I usually visualize the entire sound stage while tracking/overdubbing and almost always set my panning WAY before any serious mixing. The placement in the panorama affects how we perceive each instrument/voice and thus affects what needs to be done to each to make the mix gel. How can you properly EQ, compress etc. when you don't yet know what company a track will be keeping?
Things panned to opposite sides will not fight with each other the way they might if both on the same side or center. If you try to set the EQ so they fight less when panned center, and then later pan to opposite sides, won't you have likely applied some unnecessary EQ?
To me, attempting to apply EQ, compression, reverb etc. to everything while panned center would be crazy-making, but that's based on what works for me, not saying your way is wrong! If you get good results, keep it up!
~Jeff

ClarkJaman, post: 415579, member: 42802 wrote:

When I'm mixing, I usually start by getting all of the tracks to sound good on their own, ......... up until this point I am mostly using EQ, Compression, Reverb, etc.
-Clark

.........

ewwwww ... why would you do that? how a track sounds on its own has absolutely nothing to do with how it sounds in a mix.

i start by putting the drums up with panning in place ....... add the bass then guitars / keys / pads etc. again with panning in place. i always check phase by flipping the phase switch as i add each track with the choice being made by which sounds fuller as it is added to the mix. last thing to go up would be vocals with panning again checking phase relationships .... i also listen in mono as i go to make sure nothing is cancelling out. (a hang over from mono days). then i start with effects and last compression (as little as possible) although i may add limiting or comps to the bass / drums / guitars as they are added.

The only thing I do consistently is listen to the song. I don't have a "set routine" by which I mix... But assuming more traditional "modern music", (damn if that ain't a sign of age!) I start panning first thing... before I do ANY compression, EQ or much level adjustment, and certainly before I do verbs & timebase.

I try to get the song to tell me what it wants to say by the 3rd or 4th pass... making notes on when certain things happen... Like solo's and harmonies. I establish fairly quickly, what's where and make notes of when.

You know that certain things will be placed center, so you leave those be, and start getting everything else out of their way.

Once I've got everybody sitting pretty happily, I'll start carving up.

But I've done the process completely backwards and been happy with the mix. So, there ain't no rulez. Do what makes you happy. If it makes other people happy, then fine... That's what matters.

Serve the song and you serve the client.

Kurt Foster, post: 415582, member: 7836 wrote: ewwwww ... why would you do that? how a track sounds on its own has absolutely nothing to do with how it sounds in a mix.

You're right. But if a track sounds downright bad on its own, it will still sound downright bad in a mix. To clarify, when I say "make them sound good on their own," I really mean "make sure they don't sound bad on their own" and "make sure they sound the way I want them too on their own." If a shaker has a bunch of low end in it, most of the time I know that I'm not going to want those frequencies, so I'll cut it out before I even look at how it relates to the other tracks. Or if I know I want to bury a guitar track in a dotted eighth note delay, as an effect, then I'll add an effect like that before I worry about making the track sound good with the other parts. "Making the tracks sound good on their own" is a simple step for me that doesn't take much skill, although it effects the direction of a mix immensely. Does that make sense?

Jeff, you make some good points. But here is my question: Does it make it harder to hear the flaws in a track if it is panned hard to the side? And if so, how do you "fix" the flaws if you can't hear them? Most of us would agree that soloing a track to "fix" it is generally not a good idea. Or maybe those flaws don't matter if you can't hear them.

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink .....

that is not the way to do it. the way i described is ..... what a track sounds like alone has nothing to do with what it sounds like in context. add tracks one at a time and soloing them as they are added. take the advice of someone who has years in the vocation and a track record. ask anyone else who knows what they are doing and they will agree...

I really have no set way of working. Much of the work I did early on were commercials, voiceovers, for big-time ad agency. Everything was produced in Mono. The commercials, the jingles. Getting a good mix in Mono can actually be more difficult than getting it, in stereo.

