix... needs more air.   Background vox in last part is getting lost...  Needs more guitars.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 25, 2007, 03:01:33 pm
you guys got me wrong.

what i'm saying is...

i pick a couple guys to tell ME how they want MY mix changed, and I will recall MY OWN mix.

is there anything to learn through such a process?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: garret on April 25, 2007, 03:02:43 pm
Sure, that sounds cool to me.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on April 25, 2007, 03:17:41 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 21:01

you guys got me wrong.

what i'm saying is...

i pick a couple guys to tell ME how they want MY mix changed, and I will recall MY OWN mix.

is there anything to learn through such a process?


If you'd tell us WHAT you did to achieve that change it'll be
very educational for sure.

Tom
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Gabriel F on April 25, 2007, 03:27:45 pm
in no particular order here we go.


briefcasemanx: nice mix, bass could be a little bit louder or with more detail in the midrange, and the chorus guitars could be louder

fantasy6: this could be a nice mix with a dryer and brighter snare and a little less cymbals. the chorus guitars are too midrangey

icombs: the kick sound is nice but the snare sounds cheap, i like the idea of the vocal delays but use it more subliminally and maybe roll off some highs. i dont like the acoustic guitar panning changes.
nice ending this song was screaming for a shorter duration.

fantomas(me): the chorus guitars should explode more, louder vocal on some parts. I believe this mix is too much on the safe side, it needs something exciting to make it interesting just like someone said already.

shakestheclown: drums are too distant and the acoustic guitar is louder than the kick drum, cymbals too trashy, bass needs to be more solid it dissapears sometimes, too much acoustic guitar troughout the song.

singsing: louder than bombs, nice delays, too much acuostic guitar troughout the song. the vocal is too wet compared to the acoustic guitar.

antman: acoustic guitar louder and brighter than vocal. almost louder than solo guitar too, drums needs more polish.

boedomix: (nice to see someone from Argentina). nice mix only complain is a little on the safe side too, maybe a a brighter snare and dryer.

jhall: your drums as always rock pretty hard and i like it, bass could be a little bit louder or detailed, brighter snare, maybe less cymbals. great background vocals. Nice delays on vocals maybe a longer delay time and lower in the mix could have worked better to make it a little dryer. only complain chorus guitars too white noisey for my taste.
I don t want to sound like an asshole or a little know it all but i feel your mix doesnt completely achieve your wish of a modern fm mix, dont get me wrong i like it but my idea of modern fm is a pretty dry and hyped lows and highs sound. Can you tell us what was your reference sound for your mix or what sound you wanted us to achieve?
I used "creep" by radiohead as a refence

later i will review the rest of the mixes.



Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 25, 2007, 03:41:08 pm
fantomas wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 14:27



I don t want to sound like an asshole or a little know it all but i feel your mix doesnt completely achieve your wish of a modern fm mix, dont get me wrong i like it but my idea of modern fm is a pretty dry and hyped lows and highs sound. Can you tell us what was your reference sound for your mix or what sound you wanted us to achieve?




totally agree!  i didn't go FM radio either........HAHAHAHAHA

let's not travel any further into my "disappointment" and what sound that was exactly.

it was really just a side comment that drew too much attention.

let's stay focused on what we actually have.

Tom C:

certainly i would discuss the recalls at length.

i'm trying to think of ways to keep IMP educational and NOT repetitive.

perhaps i should do a DVD with some of these techniques you guys always seem to ask me about.

rhythm section impact and setup
vocal placement, EQ and compression
over all balances within a mix

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on April 25, 2007, 03:51:46 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 21:41


perhaps i should do a DVD with some of these techniques you guys always seem to ask me about.



Charles Dye makes some good money with his 'Mix it like a record'
DVD, so there seems to be a market for that.

Tom
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: briefcasemanx on April 25, 2007, 03:53:54 pm
In retrospect, yeah, my snare reverb was a bad idea, too short and thick. I don't think my snare sounds too bad in the loud chorus parts though- the quiet parts it sounds pretty bad, I just didn't want to spend anymore time on a non paid project, since I have school and other recordings I'm working on. Unlike you all, this mix took me *gasp* 10+ hours, and there were a lot of little things I felt could be changed STILL. I know, I suck, but I'm new.


I would be very interested to know the entire vocal and guitar chain for jhall's mix before he does the recall. I would have liked his the best if it wasn't for the too bright guitars.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: briefcasemanx on April 25, 2007, 04:00:10 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 15:41


perhaps i should do a DVD with some of these techniques you guys always seem to ask me about.

rhythm section impact and setup
vocal placement, EQ and compression
over all balances within a mix




Yes please!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Gabriel F on April 25, 2007, 04:30:32 pm
i wonder how many used the quiet overhead track.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 25, 2007, 04:39:33 pm
i did
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: blueboy on April 25, 2007, 05:23:23 pm
Seeing as there aren't that many mixes, wouldn't it make sense to have everyone (anyone that wants to at least) take the feedback they receive and try to better their original mix?

Just hearing the other approaches makes you hear your own stuff in a different light, especially with all the different tonal balances. I definitely have learned not to wait to the last minute and mix late at night. Smile

By the way, I was going for a Synchronicity era Stewart Copeland snare...not a Metal Hair Band ballad snare, but I obviously had lost touch with reality. I've fixed it though (I think) to be a little more natural sounding. There was also some small edit fixes and a few other things I didn't have time for.

Any chance to to redeem myself?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: chrisj on April 25, 2007, 05:35:50 pm
We only do remixes if J asks us specifically for them. This time he picks people to ask HIM to make specific changes, and he tries to make the changes being asked for. I'm good with that, I'll pay close attention to it Smile
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 25, 2007, 05:49:40 pm
briefcasemanx wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 14:53



I would be very interested to know the entire vocal and guitar chain for jhall's mix before he does the recall. I would have liked his the best if it wasn't for the too bright guitars.


ok, you're on.

i'll get you my chain, you get me a detailed list of things you would change to my mix to make it everything you want to hear from the song based on my origianl mix.

keep in mind that if i tame down the top of the guitars, it might make you want other things....you have to try your best to hear your thoughts.

directing a recall can teach you a lot about what clients themselves are trying to say......see where i'm going with this.

now......here's my catch......HAHAHAHA

i always have a "catch" don't i.

if you get to boss me around, then i get to boss you around.

you get my mix to sound how you want, and i'll do the same to yours

do you accept?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 25, 2007, 06:00:20 pm
tom C, you want in on the recall challenge as well?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 25, 2007, 06:11:40 pm
I'm in!

J.

make your snare less dark, and the guitars heavier in the 4-800 range (couldn't tell you what it was, maybe just too bright).

What would you like from me?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: GravityRobert on April 25, 2007, 06:24:15 pm
http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/GravityRobertIMP11.ogg

Here's my mix, actually its an earlier version than the current one which I happened to have only saved as an ogg file. I hope this doesnt bother you guys too much because when I tried compressing it as mp3, it lowered the total volume even more and removed all livelyness out of for a bigger file (from 8 to 11). I so hate compression, I'd rather send it out on a disk to you all you guys  Laughing (p.s. first mix ever so dont be too harsh on me)
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on April 25, 2007, 06:31:38 pm
j.hall wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 00:00

tom C, you want in on the recall challenge as well?


Surely I want. But there are some time restrictions from my side
because I'm out of town from Friday evening till Monday evening,
so there's only Thursday (it's already Thursday 0:30 a.m. over
here) evening for me to do it.
Of course I'd prefer to do it next week, but if you want me to
remix now I'm fine with that, too.

I'll post my suggestions tomorrow, it's bedtime now.

