I'll listen later, wife is still asleep :D. It's only 4:44am LOL.

DonnyThompson OK, got time to just listen now. Good tune, beginning is very deceiving LOL. The piano at the beginning sounded like it need to be more centered, however once the song got going properly, it made sense. Overall I think the balance is pretty much there. There are some places the vocals receded, but, not often, and I would need to write down exactly where, and it was very minor. At about 3:50 I think it is, from memory, there is a huge vocal choir type thing, WAY too loud at the moment, stands out of the mix in a wrong way (just my opinion). At the end, the guitar sits just nice, again, just my opinion.

Cheers,

Tony

Donny - I'll take a listen when I'm back in the studio later today.

Makzimia, post: 431225, member: 48344 wrote: DonnyThompson OK, got time to just listen now. Good tune, beginning is very deceiving LOL. The piano at the beginning sounded like it need to be more centered, however once the song got going properly, it made sense. Overall I think the balance is pretty much there. There are some places the vocals receded, but, not often, and I would need to write down exactly where, and it was very minor. At about 3:50 I think it is, from memory, there is a huge vocal choir type thing, WAY too loud at the moment, stands out of the mix in a wrong way (just my opinion). At the end, the guitar sits just nice, again, just my opinion.

Cheers,

Tony

LOL... WHOOPS!! That choir track was supposed to have been fully muted there. So you are absolutely right, it's far too loud - because it isn't even supposed to be there at all.

Obviously I overlooked that when I hit "export". ;)

Nice catch.

Thanks, Tony.

Listening reference, home system, JBL floor standing, sub-woofer, Yamaha receiver. Room semi treated.

At the start (0:44-2:09, then again around 2:40), the vocal sounded a little high, during the high energy section, vocals settle in at a real nice level.

3:49 does the chorus come up a little higher than intended?

Nice piano work. I would like to hear that punch through a little more.

Guitar at the end is a hard call. I could see it sitting a little further back, but it isn't too loud. I think that is a taste call. I could see either way.

Really excellent mix. Very pro level and one can really hear the difference.

Thanks, DM. I'm not quite sure about those things you mentioned yet - you're right that the chorus does come up at 3:49, it was intentionally mixed that way - but I'm not totally sold on it yet.

I've brought both the lead guitar and vocals slightly forward.

Okay, here's an updated mix:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]LLM FULL PRODUCTION RE BUILD MIX 2 JULY 30 2015.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]LLM FULL PRODUCTION RE BUILD MIX 2 JULY 30 2015.mp3[/]

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files LLM FULL PRODUCTION RE BUILD MIX 2 JULY 30 2015.mp3 (12.4 MB) 

DonnyThompson OK, different listening environment this time, but... Vocals don't sit in now in most places, imho. Also, the choir at 3:50, nope, doesn't work for me. Also noticed something, that I may have imagined, but, bass seems to go more boomy following the choir part too. Guitar is neither here nor there to me, I was personally OK with version 1.

Cheers,

Tony

I like the chorus rise, I just think it goes a tad too loud at the top end. Vocal still a bit too forward, but that is a more personal taste.

That is all I have.

I don't know how to say it Donny, I hear a bunch of tracks like they were produced over a long period of time, not a band.
I often said it, it maybe a taste thing but to me this song has too much seperation between the instruments. Different ambiance, different dynamics. The drum seems overprocessed, the vocal overly clean and a bit nasal, the back vocals too far from the lead vocal and the guitar is missing some presence.. again my taste ;)

I think that if you could put them all in the same place.. it would be a fantastic start..

I'm with Marco 100%. But its a damn good track, Pal!. To me this should sound like its all happening together in a church when it sounds like it was pieced together, which is a great start but it could definitely get better with the right approach.
What that is, could be a Bricasti or any verb for that matter on the Master bus, mix the song into a church space. I think its just a matter of building it into a more cohesive space.

When its a pieced together project,
I mix the tracks into a common space, it helps glue it together. Maybe you did this already, just not quite right yet?

