Discussion Zone
Matterplay (Sano mix) - Printable Version

+- Discussion Zone (http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com)
+-- Forum: 'Mixing Secrets' Free Multitrack Download Library: mixing forum (http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=184)
+--- Forum: Alt Rock, Blues, Country Rock, Indie, Funk, Reggae (http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+---- Forum: Malenky Slovos: 'Matterplay' (http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=320)
+---- Thread: Matterplay (Sano mix) (/showthread.php?tid=11589)

Pages: 1 2


Matterplay (Sano mix) - sano - 30-07-2015

My mix of Matterplay


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - sano - 31-07-2015

I refined my mix a little more


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - Cassandra - 24-09-2015

Hi Sano, must be a subtle change between the versions, can hardly here it. What did you change ? Think it sounds pretty good, maybe crank up the drums a little :-) and some mid to give it more body.


/C


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - Nos - 25-09-2015

Nice. You've really managed to make space for the vocal so it cuts throughSmile Good low end too.


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - sano - 27-09-2015

(24-09-2015, 09:45 PM)Cassandra Wrote: Hi Sano, must be a subtle change between the versions, can hardly here it. What did you change ? Think it sounds pretty good, maybe crank up the drums a little :-) and some mid to give it more body.


/C

Hi Thanks for listening

The changes were small, probably slight level changes that were bugging me on second listen, but I can't quite remember now.


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - sano - 27-09-2015

(25-09-2015, 03:53 AM)Nos Wrote: Nice. You've really managed to make space for the vocal so it cuts throughSmile Good low end too.

Thanks Nos


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - Ak3r - 06-10-2015

Overall the mix is quite nice, congrats! Wink Did u try to get some kind of "telefone effect" on the voice in the verses? because it sounds too mid-rangy to me :/ Also i dont know if it's the way all of u guys export the song or if there's any kind of compression or something that all the mixes that i've listend sounds too loud, squashed and like with quite low quality :S....Any idea about that?

Cheers Wink

Ak3r


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - sano - 07-10-2015

There is no telephone effect used but from memory I think I high passed it fairly high around maybe 130 Hz.

As for the compressed, squashed sound you're hearing on the many mixes posted here, ..of the mixes I listened to, most if not all are well within what i would call normal compressed/limited levels i.e. not squashed to death.
As always when it comes to such matters we are all faced with compromising between the benefits and losses of using mix bus compression and limiting. I generally use enough compression to glue the track usually between 1 to 2 db and the k-14 metering to set my final levels limit levels. If I was mixing a full orchestra my choices would surely be different to preserve the dynamic range of the recording but on this track I was guided by similar commercial recordings of similar style tracks.

Thanks for taking time to listen and comment on my mix Ak3r


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - Ak3r - 08-10-2015

Well, ur mix it's one of the best if we are talking about levels that's why i asked you because u seem to know what u r talking about hehe...I guess I didnt expect such loud mixes given the kind of song it was Smile Thanks for your reply, it's always enlightning to have another point of view.


RE: Matterplay (Sano mix) - The_Metallurgist - 08-10-2015

yo..

(07-10-2015, 08:24 PM)sano Wrote: As for the compressed, squashed sound you're hearing on the many mixes posted here, ..of the mixes I listened to, most if not all are well within what i would call normal compressed/limited levels i.e. not squashed to death.
As always when it comes to such matters we are all faced with compromising between the benefits and losses of using mix bus compression and limiting. I generally use enough compression to glue the track usually between 1 to 2 db and the k-14 metering to set my final levels limit levels. If I was mixing a full orchestra my choices would surely be different to preserve the dynamic range of the recording but on this track I was guided by similar commercial recordings of similar style tracks.

unfortunately, all or at least most tracks in the project have been overly compressed BEFORE we got them. here's a glimpse of the abuse we are confronted with:

- guitar3 has a loudness of -10.3 LUFS
- LV -10.6 LUFS
- synth -10.6 LUFS

loud is perceived better, only it isn't in reality. we like dynamics more, according to the results of academic study.

personally speaking, this isn't mixable without someone backing off the processing first. but confronted with hot tracks and a gun to my head, i'd use ambiance as glue rather than compression; we risk damaging the song further otherwise.

so, this leaves no real scope for balancing the dynamic energy in the music and working the musicality of the song - it's riddled with distortion by now. i think, FWIW, that adding further distortion/compression in the mix simply degrades the structure further. it saddens me that this problem is pretty common in the Library suggesting that tracks are modified after recording and before they are uploaded (or simply smashed during tracking due to low grade/poor room acoustics and lack of compressor skills etc etc, hampering judgement). we only have to look at the wave structures to view the lack of dynamics......and if we need objective evidence, we can simply solo an instrument and run it through the EBU/loudness 'meter' as i've done. the k-14 meter won't show this.

commercial recordings? given the Industry still hasn't woken up to the merits of dynamic music vis-a-vis loudness because of inherited fear of losing sales (and despite the fact that anyone engaging the iTunes leveller, and despite loudness legislation eg R128 and the sonic penalties these manifest when confronted with a hot mix/master), i'm not convinced that keeping the loudness war a-float is the way to steer the ship, in the forum or out of it. but that's a personal view which i know many musicians don't buy into - yet. if they had decent hi-fidelity gear and immersed themselves in dynamics and a system to deliver it with authority they might have a different perspective; i'm talking generally, not specifically here, i hasten to add.

there are 3 places where your mix is hit pretty hard, the short-term loudness runs at typically -10 LUFS for the duration which increases apparent loudness of about 2-3dB from the rest of the material. i think that's quite a jump, especially given that we should be able to hear 0.2dB of level change on an instrument during the mix process. are you sacrificing musical dynamics simply for the sake of loudness? does this additional loudness contribute to added emotional delivery of the song? perceived, subjective loudness can be achieved through different means without losing dynamic energy.

for me, what would make a significant difference in the mix and the song's delivery, again FWIW, is focusing on which instruments are driving the emotion, and which sounds are simply cluttering up the stratosphere, kind of thing. the sound FX get tedious pretty quickly for example. because it's in the arrangement doesn't mean it makes the mix "right" for the listener if we include it - mixing engineers need to retain impartiality, it's imperative, though some think we are here simply to be "yes men/women" to keep the musicians happy by spewing out what they gave us without question, albeit with some EQ, compression (often the more is better...when it isn't!) and a bit of panning! it is a well known psychoacoustic phenomenon that we humans filter out sounds of length once they've got our attention - we no longer hear them, so to speak. the bell toll, for example, seems to me at least to be a critical part of the emotional delivery and element in the song, though of course, it doesn't necessitate being in the listener's ears all the time but certainly it could benefit from being present in the mix during certain moments of the song and raise the listener's attention while doing so. the same goes for the musical expression in the guitars which could be brought out (not necessarily with an amplitude gain) to catch the listener's attention during key lyrical phrases to drive the song. and less is more, of course, because our brains don't get bogged down trying to figure out what they need to listen to all the time, though this isn't a dense arrangement.

subjectively, i found the treble skewed towards to the overly bright side, which tended to deliver a more brittle sounding presentation for my ears over consumer-grade speakers and Ovation headphones which makes it hard going. i wouldn't suggest simply introducing a high cut will fix it by definition because something is causing you to mix the song this way - what you are hearing ain't what is translating. tweeters? room? tweeters + room? it might be important to explore this.

i need to balance this post with some good points (but you know them anyway!).

hoping that some of my life burned here typing has been of value to yourself and others... Big Grin

regards,,,