R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => j. hall => Topic started by: j.hall on January 13, 2008, 04:00:25 pm

Title: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 13, 2008, 04:00:25 pm
it's up

24bit 48k aiff files.  it's a big download, sorry.

it's due by midnight (central time) next monday jan 21st.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 14, 2008, 10:11:16 am
Okay, discussion...I'll bite.

What purpose is the floor shell track serving?  I've just muted the thing because it doesn't seem do me any good at all for the overall drum sound.  I can see where you might want the kick shell...I'm not using it, but I can see the point.  

Am I missing something?

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: cymatics on January 14, 2008, 02:26:52 pm
I only had a brief listen through the tracks last night.  The toms sounded like the heads were badly in need of a change.  Perhaps the floor tom shell mic track was intended to provide some of the lacking definition/articulation?

Just a thought.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 14, 2008, 02:34:24 pm
Yeah, the toms either had bad heads or badly-tuned heads.  I think maybe they were trying to tune too small of a tom too low.  I pitch-shifted them up and they work a lot better, IMO.

Anyway, yeah, I guess that's one possibility.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 14, 2008, 04:11:45 pm
the toms on this kit are not that great.  weird drums as they sound good live, but don't record well.

i tracked these drums.  the kick shell and floor shell are just labels i use so i'll know what i'm dealing with.

think of them as "room mics" and it might make more sense.

i'll reveal no more.....enjoy mixing it.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 14, 2008, 09:26:39 pm
j.hall wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 15:11

i tracked these drums.  the kick shell and floor shell are just labels i use so i'll know what i'm dealing with.




Who's responsible for the vocals?




Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 14, 2008, 10:16:08 pm
Quote:

Who's responsible for the vocals?


meeeeee

i did...everything else too.  
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 14, 2008, 11:00:16 pm
does it matter who did it?  just mix it.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 15, 2008, 12:11:16 am
I thought this might be one of Grant's songs.
I like it.
And I already did mix it, thank you very much.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 15, 2008, 12:34:04 am
Quote:

I thought this might be one of Grant's songs.
I like it.
And I already did mix it, thank you very much.


what would make you think that?  Wink

and thanks!

(ooops, just posted that in the wrong thread....)
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: rankus on January 15, 2008, 02:32:51 pm


Dang,  Just had two weeks down time, but now I'm booked solid starting a couple of new albums... going to have to miss another one...  Waaaa

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: ryst on January 16, 2008, 01:27:11 am
I cannot extract the Rar. file.  Anyone else have this problem?

EDIT:  Ok.  I got it opened but there are only 8 tracks.  Is this really it?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 16, 2008, 01:43:26 am
Nope, that's definitely corrupted.  Try clearing the cache on your browser and try again.  You may want to use a *shudder* download manager to help get it all, if you have a flaky connection.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 16, 2008, 08:32:50 pm
I don't know what it is. I'm one of those guys that gets very intimate with anything that I'm mixing. I always have a new favorite song. It's strange. I may not even like a tune when I pull it up... or track it for that matter. Then, man... I become 'one' with the song. hhhummmmmmmmmmmm.  Very Happy  (can you pass that please and stop Bogart-ing.

Very cool track. (even when I first heard it)  Laughing
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 16, 2008, 10:23:31 pm
Podgorny wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 23:11

I thought this might be one of Grant's songs.
I like it.
And I already did mix it, thank you very much.


you're welcome.....................
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 16, 2008, 11:23:48 pm
sstillwell wrote on Mon, 14 January 2008 09:11

Okay, discussion...I'll bite.

What purpose is the floor shell track serving?  I've just muted the thing because it doesn't seem do me any good at all for the overall drum sound.  I can see where you might want the kick shell...I'm not using it, but I can see the point.  

Am I missing something?

Scott


You get some great ride out of the floor shell and the kick shell is the only way to get some point out of the bass drum (if you need that in your mix).

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 16, 2008, 11:37:12 pm
I think I'm done...  wasn't too bad, 4-5 hours total I think...  it rocks, it's blatantly commerical, and it's gonna make the teenage girls go crazy.  Shocked

Cheers, Grant and J... thanks for the tune.

I have a lot more to discuss, but I'll hold off until everyone finishes their mixes...

-Garret
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 17, 2008, 02:16:24 am
Quote:

it's gonna make the teenage girls go crazy.


****picking myself up off the floor, still clutching sides from writhing, uncontrollable laughter****



i thought that was the point.  i guess it worked....aaaahhhhhhahaha



****falls back on floor and laughs some more****



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: mcsnare on January 17, 2008, 02:30:39 am
I decided to do something different and use just the floor tom shell mic as the whole drum kit. Wacky....
Dave
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 17, 2008, 12:00:32 pm
Okay, that's it...I'm not messing with it any more.  I've had this essentially done since like late night Monday, but I keep thinking "ooo, I could do THIS...hmm...and THAT..and this OTHER!!!"  All little stuff, but I just never say "DONE".

I do this for money when I have the opportunity, but I don't do it for a living, so I've never gotten into the habit of doing things in a profit-conscious manner.  Bad me.

How do YOU know when you're done?  When is it "good enough"?

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 17, 2008, 12:07:25 pm
Quote:

How do YOU know when you're done? When is it "good enough"?


when i get what i want.  
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 17, 2008, 01:30:47 pm
grant richard wrote on Thu, 17 January 2008 11:07

Quote:

How do YOU know when you're done? When is it "good enough"?


when i get what i want.  


Then I guess I'll never be done...the semi trailers full of cash never seem to show up out front.   Rolling Eyes

Doomed, I'm doooooooomed.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 17, 2008, 01:42:19 pm
sstillwell wrote on Thu, 17 January 2008 12:30

grant richard wrote on Thu, 17 January 2008 11:07

Quote:

How do YOU know when you're done? When is it "good enough"?


when i get what i want.  


Then I guess I'll never be done...the semi trailers full of cash never seem to show up out front.   Rolling Eyes

Doomed, I'm doooooooomed.

Scott


HAHA.  Me neither man, me neither.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 17, 2008, 03:46:59 pm
sstillwell wrote on Thu, 17 January 2008 11:00

How do YOU know when you're done?  When is it "good enough"?




Well I don't know if it's "good enough", but I had Monday afternoon available to work on it.  The rest of the week I'm busy.
Schedule kind of dictates how long it's going to take.



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: rankus on January 17, 2008, 10:43:48 pm


I'm out of this one, but I know a mix is done when I start listening to the song all the way through a couple of times in a row and don't have the urge to tweak anything.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: M Carter on January 17, 2008, 11:46:56 pm
dunno if i'll have the time to do this one, but I know a mix is almost done when I notice that i'm no longer listening to the mix and I'm listening to the SONG.

matt
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 18, 2008, 12:12:10 am
All good answers...from both pragmatic and artistic standpoints.

Thanks.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 18, 2008, 09:42:16 am
i agree with all above.  i'm done when i don't want to tweak anymore.  or, when i'm simply hitting a deadline and things HAVE to get put together.

either way, i never send work out that i would not put my name on.

artist recalls are a different story.  sometimes those NEVER end.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 19, 2008, 04:03:22 pm
hey, i was just thinking......should we up the mp3 resolution to 256?

probably not enough time to change it considering monday is the deadline.


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 19, 2008, 04:07:08 pm
Yes you should.
Next time around.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: mcsnare on January 20, 2008, 03:11:45 pm
What's so hard to change about putting it up at 256? I'll put mine up at that rate.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: audio~geek on January 20, 2008, 04:32:54 pm
Why not 320? I did that last time an no one cared except ChrisJ who wouldn't even listen, the big meanie  Sad

Even better would be FLAC, be done with lossy formats forever.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Careful Collapse on January 20, 2008, 08:35:52 pm
I like the idea of FLAC too but mp3 is a lot more universal
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Boedo Constrictor on January 20, 2008, 10:36:54 pm
Hola I have raised my mix newly, for this occasion I imposed a deadline of 3 hours, I have not managed to automate anything but I believe that it works well. In spite of the topic not being recorded of happy way, the tune is very good and is mixed easily.
Mixed in Protools 7.3 only with Sony MDR7506 (like always)
I did not replace the kick, only compression and a bit of eq of the plugins Waves API.
I replaced the SN by one of my own ones samples.
I tuned to the toms
Compression in the Ambient.
I simulated an amp of bass with the DI channel
I used the guitars and voices.
Some delays hereabouts a reverb there.
I list!
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 20, 2008, 11:10:09 pm
I was fine with 192kbps... 256kbps is okay too, but um, bigger.

Anything above that seems like overkill for our purposes, and wastes PSW bandwidth.

Downloading one 10MB mp3 is no big deal, but we have had 30 entries before... if my math is correct, that's 9GB of bandwidth if everyone uploads to the PSW server, and downloads every entry...

FLAC would be huge... 5 times the size of 192kbps mp3.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: audio~geek on January 21, 2008, 01:02:20 am
garret wrote on Sun, 20 January 2008 22:10

I was fine with 192kbps... 256kbps is okay too, but um, bigger.

Anything above that seems like overkill for our purposes, and wastes PSW bandwidth.

Downloading one 10MB mp3 is no big deal, but we have had 30 entries before... if my math is correct, that's 9GB of bandwidth if everyone uploads to the PSW server, and downloads every entry...

FLAC would be huge... 5 times the size of 192kbps mp3.



thats a good point.
Title: IMP Goof!
Post by: osumosan on January 21, 2008, 09:47:47 am
Please ignore IMP_Osumosan.mp3!

I can't even listen to the song now since I mixed at 44.1K for a week.

Sheesh!
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: Podgorny on January 21, 2008, 10:37:42 am
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 08:47

I can't even listen to the song now since I mixed at 44.1K for a week.

Sheesh!



I don't get it.





Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: Podgorny on January 21, 2008, 10:42:17 am
Hahaha.

I just listened to it.
I understand now.

Can't you just import the file into a session without SRC, and then re-export it?





Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: UnderTow on January 21, 2008, 11:52:37 am

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

But I'm looking forward to hearing all the entries. Smile

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: audio~geek on January 21, 2008, 12:07:31 pm
Podgorny wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 09:42

Hahaha.

I just listened to it.
I understand now.

Can't you just import the file into a session without SRC, and then re-export it?


Wouldn't the automation be in the wrong places then. The files would be a different length.

Its kind of funny how this happens almost every time, some 'engineer' doesn't check the files before importing, or doesn't notice until after he finishes a mix.
Sometimes we just don't listen do we.
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: Podgorny on January 21, 2008, 12:15:28 pm
Audio~Geek wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 11:07

Wouldn't the automation be in the wrong places then. The files would be a different length.



I meant the mix, not the source files.





Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: audio~geek on January 21, 2008, 12:41:57 pm
I kind of like the slowed down version  Smile
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: osumosan on January 21, 2008, 01:40:55 pm
More of a case of not reading and having generally a static work flow. Hopefully, this is my lesson learned.

Anyway. Yes all the automations, edits, would have to be redone. I couldn't do it today, and it would be NO fun. I could resample the speed, but I wouldn't want to submit that blindly either. Too late in any case. Hope you all enjoy it anyway, although I asked J. to take down the file in embarassment.
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: audio~geek on January 21, 2008, 01:46:42 pm
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 12:40

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

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

Nah man, that version rocks! Just speed it up so its the correct tempo, but keep it low.
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: SingSing on January 21, 2008, 01:59:01 pm
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 13:40

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

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


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

All the best,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: UnderTow on January 21, 2008, 02:02:02 pm
UnderTow wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 17:52


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




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

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

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: audio~geek on January 21, 2008, 02:10:48 pm
Just for fun I put your mix into Protools and tried Elastic audio on it, I was quite surprised with the results.

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

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

Would have sounded even better with the original wav, not mp3-aiff-wav-mp3 converted.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Billybehdaz on January 21, 2008, 02:17:00 pm
Since I have the day off I'm going to listen to all the mixes I can and give my 2 pennies, here goes....


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: SingSing on January 21, 2008, 02:31:59 pm
I accidentally upped the wrong version in the submission thread. The correct one is there now. IMP16_SingSing.mp3 is the correct version.

Sorry for stealing your bandwidth....


All the best,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 21, 2008, 02:45:08 pm
Awright...busted.  I was mixing at fairly low volume.  After I cranked it up (and shaved my head with the highs in the process), I saw you were right.  I redid it and posted on my site(only if you're interested, I stand by my original mix for purposes of this discussion) at http://www.stillwellaudio.com/sounds/imp16-sstillwell-2.mp3 .

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

Thanks for the input!

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: audio~geek on January 21, 2008, 03:05:21 pm
I was gonna say, your mix is BRIGHT
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: j.hall on January 21, 2008, 03:32:37 pm
osumosan wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 12:40

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



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

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Electric Warrior on January 21, 2008, 03:47:01 pm
you're lucky that it happened now as this is just for fun. lesson learned, no damage done.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 21, 2008, 03:51:02 pm
I always learn so much from these things. After listening to a couple (when I should be working) I made a few of tiny tweaks in levels, pan, and a bit of air on the OH and room mics... and would have been much more satisfied. Live and learn. I love it.

Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: osumosan on January 21, 2008, 04:34:31 pm
So working in Logic, I just created a 48k session and imported the 44.1k mix and bounced to a new file, seeing that the 44.1k session transposed the 48k files, the reverse should be true. So I uploaded a -fix file (sorry for the bandwidth usage). If you would like to hear a bit more bottom, well, you know why.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: SingSing on January 21, 2008, 04:45:39 pm
So here we go. Got my laptop and a pair of Sennheiser HD280 and Koss PortaPro, so take these words with a truckload of salt. Overall this IMP seems to have a much wider range of interpretations which is really fun. Is it just me, or is the lead vocal tuned a bit different compare to the instruments (or vice versa... =)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TGoodwin
Mono?!   Rolling Eyes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


All the best,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 21, 2008, 04:57:47 pm
Quote:

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


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

i simply changed the filename to submit for PSW, but forgot all about the ID3 tag.
Title: Re: IMP Goof!
Post by: osumosan on January 21, 2008, 04:58:05 pm
Dudes! Check it out. I could have actually set the sample rate of my whole session to 48k to be correct. When I did that at first, all the start points, edits, fades, automation got screwey. But then I changed the tempo from 120 to 130.6122 and voila!

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

Whoa.

p.s. SingSing, thanks for the kind words. If you still are interested, I'll relook at the mix, since I really wanted the bass to be low and grand and an 8% hike in the formants did some harm in that regard.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 21, 2008, 05:31:22 pm
Quote:

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


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

i tend to go for a more raw vocal sound nowadays, ever since autotune took over the world.  the lead vocal you got was my tuned melodyne version (right J?), and i thought it was pretty loose still, but not bugging me.  to each his own i guess.  for this genre, i maybe could have pulled the lead vocal tighter with melodyne, but my perfection exists in a nonperfect world.  Wink.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: T. Goodwin on January 21, 2008, 06:27:17 pm
SingSing wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 16:45

TGoodwin
The lead vox ducks because of the limiter. This one really slaughters the original tracks. I like your kick, but I can't really hear the bass. The snare sounds like a highpitched conga. The lead vox might have an OK sound, but it's hard to hear since it's buried most of the time. The harmony is almost louder during the chorus.


Had I not been busy this week, I definitely would have started this    completely over. I got to the point where I was trying to fix the mistakes I made earlier, making even more mistakes, repeat ad nauseam.

For future reference and for the help of an extreme amateur, how would one go about fixing the limiting problems without sacrificing the entire track's volume? I suppose automating the threshold would work, or just bringing up the vocal further back in the process.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: audio~geek on January 21, 2008, 06:47:01 pm
I de-essed the vocals and I even automated the annoying parts. It still sticks out.
I'm thinking I did something in my 'mastering' to wreck it all.


J can I post an 'unmastered' version? maybe without the tapestop cheese too?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on January 21, 2008, 06:48:02 pm
hey i just want to say this is my first mix for this site. my names drew...and love the input.

(introduction complete?)
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 21, 2008, 07:14:23 pm
SingSing wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 15:45

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




Hey Stefan,

My tag only says that because that's what I entered before making the mp3.  If Grant says the artist's name is Telesound and the song is called "openeyes6loud", then I guess that's what it's called.