Also, this may turn some heads but is this is a classic example of excellent work with an array of processing that really isn't serving the finish well? Damn plug-ins of too many textures make everything sound too apart (too bit unfriendly). Is that a term I just made up lol!
Just trying to understand your processing to help unwind it somewhat and get back to less is more. Then come back at it more raw but still with that 80's sound. ...

Its why I like a common tracking setup, clean big rail or what ever you got pre's, and don't mix it all until its all done. That way it all comes together at once.

I think what I'm trying to say is,
did you mix this as you build it?

My motto:
If there are real instruments, (you use mics) ( real music :love:) don't mix as you build a song.
also, I find one of the best solutions to make a mix more real sounding is to think like its all live. Create a live feel and it will in turn, become more "live sounding". Less is more in one common space.

Its a great track and once again, your work is really good..:love:

I don't envy you right now... you are in the trench! :eek:

I did mix it as I built it. It was as if the mix was the composition. I'll go back and strip it all down. Thanks guys.

audiokid, post: 431259, member: 1 wrote: did you mix this as you build it?

DonnyThompson, post: 431262, member: 46114 wrote: I did mix it as I built it. It was as if the mix was the composition. I'll go back and strip it all down. Thanks guys.

I'm really looking forward to hearing the difference.

Food for thought which may or may not apply.

Mastering by the same person who mixed it can also share the same setbacks as, mixing by the same person who created it because the creator tries to put everything they built, heard equally. Sometimes its better to not mix something you created because you are trying to put everything up front, which makes it really hard to mix whats best for the song.

I'm not saying you need to do this or it would change things but I am saying, when you break it down this time, try and come at it like your are mixing it for the label instead of for you.

Does that make sense?

I'm sure I don't need to say this but just in case, don't loose this version just in case.
For others chiming in that are following my two DAW approach I use, this is where I would have this version captured on the second DAW. I would now remix this as suggested and capture it on another track (same session) of DAW2. So you now have this version and the next side by side.
Then , line them both up to the bit, study them both using your mute track to switch between them as they are playing.
And so it goes.

I have sometimes remixed a song 40 times studying everything from how a piece of hardware effects a mix to different reverbs, comps and so on. Its an awesome way to learn. Nothing beats this for self improvement.

I just listened again. Its really a great song.
What are you putting on on the Vox for processing?

I had a small hall setting on the Lead Vox, ( actually on everything but bass, kick and intro vocals) - The only other processing I used on vocals was on the backing vocal harmony stack at the break, where I subbed all the harmonies to 2 stereo tracks... one was a track that was dry, the other a bus where the EQ was narrowed (futzed) similar to a phone sound, and during automation, I slowly decreased the EQ'd track's volume level, while slowly increasing the level of the track with the unaffected EQ vocals, so it went from drastic EQ to no EQ on the vocal stack at the break.

I had everything else - with the exception of bass guitar, kick and intro vocals and intro piano (because I wanted them to start out dry and intimate) - sent to an aux with the same verb ( small hall), using Samplitude's VariVerb.

There was some delay added here and there on some of the lead guitar work at the end. Any delay on the vox you are hearing isn't actual processed delay, it's a clone track, off-set in time from the original (occasionally on lead vox, harmonies, etc.)

DonnyThompson, post: 431268, member: 46114 wrote: one was a track that was dry, the other a bus where the EQ was narrowed (futzed) similar to a phone sound, and during automation, I slowly decreased the EQ'd track's volume level, while slowly increasing the level of the track with the unaffected EQ vocals, so it went from drastic EQ to no EQ on the vocal stack at the break.

This is a special effect, keep it there if you like it. But I like the strip down idea take a day or two off of it and come back with a fresh brain...
Think of it as if those musician were recording each in their homes and you need to convince us it was all done live in a studio...
Also I hear a lot of tracks in there.. make sure they all have a purpose and are needed to uplift the song.
Less is more (tracks and mixing) !

I'm looking foward to other versions ;)

audiokid pcrecord

I understand that a lot of very talented engineers are looking for a sound that represents a natural sense of space and time, an organic vibe, where all the instruments are either played and recorded in one space at one time, or are made to sound like that in the mix, with that type of sonic continuity.

