Thanks again for all of the tracks that you supply us with!
The first few days I mixed purely on my headphones. I am house sitting for my boss, and I didn't have my monitors with me. I grabbed them the other day, and I spent a few hours a day just kind of playing the track from top to bottom, sometimes mixing, sometimes just listening to get some inspiration.
I think I did well with the tracks supplied, and I did not use the trigger tracks for any replacement. All drums are supplied files.
Didn't go crazy with automation, but I definitely had to automate the volume of the guitar tracks throughout the whole song, and had a bit of fun during the bridge section with some light pan automation.
(16-08-2016, 04:20 AM)loweche6 Wrote: did not use the trigger tracks for any replacement. All drums are supplied files.
the trigger tracks are perfect for gating/triggering their respective [grouped] instruments though; eg snare top and bottom mics, or anything else you might fancy during a creative frenzy
Quote:Didn't go crazy with automation, but I definitely had to automate the volume of the guitar tracks throughout the whole song
they've printed automation. so, if you don't undo this first it means one minute the material is hitting your insert chain gently during the attenuated sections, the next it's hitting it harder where the fader's been pushed up (and/or compressed harder, heaven forbid!). the solution is not to have printed automation in the first place. but given that it's here and in my experience often accompanies "most" multitracks in the Library, it's better to try and fix it first before mixing IMOFWIW.
yeah, you're right, it's a royal chore
unfortunately they don't have a good room for tracking, so we need to be especially wary of low-end excess (and combfiltering) while also recognising they've applied cuts and in so doing inappropriately skewed the frequency response i.e. we can't uncut it and take a different (and more appropriate?) approach. the vocal is an example; the room's size/ambiance/frequency response is captured by the mic which gets carried through to our own ideas of space, depth and room size in the performance - one room inside of another sounds odd by default. there's no effective solution to these ills, but shaping the frequency while taking into account what's already been going on in advance, can help to fight the consequences at least a little bit. i'd look at trying to defeat the low-mid imbalance because it's primarily the higher energy low frequency stuff which is delayed (the RT60, but it's not quite that simple) in the ambiance which we detect and get our spatial cues from; generally an audience will do so unconsciously. if you compress the vocal, you should hear the issues of the room...there's an echo in there which smears the vocal, affects it's timbre and contributes to losing her some clarity too.
i've had sleepless nights trying to shape this vocal....
16-08-2016, 05:29 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2016, 05:31 PM by wurstdrummer.)
(16-08-2016, 12:17 PM)The_Metallurgist Wrote:
(16-08-2016, 04:20 AM)loweche6 Wrote: did not use the trigger tracks for any replacement. All drums are supplied files.
the trigger tracks are perfect for gating/triggering their respective [grouped] instruments though; eg snare top and bottom mics, or anything else you might fancy during a creative frenzy
Quote:Didn't go crazy with automation, but I definitely had to automate the volume of the guitar tracks throughout the whole song
they've printed automation. so, if you don't undo this first it means one minute the material is hitting your insert chain gently during the attenuated sections, the next it's hitting it harder where the fader's been pushed up (and/or compressed harder, heaven forbid!). the solution is not to have printed automation in the first place. but given that it's here and in my experience often accompanies "most" multitracks in the Library, it's better to try and fix it first before mixing IMOFWIW.
yeah, you're right, it's a royal chore
unfortunately they don't have a good room for tracking, so we need to be especially wary of low-end excess (and combfiltering) while also recognising they've applied cuts and in so doing inappropriately skewed the frequency response i.e. we can't uncut it and take a different (and more appropriate?) approach. the vocal is an example; the room's size/ambiance/frequency response is captured by the mic which gets carried through to our own ideas of space, depth and room size in the performance - one room inside of another sounds odd by default. there's no effective solution to these ills, but shaping the frequency while taking into account what's already been going on in advance, can help to fight the consequences at least a little bit. i'd look at trying to defeat the low-mid imbalance because it's primarily the higher energy low frequency stuff which is delayed (the RT60, but it's not quite that simple) in the ambiance which we detect and get our spatial cues from; generally an audience will do so unconsciously. if you compress the vocal, you should hear the issues of the room...there's an echo in there which smears the vocal, affects it's timbre and contributes to losing her some clarity too.
i've had sleepless nights trying to shape this vocal....
hey ho, onwards and...upwards?
Hi Metallurgist,
Just to set things right, we did neither automate anything nor treat any of the tracks with an eq before printing them. There have been some basic low cuts on appropriate tracks as vocals or guitars but they have been set so low that they basically don't touch low ends of the signals. No compression, no automation, no EQing. Our recording room is treated with acoustic optimizing measurements. I recommend you to watch our gear video before spreading false information
A casual non critical listen whist working, sounds like a pretty good mix. Main vox maybe a little bit hot but everything else seems balanced. The song has nice energy and impact also.
