late arrival... my mix

[pmilani]

wow this was hard... not 100% satisfied but hey I just spent too much time and can't focus anymore
any feedback welcome

http://soundcloud.com/pmilani/zeno-signs

[Obelix]

Yes this was one of the hardest songs to mix. Bring the level of vocals up and gtrs down in chorus and it will sound like a million dollar record. How did you get toms to sound that good ?

[pmilani]

Thanks Obelix, that's valid feedback

[Andreas Tyranopoulos]

Great mix!! I like very much your effects!! Maybe the low end is very loud and makes the mix a little boomy.

[jeffd42]

A great mix. I would echo the comment about the Chorus Vox coming up slightly but, overall, this mix definitely ticks the "commercially competitive" box. Very polished.

[The_Metallurgist]

with the greatest of respect, soundcloud streams at 128kbs.

for those who have no idea about audio quality, i recommend this as your first port of call:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/ar...lation.htm

nobody worth their salt, can make a "meaningful" observation on a mix presented in 128kbps mp3 when 90 percent of the original material has been removed, right? so what's going on here?

as far as i am concerned, and this is my personal view FWIW....anyone who posts up to soundcloud and is happy for audio to be streamed at 128kbps doesn't understand audio....and if they don't understand audio, their ability to mix is going to be heavily compromised. it also goes the other way too......nobody can assess a mix properly if all they are hearing is 10 percent of the original material. the article will reveal the limitations of the exercise.

if you listen to mp3, you will mix to mp3 standards because it will form your Terms of Reference i.e. your brain's conditioning, training and long term development, to put it basically.

as a note to the thread starter, can i ask that you post 320kbps files and upload them to this site then we have a better chance in making a more appropriate assessment of your mix?

thanks in advance

[jeffd42]

pmilani: On Soundcloud, were you intending to enable downloads (they happily take 96/16 .WAV sources)?

As noted by the The_Metallurgist, 128k streaming isn't a great option ... although the codecs have improved and I would note that many (most?) people are listening at that resolution on Spotify, Pandora etc. For that reason, I feel it's worth encoding to 128kbit MP3 and listening to see how the mix translates. (I often have to go back and "tweak" the high end or composer settings when the encoder screws it up.)

[The_Metallurgist]

pmilani: On Soundcloud, were you intending to enable downloads (they happily take 96/16 .WAV sources)?

As noted by the The_Metallurgist, 128k streaming isn't a great option ... although the codecs have improved and I would note that many (most?) people are listening at that resolution on Spotify, Pandora etc. For that reason, I feel it's worth encoding to 128kbit MP3 and listening to see how the mix translates. (I often have to go back and "tweak" the high end or composer settings when the encoder screws it up.)

Spotify et al, can stream at 320kbps.

but this forum isn't a streaming service to act as background sound for people needing "noise" in their heads while they embrace the day. it's a "facility" where people should be trying to develop their CRITICAL LISTENING SKILLS (not shouting), so they can begin to "hear" and better assess the quality of their own work without having someone in a forum do it for them. 128kbps is counterproductive in that scenario. and if an individual can't tell the difference yet because their ears/brain aren't skilled enough today to be able to do so, then still post up 320kbps [in the forum] for those who's ears can indeed tell the difference. please?

otherwise, what's it all about, Alfie? indeed, why even bother working with 24bit files in your DAW? actually, to be honest, why bother even trying to mix in the first place?

i think this principle is important. an understanding and appreciation of good audio can't be built on crap. though i have to say, there's nothing too special about 320kbps, nor 16bit PCM for that matter, but it's waaaaayyyyy better than 128kbps. it's all relative, hey.

anyway, catch ya'll laters,,,,at 320kbps
cheers

[jeffd42]

Nah ... I'm just waiting till Slate Digital ca. 2025 issues the "Authentic MP3 Encoder Vintage 1995" collection. For that special sound of the 90s that those pristine 36 bit converters just don't get you to

(I do agree more bits is better ... but I'd still say a 128kbit MP3 beats cassette most days, and that's the crowd it's aimed at. IMHO: mixing/mastering to get decent playback on "bitrate compromised" systems is as important as using a grot box or laptop speakers to see how a mix translates)

[pmilani]

Hey guys thanks everyone so much for listening and taking the time to give some feedback.
I had to let it go for a while because this session is driving me insane.. it's so hard to get a good mix, I guess that's why it ended in SOS Mix Rescue
Anyway I worked an entire day on cleaning it up and review some mixing choices, the new version is way cleaner and has a better energy IMO.
Please check it out!!

I ENABLED DOWNLOADS for the folks like @The_Metallurgist that are bothered by the 128kbit encoding (not without reason I have to say) even if in this mix I found it impossible to get good clarity and definition on cymbals and hihat.

https://soundcloud.com/pmilani/zeno-signs