WD Quick Mix

[wurstdrummer]

Hi guys,

I ran the raw tracks through my DAW for fun with some of my preferred signal chains. It's heavily overcompressed and lacking lots of balance, but whatev.

Running on Logic Pro X with Waves plugins.

Cheers

[thedon]

Hey Till,
Sounds well balanced punchy and the guitars sound big and wide ,balancing the stereo image is a great challenge .
The panned guitars sound great maybe could come down a touch and less low frequencies below around 250hz in the side channels and more 250 and below in the centre ,as when listing in mono the low end has more definition in the centre.
A touch more top end snack and tail on the snare would sound awesome !
Just some personal taste thoughts while having a listen
Thanks for the multitracks.
Cheers

[Dangerous]

Love the guitar placement Till, They are sounding big and are playing off against each other in a powerful way.

Dave

[The_Metallurgist]

It's heavily overcompressed....

it's also clipping like mad which adds further to the fatigue.

thanks for the trigger tracks on the kit...saved a boatload of labouring!

the vocal has been extensively static EQ'd in the multi, perhaps in an effort to try and address the room issues in the low end and inherent microphone characteristics (i.e. sibilance)? unfortunately this approach has given an unnatural skew to the frequency response which can't be addressed in the mix because of the extent of the adjustments.

thanks for making the material available.

[wurstdrummer]

the vocal has been extensively static EQ'd in the multi, perhaps in an effort to try and address the room issues in the low end and inherent microphone characteristics (i.e. sibilance)? unfortunately this approach has given an unnatural skew to the frequency response which can't be addressed in the mix because of the extent of the adjustments.

Actually all tracks provided in the multitrack download are completely raw apart from slight EQing we did on our Macke 8-Bus while recording. (talking about wide-range 2-3db adjustments)

I'm suspecting the recording microphone not to be so linear anymore. It's got some years on it's back and it was stored in a damp rehearsal room for some years, maybe that messed the frequency response up a bit... too bad.

As far as I know we'll get a Shure SM7 soon. It has proven to be super solid for rock vocals. Maybe that could fix further vocal issues for future mixes.

Thanks for your feedback!

[The_Metallurgist]

the vocal has been extensively static EQ'd in the multi, perhaps in an effort to try and address the room issues in the low end and inherent microphone characteristics (i.e. sibilance)? unfortunately this approach has given an unnatural skew to the frequency response which can't be addressed in the mix because of the extent of the adjustments.

Actually all tracks provided in the multitrack download are completely raw apart from slight EQing we did on our Macke 8-Bus while recording. (talking about wide-range 2-3db adjustments)

I'm suspecting the recording microphone not to be so linear anymore. It's got some years on it's back and it was stored in a damp rehearsal room for some years, maybe that messed the frequency response up a bit... too bad.

As far as I know we'll get a Shure SM7 soon. It has proven to be super solid for rock vocals. Maybe that could fix further vocal issues for future mixes.

Thanks for your feedback!

Thanks for the explanations. Looking at the spectral graph which i've attached for info, it's bad. damp surely wouldn't help, but the low end response is nowhere to be seen, falling off dramatically from 300Hz, coupled with a big loss in the treble at 4kHz. this can't be fixed in the mix, sadly. i've had a go at mixing it, but i ended up trying to cover the defects with distortion - as they say, if you can't fix it, destroy it some more! it's a shame really.

the sm7...or the 7B for that matter, are interesting dynamics, but you'll need a good amp gain to make it sit up and listen Personally, i think you might find this mic adds too much bias in the low-end for her specific needs. at least you can give it a go and see what works.....and return it if it doesn't...and try again. it's worth the effort. actually, if you have a decent studio locally with a good mic locker, they might let you do a mic test for a small fee....then you can pick the engineer's "impartial" opinions. make sure they have an EV20. just a thought.

[dcp10200]

As far as I know we'll get a Shure SM7 soon. It has proven to be super solid for rock vocals. Maybe that could fix further vocal issues for future mixes.

