04-03-2016, 11:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2016, 06:32 PM by The_Metallurgist.)
Update 12-03-16:
mix is up...posted below herewith:
http://www.discussion.cambridge-mt.com/s...9#pid44129
------------------------------------------
update 10-03-16:
Please note: the mp3 below ISN'T MIXED, but is simply a rough cut down version in readiness for mixing. It appears some participants of my thread didn't get to the last sentence in green which states this. i should have said it at the beginning of the post, not the end....not everyone has the stamina to read all this waffle and i can't say i blame them! lol
i do apologise for not making this clearer. sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
i have finished mixing it....will post it up shortly when i remember to pull it off the DAW. looking forward to hearing other folks mix visions and interpretations of this song, will give some feedback shortly.
---------------------------------------------------
The one and only time I listened to this song all the way through it's full 7 minutes and 30 seconds was during the first preview. I honestly struggled with this. I think one aspect was the emotional duration and intensity...it kind of left me feeling a little exhausted from the journey's length.
However, I felt quite strongly that the song could benefit from a revision of it's musical dynamic (not to be confused with compression dynamic, that's different). a shortened delivery would make it more compact, this would also benefit it's emotional element at least from my perspective. 7 and a half minutes just felt over-done and drawn out, but a shorter version could focus more beneficially on the musical dynamics so there's more ebb and flow in the arrangement, more movement, more vibe and transition but in a more agreeable time-space, thus helping to retain the listener's interest and involvement.
My impartiality lead me to a 3 minute 30 seconds target. I felt that all the singer's intentions could be done admirably in this time. The supporting instruments, namely the acoustic guitar and electric guitar (which, incidentally, were basically playing the same keys!) just about had enough musical diversification and contrast in the revised arrangement, to keep me engaged with the song from a listener's perspective.
However, while cutting out the superfluous is one thing, there are two major problems I experienced in the multitrack. The first is lack of dynamics at the micro level – the material has arrived over-compressed. Those who dismiss this would be wise to check the RMS first, if their ears are not yet sensitive enough to tell the difference blindfolded. I put the basic, revised mix, that is without any processing and with all faders at Udent, through the meters and got approximately -16LUFS Integrated Loudness. This leaves nowhere to go for the engineer in the mix or in the Master without having a detrimental impact on dynamics.
Furthermore, the tracking contains printed automation. Despite what it says in the Multitrack Download Library, many of the materials contain additional processing subsequent to being recorded and made available to us. Inexperienced mixers need to be aware of the implications of this in their mixes, because an instrument that is low one minute, then increases in loudness from automation, will hit our processors HARD ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SIGNAL CHAIN, from inserts, group busses and eventually the stereo buss. So, instead of the material being louder from automation, it will lose dynamic when that increase in amplitude hits your processors. The problem perhaps, is that many people don't know how to tell the difference between compressed material and dynamic otherwise there'd me more discussion in the forum generally. If we don't know what we are dealing with, how are we going to be able to mix it in the most appropriate and applicable way?
I think those who mix this without reference to the automation and compression, have missed an important element of the mixing process. For one thing, a higher RMS in a pre-compressed track will cause a compressor to react more vigorously than it otherwise would and clamp down even harder on what meagre dynamics already remained. Is this mixing? If mixes were loudness matched here in the forum, as in the iTunes SoundCheck situation, I think people's attitudes would be forced to change for the better because they'd understand the direct negative impact on audio quality with reduced dynamics. They'd also be hearing and comparing every mix they listened to on the same loudness level, which removes subjectivity and allows better comparisons between other mixes. Loudness affects people's judgement....and so long as a mix is loud and compressed, it will impress the noobs and many musicians who are none the wiser. In my opinion, this problem seriously hampers the educational value of the forum...it's so easy to find hyper compressed, clipping, distorted mixes receiving praise and credibility....this simply compounds the problem and encourages more of the same.
This shortened version would be my suggested template for a solution to the issues I personally experienced from the original 7minutes, 30 second presentation. It's not mixed yet, but is ready for the process.
My reference in particular was:
"Sweet Anticipation, Music and the psychology of expectation" by David Huron....
and especially....