But... I don't always want to mix that way. Think about some famous songs of the past, say for example, "A Day In The Life" from Sgt. Pepper... Now, I'm not saying that I'm George Martin, or The Beatles, because of course I'm nowhere even close... but if you listen to that song, it doesn't sound anything like a group of musicians all playing in the same space, or even at the same time.... but it still works, it's still enjoyable to listen to. And, maybe your preferences are based on more current releases and mixing styles, and I can totally understand that, too... but there are some recent mixes I've heard that don't sound like what you are talking about, either. Recently, I posted a youtube video for a song by Ingrid Michaelson ( Girls Chase Boys) and that mix didn't sound anything like a band in one space, at one time... at least not to me.

While Pink Floyd's Money sounded like 4 guys ( 5 if you include the sax) playing at once in the same space, Us And Them, from the same album, did not. In fact, the entire DSOTM album was all over the place sonically. The Stones pretty much always sounded like they were playing and recording at once... and so did Lynrd Skynyrd, and Bad Company.... but, Queen didn't always sound like that, nor did Asia, nor did Genesis, or later period Yes.

I guess I'm trying to point out that not all great recordings sound "natural", and there are times when that super-natural sound can be cool, too. When I see a movie like Superman, I know that Chris Reeves isn't really flying, and everyone else knows it too... but there are times when we push aside reality for the entertainment value that those unreal sights and sounds can provide. I don't think that music is really any different, and I don't think that using the studio to create an "other-worldly" vibe from time to time is a bad thing, either.

I think what we have is a basic style / preference differential. Both you and Chris tend to like things that sound more realistic, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And sometimes I like that vibe, too. But, there are other times where I like to push the envelope of what is considered to be "natural". It's art, which means that some will like it - and some won't. There's no right or wrong, there's no better or worse. There's simply a personal taste for certain things and a personal dislike for others.

I can totally appreciate the way that cats like you and Chris think... but I like to hear things from other angles, too... ;)

IMO.

Peter Gabriel x Michael McDonald is what I hear. I hear the lead lead vox a bit too upfront, or separated, maybe too loud by 2db? My ears or system aren't good enough to tell, but it's only a little bit. At that point not even an error per say, just a matter of choice.

I don't hear how it's gonna sound much more natural unless, you actually did track a live band and a wooden piano. Im not convinced it's necessary, as this has a very 80--90s contemporary commercial sound.

i think it sounds fine Donny. i have a hard time criticizing any of your work. (glass houses, blah, blah, blah, .... what have you done lately, blah, blah, blah, ... ) :notworthy:

i believe what the others are hearing is the extreme isolation of the individual instruments/ lack of ambiance in the VST's , coupled with overly dry vocals. intimate is fine, but absolutely no acoustic signature can be ...... :sleep:

in the 80's separation was the big thing. but most of these separated sounds you site were recorded with mics in rooms that while "dead" still imparted some sense of space, or in booths that while treated were still diffuse. Bruce Swedien's work with MJ comes to mind. he recorded vocals with Blumlein arrays in a space surrounded by ASC traps .....

i know that the current trends lean towards smallish dead spaces but even in smallish dead rooms, diffusion can improve things immensely. i do not subscribe to the theory that diffusion is unnecessary in small rooms.

Kurt Foster, post: 431284, member: 7836 wrote: i know that the current trends lean towards smallish dead spaces but even in smallish dead rooms, diffusion can improve things immensely. i do not subscribe to the theory that diffusion is unnecessary in small rooms.

I will admit that my room is pretty dead - corner bass trapping, lots of broadband, a Hemholtz behind me (8') and a 3" thick cloud above my mixing position, and there are times where I'll occasionally even hang a 2" thick packing blanket for vocal tracking, so yeah, you've got me and the room I'm working in pegged pretty accurately there...

The reason I treated the room this way was because the space itself is too small to provide any pleasing form of natural acoustics on its own, so I figured it would be better to go the other way, and deaden things up as much as possible. And, this may also be why some have commented that my mixes sound too wet ( although I think they sound fine on other playback systems)...

