I'm really not the guy to listen to, and I can't say whether or not it'll help you get girls, but I'll throw some suggestions out there that you can take with a grain of salt.

I'm missing the kick. Snare's good, toms are present (although a little too dead for my personal tastes) but the kick is getting lost. It's missing that bottom end with the tight click on top to bring it forward.

Did you mix the kick within the entire mix, or in solo mode? I'll wait for your answer before I explain why I asked.

The bass guitar is also muddy and undefined. You may try adding some upper mids to bring out the definition, maybe somewhere around 800hz to 3 k.

How is your mixing environment room-wise? My bet is that you've got serious low end / standing wave issues, that are causing a substantial amount of untamed low frequencies your room...and because you are hearing so much low end in your room's inherent acoustics, you're either not adding enough, or, you are attenuating the low end when you shouldn't, because your ears are leading you to believe that you already have plenty of low end. In short, your room may be lying to you.

Guitars sound par for the genre... edgy, rough.

The vocals are, I think, quite bad... very pitchy. They sound "amateurish" to me, like it was the first time the "singer" was ever on a mic. That may not be the case, but that's what it sounds like to these ears..

Just because it's "grunge" doesn't mean that the singer has to suck - or can get away with sucking. Grunge vocalists like Cobain and Staley were certainly "rough around the edges", but they weren't off-pitch.
Raspy? Yeah. Edgy? Absolutely. Pitchy? Not in the least. They hit the notes.

From a mix POV, the lead vocals are getting buried during the choruses. They're okay during verses, when the instrumentation is more sparse and open, but when everything kicks in full tilt, they are getting lost.

Have you referenced your own mixes with other grunge songs that you like? It helps to listen to other tracks that are in the same style you are mixing, as a form of reference. Listen for things like kick and bass guitar levels and EQ, how forward or back the drum bus is, where the vocals sit, panning of guitars, etc.

Now... here's the big disclaimer: With the exception of Nirvana and Alice In Chains, I'm not much of a grunge fan... which means you have to take everything I said above with a huge grain of salt.

The vocal levels, the pitch, kick level, bass EQ, might all be considered to be fine by true grunge purists... I'm only going by successful grunge bands and how their mixes sound, so you should definitely wait to make any changes until someone else who is more familiar with the style chimes in, because the things I mentioned may be just fine.

In My - extremely uneducated and inexperienced - Opinion, of course. ;)

d./

Your stuff is so bottom heavy, it sounds like you mixed this on headphones? Sounds great in the phone's I bet. Just not on speakers. You know... those things in your car. Obviously not in your control room.

Your recording technique is just this shy of a dirty butt. Certainly grunge on equals grunge out. So... do you want to make a good recording or don't ya? You do? Okay then...

We all use a lot of high pass filtering. Sometimes it's a button on your mixer. Sometimes it's a software preset. Either way, you're not using any. It's necessary. Grunge only sounds like grunge when it doesn't sound like mud. Yours is mud. So it's not grunge, it's amateur hour.

Now I don't think your snare drum sounded good. Donny was just being nice. Your entire drum set sounds like crap. It's obvious you've used too much gobbledygook. Too much EQ when just a little high pass filtering might do. You obviously have no recording techniques or chops. If you did go to school for this? You must've flunked?

So if you want really hard-hitting bass drum? Invert the phase on only the bass drum. Suck out a little around 250-300 Hz. Maybe a 2 db rise around 3 kHz? And ya cut the low end off around 60 Hz. Maybe even sticking a bit of compression and gating on the bass drum. Almost the same for the snare drum. Don't screw with the overheads except for high pass filtering and maybe a two db rise around 10 kHz/12 kHz? And gate your toms. So those microphones aren't on when those drums are not being played. This will tighten up the entire kit. It'll feel like somebody's giving you CPR. It'll be much harder hitting.

Same for the bass guitar. Some high pass filtering and a little limiting. And that's all ya need on the bass guitar. You don't need tons of gobbledygook equalization just because it's there.

The guitars... oh the guitars... mud city. That's not grunge that's crap. They have no bite. They have no bark. They have mud. Yuck. So what to do? Simple. High pass filtering, low-frequency cutting. Stick one guitar track in the left channel with a slight time delay of that in the right channel for the Haas effect. Do the same to the guitar in the right channel with the delay into the left channel. And copious amounts of high pass filtering. And they might jump out at ya? Yeah doggie! That's rock 'n roll grunge.

