my first 'big' mix

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:27 am

Hello good people of recordingland,

I recently finished a mix that for me is my first real 'big' mix---i.e. more than just 1 vocal and 1-2 instruments.

It's a demo and still a work-in-progress (hence the request for unbiased feedback) Wink

. But I'd love to hear what you have to say, both about the mix, recording and the song in general.

Currently I can hear some things I'd like to fix, but I don't want to bias your opinion.

Any comments from your golden ears would be greatly appreciated,
thanks,
P6

http://www.soundclick.com/matinee

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:09 pm

Hi Polly,
I'd change the lyrics in the first 4 seconds to say, "Close the door, turn out the lights."

Just kidding.

Groovy ambiance and style...I like it. Though I'm not sure I'm feeling the choice/quality of the reverb on the vocals as much as I'd like to, but there may not be anything you can do about it. Don't misunderstand me though, it's not bad. Everything else has good separation and detail too; as well as I can tell on my tiny PC head phones.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:39 pm

Thanks sshack for your feedback. I appreciate it. Yah, the main thing I plan to change is the level and treatment of the vocals at the very beginning. I have a lot of volume automation on the vocals and the reverbs kind of change as the song goes along to suit how the song builds. I used to have the beginning vocals more dry but that sounded funny…now I find them too wet… guess it’s a fine balance. Maybe like you said it’s just a case of finding a better reverb.

Well thanks again for the reply and I’ve gotta ask… what’s the "Close the door, turn out the lights" a reference too?

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:47 pm

Zeppelin's "No Quarter".
Has a similar synth background sound. The first lyrics are "Close the door, turn out the lights..."

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:58 pm

AaronP wrote:

Zeppelin's "No Quarter".
Has a similar synth background sound. The first lyrics are "Close the door, turn out the lights..."

...and chords.

One of my favorite Zep tunes.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:31 pm

Heh heh. I love Zepplin but never once did I think of that as a reference for this song. Hilarious. Smile

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:40 am

I don't think you should have stolen the soundtrack to the 1951 movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still"?

Polly want a better mix?

At first I thought the stuff I was smoking was better than I had paid for? But then I realized it was just your song. Which did enhance this domestican. Thank you.

Quite ethereal and spooky. I really couldn't quite comprehend your lyrics because the mix did not bring the focus to your local. But it sure gave me a feeling. Like I think I'll go feel myself, again and again and maybe again later?

Either way I thought it was a good effort. The vocals sounded good if not a little too low in the mix? But I liked the texture of your vocal albeit with a rather tubby sounding reverb algorithm. Although I must admit I got rather tired of you running around in that underground parking garage. The bathroom is down the hall on your left.

I already went
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:56 am

The lyrics were saying something about a tread mill and life going around and back again or something like that..
Well thats what your mix did.. very mono and no stereo image until around 3:30 I lost intrest in this song after about 30 sec,into it.. I found it to be very bland and uninspiring to say the least.. This may have to do with the performance. Try to add more image to the mix make those claps autopan from left to right.. Overall I would say it was OK but Im sure you came here looking for Ideas. So try to be more creative.. JMO

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:29 am

RemyRAD wrote:

I don't think you should have stolen the soundtrack to the 1951 movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still"?

Polly want a better mix?

At first I thought the stuff I was smoking was better than I had paid for? But then I realized it was just your song. Which did enhance this domestican. Thank you.

Quite ethereal and spooky. I really couldn't quite comprehend your lyrics because the mix did not bring the focus to your local. But it sure gave me a feeling. Like I think I'll go feel myself, again and again and maybe again later?

heh heh. you're hilarious. thanks for the reply. guess i can rack that up as the second reaction of that kind to my music, the first one being a review that called it: "music to touch yourself to." Hum. Yah, no theremin here, but I guess the PolySix has that same spacey analog sound.

RemyRAD wrote:

Either way I thought it was a good effort. The vocals sounded good if not a little too low in the mix? But I liked the texture of your vocal albeit with a rather tubby sounding reverb algorithm. Although I must admit I got rather tired of you running around in that underground parking garage. The bathroom is down the hall on your left.

Yah, I kind of hate the processing on the vocals. Not to make excuses, but I do need to get some better reverbs. There's a low resonant sound in that one that really bugs me. Any suggestions for some high-quality reverbs to invest in? (seeing as i'm so obviously addicted to them).

It's funny, my worry was that the vocals were too high in the mix. Maybe once I get the treatment of them worked out they will sound better.

