Spike Mullings - Mike's sulking

[juanjose1967]

Here's my attempt to mix this song. As usual, comments and suggestions will be welcomed.

[The_Metallurgist]

with a sparse arrangement, we can afford to turn up some elements in a mix more so than if the arrangement is a busy one with lots going on. is this a true statement? furthermore, the depth-field becomes far more important to employ strategically to create the illusion of space. simply putting stuff across the stereo width just isn't enough (especially if it ever gets down-mixed to mono!). or is it?

sounds like some very decent separation between the instruments, Jaun (in my headphones). i'm wondering if there's some scope to reduce some of the low-mid spectral elements a wee bit; the bass guitar especially appears to be taking up perhaps more elbow room than the mix can afford on occasion? i don't mean attenuate it, but tame it with some choice EQ notches so you don't lose it's....bass? i think one of the sacrifices you might have made in finding clarity has been rather more material in the HF zone than is ideal for comfort....my ears are experiencing a slight degree of fatigue because of this, or could it be some of the more sensitive frequencies around the 4kHz region doing this? it's difficult to say precisely without taking it in the studio and sweeping the range. i might suggest the cymbal action could be rolled off a bit? it's quite possible that in making some minor adjustments to your low-mids where there's a lot of stuff going on presently, that this will help clarity thereby enabling you to ease up in the treble range....but you're really not far off, so if anything, make adjustments in future tweaks(?), nice and gentle. something worth remembering, is that we don't identify an instrument (or sound) primarily on it's "fundamental" but it's overtones. while some instruments in a song might share the same fundamental (hello frequency masking), they will never share the same overtones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone

check the dings at about 3:30...the last one (9th?) was painful - it was right in my sensitive zone, but the other dings i though were well sorted. if you listen over notebook speakers it might reveal the issue better?

vocal? i'm not sure about this, but i'm wondering if the song would benefit from a fader push here to bring him more forward in the mix. i know i'm on the perilous verges of subjective analysis, but you might find it works better for you. wiggle the fader about a bit and do some A/B'ing and see if you change your mind. some other ideas for tweaks which i think would help add some shine to an already well presented mix, might be to bring the organ out a little more, with EQ cuts in the mud-zone, and a little more presence in the mids without upsetting it's place in the mix (i.e. if you boost a certain frequency, make sure you adjust/attenuate the instrument's final output accordingly). and i'd also flag up automation as a chance to expose some of the instrumentation more during key moments (while pulling the irrelevant instruments back just a touch, which ever works best in your mix?). because as it is, it feels the mix is just a little "too well balanced", where all levels appear pretty similar - this doesn't convey a song's natural dynamic so well....by "dynamic", i'm not talking about compression, but how the song "moves", if you know what i mean?

i think with some fine-tuning, you'd have a really nice mix here mate! great work; Juan's back in business!

[juanjose1967]

Hey, Dave! thanks for your comments. Lately I've been watching some mixoffs by professional mixers and I've noticed that they do exactly what you mentioned in the last part of your post (the moving elements in the song). It took my attention because it's something that I haven't payed too much attention until this very moment.

You know that in the beginning, you get a little bit overboarded by all the things you have to pay attention to when mixing, but little by little, you start controlling the basic or the most usual ones, and then you can start paying attention to those little details that eventually make your mix special and different.

So just as usual, I'm going to work some more on this one always considering what you've pointed out, and reading also that article about overtone (something that I had never heard of and seems quite useful to know about!). I'll let you know when a new version is ready.

See ya!

[juanjose1967]

Here's the new version of the mix with some slight changes. They're quite subtle, but I've tried to fix the different issues you mentioned.

I hope it sounds better now

[takka360]

This one sounds better, what monitors are you using? Automation takes a lot of practice and a fair bit of time, also it can take as long as the mix itself if you get carried away.

[juanjose1967]

well, I'm glad you noticed that it's better now Alan. I always (sorry about the forbidden words among mixers) mix on headphones. Mine are a Sennheiser HD600. I have two teenagers and sometimes I have the feeling that I live in a mad house with all that loud music or computer games explosions that makes it impossible to mix with regular monitors.

Yes, I know that automation can take a lot of time, but lately I'm working on my song analysis which was something that I was not paying too much attention to, and after watching some pros mixing, I decided that that was one of my many flaws and what's best way to improve it but by practicing it!

[takka360]

Nothing wrong with mixing on phones its not so taboo anymore,its just getting to know them phones and how your mixes sound on other speakers but a nice set of phones so it shouldn't be a problem.I was thinking of changing my cans I have the Akg k 701 but might just stick with them now. Without a treated room monitors are not a good idea.