But then again, I'm also a liar. I've done lots of television production. I match positioning with picture from the center wide shot. But then I also have my stereo pair which may also be supplemented with highlight microphones that are in turn, positioned where they are supposed to be emanating from. Of course there are those crazy when they switch from one camera to the other but we leave the audio consistent. Otherwise there would be virtually unlistenable with changes in perspective. Or what on some video switchers is referred to as " audio follow video ". Which simply means whatever camera is punched up? That's the microphone that will also be activated. Where the other microphones are muted. But when switching cameras than the microphones also switch simultaneously and that can get pretty awkward sounding if not downright bizarre.

So I work one way for television another way in radio and a different method for recording albums. With radio and recordings, you can place anything anywhere. When doing it for television? Make it sound like the picture looks, from the center, wide shot. And keep it like that.

The discussion of panning, was a discussion I and my other audio colleagues had with NBC-TV, engineering management, in 1984. Because in 1984, we were one of the first stations in the country, to debut stereo television. And the discussions we had about doing news were idiotic at best. Should we put Jim in the left channel and Doreen in the right channel? What do we do when we switch cameras? What are we going to do for the stereo on live shots in the field? My suggestion? Was essentially a three channel system. The camcorders were capable of four channels. My recommendation was the news anchor gets the wireless and is assigned to channel 1. While the on camera shotgun microphone, originally Mono, should be swapped out for MS stereo. This will be laid down on Channels 3 & 4. This way when the bus behind Pat Collins drives behind him from left to right, you'll hear the bus go as the picture goes. While Pat Collins will be panned to center Mono. But they didn't want to do that because they felt that would be too complicated for the camera guys and for the editors. Give me a break! But it is par for the course since they couldn't even figure out how to get there left and right tracked properly. Much less have to deal with a third channel. So three channels of audio was way too complicated for NBC-TV News. So I convinced them, we play the bumper music in stereo and we keep all of the talking heads, center Mono for highest intelligibility. I told him we'd shriek that like primary dialogue in the movies.

When it comes to stereo production, like Kurt and others, I'd start with the basic rhythm section drums and bass. Beginning to Bring up the guitars, keyboards, ancillary percussion. Then start bringing up the vocals. And I too first see the mix and the stereo, in my head. Then I just twiddle my figures until I get what I want.

I have no set way of how far left or right I may place something? I don't try to analytically think out what you have been describing. I push up all the faders and will just start mixing. The music will tell you what to do. But it's not like I'm making something deliberately moved from left to right or vice versa. But we've also all done that.

Bottom line is you just make a good sounding stereo recording. If you want something wide sounding? You could do it more than just with the panoramic potentiometer. This is where you might hard pan, say, the guitar, hard left. But then, you send a little bit of that guitar (now only in the left channel of the stereo mix bus), through a 10/15/20 ms delay and put that into the right channel. Now what you get that way is considerably different. Signal source strength in the left channel will become additive with the right channel. This will give the track more than just a monaural positioning in space. This will give you the HAAS, effect. So while it is actually sounding like it's coming from the left channel, it's also equally of the same level, in the right channel. But you don't perceive it that way because of the time delay that had been added. But then this also provides for more robust energy and a thickening of the sound, one does not get merely by positioning a single source somewhere between the left and right channel.

So some of those are just things that you do to create a feeling of spaciousness. And not just stuff coming out of this channel or bad channel or swooping back and forth. Which most of the time, sounds like real doggie Doo Doo.

Wow... it's 4:20 AM and for a change... I'm getting sleepy? It must be old-age? Or maybe I've been panning too much to the left and right, left and right, left and right... whoops... I think I'm getting sea sick? No more panning.

I was trying to sing myself a lullaby but I kept falling asleep?
Mx. Remy Ann David

"...You're right. But if a track sounds downright bad on its own, it will still sound downright bad in a mix...."

That's not nearly as true as I've found the opposite tends to be. I've worked with many tracks that, on their own, sound pretty bad tonally, but that work with - and in the context of - the other tracks very well.

If you also happened to be the recording engineer on the song, then there shouldn't really be any "bad sounding" tracks to begin with. You should pretty much have your tones in place before you even hit "R".
The mix should be fine tuning and sculpting. It shouldn't be a repair session.

