22-06-2021, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2021, 01:34 PM by sthauge.)
Hi
This is my version of this song as it was mixed to a training workshop I and friend was arranging in a closed Facebook group with nearly 2K sound engineers. The FB group is for Harrison consoles DAWs users. There was a restriction to only use one of the Harrison DAWs and a very small set of free and simple plugins eg reverb without predelay. The aim was to get training to use the DAWs to its full potential and use the DAWs build in EQs, compressors ect.
My comments to the song(some comments are relate to functionality and predefined workflow in the DAWs):
In this recording there are 7 tracks, all of them acoustic. To me this mean that I have to preserve and bring out the "life" in the instruments and vocal. Only 7 tracks also make it a challenging task to get a broad and interesting panorama. I also have to make some dept into the mix to make it sound "as being there listening". The bottom line is that I have to make "a stage" or a room for the artist and listeners.
In general I've used parallel compression(PC) with different settings on all sound sources in this project - Vocal, guitar and cello to get them to sparkle a bit more and to add clarity. For the drums it will add more energy and edge.
Vocal: There is just one mono track, so I used two ACE EQs(one on L and one on R channel) very, very gentle to make a little artificial stereo spread in the vocal mixbus. PC will bring out more articulation and clarity to the voice. Using the HPF on the vocal relatively aggressively will also bring it out a bit. To give it some extra "life" I retained the singers breath noises so it's audible.
Guitar: There are two guitar tracks. I presume that this is one guitar with two mics placed in two different positions. This mean that I can't pan them hard L and R but have to pan them together but with a little spread so I get some space between them as it was when it was recorded. This will also make it more natural, bring in more "air" and dept to the mix. Using the EQ filters a bit differently on the two tracks can reduce freq buildup and make some "space" around the two mics.
Cello: Same as for the guitar
Snare: Just EQing, the leveler and a PC bus. I also put in a Enhancer on the snare. It was just to experiment and try it out for fun, but it was Ok so I just left it on the track.
Kick: Here I use EQ to adjust it to the sound I like and the leveler on the track to bring out the hit from the pedal. Hard PC on a separate drum mixbus also add punch and energy.
Panorama and dept: A mix in general are not only L and R, it is also dept. To achieve panorama and dept I used two techniques. First, when adding the reverb I leveled it out on the opposite side as the source for the guitar and cello(feature in 32C). This makes a feeling of a "rom" surrounding the instruments without making it to wide as it could be just adding the same level of reverb to the L and to the R.
To make the dept I used a mixbus with a delay to make a predelay before a reverb that have a longer tail than the general reverb mixbus. The stereo width become smaller the longer you are from the sound source. Since the dept mixbus should make the distance from the artist and listener, I reduced the stereo width on the mixbus. Removed freq below 300 Hz to avoid rumble in the Rev and Dept mixbuses and used the leveler with no attack to reduce unwanted slapback noise in the reverb tail.
Cleanup and separation: HPF are in use when natural. EQ'd the guitar and the cello so they are a little bit separated in some freq bands to add space and separation. This is not so important in this mix though, since the guitar is to the left and the cello is to the right.
Balancing everything: I've used the leveler at the channelstrips to enhance the transients and make the sound level more even and stable between the tracks. There's also automation on every track to get all the nitty gritty things in the tracks out to the listeners.
I have fundamental issues with this mix and am concerned about the workshop credentials in the circumstances especially as far as learners can easily be misinformed by unintentional errors of judgement.
The stereo balance is skewed. There's excessive treble on the acoustic gtr from harmonics which shouldn't be here. What is the highest frequency/fundamental note on an acoustic? Nobody wants to listen to brittle harmonics which are included here. How is your hearing? Treble is also a signal in the brain's assessment of proximity via unimpaired hearing. The gtr sounds closer to me subjectively than the vocal, making the voice less important....subjectively.
