Overall it seems too strong in the highs and too weak in the lows. The hihat dominates. I suspect your mixing space is over-representing the lows and under-representing the highs.

I agree with Boulder, its very bright and a little thin sounding, and as he stipulates this could be your room lying to you during the mixing process.

More bottom end would definitely give the track a much fuller, rounder sound overall with more punch.

Its a good idea to take your mix into other listening environments, like burning to a CD and listening in the car, or on an iphone or listening device as well to gauge how your mix sounds outside of your room, then you can go back and add or subtract any changes that need applying....if you have not already done so.

Love to hear it again once you have re-worked it.

Ooooo... that's bright. Almost painful.

Tell us... are you using any form of acoustic treatment in your mixing space? Or, are you mixing with headphones?

No acoustic treatment, I have been using a pair of Sony headphones and Edifier multimedia speakers. Both have high bass response I think this is what is giveing me the perception of bass which isn't actually there in the mix.

I did try the mix in the car this morning and I now see what you guys mean, I'll go back and eq.

I will post the results, thanks for your help.

Ashley C, post: 437559, member: 49796 wrote: No acoustic treatment, I have been using a pair of Sony headphones and Edifier multimedia speakers.

A good pair of nearfield monitors would be a wise investment...they won't be hyped like headphones or multimedia speakers and have a nice flat response which is what you want when mixing.

Even though you have an untreated room, with nearfield monitors you can mix at lower volume levels to decrease the room effect.

A good level to mix at under these circumstances is where you can still comfortably have a conversation in the room with someone while the track is playing.

Sean G, post: 437564, member: 49362 wrote: A good level to mix at under these circumstances is where you can still comfortably have a conversation in the room with someone while the track is playing.

around 70db, with periodic checks at 85 for Fletcher Munson Curve... although, without treatment, it's likely gonna be hit and miss with either.

Hey Guys, Could you check this out, just to make sure I'm heading in the right direction.:confused:

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Fool for you.mp3 (3.6 MB) 

Sounds much better Ashley, IMO the lead vocal and guitar sounds a little hot, maybe drop it down a few db...not much just a touch.

The bass and kick could come up a touch, it seems a little far back in the mix, a little lost in the background.

Remember, this is subjective advice, and is interpreted as what I think, if you ask a few different engineers you'll get a few different answers. YMMV.

But overall its a far cry from the first version you posted.(y)

Definitely better. Something about that kick makes me want to eq it. I think it needs some click rather than level.

Much better; although I agree with Boulder, I'd like to hear a little "smack" to the kick... around 3k - 4k, or so...

Are you using a compressor on the kick? If so, check your attack time - if you've got it set for a fast attack, slow it up some, to allow the initial transients though.

The new mix is much better, but a little muddy in the lower mids. Sounds like the guitar is intruding a bit on the bass' territory. Actually, now i kind of miss a little bit of cymbal brightness. The hats are fine, but the crash could be a little sizzlier. The snare could use a little more paper/snap.

Just for fun, i loaded up both versions in Reaper and played them simultaneously, and it sounded close to perfect (excepting for some differences in stereo placement between the two mixes). I'm curious though about that steep cutoff at around 18k. It's like the highs hit a brick wall there.

But really? You're new to recording/mixing? This is overall quite good, all things considered!

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Fool for you.mp3 (9.1 MB) 

transmothra, post: 437680, member: 49806 wrote: I'm curious though about that steep cutoff at around 18k. It's like the highs hit a brick wall there.

It's an mp3 file.

Ha! Learn something new every day. I never actually looked at one like that before. No wonder everybody hates mp3s. Even with the least amount of compression they still botch the job.