Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Quicksand with Mixbus 32C
#11
I listened the last version. Sounds great to me. Excellent work.

Transition from centered guitar to double guitar (0:45) works fine to me.

Only very minor thing I’m thinking is the level of drums. For example around 1:00 when everybody is playing, I wonder if the band would roll a bit more smoothly and better bleneded if drums were not that loud. Now I have small feeling that every snare hit is a small street bumb that makes me lean onwards. It could be just a little longer tail that might cure that feeling.

Is there too hungry compressor with snare? Or problem with replacing velocity settings. Listen for example when the solo starts the hit at 1:37 gets eaten. Snare comes in very nicely around 0:34 but then that one hit sounds like a mistake in playing. There’s similar inconsistencies of snare hits also in other places
Reply
#12
I'd say it was a compressor setting. I didn't replace any of the drums. The "last version" is actually the first version, I just stripped everything off of my master channel during my conversion to mp3.

I might try and touch up the parallel compression channel, and hit it a little harder and faster to see if I can pull a little resonance out of the snare.

Thanks for the kind words Olli!

Draper
Reply
#13
Drums automation? Drums need volume correction in some places. Really really nice mix! Smile
Reply
#14
the spectral balance is a big issue in headphones, causing ear fatigue; the discrepancy between gtr1 and the other guitars is the problem which needs addressing from 0:45 IMHO Wink

the contrast between gtr1 and the bass guitar between 0:27 and 0:45 needs to be more refined because they merge into one otherwise. i appreciate that it doesn't help by the arrangement having both guitars duplicating each other though but they can still be separated, even with the illusion of the lead standing in front of the bass player before he jumps over to the left channel. i think if you can find a way of placing the lead guitar somewhere on the left without inducing fatigue in those first 20 odd seconds, i'd do it. it sticks out oddly otherwise...but you do win with making a bigger and open stereo contrast when the song kicks in, however it's at the expense of 'reality'. i think a more interesting vision would be to get the guitar off centre in the sound stage and making a bigger hit at 0:45, but you'd need to get this fatigue thing sorted.

if this is the mix...without any master buss processing, in other words, what would be presented for mastering, then it's too hot. you've peak normalised it to 0dB (which by definition suggests concern for loudness maximisation?). a pre-master needs about -6dB of headroom, at a minimum. furthermore, the Peak Loudness to Maximum Momentary Loudness ratio suggests over-compression at 4.4, resulting in a large dynamic reduction [for the sake of loudness]. I'm not suggesting you've done this intentionally to win favour, but if your concern for the music outweighs concern for loudness, then i'd back the compressors right back and let the song breathe, or better still, ask yourself what you are gaining by deploying them...in terms of enhancing the music per se, and where. try not to get caught by the loudness fascination thing, dude, i know it's easily done - i still struggle even now!

.....and to fix this mix you need to be fully aware of the traps which lie in wait in the multitrack....it's been processed already, and this processing was done post tracking. we need to be clear of the issues and consequences before even touching a fader.

the mix is also clipping on the true peak meter by +1.0, which results in distortion over a DAC, in addition to the additional distortion added by the extra compression above what has been done already in the source.

if you present a mix which focuses on dynamics, and deals with the fatigue problem, then i could better judge the merits of the other things you've done in your mix. but without this, it's difficult because of how your processing impinges on everything else when critical listening.

during the intro section, the first 30 seconds, are you intending the ambiance to be the same as for the song, or are you wishing to place them in a different space/room? "...but does it really maaaaater", pun intended. i'd be interested in your decision and your methodology, time permitting, because i spent some time pondering that in my own jobbie; my conclusion was ruthless!

laters,,,
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply
#15
Mixbus 32C automatically normalizes the audio on bounce. I will see if I can turn this off. I try and keep my mix levels on the lower end. I'll try to make a new bounce without the normalization.

I'll also jump in and take a listen to the guitar tracks. I was keeping to a pretty basic LCR mix as I stated earlier. I think I need to get used to the panning laws that Harrison uses.

The beginning was its own entity in my head. Wasn't going for any real connection to the meat of the song. I actually liked the contrast of changing the spacial signature from the into to the tune.

Thanks Big D!
Draper
Reply
#16
i took a look at my project with the meters running to see what the loudness was, i.e. without compression. it's hot already and a lot more than i thought. looking at your last file post, you did well with what you got, congrats on retaining the dynamics they left us with. take that as an apology Wink

irrespective of the pan law, you would have found yourself compensating during mixing, e.g. if the L and R pans were out of kilter with the C material, you'd have tweaked. what you need to try and do perhaps, is retain the same RMS value between the two channels as close as possible, it will help avoid fatigue...and bringing the gtrs in will help, coupled with Haas. the problem with LCR is that in mono, the L and R channels drop in level from the downmix so it's best not to put any key instrument to an extreme for this reason because it will lose focus. pan law would have no impact on this effect from the audiences perspective by the way, just in case you might have wondered.

i like the contrast too Big Grin Thanks for sharing your vision.

laters,,, Big Grin
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply
#17
Here is a bit of a retouch on this. Tried to tame the highs a bit and get more body out of the snare. Light retouch on the busses, but as I take all of my individual tracks out of the master track, it kind of amounts to a full re-leveling.

Hope you guys like it.

Draper


.mp3    quiksand retouch.mp3 --  (Download: 6.12 MB)


Reply
#18
you need to de-ess or tame the reverb top end of the vocals. it's strident.
Reply
#19
(13-08-2016, 01:19 AM)Aresfin Wrote: you need to de-ess or tame the reverb top end of the vocals. it's strident.

Yeah, listening to it, there is too much hi energy in the verb. I thought I had the low pass filter set fairly low. Will get back to it.

Thanks

Draper
Reply