3rd Wave mix of Patrick Talbot's 'Blue'

[Mike_K]

Hi all,

Here's my take on this beautiful song. I took a basic straight jazz-ish approach--I think...

All opinions welcome!

Happy mixing,

-Mike.

[ptalbot]

Wow! I really love what you did with the vocal, man!
I find your mix a bit darker than some I've heard and probably dryer as well, but the vocal is much fuller in your mix and this works really well too. I wonder how you achieved that?
Well impressed!

On a side note, I see that you've uploaded a 188kbps mp3 instead of 320kbps, maybe this has quantized some of the highs?

[pauli]

Hey Mike. Very nice sounds you have going here. The drums especially sound better than most mixes I've heard.

The main thing poking out to me is that the fuller low mid in the vocal is competing with the low mid in the guitar, and it's causing them to sort of go back and forth is to which instrument is more up front... or more present, say.

For me a vocal doesn't need a lot of lows in this style, considering the genre tends toward instrumentation that's even stronger in that region than the usual buildups. In general, a close electric guitar will usually mix better if the vocal gives it some space from 150 to 800, depending on the key... electric guitars are usually strongest around 500, and vocals usually sound bloated in that range, so further low shelving cut on the vocal and an automated(?) midrange dip in the electrics (pads too) will give you the freedom to push the vocals a little higher with no dynamic sacrifices.

[ptalbot]

True. pauli, you've got a point about the guitar, it does come and go.
I was so focused on that nice vocal tone that I didn't really noticed that.
Maybe a mid term between what you have and a more scooped vocal would let the guitar cut through still?

[Mike_K]

Wow! I really love what you did with the vocal, man!
I find your mix a bit darker than some I've heard and probably dryer as well, but the vocal is much fuller in your mix and this works really well too. I wonder how you achieved that?
Well impressed!

Thanks for the kind words. Let me reciprocate: you're stuff is great! I'm looking forward to the new tunes.
Anyway, I went into detail on the vocal processing in another thread, which I'm sure you'll see... It's basically a ton of de-essing, which left a decent vocal tone...
I did go for a drier, present sound, especially for a jazz-type mix. Then I read your feedback to others... Oops...

On a side note, I see that you've uploaded a 188kbps mp3 instead of 320kbps, maybe this has quantized some of the highs?

I've replaced the 192 ABR with a 320 CBR version. The difference is negligible--to these primitive ears... The "darkness" is mostly how I mixed it. It could probably use a little mastering, but I think it translates better to more systems if it's a little... let's call it "warmer." :^)

[pauli]

Famous words by Bob Katz: "Warmth is just another word for mud"

I don't always necessarily agree and I like where it's going, but care is always needed when a prominent guitar and prominent vocal start creating spectral density down south. During mastering it may help to reduce some of the 500 range a bit to clear things up... but do be careful to volume match. Automatic gain compensation is a very useful tool there, but turn it off and adjust the gain manually before you export because it sometimes causes a bit of distortion.

Side note about mp3 kbps rates: give it a listen in high resolution head phones. The main difficulty is a post ringing phase anomaly created by the rather drastic "EQ" applied from around 16000 up, since the developers of the format figure most of that stuff is masked by all the stuff going on underneath. However, they failed to consider high quality gear and high quality ears

Take a song from a CD, then convert it to a lowish resolution mp3. Do some A/B-ing in your DAW and you'll be suprised how much of a difference it makes... but it's always hard to tell what the subtle yet drastic differences are until you listen for a while. Metallic sounding resonances are also a huge problem in some low bit rate mp3s, especially if they were mastered rather loudly.

[Olli H]

Great mix.

Only thing that bothers me is those wide stereo background vocals. When they suddenly appear to otherwise natural space they take a focus away from the singer, instead of enhancing it. (I listened with headphones)

In this case I agree with Pauli's comment about vox, guitar and lower mids. Some minimalistic adjustments around that area could make this mix even better.

[thedon]

Sounds nice I like it ,I can hear there are some resonances with the bass and vocals about 180hz .
I can show a video of what I mean with Patricks permission .

[ptalbot]

You don't need any permissions from me!
I'm here to learn as well, and I'd love to see it too.
I might go back to this mix now that I've heard so many great mixes, and if I do, I'll post it here so that you can bash it good too!

[Mike_K]

Famous words by Bob Katz: "Warmth is just another word for mud"

Never heard that one. My fave from Bob is, 'It's not how loud you make it. It's how you make it loud.' Lots of good quotes in his book.

During mastering it may help to reduce some of the 500 range a bit to clear things up...

I'll just look at the ProTools session when I have the time. I want to hear what you're hearing. I've already pulled a ton of 500 out of the guitar--in addition to some aggressive multiband compression in that area. I actually brought back some energy in the gtr about an octave lower right before I printed it; maybe that's the problem.

...but do be careful to volume match. Automatic gain compensation is a very useful tool there, but turn it off and adjust the gain manually before you export because it sometimes causes a bit of distortion.

"volume match. Automatic gain compensation"? You totally lost me: please elaborate.

Side note about mp3 kbps rates: give it a listen in high resolution head phones...

I hear the difference, but it's just too slight to worry about IMHO. That was a 192K ABR file, which does a pretty good job of retaining high frequency content--at least, good enough... If I have to squint to hear the difference on a pair of Grados, then I figure 192 ABR (or VBR--even CBR) is probably good enough for the average listener. Film is better than JPGs too, if you're using an electron microscope...