(16-08-2016, 05:29 PM)wurstdrummer Wrote: Hi Metallurgist,
Just to set things right, we did neither automate anything nor treat any of the tracks with an eq before printing them. There have been some basic low cuts on appropriate tracks as vocals or guitars but they have been set so low that they basically don't touch low ends of the signals. No compression, no automation, no EQing. Our recording room is treated with acoustic optimizing measurements. I recommend you to watch our gear video before spreading false information
Cheers
This is the same guy that insulted you on the Forkupines track for being over compressed and didn't mix the track because it was "impossible" to make a dynamic mix out of it. Some how I sence jealousy on his part, but it seems like he makes these kinds of comments on all of the multi tracks here..
Mixing is way more art and soul than science. We don’t really know what we’re doing. We do it because we love music! It’s the love of music first. Eddie Kramer
Gear list: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20, Mbox Mini w/Pro Tools Express, Reaper, Various plugins, AKG K240 MKii, Audio Technica ATH M50x, Yorkville YSM 6
I don't think it's jealousy at all. I think Dave is extremely cognizant of ear damage and ear fatigue, and he uses a lot of theory to back up his claims. From what I have seen, he is usually technically correct in his assertions. He is also very knowledgeable in the technical aspects of loudness and its real world applications. When he brings these subjects up, he is doing it with the noblest of intentions, I really do believe. He and I have had discussions where we have slightly varied approaches, but we can usually come to an understanding with each other. He is a very hard-lined type of person (some may call him an audio purist), and that can rub some people the wrong way, but even if some of the concerns he brought up were incorrect, I would actually prefer that the points were brought up, so that they can be looked at, discussed, reviewed, and ultimately (hopefully) a consensus could be reached, and everyone would benefit from the open discourse about the reasoning a statement or technique that was called into question. It is helpful that we have a representative of the artist to answer some of the claims, so that any misunderstandings about the recording process can be cleared up.
So, I guess the long and short of this is this: at least listen to a dissenting voice (or what is perceived to be such a voice) before you dismiss it. If you can find flaw in the logic, see if you can fill the gaps in reasoning. If you cannot do so, then cast that logic aside, until some insight strikes you, and you are able to make sense of something that once seemed illogical, or let it fade away.
TL;DR
This is a forum, if you disagree with someone, see if you can figure out why, and try not to take it personally.
17-08-2016, 01:34 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2016, 01:36 AM by dcp10200.)
(17-08-2016, 12:51 AM)loweche6 Wrote: I don't think it's jealousy at all. I think Dave is extremely cognizant of ear damage and ear fatigue, and he uses a lot of theory to back up his claims. From what I have seen, he is usually technically correct in his assertions. He is also very knowledgeable in the technical aspects of loudness and its real world applications. When he brings these subjects up, he is doing it with the noblest of intentions, I really do believe. He and I have had discussions where we have slightly varied approaches, but we can usually come to an understanding with each other. He is a very hard-lined type of person (some may call him an audio purist), and that can rub some people the wrong way, but even if some of the concerns he brought up were incorrect, I would actually prefer that the points were brought up, so that they can be looked at, discussed, reviewed, and ultimately (hopefully) a consensus could be reached, and everyone would benefit from the open discourse about the reasoning a statement or technique that was called into question. It is helpful that we have a representative of the artist to answer some of the claims, so that any misunderstandings about the recording process can be cleared up.
So, I guess the long and short of this is this: at least listen to a dissenting voice (or what is perceived to be such a voice) before you dismiss it. If you can find flaw in the logic, see if you can fill the gaps in reasoning. If you cannot do so, then cast that logic aside, until some insight strikes you, and you are able to make sense of something that once seemed illogical, or let it fade away.
TL;DR
This is a forum, if you disagree with someone, see if you can figure out why, and try not to take it personally.
I uploaded a mix of the track queen's light by Dino on the loose with which I compressed fairly heavily and made fairly hot level wise, big Dave here commented on how the dynamics were awesome. I uploaded another mix of a different track with almost no compression at all and conservative level wise, he complained about how compressed it was and how fatiguing it was to listen to because of that. For a person who is an "audio purist" and has so much knowledge, he really doesn't know what compression sounds like. I've never been a fan of his mixes and any time I've made a comment on his mix he basically tells me I'm too subjective and my comments are not useful as a critique because of that, even when I made objective critiques. Sorry for sounding negative but I'be never thought highly "Big Dave" and his remarks against Till in the past really didn't help much.