So now that I've rreamed you a good new ass hole. What are ya going to do for an encore?

Donny asked ya whether you have referenced your mix, your sound, against any major brand grunge act recordings? Apparently not? Because there's no way you can tell me you've already done that by listening to your cut. It might however only on headphones? Which is why I think you mixed this on headphones. Unless your monitors that you might be using are screaming bright? Like Yamaha NS 10's. Which I personally cannot work upon. They suck! But there are lots of folks that use them as their primary references. A colleague of mine, Bob Clearmountain does. But not without his favorite brand of toilet paper over the tweeters, for just that reason. So try some toilet paper, if you're using extremely bright speakers. Because it's just not cutting the mustard.

For a good reference, stuff by Chris Lord Algae, is what you want your stuff to sound like. But that's an SSL 9000. Complete with compression, limiting and noise gating, on every freakin' channel. And that's what I'm talkin' bout.

I have a set of reference CDs I use, before I go into any mixing. References by notable groups, their producers and engineers. Which includes work of my own as well. Along with Bob Clearmountain, George Massenburg, Bruce Swedein. Some of my favorite engineers. And which I engineer nothing like them but with my own signature sound. Still quality. Still nominated for 4 major music award nominations. Which means it doesn't sound like your stuff LOL.

Johnny asked you if you had soloed instruments, tweaking them that way? Then placing them into the mix that way? Which ain't the way to do it. And maybe that's why you're getting what you're getting? Since what you're really supposed to do is to flatten and turn off all your equalizers. Then you push up a mix. You balance the mix. You get it just right, that way alone. Then you can start using some program EQ enhancements and/or corrections. But not until then.

The vocal... need I say more? Yes... I need to say more. While the vocalist (perhaps yourself?) is there, it ain't there. Again it requires copious amounts of low frequency roll off and high pass filtering. And plenty of compression. Which does not require a fast attack time and does not require a superfast release time with a 4:1 ratio setting. It doesn't matter whether it's hard knee or soft knee via RMS, peak or optical sensing. But it needs to be there to place the vocal in a part of the mix, where it will always be plainly heard and understood, regardless of background music levels. Which is what the dynamics processing does for ya on the vocal. Then and only then, will your mix start to stack up those of other professionals.

It's easy once you get the hang of it. You're not there yet.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Although I don't like this music at all, rarely listen to grunge but I do have my favourites.
I've heard your other stuff and know your work ( what was that song a few years back, I really liked it?). Where have you been? :) (hopefully not too wet these days?) My heart goes out to the Prairies.

I actually don't mind this because it reminds me of 54-40, a Canadian Band that became famous sounding like they don't give a fuck, but, they still keep in tune. You got yourself another 54-40 in the making!

I would turn the vocals up and adjust the sides of the guitar better. They are out of balance with the middle.

I don't hear it as being mixed bass heavy at all, Remy. This sounds like it supposed to (y)

I would have attempted to tune the band better, but you can still fix the balance between the Vox and guitars. Tuning, well that would just ruin this lol now! How could you ever fix it in the mix.

[[url=http://[/URL]="

[/]

View: http://youtu.be/lkh…

'...Your stuff is so bottom heavy..."

Wow. Well, that's certainly not what I'm hearing. Undefined, yes. But not bottom heavy at all. If anything, I'd tighten up the definition and add more low end.

FWIW I referenced through NS10's, JBL 4406's and Alesis Monitor Ones. Powered by Hafler and Crown. All three played back low end shy.

I am hearing bottom heavy on speakers, very muddy, but not so much on headphones. Was this mixed on headphones ? :)

Voiceofallanger, post: 416750, member: 41142 wrote: I am hearing bottom heavy on speakers, very muddy, but not so much on headphones. Was this mixed on headphones ? :)

What monitors/amp are you using? Are you listening in a controlled/treated environment?

Because in my control room, ( acoustically treated) through three different pairs of speakers - NS10's, JBL 4406's and Alesis Monitor One's, and two separate amps (Hafler and Crown) the low end is shy.

Now, I will say that the low end is lacking definition and clarity, and it's very "loose" sounding, not "tight" and defined like you'd hear in a pro recording, but frequency-wise on the whole, it's anything but bass heavy.