There is a fatality about the ambiance clash with elements in the depth field (note I also include width in it's definition), that are spatially contradictory, eg voice/gtr. This makes the illusion of space confusing, ambiguous and just plain wrong. We need to understand how the brain localises sound and replicate this technically in the mix in an effective manner. Get either/both of these things wrong and listeners will struggle to engage, consciously as in my case, or unconsciously, and the song falls over.
Bob Katz puts it rather aptly: “Depth sorts the men from the boys”.
"Nearly half of all teenagers and young adults (12-35 years old) in middle- and high-income countries are exposed to unsafe levels of sound from the use of personal audio devices": https://tinyurl.com/6xeeahc5 Read my bio.
Thank you for taking the time to listen and commenting. I've made some remarks to your comments:
"I have fundamental issues with this mix and am concerned about the workshop credentials in the circumstances especially as far as learners can easily be misinformed by unintentional errors of judgement"
No need to worry, we are many participants on different level of skills that comment. And you know what, everybody is entitled to have opinions on music and what they hear, amateur, pros or just a music lover.
"The stereo balance is skewed": This is a meaningless comment without saying what you do not like. Eg. do you think that two mics used to record ONE guitar separated 20-50 cm apart should be panned hard L/R to get "balance"? You know that this session have one guitar, one cello, a snare, a kick and vocal?
"There's excessive treble on the acoustic gtr from harmonics which shouldn't be here. What is the highest frequency/fundamental note on an acoustic? Nobody wants to listen to brittle harmonics which are included here.":
You are right in one thing, I have used the HPF a little bit to hard, so some of the fundamental freq was gone. That needed to be fixed. Other than this there is very little processing done to the tracks. Being playing steal string guitar my selves for nearly 50 years I know what the harmonics and overtones sound like sitting close to the guitar, so I have no problems with the sound of this when all the fundamentals are in place.
"How is your hearing?" : This more a "ruling technique" statement than question from you. My hearing is great to the age and I hear more than most in a mix.
"Treble is also a signal in the brain's assessment of proximity via unimpaired hearing. The gtr sounds closer to me subjectively than the vocal, making the voice less important....subjectively.":
There's a lot more transients in the guitar than in the vocal that can give a feeling of being closer. In general they should be equal.
"There is a fatality about the ambiance clash with elements in the depth field (note I also include width in it's definition), that are spatially contradictory, eg voice/gtr. This makes the illusion of space confusing, ambiguous and just plain wrong.":
Yes, you are right about this. I know very well what you are talking about. I was experimenting a bit with this session, so it could be done otherwise. It's also important to know what this workshop was to utilize the DAW to its fully potential and only some simple free plugins was allowed. Eg. the reverb had only two controls "dry/wet" and "room size", so making a nice sounding space was very limited. Ahh, one more thing. Do this mean that you get confused with ping, pong delay as well or delays that are only used after some sentences and not in the song in general? My point is that I used the reverb here to level out the fact that there are one guitar and one cello in this session, so the reverb are more used as an effect to soften the panning than making a perfect room.
"We need to understand how the brain localizes sound and replicate this technically in the mix in an effective manner. Get either/both of these things wrong and listeners will struggle to engage, consciously as in my case, or unconsciously, and the song falls over." :
Could not agree more about hearing/brain. I just made a paper on this topic to tip people how to know how the brain/ears work and how it can position, measure distance and speed and how to utilize this when mixing. With the limitation in this project it was only a few of the techniques available.
Bob Katz puts it rather aptly: “Depth sorts the men from the boys”:
Bob Katz may have that meaning on the topic, but quoting it here in this context does make it sound like just another "ruling technique" from you.
My concern with your comments is your attitude. I'm old enough to have a strong self-confidence and know very well what I'm doing. I'll use what valuable in what you say and skip the rest. But if the maker of this mix was a 16 year old boy that dream about being a future mixing guy, he probably have been devastated after comment's with this attitude.
I could not find your version of this song so I could not offer you the favor of commenting back on this song. Instead I listen to 3 other songs you mixed. They where generally good, but you seems to struggle with the mid range in all of them, one was missing low end and one had a overpowered kick that made ear fatigue after listening a short time.