Tom
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: gatino on April 25, 2007, 06:41:10 pm
recall?!

damn, I can't even get my first mix to where i'm willing to post it.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: briefcasemanx on April 25, 2007, 07:34:40 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 17:49


do you accept?


sounds good to me. I'll post any corrections I would like to be made later tonight. I don't think there's going to be a whole lot though. I only listened to all the mixes at school though, I will have to listen to them at home on gear I am more comfortable with.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 25, 2007, 07:45:12 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 16:49


ok, you're on.

i'll get you my chain, you get me a detailed list of things you would change to my mix to make it everything you want to hear from the song based on my origianl mix.


j-

for me, if you want to make this really educational I would love to for a quick overview of your FX and EQ's.  Not the brand names and such, but instead things like:

"Here is a what the snare sounded like:"  (insert wav/flac/mp3)

"I added a compressor with an attack of X and worked it down until I was getting Xdb of GR.  Now is sounded like this:"   (insert wav/flac/mp3)

Then I decided I wanted to bump up the low end so I....

That may be too much work, but examples of sounds as they are coming together can be super powerful.  That is certainly what makes MiLaR so useful.

I am really not a fan of then I used Compressor X from the Platnum bundle from McStinkypant Super DSP blah blah blah... I would rather know what you where hearing and what your thought processes was as you made changes.

Everyone has different EQ's and Comps and Plugs and such...

Anyway, this is all incredibly useful and valuable even if it stopped now...  Like someone else said, just hearing how someone else attacked a challenge is super valuable to me.

Thanks again for all the hard work.

Jim
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 25, 2007, 08:07:39 pm
HERE IS MINE SUBMISSION, Sorry if i'm late but i really liked song and have mixed it in 3 hours, please please please include me in listening, and i will do  my best for reviewing each submission:

HERE IT IS:
   http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/aVKorehov_IMP11_revisio n1.mp3
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 25, 2007, 08:27:01 pm
Damn 48k............
I really hoped something like this will never happen to me:(
I;m to dissapointed to do anything:((((((
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 25, 2007, 08:55:54 pm
Very good submission JHall, i liked Guitar very much.
Will you share your secrets? Have you used 2 buss processing?
I can share my snare if you can share your guitar...
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: GravityRobert on April 25, 2007, 08:56:08 pm
Oops I think I rendered my version at 41.1 does that make any difference because I think the files were at 48  Laughing ??

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Antman on April 25, 2007, 09:01:54 pm
Thanks for the feedback guys, I think I need to re-evaluate my listening environment  Confused .
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 25, 2007, 11:28:01 pm
Antman wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 20:01

Thanks for the feedback guys, I think I need to re-evaluate my listening environment  Confused .


that is how I feel too.  Tell me this, how do the good mixes (from IMP11) sound in your listening environment?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: briefcasemanx on April 25, 2007, 11:58:15 pm
J Hall: I'm listening in headphones, so take that into account. Can't listen on monitors right now.

-Less white noisey-ness in the guitars like people have been saying. But it doesn't have to be attenuated a lot, it's not bad.

-There's something weird going on in the left side  with the guitars. You can really hear it during that 1st intro riff before everything comes in. Turn that down a little, especially in the intro riff where it commands too much attention.

-There's a delay in the chorus, I think it's a ping pong that starts on the left side. On the word "wait" the first slapback is too loud/distracting. I'd turn it down about a db or 2 on that word for the first generation of the delay, if that makes sense.

-on the buildup to the second chorus, I think the overheads are too loud. I'd turn those down a db or 2.

-I could be insane, but it sounds like theres a phaser/flanger on an effect that is on the vocal in the first verse. Like a flanged delay maybe? On the word "question" it becomes obvious, and I would automate the "mix" parameter of the phaser/flanger lower just for this word. It's in the phrase "without question I". I could be just hearing shit as far as it being a phaser or flanger, but there's something going on on that word that bugged me.

........

feels weird putting myself out there like this, because I don't think anyone else will hear what I'm hearing with my messed up ears/sense of aesthetic. BTW, what is the "quiet overhead track". I only saw 2 overhead tracks which i panned left right- ???

Don't tell me it was supposed to be a mono overhead with a mono room mic or something......uhhhhh.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 26, 2007, 12:04:49 am
i too noticed the hard left panned fx on the lead guitar.  i just accepted it as normal because i've heard that same effect in j's work before, but i would agree it IS a bit loud.  

i for one REALLY DIG the reverse reverb on the first verse of j's mix.  some of the best vocal fx of this imp.

one thing i'd like to hear is less bottom (maybe 2 db less of about....55hz) on the kick and more low-mid punch.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Antman on April 26, 2007, 12:55:16 am
jdier wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 11:28

Antman wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 20:01

Thanks for the feedback guys, I think I need to re-evaluate my listening environment  Confused .


that is how I feel too.  Tell me this, how do the good mixes (from IMP11) sound in your listening environment?



The good mixes sound great, but I think my room is hiding some things that are bad about my mix.

I've improved on the mix a lot though after hearing the other mixes and everyone's feedback, it was kind of like "oh!  Shocked "

Still could be a lot better though.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 26, 2007, 03:26:05 am
Hi,

I corrected pitch of drums and also level, i think now it is "very" comparable to JHall submission, but i used reverb a little bit, so my is a little bit more wet but i like it. alo snare level lovered moderately.
PLEASE LISTEN:

aVKorehov_IMP11_revision1.mp3
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 26, 2007, 04:11:46 am
GravityRobert wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 19:56

Oops I think I rendered my version at 41.1 does that make any difference because I think the files were at 48  Laughing ??



It makes difference if you card sampel rate is locked at 44.1 Sad
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: macbraddy on April 26, 2007, 10:58:47 am
Quote:

macbraddy - the vocal treatment is strange, and fights the snare throughout the tune.


Thanks for the input. Yeah that etherial sort of delay seemed more appropriate at 44.1. I'm such a moron!  Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Antman on April 26, 2007, 11:31:40 am
I've been messing around with it for a while trying to figure out exactly where I went wrong and what to do and such, I wouldn't mind some feedback on my new version if I can upload it or if anyone doesn't mind me emailing it to them or something? I feel it's a huge improvement on the last, but I just want to make sure I guess, and see what could still be improved.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 26, 2007, 02:42:38 pm
Quote:

Hi,

I corrected pitch of drums and also level, i think now it is "very" comparable to JHall submission, but i used reverb a little bit, so my is a little bit more wet but i like it. alo snare level lovered moderately.
PLEASE LISTEN:

aVKorehov_IMP11_revision1.mp3


i would like to hear more seperation in all the instruments.  it just sounds like a thin  clouded mess.  J's submission (although a bit too bright) sounds enourmous, but extremely well balanced.  his snare is not overbearing, and his kick drum is VERY round, but to too commanding.  the vocal is always on top, but never fatiguing.  i would ask J about his techniques.

what are you monitoring on?  what are you mixing on?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: blueboy on April 26, 2007, 04:12:26 pm
Mcsnare...are you still going to put up a mastered version of yours?

I like to use your mastered versions as a "frequency spectrum" reference. I'm still trying to get my monitoring the way I want, and I noticed that on the last IMP your original mix sounded a little dark, but your mastered version seemed very balanced.

If you have the time..I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 26, 2007, 04:42:26 pm
grant richard wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 13:42

Quote:

Hi,

I corrected pitch of drums and also level, i think now it is "very" comparable to JHall submission, but i used reverb a little bit, so my is a little bit more wet but i like it. alo snare level lovered moderately.
PLEASE LISTEN:

aVKorehov_IMP11_revision1.mp3


i would like to hear more seperation in all the instruments.  it just sounds like a thin  clouded mess.  J's submission (although a bit too bright) sounds enourmous, but extremely well balanced.  his snare is not overbearing, and his kick drum is VERY round, but to too commanding.  the vocal is always on top, but never fatiguing.  i would ask J about his techniques.

what are you monitoring on?  what are you mixing on?

