I listened to something here some days ago and thought "hm, I may like the first version better", but then I forgot which song it was. Now I rediscovered it, it's this one :-)
I did an A/B comparison on my monitors now, and it's true: I like the first version better. Its general idea about the role of the guitars, to be precise. I see the first guitar as the 'second voice' in this song. While overly edgy and vocal-drowning in the first version, it lost too much prominence and abrasiveness in the second for my taste.
What I would try is to eq the bottom out of the vocals (as Mike suggested) and then eq a hole in the guitars for the remaining key frequencies of the vocals. I would try to do that to the extent necessary for the vocals to cut through, but not more, both in terms of level and envelope (think automation or multiband-ducking, if there is such a thing). I would expect this to allow bringing up the guitars again and still coexist peacefully with the vocals. But it's just a theory.
In terms of "personal taste and established standard", I am clearly advocating "personal taste" here... then again, is there such a thing as an "established standard"?
Oh, by the way, Artbass, would you mind to elaborate a bit about the idea of "mixing with low volumes"? What exactly does that mean, what is it supposed to achieve, and how?
(30-06-2012, 02:12 AM)ThePhonk Wrote: I did an A/B comparison on my monitors now, and it's true: I like the first version better. Its general idea about the role of the guitars, to be precise. I see the first guitar as the 'second voice' in this song. While overly edgy and vocal-drowning in the first version, it lost too much prominence and abrasiveness in the second for my taste.
I can see where you're coming from here -- there's a kind of punk aesthetic that got lost somehow in version two. The second version ticks more mainstream boxes.
Quote:In terms of "personal taste and established standard", I am clearly advocating "personal taste" here... then again, is there such a thing as an "established standard"?
Certainly not, which is one of the reasons I found that first version interesting on an artistic level -- there was the seed of an alternative vision there that was intriguing, even if the practical ramifications of it didn't seem to work that successfully. This is one of the main reasons I wanted to set up this site, so that I could hear more new approaches -- it's very easy to get stuck in a rut if you don't stay open to new ideas.
(30-06-2012, 02:12 AM)ThePhonk Wrote: Oh, by the way, Artbass, would you mind to elaborate a bit about the idea of "mixing with low volumes"? What exactly does that mean, what is it supposed to achieve, and how?
It has a lot to do with gain staging - which is quite a common concept but you have to remind yourself to keep checking (at least when it comes to me). I try to keep the gain of the individual channels low so that the masterbus sees peaks at around -12dbfs.
This seems to have two different effects: The first is that you hit individual processors with lower levels which may or may not effect the sound after processing. The second - and this is what is the more important effect to me - is more a psychological effect. In order to achieve these low levels on the masterbus you have to turn the outputs of the processors down. This seems to result in less and more controlled processing (when it comes to me) as you reduce the louder-is-better-problem and actually listen to the processing.
That friend of mine also claimed that such low levels would have benefits during mastering - but as I only mastered in the sense of increasing the level and adding a touch of compression (1-2 db of gain reduction maximum) I can not say anything about it.
(02-07-2012, 08:04 AM)Artbass Wrote: [...] The second - and this is what is the more important effect to me - is more a psychological effect. In order to achieve these low levels on the masterbus you have to turn the outputs of the processors down. This seems to result in less and more controlled processing (when it comes to me) as you reduce the louder-is-better-problem and actually listen to the processing. [...]
thanks for explaining this. I think the psychological component is indeed the most interesting aspect of this approach. For mixing, anyway.
I think I understand that the goal is to use processing as sparingly / effectively / deliberately as possible. Also it seems to me that strictly limiting bus levels is supposed to enforce the necessary discipline.
A couple of things still puzzle me. First and foremost, an increase in processing intensity does not automatically cause an increase in level. For example, low-cutting a track tends to reduce level rather than increase it. Even compression does not increase level per se. Therefore, limiting levels does not always force one to "turn down" anything, let alone keep one from overdoing the processing. Or am I missing the point...?
Do you remember any practical example of how this rule has affected your mixing decisions, like which processor you did or didn't use in which configuration (insert / send) on which instrument, or how you dialed it back in order to keep levels low? Or, asked differently, how do you believe would your mixes have sounded differently had you not applied this rule?
(02-07-2012, 08:44 PM)ThePhonk Wrote: A couple of things still puzzle me. First and foremost, an increase in processing intensity does not automatically cause an increase in level. For example, low-cutting a track tends to reduce level rather than increase it. Even compression does not increase level per se. Therefore, limiting levels does not always force one to "turn down" anything, let alone keep one from overdoing the processing. Or am I missing the point...?
Do you remember any practical example of how this rule has affected your mixing decisions, like which processor you did or didn't use in which configuration (insert / send) on which instrument, or how you dialed it back in order to keep levels low? Or, asked differently, how do you believe would your mixes have sounded differently had you not applied this rule?
Marc
A lot of processors do indeed reduce levels. Maybe even most of them, if you don't turn them up. The problem is that I (and I only can speek of myself when it comes to that) tend to reach for a processor to give the source I am processing a better audibility within the mix. Reducing the level during processing results in less audibility which in turn results in me turning up the channel or processor. The best example that comes to my mind is a kick. I always struggle to bring it upfront where I think it should be. Usually I EQ it (cutting the mids) and after that the nightmare begins. I tend to turn it up by compressing life out of it and adding gain.