Interesting because I find all Remy's mix weak

Voiceofallanger, post: 416750, member: 41142 wrote: I am hearing bottom heavy on speakers, very muddy, but not so much on headphones. Was this mixed on headphones ? :)

Here is where this gets interesting.
Are the differences we hear because of monitoring or taste?
Is there some correlation between members or is it coincidence?

Voiceofallanger, although I like your work a lot, I have always noticed your mixes shy in the bass (low punch) and bright on the top. Remy's mix's going back to the 70's, sound overly compressed and shy on the bass, lacking kick and low freq below 100hz. I never agree with Remy on anything sound related. Both of you tend to like each other's comments.

Donny's mixes however, usually sound closer to how I would finish them but lack some kick which is definitely personal taste between him and I. BUT! I can differentiate taste and therefore never worry when he suggests something for me. We can work together.

We all have our sound and I am the first to admit, I am far from perfect, but it is my sound and it has kept me busy all my life. Who has it right then? I'm reading wide personal differences between us here but see something unfolding, that i want to keep focusing on with RO. We are onto something.

That being said, I would trust a critique from Donny so this is where it gets interesting.

Some say this is very muddy. Not to me. "Very" is extreme and leads to savage moves.
From a finishing/mastering POV here is how I hear this mix.

The OP sounds shy on the bass (lacks punch) and is rather smeared, lacking top end I suppose. I would definitely not remove bass though. Perhaps we mean the same thing? Is it very muddy or top end shy? There is a big difference. I would add top end instead. I wouldn't remove bottom end anywhere.

It does sound close to a 21st century "Grunge" band to me = the sound of the 90's west coast bar band all fuck ed up on drugs and slightly better ADDA conversion.. I would mix this again (ckecking) in mono so the sides are balanced better with the center and try to get more edgy attitude which is anyone guess. Maybe sample the sound of a bar and add it into the mix.

thats my 2 cents.

Interesting comments audiokid. A good read for sure :)! I donno... the room I am listening in isn't treated.. But yes maybe I should specify. There IS frequency present but it isn't very defined. I should have been a bit more specific with my comment really but I am noticing a huge difference in mix between speakers and headphones which is just .. VERY EXCITING haha :D Mixing bass is definitely a weakness for me. I'll say that much!

Voiceofallanger, post: 416759, member: 41142 wrote: Interesting comments audiokid. A good read for sure :)! I donno... the room I am listening in isn't treated.. But yes maybe I should specify. There IS frequency present but it isn't very defined. I should have been a bit more specific with my comment really but I am noticing a huge difference in mix between speakers and headphones which is just .. VERY EXCITING haha :D Mixing bass is definitely a weakness for me. I'll say that much!

I donno... the room I am listening in isn't treated..

There ya go.
I bet Remy's isn't either because there is never any information below 100 hz in her mixes. She, likes thinner music. Most professionals in this business, including myself learn to mix a certain way and we get results. The hardest part for me has always been the top and bottom. I think over time we tend to follow what works and this becomes our sound through habits.
Some think its the mids that are hard, to me, mids are the easiest. Its the bottom and top I struggle with, always have. I can't get good mids without the support of the top and bottom.So, I love the Avatones for dialing in the mids then full range for the sub and top finish. Easier said than done. :rolleyes:

My mixing position is within 2 db from 40 to 500hz. I can hear ( or feel) down to 40hz easy and know when its swinging or killing it. Bass is a obsession for me so I struggle all the time trying to get it big. The hardest job I have, fixing whats not mine and then trying to forget what I just did on the last one.. The last hours of a mix is where I suffer defeat. I keep thinking I will find a way and it pains me. I'm almost at a point in life where I can't take it anymore. Some days I wish I didn't choose sound. This business has taken away the magic enjoyment, the innocence of just listening to music and being content.

I've always felt strongly, bass with punch its where the money lives in this business, and what defines an age group. Mature people like more defined. Younger people generally go overboard. Somewhere around 35 years old I think we all start finding our niche. Then, our hearing starting diminishing and we rely on habit.

Generally speaking: I've noticed some engineers, especially those who do Metal produce thin mixes. Drummers tend to add too much high end. Guitarists get too wide. Bass, players, I'm still trying to figure them out but I like a mix that is based around the bass.

It's a bitch to be good at all styles. The world class engineers do well because they have the best to play with. So, when someone says, just do this, it ain't that simple because most of us are doing something wrong somewhere.

You aren't the only one admitting bass is a weakness. Me too.
I'm trying to get rid of old habits created by bad room acoustics, poor gear, techniques, hearing loss and so on. But thats why we do eh. Its a challenge indeed.

