A great way for all of us to share and learn! Thanks Chris!
~Jeff

I think I love you. In a very manly way, of course. I better hurry.

Great idea!!!

audiokid Kurt Foster Boswell kmetal pcrecord paulears Paul999 Davedog dvdhawk thatjeffguy
(and anyone else I forgot to mention)

Sure! I'll play :)

Here's one that my friend (and client) Terry and I have been working on for the past few days - there are lyrics to it, we just haven't gotten around to tracking any vox yet.... there will be lead vocals, and eventually, a fairly big backing vocal section, in a sort of R&B Gospel kind of style.
Also, guitar, which will be tracked some time this week. We're just not sure what kind of guitar work we want yet.

It's a "jazzy - kinda - funky" thing, "You Ought To Be In Heaven", slated for this album of his that we are currently working on. I figured I'd get the ball rolling now on critiques for the instrumental backing we have so far...

Disclaimers... I played the B3 part, and as you will hear, I am NOT "a B3 player". Put in the most basic terms - cats like Greg Rolie, Matthew Fisher - and any of the other real B3 guys won't be losing sleep anytime soon. LOL

Terry played the other keys, I did bass and drums, and a little Rhodes. Terry and I both scored the brass.

Also, I mixed this pretty soft ( because I did it at 2 a.m. and didn't want to wake my girlfriend), so, it's possible that the low end may be too hot. (I listened through a pair of cans, but they are new, so I don't know yet if I can trust them).

Any and all critiques welcome! :)

Attached files OUGHT TO BE HEAVEN MAY 11 2015.mp3 (10 MB) 

I agree the low end could be more controled and more presence would make it sound more alive.
The whole drum is kind of missing attacks. Like you would have compressed it with a too fast attack and killed a bit too much of the transients. Of course it could be the tuning of the drum itself or how it was played...

I like the groove every instruments seem well performed. I can't wait to hear the evolution of this one ! ;)

Here is a mix that I'm working on for a mix contest that shall remain nameless (unless you are familiar with this song or a particular brand of plug-in that shall remain nameless so it may give it away)...
I've only mixed it in cans at present (its 4:15am in the morning here in Oz, so I didn't want to wake the whole house up)

I would appreciate members feedback, its totally ITB and still a work in progress at this stage, but will assist with the learning curve to hear anyones thoughts.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.org/attachments/believe-i-am-cassettes-mp3.12750/][/AUDIOPLUS

Attached files Believe - I Am Cassettes.mp3 (8.7 MB) 

Here is a collaboration I have been working on with a collegue in the US
Its a cover of Floyds' Speak To Me / Breathe / On The Run
I would appreciate any feedback / thoughts from members
You may notice a little artistic license with this one, it is only a first draft and as its 1:38am in the morning here Sydney time I have only used cans so not to wake the household up

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Speak to Me - Breathe - On The Run.mp3 (17.2 MB) 

Let's face it, Sean - you didn't exactly pick the easiest of classic rock medleys to cover... LOL

It sounds like you have a little too much energy going on in the lower mid range; what we would refer to as "weight"...

The vocals could come forward more ... also the snare, which while not in your face and front and center on the original, is still pretty buried on your version.. The bass guitar seems a bit too hot... but then again, you've got a nice overall "warmth" going on, and there's no doubt that the DSOTM album was a very warm-sounding album; you've done a nice job - considering that you didn't have an EMI TG Desk, Studer A-80 tape machine, or the rack of envied gear that Abbey Road had (including pieces like the coveted Fairchild 660's and 670's, LOL) .

You did a very respectable job on the lead guitar - considering that on the original, a Fender double-neck pedal steel was used for the "lead solo" at 1:30, and, it was set up for an open D G D G B E tuning, so on your version, where you played it using a guitar, you have an interval/note missing on the intro harmony /slide lead part ( at 1:41),... still, you did a really good job with the performance...

I do think you're missing one crucial component, which is B3 ... there was so much of it all over that record...( I was really hoping you'd have that B3 swell, right before "Run, rabbit run"... )

As far as mixing, it's my suspicion that using headphones is probably not the best way to mix this. Have you tried mixing this with monitors instead? Headphones are ususally so skewed and hyped in certain frequencies and dimension (intentionally) so unless you have a set that are reference grade - which ain't cheap - it's probably a crap shoot when mixing thru them, and ultimately, I think you'd be better off using monitors.

