Hmmm... song did not fully upload

Sounds nice !
I was a bit surprise with the change of ambient reverb from clean guitar to roomy vocal.. (just a thought)
Not having the solo in the middle was a bit weird with the cello being darker on the other side.. but again question of taste..

I'd add this in my daily playlist without hesitation ;)

Good job !

pcrecord, post: 465133, member: 46460 wrote: Sounds nice !
I was a bit surprise with the change of ambient reverb from clean guitar to roomy vocal.. (just a thought)
Not having the solo in the middle was a bit weird with the cello being darker on the other side.. but again question of taste..
Ain
I'd add this in my daily playlist without hesitation ;)

Good job !

Agreed after listening again... solo guitar amp choice might be improved too. Will re pan those

still can’t figure out why entire song is not uploaded. It repeats. Bridge and last verse gone

thanks for input

Ben

Ben Davis, post: 465139, member: 50672 wrote: still can’t figure out why entire song is not uploaded. It repeats. Bridge and last verse gone

I don't know, I listened to the whole thing, 4m44s. with a nice soft ending.. Might be something with your browser.. ?? try to clear the cache and test again..

pcredord; here is another try at this mix with your suggestion. Brought the reverb down a bit...actually used a different one. "wooden room" and tweaked in from there. Changed the amp setting on the guitar break and centered it. Anyhow....now I realized I forgot an entire verse! may have to redo the entire thing now....onward

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files Thin Place mix3.mp3 (8.6 MB) 

Really nice. Personally I would work on the lead reverb to reduce ss from accentuating the sound and impression you are singing this in tile bathroom. It would improve the heartfelt warmness this song deserves.

Other than that... keep up the good work.

Very nice.. I agree with Chris, carefull with the sibilances.
Having similar reverb lenght is nice. I heard a buzzing sound before the bass.. amp noise maybe ? At the end we here it too.. a bit.
I think the guitars aren't forced to be panned that far, they could come back to the center and caress the vocal more.. (this is a question of taste of course)
Seriously Ben, this is a great song ! Good job !

audiokid, post: 465216, member: 1 wrote: Really nice. Personally I would work on the lead reverb to reduce ss from accentuating the sound and impression you are singing this in tile bathroom. It would improve the heartfelt warmness this song deserves.

Other than that... keep up the good work.

thanks....will work on that sibilance issue for final try. I am struggling getting a good reverb sound with the stock plugins from Presonus. Need to figure out of to get the Sound Toys Little Plate into my DAW from from laptop. I liked that one better

Can you put the reverb on it's own track and buss the vocal through it? I haven't used that DAW but I bet you can. It will also allow you to EQ just the reverb and not affect the overall sound of whatever you run through it.

Thanks for input so far

her is mix #3

i re-recorded the entire song

added missing verse

re did the ladadas after bridge and syncopated some parts

ran my reverbs thru buss and EQ the highs off. But my ears dont hear highs well so not sure if its enough

Also recorded lead electric with sm57 affront an amp. Delay may be to much however at break

hope im moving this tune forward

thanks all for the input so far

Ben

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files mixdown(3).mp3 (10 MB) 

Sounds great. Tasty reverb, the sibilance is much better. Very nice job.(y)

Much better! The reverb is now in a nice spot. I think there's a bit of an imbalance between the vocals and backing tracks. I love the clarity however so I'm thinking that perhaps you are mixing it all down to a single stereo pair from all the tracks.

Perhaps setting up separate sub-mixes (stems) would give you much more control. Moving the reverbs out of the chain into their own sub-mix has worked. Now group the alike instruments and the voices into subs and then do a final processing across these busses before you hit the master output. You'll find that you use quite a bit less processing across the master buss which allows much more fidelity and an easier path to your required output for playback.

You'll also find through this method that smaller increments in your faders result in the bigger differences in volume and balance.

Love the song.

Davedog, post: 465526, member: 4495 wrote: Much better! The reverb is now in a nice spot. I think there's a bit of an imbalance between the vocals and backing tracks. I love the clarity however so I'm thinking that perhaps you are mixing it all down to a single stereo pair from all the tracks.

Perhaps setting up separate sub-mixes (stems) would give you much more control. Moving the reverbs out of the chain into their own sub-mix has worked. Now group the alike instruments and the voices into subs and then do a final processing across these busses before you hit the master output. You'll find that you use quite a bit less processing across the master buss which allows much more fidelity and an easier path to your required output for playback.

You'll also find through this method that smaller increments in your faders result in the bigger differences in volume and balance.

Love the song.

This is called summing correct? I will try this. May have more questions

thanks!!!!

ben

Ben Davis, post: 465531, member: 50672 wrote: This is called summing correct? I will try this. May have more questions

thanks!!!!

ben

Well. Sorta. Summing is taking all the tracks individually out to a single stereo (or mono) playback. This would be 'the master buss' in most cases.

