Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Audio-Technica Demo: 'Loud And Clear'
#11
I don't go out of my way to push my master volume. I do use automation .
i challenge you to produce a mix to -14LUFS integrated...i bet you can't? lol
Reply
#12
Most of my mixes are hotter than -14LUFS and I'm pretty gentle with compression, even on the individual tracks. I don't know if I'd be able to do that without almost entirely substituting automation for compressors.

At any rate, I know a ton of people who prefer really hot mixes... And this mix is exciting for sure, but I almost feel like I need a break when it's over.

Truly though, I like the tones and balance more than enough to forgive a too hot mix. There's an analog warmth to the horns that really seals it.
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!
Reply
#13
New mix I've been working on,just for interest I have posted a no vox version then I will post with vox

How long will it take for a noob to steel it lol


.mp3    mix without vox.mp3 --  (Download: 10.09 MB)


Reply
#14
With vox


.mp3    with vox.mp3 --  (Download: 10.44 MB)


Reply
#15
(22-10-2014, 10:07 PM)takka360 Wrote: I don't go out of my way to push my master volume. I do use automation .
i challenge you to produce a mix to -14LUFS integrated...i bet you can't? lol

hahahhaha! you're on! i'm working Preach Right Here at the moment (it's a bit of a long one for me...). so far it's running typically @-14LUFS on the stereo buss, but i think i'm losing it towards the end if memory serves me...to -12LUFS? i can address this Big Grin

the following refers to V1 mix...i see you've just posted up some more stuff meanwhile...............

i did drop your mix in the DAW for a poke around, mainly for personal interest to be honest, and to see if the facts support my ears? interesting. the limiter is working hard, especially the first section and end sections. the loudness range is only around 1dBLRA or so for example, in the first part. the middle bit has some very longgggg spikes suggesting perhaps that a different compression strategy in the mix itself might offer some rewards. it's interesting that i thought originally you might perhaps have been using the master buss to work the balance? the wave suggests this. would it be possible you are leaning on the master processor more than you thought? it's feedback Alan, not criticism. as someone who masters for others, it's a bit of a fascination of mine (some people collect postage stamps). i really need to get out more, eh?

i'm afraid i don't agree with Pauli because i'm hearing the artifacts, the vocal in particular is being highly "compromised" and people are perhaps being taken in by the raised instruments and the psychoacoustics (the Loudness Sells thing). i think with less reliance on that processor and a more targeted strategy within the mix, it would rock for me. for sure there's some good stuff in here, but it's the bad stuff that's getting in my way? it kind of feels like you are including the mastering strategy as an extension of the mixing process, so rather than a polisher it's being asked to deal with the spillovers which weren't attended to in the mix. i know you have a reputation for putting out quick mixes, but cutting corners has its consequences - more haste, less speed sort of thing.

from what people say, this is a good quality multi, but i'm not hearing this in your mix, and i say this with the utmost respect.

overall, the integrated LUFS (the program material's average, in other words) was -7.2, short term had moments at -5.2 which is really stressful. to get this into some sort of perspective, for the benefits of the wider audience who aren't aufait with modern specs for loudness (EBU R128 refers if some chaps would like to know more), radio play would be -12LUFS. a typical pop-mix would be expected to come in around -14LUFS and something like a classical mix -20LUFS.
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply
#16
(23-10-2014, 11:14 AM)takka360 Wrote: New mix I've been working on,just for interest I have posted a no vox version then I will post with vox

How long will it take for a noob to steel it lol

it's already on my machine Smile <joking>

a quick listen...2 key points: the violin loses it on occasion, and i'd recommend you find some space for the acoustic guitars lower down somehow, they have far too much treble for comfort.

i'm looking forward to mixing this!

gotta go! i'll try and pop back later

Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply
#17
*sigh*

Listening to this mix just convinced me that I was about to stop too short on my vocals. I hate it when I get extra work like that.. Sad

So, yeah, this one just about nailed it. Now I'm gonna have to see if I can do as good a job!
Old West Audio
Reply
#18
Cheers for feedback azwayne
Reply
#19
This is based on the last full mix you posted... I haven't checked it against the original, these are just thoughts with fresh ears.

Obviously the compression of the full mix has been discussed at length, so I won't contribute to that any further. One thing on master compression I wanted to mention is that you've kept the low end really clean, considering. Usually on a hot mix I hear a lot of junky distortion in the low end, but it sounds nice and controlled. The bass guitar in particular is very nicely balanced, I've had many difficulties with it. Did you blend the mics?

One overall tonality issue I'm having is that it seems to be really biased toward the high mid frequencies... since this is a loud mix, my opinion is that some taming in this region should be addressed. It's the vocal that's bothering me, it gets pretty harsh during the choruses. I'm not sure if you flattered that region a bit in mastering, I do that sometimes, or if that's something that could be addressed in the mix itself. It should be noted however that I frequently undercook the high mids on rock mixes, because my monitoring seems to exaggerated it quite a bit. A quick spectral analysis of my mix shows there's significant lumpiness around 300/400 that's being obscured by my speakers bias toward 2000-3000, so my listening situation is almost certainly contributing to my perceptions there. One thing I like for smoothing out the high mids is an analog style distortion of some sort... usually saturation, but sometimes transister or tube distortion works, too. Seems to thicken it up, making it less needling less of a challenge to EQ without losing important bits.

You're probably automating the piano buss quite a bit, huh? Never pokey outey, but the counter-melodic fills come out very nicely... really cool, man. Is the content surrounding 500 hZ clashing with the guitar stuff going on there? I agree that cuts are needed in that range on the guitars, but that's also where the meaty body of the tone is, whereas that piano is a little wobbly around there... buildup in that range is tricky (always) but particularly on this song, where so many instruments have important content in that range. This could be taste, but I feel there's a bit too much of the distantly placed piano mic, and it's making the pianos position in the depth field less convincing. I wonder if aligning the two tracks and experimenting with the phase could tighten up the ambiance and make tonal shaping a little more productive?

In all though, much of this mix I really like. Did you relax the dynamic control a teeny bit on the individual track inserts? I'm not sure why this is, but I feel like the individual instrument levels feel a little looser and more natural, although the vocal still seems to be feeding into a compressor a bit overmuch. That's a challenge in this song, though, the vocal dynamics are pretty wide given the density of the mix in the midrange. Good work!

I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!
Reply
#20
It sounds ok on every other speakers I have listened to so maybe as you say it could be your monitors.There is many ways to make this mix sound so I just go with what I think at the time.
Reply