And umm, what, no review of my mix?
Well let tell you what I think of YOUR mix.










I like it.



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: maxim on January 21, 2008, 07:36:43 pm
"I like that acoustic sound, what FX did you use there?"

if i remember correctly, it was just a touch of 5k on the sonalksis eq, a hint of delay and a bunch of dp's plate reverb (i kept adding it until the gtr "popped" out of the mix)


my biggest issue with this mix was the "tuned" vocal

my first reaction was to ditch it altogether

my second reaction was to distort to the point where i could no longer hear the tuning

eventually, i allowed it back into the mix...
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 21, 2008, 09:36:00 pm
Audio~Geek wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 17:47


J can I post an 'unmastered' version? maybe without the tapestop cheese too?


NOPE!
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 22, 2008, 12:41:25 am
Some comments on the raw tracks, and the mix in general.

-- The song is too damn long... it desperately needed an edit, so I made two.  Looks like a couple other mixers also got out the razor blade.

-- The vocals were really wooly.. anyone else think that?  I had to use a pretty severe high pass and low shelf... more than usual.

-- the guitars were just flawless, drop-in instant final tracks. Good work, Grant.

-- good drum tracks, J... lots of power and fidelity.. I got surprising mileage out of the tom tracks for fill... and the shell tracks are great for accents...


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 22, 2008, 12:49:44 am
And a first batch of reviews...

Greg Dixon.  clean, exceptionally well-balanced mix... no trickery, just lets the tracks shine... only quibble: the counter vox toward the end is dominating over the lead vocal.

carefull collapse. smashy snare.. I love it for a while, then it gets tiring... the overall drum treatment makes the drums sound very lo fi.  They were very well recorded, and here they sound like basement drums.  some out of balance elements.. (guitar riff, panned right at 0:40).   Good freq balance though.. toward the bright side, but it's all there and sounds good.

patrick. lead vox is muffled and getting buried.  Shelf out the mud and bring the level up 2db or so ... otherwise this is a good mix.   The bass is way high... are you mixing on near fields w/o a sub?  

teleric. too much verb on the lead vox, it's getting sent way back in the image.    Maybe some predelay, and shelf out the lows... otherwise this is a good mix.

boedo. sounds good... freq balance is very good... vocals are a touch quiet, and get really buried during some of the transitions.  Counter vox is too loud at the end.. it's not doing enough to justify it having the lead...

mcsnare turn down the drums, mr. mcsnare. (listening blind here, just guessing it's you.. indeed it is)   This is a good mix, except for that... gutsy edits... you're absolutely right, the tune needs to be at least a minute shorter.

osumosan. rawking intro... i love it... whoa sub bass.  The bass seems to be all sub bass?!  I'm hardly able to hear the regular octave...  Put some predelay on the vocal reverb  or just drop the wet level... the lead vocal seems about 15 feet away from me right now.  You're trying a lot of stuff in this, lots of track effects, and I don't think it gels anymore.

billybehdaz. I'm hearing a flam in the drums that I think is a timing mistake... maybe something got slid around... there's a slapback on the snare, very noticeable around 0:21.  The drums are a bit of a let down on this... otherwise the mix isn't too shabby...

Imp16.mp3 (unknown) Balances are off... snare is way hotter than the lead vox... spectral balance is pretty good though...  

drew.   Drums are too loud.  Good clean lead vocal treatment.  Frequency balance is rather scooped... For energy, I need some mids/solidity from something other than the drums.

jason-t. lead vox is clean and under control, but it's getting buried at times.   This isn't glueing together for me, and I think all the right ingredients are there... just get the balance right.

garret. hey that's mine.    Yah, I like this, even after hearing the others...

j.hall. Thunderous drums.. good balanced mix, with tons of energy.  (listening blind: is that you J.hall?, ah indeed).  vocals are a bit quiet, but they sound good.  I like your bridge...
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: UnderTow on January 22, 2008, 06:56:32 am
UnderTow wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 20:02



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



Oops! Pop goes the snare drum...

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Firefly on January 22, 2008, 08:09:13 am
I found this forum a couple of months and thought imps were a superawesome idea (especially as i don't get to play with guitars much...well not the ballsy kind anyway) but after much careful vigilance of the forum I completely forgot to check the last couple of weeks! DOH!
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Billybehdaz on January 22, 2008, 09:43:19 am
Firefly wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 07:09

I found this forum a couple of months and thought imps were a superawesome idea (especially as i don't get to play with guitars much...well not the ballsy kind anyway) but after much careful vigilance of the forum I completely forgot to check the last couple of weeks! DOH!


Feel free to still post mix reviews if you have the time.  I think a 'third party' reviewer would be great as we all have heard our own mixes so much that any critique we give is going to be pretty subjective as we're subconsciously comparing others to our reference mix' in our head.


garret wrote

billybehdaz. I'm hearing a flam in the drums that I think is a timing mistake... maybe something got slid around... there's a slapback on the snare, very noticeable around 0:21. The drums are a bit of a let down on this... otherwise the mix isn't too shabby...


Well I'm 2/2 for dislikes of the 1/16 delay on the snare.  I thought it sounded cool and really filled out the snare, I hardly noticed it except when I muted it.  The fact that you both found it distracting and unnecessary makes me start to doubt my monitoring.....

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 22, 2008, 10:42:52 am
Which Osumosan am I looking at?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: osumosan on January 22, 2008, 11:44:28 am
JT:

Osumosan-fix.mp3 Please, ta! Unless you like the slower version!
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 22, 2008, 11:59:51 am
i've listened to the intro of about 10 submissions.

i think we have some monitoring issues out there.  more notes to follow.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 22, 2008, 12:27:35 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 10:59

i've listened to the intro of about 10 submissions.

i think we have some monitoring issues out there.  more notes to follow.




Amen...at least I know _I_ do.

*sigh*

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: SingSing on January 22, 2008, 12:28:53 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:59

i've listened to the intro of about 10 submissions.

i think we have some monitoring issues out there.  more notes to follow.





+1
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 22, 2008, 01:04:50 pm
sstillwell wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:27

j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 10:59

i've listened to the intro of about 10 submissions.

i think we have some monitoring issues out there.  more notes to follow.




Amen...at least I know _I_ do.

*sigh*

Scott



in my case, i have only myself to blame.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 22, 2008, 01:47:19 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 12:04

sstillwell wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 11:27

j.hall wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 10:59

i've listened to the intro of about 10 submissions.

i think we have some monitoring issues out there.  more notes to follow.




Amen...at least I know _I_ do.

*sigh*

Scott



in my case, i have only myself to blame.



Does that mean I get to blame someone else?  Oh, goody!

Nah, that'd be too easy.

Seriously, I think that's the case (only ourselves to blame) for all of us...it's just less excusable/more important to fix if you're doing it as a full-time job.

I know I NEED to do it if I want my mixes to be consistently better, it's just a matter of sucking it up and spending the money.  Well, that and knowing WHERE to spend the money.

*sigh*

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 22, 2008, 02:41:03 pm

Ok. I downloaded everything from the site and then put them into a session, gave a number to each mix and hid everything but the number. They are in no particular order. Just how they were downloaded. These are first impressions. We’re not here to blow smoke up asses. Here we go:

IF I LEFT ANYONE OUT… PLEASE EXCUSE ME AND LET ME KNOW!

1 IMP_16-UnderTow – Like the bass guitar. The bgv is cool eq’d like that so it can be lower but still clear. It doesn’t sit well with lead vocal. The phasing thing is bugging me tremendously. Did you replace the snare? I would have used a different sample. Beatobx is really loud. It doesn’t give the real drums anywhere to go when they come back in. I like the long ending, but would have been nice for the trail to fade away. IMO.

2 imp16-256k-maxim – Like the guitar to one side… everything easing in. Bass is hot. Vocal is dull. No impact when everything hits. The way that built up… I thought it would knock my socks off. I only hear bass drum. I would liked something to even out the left side… the acoustic is heavy over on the right. Tuning on the vocals sticks out like a soar thumb.

3 IMP16 Drew – Nice separation. Snare is just a touch too hot for me. I would have liked some automation on the instruments on the choruses… some explosion. Yes definitely wimpy on the choruses. I like the high end on the acoustic in relation to the OHs. Cool beatbox thing happening on the right side. Very cool. That’s my only real complaint on this one: Where’s the beef on the chorus. Nice though. It didn’t bother me at all… but where are the BGV’s?

4 imp16 fantomas -  Muddy. Especially compared to the last thing. Lead guitar is really out there. Vocal is just a bit hot. Nice drum balance. The vocal delay is kind of not necessary for me. Since this is pop, I would have spent some more time on the vocals. Cutoffs, tuning, etc. Whoooa dude! Let the demon out of the cardboard box! That beatbox was kind of distracting. I really do like the drums. The strongest suit to this mix I think. He’s really teaching those cymbals a lesson, huh? Oh man, where’s the fade. I like clean endings, not jam-room style.

5 IMP16_-_iCombs – Sounds like all kick and snare (at an arena show). It sounds like the drummer from Def Lepard playing a regular kit. The cymbals give it a peanut butter to go with jelly, you know? How about more beatbox? Are you a guitar player? They sound good, but they are the highlight here. (takes one to know one! LOL)

6 IMP16_Greg_Dixon – Snare sample? It’s very loud. Vocals are really hot. Somebody tell the bass player to turn up his amp. Vocals are a little muddy. Need more OH. Another guitar player (and lead singer)! LOL. I love the acoustic sound and relationship to the guitar in the right side. It’s really apparent in the beatbox section. It’s apparent because everything else dropped out. Nice toms.

Coffee break. It wouldn’t be fair to keep going right now. Ears are burning. Be right back.

7 imp16_macbraddy - COOL INTRO. Amazingly midrange-y. Yowza. No offense, but it just made my baby walk out of the room! LOL.  I guess I have something against the short delay on the vocals. I heard one like that earlier. I like how the BGV sits there. I dips out sometimes. A little automation? Strong bass guitar sound. Very industrial type beatbox. I likey. Shaker is out there a little too much. It sounds like a Toca egg! Is that what it is? Toms are a little hot man. The egg is over the OH. Nice ending.

8 IMP16_mcsnare_mix3_1644 – POWER!. Wow. THOSE ARE DRUMS. Vocal down 1 or 2 dB? IMO. Nice fat bottom in the snare. Even bass guitar. I hat the tom replacement. Different sample please. I LOVE how the acoustic and the hat/shaker answer one another left to right (perfect balance on EQ and panning on those things). GREAT FILL!. Another great fill. WOW. This is how mine sounded in my head. I like how it stops down. I don’t remember the counter melody. Damn that was short! Nice fade. That mix was tits!

9 imp16_patrik – I only like to hear outtakes of Beatles sessions! LOL! You got something against starting the song? This is nice. That last one was a hard act to follow. Lead guitar out just a touch too far for me. I would like the snare to hold up to all this. Actually, all the drums in the chorus. Everything was really powerful, but then they got washed out. Different snare sample please? I like the kick. It would have been cool to have your whole balance right to accommodate the chorus. Then, pull things down in the verses to make it explode. Just pumping up the guitars in that part make the drums get buried. I like this though. Nice. Argh, where’s my fade?

10 IMP16_SingSing – DIRTY VOX. I like it. A little loud. Lead guitar is out too far. It seems like it lacks midrange. That plugin distortion on the guitar is not necessary for me. NICE bass guitar. I love the snare. Nice and bright on the cymbals. A little less of that 8K and up on them though. It’s just not the midrange I’m looking for. There is plenty (too much) from 1K to 4K. You’ve got nice bottom and nice air… no need to kill it with all that ear piercing stuff. I don’t agree with the cutoff.

I need to take one second.

11 IMP16_TELERIC - Vocal is a little dull and washed out, boomy too and loud. I could use more bottom in the snare. I would love to hear this mix with the vocal down. I pulled out some of the 3K in the OH and room mics because he’s beating the hell out of them. Some air on yours would be cool. Guitars are pretty midrange-y. I like it man. Whoops clean up the end too. LOL!

12 IMP16_tgoodwin – Those are some pumping drums! Maybe you should put the verb after the compressor. If you did, then they are REALLY pumping. Tuning sticks out in a bad way on the BGV. There’s so much compression, we’re missing the attack of the bass notes. It’s really trashing those cymbals too. It’s pumping the life out of the track. Beatbox is really loud. IMO it shouldn’t be louder than your real drums. That BGV shouldn’t be louder than the lead. It’s a backup and really out of tune. No need to call attention to it.

13 IMP16-Audio~Geek – De-Esser PLEASE! The drum samples are really meshing with the mix. Fat bass guitar. Some harder panning would be cool on the guitars. It sounds like the “S” and snare song man. HOLY CRAP! LOL! I like that. You know what I’m talking about. I like the Lead/BGV balance. Those “S’s” are killing me man. Nice fade.

14 IMP16-BoedoConstrictorMIX – I like how this all fits. Vocal is just a touch too low. Lead guitar is up too far in the buildup. Need more air in the OH’s (I don’t think the acoustic should be that far over the cymbals). Guitars could be lower during the buildup for more impact. Nice vocal balance. Now the vocal is too loud. Needs automation. Very nice drums. Good mix. Nice ending.

WAIT! Ear break.

15 mp16-carefulcollapse – MID-FUCKING-RANGE! Snare sounds like it’s at the neighbor’s house. Dude this is honestly hurting me. I wanted to listen all of these at the same relative volume, but I can’t do it. The vocal is nice. It gets killed when the guitars come in. I like the effect on the BGV… just less of it. Nice strong bass guitar. I like the bare beatbox section. I even like all the mids on that guitar there. If that’s a left to right delay on the BGV… tighten it up a little and bring up the right side. Nice ending.

I have to get back to zero – talk amongst yourselves.

1 16 imp16-garret – The Toca egg is up a little too much in the intro. I’m getting the snare way off to the right. Vocal is too far out front for this mix. I don’t know where the bass drum is. Cool edit. Backup guitar jumped out there during that break. Maybe you could put the shaker on the left side since there is so much cymbal on the right? I like how you eq’d the beatbox. Subtle. Not distracting. The balance is all crazy on the drums. Intentional? I think you tuned the BGV. Cool. Hello organ ending!

17 imp16-GrantRichard – THICK AS YO’ MOMMAS BUTT!  Wow. Overboard on the snare compression? I could use a little more high sheen on the cymbals (personal preference). Controlled vocal. That kick kicks my ass. Maybe just some more OH volume altogether? Very tasty vocal balance. I love how you can hear every note on the bass guitar. Awesome. A lot of mids scooped on that acoustic. I don’t know. I like this. Very tasty vocals. Nice ending.

18 IMP16JasonThompson – I love how this sits. Vocal up 1 or 2 dB? I like the cymbals. Present, not overbearing. More kick. More bass. Okay. I just heard my vocal effect on the second verse. From here on out… I have nothing to say. This is an awesome mix. No really. That vocal was too low there. I like the spread on the vocals. Could use some more separation on the OH’s. A little different EQ on the beatbox would have been nice. Not distracting though. Nice drum mix. Well balanced overall I think. I don’t care. I like it. Nice ending. A few tweaks and some Brad Blackwood! LOL.

19 imp16JHall – Drums from hell man! Midrange. Maybe I’m just sensitive. Great kick. I love this. Nice even bass guitar. I like how the delay just opens up the vocal, but it’s not overpowering. Whoa!. Tom sample! This sounds killer. The mids are a bit much IMO (maybe I’m getting old). Choice samples for this tune. I like the edit on the beatbox section. One of my favorites for sure. I like how the counter melody comes straight in. Very nice. It shortens the song just enough. VERY nice fade.

20 IMP16-Osumosan-fix - I don’t like count offs man! A lot of effect on the vocals. That kick is way out front. I like the lead guitar. Although the acoustic sounds nice, it sticks out in this mix. If you like its sound, try eq’ing the others to complement it. I think it goes nicely with the cymbals which is when I know I like the highs. De-esser on the vocals please. Sounds like the BGV is some dude on the other side of the room that wouldn’t shut up. I like the beatbox section. How about a different snare sample? The OH eq is nice. I think I could use more drums overall and less vocal and acoustic. More spread on the dirty guitars. Nice ending.

