Don't Let Go

[Pedaling Prince]

Here's my attempt at taming the shaker within my current panning scheme. Used compression, eq, tube saturation and some reverb.

Wow! Now that's da stuff!

Personally I just love your wide panning choices. Also, something interesting. My first instinct would be to open up the reverbs on this song, as I did in my mix. However, and I can't quite put my finger on how, you made this mix work with much more subtle reverb. I would have thought the flutes particularly would have cried out for more reverb but I have to admit it all sounds wonderful just the way it is and, opposite of pauli, I prefer more subtle reverbs so I can't help but like this.

Nice work!

[bmullen]

Here's my attempt at taming the shaker within my current panning scheme. Used compression, eq, tube saturation and some reverb.

Wow! Now that's da stuff!

Personally I just love your wide panning choices. Also, something interesting. My first instinct would be to open up the reverbs on this song, as I did in my mix. However, and I can't quite put my finger on how, you made this mix work with much more subtle reverb. I would have thought the flutes particularly would have cried out for more reverb but I have to admit it all sounds wonderful just the way it is and, opposite of pauli, I prefer more subtle reverbs so I can't help but like this.

Nice work!

Thanks, John.

[Olli H]

I listened the version 3. Excellent. Balanced

[The_Metallurgist]

Olli's link referring to the Solomon mix is interesting. Two things spring to mind by way of observation, like the genre and perhaps the vision of the engineer and producer. I also have in mind the gear they might have used to mix this album. This is a come-back album of a much respected artist of the 60's. I'm wondering if the choice of LCR was intentional, because it's a throw-back to the technology prevailing at the time and helps generate a kind of nostalgia. Followers of the genre will be familiar with this kind of mixing too and are less likely to consider it odd perhaps? Another consideration is that it folds to mono with utmost decorum....great for air-play in remote areas, where signals are weak and a stereo signal drops to mono....or is simply just mono to begin with. I don't know what the criteria is for a Grammy, but it's clearly not Stereo Balance and should perhaps be viewed with this in mind.

Pan pots do only one thing - they change amplitude. Unfortunately life in mixing is a little more complicated, that's why we love it so much, eh? The ear uses amplitude, time and frequency differences to enable the localisation of sound(s). So a pan pot, merely by changing amplitude, makes the result less than natural....irrespective of our chosen listening device. If listening to the Solomon song over my stereo speaker system, the guitar appears in one box only, effectively turning it into a speaker 'cab' for the guitar...or even placing the musician directly in my lounge where the speaker is. In essence, i have mono-stereo, and i have an unrealistic space presented to me. We can argue semantics about whether or not this is ok in this mix, or whether it's ok in other mixes and other genres. However, if we are seeking to create an ambiance that is as realistic as it can ever be when constrained by a stereo system (headphones or speakers it's equal not withstanding the need for appropriate signals/ques to be present), then the panned instrument needs to present more information so our brains can work it out. Anything that draws attention to itself in a mix whether consciously or subconsciously, is perhaps better avoided for obvious reasons, unless done so for a purpose. This is the first point.

Leaving the above to one side..... (no pun intended) while considering a second point: The shaker in Bob's mix has high frequency content and is panned somewhere to one side. The guitar, panned somewhere to the other side, doesn't balance the shaker's frequency. Indeed, both are contributing to a "stereo frequency imbalance" in the mix - importantly, this is an objective assessment, not a subjective one. So, I get V3 here and i really admire and appreciate the attention given to this mix, the instruments simply ooze smoothness. However, the root of the problem remains but if effectively addressed, would deliver a well rounded and polished mix at both the micro and macro level.

[Pedaling Prince]

The shaker in Bob's mix has high frequency content and is panned somewhere to one side. The guitar, panned somewhere to the other side, doesn't balance the shaker's frequency. Indeed, both are contributing to a "stereo frequency imbalance" in the mix - importantly, this is an objective assessment, not a subjective one. So, I get V3 here and i really admire and appreciate the attention given to this mix, the instruments simply ooze smoothness. However, the root of the problem remains but if effectively addressed, would deliver a well rounded and polished mix at both the micro and macro level.

Hm... good point...

My headphones have a mono/stereo switch. I just tossed them on and tried listening to this mix again, switching back and forth between mono and stereo mode. In mono, it sounds to me like the shaker is a little too loud. Not in any severe way but it sounds like it could come down a dB or two. This is something that isn't nearly as obvious in stereo but might become a problem if the song is being listened to in mono.

For my money, I don't think the frequency imbalance itself is so unpleasant to listen to, but it does make judging balance a little more challenging, it seems.

Oh, that reminds me. There was one thing I didn't like about this mix: it ends a bit abruptly. Maybe a slower, smoother fade-out at the end?