03-05-2014, 11:28 PM
I agree with Pauli completely here. However, I personally don't think the bass is that bad; it did need some compression I'll admit but a single compressor, with perhaps a little more aggressive settings than I usually use, was sufficient. Check out my mix. Like the sound? My compression settings on it were threshold, -23 dB, ratio 20:1, attack 10 ms, makeup gain 4 dB. EQ settings, 1 dB boost at 80 Hz, -5 dB cut at 8300 Hz. I also used an amp simulator to simulate the warm distortion of a 70s bass amp. ![Wink Wink](https://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Your last mix, Voelund's "Comfort Lives in Belief," exhibited the same problem as this one: almost no bass presence at all. That's why your mixes tend to come out "thin," I think. You definitely have a gift for creating an involving and interesting stereo image, though; once again I love the panning you did on the guitars here and you got the congas sounding pretty wizard.
However, even though you don't like the sound of it much, I think you have to kick up that bass quite a bit to get that weight back, and I'd give a good solid boost around 80 Hz, and maybe a bit of a cut around 400 Hz, to the kick drum as well; the raw recording was a little thin.
![Wink Wink](https://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Your last mix, Voelund's "Comfort Lives in Belief," exhibited the same problem as this one: almost no bass presence at all. That's why your mixes tend to come out "thin," I think. You definitely have a gift for creating an involving and interesting stereo image, though; once again I love the panning you did on the guitars here and you got the congas sounding pretty wizard.
![Smile Smile](https://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)