(17-08-2016, 12:51 AM)loweche6 Wrote: I don't think it's jealousy at all. I think Dave is extremely cognizant of ear damage and ear fatigue, and he uses a lot of theory to back up his claims. From what I have seen, he is usually technically correct in his assertions. He is also very knowledgeable in the technical aspects of loudness and its real world applications. When he brings these subjects up, he is doing it with the noblest of intentions, I really do believe. He and I have had discussions where we have slightly varied approaches, but we can usually come to an understanding with each other. He is a very hard-lined type of person (some may call him an audio purist), and that can rub some people the wrong way, but even if some of the concerns he brought up were incorrect, I would actually prefer that the points were brought up, so that they can be looked at, discussed, reviewed, and ultimately (hopefully) a consensus could be reached, and everyone would benefit from the open discourse about the reasoning a statement or technique that was called into question. It is helpful that we have a representative of the artist to answer some of the claims, so that any misunderstandings about the recording process can be cleared up.
So, I guess the long and short of this is this: at least listen to a dissenting voice (or what is perceived to be such a voice) before you dismiss it. If you can find flaw in the logic, see if you can fill the gaps in reasoning. If you cannot do so, then cast that logic aside, until some insight strikes you, and you are able to make sense of something that once seemed illogical, or let it fade away.
TL;DR
This is a forum, if you disagree with someone, see if you can figure out why, and try not to take it personally.
I uploaded a mix of the track queen's light by Dino on the loose with which I compressed fairly heavily and made fairly hot level wise, big Dave here commented on how the dynamics were awesome. I uploaded another mix of a different track with almost no compression at all and conservative level wise, he complained about how compressed it was and how fatiguing it was to listen to because of that. For a person who is an "audio purist" and has so much knowledge, he really doesn't know what compression sounds like. I've never been a fan of his mixes and any time I've made a comment on his mix he basically tells me I'm too subjective and my comments are not useful as a critique because of that, even when I made objective critiques. Sorry for sounding negative but I'be never thought highly "Big Dave" and his remarks against Till in the past really didn't help much.
No worries at all! I'm not here to defend him personally, just the right to say what's on their mind. The same goes fully for you! I'm not here to sway you one way or the other. And know that I do take your advice and words at the same weight as I do everyone on the forum. If there are multiple discrepancies in any people's judgement, I would say then that this is a perfect spot for everybody's learning experience. I prescribe to that idea that even the masters are all white belts. The only time someone is wrong is when they refuse to learn.
(17-08-2016, 12:51 AM)loweche6 Wrote: No worries at all! I'm not here to defend him personally, just the right to say what's on their mind. The same goes fully for you! I'm not here to sway you one way or the other. And know that I do take your advice and words at the same weight as I do everyone on the forum. If there are multiple discrepancies in any people's judgement, I would say then that this is a perfect spot for everybody's learning experience. I prescribe to that idea that even the masters are all white belts. The only time someone is wrong is when they refuse to learn.
I can see your point, personally I'm not here to say I'm an expert or any rich source of knowledge on the subject of audio recording, mixing, or mastering. Again sorry for the outburst.
On the subject of your mix, overall you've got a solid foundation here especially under the monitoring situation you were in at the time. The vocals are really what seems like the weak link of the mix, they're very hot and upfront which is typical of mixes done on headphones (especially when they're closed back).
There seems to be a funky clipping going on in the guitars during the build to the final chorus, most notably at 3:31. It doesn't seem that obnoxious at first but over time it gets distracting. Did you use a distortion plugin or are the guitar tracks too hot into the guitar buss?
Cheers, and hope this helps,
Dcp
Mixing is way more art and soul than science. We don’t really know what we’re doing. We do it because we love music! It’s the love of music first. Eddie Kramer
Gear list: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20, Mbox Mini w/Pro Tools Express, Reaper, Various plugins, AKG K240 MKii, Audio Technica ATH M50x, Yorkville YSM 6
I used a mono sum of all the guitars and ran them through an amp modeling plugin, and tried to just kiss it with a little bit of input gain, and also used the slate VCC tube emulation to get a bit more preamp distortion (the guitars are already distorted you say? Not enough for me! heh). Maybe I did add a bit too much. I tried to make sure I didn't destroy it, and tried to make sure I really low passed them to make sure it didn't become too strident.
If there are multiple discrepancies in any people's judgement, I would say then that this is a perfect spot for everybody's learning experience. I prescribe to that idea that even the masters are all white belts. The only time someone is wrong is when they refuse to learn.