pcrecord Kurt Foster Boswell audiokid thatjeffguy paulears kmetal Smashh @eternalsound

Using a 2 DAW uncoupled mix workflow.

I like the compressed wide stereo on the piano. Thick fat snare. Has your typical steely dan type of clean fidelity, but with some more warmth and a bit more girth, than usual? Does this have some tape sim or something on it?

It'd be nice to hear a little more spotlight on the lead at the bridge. But other than that, nice mix, for some fun 'baby making music'.

If you're not actively panning things across the stereo field then what pan law you select won't matter. Of course changing it after setting levels will alter your settings, but that's not a comparison of pan law, that's a comparison of mix levels.

Ok, here's MHO:

Overall sounds really good as far as space and placement. However...

- mix sounds kinda dark to me - just sounds too bassy all around
- bass drum needs some more roll off. too floppy on the low end - too poofy
- snare seems to have too much low and too. maybe a bit too much compression.
- seems like the lead vocal could be a tad louder.

I love the piano through and coming out of the first chorus ..that minor second sounds fabulous. It would be nice if it was a standard pattern for the choruses altogether.

-Chuck

Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment, guys. I really appreciate it.

bouldersound
Boulder... Yes, I'm aware that the pan law only really matters when it comes to moving parts. There are several tracks that are auto panned in this mix ( rhodes riff, guitars,etc). I set the pan law to -4.5 and wanted to see how this would result.

eternalsound, post: 429179, member: 48927 wrote: Overall sounds really good as far as space and placement. However...

On the whole, I'm getting some conflicting comments.... and I'm not saying that any of them are wrong - I've heard from two other engineers on another forum I frequent that the vocals were a bit too bright, and perhaps too far forward in the mix.

I have to assume that this is due to personal taste/preference, as ell as different monitoring systems, and, it's not really unexpected... I've said all along that when you present a mix to a room full of engineers, that you are likely to get different opinions from each. ;)

kmetal, post: 429172, member: 37533 wrote: I like the compressed wide stereo on the piano. Thick fat snare. Has your typical steely dan type of clean fidelity, but with some more warmth and a bit more girth, than usual? Does this have some tape sim or something on it?

'.

I was using a few tracks off of Steely Dan's Two Against Nature as reference tracks. I also used a few Michael MacDonald songs as well, my reasoning is that this song kind of leans towards those musical styles, so they were good tracks to reference to.

There is no tape sim on this mix, Kyle. I used some very light compression on the 2-Bus - Samplitude's Ammunition - on the second DAW. The drums bus did have a Fairchild 670 on it, but not a whole lot, I was just barely kissing the meters with the signal. I did, however, use an 1176 plug on the snare as an insert. Chuck may be right... there may be too much compression. I'll listen again and maybe dial it back a bit.

thats awesome t Donny , (y) , listened to it a few times over and enjoyed it
really love that cool groove .everything is singing in the arrangement .

The panning is spot on for me , everything is in a good place here.

If I was to be really nit picky Ill give you my 2 cents , IMHO

The vocals arent quite talking to me enough. I found it hard to hear some words in parts, ( I wanted a touch more sibilance / less muddy when he's lower register , and maybe more presence.
I love the reverb Im hearing on the vocals and wanna hear a bit more :)

The hi hats and snare could have more prescence from here too. Those hats have a great happy groove and push the song along .

On the pre chorus when the kick does the off time , the keys could hit with the kick ( would make the stop even more effective ), and then the brass stab , turn it right up and smack me in da face .(y) ( all the brass needs up more here )

And since Im a bass lover , maybe the piano part could give away a little more of the lower end and hand it over to that massive bass playing. ( piano needs a touch of bite here too).

I could imagine with more presence on those things , the reverb on the toms would not be as noticeable , and the kick wouldnt sound as big , It would be even closer to perfect in my little world.....lol

Id be over the moon to get a song sounding anything close to that Donny , love your work :)

Hey . after reading your latest post Donny I listenrd to Steely Dan , and have come back thinking that where I wanted to hear more snap and presence , the lower end up to maybe 600 hz ( not sure ) the instruments and
vocals are fighting and masking the top end , so I take back my previous statements and say carve out around that area to let the prescence through . ok enough thinking out loud from me . Over and Out

kmetal, post: 429172, member: 37533 wrote: Does this have some tape sim or something on it?

