Discussion Zone

Full Version: My version: feedback welcome!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Would have loved to listen to other versions to compare to mine, but seems like i'm the first breaking the ice..

As usual, I'm all ears for whatever you think might help.

cheers!

andrea
hi,

thanks Mike for upping and thanks Andrea for this version!
Great work, almost did not recognize it Wink

one thing I'm not sure about is the decay length of the psy fullon bass... (not the sub) when there are 3 notes after every beat, it's seems ok, but if there are only 1 or 2 it seems to short...
but thats already like that in the original files...

I will give it a couple more listens and then write a longer feedback Smile

thanks again

cheers
c:fx / Thorsten
(23-09-2012 02:49 PM)cfx Wrote: [ -> ]hi,

thanks Mike for upping and thanks Andrea for this version!
Great work, almost did not recognize it Wink

one thing I'm not sure about is the decay length of the psy fullon bass... (not the sub) when there are 3 notes after every beat, it's seems ok, but if there are only 1 or 2 it seems to short...
but thats already like that in the original files...

I will give it a couple more listens and then write a longer feedback Smile

thanks again

cheers
c:fx / Thorsten

Thanks! Would be curious to read further thoughts.
a.
hey Andrea,

ok, I listened it quite often now... can't really tell what could be better... it's nearly perfect - from mastering view. But the arrangement I did could be a bit more spiced but, maybe
more effects and / or another instrument.

first it bothered me a little bit that you used only the unpitched version of the 'fx.wav' - but i think u mixed both together in later parts of the track?! I really liked that, so i would give it a bit more presence... maybe personal taste though Smile

so very good job.

if you haven't listen to my version yet, here you go: http://soundcloud.com/c-fx/math3
but its uncomparable, mine sounds raw compared to yours Wink
I think your approach is different but it's a cool mix. You place your mix in a huge place and all the verbs were in time but some verbs masked the low mids in some parts. A simple low shelf thing. :-)
(17-11-2012 06:27 PM)Rickaudio Wrote: [ -> ]I think your approach is different but it's a cool mix. You place your mix in a huge place and all the verbs were in time but some verbs masked the low mids in some parts. A simple low shelf thing. :-)

Hi Rick,

thank you! Where are the sections whose low-midrange gets masked by the reverb? I'm curious now Smile

cheers,

a.
(17-11-2012 10:30 PM)AndreaT Wrote: [ -> ]
(17-11-2012 06:27 PM)Rickaudio Wrote: [ -> ]I think your approach is different but it's a cool mix. You place your mix in a huge place and all the verbs were in time but some verbs masked the low mids in some parts. A simple low shelf thing. :-)

Hi Rick,

thank you! Where are the sections whose low-midrange gets masked by the reverb? I'm curious now Smile

cheers,

a.

I am just saing but ... just to make sure ... insert a low pass filter @ the master bus and listen how much defined is the low mid area and if you can pre fader the sends of the revbs so can mute the source and know how much contribution are making the revbs to the low mid and then the lows ... that way you know if I am rigth or wrong. Remember we are learning and this is all based on a subjective opinion.
I am trying to make a contribution not a degradation.
:-)
Rickaudio Music
(24-11-2012 03:33 PM)Rickaudio Wrote: [ -> ]
(17-11-2012 10:30 PM)AndreaT Wrote: [ -> ]
(17-11-2012 06:27 PM)Rickaudio Wrote: [ -> ]I think your approach is different but it's a cool mix. You place your mix in a huge place and all the verbs were in time but some verbs masked the low mids in some parts. A simple low shelf thing. :-)

Hi Rick,

thank you! Where are the sections whose low-midrange gets masked by the reverb? I'm curious now Smile

cheers,

a.

I am just saing but ... just to make sure ... insert a low pass filter @ the master bus and listen how much defined is the low mid area and if you can pre fader the sends of the revbs so can mute the source and know how much contribution are making the revbs to the low mid and then the lows ... that way you know if I am rigth or wrong. Remember we are learning and this is all based on a subjective opinion.
I am trying to make a contribution not a degradation.
:-)
Rickaudio Music

Hey Rick,

ok I'll have a run through again on the lookout for such excessive low-mid range energy. I asked you which sections you had in mind since I thought you could easily pinpoint them at the time of your comment, but well.

I understand your intentions aren't evil, no worries!

cheers,

a.
Hey,
sorry guys I didn't check the forum that regularly the last days Wink

Andrea, I think Rick's intention was to let you find out the area yourself to train your ear Wink

Unfortunately Reason has no good spectral analyzer so i have to trust my ear or import the audio to another DAW to check it...

I guess 200 - 600Hz
i found some audio / instrument frequency charts (one was in the last SOS) are helpfull too, to get a general idea.

again thanks both for your efforts.
oh and if I can help you with any adjustments of the original multitracks no problem...
Reference URL's