Edit (It sounds like its been updated from the original op, the vox sounds louder now? )

Before I comment I'd like to know if this was actually a bit of a piss take -- as in were you guys trying to as a one-off project record a grunge song for laughs? Because what I feel here is a lack of authenticity in the performance and the production and most of the problems beyond the obvious technical and sonic ones may have their roots right there. Is this your music style? Is this your passion? What is this song and recording to you?

AWWW C-RAP! i was hoping i would hate this after reading everyone else's posts but actually kinda like it.

as far as the mix goes, anything i would say would be subjective. i can hear all the parts and that's the most important thing.

as far as performance goes i get the impression it is done the way the band intended it to sound ..... :rolleyes: no accounting for taste.
i give it a strong 7 Dick. it's got a good beat and it's easy to dance to. think i'll go surfing now!

I like the creepy, spooky aspect of this song. what I'm hearing is less "grunge", and more goth ([[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.google.c…"]Bauhaus/Love[/]="http://www.google.c…"]Bauhaus/Love[/] and Rockets). I would keep the vox tracks expressive, and just do slight pitch corrections via software. Most of what the above posters say re: your poor frequency boosts and cuts I agree with. What I need to here is more hi-hat, ride, and kick. Also, try to come up with bass parts that don't just mimic the guitars - try making then stick out once in a while with a couple of notes that play a pattern different then what the rhythm guitars are playing (ala, Green Day), so people might say "hey, there's a bass player there!"

CrazyLuke, post: 416768, member: 48048 wrote: Also, try to come up with bass parts that don't just mimic the guitars - try making then stick out once in a while with a couple of notes that play a pattern different then what the rhythm guitars are playing (ala, Green Day), so people might say "hey, there's a bass player there!"

Abso-frickin'-lutely agreed. I've been saying this for years. So many times I hear the bass track as nothing more than just notes rhythmically and melodically following the tonic root of the guitar chords - but just an octave down. Definition is frequency-dependent to be sure, but it's also part-dependent as well. If the bass has an actual part, it's much easier to distinguish in the mix.

Tracks by bass players like McCartney, Leland Sklar, Tony Levin, etc., stand out because they have a distinguishable arrangement... counter-rhythmic and counter-melodic, and not just a lower octave clone of the guitar root.

FWIW

To be fair. Part of the foundation of grunge is the solid octave of guitars and bass matching. I think it's almost a signature characteristic. Grunge is meant to sound quite sludgy and none melodic for the most part. Look at Queens of the stone age for references IMO.

http://www.recording.org/index.php?threads/spin-off-thread-what-do-you-hear-how-do-you-mix.57331/

holy noise floor batman! what the hell is shooshing so bad? Gate that shit.

otherwise, sounds like grungy guys to me. maybe the guitars should be "bigger", and the vocals def dont cut through all that noisy guitars.

I think your bass guitar is hogging your subs and taking away from the kick drum impact. maybe you are mixing to sound that way, but as preferences go, I like a thumping kick, not a clicking one and I think "this song" with the chugging guitar groove would benefit from less bass guitar low end, and have the kick drum do the "beating" so the groove is... well groovier ;)
start with HPF'ing the bass guitar at at least 180 Hz. with a resonant boost at 220-280. That will make you better able to hear the bass guitar (and appease the bassist) and not take the thump out of the kick drum. i can hear what you are attempting, but I cant feel it.. yet.

Your vocals aen't cutting through, the singer is singing at a tone that is conflicting with somethign... prolly guitar. try carving a bit of the fundamental of one out of the other see whee that takes you. and i can hear this weird undertone in the singers voice mid range somewhere, kinda crusty.. find it and accentuate it.

Voiceofallanger, post: 416771, member: 41142 wrote: To be fair. Part of the foundation of grunge is the solid octave of guitars and bass matching. I think it's almost a signature characteristic. Grunge is meant to sound quite sludgy and none melodic for the most part. Look at Queens of the stone age for references IMO.

Tell that to Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains.... even Nirvana.... There were grunge elements coming from the post punk world where plodding roots on the bass were the form... but those guys barely sold any records and they certainly didn't define "grunge". Grunge was better defined by the lack of hairspray and Jeans & Flannel vs Spandex and crop tops than any signature sound.

agree with ^^^ those bands all sound nothing alike, they just came from the same area.