Whoops... I take this back, Kyle... I remembered that I did two mixes to the second DAW, on one of the mixes I added a Slate VCC to the master bus - it was an SSL G setting, and this is apparently the mix I posted above. I don't know if this explains the "girth" you were referring to or not...

Okay, so here's what I did based on the above comments...

kmetal
I've brought guitar solo up a bit. No further EQ, just a slight level change upwards.

@eternalsound
As per Chuck's suggestion, I rolled off some lows on the kick and added a bit of 2k for presence. I've also brought the lead vocal up. My suspicion is that I'm probably suffering from the very common engineering disease of lyrical familiarity - in that because I've heard it so many times, I already know the lyrics, so to me, they sit fine. But I've brought them more forward.

Smashh
Along with bringing up the lead vocal, I also rolled off around 125 or so by a few db, and added a little around 8k. Brought up the reverb aux 1 db.
I've moved the HPF on the piano up from 200 to 300Hz, and added some 4k for presence. I've also brought the level of the hi hat up a bit and added around 1db of 5k for more sizzle.

To all... I've shelved some of the low end on the mix on the whole... -1.5 db @ 80 Hz, -6db slope.

So, based on suggestions:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]OUGHT TO BE IN HEAVEN MAY 23 2015.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]OUGHT TO BE IN HEAVEN MAY 23 2015.mp3[/]

(I'm not gonna lie, the lead vocals on this mix sound really hot to me, too far up front... but I'm more than happy to make this change, if that's the general consensus.. after all, that's what this forum section is all about, right? ;) )

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files OUGHT TO BE IN HEAVEN MAY 23 2015.mp3 (9.8 MB) 

I think it's just the versus that the vocals are a couple db hot. Not un acceptable, or mistakenly loud, just a little bit too much. Other than that, I like it.

Ah, the slate stuff. Maybe that's it. It seems to add a bit of scoop to anything I put it on. I like the Kik too. The perfect sound and amount of pop for this type of tune. Mm mm.

Side comment. I just caught myself wishing for some grandiose 'church lady choir' gospel type vocals at the end. Then I realized how much I liked the lack of doubleing, and layering so common in (vocal) production these days. The swells of the horn section take care of that effect (choir). I like the simplicity of it all.

Yeah thats exciting . Love the vocals there for me (y)
Hats may be overdone a touch here and I wanna hear some more low end bass guitar for me.

I was rocking to that , got me going :sneaky::cool:

DonnyThompson, post: 429185, member: 46114 wrote: bouldersound
Boulder... Yes, I'm aware that the pan law only really matters when it comes to moving parts. There are several tracks that are auto panned in this mix ( rhodes riff, guitars,etc). I set the pan law to -4.5 and wanted to see how this would result.

Sorry, I did listen to some of it but didn't hear the active pans.

Sounds great! More enjoyable to listen to now. The floppy("ish") low end is now "punchy/poofy" - it now sits at that threshold of not too much, not too little. Nice and round now. Awesome!

kmetal, post: 429189, member: 37533 wrote: I think it's just the versus that the vocals are a couple db hot. Not un acceptable, or mistakenly loud, just a little bit too much. Other than that, I like it.

This how I feel too. It's the verse and chorus levels that seem to be different. The chorus level is now perfect but yea, the verses are a little hot. Maybe a little volume automation ...unless something else is causing it.

I really think it sounds great now, though!

-Chuck :^)

eternalsound, post: 429195, member: 48927 wrote: but yea, the verses are a little hot.

Did some volume envelope on the verses to get them to sit back a little.

Smashh, post: 429191, member: 45856 wrote: Hats may be overdone a touch here and I wanna hear some more low end bass guitar for me.

pulled the HH back a scoodge... reduced the shelf attenuation the bass guitar by 2 db at 80Hz.

kmetal, post: 429190, member: 37533 wrote: Side comment. I just caught myself wishing for some grandiose 'church lady choir' gospel type vocals at the end. Then I realized how much I liked the lack of doubleing, and layering so common in (vocal) production these days. The swells of the horn section take care of that effect (choir). I like the simplicity of it all.