A sub-mix or a stem is grouping similar tracks into sections with an aux master and then sending it to the master buss.

An example would be to take all the acoustic guitar tracks WITH their individual processing (reverbs,compression,EQ, pan) and assign these tracks to an aux master fader. The nomenclature (unfortunately) is different for every DAW although the process and results are the same. I use ProTools Ultimate and these are called aux masters thus my reference. When you assign these channels to the aux master you are creating another set of stereo buss which through the I/O on your DAW you can assign to the stereo output separately from the master or assign it through the master alone. What it does allow you to do is processing across the aux buss with whatever you deem to do.

I like to put these auxs or stems in my mixes through a number of compressors that I have found work best for the type of instrument or voice being assigned to the aux buss. An example would be again, acoustic guitars... I would get each individual track of acoustic guitars sounding like I wanted and only worrying about their balance between each other ie: not looking to bring their levels up to final mix levels....And then process across the assigned aux master an 1176 compressor followed by an LA2A compressor. The 1176 set @ 2db and fast release to deal with any momentary spikes while the LA2A would be to add creamy drive and goodness to the sound of these blended instruments.

So thats an example. I always buss drums (usually three aux busses for drums) bass (with a clean unaffected signal with a sidechain of all the eq and compression) guitars (separate acoustics from electrics and leads from rhythms) Keys , voices(separate lead vox from backing vox.....etc etc...

Davedog, post: 465534, member: 4495 wrote: Well. Sorta. Summing is taking all the tracks individually out to a single stereo (or mono) playback. This would be 'the master buss' in most cases.

A sub-mix or a stem is grouping similar tracks into sections with an aux master and then sending it to the master buss.

An example would be to take all the acoustic guitar tracks WITH their individual processing (reverbs,compression,EQ, pan) and assign these tracks to an aux master fader. The nomenclature (unfortunately) is different for every DAW although the process and results are the same. I use ProTools Ultimate and these are called aux masters thus my reference. When you assign these channels to the aux master you are creating another set of stereo buss which through the I/O on your DAW you can assign to the stereo output separately from the master or assign it through the master alone. What it does allow you to do is processing across the aux buss with whatever you deem to do.

I like to put these auxs or stems in my mixes through a number of compressors that I have found work best for the type of instrument or voice being assigned to the aux buss. An example would be again, acoustic guitars... I would get each individual track of acoustic guitars sounding like I wanted and only worrying about their balance between each other ie: not looking to bring their levels up to final mix levels....And then process across the assigned aux master an 1176 compressor followed by an LA2A compressor. The 1176 set @ 2db and fast release to deal with any momentary spikes while the LA2A would be to add creamy drive and goodness to the sound of these blended instruments.

So thats an example. I always buss drums (usually three aux busses for drums) bass (with a clean unaffected signal with a sidechain of all the eq and compression) guitars (separate acoustics from electrics and leads from rhythms) Keys , voices(separate lead vox from backing vox.....etc etc...

Got it!!! Thanks so much for this info. Makes sense. I will work on this method this week

Davedog, post: 465534, member: 4495 wrote: Well. Sorta. Summing is taking all the tracks individually out to a single stereo (or mono) playback. This would be 'the master buss' in most cases.

A sub-mix or a stem is grouping similar tracks into sections with an aux master and then sending it to the master buss.

An example would be to take all the acoustic guitar tracks WITH their individual processing (reverbs,compression,EQ, pan) and assign these tracks to an aux master fader. The nomenclature (unfortunately) is different for every DAW although the process and results are the same. I use ProTools Ultimate and these are called aux masters thus my reference. When you assign these channels to the aux master you are creating another set of stereo buss which through the I/O on your DAW you can assign to the stereo output separately from the master or assign it through the master alone. What it does allow you to do is processing across the aux buss with whatever you deem to do.

I like to put these auxs or stems in my mixes through a number of compressors that I have found work best for the type of instrument or voice being assigned to the aux buss. An example would be again, acoustic guitars... I would get each individual track of acoustic guitars sounding like I wanted and only worrying about their balance between each other ie: not looking to bring their levels up to final mix levels....And then process across the assigned aux master an 1176 compressor followed by an LA2A compressor. The 1176 set @ 2db and fast release to deal with any momentary spikes while the LA2A would be to add creamy drive and goodness to the sound of these blended instruments.

So thats an example. I always buss drums (usually three aux busses for drums) bass (with a clean unaffected signal with a sidechain of all the eq and compression) guitars (separate acoustics from electrics and leads from rhythms) Keys , voices(separate lead vox from backing vox.....etc etc...