[pauli]

with a sparse arrangement, we can afford to turn up some elements in a mix more so than if the arrangement is a busy one with lots going on. is this a true statement? furthermore, the depth-field becomes far more important to employ strategically to create the illusion of space. simply putting stuff across the stereo width just isn't enough (especially if it ever gets down-mixed to mono!). or is it?

sounds like some very decent separation between the instruments, Jaun (in my headphones). i'm wondering if there's some scope to reduce some of the low-mid spectral elements a wee bit; the bass guitar especially appears to be taking up perhaps more elbow room than the mix can afford on occasion? i don't mean attenuate it, but tame it with some choice EQ notches so you don't lose it's....bass? i think one of the sacrifices you might have made in finding clarity has been rather more material in the HF zone than is ideal for comfort....my ears are experiencing a slight degree of fatigue because of this, or could it be some of the more sensitive frequencies around the 4kHz region doing this? it's difficult to say precisely without taking it in the studio and sweeping the range. i might suggest the cymbal action could be rolled off a bit? it's quite possible that in making some minor adjustments to your low-mids where there's a lot of stuff going on presently, that this will help clarity thereby enabling you to ease up in the treble range....but you're really not far off, so if anything, make adjustments in future tweaks(?), nice and gentle. something worth remembering, is that we don't identify an instrument (or sound) primarily on it's "fundamental" but it's overtones. while some instruments in a song might share the same fundamental (hello frequency masking), they will never share the same overtones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone

check the dings at about 3:30...the last one (9th?) was painful - it was right in my sensitive zone, but the other dings i though were well sorted. if you listen over notebook speakers it might reveal the issue better?

vocal? i'm not sure about this, but i'm wondering if the song would benefit from a fader push here to bring him more forward in the mix. i know i'm on the perilous verges of subjective analysis, but you might find it works better for you. wiggle the fader about a bit and do some A/B'ing and see if you change your mind. some other ideas for tweaks which i think would help add some shine to an already well presented mix, might be to bring the organ out a little more, with EQ cuts in the mud-zone, and a little more presence in the mids without upsetting it's place in the mix (i.e. if you boost a certain frequency, make sure you adjust/attenuate the instrument's final output accordingly). and i'd also flag up automation as a chance to expose some of the instrumentation more during key moments (while pulling the irrelevant instruments back just a touch, which ever works best in your mix?). because as it is, it feels the mix is just a little "too well balanced", where all levels appear pretty similar - this doesn't convey a song's natural dynamic so well....by "dynamic", i'm not talking about compression, but how the song "moves", if you know what i mean?

i think with some fine-tuning, you'd have a really nice mix here mate! great work; Juan's back in business!

Might I add that almost every (small studio) overdriven guitar track can benefit from a low pass at 6000, sometimes all the way down to 3000? Electric guitars produce nothing but anharmonic noise from about 4000 up, and excess overdrive is going to exacerbate that and make it fatiguing. Sometimes a little anharmonic distortion in the high mids can help give a guitar a little more thrash, but it's going to come with the consequence of less defined notes, and potentially fatigue, so be careful what you let through, and remember that most crash cymbals are strong at 5000, so it'll be give and take if you want a little shriek from the guitars.

Taming electric guitars has been and continues to be my greatest mixing struggle... Can't really fault anyone for difficulties there, personally. I've been picking at this mix here and there for a couple weeks and can sympathize! It's tricky.

[juanjose1967]

Thanks for the advice, Pauli! I had no idea that Eguitars could benefit from a low pass filter at 6000.

I've checked it out and it doesn't sound bad at all. So here's the mix with that filter applied to each one of the electric guitars.

That was a good trick that will come in handy for future mixes! thanks!

[pauli]

as a general rule, electric guitars don't need a lot of high end, and that's the best way I've found (in most cases) to control the fatigue element and clear spectral real estate for tracks that will need high end, like vocals, cymbals, shakers, percussion etc.

this isn't an issue in this mix, but in my opinion, acoustic guitars are a rule unto themselves, because the mechanical noise produced by the pick and fingers rubbing on the strings are essential for a realistic presentation. That obviously applies more to important acoustic guitar parts like leads... but even in those cases it needs to be controlled to avoid high end fatigue. Sometimes a gentle high shelf is all you need, but I prefer de-essers, dynamic EQs or (sometimes) multiband compressors, since they control the dynamics of that high frequency energy and let you keep the noises gentle... it allows the performance nuances of a good musician to shine without being obtrusive or contributing to buildup when percussion instruments are present, as is often the case in acoustic music.

another quick trick... if you find yourself needing to re-amp a DI guitar recording, it's very helpful to low pass filter the DI -before- the amp simulator. that makes it significantly easier to control high end distortion during mixdown, because much less of that noise is being distorted and reharmonized in the first place.

hopefully some of that is of use to you... just a few things i've learned in my endless pursuit of proper guitar mixing. for me, the only thing harder than a vocal to mix properly is a guitar, owing to its role as a midrange instrument. pianos present many of the same difficulties... both are strong where almost every instrument exhibits some level of presence.