It sounds very good. The only thing that bothers me a little bit is that there is more going on with the guitars on the right channel (rithme wise) in the verses.
Other than that, and this is just from my own taste, I think it's ready for master ! ;)

Thank you pcrecord. About the gtr's in verses....before this version, I tested a several different rhythm versions on the left gtr - doubling the right gtr, playing it a little bit different etc. I think it sounded too "busy", so I decided to keep it simple.

Did you notice any other issues? Sibilance? There are some annoying "shh"'s and "ess"'s on vocals that I didn't manage to get rid of. Did you hear those? Do you think that drums / bass levels are right?
Anyway, I will upload a new mix within a few hours.

Nothing made me fall off my chair ;).. I'll listen to the new mix, just don't overdo it !!

LOL. you must have a good chair:). Here's mix 2. I made some minor changes to vocals / gtr levels etc.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files No time to say goodbye mix2.mp3 (6.5 MB) 

Nice song!

AndyB, post: 429717, member: 48584 wrote: Nice song!

Thank you Andy!

The fact that there is a different guitar than the other on either side doesn't bother me ... it's kind of "Beatle-esque" in that way. Nice song, good mix. If I had to nit pick, I'd say that the 3 - 5k area seems to be somewhat harsh...

It sounded very smooth when I listened at around 70db or so, but when I upped the volume to 80-85 , that frequency range started to make me wince a little bit.

But don't change anything based only on what I have to say - because these days, I seem to be kind of sensitive to that frequency range all the way around. ;) You might want to wait for what others have to say in regard to that specific range at that volume.

Great song, though! ;)
-donny

I agree with Donny (on mix 2). It seemed a tad bright, but suspect his range is correct. Very good production and mix. Good enough for a commercial mix IMO.

Donny and DM60, thank you for your feedback.

I just finished mix 3...I tried to reduce that "harshness" a bit, reduced vox levels by 0,4-0,5 db, cut some mud around 380 Hz. In mix 1 and 2, I already had HP-filter in the mix bus at 33 Hz, HP both sides at 112 Hz (12 db slope) and LP at 18kHz. Thoughts?

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files No time to say goodbye mix3.mp3 (6.5 MB) 

This is very good. Sound very good when played low and louder.

Wait for more comments, if you go and tweak any more, you could put some of the high end back (pinch) just to give it more sparkle. But I mean very subtle and I wouldn't be surprised if others said I was FoS.

Really, good song and mix.

Thanks again DM60. I look forward to further comment before I make any more changes.

Sounds great here. I really like the way you have the guitars arranged - different tones, different parts ( I'm digging the tremolo) but that are still totally supportive of each other... for those who are new to writing and arrangement, this song is a great example of having instruments that play actual parts - As opposed to having five different guitar tracks where it's just five guitars playing the exact same thing(s).

I have no other critiques to offer. It's a great song, and it's a nice mix.

Well done, Sir.

FWIW

-d.

I like it too.. good job !!

Thanks again Donny and pcrecord + others! Before I upload this to my Soundcloud account, should I make it a bit louder? And add some high end sparkle maybe? (like DM60 suggested) The song is now peaking at -0,5 dbfs and I think that the average RMS is somewhere at -14-15 dbfs (I'm not infront of my computer now). In addition, I'm still thinging about those lead vocal shh's and ess's - should I re-track those parts"?" The problem is that I sing only when I am recording and that happens maybe 2 times a year so it take some time to "open my voice" :)

Thoughts?

Mac -
I'm not sure if Soundcloud is one of the many music services who have begun changing their db specs or not - in the last year or so, iTunes, Youtube, along with many radio stations - and even some TV networks - have begun to adhere towards what is known as a "LUFS Standard". LUFS stands for Loudness Units Full Scale, which is a measurement of 'perceived volume".
In basic terms, LUFS measures the entire song and calculates an "average" db measurement within that window of time. In many ways, LUFS is similar to RMS, in that they are both measuring an "average". The difference with LUFS is that the audio is first put through a "weighted" filter first that tends to focus on mid-range frequencies more, because to the human ear, those frequencies are the most perceived.

The thing is, if you do submit something that exceeds this standard - pending of course that you are uploading to a site that is adhering to the newer standards - they will likely just lower the volume on their end. This only starts to become a problem if your dynamic range is squashed/uber limited, and at that point, your music could actually end up sounding lower in volume than other music that was closer to the levels of which these media streaming sites want.