21 IMP16-PodgornyMIX – I like this. A little harsh on the highs. Just a little. Cool samples. Needs a lot more bass guitar. I like the vocals. They are hot. Could use a de-esser though. Guitars are heavier on the right. Distracting. Slammin’ snare though. What? The mothership? Don’t leave me! Nice toms. OH are harsh. I like this though. Good balance of lead and BGV’s. Nice ending.

22 IMP16-SingSing – Full. I love the drum samples. I like the filtered vocals. Heavy compression a mix after my own ears. Lead is up there isn’t it? Another plugin distortion. It sounds like, well, a plugin. Not my cup of tea. The guitars sounded good enough to me “as-is”. That’s a lot of midrange too. Kick is killer. Nice even bass. I wish I had a touch more of it to hold up to those drums. A little more snare too? The midrange is too much for me. These are your ears. These are your ears in a frying pan. Ouch.  Nice balance between lead and BGV.  Where’s my clean fade?

23 IMP16-slash5969 – Tighten up the head? Cool so far. Flanger sounds cheesy. Man if the vocals weren’t so dull, that would have sounded so cool. WAY too much background vocal. Only on the left? I really liked the feel of the guitars at the beginning. Bass guitar is big but very tubby. De-esser on the vocal please. Too much Toca egg. It sounds like the backup is over my left shoulder singing towards the speaker. It’s strange. More drums overall, tame the snare to match. Nice fade.

24 IMP16-sstillwell – Tighten up front? Harsh cymbals. I like the effect on the vocals, just a little less please. Nice kick. I’m missing a lot of high bass/low mids. To me, that’s where a lot of the action is. There’s no meat in this sandwich. Soft panning on the acoustic on the right. Send it over even more. The heavy use of the room mics/ reverb is cool, but the OH are way too much. Nice vocal balance. I like the beatbox section. I think if the BGV is going to be that loud it needs to be tuned. IMO. Not bad overall.

WOW! Anybody ever see Cotton Candy? A little 1978 flick about a garage band. There was a character in there named Torbin Bequette. He always ripped off his shirt and was left with the front and some cuff links, fire shot out of the end of his guitar and he played I Shot The Sheriff.  

That’s what that last hit reminded me of just then. I had to listen a few times.

25 IMP_16_Billybehdaz.mp3 – I really like this one so far. A little heavy on the reverb. Snare could come up. The reverb coupled with the compression is making it sound a little muddy. Everything is there. I dig. A little too much FX on the vox though. I really like this. I would just tone down the effects. The distorted guitar about a quarter off to the right is kind of distracting a lot of mids to say “hey, I’m soft panned”. The beatbox isn’t working for me at all. Floor tom a little loud. Great snare… I want more. I like the vocals. The BGV is a bit loud at the end though. Nice ending. Nice job.

NO SHIT – my two year old just said “Dood dob” which was “good job” when it ended. I can’t argue with that. Four thumbs up.

26 imp_16_Electric_Warrior -  Tighten up front? I had to turn this up. Once I did… nice snare sample. Wow. Lead guitar is out there. A lot of midrange. I shouldn’t hear every single down stroke on the guitar in the middle either. I like the drums. A little heavy on the OH’s. Again, he’s beating them to hell, you don’t want the listener’s ears to bleed. How about some tuning on the BGV if it’s going to be that loud. I like the subtle beatbox section. Something popping in there. Clipping? It’s on beat so not a sample rate thing. I think the balance is there, but the eq is way over the top for me. Nice fade.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 22, 2008, 04:06:21 pm
garret wrote on Mon, 21 January 2008 23:49

jason-t. lead vox is clean and under control, but it's getting buried at times.   This isn't glueing together for me, and I think all the right ingredients are there... just get the balance right.


Garret,

Thanks for the listen. The very first thing I heard on a blind taste test was a need for 1 to 2 db on the vox overall. Right when I pushed "upload" I was thinking "OH SHIT". I immediately panned the guitars harder, replaced the kick, 1 dB on vox, and brought up the compression and volume on the bass. I'm much happier now.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 22, 2008, 04:58:10 pm
sstillwell wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 12:47

.

Seriously, I think that's the case (only ourselves to blame) for all of us...it's just less excusable/more important to fix if you're doing it as a full-time job.




i think some people can appropriately blame their rooms.  knowing it can be fixed doesn't change the fact that they are mixing in bad acoustic environments.

mine isn't perfect (none are) but it's really good which means if the mix sucks, it's clearly my fault.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 22, 2008, 05:09:45 pm
I thought this would be the one that I got to do at the studio. I've been buried in editing at the house and couldn't make it. I KNOW this room ain't right! It's an extra bedroom!  Surprised
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Gabriel F on January 22, 2008, 05:12:19 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 13:41




4 imp16 fantomas -  Muddy. Especially compared to the last thing. Lead guitar is really out there. Vocal is just a bit hot. Nice drum balance. The vocal delay is kind of not necessary for me. Since this is pop, I would have spent some more time on the vocals. Cutoffs, tuning, etc. Whoooa dude! Let the demon out of the cardboard box! That beatbox was kind of distracting. I really do like the drums. The strongest suit to this mix I think. He’s really teaching those cymbals a lesson, huh? Oh man, where’s the fade. I like clean endings, not jam-room style.





Yes it sounds muddy. i mixed with some shitty speakers this time and the bass sounded without any harmonics (and one note was really loud and i assumed it was the speaker resonance)so i think i added too much. I spended most of the time getting the drums sounds. The delay maybe on decent speakers sounds overdone, i used it to push the vocal loud and give it some depth. The beatbox my first idea was to mute it but i decided to try some new plug ins.


Thanks for the input. As always you were pretty spot on.

Gabriel Fonts.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: UnderTow on January 22, 2008, 05:13:06 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 20:41



1 IMP_16-UnderTow – Like the bass guitar. The bgv is cool eq’d like that so it can be lower but still clear. It doesn’t sit well with lead vocal. The phasing thing is bugging me tremendously. Did you replace the snare? I would have used a different sample. Beatobx is really loud. It doesn’t give the real drums anywhere to go when they come back in. I like the long ending, but would have been nice for the trail to fade away. IMO.



Thanks for reviewing!

Agreed on the FX on the BG vocal. It's way over the top and I should have taken the time to dial-in something nice and tasteful instead of the first FX I found...  Rolling Eyes

Agreed on the snare. That was the best sample I could find at the time. I much prefer McSnare's sample. Anyway, it is about 3 dB too loud. (Will teach me not to mix while inebriated!) Also agreed on the beat-box level. It should be much much more subdued. I had an idea of doing an automated low-pass filter on it but then got lazy.  Embarassed

Thanks again!

I'll be listening to all the entries on Friday.

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 23, 2008, 10:39:13 am
hey guys,
i will be posting my comments on everybody's mix this weekend.  i've heard a few mixes already, and i have a few things i want to talk about.

later


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: mcsnare on January 23, 2008, 12:23:30 pm
I did a mastered version of mine if anyone is interested in hearing that.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 23, 2008, 12:39:23 pm
Quote:

I did a mastered version of mine if anyone is interested in hearing that.
Dave


i would be for sure.  J, is it cool if Dave posts it?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Patrik T on January 23, 2008, 03:42:21 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 20:41

Different snare sample please?


There are no "samples" in my mix except from those that came along the RAR. Will be back with some thoughts about the mixes very soon.


Best Regards
Patrik
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 23, 2008, 04:19:51 pm
Patrik T wrote on Wed, 23 January 2008 14:42

There are no "samples" in my mix except from those that came along the RAR.



I heard so many in a row I couldn't tell you what was live and what was Memorex man!

J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 20:41

Different snare sample please?


I suppose that's why I multed it with another snare in the first place!  Very Happy

I look forward to comparing your thoughts.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Patrik T on January 23, 2008, 08:11:59 pm
Here are ny thoughts in NO PARTICULAR ORDER. I rested my ears at least one minute between every mix.


Drew - Good mix with no big technical troubles. Having said that it feels like it is overly dry. Lost a bit of the vibe included in the recording. I’d like, personally, that the drums got a little more married to the gutars.

Fantomas - Feels spontaneous and instant which is often the best way to go. No big concerns regarding the mix. The beatbox-thing there with the sub-swing does not work at all if you ask me. I thought that part was good as was, kinda properly pre-filtered for its own purpose and everything.

Maxim - The bass is out of context in the parts with no drums. The kick is…a klick. Sidechain processing? The tone of the vox is very beautiful when the arrangement is stripped down. I’m not sure abort the distortion though…

Audio-geek - Bus compression? I think the mixes total centre is too high up, too bright., too edgy, too ess-y. Gets very fatiguing very fast. The pitch down thing is cool there at the break. The pitch up thing is not.

Boedo Constrictor - No big issues regarding the mix here. Good balance and good interaction between the elements. It all feels a little flat swing-wise though and it feels a little…small overall.

Carefulcollapse - Aouch! Strange and harsh overall tone which I actually have big troubles to listen to. My ears just say stop. So, unfortunately, I have to stop playback. A pity though. The drums felt cool there. A few metres back kinda.

Garret - A good mix. I like the things you did with the electric gutars at the 2:nd verse. That arrangement and method works well. The tom-things happening to the left is kinda very distracting. Like sound FX outside the song itself.

Grant Richard - Says “Telesound” in my player. Good mix, good centre frequency. The kick’s too much in the verses. Like hearing the mechanism from the kick-pedal there…The sound of the snare in the choruses is discussable. Otherwise it is a fine mix that actually rocks and has energy in it.

Osumosan - Considering I have only bothered to download each entry once (dunno if you’ve upgraded this) and this version obviously is at the wrong pace, the codeine one, I leave no comments on your entry.

Slash 5869 - If I was a singer and had my vox done like this by a mix E, we would not work together anymore. I can’t concentrate on the music. The vox is just flanging all over here. It feels wrong. Behind the vox the mix sounds quite nice with its tape-y tone though but I can’t hear that.

Stillwell - I’m sorry but the off-balance here makes it hard to hear any intentions. You must have a very special set of speakers cause this really sounds like a set of very special speakers, no pun intended!

Jason Thompson - Good mix but slightly onto the boxy side of things. Everything is kept together though. The Bvox’s at about 3:45 comes in very nicely. You got those 25 seconds emotional. I think many mixers experienced probs with those back voxes in the total. You got them to shine pretty uniquely there.

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

Now I’ll make a break, will add the remaining ones tomorrow or so...thanks you everyone for making things like these happen. It's all great fun.


BRGRDS
Patrik
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: deadbeef on January 24, 2008, 02:23:45 am
OK I missed the deadline and just now found this, so I did a quick 1 hour mix (with minimal edits) using REAPER and only REAPER included plug-ins. Here is the RPP, and the mp3:

http://shup.com/Shup/19802/imp16_ghetto_mix.RPP

and the song:

http://1014.org/shiz/imp16_ghetto_mix.mp3

The way I did the drums is probably pretty bizarro, but it seemed to work ok (except for the intro, in retrospect)..

-Justin
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 24, 2008, 04:29:28 pm
deadbeef wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 01:23

OK I missed the deadline and just now found this, so I did a quick 1 hour mix (with minimal edits) using REAPER and only REAPER included plug-ins. Here is the RPP, and the mp3:

http://shup.com/Shup/19802/imp16_ghetto_mix.RPP

and the song:

http://1014.org/shiz/imp16_ghetto_mix.mp3

The way I did the drums is probably pretty bizarro, but it seemed to work ok (except for the intro, in retrospect)..

-Justin


Straight up the middle. If it weren't for the vocal, it would almost sound mono. All that stuff on the vocal is very annoying. That super fast chorus bothers me. But what bothers me more is hearing that sound so compressed, especially when the singer breathes in. Beatbox is way too loud. Need more kick to match that snare drum. I can hear the acoustic strumming way over the cymbals. Sloppy ending.


Now. That was my critique... which has NOTHING to do with what I'm about to say.

I'm glad you were a part of the IMP this time. But, out of respect for the guys who tried really hard, and didn't make it in time... don't post a mix after the deadline.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: mcsnare on January 24, 2008, 06:38:38 pm
OK, I uploaded a mastered version of mine. I'm curious to see what anybody thinks. I tried a few tweaks to turn those damn drums down...Maybe I could master one or 2 of the other mixes if J. thinks that's cool. Might be interesting to hear a mastering take on a few different mixes.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Greg Dixon on January 24, 2008, 07:03:04 pm
Sounds like a great idea. 'What difference does mastering make' is a very common question.

I haven't had a chance to listen to any of them yet, but it might be helpful to master one that needs a bit more work than the others, so people can hear what mastering can do for an ok mix, compared to a mix that already sounded good.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on January 24, 2008, 08:46:12 pm
from what i can tell mastering is essential for mass produced album. i've listened to the mixes my brother's band both before and after mastering and it not only seems to glue everything together but it makes it a bit louder too. (which it seems like is the goal for most bands)

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 24, 2008, 09:58:45 pm
I vote for my mix to get the Dave Treatment.  Very Happy

I had all the waveforms up and most of the mixes looked like a G.I. haircut.

Would a ME want a file like this to work with? Did a lot of IMP'ers do a "mastering" job themselves? I've always wanted to try and throw out the "flattest" mix I could get and still retain some of the dynamics.

I REALLY would like to hear a mix (like mine  Rolling Eyes ) mastered... compared to one that someone might have thrown through a Ultramaximizer or something.

Some of these mixes that sound compressed are really tastefully done. Each bus might have gotten compression in its own way, and some of the transients were still preserved v. putting the whole thing through a bottleneck.

I've had wine. Am I explaining this right?  Embarassed
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 24, 2008, 10:02:57 pm
Well, I mixed mine at K-14, so it shouldn't have been THAT flat-topped...

I swear that I am going to learn when to leave well enough alone, though.  After I mixed I ran through Har-Bal to tweak the EQ, and when I went back in and looked at the filter...sure enough, a big, honkin' broadband boost up in the HF.

Mix good, tinkering after mix bad.

It really didn't sound that crap before hand.  If anybody's interested, I'll post another link, but otherwise I'll just treat it as lesson learned.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 24, 2008, 10:51:05 pm
part 2... If I left anyone out, please lemme know.
-Garret
-------------------------------

audio geek. volume balances are way off in this one: vocals are too quiet and very thin, and the bass is maybe 5db too loud.  I'd recommend you check your monitoring.

slash5969. I like the start with the guitars... good edit there.. volume balances are way off.  vocal treatment is very strange.   Muddy and unpleasantly phasey.  Did you double the lead vocal somehow? (maybe you used the untuned and the tuned versions). I'd recommend you check your monitoring.

undertow:  good spectral balance.  Snare is a bit loud, and the vocal is too quiet... my big problem is I'm hearing a pronounced lisp on the lead vocal now.  Too much de-essing?  I'm also not too keen on the midrangy backup vox...

grant richards. murky, but at least the lead vocal is at a good volume.   Too much reverb though, and the kick on this is overwhelming.   Are you mixing on monitors or headphones w/ no sub bass?

macbraddy. interesting trickery at the start... I like it.   Good guitars too.  A bit tinny on the high end, but the spectral balance on this is pretty good.  It sounds like a mix to me... it is a bit pinched and garage bandy, when I bet the artist wants a full/radio sound.

podgorny. spectral balance is a bit off in this one (it's very bass shy), and the levels seem to jump around a lot... vocals, bass, etc... it's not one of my favorite mixes, but it (almost) works in its own way.

sstillwell. whoa... high end!  very scooped sound... I'm hearing lots of sub bass, and lots of 10khz+, but I can't find much in between.  The vocal treatment is oddly unstable... very unnatural, thin and distant.  Some very strange things going on in this mix.

icombs. murky mix, with excessive kick drum.. vocals are quiet, and a bit phasey... I'd recommend you check the low end of how you're monitoring.  This kick is really really thunderous.  


electric_warrior. wussy, papery snare.  volume balances are out of whack.. the guitars are too loud much of the time, and the vocals are getting buried.  

maxim. very muddy and dark... and coming from me, that says something (I mix rather dark).  I think the track treatments are pretty good, you just need to nail the volume balance.  It's really the most important thing in a mix.   Are you mixing on monitors with no bass?  The bass is very hot in this... I'm also not sure about all the vocal distortion.  Maybe for a few bars as special fx, this way it just sounds like wacky clipping.

singsing. I love the guitars at the start, in a early 90s, pixies sort of way.. but when the vocal and everything else comes in, the mix feels slanted toward treble (particularly the 10khz+ stuff which makes my fillings hurt). Drums sound pretty good, but might be too crispy clean... a little dirt and verb in the snare does wonders.  I'm hearing a lisp now on the lead vocals... too much de-esser?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Billybehdaz on January 25, 2008, 07:50:52 am
garret wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 21:51

part 2... If I left anyone out, please lemme know.
-Garret
-------------------------------



You left me out! Cool

Mine was the second submission in the submissions thread.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 25, 2008, 10:50:18 am
Thanks... I checked again, and it looks like I missed a couple people.   I'll post reviews asap...