But ...I say all of the above in reference to the original version, and while I understand there's almost always some artistic license involved when doing covers, especially of songs of this nature that are this classic, monumental, innovative and respected, I don't know how much of this was due to your recording situation/limitation, and how much of it was you wanting to make it your own version versus how true to the original you'd ultimately like to be. ;)

If you can, try remixing this through monitors and repost. :)

IMHO of course.

d.

Dan (Kogwonton), who has joined us today on RO did those great guitar parts also.
Thanks for the feedback Donny, we are in the process of remixing and hope to post an ammended track shortly.

Here is a remix...
It is Breathe as opposed to the medley...once all 3 are finished & together they shall be posted again as one.

Attached files Breathe (V2.0).mp3 (6.9 MB) 

Great sounding bass.

Sean G, post: 432370, member: 49362 wrote: Dan (Kogwonton), who has joined us today on RO did those great guitar parts also.
Thanks for the feedback Donny, we are in the process of remixing and hope to post an ammended track shortly.

I don't have a lap steel, so I had to make do with my MIM strat.

Heres' all three together again

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Speak To Me - Breathe - On The Run (2.2).mp3 (17.2 MB) 

Generally great starts shared. For the final mix, I wonder how many here mix as industry pros do. You know, once all tracking and overdubbing and editing is finished, they start (in a new studio) with all faders at minus infinity, and bring up, say, the kick (or 808 boom), only - whatever is the lowest freq. and loudest percussion instrument channel (since that, and the rest of the kit, eats up a lot of the mix's 'real estate') and fine-tune that while the (mostly-muted) track loops for about an hour before bringing up the snare (or clap sample, if Rap)? After the whole kit is up, it's time to take 5. Then bring up the lead vocal and fine-tune / tweak it for an hour or so before bringing up the main background vox... Etc.

The reason I ask is that, if you spent from, say, noon until midnight (or midnight until noon!) working on just the one mix - with loudspeakers cranked - you wouldn't need to ask anyone's opinion on the crafting - it would be unambiguously well-mixed, and you'd be worried about the sound possibly changing during mastering.

mastercutter, post: 458652, member: 51389 wrote: The reason I ask is that, if you spent from, say, noon until midnight (or midnight until noon!) working on just the one mix - with loudspeakers cranked - you wouldn't need to ask anyone's opinion on the crafting - it would be unambiguously well-mixed, and you'd be worried about the sound possibly changing during mastering.

Honestly, if I mix a song for 12 hours on cranked speakers, it would be a mess because after an hour my ears would get tired (and dammaged)
I usually mix a song within an hour or so and get back to it later if I'm not done. I work at low volume with small period of high volume to assess the low end.
I think mixing at high volume makes music that sound good only at high volume. (another debate I guess)
Experienced mixing engineers anticipate what will happen when their mix will be mastered. For those not so experienced like me, putting a limiter and/or other mastering tool on the masterbuss as tests while mixing is a good approach. You just need to remove them before sending it to a real ME.

On the other end, there are some ME that don't take time to discuss with the customer and slam the mix out of the genre with unadequate mastering style.
It happened to one of my customer ; it was a folk band doing some organic music which breathed nicely but the ME made it over compressed and sucked up all the life and nuances the band worked hard to perform. They came back to me and used my mastering test (well I didn't have the expertise to call it mastering then) because even if it wasn't perfect it was closer to what they wanted.

People ask advice on their mix because they don't have the knowledge or the confidence to put it out to the world after cooking it in their bedroom.
I find that a perfect aproach and it even takes maturity and courage to do so. Not everyone is ready to expose their possibile mistakes and fails.
RO is a great place to share because judgement is rarely part of the game. We try to pinpoint at what level the person is and pushing them to grow to the next step without discouraging them...

But hey, that's just my humble opinion ;)

pcrecord, post: 458653, member: 46460 wrote: Honestly, if I mix a song for 12 hours on cranked speakers, it would be a mess because after an hour my ears would get tired (and dammaged)

Please don't play your stereo back too loud. I don't mean your loudspeakers should blare. By 'cranked', I mean that your monitor gain knob will need to be deflected to a louder setting than you might have it for auditioning mastered records (i.e., industry releases on CDs, or even MfiT AACs), since they play back much louder than a 24 bit mix (before mastering) should play back. The loudspeaker (setting), therefore, is 'cranked' so that you can hear what you're mixing!

wrote:
I usually mix a song within an hour or so and get back to it later if I'm not done. I work at low volume with small period of high volume to assess the low end.