Continue to give comments to help people out, but remember the mixer could be a 16 years old boy. So a bit more kindness and humility would be great.
I enjoyed this one sthauge. It's always great to have a detailed dialogue detailing the objectives within the mix. It gives much more to listen to.
Love the guitar tone and mostly its ambiance. It's beautifully placed. Vocal is also nice with a lovely "air"
Just wondering if there is too much stereo width to the vocal though? With the guitar alone it works quite well but for me the rest of the accompaniment misses out a bit. The Cello part (I assume it's a cello) feels too mono and a little too small in comparison? Not sure, it's hard to put my finger on it. Regardless a lovely mix and well done.
Dave
(04-07-2021, 12:43 AM)Dangerous Wrote: I enjoyed this one sthauge. It's always great to have a detailed dialogue detailing the objectives within the mix. It gives much more to listen to.
Hi Dave.
Thank you for listening and commenting. I totally agree that detailed description and comments on "what and why" is important. Everybody have something to learn, also the pros. I've given some thoughts on your comments below.
--------- Just wondering if there is too much stereo width to the vocal though?
I have made a tiny stereo separation on the vocal. Not because I think that it need to be wider, but just to give it some more life and fullness. The spread is as minimum I thought it could be without being mono again. Anyway it's audible.
--------- With the guitar alone it works quite well but for me the rest of the accompaniment misses out a bit. The Cello part (I assume it's a cello) feels too mono and a little too small in comparison? Not sure, it's hard to put my finger on it.
I might help out a bit here. One important factor our ear and brain use for measuring distance, air and separation it's how it perceive the transients. The guitar have a lot of transients, the cello have not. This mean that it's easy for us to place a guitar in a stereo field and separate it from other instruments a song. The cello though, is far more complicated. It's panned equal to the guitar(see attached mixer setup), but you do not get the same separation and air as the guitar. So I guess that's the cause of the more mono sounding of the cello. It's also a challenge to level a instrument as a cello due to little transients. Either it is good noticeable, but tend to overlay other part of the mix or it somewhat disappear in the mix. I used a lot of time on this, but it was hard to get to where i want it to be.
-------- Regardless a lovely mix and well done.
Dave
Thank you for kind words.
Steinar
See comments in text over
PS. The picture shows my mixer setup in my DAW. See the guitar and cello panning.
Overall I find the mix pretty good. I think getting the stereo balance right is the main challenge with this one.
I do have some thoughts and observations for discussion as I listen:
The vocal gives the impression of leaning a little too much to the right. I'm guessing this is to help balance with the guitar, but to me this sounds a little strange and disconcerting. Not sure if a little more space needs to be made frequency wise in the guitar too, to give a little more room for the vocal to pop out a bit? Maybe similar with the snare and the vocal also. Not much though, just a touch so the vocal stands out a bit more.
I feel the cello could be panned out even further compared to the guitar. It would perhaps make the room feel a little less small and also give a bit more separation frequency wise too. If I close my eyes and try to imagine the space - to me the Cello feels a perhaps a little too crammed in between the drums and the singer, so to speak. The left/right movement with the kick and snare feels a little odd too, balance wise for me., as it is giving my ear too many directions to move in, so to speak I think. I find that moving things like that just one or two percent off centre can be enough to give room for the vocal.
Your mix has prompted me to think a little about the balance issue -
In my mix I recall that I visualised the singer in the middle, guitarist on one side. cellist on the other and the drums at the back. This does mean though that the balance doesn't get resolved until the cello comes in, which is quite a wait, but figured it would be ok.
It occurs to me that it might be better to imagine the singer playing the guitar, cellist on one side, and the drummer at the back. The guitar could be made more stereo using reverb, etc (or maybe both mic's - as I opted to use only one of the guitar mics). The cello might not sound so strange off to one side. I guess panned reverbs might be an option too. I might have to revisit this one some time and experiment.
Cheers!
Just uploaded a mix/master? Waiting for comments? Why not give back and critique a mix/master, or two!