I can't say too much on the SM7b but it's a pig for preamp gain, if you're set on one get a Cloudlifter by cloud mics. https://www.long-mcquade.com/18095/Pro_A...ivator.htm This link will explain it better than I can but basically it uses phantom power and does some impedance matching so that your preamp doesn't have to use as much gain to drive the mic.

One mic I can recommend is the Sennheiser MK4. It's a Large Diaphragm Condenser mic that I got as a Christmas gift last year and it's been my go to for vocals and acoustic instruments ever since (also it works as an outside kick mic if you want that vintage midrange kick sound). It has a really crisp and clean sound but still has a nice low end presence so it doesn't sound too harsh. From the experience I had with the SM7b it was a dark sounding mic and needed some high end eq added after the fact, great for a vocalist who has a naturally bright voice or for radio voiceover work and Unclean vocals.

Overall the mix sounds nice, alittle overcompressed as you mentioned but that can be fixed.

Thanks for the tracks again and cheers,
Dcp

[The_Metallurgist]

One mic I can recommend is ....

Microphones are like people, each one is different to the next. And like people, we don't always get on with one another! It's not wise to recommend a mic for this reason, because ultimately it's down to how the individual's vocal works with a particular set up and NONE OF US can predict that. The only way to get the right mic is to try different microphones out in controlled environments and with decent monitoring (i.e. in a controlled environment!) so assessment can be more reliable. a bedroom or a crappy practice room with poor monitoring conditions and uninformed ears won't help with assessment. But ultimately it depends how professional you want to be, and how many peeps you want to impress with your audio quality. But if the mic/vocal combination doesn't work properly (the voice is king in a song), then what happens?

I suspect one of the reasons they are considering a dynamic mic is because of the level of rejection it affords, so they can use it in a room without acoustic treatment? Irrespective of this, it's unwise to think an untreated room can be circumvented. Indeed, the low frequency material will be strong enough to bang off the walls and add to the direct source, colouring it and smearing it's clarity more than ever. Given the sm7b is already a warm mic, I would anticipate problems during mixing which can't be fixed.

Just because someone raves about a mic, it doesn't make it the right choice....I'm amazed, given how much discussion this subject raises on the web generally, that people are still uninformed.

Apologies for the off-topic post, but the point is critically important to let pass without comment.

[dcp10200]

One mic I can recommend is ....

Microphones are like people, each one is different to the next. And like people, we don't always get on with one another! It's not wise to recommend a mic for this reason, because ultimately it's down to how the individual's vocal works with a particular set up and NONE OF US can predict that. The only way to get the right mic is to try different microphones out in controlled environments and with decent monitoring (i.e. in a controlled environment!) so assessment can be more reliable. a bedroom or a crappy practice room with poor monitoring conditions and uninformed ears won't help with assessment. But ultimately it depends how professional you want to be, and how many peeps you want to impress with your audio quality. But if the mic/vocal combination doesn't work properly (the voice is king in a song), then what happens?

I suspect one of the reasons they are considering a dynamic mic is because of the level of rejection it affords, so they can use it in a room without acoustic treatment? Irrespective of this, it's unwise to think an untreated room can be circumvented. Indeed, the low frequency material will be strong enough to bang off the walls and add to the direct source, colouring it and smearing it's clarity more than ever. Given the sm7b is already a warm mic, I would anticipate problems during mixing which can't be fixed.

Just because someone raves about a mic, it doesn't make it the right choice....I'm amazed, given how much discussion this subject raises on the web generally, that people are still uninformed.

Apologies for the off-topic post, but the point is critically important to let pass without comment.

I only made a suggestion, I'm very sorry if this offends you. I'm not here to cause a riot, I just gave my 2 cents like you.

[The_Metallurgist]

I only made a suggestion, I'm very sorry if this offends you. I'm not here to cause a riot, I just gave my 2 cents like you.

no worries, i'm certainly not offended. i understood your intentions and they were quite sound in principle.