Josh Conley, post: 416775, member: 47953 wrote: holy noise floor batman! what the hell is shooshing so bad? Gate that shit.

otherwise, sounds like grungy guys to me. maybe the guitars should be "bigger", and the vocals def dont cut through all that noisy guitars.

I think your bass guitar is hogging your subs and taking away from the kick drum impact. maybe you are mixing to sound that way, but as preferences go, I like a thumping kick, not a clicking one and I think "this song" with the chugging guitar groove would benefit from less bass guitar low end, and have the kick drum do the "beating" so the groove is... well groovier ;)
start with HPF'ing the bass guitar at at least 180 Hz. with a resonant boost at 220-280. That will make you better able to hear the bass guitar (and appease the bassist) and not take the thump out of the kick drum. i can hear what you are attempting, but I cant feel it.. yet.

Your vocals aen't cutting through, the singer is singing at a tone that is conflicting with somethign... prolly guitar. try carving a bit of the fundamental of one out of the other see whee that takes you. and i can hear this weird undertone in the singers voice mid range somewhere, kinda crusty.. find it and accentuate it.

This post was strange to me, Josh. o_O Usually you and I see eye to eye on, well, almost everything. But in this case I have to disagree. I wouldn't be putting an HPF on the bass. I think it needs more low end, not less.

Then again - I said it to start out with and I'll say it again - this ain't my thang style-wise. So maybe I'm just altogether wrong and am basing my opinions on what I personally like to hear in a mix.

FWIW

d./

LOL... as a side note, has anyone else noticed that we're the only ones discussing this song, and the OP hasn't chimed in once? He's seemingly disappeared. POOF!

Of course, I can't say as I blame him. He's probably spinning in circles right now after reading our comments. LOL :

"less low end"
"more low end"
"boost 185"
"Put a hi pass at 185"
"More thump and less click in the kick"
"Less thump and more click in the kick"
"Tastes great"
"Less filling"
"Tastes great!"
"Less Filling!" **

** sorry about the Miller Lite commercial reference here. Ya probably won't get that if you're under 45. ;)

LOL

d/

i think we agree...maybe ;)
i want a little more thump, just not from the bass guitar. i want it from the kick drum.
imo, a non pumping type "groove" needs more kick drum energy than bass guitar energy. say, on a funk track where dynamics are further apart, i like it vice versa.

i think maybe its not necessarily a tonal thing, but the feel in the pick attack of a bass guitar versus the pedal attack of a kick drum. the pedal is more immediate and severe than the pick.

DogsoverLava, post: 416776, member: 48175 wrote: Tell that to Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains.... even Nirvana.... There were grunge elements coming from the post punk world where plodding roots on the bass were the form... but those guys barely sold any records and they certainly didn't define "grunge". Grunge was better defined by the lack of hairspray and Jeans & Flannel vs Spandex and crop tops than any signature sound.

I think all of those bands you listed are largely "none melodic" at the core to be honest.. I know I struggle to listen to any of them because I am very much a fan of melodic music.. and they do mostly follow the guitar with the bass from what I know of them (Pearl jam not so much). Mr Morello certainly likes to thicken his riffs with octaved effects/bass doubling. I'd say he's known for that almost as much as he's known for his effects "abuse" amongst guitarists (clever chap he is!). Those big riffs sounding massive with barely any gain on them just with bass doubling (trivia - he writes them all on an acoustic for the purposes of knowing they will sound huge with just a bass behind them). So ya.. Not seeing your point really ;) As for those guys not selling any records.. I don't even.. Haha :D And umm.. sounding nothing alike, Josh. No. They don't sound alike. You're right. But what does that have to do with the foundation of bass/guitar being similar ? Not a lot methinks. Green day don't sound like Blink 182 but they both play power chords and mostly follow the guitars with the bass. So do Nirvana for example, who sound nothing like Blink 182. I think the responses you both gave me were a little irrelevant ? 0.o The point I raised was very much a sweeping majority statement.

So once again, it comes down to a reference. We need a benchmark.
Let's start at the beginning again.
audiokid says it reminds him of 54-40 and he posts 2 tracks as reference.
first of all both of these tracks are missing the right channel (So we'll have to reference them in mono)
If that's our 'control' then Remy's point is well taken, that the 'test' is bottom heavy by comparison.
(which is not the same as too much bass. So here audiokid correctly clarifies that it's really some combination of not enough in the mid or top end, and others that point to too muddy of a low mid.)

But- (to me) the 'test' material does not fall into the category or sound of 54-40 (maybe their attitude at best, but not their sound)

So- New reference.
- Queens of the Stone age was mentioned. Can we get a more specific song, because the 2 or 3 I listened to sound completely different from each other, one of which has a very smeary sound (Smooth Sailing) which could almost start to approach the 'test' subject. but still doesn't seem to be the right overall sound.

How about Nirvana's SLTS? Is this a better reference for us to work from?
If that's a benchmark, then I think we can get to the bottom of this mix. In a word that's been mentioned already. "Definition"
Go ahead, match the level of the test and this benchmark (i'll wait....)
You'll see that the bottom (bass) is pretty well matched, but there's too much low mid and not enough definition which is creating the "Bottom Heavy" reference. The drums and bass in 'teen spirt' are pretty well defined, so lets start there and remix this song to match.

If there's a better reference, then someone needs to sign off on that before going further.

Oh boy, here we go again.

Natural,

My reference to 54-40 was for the tuning and sound of the vox lol
I wished I had a better example but that's the bands only posting. Regardless, Ya don't need to have both sides to hear it.

If you were Canadian, Natural (which I bet you are glad you aren't. ;) ) and knew the bands track list you would hear the clear resemblance I'm referring to. The op and I are Canadians, which why I used 54-40 vox and tuning example which contributed to their wide success. It was for his benefit, not yours.
Just saying.
All in fun.. :). I'm out.

"...but they both play power chords and mostly follow the guitars with the bass. So do Nirvana for example..."

Hmmm... not so much ME thinks. LOL

First of all, as a three piece band, Nirvana creates a natural place for the bass in their songs, because the instrumentation is pretty sparse all the way around to begin with. ( Perhaps using them as an example in this case isn't the best choice, as opposed to a grunge band with a drummer, two guitarists and a bass all playing the exact same parts, blowing full blast throughout an entire song).

Nirvana is also a very dynamic band. Their songs are multi-leveled in performance charisma - from quiet, sparse sections, to hi-octane, full-on hooks... yet the parts still have room to breathe and fill their own niches of their fundamental frequency ranges.

If you listen to a track like Teen Spirit, you'll hear that the bass is indeed following the dominant chord progression, except that during the verses it's also the dominant instrument, doing running 8th's in a
F / Bb / Ab / Db progression, with the guitar only playing a simple C/F on the "2" of the measure, and then letting those notes decay. The result is space. There's room for the instruments to exist, without crowding each other out. And, on that track in particular, the bass is already standing out to begin with, because until the chorus happens, it's the dominant tonal instrument.

If you listen to Come As You Are, not only can you hear a different rhythm part to the bass, but melodically, there are walk-down scales in the chorus as well. Simple? Yes. But it's enough to define the part.

As mentioned, perhaps Nirvana isn't the best example to use for this debate... on the other hand, I don't think there's much debate that they were certainly major players and one of "the" core bands that pretty much defined the grunge sound when it commercially emerged. So I don't believe you can completely discount them, either. ;)

IMHO of course.

d/

natural, post: 416786, member: 29673 wrote: So once again, it comes down to a reference. We need a benchmark.
Let's start at the beginning again.
audiokid says it reminds him of 54-40 and he posts 2 tracks as reference.
first of all both of these tracks are missing the right channel (So we'll have to reference them in mono)
If that's our 'control' then Remy's point is well taken, that the 'test' is bottom heavy by comparison.
(which is not the same as too much bass. So here audiokid correctly clarifies that it's really some combination of not enough in the mid or top end, and others that point to too muddy of a low mid.)

If we are talking about using Remy's critique regarding the low end as a "benchmark", then I'm gonna have to recuse myself from this thread/debate.
Everything I've ever heard her post has almost always been overly-compressed and low end shy from around 100hz (or so) and down.

To be clear, I'm not blasting her for this. If that's her style of mixing, then so be it. Everyone has their own particular style and methods that define their work. I just so happen to find her mixes weak in the low end.