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: slash5969 on January 25, 2008, 12:33:15 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 13:41



23 IMP16-slash5969 – Tighten up the head? Cool so far. Flanger sounds cheesy. Man if the vocals weren’t so dull, that would have sounded so cool. WAY too much background vocal. Only on the left? I really liked the feel of the guitars at the beginning. Bass guitar is big but very tubby. De-esser on the vocal please. Too much Toca egg. It sounds like the backup is over my left shoulder singing towards the speaker. It’s strange. More drums overall, tame the snare to match. Nice fade.





Patrik T wrote on Wed, 23 January 2008 19:11


Slash 5869 - If I was a singer and had my vox done like this by a mix E, we would not work together anymore. I can’t concentrate on the music. The vox is just flanging all over here. It feels wrong. Behind the vox the mix sounds quite nice with its tape-y tone though but I can’t hear that.






garret wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 21:51


slash5969. I like the start with the guitars... good edit there.. volume balances are way off.  vocal treatment is very strange.   Muddy and unpleasantly phasey.  Did you double the lead vocal somehow? (maybe you used the untuned and the tuned versions). I'd recommend you check your monitoring.




When I bounced my mix to the wav file, there were some animations that inadvertently didn't get triggered - and garret hit the nail right on the head - both the tuned and the untuned vocal takes were processed to the wav. The balance and the level on the bg vocal track were also affected (i.e. animations didn't run that should have.) Apparently animations work much better when you click the little "R" to have the software READ them during playback. Heh.

This is not the mix I thought I was submitting, and it's my fault entirely for being in such a hurry.

Thank you for the feedback, regardless. I learn from every one of these. I'll try to get some reviews done this weekend if I can - we're working in a new bass player so my time is pretty much spoken for.

Ciao,

David
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 25, 2008, 01:07:43 pm
deadbeef wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 01:23

OK I missed the deadline and just now found this, so I did a quick 1 hour mix (with minimal edits) using REAPER and only REAPER included plug-ins. Here is the RPP, and the mp3:

http://shup.com/Shup/19802/imp16_ghetto_mix.RPP

and the song:

http://1014.org/shiz/imp16_ghetto_mix.mp3

The way I did the drums is probably pretty bizarro, but it seemed to work ok (except for the intro, in retrospect)..

-Justin


TOTALLY not fair man.  this happens EVERY time we do an IMP and i'm getting really sick of it.

everyone puts forth effort to hit the deadline and follow the rules.  if you caught the IMP thing after the deadline it is not my fault, nor should it be my burden to have my discussion thread turned into a late submissions thread.

in the future (meaning from this moment forward)  i will delete all posts of this nature from IMP discussion threads.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 25, 2008, 01:09:36 pm
grant richard wrote on Wed, 23 January 2008 11:39

Quote:

I did a mastered version of mine if anyone is interested in hearing that.
Dave


i would be for sure.  J, is it cool if Dave posts it?



YES.  dave called me and discussed it already.  he knows it's cool with me.

i also asked him to pick a few mixes with more serious sonic problems and master them as well.

i'd like people to start learning just how far mastering can take your work.  which in my experience, is not as far as you'd like to think.

brown in is brown out.......follow me?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 25, 2008, 01:19:44 pm
J-Texas wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 20:58

 Did a lot of IMP'ers do a "mastering" job themselves?  


only speaking for myself, as i don't know how others mix.

i do NO mastering to my work, IMP or for hire.

i use an SSL 384 (rack mount version of the 4k series buss compressor) for main buss compression.

i don't buss anything down in PT for compression.  in fact i don't buss anything down in PT at all.

i do compress MANY individual elements, and i often mult them, crush them, and blend them back with the uncompressed original track.

i have MANY techniques i'll use to make things work.  the key for me is to think as non-linear as i can.  visualize the result i want, then backwardly piece together exactly how to pull it off.  often times that means doing things differently just about every time.  especially with drums.

Grant can probably elaborate on this better as he's watched me mix dozens of times, and has taken large quantities of instruction from me.

now.....about mastering

i'd love for dave to do some mastering (as his time permits) and perhaps dig into that topic a bit.  i want every to respect dave's time and his input.

i will start a new thread for him to manage where the mastering discussions pertaining to this IMP can carry on.  lets keep this thread to mixing.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 25, 2008, 02:15:45 pm
****PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE THE COMMENTS****

OK guys,

Keep in mind that I wrote this song, played everything but drums and bass, sang all the parts, and recorded everything (except for drums).  This song is my baby, so my comments are coming from my pre-conceptions of what I had in mind when I recorded it
 
As part of the IMP exercise, it was my understanding that we, as mixers, are trying to become better at detecting the genre of music we’re mixing, and mixing appropriately.  This is a BLATANT pop song.

On that note...

Overall, I’m surprised at the lack of thickness or “beef” in all the mixes. There were a few mixes where there was some good thickness in the bottom and low mids, but in general, most of the mixes were very thin.  

I’m also surprised at the amount mixes with untuned BGV’s.  I explained this in an earlier post, but I’ll do it again.  I tracked the vocals on this song on the tail end of a 10 song album, and I was very fatigued, so I wasn’t too concerned with my BGV pitch, because I knew I would tune it later, and it would be fine.  Since pop music usually has UBER-tuned vocals, and this is a BLATANT pop song, I’m very surprised at the amount of people who let it slide.  I’m not ashamed to admit this guys, my BGV’s were BAD, but it’s up the mixer to fix it.

It seemed to me like there wasn’t anybody who really pushed the envelope to make the mixes really ROCK.  Sounds to me like a lot of folks went for ear candy over sonic ‘slam’, impact, and energy.

Here we go:

Sstillwell - No mids.  Really thin.  A TON of highs.  Whole mix feels weak.  I don’t feel the energy.  The whole mix sounds a bit like it was a live arena concert recorded with a pair of PZM’s...it’s very echoey.  Drums sound far away.  Shaker dominates the vocal in the chorus.  Organ is weird in the bridge, something’s out of balance there, can’t quite put my finger on it.  Wow, that tom fill was weak at the last chorus.  What did you use to tune the vocal?  It’s a bit robotic in parts.  Whoooah, trippy ending, it doesn’t quite fit the song.

Billybehdaz - Weak drums. Is that a slap delay on the snare?  It’s kinda cool, it could have been executed better.  Sounds like the prechorus lead gtr line got bumped back. Not a lot of lift in the chorus.  Whole mix sounds very mono, with some stereo FX.  Not a bad idea, but the balance seems weird.  This is another one that sounds like a live concert recorded with PZM’s.  Vocal is decent, pretty good tuning.  Whole mix seems too spacey.   Countermelody has tooo much high end, and it’s distracting from the lead vox.  High end is out of control.

Electric_Warrior - No beef, snare’s not bad though.  Vocal bugs me.  It sounds affected but never resolves itself to a clean sound.  It’s very AM radio sounding.  It could work, but it doesn’t match the mix sonically.  The high end on the drums and guitars don’t match (each other, much less the vocal).  I know this is a matter of taste, but I would have preferred the harmony vox to be tuned.  Whole mix lacks energy, and it’s very heavy at about 1k.

Audio~Geek - Finally some beef!  It’s like music to my ears!  Guitars are pretty dark though.  Again, this is probably another taste thing, but I would’ve liked to hear you use more compression on the drums (or 2bus, whichever floats your boat...or both Smile).  Acoustic isn’t sitting well with me.  Chorus doesn’t lift very hard.  Vocal sticks out like a sore thumb, it’s brighter than the rest of the mix.  Another mix here where I would’ve tuned the vocals.  Sounds like you opted to turn them down.  Whooooah, brick wall.  The bridge just killed it for me.  Sorry if that’s crass...it just disrupted the whole “train”.  Overall, the mix has a little bit of energy, but the sonics are out of wack.

teleric - Good sonic balance, but instrument balances are not as good.  Vocal’s a bit dark, and I could use some more beef in the whole mix, but some stuff seems to work together as it is.  Vocal’s too loud in the chorus.  Now that I’m hearing more of it, the vocal just isn’t sitting well in the mix.  Everything else seems to work well though.  The chorus lift isn’t bad, but it could lift harder.  The guitar and BGV in the center are clashing with each other.

GrantRichard (me) - What can I say?   I love it, but I’m biased.  Kick may be a bit much in the bottom, snare doesn’t sit right.  Whole mix is a hair dark.

SingSing - Bass is bizaaaarrre.  Sounds like it’s very filtered; the whole sonic balance is pretty unique, but the only thing that I’m not digging is how weak the drums are.  Everything else seems to work in it’s own “different” way. Did you take the guitar DI and re-amp it?  It’s a bit too LINE-6ey for me, but again, it works in it’s own weird way. The vocal is kinda cool, and it fits the LO-FI vibeyness of this mix.  Bridge is a good edit, I dig it.  OHHH, you used the countermelody in the outro too, I like it!  Great idea!  Yeah, that DI guitar has too much gain, judging by the awkward fade at the end.  Again, would have liked to hear a tuned BGV.

Tgoodwin - Drums are almost non-existent, and yet the compression is making them pump pretty hard.  It sounds like you crushed them, and then didn’t put them into the mix.  Mix is pretty mono.  I’m really trying, but I can hardly hear the bass.  Wow, the overheads are pumping in tempo... Again, would have liked to hear a tuned BGV.  Whoah, your beat box is more powerful than your drums.  This mix lacks energy. I’m not feeling it.Vocal lacks character, and it’s not grabbing me.  The BGV’s are louder than the lead vox in the chorus.

BoedoConstrictor - I dig this one!  Very cool vocal sound.  This mix has a bit of beef too, turn the bass up 2 db and you’re there.  Sonics are pretty well in control.  Gosh...another mix where I would have liked to hear a tuned BGV.  The vocal could blend better in the chorus.  I really like your snare drum.  You need to teach me what you did to make mine better Smile.  Lead gtr in prechorus is distracting from vocal.  In fact, I’d like to hear it hard panned to make the mix wider.  Overall, definitely one of the better mixes.

KyleMann - You gave me a lisp!  Sounds like 20 db of de-essing at 5 khz.  Back it off a hair (like...15 db Smile).  Good sonic balance though.  I want more bottom, and thickness from the bass.  Guitars are pretty well balanced.  The pre-chorus lead gtr is kinda thin. THANKS for tuning the vocals.  I was becoming more and more horrified at my bad BGV’s since nobody seemed that it was necessary to tune them.  Vocals could blend better with the instruments.  What’s that bizarre sound in the bridge?  It’s a bit distracting.  This mix is more energetic than some of the others. This is another mix that approaches the top of the pile.  Just beef it up a bit.

JasonThompson - Mono drums?  Interesting approach.  It’s not working for me though.  They sound weak and lack character, punch, vibe, whatever you want call it.  I don’t know how to describe this mix....it’s just not working for me.  I think if the drums were stereo, It’d be a different story.  Did you use the room mics exclusively?  Guitars are dark, but balanced with each other.  That’s a plus.  Organ seems to fit with the guitars too, but the guitars/organ don’t fit with the rest of the mix.  Bass is almost not there at all.  Countermelody dominates the last chorus. Vocals are lost in the chorus.

JHall - You already know my opinion.  But for the benefit of everybody else...Great drums, great energy, great vocal tone, great guitar blend, great organ in the chorus.  This mix is BEEEEFY and I love it.  It’s just got that signature JHall sonic thumbprint that makes your stuff unique.  I wish I would’ve used this mix as my album mix...oh wait, I did.  Great arrangement edits...oh wait, those were my idea.  HA!

Greg Dixon - Weak.  It doesn’t grab my attention.  Drums fall flat, I’m straining to hear any hint of thickness in the mix.  Vocals are way out front (like...too far).  Shaker is grabbing too much of my attention.  Another one where I would have liked to hear a tuned BGV. Countermelody is too loud in the last chorus.  This mix is pretty wide though, and I dig that. Acoustic is poking it’s head out too much.  I’d say this mix could benefit some a bit of well-used compression.

Slash5969 - I like the idea at the beginning.  The sonics of it are strange, but it’s a cool idea.  The vocals need to come back to center at some point, and they just don’t.  It doesn’t work for me.  More mono drums here.  In theory, it works well with the stereo vocal, but in reality, the whole thing feels like an acid trip.  Another mix where I would’ve liked to hear the BGV tuned.  Guitars are waaaay too quiet.  Shakers is too loud.  Nothing is gelling, everything just seems very bizarre.

Macbraddy - Cool intro.  It’s a pretty tame mix, pretty cold tones all around.  Not a lot of beef, but I can handle it on this mix, since you went for the tame ‘happy-go-lucky’ thing.  If that wasn’t what you were intending, then I revert to the opinion that it needs more beef, particularly in the kick drum.  Guitars are are kind of tinny sounding.  Another mix where  I would’ve liked to hear the BGV tuned.  Vocal sounds like it’s in a box.  Too much shaker in the chorus.

CarefulCollapse - Rooms mics only?  Sounds like you went for the LO-FI thing.  It’s a pop song, so in this context, it’s not working for me. My woofers aren’t moving. Where’s the beef?  This mix isn’t very wide, but it works with the LO-FI thing.  The whole thing seems to work in-and-of-itself, but it’s just not what the typical pop-listener would want to hear (since I’m a pop fan, I can vouch for it.)  Overall, kind of weak, and harsh in the high end/high mids, and the vibe isn’t working for me.

Drew - Drums aren’t bad.  Compress them a bit harder (especially OH’s) to give them more impact, but the sonics of them are pretty balanced. Vocal sounds cold.  The mix needs more bass guitar....a lot more.  Chorus doesn’t lift at all.  I hardly know where it is from this mix.  I’m guessing that snare is a sample?  Unnecessary given the original track, I think you could’ve made the original snare work (if in fact it is a sample.)  Cool beat box idea.  I think it worked.  This mix lacks energy though.

Garret - The kick drum is a figment of my imagination.  I know where it should be because I’ve heard this song a zillion times, but it’s just not in this mix at all.  Snare is honky, vocal is cold.  BGV and shaker on the same side?  It’s a bit distracting.  BGV is stereo 2nd chorus, it’s better now.  The sonics are out of wack in this mix, the drums lack impact, the vocal doesn’t sit well with the instruments.  The guitars are too quiet.  I would describe this mix as ‘garage-y’.  It’s like somebody stuck a 57 in the middle of the room while the band was rehearsing and the singer sang into a 58.  

Maxim - Ahhhh, the softer side of pop.  Cool idea for changing it up.  I like where you brought the instruments in. Once they come in though, the drums don’t slam like I would’ve hoped.  The BGV is out of tune still.  Why?  Cool delay on the beat box.  The vocal distortion seems to come in at random times, and it’s not adding to the song.  Guitars are too quiet.  Good idea on the edit on the last chorus.  

Patrik - Beeeefy!  Sweet!  Drums are a bit honky, and the kick drum isn’t all the way there, but the bass fills out the low mids better than most of the other mixes.  Vocal is the weak point of this one.  It’s kind of smeary and there’s not a lot of definition.  It gets lost among the instruments pretty easily.  The whole mix is smeary in fact.  I do dig the beef of it though.  TUNE THE BGV.  I like how wide this mix is.  That’s probably one of it’s stronger aspects.