I'd say that, if you mixed at a LUFS reading of around -14 db or so, with true peaks not exceeding -3db, you'd probably be safe... although in Europe, this acceptable level is actually more like -23db ( based on the EBU's R128 broadcasting code).

One of the purposes to LUFS - besides measuring a perceived volume - is that it is helping to bring back the dynamic range in music again, and has been, at least thus far, the main major strike-back against the "loudness wars".

Here is a link to a free LUFS vst.. I've used it, it's clean, bug/virus free, and there's nothing fancy about it, it's a bare bones measuring program. There are others available which also offer added features, such as phase, choices of meter speed, weighting, etc.
But this one does what it was designed to do. You'll want to insert it into your master bus, post everything else that you may have inserted.

https://www.klangfreund.com/lufsmeter/

-d.

Donny, thank you for this very useful information. Actually, I had seen this video clip earlier - maybe here on RO but it was good to watch it once again.
I will do one more mix later today and upload it here. If I receive "OK" from you guys, I will upload it to Soundcloud. Then I'll do another, a few db louder mix and upload it to Soundcloud as well so that we can hear if there are any difference in final SC loudness....

Ok, here's mix 4. I added just a little bit of "presence" and " top end sparkle - 15k". Nothing else changed. Any better?

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files No time to say goodbye mix4.mp3 (6.5 MB) 

Personally, I liked the version before this one. This latest one sounds too bright to me. But, that's just IMHO.

Thanks again Donny. I agree, it was a bit too bright for this style of song although "all" the reference songs that listened to were much brighter or I'd say - too bright. (Foo Fighters, U2 etc) So I went back to Mix 3, made it a bit louder - LUFS / RMS between -11-14 db which is still 3 -6 db quieter than any of those reference track that I listened to...

So here's mix 5. Approval or back to mix 3? :)

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files No time to say goodbye mix5.mp3 (6.5 MB) 

I think this is nicer to listen to, it has the same smoothness that you've had in later mixes (other than the most recent one that I said I felt was too bright).

I think you are safe shooting for around that db range; if your LUFS is sitting around that -12db mark, with true peaks at - 0.5 or so, that gives you a dynamic range of between -11 and -12 db, which is healthy enough to have the strength, but that still lets the song breathe and remain nicely open to dynamic changes throughout. If this is played in Europe, they'll knock it down to -23db, but then again, they do that with all content, anyway.... so you'll still be right there at levels similar to everyone else.

Can I ask you why you are distributing through sound cloud and not through something like iTunes instead? I'm just curious... SC has such a history of adding artifacts to uploaded audio; things like smear, phasing issues, distortion... I'm not trying to tell you your business, of course you know what's best for you... I'm just curious, is all. ;)

Nice job. :)

Mix 5 sounds good. Sounds like a keeper to my ears.

Mix 5 is wonderfull, I say it's ready for the world.
Let me expose what I think of LUFS mesurement and correct me if I'm wrong.
What we need to keep in mind is that LUFS is cumulative for the entire song. The trick to getting louder song is to have softer parts in the song and compress less. You will say I'm crasy because compression helps get it louder without peaks, but if a drum isn't compressed, the dynamic impacts of the bass drum and snare will be loud but since it happen for very short times it won't affect the LUFS that much as if everything is compressed and compact.
Also not all public media applied it yet and I guess that even if Youtube apply it to new uploads, I doubt they processed all the files on their server yet...
SO finding a good reference track is hard, specially when producers make many masters for different platforms. Radio, CD, Online ; they usually aren't mastered the same way. But I hope some day they will be the same.

I think we're gonna find out tht it's closer than we think, pal... or at least we can only hope so.

Taking account of the difference in level, I would say mix 3 is slightly warmer, but that mix 5 is maybe better suited to the style of song. I'm glad you didn't stick with mix 4.

Good work!

DonnyThompson, post: 429883, member: 46114 wrote: I think this is nicer to listen to, it has the same smoothness that you've had in later mixes (other than the most recent one that I said I felt was too bright).

I think you are safe shooting for around that db range; if your LUFS is sitting around that -12db mark, with true peaks at - 0.5 or so, that gives you a dynamic range of between -11 and -12 db, which is healthy enough to have the strength, but that still lets the song breathe and remain nicely open to dynamic changes throughout. If this is played in Europe, they'll knock it down to -23db, but then again, they do that with all content, anyway.... so you'll still be right there at levels similar to everyone else.