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Glad to get yah hiiiigh. Wink

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:37 am

Jbrax wrote:

The lyrics were saying something about a tread mill and life going around and back again or something like that..
Well thats what your mix did.. very mono and no stereo image until around 3:30 I lost intrest in this song after about 30 sec,into it.. I found it to be very bland and uninspiring to say the least.. This may have to do with the performance. Try to add more image to the mix make those claps autopan from left to right.. Overall I would say it was OK but Im sure you came here looking for Ideas. So try to be more creative.. JMO

Thanks. Yah, like I said this is my first time mixing a pop song with any complexity. My other experiences mixing have been with electroacoustic music. Somehow back then when I had a board in front of me I was more adventurous with my mixes than with my current DAW setup. Thanks for catching my blindspot. And you're totally right---that's what I came here for---to learn. Given your suggestions, maybe I should get back to more of what I used to do with the EA stuff.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:23 pm

Well Polly you came to the right place..
Ive gotten some of the best advice around here.. There isnt any better place to learn then on this board..

Keep it interesting that what makes the world go round,
That and Remys quick wit!!!

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:19 am

Me too, I love reverb's. Can't get enough of it. Back in the early 1980s, digital reverbs, what few there were, sounded like crap. Springs were an order of magnitude of even bigger barf with barely one exception. In 1982, with the help of a friend we actually managed to muscle down a plate reverb for my basement studio since I needed some decent reverb. No way I could deal with awful springs and the AKG BX20E was not an option. The plate reverb I got was a bargain at $2500, since it had no motorized remote decay control. It's just a little difficult to take out on remotes since it weighed over 150 pounds, , required 2 people to move it and especially since it was very sensitive to outside sounds and had to be re-tensioned and tuned before and after its move which was a multi-hour project. So, I was only kidding, it never went out on remotes. It went in when I purchased it and it left when I sold it years later. I especially Miss the EMT plate with remote I later had. Then I got a QUANTEC room simulator. Now that was one cool German digital reverb. And for the late 1980s, it was truly something. But I got greedy and sold it after having it a couple years. I got $5,000 for that. At the time I thought my Lexicon PCM 60 was adequate for $800. I still have that one. Along with that city in the rack is still 2 LXP-1's with remotes & 1 PCM 70. 2 Yamaha SPX 90 II's & a Alesis Quadra-verb & an original awful MIDI verb. Not to mention the still working two Delta-Lab's Effectron II 1024 delay lines with adaptive delta modulation and some of the smoothest analog tape style echoes. So, yeah, reverbs. I'm sure I left something out?? I know there is more?

There are so many things you can do to improve the quality of most any software-based digital reverbs these days. Frequently, you can filter out low frequencies and/or change reverb time constants at different frequencies, i.e. shorter at low frequencies, longer at high frequencies. This can help to brighten up/cleanup the reverb. You can also equalize what you send to the reverb and boost high frequencies and which can provide more high frequency reverb "excitement" rather than equalizing on the outgoing reverb, which is an awful noisy thing to do. So again, just more experimentation & manipulation. We would frequently filter/equalize the reverb/Echo sends to many of our effects making devices. Try running your reverb through a flanger, or your flanger into the reverb. Equalize going in and equalize going out. After all, aren't all digital effects just digital LSD??

I think I'll have a couple more of those windowpane reverbs? Maybe a little blotter echo device is in order?? Let me have a little bit more of that purple stuff with the thing ooozing out the azimuth of my motion sensor?

#9
#9
#9
#9
did I say #9?

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:32 am

A few observations, comments, etc....

I agree about the vocal's reverb. It needs something better; too much of certain freqs; sounds kind've dated (think 80's digital) and gimmicky. With the right reverb, the vocal could be a bit more interesting.

The "organ" sound (in the beginning and throughout) could use some dressing up as well, then pushed back in the mix a tad. I understand it's a pretty cool sonic effect all on its own, but to my ears, it sounds too static & dry, and too much like someone's home organ (A cheap Lowrey or Conn, to be exact...showing my age here!) And it seems too loud when it moves into the second motif later on in the song. If it's used as an effect or a mood, it shouldn't intrude on the song once it's introduced.

Arrangement-wise, I too got bored about 30 seconds into it. If it's intended to be mood music, fine, sure, ok, I get it. Otherwise, the listener needs to be rewarded for waiting through the moody intro - which turns out to to be the song, as it were. (And it ain't POP without a hook, chorus, verse, whatever...) I was waiting for a rhythm track to kick in under the second verse or chorus.