Thanks on commments.
Monitoring: Dynaudio BM5A
Mixing: Nuendo (this time) (trying to switch from PT:) ) i have both of them.

I wouldn't say my separation is so bad as you describe, i intentially wanted to get cloud of washing cymbals and blend it with guitars top a little bit (that's all freq overlapping what i have) i still don't have enough evidence what this is wrong. What i would say is what J submission have more punch... Seems like i cannot find good alternative in VST for drum processing also i have emphasized AG much, maybe that is wrong. I hear like J kick is used as sidechain to pump most of mix. I noticed this on ALL J submissions. Could be also limiter/comp on 2 Bus giving this effect. Don't say it is bad, this is just a signature on all songs.
As for round BD, i hate round BD, i'm fed up with round/distorted  
BD, even if i can do such BD i'm currently seeking something different. I don't meant what i wanted to copy whole J sound after i mixed mine:). i said it is comparable to provocate listening of mine submission:)))))))) but i thing it is as most submissions  here a quite competitive.  What i want to copy from J is guitar sound, especialy how reamping was done...

overbearing?
Have you listened RHCP? Anyway this is not my best snare of cause:( Just a layered crisp/ambient snare i hear such everyday on many CD. If you don't need such then you will have one less choise in your mixing vocabulary...

I noticed in verse my drum replacer layer haven't kicked in mostly, i have already corrected this.
I like my snare in chorus. Anyway it will be heard even if mastering limiters will compress it to hell. Unsure if J snare will survive in mastering much.

>the vocal is always on top, but never fatiguing
Mine vocal done in 10 minutes time, don't had time for editing/riding, even for processing backing vox...
sorry, i will make better if we will have another submission...

>i would ask J about his techniques.
Im not feeling offended by this at all:)
i'm sorry but am i allowed to comment your submission at least?Smile)))) I promise i will provide you very specific feedback instead...

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 26, 2007, 04:45:42 pm
blueboy wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 15:12

Mcsnare...are you still going to put up a mastered version of yours?

I like to use your mastered versions as a "frequency spectrum" reference. I'm still trying to get my monitoring the way I want, and I noticed that on the last IMP your original mix sounded a little dark, but your mastered version seemed very balanced.

If you have the time..I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.


There is such programm as "Room Optimizer"
Can be usefull in home studio..
Of cause no analyzer can repace good monotors...
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: mcsnare on April 26, 2007, 10:21:18 pm
I put up a mastered version of mine, if anybody is interested.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: blueboy on April 26, 2007, 10:28:29 pm
mcsnare wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 19:21

I put up a mastered version of mine, if anybody is interested.
Dave


Thanks very much Dave!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 27, 2007, 01:41:17 am
mcsnare wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 21:21

I put up a mastered version of mine, if anybody is interested.
Dave

Snare on 1.20 sound is what i talk about.
All single layer pumped snares are vulnarable to this.
If you would rise gain even more then it will turn into click almost. I found what parallel compression and layering additional ambience/undersnare could make snare survive better.
in my submission i use 4 layers.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: blueboy on April 27, 2007, 02:16:10 am
Being the anal retentive freak I am...I just couldn't leave my first mix up there as my only mix, so I've done a (hopefully) better version.

 http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/IMP11-Blueboy-Mix-V2.mp 3

As the snare was the main problem on the first mix, it gave me a chance to learn to do sample replacement using Reaper. Actually I kept the original snare, and just put a little "beef" in the "crack" (which looks really bad written down) Smile but I think it sounds a little more contemporary.

I also tried to get the average level closer to some of the louder mixes without doing too much damage.

Maybe it's just me, but I hear this song as a "Teenybopper Ballad", and I can imagine teenage girls hanging on every word and singing along...hence the little call and response thing I added to the second verse. I don't really see guys doing "air guitar" to this, so I tried to keep things relatively gentle and focus on the vocals.

Anyway, thanks to those who offered criticism on my first mix. If you have time, I'd appreciate any comments as to whether this is an improvement on my original mix. I think I've lost my ability to listen to this mix objectively, so I may have made things worse.

Thanks.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 27, 2007, 02:42:03 am
Quote:

grant richard wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 13:42

Quote:

Hi,

I corrected pitch of drums and also level, i think now it is "very" comparable to JHall submission, but i used reverb a little bit, so my is a little bit more wet but i like it. alo snare level lovered moderately.
PLEASE LISTEN:

aVKorehov_IMP11_revision1.mp3


i would like to hear more seperation in all the instruments. it just sounds like a thin clouded mess. J's submission (although a bit too bright) sounds enourmous, but extremely well balanced. his snare is not overbearing, and his kick drum is VERY round, but to too commanding. the vocal is always on top, but never fatiguing. i would ask J about his techniques.

what are you monitoring on? what are you mixing on?

Thanks on commments.
Monitoring: Dynaudio BM5A
Mixing: Nuendo (this time) (trying to switch from PT:) ) i have both of them.

I wouldn't say my separation is so bad as you describe, i intentially wanted to get cloud of washing cymbals and blend it with guitars top a little bit (that's all freq overlapping what i have) i still don't have enough evidence what this is wrong. What i would say is what J submission have more punch... Seems like i cannot find good alternative in VST for drum processing also i have emphasized AG much, maybe that is wrong. I hear like J kick is used as sidechain to pump most of mix. I noticed this on ALL J submissions. Could be also limiter/comp on 2 Bus giving this effect. Don't say it is bad, this is just a signature on all songs.
As for round BD, i hate round BD, i'm fed up with round/distorted
BD, even if i can do such BD i'm currently seeking something different. I don't meant what i wanted to copy whole J sound after i mixed mine:). i said it is comparable to provocate listening of mine submission:)))))))) but i thing it is as most submissions here a quite competitive. What i want to copy from J is guitar sound, especialy how reamping was done...

overbearing?
Have you listened RHCP? Anyway this is not my best snare of cause:( Just a layered crisp/ambient snare i hear such everyday on many CD. If you don't need such then you will have one less choise in your mixing vocabulary...

I noticed in verse my drum replacer layer haven't kicked in mostly, i have already corrected this.
I like my snare in chorus. Anyway it will be heard even if mastering limiters will compress it to hell. Unsure if J snare will survive in mastering much.

>the vocal is always on top, but never fatiguing
Mine vocal done in 10 minutes time, don't had time for editing/riding, even for processing backing vox...
sorry, i will make better if we will have another submission...

>i would ask J about his techniques.
Im not feeling offended by this at all:)
i'm sorry but am i allowed to comment your submission at least?Smile)))) I promise i will provide you very specific feedback instead...



i've made changes to my mix, but in an effort to half-way follow the rules, i need to wait to post it until J. gives me the OK.

J., is it ok to post a new mix?

Title: Who the F*$& is McSnare?!
Post by: jdier on April 27, 2007, 08:55:31 am
mcsnare wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 21:21

I put up a mastered version of mine, if anybody is interested.
Dave



I think I have listened and commented on everyone elses mix, but just listened to yours.  

Last IMP everyone was drooling over your mix and while I liked it a lot, I did not see the reason for full on extasy...  Well, on this IMP, I get it now.

I have one beef with it, and it may be a result of the mastering, but I find the snare over bearing at times.  I like it a lot when no singing or soloing is happening, but during the verse and chorus is sounds like the drummer is fighting to be heard and over compensating.  I am not sure I like the thick, dense verb either.

Note that this is a small beef.  The mix is incredible.  It is a bit like I have been working on a jigsaw puzzle without seeing the front of the box, and your mix IS the front of the box.