Fantomas - Good sonic balance in the sense that nothing bugs me.  Like the others though, I want some more beef.  Uh-oh, I have lisp again.  To much de-essing?  Vocal seems a bit dark.  Again, tune the BGV.  Ummm, we’ve slipped into a twilight zone with that beat box.  BGV is louder than the lead vocal in the chorus.

iCombs - One of the beefier mixes.  The drums sound a bit like they came from a Korg keyboard though.  I’d like to hear more of the guitars, particularly the one on the right side.  More OH’s too.  As a whole, the mix is working, it seems a bit scooped in the mids though.  The chorus doesn’t have a lot of lift though.  Overall, one of the better mixes, as it does have it’s own vibe that works in the pop context, just fix the hokey Korg drums.  Sounds like the toms are gated pretty hard, because when they open, there’s some pretty severe cymbal bleed.

Undertow - To much vocal de-essing.  What is going on with that BGV?  It’s really distracting with all that crazy high end going on.  Snare seems dark.  Kick is pretty good, but it could be matched with the bass better.  OH’s are somewhat honky.  The chorus doesn’t lift.  This mix is not very wide, and therefore doesn’t appeal to me as much as a wider one would.  That BGV is killing me.  It’s off in it’s own little world.  Cool bridge though.

Mcsnare - Dude, we need to have a chat.  Your mix is awesome.  Snare rocks, the vocal is waaaay cool.  It’s dark, but it’s still waaaay cool.  Great chorus lift.  Great vocal tuning.  Good beef in the mix.  THE ARRANGEMENT?  Dude, I need to have you produce my next album, your ideas are awesome.  Guitars are fitting into place perfectly.  Man this mix rocks.  This is easily my favorite (aside from J’s, since that’s the album version Smile).  You gotta share how you treated the vocal man, wow.  AHHHH, pregnant pause at the end.  I love it.  Great job!

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 25, 2008, 03:39:15 pm
Quote:

-- The song is too damn long... it desperately needed an edit, so I made two. Looks like a couple other mixers also got out the razor blade.


Agreed, the album version got about 50 seconds chopped out of it.

Quote:

-- The vocals were really wooly.. anyone else think that? I had to use a pretty severe high pass and low shelf... more than usual.


Whatever it takes to make it work.  My voice is naturally heavy in the 400 hz area when I'm singing low, so that contributed I'm sure.

Quote:

-- the guitars were just flawless, drop-in instant final tracks. Good work, Grant.


Thanks!  No eq-ing eh?  Wink

Quote:

-- good drum tracks, J... lots of power and fidelity.. I got surprising mileage out of the tom tracks for fill... and the shell tracks are great for accents...


Agreed.  All around good quality.  J's the drum master.


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 25, 2008, 03:48:48 pm
grant richard wrote on Fri, 25 January 2008 13:15



JHall -  Great arrangement edits...oh wait, those were my idea.  HA!




not all of them bitch!

but indeed, having client feedback makes a mix better, in a way, i cheated this time.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Patrik T on January 25, 2008, 04:26:18 pm
grant richard wrote on Fri, 25 January 2008 20:15

Drums are a bit honky, and the kick drum isn’t all the way there


Yah, I know. I'm really into "not so obvious" mixing. Maybe too oldskool, I dunno.

Quote:

The whole mix is smeary in fact.


Yup. I was not in my ordinary studio room (I'd love to have the Porticos at hand for the drums in this mix). This was me trying out the little lovely Reaper on my home HP laptop with some Sennheiser HD 600's on my skull. With the included plugs. Through the Realtek built in soundcard. It was kind of a trial of "free" software on a "low-quality" DAW.

I went a little nuts on the harmonic eq's...but they were fun to play with.


If anyone want the RPP to check the "signal-path" out, give me a shout. You must have the free bittersweet by flux on your sytem as well...that was another "smearer" I used everywhere...trial and error. Big fun.


Best Regards
Patrik




Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: mcsnare on January 25, 2008, 07:43:09 pm
Grant, glad you dug it! As far as the vocal, I don't remember what I did, certainly not anything special, just some compression and eq, a little d'essing and the ever present Cranesong Phoenix. I also used just a little of the untuned vocal as a dbl in the choruses. I did tune the BGV to the extent of actually changing some notes a 1/2 or whole step in addition to basic tuning. This created what I felt was a more pleasing harmony. I also put the lead vocal through a pass of Melodyne. If it had been a mix for real, I'd have spent more time making a comp between tuned and natural vocals, as the default Melodyne auto setting is too robotic, I just didn't want to work that hard! I also shortened a few of the super long held notes cause I thought it was a little annoying to hear you draggin those mofos out EVERY time you sang a long note.
I haven't mixed anything in quite a while and I really got in to this IMP.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: mcsnare on January 25, 2008, 07:50:34 pm
Oh yeah, when J. said that bit about the client input makes for a better mix, he is right. The mixes that I've done for IMP have been my pure, here is how I hear it at this moment, version. I don't think during my whole career that any mix I did got approved without at least a little fine tuning from the artist. Sometimes A LOT of fine tuning from the artist, producer, label, ect. So in a way, my IMP entries are like hearing the first "play" for the clients. Sometimes when I do that, the clients may not say too much, but I will hear the mix totally different as through a new set of ears. What follows is a mental list of changes that I want to make based on hearing the mix in that context.
Dave
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 25, 2008, 08:15:07 pm
Quote:

 I also shortened a few of the super long held notes cause I thought it was a little annoying to hear you draggin those mofos out EVERY time you sang a long note.


Smile

pet peeve of mine...when singers cut notes short. sometimes i over compensate.  Better to have it and chop it than wish you had it.  IMO.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Eric H. on January 25, 2008, 08:23:25 pm
I'm very sorry for this mix.
I know i could have done much better.
I didn't have enough continuous time to think, so it was an hour here, two hours there etc..

Plus in the end of the week end i was tired from work and made very bad last minute tunings.
Also tried to "master" it but ended up injuring the mix.

Trial and error => Learning (i hope)

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 26, 2008, 11:54:37 am
Billybehdaz wrote on Fri, 25 January 2008 07:50

garret wrote on Thu, 24 January 2008 21:51

part 2... If I left anyone out, please lemme know.
-Garret
-------------------------------



You left me out! Cool

Mine was the second submission in the submissions thread.


Check the first page of my reviews... looks like I didn't skip you...   Cool

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/0/21195/40/6013 /#msg_307772

I did miss a couple others, so here they are:

tgoodwin:  mix is extremely pumpy... (too much bus compression, I think, made obvious by the drums being mixed very hot).  Vocals are cloudy and buried far away.  The whole mix is kinda swirly.. maybe some phasy effects?

fantomas: meaty.  Though it's a bit dark, I like the balances in this.  The mix isn't cloudy, it's just bass heavy. I'd like to hear the vocal a touch louder.  I'm hearing a lisp on the vocals now.  Too much de-essing?  The start of the bridge is a bit odd (the sub bass echo).
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: osumosan on January 26, 2008, 02:30:46 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 22 January 2008 14:41


20 IMP16-Osumosan-fix - I don?t like count offs man! A lot of effect on the vocals. That kick is way out front. I like the lead guitar. Although the acoustic sounds nice, it sticks out in this mix. If you like its sound, try eq?ing the others to complement it. I think it goes nicely with the cymbals which is when I know I like the highs. De-esser on the vocals please. Sounds like the BGV is some dude on the other side of the room that wouldn?t shut up. I like the beatbox section. How about a different snare sample? The OH eq is nice. I think I could use more drums overall and less vocal and acoustic. More spread on the dirty guitars. Nice ending.



Also no samples in my mix!

Don't like count offs? How about "We've done four already and now we're steady"?

I guess the acoustic does need work. I was kind of happy having it present and audible throughout.

I also took the time to fade each track individually, something I like to do if I have the time, so glad you appreciated it.

Thanks for reviewing. I hope to get to listening myself, but quite swamped these days.

Best,

Michael

p.s. Everyone else is ignoring my mix? Did I tell y'all to fughettaboutme? You misunderstood to ignore the first "Codeine" mix, but I spent the whole day trying to get the best correct version up. Thanks for all the suggestions. I thought it had a nice "beef" to it in the end anyway.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 27, 2008, 12:03:27 am
osumosan wrote on Sat, 26 January 2008 13:30

Don't like count offs? How about "We've done four already and now we're steady"?



Seldom... if never in a "pop" song. Sorry.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 27, 2008, 12:12:26 am
J-Texas wrote on Sat, 26 January 2008 23:03

osumosan wrote on Sat, 26 January 2008 13:30

Don't like count offs? How about "We've done four already and now we're steady"?



Seldom... if never in a "pop" song. Sorry.



agreed
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 29, 2008, 05:01:38 pm
my reviews are done.

these are intentionally blunt.  i've been far too kind in the past.

i never learned much from people candy coating things so if you get offended, or mad at me, by all means, post something about it and i'll chime back in.

as usual these are just my thoughts.

BTW, if you didn't post a link in the submission thread, your mix will not be reviewed by me.

sstillwell

I think I lost a filling from that top end.  The kick drums is great, it’s big and driving.  Your mix goes to crap in mono.  The verb on the vocal is too much.   The space it pushes into isn’t bad, but not appropriate for the verse of a song like this.  The organ placement in the chorus is nice.  I think you need to work out your top end.  It’s either a monitoring issue or you like pain.  The vocal needs tuning!  Snare is way down, it should be driving a tune like this.

billybehdaz

the mids are heavy handed in this mix.  The lead vocal is handle well, but the 700 – 1.2k range is so thick it makes the vocal not work.  There is something going on way up top.  Like 15k and up that is hurting my ears.  The low end is ok, but the bass guitar isn’t meeting the kick drum.  Either that or it just isn’t loud enough.  Use the bass to fill out the bottom of the image.  The drum effects are not bad, I’d work them back a touch  and get the drums more forward.  In a pop song, you want the rhythm section to drive the thing forward.

electric warrior

this makes my questeds with a velodyne sub sound like something slightly more glorious then laptop speakers.  The out of phase guitar is way on top of the whole mix.  Pull that back into the music and the mix might work a bit better.  As soon as it comes in on the prechorus the mix is just blown out and unlistenable.  You left in a blatant mistake on the bass track before the bridge.  Vocals are way out of tune in places.  There is nothing below 150 Hz.

Audio~Geek

extreme top end is very harsh.  The vocal especially!  The mix is pretty dark, but with that top end thing mastering would be hard pressed to fix it.  Guitars seem mixed way back.  Does your room have a dip in the 250 – 500 range?  Drums lack power and impact.  The chorus has no lift.  It just happens.

teleric

no punch, no impact.  The mix enters lifelessly.  The sonic balance is good, just add the balls to it and you’ve got something.  The upper mids of the vocal need to be sculpted more.  The whole mix is kinda dark, but not too bad.  The vocal is too hot, it’s dominating the music.  The bottom end is a bit thin.  The chorus doesn’t lift.

Grant Richard

music mix is dark.  Bottom end is a bit extreme, but an easy fix in the hands of a good ME.  I’d like to hear the bottom sculpted more.  Seems a bit flabby for you.  Vocal is nicely compressed.  Snare drum is dark.  Guitars could come up some.  I think if the bottom was fixed everything else would fall into place.  Chorus lifts well, first one I’ve heard that does this.

SingSing

this is the sound of a head cold, or a mix with it’s nose plugged….  Extreme high end in the overheads.  Just roll that crap off and give them a much smoother tone.  6dB/oct does the trick nicely.  Chorus is nice.  Guitars have good bite.  Something isn’t collapsing to mono at all.

Thomas F

you need to work the mid range of your EQ more.  The overheads are so hot in the 12k and up range it’s very difficult to listen to the mix.  Your upper mids are weak which leaves your mix lacking power and definition.  Where’s the kick?  Where’s the bass?  Sounds like overheads, acoustic guitar, organ and lead vocal.

Boedo Constrictor

almost a solid mix.  The drum treatments aren’t driving the mix forward.  It’s leaving your drums in the background.  This is POP it should POUND with the rhythm section shoving it down your throat.  Thus far, this is the best mix in mono.  Very little changes in mono which is great.  The drums really get drowned out in the choruses when the guitars launch in.  the background vocal is too tight to the lead in volume.  Sounds like a duet in sections.

podgorny

where’s the beef?  The mids through the top end are awesome!  Finally a snare with some pop.  What the hell happened to 300 and down?  The vocal is on top of the music, not the good “on top”….the bad one.  The kick drum is hardly even audible.  Bass guitar too.  Sounds like I’m listening to the high output of a crossover.

J-texas

the sound of a band rocking while my head is all the way inside my washing machine.

Greg Dixon   

is that a trash can lid for a snare drum?  Your kick and bass guitar are really good.  If only the snare matched.  Lead vocal feels a bit hot for me.  I think the mix would grab me more if the vocal was pulled back into it just a touch.  The toms and snare need work.  Guitars are really good.

slash5969

WOW!  This sounds like demos I get before I go into preproduction on a record.  What would make you use an effect like that on the lead vocal?

macbraddy

very thin.  I can’t even hear the kick drum when the guitars are going.  The mix is pulling to the left speaker, especially the snare drum.  The mix sounds filtered.  Guitars are pretty harsh sounding.  The shaker sounds good.  I do like the phaser effect on the verse guitar.

careful collapse

this is almost EXACTLY what the band sounded like in their practice space during preproduction, except the drums where more pounding.

DCombs

bass, drums, acoustic, and the ever so slight hint of a wall of guitar back there at mile marker 50.  Vocal sounds filtered and is really dry.  Not bad, just not blending into the music at all.  I can hear all the slight kick hits he does when he rests his pedal on the drum head through faster patterns.  That’s making the mix pump in a false way.  Where’s the bass?  The organ rocks.

garret

man, this is the most “top 40” I’ve ever heard you mix.  This must have been grueling for you to sit through……HAHAHAHA  man, I’m glad to hear you take a stab at a more “normal” sounding mix.  I think your lead vocal could sit better in the mix.  The tonal balance is not bad.  Get the vocal placed better and I think you’ll hear the mix pop a bitt more.  It’s thin, but your rhythm section is balanced which is WAY more then I can say about most.  It would be cool to hear that chorus lift a little harder as well.  OUCH, you left the bass flub in there at the head of the bridge.

maxim

second mix I’ve heard with the james taylor intro.  oh, this is the james taylor version!  No wait, here are the drums in the chorus.  Sonically its not very exciting, and the arrangement changes make it boring.

Patrik T

talk about leader……  the mix is trashy, but in an intentional way.  It’s big sounding and wide.  The lead vocal should be better and louder.  Make those drums POUND, even in their trashy glory.  Don’t hide em behind the guitars.  Good lift in the chorus, but it washes out your drums and vocal.  Get melodyne.  OOF, bass flub before bridge was left in.

fantomas

snare is popin, even in that small theater.  The mids in the vocal could be smoother, but it’s pretty good.  Kick drum is gone in the chorus.  Bottom end is thin.  Vocals should be part of the music.  The mix sounds filtered.  Something in the upper mids is weird.

iCombs

there’s the big hard rock kick drum.  Your bottom is getting better.  I think you went a touch thin this time, but just a TOUCH.  I’d ditch that verb on the kick drum and let the bass guitar fill that out more.  The chorus has no lift.  Your lead vocal is too far back, but the tonal balance is totally there.  Not into the splashy verb.  You can do better then that.  Guitars are great.  Work your EQ blending more.  The rhythm section is still not glued to your guitars.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 29, 2008, 05:16:06 pm
Thanks, man...seriously.

No pain, no gain.  Look for major improvement next time.

Scott

PS:  Sorry about the filling, I know a good dentist if you need one.   Razz
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 29, 2008, 05:25:18 pm
oh yeah, another note.  in general, i'm hearing things in most all the mixes that could easily be fixed with MORE compression.

lots of balances get blown out, or slip in and out of good.

i know some of you have commented on my mixes being too compressed.  at times i agree, other times i don't.  but overall, my balances never change.

if i want the kick drum to be "right there" it will always be there and not move.

vocals seem to be the biggest issue in this IMP.  they are just all over the map.

compression is not the plague.  especially in pop music.  it should be your best friend.

my mix is far from stellar, but listen to it and note how the overall balance of instruments stays locked and steady through the whole mix.

keep in mind that only key elements are being compressed.  some very tightly, others not so much.

but overall, there are not as many compressors in my session as you might think.