Ch. 5, "The music producers handbook", by Bobby Owsinski
mix is up...posted below herewith:
http://www.discussion.cambridge-mt.com/s...9#pid44129
------------------------------------------
update 10-03-16:
Please note: the mp3 below ISN'T MIXED, but is simply a rough cut down version in readiness for mixing. It appears some participants of my thread didn't get to the last sentence in green which states this. i should have said it at the beginning of the post, not the end....not everyone has the stamina to read all this waffle and i can't say i blame them! lol
i do apologise for not making this clearer. sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
i have finished mixing it....will post it up shortly when i remember to pull it off the DAW. looking forward to hearing other folks mix visions and interpretations of this song, will give some feedback shortly.
---------------------------------------------------
The one and only time I listened to this song all the way through it's full 7 minutes and 30 seconds was during the first preview. I honestly struggled with this. I think one aspect was the emotional duration and intensity...it kind of left me feeling a little exhausted from the journey's length.
However, I felt quite strongly that the song could benefit from a revision of it's musical dynamic (not to be confused with compression dynamic, that's different). a shortened delivery would make it more compact, this would also benefit it's emotional element at least from my perspective. 7 and a half minutes just felt over-done and drawn out, but a shorter version could focus more beneficially on the musical dynamics so there's more ebb and flow in the arrangement, more movement, more vibe and transition but in a more agreeable time-space, thus helping to retain the listener's interest and involvement.
My impartiality lead me to a 3 minute 30 seconds target. I felt that all the singer's intentions could be done admirably in this time. The supporting instruments, namely the acoustic guitar and electric guitar (which, incidentally, were basically playing the same keys!) just about had enough musical diversification and contrast in the revised arrangement, to keep me engaged with the song from a listener's perspective.
However, while cutting out the superfluous is one thing, there are two major problems I experienced in the multitrack. The first is lack of dynamics at the micro level – the material has arrived over-compressed. Those who dismiss this would be wise to check the RMS first, if their ears are not yet sensitive enough to tell the difference blindfolded. I put the basic, revised mix, that is without any processing and with all faders at Udent, through the meters and got approximately -16LUFS Integrated Loudness. This leaves nowhere to go for the engineer in the mix or in the Master without having a detrimental impact on dynamics.
Furthermore, the tracking contains printed automation. Despite what it says in the Multitrack Download Library, many of the materials contain additional processing subsequent to being recorded and made available to us. Inexperienced mixers need to be aware of the implications of this in their mixes, because an instrument that is low one minute, then increases in loudness from automation, will hit our processors HARD ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE SIGNAL CHAIN, from inserts, group busses and eventually the stereo buss. So, instead of the material being louder from automation, it will lose dynamic when that increase in amplitude hits your processors. The problem perhaps, is that many people don't know how to tell the difference between compressed material and dynamic otherwise there'd me more discussion in the forum generally. If we don't know what we are dealing with, how are we going to be able to mix it in the most appropriate and applicable way?
I think those who mix this without reference to the automation and compression, have missed an important element of the mixing process. For one thing, a higher RMS in a pre-compressed track will cause a compressor to react more vigorously than it otherwise would and clamp down even harder on what meagre dynamics already remained. Is this mixing? If mixes were loudness matched here in the forum, as in the iTunes SoundCheck situation, I think people's attitudes would be forced to change for the better because they'd understand the direct negative impact on audio quality with reduced dynamics. They'd also be hearing and comparing every mix they listened to on the same loudness level, which removes subjectivity and allows better comparisons between other mixes. Loudness affects people's judgement....and so long as a mix is loud and compressed, it will impress the noobs and many musicians who are none the wiser. In my opinion, this problem seriously hampers the educational value of the forum...it's so easy to find hyper compressed, clipping, distorted mixes receiving praise and credibility....this simply compounds the problem and encourages more of the same.
This shortened version would be my suggested template for a solution to the issues I personally experienced from the original 7minutes, 30 second presentation. It's not mixed yet, but is ready for the process.
My reference in particular was:
"Sweet Anticipation, Music and the psychology of expectation" by David Huron....
and especially....
Ch. 5, "The music producers handbook", by Bobby Owsinski
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