I am really not sure where to start with questions, but the thing that stood out most for me were the guitars.   Every mix had good to great guitars (IMO) because they were well played and well recorded... but your guitar sound stands above the rest.

What really gets me are the transistions... they deliver big changes in mood and power.  Can you give us an idea what differs from the verse to the chorus on your sounds, or how you planned for and delivered the big event transistions?

Really love this mix.  Sorry BlueBoy, but I think this one just became my favorite.  What a great job.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: jdier on April 27, 2007, 08:58:28 am
blueboy wrote on Fri, 27 April 2007 01:16

 just put a little "beef" in the "crack"


Thanks for the new signature.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: mcsnare on April 27, 2007, 10:27:37 am
Thanks Jim. I struggled a bit with this one. I probably spent 7 or 8 hours on it which is really a lot for me. I thought things sounded a little scratchy, boxy and harmonically dry(especially the lead vocal), but it wasn't until I found out that PT's sample rate converted when I imported to a 44.1 session, that I realized this was what I heard. The SRC converter in PT's is pretty marginal. I was bummed I didn't work on the 48k files and I think it's one reason I couldn't get the vocal to sound better(sorry a little tool blaming here!). I also meant to explore some edits for a different arrangement, but just ran out of steam on that front.
I think some of the other mixes are really good, especially the ones that approached the song with a really different mix vibe. It was interesting to hear that many people used some version of a long echo on the chorus vocals. I also liked some of the arrangement changes that people did. I like my overall mix, but I think many people got a better lead voc sound than I did, which is ultimately arguably the MOST important component of a great mix. As far as vibe, I just heard it as a pretty typical Tom Lord Alge, radio sounding kind of mix so that's what I went for.
What can I say, I like loud drums. It's probably because I learned to mix in the 80's when Bob Clearmountain reigned supreme. Bob was creating a drum aesthetic that had never been heard before and in a time when the tools made what he did very difficult and complicated. When me and everybody else in those days kinda figured out how to create our own version of Bob's thang, it kind of gets imprinted on your DNA, I guess.
I don't remember doing anything special to the gtrs. I'll have a look later.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: blueboy on April 27, 2007, 01:08:21 pm
jdier wrote on Fri, 27 April 2007 05:58

blueboy wrote on Fri, 27 April 2007 01:16

 just put a little "beef" in the "crack"


Thanks for the new signature.



...I KNEW I shouldn't have written that....

jdier wrote on Fri, 27 April 2007 05:55

 Sorry BlueBoy, but I think this one just became my favorite.


Well it was fun while it lasted.

jdier wrote on Fri, 27 April 2007 05:55


Note that this is a small beef.


Enough with the beef already! Smile
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Gabriel F on April 27, 2007, 10:21:55 pm
here we go with rest of the reviews.

vkorehov: i dont think your snare sound fits the song and the voice is too dry and maybe too loud during verses .i dont like the sudden stop of the guitars.  except that nice mix.

carefulcollapse: i think your arrangement edit doesnt enhances the song, you just cuted the best part of the song. bass and cymbals a little loud. I like the ending

gregdixon: that snare could work with some reverb. kick needs some beef. nothing to complain just a little bit safe too.

jdier: too much acoustic guitar and vocals. drums too soft(toms louder than snare and kick). i like the electric guitars sound

maxim: guitar riff too loud. vocals need more sheen and some level automation. i like the phaser but used more subtlety. some problems with frequency spectrum consistency or balance.

ator: bass needs to be louder, kick sounds too heavey metal for this song i like the snare. vocals could be fuller sounding to fit with those drums. great ending. got balls to trim that much.

blueboy: really nice mix, but the percussion is too loud for my taste i would use less grainy reverb on the snare and less reverb, and less acosutic guitar.

chrisj: snare sound doesnt fit the song, kick needs more definition, vox sounds boxy and needs more level riding. mix needs more sheen.

garret: whoo whats the point of that jamiroquai space funk intro?(nice sound but doesn fit the song). I dont like that vox reverb explosion, maybe with delays. i could have liked the verse with drums entering later but it needs more organ and percusion for me.

nizzle: cymbals a little harsh. i dont like the snare sound. nice
ending. i like the instruments balance.

rankus: snare could be a little more wet, kick drums less boxy. less acoutic guitar sometimes. nice mix

tomc: bass a little out of control, needs more low mids. snare too dry and acoustic guitar needs more definition. Are you using a bass enhancing plug in like maxxxbass or something?.

mcsnare: one of my favorites mixes maybe a brighter snare or a little bit drier . chorus guitars could explode more.

macbraddy: another louder than bombs. great reverse sound works great. i dont like the snare. nice vocal delay.

gravityrobert: i dont like the extended intro, this song needs to be shorter. bass needs to be louder way louder (the bass is one of the best elements of this song why did you hide it that much?).too much acoustic guitar.

If i let someone out please tell me and i will review your mix.


Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 28, 2007, 04:36:40 am
Thanks for review, i agree.

  http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/aVKorehov_IMP11_revisio n3.mp3
I remixed snare.
BD and Bass rised a little.
Is it now fitting mix better?

I know it don't fit chorus? any thoughs hot to fit it there?
What about two different snares for chorus and verse?
I need more sustain in chorus for snare:( original snare sucks:(
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 28, 2007, 06:30:44 am
My Review for few people:
Fantomas: Nice base and BD (round but still ok). Overall Base level could be lovered abit to reveal other interesting components. Cymbals are not emphasized much. A little bit too sparse mix because of this. Rythm Guitars don't have bite enough and are too muddy in mids. Good AG. Choruses require more "business" for me. Try reamping guitars as second layer and make original guitars mid emphasized and reamped layer as more bite and highs emphasized to join cymbals. You can also do Delays limited with low-mid cut instead of reamping (this is my way of simulating speakers). But no hard separation please. Snare... Your snare fits ok, but pays too much attention to it. That funny little puke at the end. How you did this? Probably with limiters. So don't drive them so hard. I feel like you replaced snare completely. While fitting original snare is much harder.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: chrisj on April 28, 2007, 11:06:09 am
Fantomas- which bits in the vocal need to be different level? I ask because it would be mistakes of commission rather than omission- the vocals are being ridden up and down on every phrase and sometimes every syllable, more than 6 db sometimes. So any bit that didn't seem right, I did by hand Wink so, was stuff coming out too soft, or too loud, and needing to be fixed?
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Gabriel F on April 28, 2007, 12:18:35 pm
chrisj: the only thing about the vocal level is just after the singer screams the line "just so far away" the next line sounds a little disconnected. i made this comment because it sounds like you really worked on your vocal levels but some minor details got lost(in the search for the perfect tree you forgot about the forest).

vkorehov: i agree with most of your comments. the cymbals should be louder but i didnt like they way they sound. it seens that i really liked the mixes with the cymbals softer.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: rankus on April 28, 2007, 01:12:34 pm


Cymbals tend to come up in mastering as well...


Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: iCombs on April 28, 2007, 01:36:09 pm
AHH!! THE REVIEWS...FINALLY!!!!

BriefcasemanX - I like the generally up-front treatment.  The vocals are soft (not necessarily a bad thing), though they still are the focus of the mix.  It feels like there's a little more "bope" in your snare sample than "crack," but I'll chalk that up to personal taste.  The toms are a hair indistinct.  I'm not sure I dig the treatment of the last vocal lines.  This is something that was a beef for me with more than one mix, but it seems like the vocal in that last set of lines should be dominated by the "backing" vocal, as it is the one that provides all the drama.

