Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Metallurgist's Semantics
#11
Yeah, I like that graphic EQ trick for widening. Big plus there is that mono compatibility isn't affected much because the boosts and attenuations are polar opposite on each side. The more I look at this multi, the more it becomes clear that I'd have to spend hours of precious mixing time (I don't often have much quiet time in my mixing space... two small children) fixing the timing on the bass guitar and all of the electric guitars at the very least to get the intended DT widening if I wanted any sort of predictable control of phase relationships... not to mention the inevitable low mid muddiness that always accompanies out of time guitars.

I can attest from personal experience that double tracking guitars is HARD AS HELL, because any attempt to perform with commercial-level timing accuracy is really just asking for an uninspired performance, and hours of timing edits are preferable to razor sharp, soulless mathematical accuracy... so I get it, and it's good practice for sure, but I just can't justify the time it'd take to really dig into this one properly. So I'll chip away at it slowly alongside any other projects I'm working on here and there... it might be ready to mix by Christmas Tongue

For Blitzzz, I'd add that while high-passing the overheads is generally a good idea in any small studio production, it's important to do it for the right reasons-- and the reason for which you're doing it is going to inform where to best place the cut. There are no rules obviously, but the most common way of using the overhead tracks is a reference point for how the kit is supposed to sound as a blended whole in a real acoustic space... and then fade the less natural sounding close mics into the overheads as necessary to blend the overheads into the mix. Lurking subsonics and low frequency mud once the bass and kick close mics are faded in are valid concerns, but the most important reason to highpass the overheads in my opinion is the control the phase relationship between the overheads, the kick drum and the floor tom. The waveforms beneath 100 Hz are so big and smooth that no matter what instruments is providing those frequencies, there's a very real chance for unpredictable phase misalignments, even if you ditch the kick close mics and use samples... and if you think about it, the overheads are a good 5 or 6 feet away from the kick drums, so there's already a timing issue at hand before you even get started.

Strictly speaking, EQ is essentially intentional phase misalignment, but in this case, it's best to do it so that the risks of phase misalignment introduced by EQ and the risks of phasing due to timing can be balanced and made predictable so we can compensate for them. When you drag that highpass well into the most audible spectral range (1000 to 4000), you're introducing a phasing possibility (i.e. potential cancellations in the hi-hat close mic and the room mic) in a very exposed way. So Dave is accurate in suggesting that you're killing the "body" content of the crash/ride cymbals merely by completely EQing it out, which will certainly make it more tonally harsh... but I'm willing to bet you're also introducing a nasty phase element in the harshness zone of the spectrum.

Anyway, you may already know some of that, all of that, or more than I do (very real possibility Tongue), but my main point is that if you can't work with the close mics such that you're triggering samples, and can't work with the overhead mics such that you're highpassing over half of it's frequency content, you're probably better off hedging your bets and replacing the whole kit. It'll make life easier (good thing) and the mixing process more pleasurable (very good thing). At best, phased drum tracks are going to sound kinda weird in stereo, and in mono it can turn into completely disappearing kit components... or even worse, the dreaded "now you see it, now you don't" chattering of a crash cymbal phasing in and out of reality... although that might be a cool, weird effect to exploit, given enough bravado and creative irresponsibility!
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!
Reply
#12
What made me wonder was your critic about the low mids. I have new monitors (Adam A7x) and moved to a new room here at my house so my ears are probably not used to both of them. On the adams your mix sounds like there is no bass at all. So i checked both mixes on my headphones ... and and as a result it looks like I have to spent quite some money on room treatment in the next days =) As a side note the mix sounds exacty like what you have described on my old nuPros.


Reply
#13
(09-07-2014, 12:55 AM)Blitzzz Wrote: What made me wonder was your critic about the low mids. I have new monitors (Adam A7x) and moved to a new room here at my house so my ears are probably not used to both of them. On the adams your mix sounds like there is no bass at all. So i checked both mixes on my headphones ... and and as a result it looks like I have to spent quite some money on room treatment in the next days =) As a side note the mix sounds exacty like what you have described on my old nuPros.

the A7x's have a lot of love. i certainly liked them on audition, but listening and mixing are not equal affairs. i wouldn't have bought my current monitors based on pure listening experience, that's for sure. i wish you a lot of good mixing on them and i'm sure once you are familiar with their presentation and the room, you will be making some good headway. half the battle in producing mixes, is hearing things properly so you can at least make more informed mixing decisions.

bass is one of the most challenging frequencies to get a handle on. headphones are good at taking out the room's inherent weaknesses, however they are utterly, totally and blatantly useless at defining bass in a qualitative way; 4 decades of audiophile have helped me conclude that. i recommend you cross reference your mixes against as many different playback devices as possible, especially less bass shy gear. the more devices you employ (and their relative environments), the better you can average and thus get an informed picture on your mix decisions. it's a long battle.....most don't engage with it.

it's easy with monitors in an untreated room (or a room that has been inappropriately treated - both will mess with your beliefs and perception), to be sitting smack-bang in a null....and with bass these can be anything up to -30dB! and of course, it can go the other way too.....rather alarmingly! go for bass trapping in all the corners first, including walls-to-ceiling...because these will also absorb higher frequencies too, perhaps too much so look out for that. if you over-do the mid range (non-bass trap, general broad-band absorbers), you will skew the response in your room entirely in the wrong direction. DON'T USE FOAM!!!!!!! if your room is small (what's small?) a 7 inch woofer is going to be a nightmare irrespective of what room treatment you apply because the science won't be on your side. i wish you a good outcome.


Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply
#14
Interesting approach, and proof is lot of coments you receive , which is good. Personally, I think this band would like straight punk sound in the face, but that's for another debate. Main thing is that you made mix interesting.
Reply
#15
(07-08-2014, 12:29 PM)zstojkov Wrote: Personally, I think this band would like straight punk sound in the face...

then you can go and mix it that way.

i chose not to, but instead had a vision to do something that required more skill, creativity and engineering.

Quote:....but that's for another debate.

this forum isn't about debating/guessing what a band might or might not want; we're here to progress our mixing skills through the translation of a mix vision. i personally don't care how you think they should be mixed according to your perceptions and understandings (which isn't difficult to assume, given the band's material is on the web anyway). the only time i'm concerned about such issues is when i'm being paid to take a band's expectations into account in the delivery of product.

so, if you don't mind, i'll continue to express my vision and creativity with the freedom and choice to do so, without constraints of a mix brief, and i'll challenge my technical prowess to the max while doing so. if i didn't want to challenge myself, i'd have mixed it loud and in your face! actually, i wouldn't have bothered mixing it...no challenge doing simple stuff, eh?

Quote:Main thing is that you made mix interesting.

i'd have appreciated a more insightful feedback which i can build on, but thanks anyway.
Beware...........Cognitive Dissonance!
Reply