Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pedaling Prince Mix: Motor Tapes - Shore
#1
I am self-taught both in video/film editing and audio engineering, having been experimenting with audio and video since my teen years back in the 1980s.

My guiding principle in mixing I call the "principle of least treatment."

Having heard the crystal clean sound of CDs from the earliest days of consumer digital sound in the 80s, comparing it to the overprocessed, overcompressed mess many commercial mixes are today, I have come to believe that current mixing techniques rely too heavily on processing, particularly in the use/abuse of compression in mastering.

In general, I go as gently as possible on all processing, using only the minimum EQ, automation and compression necessary to get everything to blend smoothly, and under no circumstances do I EVER apply processing or compression of ANY kind at the mastering stage; my goal is to preserve 100% of the dynamics of the original recording.

I joined this forum in order to get all of YOUR thoughts on what I've done with these multitracks. Criticism is welcome so long as its polite and constructive. Smile

This is my take on Motor Tapes' "Shore."


.m4a    09 Shore.m4a --  (Download: 9.3 MB)


John A. Ardelli
Pedaling Prince Pictures
http://www.youtube.com/user/PedalingPrince
Reply
#2
Hello

Few points or opinions of your mix.
I think the bass has too dominant role in your mix and somehow "boxy" sound. It blend better in the mix during chorus.
The drums sound distant which I think is good for this song but maybe they could be a little louder.
The bvox have space and I think the lead voc could have a little bit more without losing the n:o 1 place in the mix. In chorus I think you need to adjust the lead voc s-limiter a bit. (if any?)
That build up before the guitar solo could be bigger and the solo also and have more similar sound to other guitar tracks. Maybe try to think it as a new intro. Growing from small to this epic guitar solo. And yes I didn't do that in my mix, but I think it would fit to your mix.
Practice your analytic listening skills.
Listen others mixes and give feedback.
Become a better mixer.
Reply
#3
(13-01-2014, 08:52 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: I think the bass has too dominant role in your mix and somehow "boxy" sound. It blend better in the mix during chorus.

The full bass you're hearing is, in fact, the sound I was going for, in part because I personally prefer a nice full low end, but also because I feel I have something to prove about digital sound in general.

One of the most common complaints I've heard made about digital sound by those who swear by analog technology is the "brittleness" and "sharpness" of digital sound, which they find objectionable.

IMHO, a lot of that excessive brightness came about in the early days of digital sound because many engineers of the time were used to applying a slight boost to the high end during recording to compensate for the natural high frequency rolloff of magnetic tape; the idea was to achieve a flatter, more balanced frequency response in the final recording. Trouble is, digital media has no such rolloff; its frequency response is ruler flat. So what happened? Some of these early engineers, not fully understanding the properties of this brand new medium (and one could hardly blame them for that) just recorded with it using the same techniques they used on analog recording, including the high frequency boost, except now since the recording medium has no high frequency rolloff that boost actually creates a DEPARTURE from flat response in the recording, creating an overly shrill sound.

In short, analog engineers EXPECTING the recorded sound to be a little different from the input were used to shaping sound based both on the sound they wanted AND the limitations of analog media, limitations that simply did not exist in digital. Unfortunately, as this was a mistake often made even by respected engineers, authorities in their field, some people mistakenly started to believe that this shrill sound was just the way digital sounded. In the end, even new engineers coming into the field tended to imitate this sound, honestly believing this is "that digital sound." Further adding to the confusion, analog recordings transcribed to digital often sounded better than recordings made in digital from scratch. This wasn't because of some inherent superiority of analog media but because the analog recordings were made by engineers who knew exactly how to get the most out of the medium; digital recordings made by the same engineers, in turn, didn't sound as good because of their LACK of experience with the NEW medium.

The worst example I heard of this phenomenon was Chris de Burgh's 1984 album Man on the Line which was the first album de Burgh recorded entirely with digital techniques. It sounds much brighter than any of his other albums before or since, analog or digital. I mean it's not distorted or anything; the sound is nice and clean but I almost feel like I'm listening to a record without RIAA equalization it's that bright at times. I've always thought of Man on the Line as Exhibit A of the mistakes made in early attempts to record entirely with digital media but still using analog techniques out of force of habit.

Digital sound is NOT bright and brittle by nature. Digital sound is, and always has been, fully capable of producing sound just as full and rich as any analog source, only with less noise and virtually no distortion at all.

The key to good digital sound is to always bear in mind that the medium will always replicate the frequency content of the sound you created EXACTLY. There's no need to think ahead to how the recording medium will color the sound; it doesn't. The sound you create in the studio will be EXACTLY the sound that will go on the recording.

Not saying you're wrong; just saying I think this is more a matter of taste, and I had very specific reasons for doing that particular part the way I did. Wink

(13-01-2014, 08:52 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: The drums sound distant which I think is good for this song but maybe they could be a little louder.

There I think you might have a point. In my early mixing attempts drums were my Achilles Heel/Arch Nemesis; I always had trouble balancing them.

(13-01-2014, 08:52 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: The bvox have space and I think the lead voc could have a little bit more without losing the n:o 1 place in the mix. In chorus I think you need to adjust the lead voc s-limiter a bit. (if any?)

No; I didn't use any.

(13-01-2014, 08:52 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: That build up before the guitar solo could be bigger and the solo also and have more similar sound to other guitar tracks. Maybe try to think it as a new intro. Growing from small to this epic guitar solo. And yes I didn't do that in my mix, but I think it would fit to your mix.

Hm. I wish I still had this mix project. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea I wish I could try out. Sad
John A. Ardelli
Pedaling Prince Pictures
http://www.youtube.com/user/PedalingPrince
Reply
#4
Okey...

