Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fredy V - Not Alone
#1
Here's my mix. Comments and advice for improvement will be welcomed!


.mp3    Fredy V - Not Alone.mp3 --  (Download: 15.68 MB)


mixing since April 2013
Reply
#2
I like your general balance, that piano though. . . woo, I'd say it's a little on the hot side. I think your guitars might be able to be cleaned up a little bit in the low mid region. The same with the background vox as well.

I think you might be able to do a little more automation on the ending fade out to get some more energy, and I'm not 100% where it's lacking. Maybe bringing up the organ and the drums could help. There were also a few points where it sounded like your vocal was clipping.

Aside from that, I think it's a really nice mix.

I really like your vocal delay.

And that reverb is really nice.

Thanks for posting it!

Draper
Reply
#3
Hey Juan ,
I like your mix , nice use of effects, I agree with what Draper is hearing ,the piano sounds a touch upfront as a personal preference sound slightly harsh around the 600-2k area . Can hear some resonant frequencies in the guitar around 160-300hz area.
I like how you have achieved a lot of punch ,the kick and bass sound a touch boosted maybe competing for space in the 90hz area , the upper frequencies of the strings sound a touch loud around the 600hz -2k area , can hear a lot of deep loose bottom end on the kick which rolling off 20-30hz and below may help with more headroom The top end of the hi hat is jumping out a touch
Just some personal taste Thoughts to my ears while having a listen.
Nice Job Big Grin

Please Help Mike Keep This Awesome Educational Site Alive And Become A patron !
https://www.patreon.com/CambridgeMT/posts

Reply
#4
Thank you for your comments, guys! Just before I read what you said about the piano, I had already decided to give it a change.

I've checked on the other issues as well, so here it is the new version of this song I like so much!


.mp3    Fredy V - Not Alone(2).mp3 --  (Download: 15.68 MB)


mixing since April 2013
Reply
#5
I think the piano can use a little more attention. The supplied tracks clip really badly in both mics in the louder parts. There's not a whole lot you can do about that, but there are some utilities available that can smooth out the worst of it.

I thought it was kinda weird that they went to the trouble to record the project at such a high sample rate without checking to make sure they weren't overloading the preamps. The benefits of recording at ultra-high sample rates are mostly just theoretical in my opinion, but the benefits of not clipping your mic pre are a bit more immediate Tongue
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!
Reply
#6
Hi, not sure if it's MP3 encoding gone bad but my observation is, since the tracks were recorded at 96KHz, you should try and use that quality in the high-end, here it feels really lacking that sparkly and silky sound I was hoping for.
Reply
#7
Feel free to disagree with me... but scientifically speaking, sampling at 96 khz can't truly enhance the quality of the high end in a mix, regardless of the quality of the mp3 encoding. And regardless of the sample rate used during capture, even the best quality mp3 encoding will significantly alter the super highs, eventually truncating the frequency response somewhere between 16 kHz and 18 kHz, depending on the encoding method.

The sample rate at which you record can be simplified to represent twice the maximum possible recorded frequency before aliasing occurs. Everything beneath that maximum frequency, as stated in the Nyquist theorem, is captured 100% accurately. So when you record at a mundane 44.1 khz, that means the maximum frequency you can capture accurately is 22.05 khz... which is well beyond what even newborn babies are thought to be capable of hearing. As it happens, that's also well beyond the frequency response of most instruments, microphones, and analog gear (which includes the analog front end of digital setups). So in my opinion, if you're missing the highs, the mp3 encoding could be the reason for sure... but the sample rate doesn't enter into it at all.

I realize I'm running the risk of being crucified for saying so, but I have yet to encounter a single convincing argument for recording at such a high sample rate, especially if you're going to allow your piano recordings to square-wave. Supposedly, industry standard these days is to record at 192 kHz, which is nothing but snake oil.
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!
Reply
#8
kick is heavy maybe a bit too much
Reply
#9
I like it Juan!! Nice balance. My only thought is to clean up the guitars and the piano in the low area maybe 200 and lower plus lower the piano level 2 db. What do you say?
Reply
#10
I agree too 100 to 200 on drum.
In general too overtones on tom and ftom.
The vox is a litlebit thin for my taste.

For the samplerate: I mix my version at 48, is not a problem, bit is more important think

Good work and great song
Reply