I don't really have "one way" of doing it, no standard method that I always reach for every time. Each individual song drives the process differently. But, if pressed to come up with a "common" method, I would say that I generally work with EQ first, HP'ing each track appropriately and according to instrument... then, imaging is next, which also handles much of the volume balancing at the same time as well. Pan is nothing more than turning something down on one side while turning it up on the other, so in itself it is a form of volume/balance control.

If an instrument is jumping out at random points, I will work with volume envelopes first, before I reach for GR.

Then - again in a very generalized description of order - I move onto gain reduction, where I will use it for two purposes: the first is to catch those transient peaks, and the second is to add "glue" and cohesiveness to the mix. But the type of GR will vary greatly from song to song. I may look towards peak reduction, but I may also look at something like a parallel compression - (the classic "New York" compression) - for things like drums and bass. But then again, maybe not. It really all depends on what the song needs.

I work with effects last. I find it far easier, and also find I use far less of them, if the mix is in place on the whole, and for the most part, I use them as sweeteners to a mix, and not something I would rely on to form a foundation. There are rare cases, of course... PF's Us and Them could be an example.

What I don't do is use presets for EQ or GR. I don't mix in a cookie-cutter fashion from song to song, they are all independent from one another. What worked on one mix doesn't mean it will fit for another, even if it's the same artist/musicians.

Pre's and mics may differ, as will the rooms in which the performances were tracked, as well the performances themselves, even from the same performer. I've tracked a vocalist on one day, and then the very next day, they sound different. Same pre, same mic, same room... but the vocalist still sounds noticeably different. Generally it's because the songs also differ, so projection and dynamics will change which in turn effects the tones - but it could also be because of voice strain, or allergies, or even the weather... but there have been times when this was the case... so using preset templates would be futile.

IMO.

d/

Clark, in my opinion it is easier to hear 'flaws' in a track if panned hard to one side. That being said, why are you working with 'flawed' tracks in the first place? My approach is based on one of my most important principles: 90% of a good mix takes place in the tracking process. I don't have to 'fix' my tracks because they were properly recorded in the first place, with good equipment in a great sounding room. I specialize in acoustic music, and often my tracks require no or little EQ because they were tracked accurately.
As for soloing tracks to make them sound good (or 'not bad') on their own, this is not a good approach or even a good way to be thinking. I could point out dozens of instances where a track may sound not very good on its own, but in the mix it works just fine.
How I EQ any instrument depends, in part, on what role it plays in the entire piece. For example, an acoustic guitar that comprises the primary accompaniment to a vocal will need to be full sounding, whereas an acoustic guitar used as only an additional rhythmic element in a more dense mix with other instruments comprising the primary accompaniment will usually end up with much of the lower frequency and possibly some mids being reduced. If you solo that guitar it will sound somewhat thin and tinny for a guitar, but it works in the mix just fine. If I were to first solo it and make it sound 'good' for a guitar, I will be adding mud to my mix by including frequencies which are unnecessary for its role in the mix and which are already occupied by other elements.
I could give other examples, but you get the idea... you can't perfect on part without regard to how it fits in the whole.
~Jeff

Mono mixing forces me to address tonal interactions (other than bleed/phase) that aren't apparent when elements are panned apart.

For things like drums I like to pan them early on and compare with the mono sound to find phase interactions from the bleed in addition to general tonal interactions.

Clark, you got very good advice here.
I try to visualise the band in a space and pan everything as it would sound if I was listening to it in the room.
It's better to put everything where it should be right away before processing because some tracks may end up with no processing at all because they sound good within the mix. If you already processed them, you may miss that. I mean, the end product will be the tracks together right ? who care if they sound good alone !! ;)

Well, you know, it's simply that your choices will be different that way!

Well, I am definitely going to try panning earlier in the process in my next mix (Tuesday).

In regards to soloing tracks, I definitely do it less than I used to. But I probably still do it too much. I'll try and cut back on that too. When I talk about fixing flaws, I'm partly talking the song I'm working on right now. It's a live looping session with tons of tracks. Some of the instruments use the same mic with the same pre-amp settings, so it gets messy at times. Plus, I'm singing through the whole thing while I play the instruments, so there is a lot of bleeding between the 7 live mics I had running. It's a pretty cool concept though.

i get a rough balance of everything w/ faders and pan in the first pass or two, if i tracked it, then ive already rough panned as we are building the song. then i usually mute everything but the drums, start w/ them then bass, ect.

one interesting concept my mentor came up w for the senior engineer who tends to spend way too much time was to start w/ the vocals, and any special effects, that pertain to the song. like if a vocal moves left to right, or maybe a word or two has a flange, ya know the creative ear candy.

the reason for this is after 8 or 10 or 18 hrs (yes ive been on 18 hr mixes w this dude) of obsessively eqing, compressing, you not only lose your ears, you become exhausted, and lose your creativity, ya know your fire, the thrill, and just wanna get it done.

oddly working 'backwards' worked very well for this 30 yr vet, and by the time he got to the drums they didn't touch them. just a thought.

kmetal, post: 415620, member: 37533 wrote: the reason for this is after 8 or 10 or 18 hrs (yes ive been on 18 hr mixes w this dude) of obsessively eqing, compressing, you not only lose your ears, you become exhausted, and lose your creativity, ya know your fire, the thrill, and just wanna get it done.

oddly working 'backwards' worked very well for this 30 yr vet, and by the time he got to the drums they didn't touch them. just a thought.

Do you find that it's the veterans who take longest on mixes? In my experience, the guys with 20 or 30 years of experience whip through mixes and hardly touch them. Which seems to work well for them on country or rock songs. But a lot of the time their pop mixes sound boring and unexciting.

Hey Clark. Great info from all the group here.
Post some stuff if you like?

Here is another angle.

Coming at mixing specifically from a "Mixer's" pov, meaning (I never had anything to do with the tracking), I may or may not do many things which can also be quite different from the recordists mixing his or her work.
Why?
Most of you whom are not solely mixers, have less reasons or understanding why I may do a certain step or process. Everything I do is dependent on each song I get but the basics are usually the same. Hard LR center.

When I mix other peoples work, the focus for me is usually space correction first.
In the 38 years I have been playing around with music, space is where I get most excited.
When I started mixing other people's work, their rooms are almost always in the way. We all tend to get used to our room and that is the reason why mixers can usually mix your work better than you.
Mixers are basically Mastering engineers going backwards. We have an arsenal of specialized gear that is often mastering quality.

I want to hear a scratch mix from the engineer/recordist/producer.
As Max put is so well, I listen to the song a few times before I do anything. I am basically studying the sound of the room(s) which tells me everything I need to know.
I load in all the tracks, verify what I heard and begin.

I mix OTB into an analog mixing console that uses hardware to distort the center image followed by an analog mastering console that has mono or stereo tools ready on hand in an MS matrix.
I designate channels both itb and otb which are set up for how I space everything. As I mix, I am always working the space within the hole mix.
EQing is another process of spacing to me. So, I am dipping, boosting or carving to create space, widening/ shaping the "center mix" towards the sides or bringing things closer or further away . I do this via MS and panning. I am Hard LR or center in the beginning of this process. In a nut shell, I listen to the center and use MS to create a big center image that has clear connection to the sides of the whole mix. Mono may not sound stereo but it is all created using panning and MS processing.

My analog mixing system is designed to be dead lock center so I take advantage of these settings at different stages. This is extremely helpful, critical, especially when I am depending and building on the center, which I do not want pulled away into the sides. I will use reverb to bridge this MS which creates a wall of sound that has clear LR and center imaging. (Its hard to explain. I've never tried to explain this actually).
I put everything choice for mono or stereo in those stems or groups and send these OTB to my console(s) for further shaping.
My LR panning (automation LR) is done ITB, however, I may tweak those OTB for various reasons. My analog console has very accurate mono settings that are calibrated via the Mastering DAW. I monitor everything on the master DAW.
I use the capture DAW to mono sub freq on the overall mix.

I study mixes in mono all the time and use cubes or full range monitors to keep me accurate.
I use digital and analog hardware together in a MS matrix to widen or center all or parts of a mix. I mix and pan into the Matrix while always monitoring the end result on the Capture side right before the internet. Its all about LR and Center . Wonderful topic.
that I'm sure was near impossible to understand lol.

It all varies one song to the next. Using analog gear in an MS matrix is the bomb. :) Sheds a whole new light on panning.

I wasn't going to post anything, because this was the first song I had mixed in almost a year and through the whole process I didn't feel confident at all. I used way too much compression/eq/reverb at first, and it took me a long time to step back and lay off the effects.

[[url=http://[/URL]="

&feature=youtu.be[/]

Don't go too hard on me! Hahah. All the instruments were recorded live off the floor in one take, but I overdubbed the vocals, as I'm sure you will all be able to tell.

Let me know how the mix sounds. I think it's almost done. I'm going to do a stereo flip when I "master" it, because I want the floor tom, tambourine and the cymbal rolls to match the Left-Right of the video.

Excellent.

I would put a wider reverb on the synth. Other than that, kudo's. Reminds me of Owl City. The world needs more positive music. Your talent is bursting at the seams.

Thanks man, that means a lot. You're right. The world needs more art that points to truth, beauty and goodness. I hope my life and work can contribute a little.

audiokid, post: 415656, member: 1 wrote: Reminds me of Owl City.

That's what I thought too as the mix was coming together! It's like a guitar driven Owl City song! The beat I made with the little pad thing was partly inspired by Owl City's song "meteor shower." Although now that I listen back to that song, the beat is quite different.

Chris, did you recognize your old MA-100s in the video? I was using the cardoid capsule on the floor tom and the omni capsule on the left one. I recorded an acoustic guitar with them this afternoon and was really impressed with how it turned out. I haven't found the omni capsules very useful though, yet. Maybe I'm just scared of the sound of my room.

Also, with the reverb on the synth, were you talking about the pad-like string synth or the lead synth that kicks in during the last chorus?

Pax Caritas et lol,
-Clark

Nice... PURELY suggestions to get a few things corrected you may not be hearing.
(Not because you CAN'T hear, but because you don't yet KNOW to listen, and/or it's being masked by your mix set-up/environment.)

Your 2-bus is getting a little crowded in the lower mids/upper lows. It's fairly common when your room response isn't true to what you're actually recording as a 2 track.

One thing I would try is to throw an spectrum analyzer on your 2-bus... the go through and solo each channel and look to make sure you're actually getting an accurate visual representation, compared to what you're hearing. (All to often in the DAW world, we make the mis-step of mixing with our eyes instead of our ears.

Your vocals are a tad crushed into distortion in a couple of places... probably because its getting masked by something(s) else in the low mid/upper low end.. probably 180 out of phase... bass maybe... or the sequencer most likely... and it will prolly allow things like the floor tom to come into the mix and sit well.

Thanks Max!

I just tried flipping the phase on the bass and it definitely made an improvement. Thicker and easier to hear now. I should have done that earlier. :/ I can't hear what you're talking about regarding distortion on the vocals though. Can you give me an example? A particular point in the video that gets distorted?

I did recognize the Mojave's. I was hoping you'd comment on them. They sound great btw, thanks for sharing where you used them!
I'm so glad you got those. :)
I missed that MA100 stereo kit so much I have another set again!

For the synth, its only a personal thing. I would add a sweet hall just so they aren't quite dry and in front. I wouldn't touch the level, just more verb to give some space. Do you have any on them now? If so, a few more db of wet would be choice to me. Its a taste thing only. I think this all sounds just excellent.

I don't hear or would be at all concerned with what Max is hearing, ( distortion or 2-bus cramming) ?

I could suggest personal levels on some area's, maybe vox is a bit loud but I also love it and think this sounds very current. The echo on your Vox is perfect, nice touch there! I would have done that exactly.

Maybe your snare would be better dead center but its also right on for the effect you are using it. Its there and not in your face. Very suiting for the topic.
Maybe add a bit more bottom on the overall mix, and keep that cool bass going on more... I loved that!
This is all personal taste.

Again, very clean, open and current sounding. Cool video too.

What did you use for your voice? mic and pre?

I Listened again.

Ya, the synth would sound choice with the same echo you used for your vox plus a slight more reverb. Excellent

I really enjoyed this. Nice job. Apparently, the age of the solo singer-songwriter isn't dead after all. ;)

1:37, 2:09, 2:22-2:30 (various points). There are 2-3 specific notes that are effected... They aren't distorting BAD. They're just a bit too hot on the channel, driving your 2-bus JUST into distortion. (YuToobz compression algo ain't helpin' matters either.)

Don't listen for the distortion to sound like noise... listen for it making other notes shimmer/quiver. Throw an eq on it and look at the frequency and tug it back a bit...

Which really, only addresses this one song... but likely is is indicative of your listening position not being accurate... as long as you KNOW that there's an issue at those frequencies.

If you don't have anything to accurately analyze your system, Room EQ Wizard (REW) is a solid choice to do your evaluation with. It's free and available from HomeTheaterShack.com. (and there's lots of information on how to interpret the results...)

Essentially, you just need to map the problem frequencies.

audiokid, post: 415664, member: 1 wrote: I don't hear or would be at all concerned with what Max is hearing, ( distortion or 2-bus cramming) ?

I don't hear it much on my Twin's, the M1 Actives it's apparent, but very slight. The Mixcubes show it clearly, but again, just. The lappie is where it really comes out. So, as driver size decreases, the level of excess in those frequencies stand out. Again, it's not much, but it's there.

Maybe add a bit more bottom on the overall mix, and keep that cool bass going on more... I loved that!
This is all personal taste.

Again, very clean, open and current sounding. Cool video too.

Agreed! and DITTO!

Chris, I'm still not sure which synth track you're talking about. There are two different synths.

I think you guys will like the bass with the 180 flipped phase!

Now that I've listened to it with fresh ears a couple times, I agree that the vox are a touch too loud. I turned the down about 1db and I like the way they're sitting now. I could hear the slight distortion that you pointed out Max at 2:09, but now that I've turned the vox down I can't hear it any more. I can't hear it at the other places you mentioned though.

Oh and Chris, for tracking vox I used a C414 through a Black Lion Auteur Pre. This is my go-to vocal chain, but I'm starting to think I need to try experimenting with something else, microphone wise. I want to try an SM7B ( gasp! ) on a softer, more mellow acoustic song. It won't be as crisp and sizzly, but I'm hoping to find a richer, syrupy, authentic sound.

-Clark

I would put this on what ever synth you are using on the video. When you do a few bars? (that part :) )
I like the sound of your vox, the ss are really pleasant. Its a nice match for you.

Ok, I assume you're talking about the lead synth part, right? Not the ambient pad sounding one? I'm trying it with delays right now and it's sounding really nice.

yes (y)

i finally got a chance to watch today and i must say what you are doing seems to be working fine. keep it up! btw the playing of multiple parts at the same time and the looping is way cool! kudos.

Do you find that it's the veterans who take longest on mixes? In my experience, the guys with 20 or 30 years of experience whip through mixes and hardly touch them. Which seems to work well for them on country or rock songs. But a lot of the time their pop mixes sound boring and unexciting.

i havent had the experience of mixing w too many other vets of that experience level, but the handful i have, dont take nearly as long as the guy i was referring to, who has been known to spend numerous days on songs back in the heyday. but this 'mixing' included a lot of 'fixing' where he would replay parts, sample things, redo vocal tracks, long after the artists thought the tracking was 'done'and often times after they went home, someone else was brought in, whether the client new it or not.

good job on the mix clark! sounds very pleasing, and professional. i didnt hear any distortions, but i listen to these posts on my ipad cuz my home studio is boxed up right now. translates nicely, although i will echo the previous sentiments about vocals a touch up front, but again thats taste, i wouldnt say so far upfront that its a 'mistake' but any more upfront and i would consider it an issue. you already lowered them a touch, so thats cool.