I do have a 2' x 4' diffusor panel ( 6 inches deep) that I built a few years ago and never used, because I made it out of wood, and the damned thing is so heavy. I don't mind putting it up, but I want to make sure that when I do finally install it, it's gonna stay there... for good. LOL

There is another larger area in my house that I think I'm going to relocate to in the Fall; and of course I'll have to start all over again, but is does give me much more room to work with (which, as a side note, is growing ever-more attractive to me because the current space I am in is pretty cramped, and sometimes I feel pretty boxed in and claustrophobic)... so I'm looking forward as much to being able to stretch out, as I am to the possibilities of a better sounding room.

In the end, regardless of what I may want (or not) I have to mix for the client's approval. I may be producing, but ultimately, it's his album. ;)

kmetal, post: 431283, member: 37533 wrote: Peter Gabriel x Michael McDonald is what I hear.

Well, that's good news, K, because that's exactly what my client was aiming for.... And I mean, he used those exact same artists as examples. ;)

So, at least I managed to accomplish that.

While I think I have a good level for the lead guitar solo now, I've been on the fence ( and still am) with the lead vocal level.
On one hand, like you, I think it sounds a bit too hot, OTOH, I'm also more than just a little familiar with the words, LOL.... (after 300 plays, who wouldn't be, right?) so I need to make sure that the lyrics are able to be deciphered by someone who hasn't heard the song before... I don't want to mix them too shy for first-time listeners.

I'm gonna try another mix with the vocals brought back down to where I first had them ... plus half a db or so.

I'm not sure yet if I'm going to just simply adjust the track volume level - or add another db or so to the compression on the track...

I respect your opinion about space. That's ok, it's an artistic choice.
I think that we thought about space first because this is the best way (shortcut) to acheive a nice cohesion between the different instruments.
Thing is, if we forget about reverbs, your tracks are note blending as much as we would expect. Maybe that's what you like for the song. On my end I find the seperation little disturbing.
To me, that seperation isn't just created by ambiance and reverbs, it also exists in sonic textures, volumes, panning, EQ and dynamics. I think in those rely your Tools if you don't want to share reverbs accross many tracks.

Having a dead room is OK. it's alot better than having a bad reverb. Of course this also meens accepting the fact that we need to fake it. (I'm in the same situation)
You don't have to justify any of your recording gear, techniques or decisions about the song. Honestly, it sounds ok. But you know me, I always try to push a step further.

On thing you need to keep in mind is that an ME who will receive your mix will try to reduce the seperation I speak of. If an instrument is very powerfull in the HF he will try to put it down if it is too much.. Doing so, other instruments will end up with not enough HF..
I think your mix just need a bit of love and polishing ;)

Did you try a strip down with just volumes and pans then compare that to the mix.. or post a version here.. It'll be fun !

DonnyThompson, post: 431287, member: 46114 wrote: I do have a 2' x 4' diffusor panel ( 6 inches deep) that I built a few years ago and never used, because I made it out of wood, and the damned thing is so heavy. I don't mind putting it up, but I want to make sure that when I do finally install it, it's gonna stay there... for good. LOL

that's good. diffusers with mass work better. another thing that might work instead would be an acoustic slat wall. you see them in all kinds of public spaces like court houses. i'm sure you know what i'm talking about Donny but for those who don't, it's a cavity, filled with rock wool, covered with some sort of membrane .... (72-pound felt is good and is class B fire resistant, otherwise they wouldn't allow it to be used in construction. the felt acts as a membrane and helps with low end as well) and slats of varying widths.

DonnyThompson, post: 431280, member: 46114 wrote: I can totally appreciate the way that cats like you and Chris think... but I like to hear things from other angles, too...

(y)

I don't think most vocals are recorded with the finished ambience on the track. Even in large main rooms, the vocalist is baffled on most sides.

My problem with 80s artificial ambiences, is not to much the big, it's the Empty. They sound like huge empty rooms, because often they were. Or chambers like tha back stairwell at avatar.

What you get from live tracking and ambiences as far as 'gel' relates to all the air molecules moving relative to the group/song as a whole, and captured at that moment.