LOL.. don't think we didn't think about that, Kyle. We were struggling to find a way to get exactly that.. that southern black gospel sound. We're just up against it budget-wise, and couldn't find any way to afford it... ;)

Last question, does this need a funky Nile Rogers kinda rhythm guitar? Or is that gonna make it too busy? Keep in mind that there will eventually be some backing vox on the choruses...
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]OUGHT TO BE IN HEAVEN MIX 3 MAY 23 2015.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]OUGHT TO BE IN HEAVEN MIX 3 MAY 23 2015.mp3[/]

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files OUGHT TO BE IN HEAVEN MIX 3 MAY 23 2015.mp3 (10.4 MB) 

it's a cool song. good vocals. recorded /mixed well. good job Donny! BUT, i don't care much for any of the vst sounds. i mean, they sound ok (good even) but not real. too perfect. too homogenized. of course, imo.

Kurt Foster, post: 429197, member: 7836 wrote: i don't care much for any of the vst sounds. i mean, they sound ok (good even) but not real. too perfect. too homogenized. of course, imo.

Believe me, if I'd had access to a real piano, a real Rhodes, and a real Hammond with a real Leslie 122 - along with having enough room in my house to put those things - I would have happily used them. ;) Alas, like most home studios, we didn't have any of those things, so we used VSTi's. (Personally, I'm not unhappy with the results).

Although, the guitar was played through an amp - a Fender HR Deville 4 x 10 - that was miked... two mics, actually... one was a 421 up close, slightly off center/axis, and the other was a ribbon mic - backed off by about 5 ft, and bused to its own track - to capture the ambiance of the hallway where the amp was located. I liked the sound of the space when I heard the amp played in it.

The bass guitar was a Fender Jazz, DI'd, through an ADK AP-1 pre, using a Sowter 9820c input XFO and a John Hardy 990c Op Amp. I put the bass into the pre via XLR, so I could take advantage of the input transformer ... the AP-1 does have a 1/4" instrument jack on the front, but - using that input jack bypasses the input transformer and sends the signal directly to the Op Amp. I wanted to be able to add a little character to the bass, and take advantage of the input XFO, so I used a 1/4" to XLR passive DI and brought it in thru the mic input on the AP-1 instead.

Yes , there's room for a funky percussive guitar line . I would love to hear that and the harmonies . ( It would take attention away from the vst elements too :) )
Ive seen somewhere on a Pensado episode where he automates the volume and nudges it up and down ever so slightly on VSTi s ( almost randomly ) to get it to sit in mix better )
For this song , its definitely worth going the extra yards Donny (y)

Thanks Smash. We tracked some backing vox yesterday, I just haven't gotten around to mixing them in yet. I'm gonna try a rhythm guitar, maybe a Nile Rogers kind of thing, but not a lot of it, I want to make sure that whatever I do compliments the song and doesn't become distracting.

DonnyThompson, post: 429200, member: 46114 wrote: Believe me, if I'd had access to a real piano, a real Rhodes, and a real Hammond with a real Leslie 122 - along with having enough room in my house to put those things - I would have happily used them.

I kind of hate to say it but we've got a nice C3 and Leslie that's been banished to the garage since the studio is too full.

bouldersound, post: 429243, member: 38959 wrote: I kind of hate to say it but we've got a nice C3 and Leslie that's been banished to the garage since the studio is too full.

It's easy for me to say that I'd would love to have real gear like that - but the reality for me is the same as what you are having to do with your Hammond/Leslie rig....there has to be enough room for them, and I don't have that kind of space.

Update...

We've added some backing vox, and some rhythm guitar here and there. I've intentionally mixed these tracks forward so they can be more easily critiqued.

Is the guitar too busy?

Or, does it really even need any guitar(s) at all?

That's the most important question, I think - I don't want to add parts just for the sake of adding parts... these parts need to compliment the song, and not be distracting, and take focus away from the LV and "the meat" tracks.

Any thoughts are of course welcome - just please know that this version is NOT a final mix. This is a proof version to check the vocals and guitar tracks to see if they are working... or not.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN ROUGH W BV&GUIT MAY 27 2015.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN ROUGH W BV&GUIT MAY 27 2015.mp3[/]

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files HEAVEN ROUGH W BV&GUIT MAY 27 2015.mp3 (9.8 MB) 

Kurt Foster

For fun, I rendered a mix from Samp, and I also Rendered one in Harrison MixBus.

Thought you might be interested to hear them. I'll let you decide for yourself which you prefer, if any. I'm not gonna throw you any curve balls, I'll make sure each file is titled appropriately for which is which.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN HARRISON MIXBUS 2 MIX.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN HARRISON MIXBUS 2 MIX.mp3[/]

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files HEAVEN HARRISON MIXBUS 2 MIX.mp3 (9.4 MB) 

Kurt Foster

Below is the Samplitude 2 Mix.