Last but not least, there's clearly some rhythmic problems going on. Something's not in sync or the timing is off in several places. These need to be fixed. Perhaps it's intended to be that way, but I find it distracting to my enjoyment of the song.

Don't get me wrong; I really like the mood/sound & vocalist in general. This just seems like a good start or a demo for something that could really be catchy & interesting.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:48 am

RemyRAD wrote:

At the time I thought my Lexicon PCM 60 was adequate for $800. I still have that one. Along with that city in the rack is still 2 LXP-1's with remotes & 1 PCM 70. 2 Yamaha SPX 90 II's & a Alesis Quadra-verb & an original awful MIDI verb. Not to mention the still working two Delta-Lab's Effectron II 1024 delay lines with adaptive delta modulation and some of the smoothest analog tape style echoes. So, yeah, reverbs. I'm sure I left something out?? I know there is more?

Well... all I can say is... nice rack.

RemyRAD wrote:

There are so many things you can do to improve the quality of most any software-based digital reverbs these days. Frequently, you can filter out low frequencies and/or change reverb time constants at different frequencies, i.e. shorter at low frequencies, longer at high frequencies. This can help to brighten up/cleanup the reverb. You can also equalize what you send to the reverb and boost high frequencies and which can provide more high frequency reverb "excitement" rather than equalizing on the outgoing reverb, which is an awful noisy thing to do. So again, just more experimentation & manipulation. We would frequently filter/equalize the reverb/Echo sends to many of our effects making devices. Try running your reverb through a flanger, or your flanger into the reverb. Equalize going in and equalize going out. After all, aren't all digital effects just digital LSD??

I've never thought of using a flanger that way. I've usually stayed away from flange because I associate it with a cheesy over-done sound, but I'd like to give it a try in that context. Thanks for the tips and encouragement.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:07 am

JoeH wrote:

A few observations, comments, etc....

I agree about the vocal's reverb. It needs something better; too much of certain freqs; sounds kind've dated (think 80's digital) and gimmicky. With the right reverb, the vocal could be a bit more interesting.

Yes, I agree. Gotta change that verb. To a certain extent I do want it to sound a little 80s--that's part of the reference. (Arthur Russell, Eurythmics, etc), but gimmicky, no I don't want that. Wink

JoeH wrote:

The "organ" sound (in the beginning and throughout) could use some dressing up as well, then pushed back in the mix a tad. I understand it's a pretty cool sonic effect all on its own, but to my ears, it sounds too static & dry, and too much like someone's home organ (A cheap Lowrey or Conn, to be exact...showing my age here!) And it seems too loud when it moves into the second motif later on in the song. If it's used as an effect or a mood, it shouldn't intrude on the song once it's introduced.

Thanks. Yeah your advice on the levels is very helpful, I've been working to get it to sound powerful and solid, yet not overpowering. The fact that you're hearing it as a cheap Lowrey means I've got some work to do... because it's actually my PolySix.

JoeH wrote:

Arrangement-wise, I too got bored about 30 seconds into it. If it's intended to be mood music, fine, sure, ok, I get it. Otherwise, the listener needs to be rewarded for waiting through the moody intro - which turns out to to be the song, as it were. (And it ain't POP without a hook, chorus, verse, whatever...) I was waiting for a rhythm track to kick in under the second verse or chorus.

Well, compared to my other stuff this is "really pop". Heh heh. Ambient and minimalist music are more of a reference for me; stuff that walks the line between pop and more experimental stuff (e.g. Spiritualized and other post-rock). I was thinking of eventually getting someone to add some subtle beats, but we'll see. "Block rockin' beats" isn't what I'm aiming for.

JoeH wrote:

Last but not least, there's clearly some rhythmic problems going on. Something's not in sync or the timing is off in several places. These need to be fixed. Perhaps it's intended to be that way, but I find it distracting to my enjoyment of the song.

Yes. No it's not intended that way, it's just in a rough form. I probably should have included a disclaimer---it's just a demo/pre-production. The demo was partly for songwriting/arranging purposes and partly for pre-production (as the sounds are a big part of the music). The idea of posting it for feedback was just to see how I was doing in terms of balancing all the elements as a sort of practice run/litmus test (or as remy would say, 'acid test') for future mixes. I realize that might be a bit of a weird way of working.

JoeH wrote:

Don't get me wrong; I really like the mood/sound & vocalist in general. This just seems like a good start or a demo for something that could really be catchy & interesting.

Thanks. I'm working totally alone, so any comment from "outside ears" is a big help.
Thanks. Smile

This topic sponsored by: