18-08-2016, 01:16 PM
Some good work here, one of the better mixes of this song, may I say. I especially like the way you kept the bass clear of the sides and avoided the hazards of build up – the lead guitar on the left which mirrored the bass guitar was a real threat competently handled I thought. Mono reverb on the bass guitar? Essential for placement, good move.
Some minor details which addressed would encourage me to buy it....
The RH panned guitar doesn't feel in the soundstage, unlike the left one? Over speakers “it doesn't really matter” perhaps (ohh, pun!), but in the cans it doesn't convince. Only the right ear 'ole gets the sound here so it's unnatural and contradicts the more natural, binaural signals you gave us from the left panned guitar, so you left me with a contradiction and thus onwards to distraction – perhaps I've been around too long! I think had you done the binaural job on this right guitar, it would have made it even easier on the ears than your judicious EQ'ing has done, given that some of it's spectral content will be partially balanced by the left channel (subject to the Laws of nature). It's one of the biggest challenges to mix because the arrangement hasn't given us a stereo-balanced spectrum.
Sticking with this RH guitar....i'm hearing it pump with some degree of obviousness. For example, listening critically from 1:06 when it starts playing the melody, it's most noticeable. I think I can hear the left guitar getting hit as well, but it's not so discernible perhaps because of it's lower register. Is your kick getting in the way of the compressor on the master buss or is something more ominous taking place.....? Read the red bit.
The keys struggle to cut through...like this was mixed by someone with a bias towards guitars?
Speaking personally, I think the keys offer a decent contrast to the verse sections and help to provide the listener some fresh sonic interest in an otherwise guitar-centric mix. The difficulty, however, is giving them some space in an otherwise spectrally dense and louder delivery of the chorus. It demands tighter EQ'ing and perhaps exploiting the depth field more (but also note my point about compression below)? The clarity of the keys come from the treble and it's this range which is also frequented by the guitars. You need to compromise somehow.....without compromising? 
I'm going to pick up on your point about the quality of the materials, if I may. Most record in the 24bit domain these days, which has 144dB of dynamic range. Yet despite this, everyone it seems, has an insatiable need to smash the hell out of the tracking/pre-mix material and leave, as in this case, about 14dB in which to mix [NOTE: balance the levels before mixing and observe the ratio between the song's Program loudness and True Peak in order to deduce objectively the real state of play]. There's no room to swing a cat! This song arrived hot...too hot in my opinion, because it took away our ability to process the material as a mix and importantly, with a vision to include delivering decent audio quality. So, any further compression we might apply during the mix and any mastering is going to add to the distortion already abundantly evident, while piling on the loudness at the expense of dynamics – loudness war syndrome. So why add even more compression? Incidentally, limiting to 0dB is also a loudness war feature because of the need for maximum loudness while also encouraging consumer DAC's to distort (giving a subjective feeling of loudness). The compression factor, could also be contributing to the challenges of getting the keys out more in the mix, incidentally, which we've all struggled with. Furthermore, compression, amongst other things, can contribute to making audio more brittle and harsh, the very thing we are trying to negate in the vision. Taking this further....you EQ to reduce treble/warm the mix, but compress to [indirectly] add it. Now, despite my fussing and somewhat pedantic stance perhaps, you've done a really nice job in the circumstances.
Adding another point about the multi's quality which might also be playing it's part in the pumping i've noticed. I'm going to shout this out and make no apologies for doing so given it's importance and relevance....because it affects everyone who mixes this project:
THE MULTI CONTAINS PRINTED AUTOMATION and PRIOR-TO APPLIED PROCESSING. Ignore this at your peril. Why? For example, one moment the bass guitar isn't hitting your inserts hard, then suddenly during the chorus when the automation gets mega cranked skywards, it's going to get ugly and ladle into every single component in your insert chain AND everything else along the way, to the outputs of the master buss. To negate these major implications, it's imperative that the printed automation is neutralised BEFORE MIXING. Their idea of automation is based upon the sum of their knowledge, prowess at mixing, and the sum quality of their listening environment etc. The vocals have been done already, but were they done correctly/appropriately? How can we build on this project given the extent and nature of work already done? It's not a simple answer and becomes complicated because of the implications of their processing and how this impinges on our own ideas and values.
Now, if you REALLY want pedantic, here's an example:
When he sings “...what” during the intro line at around 0:20 “...it doesn't really matter, what I do or where I go..”, he puts a sudden surge of energy into the mic and it also fires up the room somewhat too, adding to the weight. I feel it, I hear it and it's a quality problem in the tracking. Trying to fix this isn't so easy... If you should be tempted to try fixing it, I wish you much fun (it does offer good practice at problem solving). there's also a touch of distortion I'd tweak on this intro section caused by build up of sibilance from both vocals occurring together. See what I mean about pedantic? lol
Thanks for the opportunity to do some critical listening, Dave.