How did a feedback of the bass sound turn into a lecture of analog vs digital? Big Grin
I don't think the bass sound brittle or sharp or gaining or losing something because of the format.
This could be more related to that lead voc s-limiting and you could say that it sound sharp.

If you are after a natural sound and limit your working / mixing because less is more then I think you should have recorded the tracks in the first place.
Like that vocal s-limiting. Have you ever listened anybody singing two inch from your ear? What that microphone capture isn't natural in the first place at all.
What if the lead voc track would have been edited already with a s-limiter? Would you miss those sibilances? Would you try to bring the s back with some transient plugin?
Same thing with any instrument. Have you ever listened a snare drum in the same place where you would put your microphone?
If the recording in the first place is unnatural it doesn't become natural with using as little processing as possible.

Maybe you can mix this again? I think the feedback and your mix evolving is the best part of this forum. Could be also interest to see how close or how far you would come from your first mix. Cool

Not saying you're wrong, just saying that I think a different point of view is something we all can learn from. Angel
Practice your analytic listening skills.
Listen others mixes and give feedback.
Become a better mixer.
Reply
#5
The balance is ok.

But the mix lacks energy, vibe and movement.

I dont think its a good idea mixing with a technical preconception. I think its better to mix trying to enhance the vibe and emotions the song makes you feel.
Please comment on others mixes, this site is all about feedback.
Reply
#6
(14-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: How did a feedback of the bass sound turn into a lecture of analog vs digital? Big Grin

Sorry; maybe got a little carried away. I've been expecting someone to tell me I was using too much bass and, given how much I love the sound, I may have jumped on that a little hard... Blush

(14-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: If you are after a natural sound and limit your working / mixing because less is more then I think you should have recorded the tracks in the first place.
Like that vocal s-limiting. Have you ever listened anybody singing two inch from your ear? What that microphone capture isn't natural in the first place at all.

Which is why I don't say I use NO processing; I use MINIMUM POSSIBLE processing. In other words, I recognize that a dry recording of vocals in a studio doesn't sound natural so it WILL need at least a subtle reverb to bring out a sense of presence, and GENTLE compression helps carry it in the mix as well. Wink

(14-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: What if the lead voc track would have been edited already with a s-limiter? Would you miss those sibilances? Would you try to bring the s back with some transient plugin?

Actually, sibilance is one of those places where gentle processing is sometimes required. In my mixes I have both tamed and boosted sibilance with EQ when necessary (more often tamed than boosted). However, I have found that vocals recorded with good quality mics tend not to have any significant problems in this area unless the artist themselves has some peculiarity in the quality of their sibilants that doesn't translate well to recording. Of course, therein lies the rub; not every vocal you get is necessarily recorded with studio quality mics. Heck, the tribute version of "Who I Am" that I sung I used the mic built into this iMac (it's a impressive mic for a built-in, hardly a $1000.00 condenser but it's surprisingly serviceable Wink). So if I hear a problem I will, of course, deal with.

Speak Softly's vocals, for example (they have three songs on the site). The vocalist was WAY too close to the mic; proximity effect rendered her voice muddy and lifeless. She was one of the rare exceptions I had to use SIGNIFICANT EQ to balance the tone of her vocals. I still tried not to push it any further than I had to but I had to make a pretty deep cut in the low midrange, as I recall.

Oh, that reminds me. Regarding what you said earlier? If the singer IS 2" from the mic they're probably too close; might want to put a pop screen in front of them to encourage them to back up a notch or three... Wink

(14-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: Same thing with any instrument. Have you ever listened a snare drum in the same place where you would put your microphone?

Not the exact same location but the same distance, yes. No, I'm not talking about the close snare mic; I'm talking about the OVERHEADS. It is the OVERHEADS, NOT the close mics, that carry most of the overall sound of the drum kit, and THEY are generally set up at a much more natural distance from the drums. Those close mics are only meant as ENHANCEMENT, to allow you to push forward the loudness of a particular drum in the kit that you might want to feature a little more prominently than it appeared in the overheads. When COMBINED with the overheads (and, in some cases, room mics as well) all the signals WORKING TOGETHER are what create that natural drum sound.

The best examples of this in action on this site are any drums recorded in Telefunken mic demos; those drum recordings were consistently marvelous to work with, sometimes even with CHOICES of close, overhead and room mics to choose from to suit your taste. Wink

(14-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: If the recording in the first place is unnatural it doesn't become natural with using as little processing as possible.

Actually, if you place your microphones right, and your mics are of sufficient quality, they can, in fact, sound remarkably natural, particularly when combined as a whole. Again, the Telefunken mic demos are generally the best demonstration of this principle in action. Wink

(14-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Moonwrist Wrote: Maybe you can mix this again? I think the feedback and your mix evolving is the best part of this forum.

Actually, so do I, which is why I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I had to discard most of the mix projects that produced these mixes because of limited storage space. Sad Truth be told, the reason I was doing these mixes originally was to put together a CD of unique music which I mixed myself to give it my personal touch; the CD was intended to give to my loved ones at Christmas. It was only later that I decided to post some of my mixes here.

However, when I'm working shorter working hours (right now I'm on a 48 hour work week) I wouldn't be totally opposed to taking another crack at it from scratch... Wink

Regardless, though, I still appreciate feedback. Even if I can't implement it in these mixes I can keep the tips in mind for the next mixes I do. And for the next mixes I'm going to keep the mix project and do just that. Wink
John A. Ardelli
Pedaling Prince Pictures
http://www.youtube.com/user/PedalingPrince
Reply