the only other critique i have, is that the phrase "i'll wait for you" is kinda similar to Mumford and Sons' chorus hook to there song 'i will wait for you'. obviously this a pretty universal love song type lyric, that has been sung millions of times, but, since the song was a recent hit, if it were my song, or i was producing, I would consider changing the melody line up. its not something you/artist would likely get sued over, but just a thought.

also man, (completely un-related to the mix/song) have you considered covering that insulation w some fabric? i got itchy just looking at it lol, brought up some memories of long sweaty days working w the stuff.

dude, if that voice sounds that good, on a 414 (which i own/love dearly), i can just imagine what a c12 would do. my (fairly limited) studio experience w them is like a 'more robust' 414. but really, i very much like the air around the vocal. great air, no harshness.

excellent job man. good work!!!!!!

Ok guys, here is the latest mix. I spent about a half hour "mastering" the track, but I felt like the right side was overcrowded. So I went back and redid a lot of the the left-right panning. It's quite different spatially now, but basically the same idea as before:

http://jungleheart.bandcamp.com/track/ill-wait-for-you

There is less vocals now and a little more bass. I really hope the bass isn't overpowering. :/

Thanks Kmetal and Kurt. :) I never realized how similar the hook was to the Mumford song. I'm pretty sure I wrote this before I ever heard that song, but who knows. My brother posted a song on his facebook wall the day I started recording this, and the song had the exact same words in the chorus. Haha...

I would love a C12 some day. I love tube mics, and I love the sound of the 414. I would love some fabric over the insulation too... Haha.

Nice,

Here is where the baby steps start. If it were me tweaking the finals.

The claps are ever so slightly over powering and the snare is just a bit too bright. I would dip a touch of upper mid/top on the snare just so its not so clear but replace the same amount deducted on the snare, adding that on the vox so it adds a bit of excitement and you have a beauty. I only say that because the vox now sounds a bit dull. But thats because the snare is bright.
The bass and kick sit better now.

The song has a great hook. Simple, melodic, memorable, it's what I call a "way-homer" - if you heard it at a concert, or on the radio, you'd be humming or singing the hook all the way home. ;)

Try adding a 2-4mS delay to the tambo, panned hard left, and about -12db (or more) from the track itself.

Bass IS just a tad heavy when it lines up with the kick... again, I hear more issues that I would attribute to your listening environment... Those 2-3 low mid/upper low notes I keep harping on... It's making the kick get just a tad flappy on small speakers as the bass is sucking the life out of the drivers and they have no where to resonate...

Another way to tackle this is to bring the kick down a fuzz, (maybe 1.0-1.5db) then use the kick to sidechain duck the bass out of the way of the kick.

I agree with Chris:

The claps are ever so slightly over powering and the snare is just a bit too bright. I would dip a touch of upper mid/top on the snare just so its not so clear but replace the same amount deducted on the snare, adding that on the vox so it adds a bit of excitement and you have a beauty. I only say that because the vox now sounds a bit dull. But thats because the snare is bright.

If it were me, I'd be panning that plucky guitar loop all over the place... in tempo with verse and chorus... Even numbers create tension, odd numbers create the release.... pick and choose... But I'd try 2 cycles L to R in the verse, and 3 in the chorus. It may not work, but things move in out of focus as you introduce and drop instruments, and some subtle, deliberate panning should create some nicer openings for instruments to poke through... but that's my .02.

Like Chris said... this is a game of millimeters... You're well past the inches game!!

Bass is like love. Some like em full figured, some like em slim.

30 years ago there was more standard, which was subject to our capture and playback systems. A lot of that was based around vinyl which imho, suffered massively for both top and bottom end freq. Not until digital audio arrived, was bass and the kick drum even a focus point. Subs were a supporting role where today, they are as important or in not down right dominate and this is where, "whats right for you, may be the complete wrong things for me". Where do we all belong?

I'm going to start a new topic just on this topic as i think its a really interesting topic we should start discussing.

audiokid, post: 415726, member: 1 wrote:

Not until digital audio arrived, was bass and the kick drum even a focus point.

.

LOL...didn't you mean to say Disco?

Motown sounds better (y)