How can you be done mixing a song in an hour if it takes Joe Ciccarelli 8 hours? (If it takes most pros 12 hours to mix a Grammy, how can a DIY mix compete that was done in an hour?)

wrote:
I think mixing at high volume makes music that sound good only at high volume. (another debate I guess)

Again, not 'high volume' - rather, 'cranked gain knob' so that your 'volume' isn't too quiet while mixing with high crest factor and while avoiding overloading the playback chain...

I find it important to work on songs at the loudness of playback that corresponds with the flattest portion of our hearing, which is when the music is sensibly 'cranked'. I use ~ 70 dB SPL (Slow C-weight setting).

wrote:
Experienced mixing engineers anticipate what will happen when their mix will be mastered. For those not so experienced like me, putting a limiter and/or other mastering tool on the masterbuss as tests while mixing is a good approach. You just need to remove them before sending it to a real ME.

The best mastering will be done from the best sounding mix. The mastering processors should be transparent, ideally. There's nothing to anticipate while mixing. Simply make it sound great. You have the power since you can adjust the travel of so many individual sounds with the faders. In mastering, each move helps and hurts because the elements are already mixed (together). We must find where necessary harm is forgivable in the pursuit of the musical cure. If the insult escapes detection, so much the better.

The music is the 'master' - not the other way around. So, just make it sound great without being concerned about the absolute loudness of the mix. That is best done in mastering.

Bob Ohlsson explains that mixing while peaking close to 0 causes one's monitoring chain to be part of the sound while mixing. The way that the monitoring chain used while mixing overloads will impart a subtle distortion that is affecting how one perceives the mix but when you turn off your limiter, the sound you were going for doesn't travel with the mix when it's played back elsewhere, such as the mastering studio, unless you used the same limiter and the same settings. And limiters don't make anything sound better - not look-ahead brick wall limiters. They're necessary evils for the make up gain that they make possible. The sound may be evil but the way that it got evil should be pure! 0; By leaving some headroom (say, 3 - 12 dB) above the highest peak of the mix, you ensure that what travels to mastering will sound, there, as good as it sounded at yours.

wrote:
On the other end, there are some ME that don't take time to discuss with the customer and slam the mix out of the genre with unadequate mastering style.
It happened to one of my customer ; it was a folk band doing some organic music which breathed nicely but the ME made it over compressed and sucked up all the life and nuances the band worked hard to perform. They came back to me and used my mastering test (well I didn't have the expertise to call it mastering then) because even if it wasn't perfect it was closer to what they wanted.

People ask advice on their mix because they don't have the knowledge or the confidence to put it out to the world after cooking it in their bedroom.
I find that a perfect aproach and it even takes maturity and courage to do so. Not everyone is ready to expose their possibile mistakes and fails.
RO is a great place to share because judgement is rarely part of the game. We try to pinpoint at what level the person is and pushing them to grow to the next step without discouraging them...

But hey, that's just my humble opinion ;)

Right on!

mastercutter, post: 458657, member: 51389 wrote: Please don't play your stereo back too loud. By 'cranked', I mean that your monitor gain knob will need to be deflected to a louder setting than you might have it for auditioning mastered records (i.e., industry releases on CDs, or even MfiT AACs), since they play back much louder than a 24 bit mix (before mastering) should play back. The knob, therefore, is 'cranked' so that you can hear what you're mixing! The music may be 'cranked' too, if you call it that. If that means 'too loud', then certainly don't 'crank' that beat. 0;

Sorry for not knowing the right words of the 'Pros'. For me cranked is way up and loud ;)

mastercutter, post: 458657, member: 51389 wrote: How can you be done mixing a song in an hour if it takes Joe Ciccarelli 8 hours? (If it takes most pros 12 hours to mix a Grammy, how can a DIY mix compete that was done in an hour?)

Because I'm mixing 100% ITB and I'm an amateur doing amateur's mix (amateurs mostly being poor musicians).. My projects don't hit more than 40 tracks instead of 128tracks like some big boys do.
I guess I would take more time if I was to mix a Celine Dion album...

mastercutter, post: 458657, member: 51389 wrote: The best mastering will be done from the best sounding mix. The mastering processors should be transparent, ideally. There's nothing to anticipate while mixing.