As soon as bleed isn't a factor, it makes no difference whether ambiences are added, or whether the instruments were tracked by the engineer, or an engineer who does samples. Bleed is the difference. Otherwise it's all after the fact. I mean artificial in a sense of created after the fact or separately/isolated.

The problem with diffusion in small rooms is it's difficult to predict, the amount of its effect, and if it's going to be a positive or negative one. If I bothered to make a 75lb diffusion you damn well bet I'd have it up, lol, Innocent until proven guilty lol.

D- in that bigger rooms, when the bass can possibly blossom much more clearly, I think your gonna love it. When my speakers (Mackie hr8s) moved from a 12x14 room, to a 12x18 room, the dif fence was insane. The bass response the manual raved about, became apparent, and more 'true' to the outside. And the formerly 'hyped' mods and highs calmed down. I had two large slat resonators tuned to the smaller room and an 4" mineral wool panels. The bigger room, had no bass traps, no cloud, and some side panels from 2" aurelex.

Nice song Donny, the only thing that jumped out to me is the lead vocal is too loud and very dry.

Not to keep going on but I'm sure you are appreciating the dialog as much as I am, while you are remixing this.

Kurt Foster, post: 431284, member: 7836 wrote: i have a hard time criticizing any of your work

indeed

DonnyThompson, post: 431280, member: 46114 wrote: I think what we have is a basic style / preference differential. Both you and Chris tend to like things that sound more realistic, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I agree with this statement but not in this case, not when we are talking about some obvious points regardless of any genre.
i know you said that in respect so no worries. However to clarify what I'm hearing; I don't really think its accurate to put me into a slot where I like natural and this excuses what I think Marco and I hear :)

I'm listening on my trusty boombox.
I'm surprised others aren't hearing all the pumping on the drums and how they are actually reducing in level as the main vocals are hitting.
You can't be wanting that?

This is my "opinion on levels" specifically at the 1:15 mark and related passages.
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Do you have a side chain between the Vox and drum bus? I would reduce what ever you are doing here by at least half the attack and threshold. Its a song killer. It sounds like a Transient Designer plug when they start reducing bandwidth and are flat waved? (BTW for those ever wondering: The hardware version is so much better. The plug-in TD I've tested (and owned) are plastic sounding :notworthy: with weird tails. I sold my hardware version and regretted it. The TD 4 is choice but the TD 2 is all you need. Well worth the investment.
But, because of that, I also stopped using them because the plug-ins don't blend dynamically in comparison to the hardware version and/or a better snare replacement solution.

Just suggestions for the sake of chat and PBL.

Is this something that a mastering house would handle? If this mix was something D wasn't doing, and he would have to pay for more mix changes, is this 'passable' to move to the next level.

To be honest, is it a bad thing that each of the engineers and listeners commented on the vocal? Is the untrained listener going to say to loud or 'wow' what a vocal, especially is a mastering engineer massaged it? Just brainstorming.

kmetal, post: 431332, member: 37533 wrote: Is this something that a mastering house would handle? If this mix was something D wasn't doing, and he would have to pay for more mix changes, is this 'passable' to move to the next level.

Interesting point K !
If we could know what an ME would do with it, it would certainly clear things up. Or even better, if we could know what he can't fix, we could focus on that ! ;)

kmetal, post: 431332, member: 37533 wrote: Is this something that a mastering house would handle? If this mix was something D wasn't doing, and he would have to pay for more mix changes, is this 'passable' to move to the next level.

Interesting point K !
If we could know what an ME would do with it, it would certainly clear things up. Or even better, if we could know what he can't fix, we could focus on that ! ;)

Mastering helps general focus. To my understanding its impossible to fix two completly different issues on the same track.

The general rule I live by (which is also just as weird or right as the next guy in this crazy and subjective industry).
Try to mix with less compression = miles ahead of the game.
I personally feel they hold you back (pun intended) from learning how to get bigger and more open sounding mixes regardless of the genre (sound is sound). I have a love hate thing with comps and limiters. I love them but I hate them when they become obvious around a genre that isn't fitting the mass of a track soundscape.
I think aggressive comps sound good in electronic music but they don't as much when example: they stand out like an axe murder in a church. At that point, no master will ever fix it. The ME will go insane trying to choose which direction to savagely go.