Hi Davedog.... well I took your input to heart and remixed this tune using busses. Less plugin on individual tracks and more on busses

bussed background vocals, guitars, and strings

used a Presonus stock widening plugin on master which really opened up and a UA Pultek on that added some girth and warmth. Got my master buss running a bit hotter bit still has 2-3db of head room for mastering work

I think this “top down” mixing method added some glue to my mix and parts now sit better together. Need new ears, been listening to this song too much working on it

thanks again.
Ben

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files thin place v 6 144bps(2).mp3 (9.8 MB) 

Ben Davis, post: 465884, member: 50672 wrote: Hi Davedog.... well I took your input to heart and remixed this tune using busses. Less plugin on individual tracks and more on busses

bussed background vocals, guitars, and strings

used a Presonus stock widening plugin on master which really opened up and a UA Pultek on that added some girth and warmth. Got my master buss running a bit hotter bit still has 2-3db of head room for mastering work

I think this “top down” mixing method added some glue to my mix and parts now sit better together. Need new ears, been listening to this song too much working on it

thanks again.
Ben

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Sounds good on my earbuds. I'll check it at the studio if I get time.
It's a nice song, I let it play while working and I enjoyed it all...

Thanks for sharing

Ben Davis, post: 465884, member: 50672 wrote: Hi Davedog.... well I took your input to heart and remixed this tune using busses. Less plugin on individual tracks and more on busses

bussed background vocals, guitars, and strings

used a Presonus stock widening plugin on master which really opened up and a UA Pultek on that added some girth and warmth. Got my master buss running a bit hotter bit still has 2-3db of head room for mastering work

I think this “top down” mixing method added some glue to my mix and parts now sit better together. Need new ears, been listening to this song too much working on it

thanks again.
Ben

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Hi Ben. It sounds so much better. More mature as a mix and a production of your very moving song. At a certain point the differences between what one producer hears as opposed to another is going to be....different....not better. I think you have done that.

As for me the only work I would look at is a bit of 'balancing' between the instruments and vocals. One other technique you might want to explore is a judicious and thoughtful use of verbs for creating a feeling of size to the overall production. I have to warn you that a very little goes a really long ways. You don't NEED it in any way....but it is something to explore. There is a technique with the use of verbs of using the time signature of the song as you repeat value. You can create size without creating reverb so-to-speak. If you have any plugs which allow you to create room sizing with materials of the room itself, this is where you should look. I use the Valhalla plugs as well as the Abbey Road Chambers. And like I said A little=a lot

The balances are very very close. It's a very intimate and personal feel to the song and it's message. It's well constructed and it's very illustrative in it's simplicity.

The point you have this mix at is a point where I print a copy and live with it for a couple of weeks. I try and play it on as many systems as I can. I listen in the car, and when I'm doing a full-length, I takes car trips late at night with no traffic and give the songs a chance to tell what is missing or what isn't. It's after a bit of time that I really know what needs to happen if anything.

I also never lose a mix. At certain times in the maturation of a songs voice, I will copy a complete version of where its currently at, put that copy on a new session, give it a new designation and start work from there. I don't like cluttering up a session with all sorts of virtual tracks although lately I'm finding my counts going up as the songs I'm working on demand more attention to detail.

It really does sound great.

Sounds very good here on my monitors..
Good job !!

Davedog, post: 465889, member: 4495 wrote: Hi Ben. It sounds so much better. More mature as a mix and a production of your very moving song. At a certain point the differences between what one producer hears as opposed to another is going to be....different....not better. I think you have done that.

As for me the only work I would look at is a bit of 'balancing' between the instruments and vocals. One other technique you might want to explore is a judicious and thoughtful use of verbs for creating a feeling of size to the overall production. I have to warn you that a very little goes a really long ways. You don't NEED it in any way....but it is something to explore. There is a technique with the use of verbs of using the time signature of the song as you repeat value. You can create size without creating reverb so-to-speak. If you have any plugs which allow you to create room sizing with materials of the room itself, this is where you should look. I use the Valhalla plugs as well as the Abbey Road Chambers. And like I said A little=a lot

The balances are very very close. It's a very intimate and personal feel to the song and it's message. It's well constructed and it's very illustrative in it's simplicity.

The point you have this mix at is a point where I print a copy and live with it for a couple of weeks. I try and play it on as many systems as I can. I listen in the car, and when I'm doing a full-length, I takes car trips late at night with no traffic and give the songs a chance to tell what is missing or what isn't. It's after a bit of time that I really know what needs to happen if anything.

I also never lose a mix. At certain times in the maturation of a songs voice, I will copy a complete version of where its currently at, put that copy on a new session, give it a new designation and start work from there. I don't like cluttering up a session with all sorts of virtual tracks although lately I'm finding my counts going up as the songs I'm working on demand more attention to detail.

It really does sound great.

Really appreciate your input!