I know that a perfect mix would probably make the ME do nothing to it. If it sounds good, there is no point to change it. But I usually send mixes to mastering without any compression on the masterbuss. I hope you will agree that compression done to put the volume to industry standards will often make some instruments standout in a mix. Guitar parts may take more space than they did when the mix wasn't compress. That's the king of anticipation I'm talking about.
Normally if I have a customer with me when mixing, 90% of the time they will feel the volumes and sound isn't to their taste while mixing with no compression but when it's mastered they finally understand and like the results. To avoid this kind of deception with them, I started to put a limiter on the masterbuss and show them what it will become from time to time. It's also a good reference for me.
I have no shame to say I'm still learning. So I'm grabbing every bits I can from those who have more experience in the craft !

mastercutter, post: 458657, member: 51389 wrote: Bob Ohlsson explains that mixing while peaking close to 0 causes one's monitoring chain to be part of the sound while mixing. The way that the monitoring chain used while mixing overloads will impart a subtle distortion that is affecting how one perceives the mix but when you turn off your limiter, the sound you were going for doesn't travel with the mix when it's played back elsewhere, such as the mastering studio, unless you used the same limiter and the same settings.

This is something I'm not sure about. I don't know if all DAWs will do this (adding distortions when the output is close to 0db). If I remember, Sonar would do it because they kinda designed it to behave like an analog mixer. But with Samplitude Pro, I think you can playback way pass the internal 0db and get no distortion. (I'm willing to test this to be sure)
But I'm sure you were talking about an analog output chain.
In my case, my physical output chain is RME Fireface 800 to amplified monitors (Yamaha HS8 + HS8S sub). I'm not sure I'd appreciate putting the volume up in my interface and having to stand up and change the volumes on my monitors one by one...

I'm sorry if I didn't get the meaning of everything you said (being a french canadian) ;)
Feel free to correct me if I'm lost ...

How long it takes to mix a song depends a lot on the song. If it's acoustic guitar and two vocals it might take twenty minutes. If it's five channels of drums, a stereo keyboard, bass and one vocal it still might take twenty minutes if it's tracked well. Same number of tracks and same instruments might take three sessions if it needs more work (automation, remediation, editing).

Part of the process I described when we discussed using a tone generator is involved in my setup. I had my monitor controller set to a certain level in conjunction with my UAD Apollo Quad (equal metering). I then used a signal generator and set each speaker individually to 80db at listening position. I then work with that as my loudest, which is plenty loud. I turn down the monitor controller for times when I want to hear if things translate quieter. Otherwise, my speakers are cranked to best level :). I believe.

I also now use the Izotope Tone control plugin to check my master EQ overall. That as you know, works a treat in conjunction with trusting your ears a little :).

Tony

pcrecord, post: 458658, member: 46460 wrote: Sorry for not knowing the right words of the 'Pros'. For me cranked is way up and loud ;)

It's not a word of the 'pros', technically. It belongs to the vernacular of the great American public. But my point is that when the monitor gain knob of your console is cranked to make an already-mastered .wav file play back very loud, with the same deflection of the gain knob you should hear a normal level of loudness when playing back a properly mixed file. This mix loudness (with the monitor gain knob cranked) should not damage your ears. If it hurts your ears, lower the monitor gain and double-check the levels.

wrote: Because I'm mixing 100% ITB and I'm an amateur doing amateur's mix (amateurs mostly being poor musicians).. My projects don't hit more than 40 tracks instead of 128tracks like some big boys do.
I guess I would take more time if I was to mix a Celine Dion album...

Au contraire. It should take more time to mix an amateur song since the acoustics in your sound room and control room will not likely be half as good as they are in a studio where Ms. Dion's handlers book her. Even if you have only a guitar and a vocal, that's 2 hours minimum with the Professional protocol of mixing.

wrote:
I know that a perfect mix would probably make the ME do nothing to it. If it sounds good, there is no point to change it. But I usually send mixes to mastering without any compression on the masterbuss. I hope you will agree that compression done to put the volume to industry standards will often make some instruments standout in a mix. Guitar parts may take more space than they did when the mix wasn't compress. That's the king of anticipation I'm talking about.

