Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Homebound - Matt's mix
#1
Tried to keep the processing as minimal as possible. Both channels had:

Kramer HLS channel adding some top end and a little saturation
Waves H-EQ doing a tiny bit of shaping and hi-pass filter
Flux Stereotool to reduce the width of the track considerably

Quantum Leap Spaces adding a small bit of ambience

Kramer Tape, Slate VBC FG-Mu and Slate FG-X on mix bus, the latter basically doing nothing other than making sure it didn't clip.

Surprisingly interesting to mix given there are only two tracks Smile


.mp3    Homebound Matt\'s mix.mp3 --  (Download: 4.18 MB)


Reply
#2
hi Matt,

just popping in to see what your approach to mixing was.

2 tracks? i've not pulled this one, nor listened to other mixes, so i'm flying blind here, so take the comments with that in mind, yeah? i'm also on cans, which are pretty revealing. i'm on low level monitoring, so my comments about harshness will be further exposed with more SPL.

the first observation is the spectal imbalance between the channels. the left is clearly warmer than the RHS and it's making the listening experience skewed as a consequence. the problem is the cans are separating the channels with brutality which a pair of speakers probably would tend to mask ordinarily. i also note the vocals are in separate channels. i think i'd have a go at addressing this spectral skew as well as try and go some way to overcoming the fact that my binaural senses are being deprived of a conventional acoustic space. that is, i should be hearing one vocal more in one ear than the other, rather than only in one ear. same with the instruments too. i'm guessing the tracks are vocals in one and instruments in the other? that would make presenting the sound stage a lot easier in the mix. and we also have the additional benefit that if the chaps are occupying one track, that being of the same gender means the application of EQ or whatever, should make life easier, if only a little less than ideal.

the acoustic gtr has some harshness occasionally, perhaps it's an errant harmonic that's peeping through now and again, or maybe a result to the air you've applied. one area of the spectrum which can be harsh, is around the 4kHz area. have a go at tucking it in a bit with a notch that suits, and see how it shapes up.....while keeping the air in, if possible. i'm also wondering if there was some of the acoustic also in the LH channel (that binaural thing), that it's apparent brightness might be less exposed because my left ear wouldn't be working so hard? difficult for me to deduce without knowing the materials so i'm afraid i can't help much on that score. may be have a poke about and see what shakes.

regarding the sound stage and your choice of stereo width.....i'm wondering how the song would sound with the instruments a bit wider than the vocals? if it was your intention to have the vocals also seem to be playing the instruments, then ignoring my idea would be wise Wink I do think though, from a listener's perspective, it might make the song a little more interesting spatially? let your ears be the judge, hey. it's a subjective thing though....not a criticism.

i personally find the simple tracking projects a lot more difficult to mix, simply because our listening attention is so focused on so few things....it's in the spotlight, in all it's naked glory. i might have a peep at this one later on, you've fired up my curiosity!

nice subtle ambiance, and tastefully applied - effective. i liked that.

thanks for the opportunity to have a listen Wink
cheers
D
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply
#3
Thanks Dave, really appreciate you listening and commenting. This was pretty tricky to actually 'mix' because the two files were both stereo wavs, one of which was an acoustic guitar already mixed with a vocal, and the other was the banjo already mixed with a vocal!! They weren't separated L/R, M/S or anything like that, they were already blended. (ARGH!)

So my approach, as you suspected, was to try and get it sounding like one guy sitting with an acoustic singing, next to another singing guy with a banjo. I used the Flux StereoTool (I love it, so handy for monitoring phase issues, precise stereo placement and it's free) to narrow the stereo tracks dramatically so they just appeared to go from C to a bit L and C to a bit R. I hadn't appreciated that of course if anyone listens on phones the separation between the two will be extreme.

If I get time to return to this I'll notch the acoustic as you suggest and widen things out a bit, but other than that there's not much that I can do because of the format we were supplied with (it was ever thus...)

Glad you liked the ambience - I find Quantum Leap Spaces to be extraordinary in recreating real space. It's not so great at other types of 'verb and it's barely editable at all, but it's very good at what it does. My budget isn't going to stretch to Altiverb or something like that for a long time, though the new Waves H-Reverb looks quite interesting as well for 'different' sounds. Any other recommendations I should look at?

Thanks again for listening.

Cheers

Matt
Reply
#4
Matt, i pulled the tracks the next day after hearing your mix, inquisitiveness got the better of me. and i loved the song and it's delivery; the phrasing was superb! then i got one of those "Oh dear" moments, and disappointment kind of swept over me. i actually thought initially, we had 2 vocalists? we did in a way....but i certainly didn't expect the same voice on each track. that caught me off balance! lol. anyway, i've mixed it and i'll post it up shortly - it's still on the studio box at the mo'. i went wild with it......flipping the polarities, and engaging in some stereo voodoo tricks. while it initially started as 2 tracks, i ended up with a whole lot more. great fun indeed.

i don't know about you, but i found using compressors anywhere in the mix on this material to be a no-goer?

the troublesome frequencies on the acoustic i found to be at 7 and 8.9kHz. Because the tracks are very warm in nature (such is the genre, eh?), anything we lose in the treble hits the vocal, what there is of it up around the HMF's that is. i took the dynamicEQ route and notched them, as a static simply upset the trebles too much. i like to use dynamicEQ with acoustic guitars because it contains the overzealous nature of the resonances without killing off a guitar's timbre.

i'm afraid i don't use convolutions much, if ever - not enough parameter options for my needs, but in the right place they are simply untouchable in their quality of presentation. i'm old-school....the 140 plate is compulsory on an aux, and some top notch gear from TC Electronic's Powercore; the VSS3 is stunning for example, though the gear is no longer supported. because the plate doesn't offer early reflections but does an excellent job in manipulating the illusion of depth, i'll embrace any plug-in which delivers early reflections well in order to complement it.....you can't go wrong with one of the market leaders really. the Sonnox is fantastic for parameter nutheads like myself. check out some trials and see what floats your boat. Altiverb isn't in my vocabulary sadly, owing to the cost/benefit issues in my stable......wayyyy too rich. you could buy half of the sonnox gear during a sale for the equivalent price and i can't justify it, as good as it may well be. the SSL stuff is also good. darn, it's all good! ahhhhh.

i dare you to go mad with the next mix, and slap it around with some m/s tricks, and flick the polarities and see what you can shake out of it. whatever we end up with, one thing is for sure - it's going to be a big compromise. i wish i'd known the nature of the material before i dropped in and gave you feedback, i might have been a bit more useful! ho hum. try mixing down the vox+AcGtr track to mono and use this as the anchor for the song, while building stuff around it. difficult to explain...perhaps have a listen to mine on the morrow for a bit of a giggle. i took some risks Wink

catch ya laters...

Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply