The Minstrel and Marie - first time mix

Makzimia, post: 426215, member: 48344 wrote: Chris, I removed a M/S processor from the 2-bus this morning for one, I also added some HPF more, as you did. I added the real verb pro on the 2-bus and a limiter now too.

As we keep digging into this we are learning you aren't just tracking and mixing clean. I never knew you were using a MS in this until just now. MS processing can severely destroy a mix in the wrong hands.



Your issue is how you are using the MS and effects, which is exactly why the mix improved when I removed what you did via a reverse MS process. You were widening your mix in an unnatural way, pushing bass on the sides, which is effecting the mid information.

Cool, it sounds like we are all getting to the bottom of it lol!

Thanks for sharing all this. Is there anything more you aren't telling us? :cool:

Turn off all the plugs and processing you are doing, remix this clean, add some overall reverb that provides a courtyard ambiance effect and I bet this will sound great.



Personally, if you are using two guitars, I would drop one and see how you can build this mix into a fuller sound with little more than the mistrals would sound like in that century.



Drop all the bells and whistles and try to emulate the space of a group of musician playing in a courtyard would sound like. One reverb on an Aux, thats it!

Mix into that reverb and it will sound much more natural and have less imaging issues. Then post that.

Makzimia, post: 426221, member: 48344 wrote: No sir :notworthy:. I'm going to do a bounce of where I am and put it in our drop box Chris, if you could let me know what you think of it now, post fixes.



Much appreciated,



Tony

Okay, It will be a few hours. I'm out for the day now.



PS.

I've been dominating this, which was because I knew there was an issue with a MS and effects, now resolved. I would love others to chime in on the next phase of this. :) Its a very good song. Well worth the efforts.



Its been a pleasure, Tony. (y)

Its much better in terms of phase . Now just being picky!

The harp is still an issue, and a bit loud and bassy in comparison to the rest of the mix on the sides. because of the stereo spreader it has.

Your samples however, sound good.



Here is a great indicator that you are using a preamp, mic... that is small, or thin sounding in comparison to your full sounding samples. Your flute, harp, drum are all full sounding, but your vocal and guitar is thinner in your mix, which is why I added bass.

. The obvious , we reach for EQ to thin out the music, thus the mix gets smaller. Which is why I think we have so much trouble and negative experience competing with samples .

If you are using big samples, you need a mic chain that rivals it.



being said, mix 3 is now better, (y) I would go back to the mix now and make it more interesting by panning the instruments in a group so it sounds like they aren't all stacked on top of each other. If you used a nice open sounding reverb , it would be even better.



FWIW, when I add a lot of bottom end ( missing due to your pre/mic) it sounds better to me.

I've uploaded what I think sounds warmer.



Hope it helps.



Now that you have this tightened up, I would work trying to get it fuller sounding.

Makzimia, post: 426215, member: 48344 wrote: Chris, I removed a M/S processor from the 2-bus this morning for one, I also added some HPF more, as you did. I added the real verb pro on the 2-bus and a limiter now too. At this point, what Bos said did in fact remove the issue instantly. And I'll put that Mp3 you did up now :)



this is TheMinstrelMarie2

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

If your new mix had the space I created in this MP3, I personally think it would sound really good!

Here is what i just did. I'm hoping others get involved? Again, this a beautiful song Tony. !! Kudo's. I hope I'm helping and not killing you here?

TheMinstrelMarie2

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Cool,

btw, I edited my post above, wasn't clear. Makes more sense I think.



No worries, its been a pleasure and this is a really inspiring song. Catchy melody, love the flute too.

audiokid, post: 426232, member: 1 wrote: If your new mix had the space I created in this MP3, I personally think it would sound really good!

TheMinstrelMarie2

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…





I like this direction better (TheMinstrelMarie2). its glued more, sounds more pro.



Cheers!

Ok, here's my input. :^)



[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

eternalsound, post: 426244, member: 48927 wrote: Ok, here's my input. :^)



[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

10db limiter. ?

(y)



I'll do the same for fun to demonstrate ITB vs OTB . Should be fun. :)

You go chris!! :^P



Probably about 10db. Only 0.4 digital. Some EQ and stuff too. The vocals had a little woof on them.

The newer version Tony did has more phasing corrected. But it lacks a bit of the nice open sound in this mix.

nice job btw.



For fun... here is the same mix you just posted, matching it to your 10db boost , but all ITB. My monitors are TV speakers. The whole DAW could be purchased for under $5000. If I actually took time to do this, I could clean up and produce this with more detail and sweetness. Having the stems would without down, increase it to a much higher level than this.



please don't think I'm on a competition of who is better at a master, its merely a dollar to dollar for those thinking that we need to spend thousands on gear today.

If you ask me, it will make us all rethink spending $thousands on analog processing.



[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Don't agree. I think they sound night and day. :^)



You're guitar sounds like there is a layer of ice on it. haha :^P





Starting from an MP3 probably isn't a good idea for either of us. They're very "digital" to begin with.

I have a few questions to start,

Curious, who's track did you download to do this, mine or Tony's? ;)

I started with your L track because I thought there was some more I could do with it. The limiting was very minor.

Exactly!



Okay, here is the closing point. Try and get the same results by just using the track Tony provided. You would never get, remotely the same results OTB. You are taking a mix that I already did and simply boosting it with a bit personal taste.

This is where I completely disagree the investment is worth it now.



Now here is that same mix, with reverb added plus 10db for the volume war.



[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Which one is Tony's? The other ProL ?





For some reason I can't get yours to play ^^^



Is it attached correctly?

You'd have to get it from him. all the versions uploaded like we are doing are different versions of my mix. . This one above is the version you took and added 10db to it. So, I added 10db to it, but did it ITB on the system i just described, and just now added the reverb back in.



Make sense?

Makes sense. I'm not sure if Tony want's to give me it for a master at this point.



Did Tony give you a 24 bit file to digitize or was it 16 bit? ;^)

To Confirm, Tony4-ProL.mp3 is my mix as well, done ITB, To say it is possible for you to improve it, yes, you could via mastering it louder or tweeking the curves, but to fix it like I did, OTB is not even close to possible. You would never be able to take Tony's mix and do what I did like this, I don't believe it.. You obviously could change it, but analog cannot fix things like digital can now.

I have a incredible analog mastering system that cannot compete with what I am using right here, under $5000 investment.



If you want to try, I would challenge you to ask Tony for the that file, and try and reproduce what I did ITB. that would be interesting.



Ironically, we are on a shootout with a file that is full of phase issues. ;) But look how we are improving it never the less. I think that is pretty cool.

What are you talking about ...fixing? Are you talking about mixing? I'm confused. "You would never be able to take Tony's mix and do what I did like this" .........do what??

Forget what I just said, its too confusing. See if Tony will provide that same version I got and master that and lets compare. Then I will explain this again, it will be a fun discussion.

eternalsound, post: 426254, member: 48927 wrote: Makes sense. I'm not sure if Tony want's to give me it for a master at this point.



Did Tony give you a 24 bit file to digitize or was it 16 bit? ;^)

yes, he gave me a 44.1 . Two versions. It was more to help him identify the phasing problems we are all hearing. Trying to help Tony fix and inprove his new hybrid system

eternalsound, post: 426256, member: 48927 wrote: What are you talking about ...fixing? Are you talking about mixing? I'm confused. "You would never be able to take Tony's mix and do what I did like this" .........do what??

Surgically isolate and contain the imaging like we can ITB. Buts this is another topic yet to be tackled. But as mentioned. if Tony gives you the same mix ( have it here) , it would be interesting to hear how a Mastering E would get it to this level using analog hardware like you have. this is my point.



Does that make better sense? We're killing two birds with one stone on this one.



I'm basing all this on the recent discussion we had over plug-ins vs hardware. Follow? I used to think plug-ins suck but no more. What sucked was me not doing it well.

audiokid, post: 426251, member: 1 wrote: Exactly!



Okay, here is the closing point. Try and get the same results by just using the track Tony provided. You would never get, remotely the same results OTB. You are taking a mix that I already did and simply boosting it with a bit personal taste.

This is where I completely disagree the investment is worth it now.



Now here is that same mix, with reverb added plus 10db for the volume war.



[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Yes, I need to get the file from him. I'm still a little confused on the "Try and get the same results" part. This is because I will rival your results. :^)



"You would never get, remotely the same results OTB" ...snicker..snicker.

"This is where I completely disagree the investment is worth it now." ....Now??





"Ironically, we are on a shootout with a file that is full of phase issues. ;) But look how we are improving it never the less. I think that is pretty cool." Me too! :^)

Like I said, k am basing part of the conversation on your comment about plugins vs hardware



And you really need to get Tony's mix rather than redoing mine again. using my mix, and booting the levels in this thread is kind of bazare.



I don't know why you would be doing that, it's not like I was trying to master this or that tony was providing a track ready to master

I apologize about the file. I just used it, like I said, because there more that could be done from a mastering perspective. It's all that was there and I was not looking to compete., if you go back to the original post. I did more to this than you might realize that's why I think they sound difference putting loudness aside.





Tony: Popcorn. hahahhahhh!

Liked that mix Chris - nice.

Chris, I've got the file and mix is different. You're not asking me to mix this are you??

eternalsound, post: 426266, member: 48927 wrote: Chris, I've got the file and mix is different. You're not asking me to mix this are you??

It's what I did ITB.



Tony, did you give chuck the same version you gave me last night? That's the one he needs.



I've got a root beer and popcorn on standby.:D:love:

hahahah





my file has a mono guitar

DogsoverLava, post: 426265, member: 48175 wrote: Liked that mix Chris - nice.

Thanks!

Ok, here's this file anyway. It's not the same mix as yours.



[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…