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 29, 2008, 05:26:44 pm
Well... at least they're rocking. That's good... I think (it could have been worse)?

LOL. Thanks man.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 29, 2008, 05:35:18 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:26

I think (it could have been worse)?





i was getting tired of typing.................................


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 29, 2008, 05:37:37 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 17:01


garret

man, this is the most “top 40” I’ve ever heard you mix.  This must have been grueling for you to sit through……HAHAHAHA  man, I’m glad to hear you take a stab at a more “normal” sounding mix.  I think your lead vocal could sit better in the mix.  The tonal balance is not bad.  Get the vocal placed better and I think you’ll hear the mix pop a bitt more.  It’s thin, but your rhythm section is balanced which is WAY more then I can say about most.  It would be cool to hear that chorus lift a little harder as well.  OUCH, you left the bass flub in there at the head of the bridge.




Thanks for the feedback, J.... can you clarify how are you hearing the vocal? too loud? dry? thin? under-compressed? It sounds good where it's sitting to me, but I could be convinced it's a touch loud.

Cheers,
-G
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 29, 2008, 06:48:02 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:35

J-Texas wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:26

I think (it could have been worse)?





i was getting tired of typing.................................





F-U dude.  Laughing
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Gabriel F on January 29, 2008, 08:32:44 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:01

my reviews are done.

fantomas

snare is popin, even in that small theater.  The mids in the vocal could be smoother, but it’s pretty good.  Kick drum is gone in the chorus.  Bottom end is thin.  Vocals should be part of the music.  The mix sounds filtered.  Something in the upper mids is weird.




You mean the lower octave is thin? thats pretty much a guess with the cheap speakers i mixed this one. I dont get the vocals should be part of the music comment. are they too loud or soft or are they in another space
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 29, 2008, 09:32:03 pm
fantomas wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 19:32

 I dont get the vocals should be part of the music comment. are they too loud or soft or are they in another space
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 29, 2008, 09:41:58 pm
garret wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:37



Thanks for the feedback, J.... can you clarify how are you hearing the vocal? too loud? dry? thin? under-compressed? It sounds good where it's sitting to me, but I could be convinced it's a touch loud.

Cheers,
-G



i'd pull it back 1db, perhaps a touch more.  i'd compress it a tiny bit more.  slow attack, fast release, about 6dB of gain reduction, de-ess the crap out of it.  the de-esser needs to be last in the chain

i'd pull out a touch of 750 Hz (medium to broad Q) i'd bump a tiny bit of 4.5k, and make certain that sizzle up at 8k and above was gone.  i'd listen to see if a small boost around 150 - 200 did anything for me, but i'm guessing it would round out the low mids nicely.

after that, i'd place that vocal right on top of the music just to where i don't struggle to hear a single word.  if something gets lost, i'd automate it back up, if something it a touch hot, i'd pull it back down.

GUYS, listen........

use your vocal EQ as a dynamic device.  certain frequencies that stick out, you need to smooth those with EQ.  compression is there for tone shaping, aggression, and overall dynamic control.  that last 5% of dynamic control HAS to come from your EQ and maybe.....maybe some automation.

you need to rough your EQ in with the compressor going, in solo.  when i say "rough in" i mean get it 90% there.

the last 10% of EQ'ing will be while the mix is coming in around it.

don't scoff at this and walk away.  what i just posted is very, VERY hard won information.  application is everything, and i can't help you with that.  but i can help you expand your arsenal of techniques.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: slash5969 on January 29, 2008, 11:27:10 pm
j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 16:01


slash5969

WOW!  This sounds like demos I get before I go into preproduction on a record.  What would make you use an effect like that on the lead vocal?




Actually, it's a touch of slapback on the tuned vocal track, and just a little chorus on the untuned vocal track. The real problem occurs when the two tracks are combined. Heh.

I'm feeling sufficiently chastised, I think. Vocals aside, I worked pretty diligently on this IMP trying to improve the issues that were raised for me in IMP15, such as balance in the bottom end and not killing any more small animals with high frequencies.

As always, I've learned from this - which is the whole purpose, is it not? And the post about using compression and EQ to make a vocal sit properly in a mix? Priceless. Thank you, J.

I need more practice.

Sigh.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 01:32:18 am
To everyone who took the time to post reviews of the mixes, thank you.  I would like to do the same at some point this week (but I have paying clients whose work I still haven't gotten to.)

To J. Hall in particular, thanks for being brutally honest.  Nobody gets better by being told they're doing it all right.

As far as my mix goes, I have to admit, I found this track to be something of a chore to mix.  The tracks were  not recorded very well, but then, this IS the "Indie" mixing project, not the "Professionally-Recorded Mixing Project".  Besides, PRMP just doesn't have the same ring to it...  Oh, and I think I need to turn the sub down.   Very Happy




Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 30, 2008, 11:29:08 am
slash5969 wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 22:27


Actually, it's a touch of slapback on the tuned vocal track, and just a little chorus on the untuned vocal track. The real problem occurs when the two tracks are combined. Heh.




well, the chorusing effect is dominating.  it honestly sounds like a bad roland VS880 effect that bands use to hide their bad vocals when they send me demos.

use the tuned vocal only and no chorus and see what you think of that.  with music like this, you want that singer to feel like he's singing with his nose touching yours........RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.

Quote:



I'm feeling sufficiently chastised, I think. Vocals aside, I worked pretty diligently on this IMP trying to improve the issues that were raised for me in IMP15, such as balance in the bottom end and not killing any more small animals with high frequencies.



like i said, i never learned squat from my mentor being kind.  you're improving, but i want to be actively encouraging the improvement.......

with comments like i gave you, it leaves the ball in your court, let pride run the show and stunt your growth, or step up, dig in and get back to it.  i think you've made a good choice.

Quote:


As always, I've learned from this - which is the whole purpose, is it not? And the post about using compression and EQ to make a vocal sit properly in a mix? Priceless. Thank you, J.




i'll be passing out more hard won info like that shortly.  stay tuned.  remember, information like that is only information.  how YOU apply it is EVERYTHING.


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 30, 2008, 11:34:55 am
Podgorny wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 00:32


The tracks were  not recorded very well, but then, this IS the "Indie" mixing project,



i think the tracks were fine.  not great, but well above average.  it's interesting to hear stuff like that when a HUGE percentage of my projects come from artists recording themselves in their homes.  i'm not even sure what i'd do with brilliantly recorded tracks.

to me, these are the kind of things that people working in pro rooms say, that haven't developed the skill set of working with "sub-par" tracks

i can count on both hands the records i've tracked in "real studios" in the last 5 years.

and i'm doing about 30 projects a year. (in 2007 i did 43, 8 of which i tracked)

Quote:


Oh, and I think I need to turn the sub down.   Very Happy



indeed!

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 12:21:12 pm
Quote:

to me, these are the kind of things that people working in pro rooms say


yeah, i was thinking along the same lines.

kyle....tombstone is an awesome place, and when i walked in there during that session, i was shocked at how good EVERYTHING sounded, and i only wished i had the kind of gear selections (and rooms) to take my tracks to the next level.  i think what's great about IMP is that sometimes the tracks are decent, and sometimes they flat out suck, and thats makes us grow as engineers.  

if we had the resources of tombstone when we tracked this thing, it would've sounded better for sure.  i can surely vouch for that myself even after being in that room for 2 hours.  but there is a whole new school of thinking (which i'm enrolled in) that believes that you can record anything, almost anywhere, and make it rock.  
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 12:46:20 pm
grant richard wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 11:21

there is a whole new school of thinking (which i'm enrolled in) that believes that you can record anything, almost anywhere, and make it rock.



Grant, I totally understand what you are saying about being able to record anywhere.  In fact, I'm about to start a record in a band's practice space with my Pro Tools LE on my Macbook Pro.

The thing is, where you choose to record does not make any difference in whether the bass is playing with the kick pattern in the bridge, or whether performances have mistakes left in them.

Either way, I did like the song.  And you're welcome to visit Tombstone any time and listen to me complain about stuff.   Rolling Eyes




Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 12:58:37 pm
Quote:

The thing is, where you choose to record does not make any difference in whether the bass is playing with the kick pattern in the bridge, or whether performances have mistakes left in them.


ah ha!  now that really IS a whole different can of worms.  when you say 'recorded', my mind immediately jumps to track quality. maybe i'm just full of myself in thinking the performances were all there (minus the BGV of course).

i'll be sure to do that when i get down there.  that's a really cool place, even for how tiny it seems.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 30, 2008, 09:20:44 pm
Podgorny wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 11:46


The thing is, where you choose to record does not make any difference in whether the bass is playing with the kick pattern in the bridge, or whether performances have mistakes left in them.



sometimes rock n roll just needs to be what it is.  i'm not defending the performances of this track, and i'm not implying that i don't edit tracks to tighten them up.

but sometimes, it's just a pop song, and it doesn't have to be perfect.

i'd hate to hear what you might say about my band's record.........not even cut to a click!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 09:57:55 pm
Quote:

......not even cut to a click!!!!!!!!!!


Oh the joys of 7.4
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 30, 2008, 10:23:44 pm
Okay, normally I'm a detail freak, and have to talk myself out of a million little edits I hear that no one else would bother with.

But I don't hear a bass flub at the start of the bridge.  

I'm defining the bridge as the part with the beat box, where the vocal goes "your distance keeps my eyes away from you..."

2:40 or so in my mix...

What am I missin?

-G
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on January 30, 2008, 10:25:57 pm
Quote:

What am I missin?


the bass track carries over into beat 1 (and after) of the beat box.


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 10:37:24 pm
j.hall wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 20:20

i'd hate to hear what you might say about my band's record.........not even cut to a click!!!!!!!!!!




It's probably better for it.


Click tracks were invented to make engineers' lives easier, not to make music better.



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: garret on January 30, 2008, 10:39:54 pm
grant richard wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 22:25

Quote:

What am I missin?


the bass track carries over into beat 1 (and after) of the beat box.




Bah... That one held note that starts the bridge, starting exactly on the word "distance?"  

I don't hear that as a flaw at all.  It fades out quick enough, and it's perfectly in key (it's the same note the vocal starts with, if I'm hearing it correctly).

.. honestly I like it there.   Maybe I listen to too much jazz... jazz bass technique is more of a set of suggestions than a steady set of patterns.   Dropped notes, melodic tangents, are all par for the course.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on January 30, 2008, 10:45:40 pm
grant richard wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 11:58

when you say 'recorded', my mind immediately jumps to track quality.



I DID mean recording quality - the vocals in particular.  The guitars were pretty good.  Drums were passable, with the exception of the toms (which has already been mentioned).  I must admit though, it was better than MANY recordings that bear my name.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: UnderTow on January 31, 2008, 10:12:52 am

Still haven't had time to review people's mix.  Confused


j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 23:01



BTW, if you didn't post a link in the submission thread, your mix will not be reviewed by me.



Heh. I didn't think of posting there  Rolling Eyes  but why do we have a submissions thread in the first place? Surely it is easier and quicker to just go to the download page and grab all the MP3s that are there?

Alistair  
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 31, 2008, 10:23:57 am
UnderTow wrote on Thu, 31 January 2008 09:12


Still haven't had time to review people's mix.  Confused


j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 January 2008 23:01



BTW, if you didn't post a link in the submission thread, your mix will not be reviewed by me.



Heh. I didn't think of posting there  Rolling Eyes  but why do we have a submissions thread in the first place? Surely it is easier and quicker to just go to the download page and grab all the MP3s that are there?

Alistair  


Because the download page is supposed to be only for those that don't have bandwidth/webspace elsewhere.  Not all files are posted there.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: UnderTow on January 31, 2008, 11:43:25 am
sstillwell wrote on Thu, 31 January 2008 16:23


Because the download page is supposed to be only for those that don't have bandwidth/webspace elsewhere.  Not all files are posted there.

Scott



Ah yes that makes sense I guess.

Alistair
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on January 31, 2008, 11:50:45 am
The only thing that bothers me about the performance is a couple of missed sticks.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on January 31, 2008, 03:50:50 pm
garret wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 21:39

grant richard wrote on Wed, 30 January 2008 22:25

Quote:

What am I missin?


the bass track carries over into beat 1 (and after) of the beat box.




Bah... That one held note that starts the bridge, starting exactly on the word "distance?"  

I don't hear that as a flaw at all.  It fades out quick enough, and it's perfectly in key (it's the same note the vocal starts with, if I'm hearing it correctly).

.. honestly I like it there.   Maybe I listen to too much jazz... jazz bass technique is more of a set of suggestions than a steady set of patterns.   Dropped notes, melodic tangents, are all par for the course.





no no no

there is a bass note.  a "BAH".  he jumps in early through a pause and then drops in on the down beat as he should have.  many people left the obvious mistake in there.

i left it in the original file to see who might chop it and who wouldn't.

i think it's during the big triplet feel drum fill.


Kyle, for a storage closet (yes closet) in a strip mall, i think the drums turned out pretty good.  the overheads needed a bit of surgery in the EQ, HOWEVER, i never think tracks should be judged by where or how they were tracked.  so passable i will agree with.

it's also good to note that clean sounds are not my goal whenever i record and whatever i might be recording.  clean is boring........

undertow, i only review mixes posted in the submission threads as that's the rules (due to others hosting their own files) and i think it's the most fair way to handle it.  i go to one singular place, click the links and listen while typing notes.

it's easy for me.....and not to be a dick, but the easier something like this can be for me, the better.  especially considering i'm dealing with the front end, the management of it, the back end, and dishing out lots of hard won mixing information.......again, not trying to be a dick, but this is how i will do it, and those are my reasons.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on January 31, 2008, 05:59:31 pm
j.hall wrote on Thu, 31 January 2008 14:50


no no no

there is a bass note.  a "BAH".  he jumps in early through a pause and then drops in on the down beat as he should have.  many people left the obvious mistake in there.

i left it in the original file to see who might chop it and who wouldn't.

i think it's during the big triplet feel drum fill.



Oh, that.  I didn't hear that as a mistake...I heard it as a lead-in to the bridge/fill/whatever.  It's the correct pitch for a passing note to the next chord, unless I'm totally mishearing it.  Sounds like something I would have played.

In other words, I didn't let it slip by, I left it there on purpose....yeah, that's the ticket... Wink

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 05:30:40 am
at least so far, my assumption is that these songs were tracked the way that the band/producer wanted them to sound, so i would take caution cutting out even small things.

i also assume that the band playing is good enough to get what they want to hear down to try and leave as little cutting up to the engineer as possible.

i didn't hear it as a mistake but something that they wanted to do on purpose because if they didn't want it there they wouldn't have played it.

am i wrong?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 02:47:13 pm
Quote:

am i wrong?


yes

in fairness though, i know J really well, and when i heard that bass flub roll by when my bass player was recording it, i knew J would cut it out when mixing.  i didn't want to stop and waste time on editing when the session was going so well up to that point.  

but i think you're right, in most cases, the printed audio would be correct, but then again, how many projects have the budget for a 'digital editing' engineer?  i assume the producer or tracking guy would handle that.  i've only ever seen an allmusic credit go to someone for 'digital-editing' on a semi-rare occasion.  i don't spend a lot of time on that website though, so my view could be distorted.




Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 03:23:59 pm
i think treating all the tracks as if they are "exactly" what the band/producer/artist/whoever is after instantly puts you in a C level mixer category for me.

in the age of non-linear editing, and multiple levels of undue, it's so easy to back track when a client doesn't like a change you've made.

i edit without a second thought.  it can always be changed.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: R. Koehler on February 02, 2008, 03:48:24 pm
/yawn

Such arrogance and egotism.  I think that arrogance and egotism instantly puts you in an F level mixer category for me.  To each his own I suppose.

And no, I'm not sitting here trying to take pot shots at J. Hall, I'm merely using his style of making a statement.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 03:56:37 pm
I hate to do this (well, not really) but you have to take my song down from your myspace page.  That is EXTREMELY against the rules of IMP, and INCREDIBLY rude to do without asking me.