(05-07-2021, 12:54 AM)mikej Wrote: Interesting post.
...
In my mix I recall that I visualised the singer in the middle, guitarist on one side. cellist on the other and the drums at the back. This does mean though that the balance doesn't get resolved until the cello comes in, which is quite a wait, but figured it would be ok.
It occurs to me that it might be better to imagine the singer playing the guitar, cellist on one side, and the drummer at the back. The guitar could be made more stereo using reverb, etc (or maybe both mic's - as I opted to use only one of the guitar mics). The cello might not sound so strange off to one side. I guess panned reverbs might be an option too. I might have to revisit this one some time and experiment.
Hi,
yes indeed interesting post and interesting reactions.
The initial ordering of tracks and therefore instruments in a mixing project is absolutely basic work. Surly enough we strive for a realistically and plausible scene for good reasons. That is when one visualizes the musicians on a stage.
On the other hand, there is no rule to produce a song as if it was played live in front of an audience and maintain a strict technical plausibility.
Speaking of audience, i figure it is often vital to get an idea of the emotional reaction to the given portion of music lying in front of us. And as things are, the only ones we can interview about this topic, is our selves.
I think our own emotional response to the music, influences our decisions anyway, mostly subconscious. So apart from visualizing a technically realistic scene of performing musicians, it should be possible to visualize the emotional response of a listener.
This can create an imagery which could lead to decisions that deviate from the path of pure technical accuracy and plausibility.
If we are lucky, those decisions even suit the song.
It doesn't have to sound good to move people - David Byrne
(05-07-2021, 12:54 AM)mikej Wrote: Interesting post.
...
In my mix I recall that I visualised the singer in the middle, guitarist on one side. cellist on the other and the drums at the back. This does mean though that the balance doesn't get resolved until the cello comes in, which is quite a wait, but figured it would be ok.
It occurs to me that it might be better to imagine the singer playing the guitar, cellist on one side, and the drummer at the back. The guitar could be made more stereo using reverb, etc (or maybe both mic's - as I opted to use only one of the guitar mics). The cello might not sound so strange off to one side. I guess panned reverbs might be an option too. I might have to revisit this one some time and experiment.
Hi,
yes indeed interesting post and interesting reactions.
The initial ordering of tracks and therefore instruments in a mixing project is absolutely basic work. Surly enough we strive for a realistically and plausible scene for good reasons. That is when one visualizes the musicians on a stage.
On the other hand, there is no rule to produce a song as if it was played live in front of an audience and maintain a strict technical plausibility.
Speaking of audience, i figure it is often vital to get an idea of the emotional reaction to the given portion of music lying in front of us. And as things are, the only ones we can interview about this topic, is our selves.
I think our own emotional response to the music, influences our decisions anyway, mostly subconscious. So apart from visualizing a technically realistic scene of performing musicians, it should be possible to visualize the emotional response of a listener.
This can create an imagery which could lead to decisions that deviate from the path of pure technical accuracy and plausibility.
If we are lucky, those decisions even suit the song.
I've never had a stroke but I feel like I kinda know what it feels like.
I perhaps could say that the emotional perspective (rather than just technical) is why I really wanted to get the vocal really close, upfront and to be the main focus in my version of this mix - in addition to the 'room visualisation' aspect.
I guess my comments regarding this mix could be put as the perceived excessive movement and the (in my view) slightly distracting panning, is taking away the focus from the vocal and therefore hiding the message a bit, for me anyway, so to say.
Cheers!
Just uploaded a mix/master? Waiting for comments? Why not give back and critique a mix/master, or two!
Thank you all for interesting comments and discussions. We need more of good and valuable exchange of views in this forum so it can be a resource and a learning platform for the members. We'll start a new workshop with more tracks and less restrictions as it was with this session over at "Mixbus Soundstage" FB group in august. I might put my result up here in the thread for the session we'll use when finished. For those of you using Harrison consoles Mixbus or Mixbus32C DAWs feel free to join the group or may be make your own workshops. Have a great day. Steinar :-)