Regarding both, I did everything I could to match levels as close as possible between them, even on the fade(s).

disclosure info... I rendered the Mixbus version as a 24 bit .wav from the MixBus platform, because my version of MB doesn't allow me to export files as an MP3. So, I had to import the mixbus version .wav into Samp and convert to MP3 from there, but I promise that I added absolutely no processing. I ran it straight out through the Master bus of Samp.

Both files are MP3 / 320kbps, stereo.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN SAMPLITUDE 2 MIX.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN SAMPLITUDE 2 MIX.mp3[/]

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files HEAVEN SAMPLITUDE 2 MIX.mp3 (9.4 MB) 

Yes IMHO it needs guitar and needs it from start to finish ....lol . Harmonies sound great here.
You could get the guitar funkier if you wanted :), try with same type strum ,but down stroke with the bass notes to chop it up nicely .
I know this is probably asking too much , but that bit going into the first chorus . maybe you could grab the keyboard part in the leadbreak just before the chorus because it stabs with the bass and kick drum :p
(y)

thanks Donny. i can hear a difference even on my laptop ... the MixBus sounds a little darker than the Samplitude version. they both sound very good though.

DonnyThompson, post: 429285, member: 46114 wrote: disclosure info... I rendered the Mixbus version as a 24 bit .wav from the MixBus platform, because my version of MB doesn't allow me to export files as an MP3. So, I had to import the mixbus version .wav into Samp and convert to MP3 from there, but I promise that I added absolutely no processing. I ran it straight out through the Master bus of Samp.

I've haven't listen to this but I plan on it. Thanks for posting that comparison.
One of Samplitudes strong features is how most excellent it compresses an MP3 export so you did MixBus a favour.

Kurt Foster, post: 429328, member: 7836 wrote: the MixBus sounds a little darker than the Samplitude version.

I'm not hearing "darker"... I am hearing more of an analog kinda vibe to the MixBus version, it seems to make the drums a bit fatter and the bass guitar a bit more "rounded". I dunno, you may be right, MB might have attenuated the hi's a tad.

In the MB version, I might have given it a bit too much gas on the end (" transformer drive" and "tape saturation") where the drum fill kicks everything in on the outro, (3:22) I'm hearing a bit of harmonic distortion on that section from MB that I'm not hearing on the Samp version, which sounds cleaner.

But neither one is unpleasant to me... and it wasn't my intention to show favoritism for one over the other. I just thought a comparison might be fun. Both sound pretty good to me sonically.

Donny. This mix is great mate. You've done a really good job with it. The only thing I'd personally like to hear is a bit more vocal character. By that I mean maybe giving it a bit more character with a thicker verb or something. It sounds a bit too "rock" to me based on the tone of the voice etc and I think it could do with a different FX approach. Great job man. Really nice.

audiokid, post: 429329, member: 1 wrote: One of Samplitudes strong features is how most excellent it compresses an MP3 export so you did MixBus a favour.

I don't get why - at this point in time - anyone should have to buy an additional MP3 encoder/decoder for their DAW, but, Ardour (makers of MixBus) seem to charge for every processor - beyond just a few basic ones that come stock.
Then again,MixBus was only $39, LOL, so I guess I should probably just shut up ab0ut it. But - other more expensive platforms have done that in the past, too. Sonar was one that was notorious for that - charging extra $ to unlock the included mp3 encoder/decoder, and for them, as far as I'm concerned, they had no excuse. Their program was expensive enough so that it should have just been included.

I haven't had any issues with Samp's MP3 - anytime I've exported or imported it sounds like it should. Past issues I've had were more with soundcloud and/ or my provider, I think.

I'm certainly not hearing any pf the frizzly, swirly, phasing issues on either of the above samples that I've encountered in the past when uploading to SC and then posting their link here.

I would add that some of that credit should probably also go to the quality of the recent file player you've incorporated here on RO. It's been very stable. ;)

Voiceofallanger, post: 429344, member: 41142 wrote: Donny. This mix is great mate. You've done a really good job with it. The only thing I'd personally like to hear is a bit more vocal character. By that I mean maybe giving it a bit more character with a thicker verb or something. It sounds a bit too "rock" to me based on the tone of the voice etc and I think it could do with a different FX approach. Great job man. Really nice.