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 09:36:41 pm
R. Koehler wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 14:48



Such arrogance and egotism.  I think that arrogance and egotism instantly puts you in an F level mixer category for me.  To each his own I suppose.




welcome to the forums, i look forward to your contribution to the next IMP.

as for this:

http://www.myspace.com/candlelitproductions

i am respectfully asking you to remove the song from your profile.  the sooner the better.

[/J.Hall style statement]


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: R. Koehler on February 02, 2008, 09:39:05 pm
Hey no problem, but I fail to see why posting a mix of freely distributed tracks and giving credit to the original author and defining it as a mix is against the rules.  If it is, I don't see it in them.  It was my mistake that I didn't send you a message asking for permission.  I could have sworn that I sent you a message at the same time I sent a message to Cosmedic for IMP10, but I must have forgotten or possibly had the message consumed by Myspace.  Anywho, the song's been removed.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 09:46:55 pm
R. Koehler wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 20:39

 but I fail to see why posting a mix of freely distributed tracks and giving credit to the original author and defining it as a mix is against the rules.


it's copyrighted material, that in this particular case (and in MANY IMP's) is being released, or is already released, for public consumption.

i lack the time to get into the ethics of all this, but it seems rather obvious to me.  i've amended the rules thread as apparently it's not obvious.

you can like it, or not like it.................

[/J.Hall style statement]
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Podgorny on February 02, 2008, 10:14:00 pm
MySpace clearly states that you must be the owner of a piece of music or have permission in order to upload it.

Oh, and usually, accusing the forum moderator of arrogance isn't usually the best way to introduce yourself to a forum.



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 10:24:46 pm
back to the subject though,

during tracking, as soon as the session winds up, haven't you had the artists ask you to make changes? since it seems like a lot of these bands are small, i assume they have a vision for their music. i personally like to make cuts, but i know a lot of people who end up not liking cuts or changes...so i try to stick clear of making cuts unless i know they will go unnoticed to the artist or by them asking.

hey, j is leaving this stuff in the songs leaving room for us to pick and choose, or did you mostly do it to see who actually makes the cuts?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on February 02, 2008, 10:25:44 pm
Oh boy...I leave for a day and see what happens?

On a more positive note, got a chance to be on the other side of the console for a day...I feel SO good.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 10:28:37 pm
Quote:

Oh, and usually, accusing the forum moderator of arrogance isn't usually the best way to introduce yourself to a forum.


wow,  i mean wow, that is NEW information...



Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 10:29:33 pm
grant richard wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 13:47

Quote:

am i wrong?


yes

in fairness though, i know J really well, and when i heard that bass flub roll by when my bass player was recording it, i knew J would cut it out when mixing.




Rolling Eyes



also, i had never heard the song in my life, so it was hard to pick out what was "flubbed" unless i was told. otherwise i would leave it.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on February 02, 2008, 10:40:16 pm
DCombs wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 21:24

back to the subject though,

during tracking, as soon as the session winds up, haven't you had the artists ask you to make changes? since it seems like a lot of these bands are small, i assume they have a vision for their music. i personally like to make cuts, but i know a lot of people who end up not liking cuts or changes...so i try to stick clear of making cuts unless i know they will go unnoticed to the artist or by them asking.

hey, j is leaving this stuff in the songs leaving room for us to pick and choose, or did you mostly do it to see who actually makes the cuts?


IMP is supposed to simulate the side of a third party mixer (which is what i most typically do).  so, with that in mind, i think it's fair to assume that the tracks handed to you are simply that.  just tracks handed off to you, for you yourself to "make rock" whatever that means to you and only you.

the vast majority of my projects get handed to me with only this direction, "make it rock".  so, i sit down and do whatever i feel is necessary to "make it rock", then the band comments and we make whatever changes they want.

i was interested to see if people would make that edit.  i did not make it a big point to create a pitfall for anyone.....

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 10:42:44 pm
j.hall wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 14:23

i think treating all the tracks as if they are "exactly" what the band/producer/artist/whoever is after instantly puts you in a C level mixer category for me.

in the age of non-linear editing, and multiple levels of undue, it's so easy to back track when a client doesn't like a change you've made.

i edit without a second thought.  it can always be changed.



i don't think its my job as the engineer to be changing their song unnecessarily (maybe! only if the band thinks so). i'm all for making these cuts, but had i known what grant was after...i would be more willing to make the cuts.

j, i think your mix was probably my favorite out of all of them, but you have a distinct advantage too. you helped track the song, and you have heard the song inside out. PLUS! you personally know grant, which then you know what HE wants to hear. i was shooting from the hip and it was only mediocre.

but i believe that knowing the artist will really influence the mix. you get to hear his likes and dislikes, and you get his artistic vision. so your's came out much stronger than the rest, i believe.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 11:15:27 pm
DCombs wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 21:42

j.hall wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 14:23

i think treating all the tracks as if they are "exactly" what the band/producer/artist/whoever is after instantly puts you in a C level mixer category for me.

in the age of non-linear editing, and multiple levels of undue, it's so easy to back track when a client doesn't like a change you've made.

i edit without a second thought.  it can always be changed.



i don't think its my job as the engineer to be changing their song unnecessarily (maybe! only if the band thinks so). i'm all for making these cuts, but had i known what grant was after...i would be more willing to make the cuts.

j, i think your mix was probably my favorite out of all of them, but you have a distinct advantage too. you helped track the song, and you have heard the song inside out. PLUS! you personally know grant, which then you know what HE wants to hear. i was shooting from the hip and it was only mediocre.

but i believe that knowing the artist will really influence the mix. you get to hear his likes and dislikes, and you get his artistic vision. so your's came out much stronger than the rest, i believe.



True, but I too had my artistic vision to help me, and J's mix still tops mine sonically.  There is something to be said for achieving impeccable sonic balance and making a mix rock at the same time. I often get carried away with strange, out of control sonics while trying make mixes rock.  It's that fine line that I think separates the men from the boys.

And yes, I just called myself a boy, in terms of mixing. I have a lot left to learn, as do a lot of people here, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. So why don't we pick up our skirts and learn how to mix instead of worrying about this little stuff. The fact of the matter is, if a client wants a bass flub taken out, it would take 2 seconds.  Let's focus on the more difficult aspects of mixing like sculpting low end and compressing vocals, etc.  That stuff is what takes practice, not highlighting a bass flub and pressing delete.

Return to regularly scheduled programming.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on February 02, 2008, 11:21:52 pm
grant richard wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 22:15

DCombs wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 21:42

j.hall wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 14:23

i think treating all the tracks as if they are "exactly" what the band/producer/artist/whoever is after instantly puts you in a C level mixer category for me.

in the age of non-linear editing, and multiple levels of undue, it's so easy to back track when a client doesn't like a change you've made.

i edit without a second thought.  it can always be changed.



i don't think its my job as the engineer to be changing their song unnecessarily (maybe! only if the band thinks so). i'm all for making these cuts, but had i known what grant was after...i would be more willing to make the cuts.

j, i think your mix was probably my favorite out of all of them, but you have a distinct advantage too. you helped track the song, and you have heard the song inside out. PLUS! you personally know grant, which then you know what HE wants to hear. i was shooting from the hip and it was only mediocre.

but i believe that knowing the artist will really influence the mix. you get to hear his likes and dislikes, and you get his artistic vision. so your's came out much stronger than the rest, i believe.



True, but I too had my artistic vision to help me, and J's mix still tops mine sonically.  There is something to be said for achieving impeccable sonic balance and making a mix rock at the same time. I often get carried away with strange, out of control sonics while trying make mixes rock.  It's that fine line that I think separates the men from the boys.

And yes, I just called myself a boy, in terms of mixing. I have a lot left to learn, as do a lot of people here, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. So why don't we pick up our skirts and learn how to mix instead of worrying about this little stuff. The fact of the matter is, if a client wants a bass flub taken out, it would take 2 seconds.  Let's focus on the more difficult aspects of mixing like sculpting low end and compressing vocals, etc.  That stuff is what takes practice, not highlighting a bass flub and pressing delete.

Return to regularly scheduled programming.




well lets just make this perfectly clear...we wear kilts. not skirts.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on February 02, 2008, 11:35:36 pm
DCombs wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 22:21

grant richard wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 22:15

DCombs wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 21:42

j.hall wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 14:23

i think treating all the tracks as if they are "exactly" what the band/producer/artist/whoever is after instantly puts you in a C level mixer category for me.

in the age of non-linear editing, and multiple levels of undue, it's so easy to back track when a client doesn't like a change you've made.

i edit without a second thought.  it can always be changed.



i don't think its my job as the engineer to be changing their song unnecessarily (maybe! only if the band thinks so). i'm all for making these cuts, but had i known what grant was after...i would be more willing to make the cuts.

j, i think your mix was probably my favorite out of all of them, but you have a distinct advantage too. you helped track the song, and you have heard the song inside out. PLUS! you personally know grant, which then you know what HE wants to hear. i was shooting from the hip and it was only mediocre.

but i believe that knowing the artist will really influence the mix. you get to hear his likes and dislikes, and you get his artistic vision. so your's came out much stronger than the rest, i believe.



True, but I too had my artistic vision to help me, and J's mix still tops mine sonically.  There is something to be said for achieving impeccable sonic balance and making a mix rock at the same time. I often get carried away with strange, out of control sonics while trying make mixes rock.  It's that fine line that I think separates the men from the boys.

And yes, I just called myself a boy, in terms of mixing. I have a lot left to learn, as do a lot of people here, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. So why don't we pick up our skirts and learn how to mix instead of worrying about this little stuff. The fact of the matter is, if a client wants a bass flub taken out, it would take 2 seconds.  Let's focus on the more difficult aspects of mixing like sculpting low end and compressing vocals, etc.  That stuff is what takes practice, not highlighting a bass flub and pressing delete.

Return to regularly scheduled programming.




well lets just make this perfectly clear...we wear kilts. not skirts.


Noted.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: j.hall on February 03, 2008, 02:28:10 pm
DCombs wrote on Sat, 02 February 2008 22:15


i don't think its my job as the engineer to be changing their song unnecessarily (maybe! only if the band thinks so). i'm all for making these cuts, but had i known what grant was after...i would be more willing to make the cuts.



absolutely nothing wrong with the "hands-off" approach.  

Quote:


j, i think your mix was probably my favorite out of all of them, but you have a distinct advantage too. you helped track the song, and you have heard the song inside out. PLUS! you personally know grant, which then you know what HE wants to hear. i was shooting from the hip and it was only mediocre.



i think that's an over simplification of my mix and what went into it.

BTW, grant had only three recalls for this song.  he wanted me to add a snare sample to blend with the original, he cut the chorus repeat at the end, and he re-worked some vocal levels.

Quote:


but i believe that knowing the artist will really influence the mix. you get to hear his likes and dislikes, and you get his artistic vision. so your's came out much stronger than the rest, i believe.


of course knowing the artist helps, but again, i think claiming that my knowing grant made my mix better is an over simplification of my mix.


Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on February 03, 2008, 10:47:08 pm
i didn't mean for it to sound like that is the only reason yours sounded better, but i'm saying it contributes to why your's was better.

a good solid mix, with the knowledge of what the client wants is a key factor for a mix. your not going to mix a jazz record like a metal album. and i think that knowing what grant was after helped you create an impressive mix, that only you could have done. good work.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on February 11, 2008, 03:02:33 pm
I must say...

I'm COMPLETELY disappointed in the ratio of entries to reviews.

Mixers spent at least a couple of hours working on this tune and there's not one hour left in the last few weeks to do a review of the entries?

Lazy. I don't care if you're up to your ears in work (most of us are), you could do a couple here and a few there.

Very disappointing.  Confused
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: DCombs on February 11, 2008, 08:53:23 pm
okay hopefully on break tomorrow i will go through what is there. and let ya know. aight?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: sstillwell on February 11, 2008, 09:47:01 pm
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 14:02

I must say...

I'm COMPLETELY disappointed in the ratio of entries to reviews.

Mixers spent at least a couple of hours working on this tune and there's not one hour left in the last few weeks to do a review of the entries?

Lazy. I don't care if you're up to your ears in work (most of us are), you could do a couple here and a few there.

Very disappointing.  Confused


Well, given the response that my mix (deservedly) got, I'm not sure what my review is worth, but I'll give it a go ASAP.

Scott
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: slash5969 on February 11, 2008, 11:06:11 pm
My apologies for not getting these done sooner. I'm working on final mixes for the band's cd, and there just aren't enough hours in a day right now. Keep in mind that I'm still a rookie at this critical listening stuff, so this is sorta like... my 16-year old son critiquin' Tony Stewart's driving abilities.

1. sstillwell - It's certainly got some sparkle to it. Smile Remember the old stereo receivers that had a "loudness" button? This mix sounds like somebody pushed the button, and I can't help but wonder how good it would have been without the button pushed.. Cymbals over-ride everything to the point of distraction, but underneath I hear some cool stuff going on - you worked the drum parts rather well. Nice impact when you get to the choruses - you pounce on them, which is exactly what the song demanded.

2. Billybehdaz - I like the balance right off. Bottom is solid without being overpowering. I like the acoustic featured through the beginnings of the verses. I'm wanting the choruses to punch harder, or else the verses to ease off a little bit. That beat-box break crackles - I didn't really care for the beat-box thing, but you handled it in a reasonable fashion. Nice harmonies - they gave me fits.

3. Electric Warrior - Mucho mids. I'm wanting some more bottom in the drum kit - it's like the bass is hanging out there all on it's own. Some snare boost around 400hz? Cymbals are hot and in my face. Your harmonies sound like mine - which isn't complimentary to either one of us, I'm afraid.

4. Audio Geek - Here's the bottom that EW misplaced. I'm the last one who should be critiquing vocal treatments on this IMP, so I'll just say that the de-esser is your friend and leave it at that. I wanted more guitars - it's a rock song, innit? Love the tape stop effect - way cool. Joe Hardy did that on the last McClure record and I dug it there too. Killer ending!

5. teleric - Ok, this is groovin'...nice balance to everything. Punch in the drums. Bass is solid. You didn't leave the guitars a little light in the loafers, either. Nice build to the choruses - hit em a little harder and you're there, I think. So far, this mix sounds most like the song sounded in my head. I'm not sure that's good, but there ya have it. Smile

6. grant richard - Drums seem a bit loud overall in the beginning, or else the bass isn't quite loud enough. Guitars need some sense of seperation - they seem to all just kind of pile up in the middle when we get to the choruses. I like the arrangement through the verses. Nice harmonies. In fact, these are the best vocals overall so far.  Nice ending. You worked on this song a lot more than I did, and it definitely shows.

Pause for liquid refreshment and ear rejuvination. Back in a bit.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: SingSing on February 12, 2008, 09:52:19 am
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 15:02

I must say...

I'm COMPLETELY disappointed in the ratio of entries to reviews.

Mixers spent at least a couple of hours working on this tune and there's not one hour left in the last few weeks to do a review of the entries?

Lazy. I don't care if you're up to your ears in work (most of us are), you could do a couple here and a few there.

Very disappointing.  Confused


I agree. I need to get to the second half of the songs. IMP will grow once everyone tries to review the contributions. After all, this is the part where we get the much needed feedback.

One other thing...wouldn't it be interesting if everyone explained their mix? Why we do things, and how we interpret the song. That would perhaps make it easier to critique the mixes. We all have our own reasons for making mix choices and perhaps we judge the others from this personal view.

All the best,

Stefan
SingSing
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: grantis on February 12, 2008, 10:57:42 am
I kind of like that idea. Maybe we could make an "explanation" thread and allow everybody one post, then we lock it up at the same time that the submission thread is locked.

???
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: slash5969 on February 12, 2008, 02:26:43 pm
Ok, back for another round. Same cautions apply.

7. SingSing - Another mix that has a nice balance to it all around. Drum sounds are crisp and perhaps a little antiseptic. I miss the acoustic guitar. I don't miss the beat-box - thanks for omitting it. Disappointing ending, especially when you seem to have worked everything else in the mix. Stronger vocal treatments than most of these mixes seem to have.

