Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Temporary Happiness
#11
(09-12-2016, 05:05 PM)Cudjoe Wrote: Hi Dave v2 alot better my only concern is the tamborine as Olli H pointed out,good mix.

Thanks cudjoe.

I'll see if there's a version #3 in meSmile
Reply
#12
(09-12-2016, 05:13 PM)RoyMatthews Wrote: Personally, I kinda like the hard panned tambourine. I like it as a counterbalance to the ride in the choruses. But I would pull it back and maybe darken it a bit. It gets in the way of the solo a bit.

Yeah, I think some transient softening may help here also. I certainly want to keep it panned to the side

Thanks Roy
Reply
#13
(09-12-2016, 05:24 PM)javierpg84 Wrote: Dave: Excellent spread of the BGVs. I love the snap on the snare and the spread of the horn section. When the song arrives at 1:26 to the first chorus, the guitars and horn section masks together. I think the trombones and sax are in the same frequency range of the guitars. I will say to scoop the guitars out 3db on 220Hz wit h a Q of 2.5 or 3 and you will get some space for the lead vocal and the horns once they enter in the arrangement. Try it and let me know if it works for you. Cheers

Interesting observation with the masking. The reason being is that I had notice this myself and had implemented some dynamic eq to the guitar bus that I have side chained from the horns in this exact frequency region. Maybe I need to look at some extra gain reduction for some added clarity.

Thanks for the tip

Dave
Reply
#14
Hi Dave,

A few comments about V2.
Your mix sounds good, you achieved a pleasant balance here. I like the powerful guitar sound.
The only thing I'm not too found of is the lows/low-mids which are a bit loud and muffled to my ears :
- The low freqs are really boomy on my subwoofer. I tried cutting 2-3 dB at 50 and 100Hz with a narrow Q and it seems to help a bit.
- I see that you've mono-ed the low frequencies under ~100Hz (no bass nor kick in the side channel) and that's a smart choice. But personally I would have set the cut-off freq even higher, between 175-200Hz, which helps reduce some "muffle" on the sides and adds definition and clarity to the mix, particularly to the guitars.

Hope that helps !
Erick
Reply
#15
(14-12-2016, 05:18 PM)EKN Wrote: Hi Dave,

A few comments about V2.
Your mix sounds good, you achieved a pleasant balance here. I like the powerful guitar sound.
The only thing I'm not too found of is the lows/low-mids which are a bit loud and muffled to my ears :
- The low freqs are really boomy on my subwoofer. I tried cutting 2-3 dB at 50 and 100Hz with a narrow Q and it seems to help a bit.
- I see that you've mono-ed the low frequencies under ~100Hz (no bass nor kick in the side channel) and that's a smart choice. But personally I would have set the cut-off freq even higher, between 175-200Hz, which helps reduce some "muffle" on the sides and adds definition and clarity to the mix, particularly to the guitars.

Hope that helps !
Erick

Thanks Erick,

Very helpful indeed.

I'm not surprised by the sub 100hz issues. My monitoring is poor in this region and I know that I boosted the bass guitar in this sub area also (trying to add some fullness). I reckon this might what you are hearing.

Also an interesting point with the side channel. I will have a play here and see how far I can take it. I know from the past that I have to be careful not to thin out the panned guitars too much though. This is usually my set point.

Thanks for the pointers.

Dave
Reply
#16
Version #3 Uploaded,

Just tried to add some extra clarity. I have increased the side channel high pass filter to clean up the guitar parts as Erick had suggested (around 150hz) and I have tamed some of the overpowering sub frequencies associated with the bass guitar. I have also added some extra control to the 200hz area of the guitars whist the horns are blowing.

Listening back, the song sounds like it maybe a little bass light now. I may have been a bit too reactive. Oh well....
Reply
#17
Version #3 sounds great to me. I think the bass is fine. I can't really tell how it is on the very lows but I can clearly hear the bass and it's such a busy part (in a good way) that I don't think it'd benefit from being really deep.

I can't find anything to complain about. Nice job. If I tried to come up with any improvements I'd look into automation or techniques for adding some more dynamics and contrast to parts. It's a fairly flat song dynamically and I think if there was ways to excite it a little more that would take a great mix to an awesome mix. But that isn't a flaw of your mix at all just something that could take it up a notch.

Great job.
Reply
#18
(20-12-2016, 02:24 PM)RoyMatthews Wrote: Version #3 sounds great to me. I think the bass is fine. I can't really tell how it is on the very lows but I can clearly hear the bass and it's such a busy part (in a good way) that I don't think it'd benefit from being really deep.

I can't find anything to complain about. Nice job. If I tried to come up with any improvements I'd look into automation or techniques for adding some more dynamics and contrast to parts. It's a fairly flat song dynamically and I think if there was ways to excite it a little more that would take a great mix to an awesome mix. But that isn't a flaw of your mix at all just something that could take it up a notch.

Great job.

Thank for the follow up review. Something I need to try and do more.

I completely agree with overall dynamics of the song. It's such an intense number from start to finish, that it needs some careful consideration in this regard. That's why I added the ride during the choruses to help with the intensity during these parts. I guess the song needs some "turn down" parts to be complementary to this and to add a moment of relax or dynamic change.

Thanks again

Reply