That being said, She certainly shouldn't feel the need to impress me. The only people she needs to impress... are her clients. ;)

FWIW

d/

I'd suggest listening to "Heart Shaped Box" and see how the vocals are handled on the more aggressive choruses vs the verses.... the verse vocals here need to be retracked. I'd actually recommend the singer tightenup his chest and move the vocal more to the upper throat and into the mouth and head for the verses - but keep the delivery controlled and soft - he's unable to control his low voice with an open chest. I'd also consider doubling the vocal on the verses for depth - especially if you tighten them up in the upper throat or head because they'll thin out. Then in the choruses allow the vocal to come from slightly lower -- top of the chest -- you'll maintain control because you'll be pushing harder -- the choruses in the existing already sound better when the voice has some momentum behind it. Also -- watch the tuning on the vocal.

I too found a lot of the mix competing for sonic space - I'd suggest listen to POTUSOA for how they handle this kind of thing --- they are masters at sonic space (plus they are missing half their guitar strings). Bass and Rhythm guitar are a bit muted for me, so they are like rolling the tone knob off on a guitar or putting a box over the speakers. Drums have a similar sound to my ear - I want more definition and snap.

It's not bad -- the best part is the choruses -- derivative (see STP or Puddle of Mud) but OK - the verses have a little POTUSOA guitar in them ---

Another good comparative listen would be Silverchair ---- album Frogstomp -- see how they handle the mix.

imho,
I could be wrong but it sounds like the OP has modified this track from the original version to what is posted now?
Also, in his defense, his geographical location (southern Manitoba) is in a state of emergency! They have been hit with mass flooding beyond words. The water is heading to the USA and it isn't going to be a welcoming stream. I hope he and others are safe from the worst flooding we've seen.

Talent aside,
If we check this mix in mono, the guitars are cancelling out and creating a bass phase that is fooling you all into thinking there is too much bass "".
The Vox and other center tracks are therefore dominant and lacking support. The mix in general is appearing to have all sorts of issues that are, imho, mostly phase related. If this is fixed, everything will tighten up.

audiokid, post: 416801, member: 1 wrote: imho,
I could be wrong but it sounds like the OP has modified this track from the original version to what is posted now?
Also, in his defense, his geographical location (southern Manitoba) is in a state of emergency! They have been hit with mass flooding beyond words. The water is heading to the USA and it isn't going to be a welcoming stream. I hope he and others are safe from the worst flooding we've seen.

...so what you're saying is that the mix isn't necessarily muddy but the OP might actually be surrounded by mud while we debate his mix? Get to high ground man! Forget about us - start hauling gear up to the second floor.... save the gear!

Indeed!

right where he is living.

[[url=http://[/URL]="https://www.google…"]https://www.google… flooding&client=firefox-a&hs=EMF&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7-W6U7DaPInDigK-iYCYAw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1458&bih=677&dpr=1.25[/]="https://www.google…"]https://www.google… flooding&client=firefox-a&hs=EMF&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7-W6U7DaPInDigK-iYCYAw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1458&bih=677&dpr=1.25[/]

The Canadians are debating breaking the wall to save thousands in the USA now. In other words, we have created a dike to save our people here but it is now channeling water to the USA. Our Prime Minister is now thinking its more humane to flood a few thousand here to save thousands south of the boarder.

We aren't passing the buck I guess. The OP is in the epicenter of it all.
Just saying what I am briefly hearing in the news right now.

audiokid, post: 416803, member: 1 wrote: Both, its right where he is living.

[[url=http://[/URL]="https://www.google…"]https://www.google… flooding&client=firefox-a&hs=EMF&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7-W6U7DaPInDigK-iYCYAw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1458&bih=677&dpr=1.25[/]="https://www.google…"]https://www.google… flooding&client=firefox-a&hs=EMF&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7-W6U7DaPInDigK-iYCYAw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1458&bih=677&dpr=1.25[/]

Wow - that's rough. I haven't put on broadcast TV in days so living here in Vancouver I wasn't even aware. Hang tough guys and stay safe.

An update:

The Canadians are debating breaking the wall (?) to save thousands in the USA now. In other words, we have created a dike ( or some sort of protection) to save our people here but it is now channeling water to the USA via the http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/assiniboine-river-crests-in-brandon-dikes-hold-1.2697954. Our Prime Minister is now thinking its more humane to flood a few thousand here to save many thousands south of the border.

We aren't passing the buck I guess. The OP is in the epicenter of it all.
Just saying what I am briefly hearing in the news right now.