8. Thomas F - Where's the bottom? Plenty of mids, but no punch in the kick, no hair on the bass. Sort of an AM approach, like it's geared for top 40 radio through a little 4" dash speaker. Hot cymbals, untuned vocals. Good ending.

9. Boedo Constrictor - Nice. Balanced. Good drum sounds. For raising your mix newly in three hours, you've done well. Good work on the vocals -  they were the Achilles heel for many of these mixes, mine included.

10. Podgorny - Crisp drums. I like. I like the acoustic through the verses. Guitars rock. Beat-box break was rugged - the drag/speed up thing just didn't mesh at all with the rest of the mix.

11. J Texas - I'm diggin' the snare, but wanting some more oomph in the kick. Bass is a little anemic for the song, and I'm wanting less keys and more guitars. Nice vocal treatments, but vocals could be louder overall. Best use of the beat-box so far - a potentially ugly break very tastefully done. Good ending.

12. jhall - Here we go. Great drum sounds, crisp and punchy. Bass drives the tune right down the road. I'd prefer a little less keyboard through the choruses, but that's personal preference. Vocals are spot-on. The acoustic guitar/beat-box combo works really well - why didn't I think of that? Seamless editing and a very nice finish. This is what I aspire to do when I mix - make the sum equal more than all the individual parts.

13. Greg Dixon - Another good one right off. Snare is perhaps a bit hot, but everything feels balanced and solid for the most part. Guitars drive. Bass could come up a bit. Great drum sounds. No hamony is better than untuned harmony. Another nice take on the beat-box portion. Nice ending.

14. slash5969 - Ok, this one is mine - I recognize the intro. I like the drumless start, and I like the acoustic soloed when the vocals start. Drum sounds are pretty good. Bass drives the song. Vocals are over-the-top and not at all what I had in mind, but it is what it is and I'm not going to make excuses. Vocals aside, I like this mix - it's got much more power and balance than my previous IMP entries, and that means I'm progressing.

Ok, another pause for the cause. Back in a bit.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on February 13, 2008, 01:03:00 pm
slash5969 wrote on Tue, 12 February 2008 13:26

11. J Texas - I'm diggin' the snare, but wanting some more oomph in the kick. Bass is a little anemic for the song, and I'm wanting less keys and more guitars. Nice vocal treatments, but vocals could be louder overall. Best use of the beat-box so far - a potentially ugly break very tastefully done. Good ending.



David,

Many thanks for checking out my mix. I agree with EVERYTHING that you said. I think that your critique is spot on and more than fair. I knew as soon as I let it go that I wasn't happy. Bass tones  are always the hardest for me to feel comfortable with. Finding that happy medium is key and knowing where to find it comes with practice. Below that point it's "anemic", above that point and it's amateur.

I have to be the ball na, na, na, na, na, na, na. Do you take drugs Dany?

I will stop holding back. I feel like the little engine that could and I can. I've got to get over the hump. I'm not content with being descent or safe. I will strut my stuff... look out!  Smile
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: T. Goodwin on February 13, 2008, 06:04:01 pm
My thoughts were along the lines of sstillwell's. My evaluations have the potential to be interesting, but as a noted extreme amateur I don't think I have the experience to note anything usefully.

I'd be more than happy to spend the time however, if anyone is interested in what the guy in the corner with the clipboard has to say.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on February 14, 2008, 12:25:20 am
Thomas F. wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 17:04

My thoughts were along the lines of sstillwell's. My evaluations have the potential to be interesting, but as a noted extreme amateur I don't think I have the experience to...


Come man! Does it tickle your pickle or what? Don't
Try and make it technical. Make it emotional ... How does it feel?
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: slash5969 on February 14, 2008, 10:11:59 am
Last batch. Did you miss me?


15. macbraddy – Interesting beginning – perhaps a much better use of the beat-box track than the beat-box break. I like it. Guitars are solid through the choruses. I miss the acoustic through the verses. I like the drum sounds, although the snare is a bit bright for my taste and had to grow on me. Beat-box break now has a certain “deja-vu” vibe to it.  
Nice vocal treatment.

16. Careful Collapse – First impression? Loud and bright. I don’t think the snare sound fits the song very well – it’s too mechanical sounding to my ears. I like the vocals, especially the occasional delays. You pounced on the choruses, and I like that – the song almost seemed to require it.

17. DCombs – Balanced, with great drum sounds. No harmony beats an untuned harmony. Interesting that you’d choose to omit the counter vocal track too. The overall effect was to remove much of the vocal power inherent in the song.

18. garret – I like the editing here, it’s refreshing to my ears after listening to the same arrangement so many times already. You worked the vocals quite a bit and it shows. I would have liked a little more from the counter part, volume-wise. Nice ending, but fade that organ!

19. maxim - Another interesting take here. I like holding the drums out of the intro. I think you held them out too long, though. I "felt" them starting when the bass did. Bass is perfect, fat and solid without overpowering the mix. Kick drum is either all beater or it's clipping - perhaps a little of both? I'm not sure the megaphone vocals work for me - they are the focal point of this song, and intentionally making them "lo-fi" seems counterproductive. I like that you think outside the box, but some of these ideas don't serve the song and should have been left on the drawing board.

20. Patrik T - This took so long to start that I thought something was wrong with the file. Nice impact on the choruses. More kick please, and a bit less cymbal. Good snare - nice pop. Nice work on the vocals. Another nice ending ruined by not fading that organ.

21. fantomas - This is good. Balanced and solid. Cymbals a bit hot, but good drum sounds. Untuned vocals detract from an otherwise rockin' mix.

22. ICombs - Rockin' mix. Drums are crisp and in my face. Nice balance. I like the balls on the kick drum. Sort of a heavy-metal approach but it's working. Standard beat-box break detracts a bit, but hey - you used what was provided so I can't really complain. If you'd worked the vocals, this would have been one of the best ones. Everything else is there.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Boedo Constrictor on February 22, 2008, 09:37:14 am
My apologies for not getting these done sooner ( i am really busy in this days, but when it  has a rest I continue with the other entries)
Here are my first tand of reviews in no particular order.



Maxim:
The intro is interesting but it is late too much in to deposit the drums. The audio of the drums does not have the necessary punch to support the interest of the song. The bass is out of context in the parts with not drums. The trick of removing the drums repeats itself too many times.

Fantomas
Good overall balance. The BV its too loud (and out of tune of course) on the chorus and need some compression. I do not agree with the sound of the snare (sounds like in other context). WTF? Ah!!! The Beat Box FX.


iCombs
The drumkit sounds like General Midi kit (Sorry) Wrong samples replacers? The kick has a disturbing sub. Cymbals are too quiet. L-R Balance is not equal.


Greg Dixon
Good balance. Maybe too wide (do you use a spacializer thing?). Nothing hittin´in the center. Vocals are too loud. Acoustic is loud and hard panned so fightin for attention.


CarefulCollapse
The countermelody is not there, interesting. The vibe of the mix (ambiental, lo-fi drums) isn’t work with the tune IMO. Harsh overall tone (especially on the EG´s)


Slash 5869

The whole mix sounds quite nice, perhaps a little muddy. Acoustic gtr treatment is very cool. GTR´s quiet, shaker loud. Vocal fx IT IS NOT COOL.  

Singsing
A solid mix but overcompressed to my ears. The extremes sounds a little fake, like a BBS stuff. Vocals need more clarity maybe carving the mids solve this problem. The rearrangement of the breakdown its interesting, I am not very sure of the edit of countermelody in the outro, sounds weird for me.

Podgorny
Vocals TOO loud, especially on the chorus. I sit that is the only mix that does not grow in the chorus (maybe putting down the vocals?). Fx in the breakdown it´s strange and out of the tune.

Grant Richard
The mix is dark and muddy. The bass is too loud (and more loud in the chorus), it´s fighting whit the kick. Try multiband compression on the bass or less bottom emphasis. Toms are loud and need some treatment, same snare, sounds tinny, maybe a good sample for reforce o replace fix this.Good mix for a self-producer. Vocals balance, fx and tone are good.

Mcsnare
Dude, you don´t need a review. You need a manager!!!
Awesome mix sounds, awesome rearragement... Direct to the Top 40!
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Gabriel F on February 22, 2008, 02:55:20 pm
Boedo gracias por el review. cuando tenga tiempo tengo que empezar a hacer los mios.

Gabriel Fonts.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: J-Texas on February 23, 2008, 12:19:03 pm
fantomas wrote on Fri, 22 February 2008 13:55

Boedo gracias por el review. cuando tenga tiempo tengo que empezar a hacer los mios.

Gabriel Fonts.


I hope that everyone can find the time Gabriel.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Gabriel F on February 23, 2008, 12:49:44 pm
Yes it seems this time there will be less reviews than previous IMPs.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Gabriel F on February 23, 2008, 02:47:17 pm
here are my reviews. feel free to discuss them.

grant richard: nice balance overall. Snare its grabbing too much
attention. and lead vocal a touch loud.bass is a little uneven. nice vocal sounds.

maxim: i like the intro idea but the drums or the entire band enters too late and without power. wow you took the drums out again i think its not a good idea in a pop song too do that. and bass its more upfront than most instruments. i like the way the bass sounds but it is highlited too much. i dont think distorted vocals works for this kind of song.


drew: bass lacks power. the acustic guitar seems isolated. i like the drums.

fantomas (this is me): i filtered too much the overheads and they
sound weird. bass its a little hot. vocals levels are uneven. vocals are loud most the time. and background vocals all over the place. the drum loop part, well my first idea was to mute it and let just voclas and acustic gtr, but i tried i new plug in it seemed nice at the time now i know its overdone.

icombs: bass sound boomy and muddy. i dont like the bass drum it
sounds like pantera, the snare is nice. vocals could be brighter and maybe louder during chorus.

greg dixon. organ a touch loud, electric guitars lacks definition and power, nice vocal sound, snare its too dry.


mcbraddy: that intro i think it doesnt work, it sould start with
power, shaker too loud, snare sounds thin, it needs some sustain. one of the electric guitars its too loud and they have too much mid range for me. nice phaser i would like it more subtle. no acustic guitar at the break
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: T. Goodwin on March 04, 2008, 04:06:33 pm
ho ho, bet you guys weren't expecting anything this late eh? let me know if anything is unclear, these are notes I took while listening and probably only have slight resemblance to actual English.

sstillwell - whole lot of shaker. don't like the airport terminal reverb on vocal. might be better if you cut out the sibilance in it. OH seems too bright. I like that kick drum. severely awkward tuning in places. I noticed an awkward tom cut somewhere in the middle. good snare sound. good ending, though it may have been better without the organ holding so long. mix overall is lacking meat.

Billybehdaz - ah, here's the beef I was looking for. drum sounds are too dull and bulky. not sure what you did to the vocal, but I like it. Vox work well with the organ. kick drum is missing click. the beatbox part seems too edgy and prescent. overall a good mix, but the lows and lowmids could have been thinned out a bit.

electric warrior - bass and snare are good and punchy, but too prominently displayed. vox don't sit well. maybe too dry? loud bg vox. everything sounds as if it's in different rooms. OHs sound phasey, but that's probably just my monitoring. this mix could have used the organ to pull itself together

Audio Geek - mids are absent. I like the vox, but with no mids I'm struggling to hear them. Also makes the sibilance stick out much more. I love the tape stop effect, but not it starting back up. that's very much a matter of taste however. bass guitar too loud. I like how quiet you have the OHs.

Teleric - Vox seem to drone and are pretty dull. Like the tone on the guitar leads. Lead and backup vocals don't blend. you've got a good thump going with the bass drum.

grant richard - this one's got the beef without the mud. rythm guitars are the only parts noticebly needing high end. I like the hard panned guitars about a third through. did you add grit to the right one? bass guitar sounds great. It was really hard to get rid of the drone-y low end of the bass, but you did it extremely well. very velvety. whatever you did to the vocals is similar to what Billybehdaz did, and I've liked it both places. I like the organ quivering at the end. If you didn't do that, then I just must be noticing it.

SingSing - good god this is loud. vocal grit would have been flattered by taking out more breath sounds. the drums coming back in after the beatbox part was spectacular, but I can't decide if I like the guitars there or not. great levels all around, and good creative use of distortion and tone shaping.

Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: Antman on March 08, 2008, 10:37:16 am
I realise I posted mine WAAAYYY late, but access to my studio monitors when I don't actually have a working project on the go is very very irregular. I do promise I didn't listen to everyone's mix's until AFTER I'd uploaded mine.

I wont take it personally if it's taken down given how late it is, but I would really love some feedback if anyone wants to give it a listen.

Hopefully I can get back in on this IMP thing for the next one. I did really love these the couple of times I tried to participate.
Title: Re: IMP16 discussion
Post by: MGA on April 05, 2008, 12:29:11 pm
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 14:02

I must say...

I'm COMPLETELY disappointed in the ratio of entries to reviews.

Mixers spent at least a couple of hours working on this tune and there's not one hour left in the last few weeks to do a review of the entries?

Lazy. I don't care if you're up to your ears in work (most of us are), you could do a couple here and a few there.

Very disappointing.  Confused


Okay I'm no expert by any means, though I'll give it a shot.
Note the following is only my opinion, I'm a sucker for clarity and high end (so be warned), also I haven't participated in that IMP (but will in the next Razz) so I'm not very familiar with the song. Also please don't take it personal (I kept everything very short so it might seem rude, but believe me it isn't)::

IMP16 Drew.mp3:
Overall good mix, though the snare seems rather monotonic and thus really drawing too much attraction. I also kind'a miss the hats and cymbals a bit.

IMP16-Audio~Geek.mp3: X
The bass is a bit boomy and sometimes gets out of control. I also miss stereo spread. (Again there seems something with the snare, maybe that's just how it is.. we'll see).

IMP16-BoedoConstrictorMIX.mp3:
Snare on this one is good. Maybe the guitars are a bit too loud. But apart from that well done.

IMP16-Osumosan-fix.mp3:
Snare seems to be too isolated and kind 'a cracking on its own (I shall refrain from commenting on the snare from now on Wink). I think a softer less aggressive snare would have suited the song better. I don't like the verb on the vocals, makes the whole thing become unfocused.

IMP16-PodgornyMIX.mp3:
Kick is too weak.

MP16-SingSing.mp3:
HiHats are too present. Over compressed. Vocals don't integrate well in the mix.

IMP16-slash5969.mp3: X
The vocals are mixed very alternative IMO (is that a stereo phaser on them?), too loud and muddy and cover the whole mix.

IMP16_tgoodwin.mp3:
The vocals got a tad too much verb on them (though I must admit I don't like to long reverbs in general). The drums in the break part are a bit too loud and too snappy.

IMP16_VKorehov.mp3: X
Sorry I have to say it again the snare (I prolly wouldn't have done any better though).

IMP_16-UnderTow.mp3:
The toms (at around 24 sec) need some serious work. The idea with the round panning (?) BGVs in the chorus is nice thought but not were good elaborated.

IMP_16_Billybehdaz.mp3.mp3: X
The vocals could be a bit more up front/louder.

Imp_16_Antman.mp3: X
Well what can I say, probably passed a compressor and limiter on the master bus, so there isn't really much mix to judge, it refer to this as a master.

imp16JHall.mp3:
Nice mix, good balance, though the highs could sparkle a bit more through (Note: I like highs).

imp16-GrantRichard.mp3:
Sounds dull and muddy (I'm a sucker for clarity).

imp_16_Electric_Warrior.mp3:
Cymbals sound a bit washy.

imp16-garret.mp3:
Kick Seems a bit weak, as well as the cymbals. Shaker a tad too loud, though.

imp16 fantomas.mp3:
Snare doesn't integrate well, no real definition in the guitars. The clarity in the cymbals is missing.


I might have missed some (sorry to those I missed, but my opinion isn't really important anyway, or?).

Oh and those with an X were way to loud for mixes (that means, if someone asks me to master a mix like that, I'd tell them it was way over compressed for mastering and ask for a revision). I found it rather hard to judge those loud mixes, because I were fronted with a wall of sound that really hadn't much definition to it, I mean the mixes could have be good, but I personally can't really judge that.

I guess that was it. Looking forward to the next IMP Smile.