Fantasy 6 - JESUS!  Compress much?  I dig the agression, but it feels a little choked...especially the snare.  I like the way the guitars pump, though.  The drums are well up in the mix, but they seem a little flat from the compression.  The dry lead vocal leaves me a little cold...but I do like that stop before the last chorus...cool idea.  On the whole, it just feels a little too scrunched for my taste.

mcsnare - even...punchy...perhaps a touch dark.  Your vocal treatment is very neutral.  I dig the lo-fi shaker.  And that snare has some pretty incredible "whack" to it.  It might be nice to hear the kick drum come with a little more agression...to help it keep up with the snare.  I love the treatment on the vocals.  Simple, clean, dynamic...I like the end vocals.  Very nice.

TomC - Big loose snare!  I'm not sure I dig the sample.  Everything feels up front.  The vocal feels out of time.  And not in a particularly stylish way.  Everything feels a little up front and the mix feels like there's no space in it...it squeezes itself into the soundfield.  The delay on the accoustic is a might distracting...though it's interesting to hear all the different tactics used with that accoustic.

Fantomas - First thing that sticks out to me is that the snare is way brighter than the cymbals.  That doesn't make sense to my ears, and makes the mix sound kinda unbalanced.  Especially conisdering that the vocals are fairly bright, as well.  The vocal sibilants are brighter than pretty much anything in the mix.  I do like the guitars up...but they're a bit chubby.  Put them shits on a diet and you're looking good.  

Shakes - Cymbals!! WOO!!!  Lots of them.  I like the space factor...your mix has some breath.  I can't quite make out what that hash is in the background of your mix...it sounds like some sort of mutilated vocal delay return.  Those cymbals are BURYING the rest of the mix.  The OH's need to come back.  Everything else feels good, but it's kinda hard to tell through that wash.

ATOR - Bright...in a good way.  The kick has some snap.  Voxengo SPAN tells me that you've got a lot going on between 2 and 6k.  Mayhaps a bit too much, after listening for a bit.  I like the harmony treatment...might be the best pitch shifting of the chorus harmonies (of those who did that).  Though I'm not sure that the harmony needed to move.  That's definitely something that I think needs some more discussion.

Blueboy - Damn does that snare crack.  Might want to open up that top band on your EQ...it sounds congested.  I like the rest of your mix...but I can't really hear "around" the snare.  The vocal treatments are good...though they sound just a HAIR too far back.  Like the vocal delays in the breakdown.  I like the way your cut the guitar solo.  You are WAY nicer than I was to that solo.

ChrisJ - Everyone said it.  Dark.  Yep.  I tried to touch the high end up with an EQ...and it just hurt my ears.  Everything feels weird on top.  The balances feel good, but everything's pretty much up front on your mix.  There's not a lot going on in the way of depth.

Garret- Dark.  But you know that.  No drums in the first verse, eh?  Ballsy!  Not sure I dig it...but I dig the 'nads!.  The vocal treatment seems to be a little manic...it swings pretty hard from the first verse into that first chorus.  Backing vocal HAS to come up.  Especially at the end.  The end lacks a lot of drama.  But I think you already adressed that.

Nizzle - Damn!  This mix sounds like I just said something mean about its mom and it wants to kick my ass.  The snare feels a little diffuse...it'd be nice to hear that eminate from a more singular point.  The balances all feel really good...everything's pretty well on the bright side.  Not sure I like the execution of the slide on the harmony vocal.  Is that dirt I hear on the bass?  Nice.  This mix might be more limited than mine.  That's a lot.  I like the way the end got cut down!

Rankus - Wow.  Sparse in that intro!  I like the punch of that snare...the OH feels like it could come up a bit.  The vocal is CRUSHED!  It kinda bludgeons its way through the middle of the track.  It feels dark...but in a richer way than some of the other darker tracks.  Prehaps a little less crush on the vocal and some more sparkle on stuff like the accoustic and the OH tracks.  Also...the snare didn't trigger that buildup right.  The snare came in kinda out of nowhere.  

SingSing - Bright. Up front.  Energy is good.  It feels like it keeps pushing forward.  I like the sparkle of that accoustic.  I'm not sure I like the cut into that first chorus.  If you were looking to cut on the arrangement...I don't think that was the place.

Bodeo - The bed of the music is well made.  The vocal seems like it's laying on it in a funny way.  If those vocals had the air on top of them that your OH tracks had, this would be a 100% solid mix.  It would have been nice to hear some cutting on the arrangement.

Carefulcollapse - Snare feels kinda weak, for as big as that backbeat is.  The lead guitar is bright enough, but I don't think the rest of the mix is.  This is the first mix I've listened to that really features the organ that prominently.  Don't really dig the recut of that first verse.  Makes it really schizo, arrangement-wise.  Not a fan of the end edit.  You kinda cut out all the exciting parts.

Greg Dixon - Another darker mix.  This one did take some top EQ and not sound gross.  Good balances...I like where that organ sits in the verse.  It keeps it full.  The backing vocals are up where they belong.  Keeps the vocal tracks exciting.

Jdier - This song has a killer bassline.  It NEEDS to be featured.  I can barely hear it.  This could stand for a subtantial kick in the ass in terms of bottom end content.  There just isn't a whole lot.  The vocal feels like it's got some splatter going on in the mids.  I do like how you got the guitars to sit, though.  Good midrange clarity in those tracks.  Everything just needs to get "biggened."

Maxim - WOW.  Where are the cymbals?  For that matter...where are the drums?  Or the bass?  Okay...I found the bass...but those drums are next to non-existant.  Bring 'em back!

J hall - The cymbals make the top end a little spicy.  Other than that, I really like the mix, though for as much as you advocate cutting on arrangements, I'm really suprised we didn't get that from your mix.  You left the guitar solo in, but it really doesn't seem to have the featured spot that a guitar solo normally gets.  

Macbraddy - that snare sticks out of everything like a turd in a punchbowl.  Did you check this in mono?  You might want to.  Shit sorta disappears.  Like the vocals.

-----------------------

There we go!  That's everything that was up by deadline.

I think there are a couple arrangement points I'd like to discuss or ask about, if I may...the big one being that guitar solo.  Normally I'm a fan of guitar soloing, but that one didn't feel to me like it had a place in that song.  It just felt like an afterthought.  I cut it out completely.  I saw a couple other cuts on that solo.  I'm curious as to what the general consensus (if such a thing is possible around here) is on that solo.

Also...the re-tuning of the vocal harmonies.  I can't say I'm for it.  The harmonies created really good tension.  It wasn't as exciting to me when that tension got resolved.  Again...thoughts on this?



Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Vladislavs Korehovs on April 28, 2007, 01:55:21 pm
Rising then in mixing has advantage..
You don't rise overtones/noise limiter distortions of other taracks together with cymbals. Then effectively making it sounds leaner.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 29, 2007, 01:15:16 am
icombs-
thanks for the comments.  i agreed about the snare, and that my mix was a bit bright.  please take a listen to this revision.

http://www.grantrichard.com/mp3/fantasy8.mp3

grant
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on April 29, 2007, 01:19:25 am
Quote:

Also...the re-tuning of the vocal harmonies. I can't say I'm for it. The harmonies created really good tension. It wasn't as exciting to me when that tension got resolved. Again...thoughts on this?



I COMPLETELY AGREE, that was the whole point of those harmonies, to invoke an emotion that could not be invoked by resolved harmonies.

grant
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: maxim on April 29, 2007, 04:11:59 am
ian wrote:

"Where are the cymbals?"

they gave me the shits

i suppose i should have tried to work with them....

i found the whole track rather challenging

well done, j!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: rankus on April 29, 2007, 01:54:42 pm

Thanks everyone for the comments.  I appreciate your time.

To respond:

My mix is as I intended it... Crushed vox were by choice.. I felt this song could handle that over the top thing..

Tubby boxy kick was a choice as well.