Setting myself a (quite low) limit for peaks now changes this behaviour. In order to bring the kick to the front I have to work differently. Instead of compressing it to death (with an "I can't hear it, turn it up!"-mentality) I have to work on the other tracks.
Now that may not seem like big news. I've read about that more than once but adding this to the way you work sometimes needs a little detour. So maybe I was not quite right when I said that it has to do with processing directly. But thank you for asking. Reflecting what you are doing is not really straight forward sometimes
Anyway, due to renovations in the flat next door I have to wait until I can work again. They drilled twice through the wall until now...
(03-07-2012, 09:32 AM)Artbass Wrote: [...] Reflecting what you are doing is not really straight forward sometimes [...]
Oh, yes, indeed!
I understand now that the core idea is to make sounds heard not by turning them up, but by shaping their voice so that they complement their neighboring voices, all yielding the right amount of sonic space to each other, and when all give a little, all win big... something like that, right?
If so, however, I am still puzzled by the idea that this leads to less processing, or that it is easier to implement with a quieter master bus. On the contrary, I would assume that a 'hard limit' on the bus at 0 dB (if you let that scare you) is more effective than a self-imposed (and easily renegotiable) -12 dB limit.
What I can imagine, though, is that the very artificiality of the -12 dB serves as a constant reminder of your resolve to keep levels from creeping up. But so would a clothespin clipped to your nose, or any other thing that you would normally consider a tad bit artificial. Whatever works, of course.
I recently stumbled over this: http://www.pensadosplace.tv/2012/06/14/i...#more-1052. I often feel as confused as he appears to be in some moments, yet I surely don't do what he is... erm... hearing. But I think he conveys quite clearly that a voice's effect / contribution / interaction in context is what counts, and not so much its separation.
It seems to me that that perspective could also help to keep levels in check. What do you think?
(04-07-2012, 11:57 PM)ThePhonk Wrote: I understand now that the core idea is to make sounds heard not by turning them up, but by shaping their voice so that they complement their neighboring voices, all yielding the right amount of sonic space to each other, and when all give a little, all win big... something like that, right?
Yes, sir!
Quote:If so, however, I am still puzzled by the idea that this leads to less processing, or that it is easier to implement with a quieter master bus. On the contrary, I would assume that a 'hard limit' on the bus at 0 dB (if you let that scare you) is more effective than a self-imposed (and easily renegotiable) -12 dB limit.
What I can imagine, though, is that the very artificiality of the -12 dB serves as a constant reminder of your resolve to keep levels from creeping up. But so would a clothespin clipped to your nose, or any other thing that you would normally consider a tad bit artificial. Whatever works, of course.
I guess you are right with that last sentence. Anyway, when trying to bring something up in a dense mix results in overprocessing (using compression and compression and compression...) your (read "my") sounds start to get a bit flat and fatigueing. I think we can agree on that. What that limit on the master bus does is quite simple: Instead of making tracks louder (using processing) turning other tracks down or using EQ to unmask the track in question results effectively in less processing on that given track. So where I used a ton of compression I now use a tiny bit (if needed at all).
Now coming to speeding things up, as I mentioned that before. When you do not have to concentrate on finding processor settings that actually make your sound cut through and, as well, don't have to do that on several tracks, I reach settings that I feel comfortable with much quicker. As the chapters in Mike's book is entitled: Compressing/Equalizing for a reason.
Quote:I recently stumbled over this: http://www.pensadosplace.tv/2012/06/14/i...#more-1052. I often feel as confused as he appears to be in some moments, yet I surely don't do what he is... erm... hearing. But I think he conveys quite clearly that a voice's effect / contribution / interaction in context is what counts, and not so much its separation.
It seems to me that that perspective could also help to keep levels in check. What do you think?
Marc
Absolutely. Now the problem is only learning to hear what works and not what you think what you should hear as working...
By the way, is it just me or is Dave Pensado's pronunciation even to native speakers hard to understand?
It took me quite a while but I managed to finish another version. I had to almost start from scratch to get there. The thing I struggeled with was the sustain of the snare. What ever I tried I only acchieved to get it more and more spiky. This, however, ruined the ballance of the mix in a way that did not allow me to post it here .
Anyway, I tried to preserve a bit of that "punk aesthetic" while polishing the tracks. For my personal taste the rooms start to work now (another thing that took me a while to achieve).
I listened to something here some days ago and thought "hm, I may like the first version better", but then I forgot which song it was. Now I rediscovered it, it's this one :-)
I did an A/B comparison on my monitors now, and it's true: I like the first version better. Its general idea about the role of the guitars, to be precise.
I thought the same thing, but this one trumps the 2nd! haha
I'll be the first to congratulate you on this mix! The first thing I noticed was the snare sounded much better. It is a little more upfront, and has an overall better sound. Your guitars sound great to me now (on work computer speakers) with the right amount of low end. Personal preference might of had the vocals up a touch, but they abosolutely work....and I tend to run little hot. I love your vocal delay! I think it is a great mix! Can't wait to hear the next song man!
Anyway, when trying to bring something up in a dense mix results in overprocessing (using compression and compression and compression...) your (read "my") sounds start to get a bit flat and fatigueing. I think we can agree on that. What that limit on the master bus does is quite simple: Instead of making tracks louder (using processing) turning other tracks down or using EQ to unmask the track in question results effectively in less processing on that given track. So where I used a ton of compression I now use a tiny bit (if needed at all).
.