Little Lighter...

[vicenzajay]

Here's a mix:

[vicenzajay]

Attachment has been updated to the correct file....not sure what happened on my end with the original...

[vicenzajay]

And another take:

[Rook]

Too much rattle on the snare. Otherwise, you are on your way to a really good sounding mix.

[Mixinthecloud]

What Rook said.

[vicenzajay]

Cool, thanks to both of you!

[vicenzajay]

An adjusted mix for the snare recommendations. I like the snare to have plenty of "crack", but I tweaked the mix of top and bottom (with some eq and a touch less percussion verb) - hopefully this does the trick to calm the rattle a bit:

[Rook]

For me, it's better but I still hear too much rattle. I'd like to hear more snap and more 100 to 220. Also noticing you need some de-essing on the vocal. Lastly, I feel there is too much subs. Take this with a grain of salt. Lots of mixes have way too much low information in my opinion. The band seemed to be going for this if you reference their release. Mixinthecloud hears lows as well as anyone. His/her mix sounds great to me. Mine is lighter on the low end. You still have a really good mix going. Hope this is helpful.

[Txory]

Cool mix, delay vox

[vicenzajay]

Thanks to both of you! Appreciate you taking the time to listen and provide feedback!

All good learning points for me. At the same time, preferences are preferences, and personally I like the snare to breathe a bit. This is about as far as I would limit it from "rattling", as you call it. More than this, and it begins to sound either too processed or purely sampled (to me).

On the de-essing, I'm happy with it as it is. The de-esser is already pulling a good deal of information from the signal as it is, and for me the vocal is sitting fairly naturally and "full" (and forward) in its current instantiation. I did, as Txory noted, add some delay and space/plate verb to it (and there's a touch of pitch correction at about 30% mix on there as well).

Agreed on the band's release mix. That said, I've pulled three or four of the mixes of this song from this forum, and using the freq analyzer my mix has the *least* low end information of any of them. I'm curious about the monitoring setups that are out there (much as you note) as my experience so far in my limited time on this board is that most of the mixes I'm hearing have (as you say) too much low end information.

Perhaps the areas of this particular mix that you are referencing are the intro and the bass "solo" during the bridge/breakdown? I did automate several parameters to push/fatten the bass in those areas intentionally. The Juno "sub" synth is an interesting instrument to handle. Given the band's vibe, I set it up to pulse a bit more forwardly in time in with the song's tempo - maybe this is causing it to come forward too much? That might explain why the frequency information is certainly well balanced yet the impression you're getting is one of too much low end in those parts? As a more specific note (and I agree with you that mixinthecloud has a great ear/mixes), I took his third mix and placed it next to mine (gain-matched) - his mix has WAY more low freq information in the Juno bass sections with a good several db more "beef" level of kick as well throughout (it's quite useful to use a freq analyzer to see this, but it's easily heard as well). This is causing me to be unsure of how you are hearing "too much sub" information on any of the mixes on this page (given your comments). It also really has me wondering about monitoring/listening systems as well. These are just thoughts - take them with lots of salt!

Again, thanks so much for the feedback from everyone. What a great place for joint learning and exploration.