Mono? yep!  (Thanks for noticing...)

Gtrs tucked in / not enough highs... yep


The reason for this approach was to actually smear some of the instruments together to hide indiscretions in tracking, such as harsh guitars and cymbals... (the only instrument tracked well here was the bass IMO) (although the tracks were usable)  Terry Manning once said: "if you can't get clarity and separation then you should make soup, where everything blends together" ....

As I said earlier, mastering will bring out the high end etc... you have to remember I did not use any two buss comp, or eq on this as many others did... I leave that up to mastering, as always, this is a mix that I would do if I were charging for it...

My post is not to defend my mix but to illustrate alternative methods and approach.

Props to McSnare and Blueboy...

Sorry, I won't have time to review this round... two albums and an EP on the table right now... (yes!)

Thanks again everybody.



Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 30, 2007, 02:15:22 pm
WOW, that took me some time to catch up on this thread.

i leave the country for a few days, end up in a place with no internet, and ya'll go crazy..........

first off, all the mixes submitted post deadline shouldn't be here.  every one knows the rules and if you don't, they are clearly posted.  it's not fair to the people who get their mix done in time to sneak in the back door.......

secondly, my "recall challenge" is only for the two people i asked.

i've got jim's recall notes and i will do those in the next few days.

some one asked me to put up raw mp3's then processed mp3's.  i don't really have time for that, you'll have to use your ears and have me explain how i did certain things.  critical listening is a HUGE part of being a good mixer.

if i missed any specific questions aimed at me, please ask them again.

if you want my treatments of specific things just let me know.


i re-amped the guitars with the Sans-Amp PSA-1 plug-in in PT.  no idea the settings as i audio suite those every time.

the PSA-1 is a DSP hog, i can't afford it to run TDM with all my other stuff i need.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: briefcasemanx on April 30, 2007, 10:48:04 pm
oh, I thought you were going to give me some corrections to make before I did my recall....
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 30, 2007, 11:09:49 pm
briefcasemanx wrote on Wed, 25 April 2007 22:58

J Hall: I'm listening in headphones, so take that into account. Can't listen on monitors right now.

-Less white noisey-ness in the guitars like people have been saying. But it doesn't have to be attenuated a lot, it's not bad.

-There's something weird going on in the left side  with the guitars. You can really hear it during that 1st intro riff before everything comes in. Turn that down a little, especially in the intro riff where it commands too much attention.

-There's a delay in the chorus, I think it's a ping pong that starts on the left side. On the word "wait" the first slapback is too loud/distracting. I'd turn it down about a db or 2 on that word for the first generation of the delay, if that makes sense.

-on the buildup to the second chorus, I think the overheads are too loud. I'd turn those down a db or 2.

-I could be insane, but it sounds like theres a phaser/flanger on an effect that is on the vocal in the first verse. Like a flanged delay maybe? On the word "question" it becomes obvious, and I would automate the "mix" parameter of the phaser/flanger lower just for this word. It's in the phrase "without question I". I could be just hearing shit as far as it being a phaser or flanger, but there's something going on on that word that bugged me.






ok guys.  there is a point to this.  if you are interested (universal you) my mixes are pretty level matched, so you should be able to A/B them with little trouble.

http://www.thetarhythm.com/imp11/imp11JHallBriefRECALL.mp3
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on April 30, 2007, 11:10:39 pm
briefcasemanx wrote on Mon, 30 April 2007 21:48

oh, I thought you were going to give me some corrections to make before I did my recall....


i am, but not yet.  let's focus on mine for a minute.  then we'll do yours.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on May 01, 2007, 06:33:31 am
j.hall wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 00:00

tom C, you want in on the recall challenge as well?


Back from my short trip as well, so here's my wish list (compiled
from a musician/producer point of view, not from a spectrum
analyzing AE nerd view with frequences and other stuff).

As you might remember I'm not completely happy with the kick drum,
especially in the intro and chorus parts it dominates too much.
I'd like to hear the bass more as the sustain of the kick (or the
kick more as the attack of the bass), so if the kick says 'Twack'
and the bass says 'Bwamm' I'd like to hear them married to a nice
fat 'Twamm'.
If it's (loudness wise) now 80% kick and 20% bass (in the verses
70/30) I'd love to hear how 60/40 (plus/minus 10%) sounds like.

macsnare's mastered version illustrates what I mean quite good,
but I'm aware that in a real life scenario we wouldn't have such
a good example to show the AE what we mean, so just go with what
I tried to visualize (audiolize?) with my words.

The second point are the guitars, they are too bright in the
chorus. That isn't bad in itself, but between the loud kick
and that guitars there seems to be a hole frequency wise.

My personal taste in vocals would be more 'in your face', but
they are nice as they are now, so if they still work after the
changes mentioned above just keep them.

Tom

PS: you're right, trying to articulate changes is a very good
exercise, especially when it's not in your native language and
you're not in the same studio with the AE.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on May 01, 2007, 03:42:30 pm
Tom C wrote on Tue, 01 May 2007 05:33

j.hall wrote on Thu, 26 April 2007 00:00

tom C, you want in on the recall challenge as well?


Back from my short trip as well, so here's my wish list (compiled
from a musician/producer point of view, not from a spectrum
analyzing AE nerd view with frequences and other stuff).

As you might remember I'm not completely happy with the kick drum,
especially in the intro and chorus parts it dominates too much.
I'd like to hear the bass more as the sustain of the kick (or the
kick more as the attack of the bass), so if the kick says 'Twack'
and the bass says 'Bwamm' I'd like to hear them married to a nice
fat 'Twamm'.
If it's (loudness wise) now 80% kick and 20% bass (in the verses
70/30) I'd love to hear how 60/40 (plus/minus 10%) sounds like.

macsnare's mastered version illustrates what I mean quite good,
but I'm aware that in a real life scenario we wouldn't have such
a good example to show the AE what we mean, so just go with what
I tried to visualize (audiolize?) with my words.

The second point are the guitars, they are too bright in the
chorus. That isn't bad in itself, but between the loud kick
and that guitars there seems to be a hole frequency wise.

My personal taste in vocals would be more 'in your face', but
they are nice as they are now, so if they still work after the
changes mentioned above just keep them.

Tom

PS: you're right, trying to articulate changes is a very good
exercise, especially when it's not in your native language and
you're not in the same studio with the AE.



http://www.thetarhythm.com/imp11/imp11JHallTomCRECALL.mp3


Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: George_ on May 02, 2007, 03:22:45 am
TomC

your mix rocks! I will send you my next project Wink

missed the deadline  Mad  Mad
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on May 02, 2007, 04:27:19 am
myNameIsGeorge wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 09:22

TomC

your mix rocks! I will send you my next project Wink

missed the deadline  Mad  Mad


George, if you're referring to the link right above your posting that's not
mine, that's a recall J.Hall did, so you might better want to send
your next project to him.

Tom

PS: J., as soon as I have time to listen to your mix I'll post
some feedback.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: George_ on May 02, 2007, 07:57:54 am
 http://www.tom-crowning.com/music/PSW/IMP11/IMP-011-TomC.mp3

this one?

very cool. I mean your mix is the only one that is worth listening to.. there are several problems, but it's a mix!

very cool. ITB?


the recall is too much compressed in my opinion.
http://www.thetarhythm.com/imp11/imp11JHallTomCRECALL.mp3

cheers
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: chrisj on May 02, 2007, 11:22:44 am
I'm going to set up some permanent auxiliary speakers just to deal with my continuing shyness of agressive highs- I have some nice little garbage 8" drivers and a big space in my left console rack. It's mastering style so it's up where the knobs of a console would be, but it points thataway, not at the listening position. I've decided I'm gonna just build the speakers into a panel right there- it'll get vaguely okay bass even though it's not a sealed box, but with the speakers 8" and at least 45 degrees off axis, if there aren't enough highs even _I_ won't like it  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Still with the big titanium-diaphragm spherical horns for the REAL monitors- but I ought to be able to fix the creative-mix-decisions problem in time for next IMP. Basically the times people have been like 'yeah cool' are when I've used 'auratone' type reference, and I blew it when I didn't. I think for mixing I need to have the single-driver monitors.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on May 02, 2007, 11:37:13 am
no comments on the recalls?

