21-02-2016, 01:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 21-02-2016, 01:14 AM by The_Metallurgist.)
sadly, there's only 10 percent of your original mix here to engage with; is there a technical reason why you are only posting 128kbps? the issues of 128kbps mp3 warrant some research so you can understand the issues it presents for critical listening, including how it's messing with ambiance, bass, and treble generally, losing stereo information and 'pushing up' the mid channel (by making it more mono) etc etc. and i won't even begin to mention distortion deluxe.
the acoustic guitar has a major problem at about 2000Hz because my ears are burning from it, even at a very modest audition level. this can actually be a difficult zone to pin down during mixing depending on your monitor speakers because it's where the woofer and tweeter cross-overs [generally] occur and phase issues subsequently arise. you might want to check out how you missed it because i think it's a far bigger problem than all the points so far discussed due to the issues of fatigue, primarily.
i couldn't hang in to the rest of the mix past the first ~15 seconds for these two reasons, so i'm not going to be much good to you beyond the above.
i will flag up briefly the problem between the male and female vocal in the tracking though. despite using the same mic, clearly it suits one singer better than the other, even putting aside any mic-address differential which is no doubt aggravating things. getting past this inherent mismatch issue is quite a struggle (no thanks to the recording engineer who also managed to distort the fem' vox somewhat during the vamp!). so, creating a subjective illusion where both are sharing the same depth-field and placement needs a lot of careful thought regarding amplitudes, compression, presence/proximity-effect and resultant spectral composition between the two singers vis-a-vis the band.
actually, just typing that last paragraph has me thinking back to the 2000Hz'ish problem? given that any depth parameter judgements are fundamentally shaped by the monitoring environment as a whole i.e. the room, it's treatment or not, and how the monitoring system interacts with it, if we take the general theme of ambiance from the interesting discussion, one might actually be seeing only the top part of the iceberg? for example, if you can't hear the 2000Hz resonance despite working on v2 which takes habituation out of the equation, and you are unable to discern the quality difference between a 128kbps file and 320kbps, then assessing finer and more subtle details concerning psychoacoustics will be challenging. sooooo, i'm now wondering even more if your monitoring environment is hampering critical assessment and judgements perhaps?
any thoughts?
the acoustic guitar has a major problem at about 2000Hz because my ears are burning from it, even at a very modest audition level. this can actually be a difficult zone to pin down during mixing depending on your monitor speakers because it's where the woofer and tweeter cross-overs [generally] occur and phase issues subsequently arise. you might want to check out how you missed it because i think it's a far bigger problem than all the points so far discussed due to the issues of fatigue, primarily.
i couldn't hang in to the rest of the mix past the first ~15 seconds for these two reasons, so i'm not going to be much good to you beyond the above.
i will flag up briefly the problem between the male and female vocal in the tracking though. despite using the same mic, clearly it suits one singer better than the other, even putting aside any mic-address differential which is no doubt aggravating things. getting past this inherent mismatch issue is quite a struggle (no thanks to the recording engineer who also managed to distort the fem' vox somewhat during the vamp!). so, creating a subjective illusion where both are sharing the same depth-field and placement needs a lot of careful thought regarding amplitudes, compression, presence/proximity-effect and resultant spectral composition between the two singers vis-a-vis the band.
actually, just typing that last paragraph has me thinking back to the 2000Hz'ish problem? given that any depth parameter judgements are fundamentally shaped by the monitoring environment as a whole i.e. the room, it's treatment or not, and how the monitoring system interacts with it, if we take the general theme of ambiance from the interesting discussion, one might actually be seeing only the top part of the iceberg? for example, if you can't hear the 2000Hz resonance despite working on v2 which takes habituation out of the equation, and you are unable to discern the quality difference between a 128kbps file and 320kbps, then assessing finer and more subtle details concerning psychoacoustics will be challenging. sooooo, i'm now wondering even more if your monitoring environment is hampering critical assessment and judgements perhaps?
any thoughts?
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!