Laters,,,
Some minor details which addressed would encourage me to buy it....
The RH panned guitar doesn't feel in the soundstage, unlike the left one? Over speakers “it doesn't really matter” perhaps (ohh, pun!), but in the cans it doesn't convince. Only the right ear 'ole gets the sound here so it's unnatural and contradicts the more natural, binaural signals you gave us from the left panned guitar, so you left me with a contradiction and thus onwards to distraction – perhaps I've been around too long! I think had you done the binaural job on this right guitar, it would have made it even easier on the ears than your judicious EQ'ing has done, given that some of it's spectral content will be partially balanced by the left channel (subject to the Laws of nature). It's one of the biggest challenges to mix because the arrangement hasn't given us a stereo-balanced spectrum.
Sticking with this RH guitar....i'm hearing it pump with some degree of obviousness. For example, listening critically from 1:06 when it starts playing the melody, it's most noticeable. I think I can hear the left guitar getting hit as well, but it's not so discernible perhaps because of it's lower register. Is your kick getting in the way of the compressor on the master buss or is something more ominous taking place.....? Read the red bit.
The keys struggle to cut through...like this was mixed by someone with a bias towards guitars?
Speaking personally, I think the keys offer a decent contrast to the verse sections and help to provide the listener some fresh sonic interest in an otherwise guitar-centric mix. The difficulty, however, is giving them some space in an otherwise spectrally dense and louder delivery of the chorus. It demands tighter EQ'ing and perhaps exploiting the depth field more (but also note my point about compression below)? The clarity of the keys come from the treble and it's this range which is also frequented by the guitars. You need to compromise somehow.....without compromising? I'm going to pick up on your point about the quality of the materials, if I may. Most record in the 24bit domain these days, which has 144dB of dynamic range. Yet despite this, everyone it seems, has an insatiable need to smash the hell out of the tracking/pre-mix material and leave, as in this case, about 14dB in which to mix [NOTE: balance the levels before mixing and observe the ratio between the song's Program loudness and True Peak in order to deduce objectively the real state of play]. There's no room to swing a cat! This song arrived hot...too hot in my opinion, because it took away our ability to process the material as a mix and importantly, with a vision to include delivering decent audio quality. So, any further compression we might apply during the mix and any mastering is going to add to the distortion already abundantly evident, while piling on the loudness at the expense of dynamics – loudness war syndrome. So why add even more compression? Incidentally, limiting to 0dB is also a loudness war feature because of the need for maximum loudness while also encouraging consumer DAC's to distort (giving a subjective feeling of loudness). The compression factor, could also be contributing to the challenges of getting the keys out more in the mix, incidentally, which we've all struggled with. Furthermore, compression, amongst other things, can contribute to making audio more brittle and harsh, the very thing we are trying to negate in the vision. Taking this further....you EQ to reduce treble/warm the mix, but compress to [indirectly] add it. Now, despite my fussing and somewhat pedantic stance perhaps, you've done a really nice job in the circumstances.
Adding another point about the multi's quality which might also be playing it's part in the pumping i've noticed. I'm going to shout this out and make no apologies for doing so given it's importance and relevance....because it affects everyone who mixes this project:
THE MULTI CONTAINS PRINTED AUTOMATION and PRIOR-TO APPLIED PROCESSING. Ignore this at your peril. Why? For example, one moment the bass guitar isn't hitting your inserts hard, then suddenly during the chorus when the automation gets mega cranked skywards, it's going to get ugly and ladle into every single component in your insert chain AND everything else along the way, to the outputs of the master buss. To negate these major implications, it's imperative that the printed automation is neutralised BEFORE MIXING. Their idea of automation is based upon the sum of their knowledge, prowess at mixing, and the sum quality of their listening environment etc. The vocals have been done already, but were they done correctly/appropriately? How can we build on this project given the extent and nature of work already done? It's not a simple answer and becomes complicated because of the implications of their processing and how this impinges on our own ideas and values.
Now, if you REALLY want pedantic, here's an example:
When he sings “...what” during the intro line at around 0:20 “...it doesn't really matter, what I do or where I go..”, he puts a sudden surge of energy into the mic and it also fires up the room somewhat too, adding to the weight. I feel it, I hear it and it's a quality problem in the tracking. Trying to fix this isn't so easy... If you should be tempted to try fixing it, I wish you much fun (it does offer good practice at problem solving). there's also a touch of distortion I'd tweak on this intro section caused by build up of sibilance from both vocals occurring together. See what I mean about pedantic? lol
Thanks for the opportunity to do some critical listening, Dave.
Laters,,,
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!