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on May 02, 2007, 01:53:00 pm
myNameIsGeorge wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 13:57

  http://www.tom-crowning.com/music/PSW/IMP11/IMP-011-TomC.mp3

this one?

very cool. I mean your mix is the only one that is worth listening to.. there are several problems, but it's a mix!



George, thanks a lot for your nice words, I really appreciate this.

I have a little problem with the way you articulated this,
because every single one of the mixes is worth listening to, and
saying it ain't so shows IMO not the appropriate respect for the
people around here who invest some of their spare time to make
IMP happen.
I mean, there are mixes I don't like and there are mixes I like
better than my mix, but each one is worth the time to listen to
it.
And you can learn something from each one, that's why we're here.

After a look at your posting history I know English is not your
native language, so I assume it wasn't your intention to sound
that hard.

So, end of rant, now back to you  Razz
Quote:


very cool. ITB?



Yes, completely ITB. Basically Steinberg Cubase and a couple of
(inexpensive) plug-ins.

Tom
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on May 02, 2007, 02:15:13 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 17:37

no comments on the recalls?




Big kudos for the vocals, bringing them up more does not only fit
my personal taste better but also fills out that frequency hole
I mentioned much better, making the mix more dense.
And the BG vocals work better with the vocals now.

The kick/bass in the verses is good, but I'm not yet completely
happy with the chorus, it sounds like you had brought up the bass,
but didn't reduce the kick.
If the kick/bass ratio was something like 80/20 before, it's now
80/30 and I'd like to see it in the 70/30 range.
On my mixing monitors, this isn't much of an issue, but when I
listen to it on my mastering monitors (which are (more or less)
linear down from 30 Hz to whatever) it shows up that there's too
much low frequency information there now.

I'll post my comments to the recall of briefcasemanx's mix later,
I have to listen to both mixes again.

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

Tom

[Edit:] Oh, and I just noticed that the transients of the kick
got lost a bit, so if the loudness of the kick is reduced even
more it'll need most probably some EQ work to bring it back.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on May 02, 2007, 05:34:19 pm
the kick EQ and level are both different on the recall.

i brought the attack down, sculpted the low end some, and turned it down.

i did nothing to the bass other then turn it up.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on May 03, 2007, 02:07:48 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 02 May 2007 17:37

no comments on the recalls?




Finally found some time to listen to the briefcasemanx recall.
From all three (original + the 2 recalls) I like this one most,
it sounds like the best parts of the original and my recall
nicely put together into one mix.
You did a bit more than just the changes briefcasemanx requested.

Tom

PS: common guys, J.Hall has some spare time to teach us things
and no one offers feedback.
And only 5 and a half people posted their feedback so far.
I know the weather is nice, it's spring and the skirts are getting
shorter, but when you had the time to mix this song there should
be time for a little feedback. Even the shortest feedback is better
than nothing...
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: garret on May 03, 2007, 02:44:38 pm
I like the tamed kick in the Tom C recall.  Feels more in balance with the rest of "the band."  And I think the high end is better in both recalls.

Otherwise, I'm not hearing a lot of changes.. just subtle improvements in each.  Which is good, but doesn't make for a thrilling discussion.

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on May 03, 2007, 02:45:20 pm
Tom C wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 13:07


You did a bit more than just the changes briefcasemanx requested.




i'm glad you brought it up......

what are you hearing?

the same is true for your recall, it's just less obvious.  

Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Tom C on May 03, 2007, 04:30:01 pm
j.hall wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 20:45

Tom C wrote on Thu, 03 May 2007 13:07


You did a bit more than just the changes briefcasemanx requested.




i'm glad you brought it up......

what are you hearing?




It's not easy to listen for the subtle changes and not get tricked by things one believes to hear. Damn psychoacoustics...

What I think I hear in briefcasemanx's recall:

  1. kick has less transients and is a bit louder
  2. a bit more bass, but not as much as in my recall
  3. vocals have tad less reverb
  4. stereo effects of the BG vocals are reduced, delay as well.Makes the vocals much tighter
  5. after the (quiet) vocal part you added some EQ automation to the OH. Much better transition to the louder part IMO.


Tom
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: j.hall on May 05, 2007, 11:00:47 am
you are really close.

bass is louder.  kick didn't change in level, just a touch of EQ.

snare drum is brighter.

all vocal notes are correct.

no EQ on overheads, it's a level thing.  a fade in on the OH and the snare.

the point is this, when you do a recall for a client, things they want done often times effect other areas of your mix.  you can't just run down their list and call it "good".  you have to keep listening to how the changes are impacting the entire mix.

with darker guitars the snare drum needed to be brighter to fill that gap back in.  as the kick and bass relationship shifted, the vocals needed more attention then briefcase originally asked for.

he asked for the fade in on the OH out of the bridge, but the snare was too loud and not properly blending with the OH fade.

little things here and there have to change as you make the client's changes.

seems obvious,  but i don't think a lot of people realize this, or do it.

good ears Tom!!
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: briefcasemanx on May 07, 2007, 06:18:21 am
I liked the delay turned down at the start of the choruses. Didn't hear a big difference otherwise when I listened to it a couple days ago at school. I think the kick sounded a little different if I remember correctly. The guitars might have actually sounded better on your original version, yet on the original version they are even more white noisey. It's hard for me to give suggestions without being there with you though.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: chromatics on May 07, 2007, 09:57:18 am
Whoops, didn't realise the submissions forum was closed. I went ahead and uploaded my mix anyway.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/imp/files/imp11_chromatics.mp3

This is my first IMP as i only discovered the forum a couple of days ago!

I'm sure you've all heard the track a hundred times by now but if anyone wants to take a listen and maybe let me know what you think...i'd appreciate it.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: ATOR on May 09, 2007, 09:42:34 am
Better late than never  Razz


Antman
It's all too far away. You've put the ac guitar in center spot and the vocals to the side, that doesn't work for me. The vocal should be the center of attention. Some dist in vocal. It gets pretty boring for me at the end.

Blueboy
Weird OH sound. Bells too loud. Nice lead vox. Snare reverb is too big for me, esp predelay. I dont like it when the BG vox stays put when the chord changes. Very noticeable when the BG vox is louder than the lead, which I'd like to be softer than the lead. Nice vox delays in bridge.

BoedoMix
It's a bit blurry because of the reverb. Nice vocal. Good balance. BG vocal could be softer, esp the long (wrong) note.

Carefulcollapse
Bass could use some tightening. Vocal doesn't stand out as much as I'd like. Cutting the verse in half with a short burst of instr. chorus doesn't work for me. I like how you used the organ in the bridge but it's a bit too loud, or just turn up the vocal like I already mentioned. Haha, a bold sudden death ending. The transistor radio ac guitar should be more present, now it's as if you weren't sure if you'd put it there so you just put it in really soft.

ChrisJ
Very muddy lows. I don't like the snare sound. Nice acoustic gits. Kick could use some more power. I'd like more separation. Vocal sounds nice in the bridge, but I hardly notice him in the rest of the track.

Fantomas
Good big bass, a bit too prominent. Nice drums, snare could be a little bit fuller. Toms sound like cardboard, did you forget them? Yep I like this mix.