DonnyThompson, post: 416793, member: 46114 wrote: If we are talking about using Remy's critique regarding the low end as a "benchmark", then I'm gonna have to recuse myself from this thread/debate.
d/

No one is talking about that.
To clarify it further for you, I was suggesting that instead of comparing the mix to what it sounds like in your room to you, we should compare it to some other known reference.
There are some excellent references now being suggested.
I'm hoping that the OP will pick one of them or suggest one that he is trying to emulate.
(I understand that he may be out of communication range at this moment and may have other pressing more important issues on his plate- So we'll have to wait for news from Mars)

audiokid, post: 416801, member: 1 wrote:
If we check this mix in mono, the guitars are cancelling out and creating a bass phase that is fooling you all into thinking there is too much bass "".

No one said that there was too much bass.
Only 2 people (remy and Voiceofallanger) said it was bottom heavy.
Which it is when you compare it to Nirvana, Queens of the Stone Age, and I'm now listening to Silverchair.
You, I and some others suggested that it's bottom heavy for various reasons. (too much low mid, no upper mid definition, phase anomalies etc)
As a side note-- Thanks to your submission of 54-40, that forced me to listen to the OP's song also in mono arriving at the same phase conclusion in addition to the other suggestions.

Also, for this analysis I'm comparing only the music and completely ignoring the vocal at this point. The vocal is at best a scratch voc, but it's pretty obvious that it needs to be redone. So say we all?

how many recording engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? ten. one to do it and nine to stand around and say "i could have done it better".

when a mix is presented to a wide audience of "audio guys" there is ZERO chance of any consensus.

because of a number of reasons, the two most prevalent being personal preference and listening environment, there is absolutely no chance any two individuals will concur. all we can do is report to the op how their mix is travelling to other systems ......... if i can hear all elements in a mix without anything being dominant or buried, if the mix is intelligible enough that i can define all the elements, hear the words and there is a reasonable noise floor all i feel comfortable doing is giving the mix a "pass".

i suggest that if the op's want specifics, they ask the questions ... "what do you think of the kick sound?" "can you hear the bass and if not what should i do ....? "

as Klyle's sig line suggests, "opinions are just like assh*les ....... everyone's got one and they all stink"....

Cheers

Also, I hearing a need to have someone (the original singer, or maybe a girl ala Black Keys, T-Rex) sing an octave above some of the verses, to have the vox cut through. As it is right now, the vocals are being masked by the guitars that are sitting within the same frequency. I want to hear the lyrics to this dark song.

I like this thread. It's amazing that everyone is throwing such strong opinions around without being personal about it. You don't see that often nowadays. Round of applause for all haha! It is quite funny that the thread creator has bailed hahaha. I'm enjoying this guys. Learning little bits here and there. :3

Ooo.. Donny. I do have to be that guy though man here when I say... Go listen to "Come As You Are" again if you think the bass is different to the guitar. It isn't dude. Haha. It follows ;)

I donno man.. I just kinda associate grunge bass with root note spamming :D Then again it's not "my music" so I'm only so much of an opinion anyway, ya know? Haha :D

Holy smokes, sorry I was on vacation. Usually I get little for response so I don't check that often, plus I don't have my account set up for email updates. I've got to say IMO it must not be too bad of a mix since everyone is disagreeing on it. Now to throw more stuff in,
- I've done a remix and cleaned some stuff up and made others even dirtier.
- As for the bass, the bass player is using his pedals through a DI so the mud and lack of definition is quite intentional.
- when I hear opinions such as "bass heavy" then "bass shy" I figure I'm right on the mark
- this band likes it and I got paid
- I agree the kick is a little low, however the band asked to turn the kick down
- Remy usually likes my mixes so to get a big slam from her is long overdue, wondering if the opinion is a little biased due to me not recording genre I usually do.
- As audiokid mentioned "Although I don't like this music at all, rarely listen to grunge" I'm wondering how many opinions are based on the fact they don't like the genre, not saying that the mix is great, but wondering if it and the opinions are getting a little subjective
- I'm high and dry in my area, but yes the town is in the centre of the flood, so far so good.
- also note the post "mixing grunge for the 21st century" so I won't be using references of grunge mixed in the 90's, nor will I be using reference music from the 80's or 70's . Queens of the stone age would be a better bet, although I didn't reference it either
- as long as I'm learning stuff, it's all good :)

https://app.box.com/s/zq5u58m57lpvqkwxpgt1

click on the link if you dare!

also I should note, this was done all live with loud everything. I'm gonna give you another tune, same band, same session, same mix. Just curious to see how that changes the opinion

https://app.box.com/s/u3t6kfh5w26sio12ocy1