Can I ask you why you are distributing through sound cloud and not through something like iTunes instead? I'm just curious... SC has such a history of adding artifacts to uploaded audio; things like smear, phasing issues, distortion... I'm not trying to tell you your business, of course you know what's best for you... I'm just curious, is all. ;)

Nice job. :)

Thanks again Donny. So Mix 5 is the final mix. (until I'll decide to re-record those lead vocals because of shh's ess's...):) The short term loudness is -12-13 db in verses and around -11-11,5 db in chorus so I believe that's ok.

So why Soundcloud? Well, there is no any other reason than it's easy place to upload my so songs and give my friends a chance listen to my music if they will. I'm aware of that crappy conversion...I'm doing this just as a hobby and I haven't seriously thought of selling my songs through iTunes and any other internet music stores and to be honest, I don't even know what I should do in order to do it???? But now that you mention it, do you or other guys have any good advices?

DM60, post: 429884, member: 49090 wrote: Mix 5 sounds good. Sounds like a keeper to my ears.

Thanks DM60. Appreciated.

Btw. I added a bit of 15k to Mix5 as discussed....

pcrecord, post: 429886, member: 46460 wrote: Mix 5 is wonderfull, I say it's ready for the world.
Let me expose what I think of LUFS mesurement and correct me if I'm wrong.
What we need to keep in mind is that LUFS is cumulative for the entire song. The trick to getting louder song is to have softer parts in the song and compress less. You will say I'm crasy because compression helps get it louder without peaks, but if a drum isn't compressed, the dynamic impacts of the bass drum and snare will be loud but since it happen for very short times it won't affect the LUFS that much as if everything is compressed and compact.
Also not all public media applied it yet and I guess that even if Youtube apply it to new uploads, I doubt they processed all the files on their server yet...
SO finding a good reference track is hard, specially when producers make many masters for different platforms. Radio, CD, Online ; they usually aren't mastered the same way. But I hope some day they will be the same.

Thank you pcrecord. I'm glad you like it.

As I just wrote to Donny, the short term loudness (LUFS) in this song is -12-13 db in verses and around -11-11,5 db in chorus. I downloaded and used only the FREE version of this LUFS meter plugin so I can't measure the average/cumulative loudness as the plugin stops working after 60 sec of usage.

Btw. Did you ever compare this new version to the original? (in my Soundcloud)

Boswell, post: 429890, member: 29034 wrote: Taking account of the difference in level, I would say mix 3 is slightly warmer, but that mix 5 is maybe better suited to the style of song. I'm glad you didn't stick with mix 4.

Good work!

Thank you very much, Sir!

iMacCartney, post: 429893, member: 45490 wrote: I downloaded and used only the FREE version of this LUFS meter plugin so I can't measure the average/cumulative loudness as the plugin stops working after 60 sec of usage.

That must be new... becausr I also have the free version and it measures infinitely. When you say it stops measuring...please explain, I'm curious.

DonnyThompson, post: 429902, member: 46114 wrote: That must be new... becausr I also have the free version and it measures infinitely. When you say it stops measuring...please explain, I'm curious.

Maybe they have updated it at some point....check the feature list behind the link, all different measurements "up to one minute".

https://www.klangfreund.com/lufsmeter/

iMacCartney, post: 429914, member: 45490 wrote: Maybe they have updated it at some point....check the feature list behind the link, all different measurements "up to one minute".

https://www.klangfreund.com/lufsmeter/

@Donny. Did you check this. Do you have an "old" version which has no limitations?

Listening to mix 5. Great song, slipping into some weird atonalities but mostly gloriously diatonic consonance. The mix sounds most excellent to me. Is there a modulation effect on the lead vocal? I'm not too keen on this, it distracts from the natural tone and talent of the singing, which is perfectly suited to the song. Maybe the bass guitar should be up a little. Fantastic songwriting and arrangement, very clever, full of subtly strange changes neatly packaged into tight congruous structures, consummately done. I don't like the gratuitous rock 'n' roll stab ending, a crass finish to an otherwise sophisticated piece.

DonnyThompson, post: 429883, member: 46114 wrote:
Can I ask you why you are distributing through sound cloud and not through something like iTunes instead? I'm just curious... SC has such a history of adding artifacts to uploaded audio; things like smear, phasing issues, distortion... I'm not trying to tell you your business, of course you know what's best for you... I'm just curious, is all. ;)

Nice job. :)

This sort of started to interest me. Any recomendations how - where - what I should do to my track(s) before that - anything else that should be taken into account?