Thanks Voice.. I appreciate you taking the time to listen and to comment. Which mix version did you listen to?

The samplitude one :)

I deleted my comments above because my trusty blaster was modified with some surround feature added into the input settings. Its now fixed and sounds much much better! Disregard what I've posted before and I'll come at this with fresh ears later...

I'm with Kurt on this. I actually don't mind or prefer one or the other. If you can do this on MB, what a deal.

But the harmonizer effect on the guitar solo isn't my fav.
Horns are perfect.
Vox effect is not my fav as well but what a great track. Drums and bass really groove.
The song reminds me of Gino Vannelli! Very cool, progressive sounding Donny.

Thanks Chris. FWIW, there is no harmonizer on the guitar. The harmony was actually played. I know because I sat there while the guitar player played it. LOL

Also, both parts were played thru an amp and miked.

:)

To be clear, I didn't mix the Mixbus version in MixBus. I imported a Samplitude mix into MB just to see what it would sound like in that program with Harrison's "analog" style coding ( channel 'drive", and 'tape saturation".)

I could have never actually mixed this song from scratch in MB.

DonnyThompson, post: 429397, member: 46114 wrote: Thanks Chris. FWIW, there is no harmonizer on the guitar. The harmony was actually played. I know because I sat there while the guitar player played it. LOL

Also, both parts were played thru an amp and miked.

:)

Well it sure was nicely played then. I just don't like the tone I guess. I've never liked that sound although I love guitar harmonies, for some reason that sounds more like a processor than two guitarists harmonizing. Maybe the amps and tones are too close to each other. It sounds metallic. I will often use a wah filter for harmonies.

DonnyThompson, post: 429398, member: 46114 wrote: To be clear, I didn't mix the Mixbus version in MixBus. I imported a Samplitude mix into MB just to see what it would sound like in that program with Harrison's "analog" style coding ( channel 'drive", and 'tape saturation".)

I could have never actually mixed this song from scratch in MB.

That was my next question, how could you do it that close. Thanks for explaining that.

I just wanted to hear what importing the Samp mix into MB would sound like. It was really just out of curiosity that I did it, I wasn't trying to make the Samp mix "better".

FWIW, I don't think that there is anything that MB "did" to the sound that I couldn't have also done in Samp with their analog modeling, but I wasn't unhappy with the MB version.

I just wanted to check out what it would sound like.

But I still prefer the Samp version.

audiokid , Voiceofallanger, pcrecord, Kurt Foster, Smashh

Just for fun, I did a mix in Samp, using 2 of their Analog Modeling Sims, I wanted to see if I could replicate what MixBus did to the signal in regard to a more "analog-sounding" kind of vibe.

For Master Bus "drive", I used Am-Phibia, which is a tube strip/console emulation, with a 20% amount of "drive" and 10% of "soft clipping".

For tape sim, I used Am-Track, the "tape" settings were set for under-biasing by 5%. Am-Track also has a compressor stage, but it was bypassed for this version, because I only really wanted to hear what the tape sim section could do.
Processed at Unity Gain.

I'll let you guys decide.

Here it is:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN W SAMP ANALOG MODELING.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN W SAMP ANALOG MODELING.mp3[/]

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files HEAVEN W SAMP ANALOG MODELING.mp3 (9.4 MB) 

Hi Donny, I didn't comment much on this song, but I took time to listen to it this morning. Well the 4 last version you posted.
I think there is something in the mix that doesn't grab my attention at first and it's really based apon my own taste.
I get the feeling that the band is far from me. Like if it was in a big place and I was at the oposit of it. You know like if it was in the background of a discussion in a movie. ;)
This feeling got worst with the last version (analog modeling) which I find is less open as well. So the version I like best for now is [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN SAMPLITUDE 2 MIX.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]HEAVEN SAMPLITUDE 2 MIX.mp3[/]
As I said, it may only be my own taste but I get the feeling that there is too much going on in the mix in terms of ambiances and reverbs. It may have started at tracking if the room was reverbee and comp was applied to many tracks seperatly or it's just that too many things are not compiling will in my brain.

It may be just a mastering thing and it's not problem specially if it was the sound you were looking for. (kind a late 80s bar song or something)

The song arrangement and vocals are getting very good and interesting, I like it and can't wait to hear the final version :)