A compressor brings up the low levels and restrains, without strictly limiting, the loud signals that are above the threshold setting. So, it should make some instruments be more audible if they were very quiet without compression, but the louder instruments will more or less be prevented from 'standing out' in the mix - whence the term, 'compression'.

wrote: Normally if I have a customer with me when mixing, 90% of the time they will feel the volumes and sound isn't to their taste while mixing with no compression but when it's mastered they finally understand and like the results. To avoid this kind of deception with them,

What deception? They need to be educated that a mix should not play as loud as a master because conventional masters are pushed too close to the verge of distortion for a mix to have a fighting chance of sounding good that 'slammed'.

wrote: I started to put a limiter on the masterbuss and show them what it will become from time to time. It's also a good reference for me.
I have no shame to say I'm still learning. So I'm grabbing every bits I can from those who have more experience in the craft !

Scorpio! Show no shame! You may confidently educate your mixing customers that most records that play hot after mastering were much lower in level as an unmastered mix and for good reason.

wrote: This is something I'm not sure about. I don't know if all DAWs will do this (adding distortions when the output is close to 0db). If I remember, Sonar would do it because they kinda designed it to behave like an analog mixer. But with Samplitude Pro, I think you can playback way pass the internal 0db and get no distortion. (I'm willing to test this to be sure)

Some DAWs use fixed-point sample word lengths (e.g., 24 bit). The Yamaha O2R console used a proprietary 32 bit fixed-point word length, though most 32 bit formats are floating-point. When a DAW uses 32 bit float... (or 64), there is no risk of clipping the mix in the DAW, but you can't hear a DAW without a DAC. Most DACs introduce distortions when the persistent peak level is clipping - even inter-samply, if I may coin an adverb on the fly. Mastering DACs are selected for the robustness of the analog section of the output circuit so that they contribute very little overload distortion when playing back a very hot stream of audio bits. This is how mixing hot befools one. One needs to be sure that his DAC is not flattering the mix with euphonic distortion due to the signals being too hot since the eupohonic colorations it might be imparting are only ephemeral - they might well disappear when played on a better DAC at mastering. So, a sort of hi-fi 'telephone game' begins - sort of like this thread! 0;

wrote: But I'm sure you were talking about an analog output chain.

Yes, the analog circuit within the output of your D/A converter.

wrote: In my case, my physical output chain is RME Fireface 800 to amplified monitors (Yamaha HS8 + HS8S sub). I'm not sure I'd appreciate putting the volume up in my interface and having to stand up and change the volumes on my monitors one by one...

I nevertheless encourage you to use a sound pressure level meter and play a pink noise test tone (@ -20 dBFSD RMS) through each soloed speaker to ensure that they are playing audio with identical sensitivity to input signals. In a perfectly treated listening room the left and right speaker sound pressure levels of identical signals, in phase, will be 6 dB(SPL). In most real-world control rooms, the acoustic summing of two speakers playing the same signal in phase is only 3 dB(SPL). It is for this reason that most consoles use a 3-dB pan rule. The signal drops by 3 dB as it's panned from hard-left, or -right, to the 12:00 center position since, there, it plays from both speakers at once, without introducing an apparent change in loudness during panning. SSL used to use a 4.5-dB pan rule because most users would install such a board in a better-designed control room than most. Masterfonics in Nashville, with its Hidley-designed acoustics and Kinoshita soffit-mount loudspeakers has ruler flat response in the audible band and nearly 6 dB(SPL) left-right acoustic summing. I mention all this because, when the pink noise is summed, due to it not being correlated, the summing won't jump 6 dB from the soloed speaker reading, but, if you can tolerate monitoring a sine wave, it should!

wrote: I'm sorry if I didn't get the meaning of everything you said (being a french canadian) ;)
Feel free to correct me if I'm lost ...

Mais votre anglais est magnifique! I drove to Québec in the late '80s. How beautiful la Chute-Montmorency.

mastercutter, post: 458664, member: 51389 wrote: Au contraire. It should take more time to mix an amateur song since the acoustics in your sound room and control room will not likely be half as good as they are in a studio where Ms. Dion's handlers book her.

So I'm an amateur with pro gear and rooms... hey hey !!

mastercutter, post: 458664, member: 51389 wrote: I nevertheless encourage you to use a sound pressure level meter and play a pink noise test tone (@ -20 dBFSD RMS) through each soloed speaker to ensure that they are playing audio with identical sensitivity to input signals.

Sounds like a plan everyone should follow ! Thanks

mastercutter, post: 458664, member: 51389 wrote: Mais votre anglais est magnifique! I drove to Québec in the late '80s. How beautiful la Chute-Montmorency.

Thanks again.. We surely have our cute spots ;)