Jathon Delsy, post: 429966, member: 48800 wrote: Listening to mix 5. Great song, slipping into some weird atonalities but mostly gloriously diatonic consonance. The mix sounds most excellent to me. Is there a modulation effect on the lead vocal? I'm not too keen on this, it distracts from the natural tone and talent of the singing, which is perfectly suited to the song. Maybe the bass guitar should be up a little. Fantastic songwriting and arrangement, very clever, full of subtly strange changes neatly packaged into tight congruous structures, consummately done. I don't like the gratuitous rock 'n' roll stab ending, a crass finish to an otherwise sophisticated piece.

Jathon, thank you for your feedback.

There is no modulation effect on lead vocal but I have double tracked it, although the DB-track is 7-9 db quieter than the main track....About the ending - I wanted to make it sound more like "live" ending - that's all :)

Hi, I made one more mix, just a little tweaking on vocal levels, that all. I uploaded the mp3 (320 kbit) here and 24 bit / 44,1 file on Soundcloud if anyone would like to compare what Soundcloud's conversion is really doing to the mix. Here's the link to the Soundcloud
[MEDIA=soundcloud]splproject/no-time-to-say-goodbye-re-recorded-version

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files No time to say goodbye mix6 mp3.mp3 (6.5 MB) 

I,m new at this

audio deleted.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files No Time To Say Goodby.mp3 (2.6 MB) 

iMacCartney audiokid Boswell, Mike Caliri

Hi Mike... welcome to RO... but I have to ask, is there a reason you are reposting Mac's song? It sounds much different - and not in a good way, either... lots of lossy artifacts there,, thin, weak, and with odd panning, maybe an overused stereo widener plug?

I guess I'm asking why you've posted this, especially since the quality has been degraded to such a large extent...

I'm gonna leave this up for a day and wait for your answer, but I have to give you a head's up that this could be removed very quickly if Mac isn't happy with your posting this. And it's possible you could receive a formal warning as well.

We're all pretty reasonable guys here, all the Mods are pretty light-handed in dishing out actions; there's no "I'm in charge and I like it" attitudes... we're a really laid back and accepting group of artists here on R.O. - and, if you've talked to Mac about doing this, or he has requested that you do this for a particular reason, then that's between you and he, and that's fine.

But - when you start reposting member's works - and also altering them - without them requesting you to do so, or at least knowing about it, then this isn't something we will allow.

-Donny Thompson
Moderator, Recording.org

Sorry take it off.

Mike Caliri, post: 433882, member: 49529 wrote: Sorry take it off.

Hi Mike,
I don't think Donny is suggesting punishment or anything. I think he and I just want to understand why you posted this without explaination.
Your message 'I'm new at this' is too simple of an explanation..
I must say that I wasn't at all disturbed when you did a similar post on a thread of mine 'Let's master a song together' because my thread was inviting anyone to participate..
I suggest you create a thread on your own and present yourself, what you do, experiences and what you are looking for by joining us.
We are a great community where sharing knowledge and opinions are welcome but only in respect of each other (even do some animated discussion may happen now and then) ;)
Don't be afraid to say it if you have and language barrier or special difficulties to communicate.. You can even record your message instead of writing them if it's easier for you. For I am a french Canadian, I know I've been misunderstood a few times ...

All that said, your version of IMac version have the same defects of the one posted on my thread more energy on one side and thin sounding with some artifacts (those may come from a bad mp3 converter)

pcrecord, post: 433883, member: 46460 wrote: Hi Mike,
I don't think Donny is suggesting punishment or anything.

Not at all. I'm just trying to figure out what you were doing, and why. I just found it curious that you would repost a song - that wasn't yours - with some pretty serious altering, and with no other description than "I'm new at this..."

The thing is, when you take a member's song, alter it and then repost it, it can really create confusion for those who may be doing an internet search for the song; be it a rough demo or a finished commercial/released version, and doing so has the potential to be harmful to the artist.

Anyway, I've removed the post.

No one's goin' to jail or anything, ...LOL. And you're welcome to stay, just take into account what you're doing when you manipulate and repost someone else's material, try to be respectful and understand that people have a lot of time and work put into their art, and most would prefer that their songs not be altered and re-posted without their permission. After all, these songs and mixes are like our children in a way. ;)

d.