Garret
Great space intro, until the guitars come in that is, they sound thin and ugly. Is that a drumkit I hear in the back? The no-one to rescue me reverb is a little over the top. I like the little snare fills. The song is too long for me.

GrantRichard
Way too much compression for me. Have you been listening to J.Hall Smile  Otherwise good sounds. Great organ treatment, what did you do with it? The vox break is great. I like the energy of this mix. Good balance too. Loose the compression and it's my fav so far.

Greg Dixon
I need more kick. Nice vocal. Electric rhytm guitars lack power and presence, they're just a wash in the back. Acoustics could sparkle more.

iCombs
Snare sounds as if a construction worker is hitting something way in the back. I miss a coherent space, nothing comes for the same room. You get extra points for cutting the solo short Smile

JDier
Sounds very small, drums are way too soft. Sibilance in vocal. Where is the driving force of the drums?

JHall
Whoah, yup this is a JHall mix. I probably mentioned before that I'd like a little less (2bus) compression Smile  This is the first track that has great toms. You can hear when the snaresample kicks in in the long snarefill that starts quiet, maybe you could automate the snarereplacer sensivity there. Did you replace the toms? Maybe a little less reverb on the vox and bg vox. Good separation.

MacBraddy
I miss the kick. No kick no glory. Spacey lead vox could be nice if the snare wasn't spacey in the other corner. Lead vox could be more present. Nice lead guitarsounds. Snare takes too much of the attention. Bells are too loud and almost sound re-amped.

Maxim
Where are the drums? This is how the band sounds if you'd record the singer with his head stuck in the lead guitarists speaker. The balance is way off.

McSnare
Good solid mix. You brought the bells in right away. Great sounds and separation. I like the snare. Haha, can't get enough of the bells can you. Is there added harmony in the bg vox? I'd still like them to follow the chord change. Yup this is a great mix. Could use some more bells Smile

Rankus
Rhythm guitars sound far away. Nice vox, maybe a little too compressed. Somehow it seems as if this mix is lacking transients, it sounds a little veiled. Maybe you're just fucked because I listened to your mix after McSnares. I listened to it again and it's as if you made your compressor attack too short and killed transients.

ShakesTheClown
Too big reverb on snare. Did you put a spring reverb on a delayed vocal in the back? OHs are too prominent. Vox sounds good, a little too soft in the 2nd half, mostly because of the loud OHs. The sounds are pretty good but the balance and reverbs are off.

Singsing
Sounds harsh and piercing. It hurts my ears even when I turn it down. As if it's smashed by a limiter.

TomC
I like how you featured the bass, it's very prominent but not in the way of anything. Good sounds. I'd like less obvious 2buss compression.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: iCombs on May 09, 2007, 12:07:06 pm
ATOR wrote on Wed, 09 May 2007 08:42

Better late than never  Razz

McSnare
Good solid mix. You brought the bells in right away. Great sounds and separation. I like the snare. Haha, can't get enough of the bells can you. Is there added harmony in the bg vox? I'd still like them to follow the chord change. Yup this is a great mix. Could use some more bells Smile


Bells are the new cowbell.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Gabriel F on May 09, 2007, 01:02:40 pm
Ator: yes i forgot about the toms the sound pretty bad

Jhall: your recalls are pretty good. Hard to tell the diferences the first time because you changed other things to retain the same power and vibe of your first mix.
I like the briefRecall a little bit more than Tomc.

Great ears TomC. you took the fun out of the comparisons Smile
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: grantis on May 09, 2007, 01:14:56 pm
Quote:

GrantRichard
Way too much compression for me. Have you been listening to J.Hall  Otherwise good sounds. Great organ treatment, what did you do with it? The vox break is great. I like the energy of this mix. Good balance too. Loose the compression and it's my fav so far.


wow, thanks a lot for the kind words Smile.  I worked hard on that thing.

For the organ, I used a massey tape-head plugin (actually 2 of them per side, so 4 total) and turned them all the way up.

grant
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: mcsnare on May 09, 2007, 01:43:36 pm
Thanks ATOR. Was there bells in there? Not sure what you are referring to. Also, I did not change the BGV's except to lengthen the last note on the lead to end at the same time as the harmony.
Dave
p.s. sorry I haven't found the time to comment on everybody's, maybe soon.
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: velvet on May 12, 2007, 12:08:05 pm
Hallo. I would also like to share my mix, although it took me a while ( two weeks probably) - I couldn't make it in one week since I downloaded the tracks. Normally I would make it, but , as I am moving from one flat to another and THAT is time consuming (you know- beside a few things a girlfriend, her dog, cat, aquarium full of strange fishes, and probably half of the ZOO  Rolling Eyes )
You can download my mix HERE  I'll be glad to hear your comments.
Interesting to me is, that more mixes I downloaded and listened sounded to me really "wet" - as if the band played in a big place, with constant verbs on vocals and drums. I did like the J.Hall's mix as it reminded me some psychedelic-indie-post-punk bands I listened to on highschool and I really can imagine how I could be driven crazy (in positive way) by those vocal delays if I will smoke a joint Very Happy
However, since I did hear the song, I knew I will make it more "in the face" kind of sound. Also as I heard the song for a first or second time, I decieded to create some vocal harmonies for Refs. Kind of Def Leppard choir  Laughing . OK, not THAT big...

Finally it may take your attention that 90% of compressors and EQs I used were the ones from SSL Duende. BTW for me this was a great opportunity to try the Duende out. I am really satisfied with it's sound capabilities, but SSL still need to improve the OSX drivers (that is another story).  
I also used the Duende's Stereo BUS compressor on my main output (usually I use hardware compressor - if any). The track is mixed through Avalon vt747sp (no compressor or EQ - only Tube signal Path was switched in and the Gain was rised up to drive the tubes nicely) to Ampex456 1/4" tape.  
After importing back to digital the UAD-1 Precision limiter plugin was used to limit the peaks and rise the volume up slightly, no EQ, multiband compression or other "mastering tricks".
That's it. Once again thanks for this imp idea (and for realizing it!).
Title: Re: IMP 11 OFFICIAL discussion thread
Post by: Billybehdaz on May 15, 2007, 09:32:05 pm
New here, just found this forum from gearslutz.  What an awesome idea!!  Seems I'm too late to participate on this one, but I'll offer my humble opinions for the ones I've listened to.

ChrisJ - dark, as others have said.  Maybe a little muddy, but I think brightening the mix up in general might fix that.

Blueboy - snare a little loud in the verse, nice sound though.  Like the vocal edits in the breakdown, very lord-alge.  lot's of hat.  nice mix overall!

TomC - like the bass, more than I would mix but it's not boomy at all.  Wish I knew how to do that.  Vocals sound maybe a bit distorted?  Not sure if I like that in the intimate parts.  The 2 buss compression just killed me going into the chorus.  The song builds nicely and then goes limp as the vox pull down the background.  Really nice balances overall but I think the compression is killing the energy and dynamics.

jhall - nice full sound, cymbals are a little too present and washy for my taste.  Sounds like the mix is pumping some, which I don't think fits this style/tempo.  I like the vocal treatment, different than others but it works.  I think the bk vox could come up a lot before the solo.  Overall, sounds very "radio" if that makes sense.

mcsnare - love the snare sound! May be a db or 2 loud though, especially in the verse.  What did you use?  Bass sounds very balanced.  I think it could use a little more ac. gtr.  Tamb maybe a little too loud.  All minor things, my favorite mix I listened to.

Seems there are some very solid mixers here, I'm glad I found this forum.  I could learn a lot here!  I'm probably just parroting what other's have said since I'm late to the game, but I can't wait for the next IMP so I can participate as well.  Anyone know when if or when the next one is planned?