I was thinking more along the lines of some multiband compression, or active eq. Or MS processing maybe able to tame the vocals?

I'm not a fan of obvious compression myself, mainly on things like cymbals or electronic bass. I usually compress vocals quite heavily, seemingly regardless of genre. I'm getting more into expansion lately, and on hip hip type bass, I'll even thro a maximized on the track or bass/Kik bus.

I actually started a new project w a new client after a 5 month hiatus from recording. Rare for a hip hop, the guy listened, and brought the beat, In separate .wav files, for each track. Usually it's a stereo mix down. I'm experimenting with the buses, and I've got basically a kikbass bus, a snare bus, and a pad bus, all feeding one called 'beat'. Sounds pretty good and clear. I may put the pad bus, directly to the master bus, instead, so I can bypass the "beat bus's" compression. I wanted to do this since I got home today, and reading your post has certainly re-Inforced the notion, at least to take the 15 min to try.

I've been mixing with buses quite a bit more in the studio and live the past couple years, and I get much more punch and definition in the lows, and a clearer mid range, than I did previously.

Here's an update, I've used one room verb to which I've assigned everything in pretty equal amounts. There's some longer delay here and there for effect (guitars, some lead voc). AM-Munition limiter (very light) in M/S mode on the master bus...
Honestly? I'm not really digging this mix much... it seems to be drifting away from my original vision for it. I dunno, maybe it's time for a monitor upgrade... anyway, here's the latest update:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]LLM MIX AUG 3 2015.mp3[/]="http://recording.or…"]LLM MIX AUG 3 2015.mp3[/]

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files LLM MIX AUG 3 2015.mp3 (12.5 MB) 

I like where the vocals are sitting better than before. I really think giving it some room makes it sound better to my ears.

I agree I like where the vocals are in this one. The other mix had more energy to me. I'd go back to the old one but with the vocals sitting more like this. The first mix is a lot more enveloping.

+1 on the vocals... much better!. I still have issues (my personal thing) with the chorus at 3:49. I think overall, on my Harmon Kardon 2.1 system, it's sounding better. I like where the bass sits a bit more, there is some pumping of some sort going on, but I am 99% sure, that's my sub :). But mine aren't the best ears to rely on full stop. Vocals sit nice now though.

DonnyThompson, post: 431348, member: 46114 wrote: Honestly? I'm not really digging this mix much... it seems to be drifting away from my original vision for it. I dunno, maybe it's time for a monitor upgrade... anyway, here's the latest update:

Donny, you know that exposing a mix to others will give you 100 other ways to do things.

You need to set back and discuss with your customer. Then Remix the song to a point you'll have zero doubt about the result.
What I or any others will say don't mather if you and your customer gets the sound you want !!! ;)

I dunno about that either. This kind of thing can open you up to some very bad competent issues, make everyone crazy. You give your client examples of mixes you know are already sitting well and ready to go.
Which is why Donny posted this here? He is still shooting out his work prior to that? Or an i wrong?

I'd Never give a client problinatic concepts . Imho there is a point where they are hiring you because they trust you to make decisions they dont want or trust in themselves. Or Even need to know about!

I think this kind of discussion belongs here, not with the client. In fact, i am thinking we should even make this a private part of the forum? Not googleable, closed to the public?

Donny can go back to the beginning anytime, thats the beauty of digital audio! Try that with analog lol!

From that POV arent we simply sharing our opinions which can be applied or rejected? Its all part of this forum.

He can always go back to his mix but you can never take back things you shouldn't be sharing with the client, at least too early on. I think you would do this in mastering more than you would be in mixing. But thats just me.

only as a suggestion, would this ever make a good mix off. Not to out do you Donny, but to give some different perspectives of a mix that you might find helpful. Its easy for us to say yay or nay but to do it... Thats where it gets interesting.

Id love to see our forum go more in this direction. Talk is so limited compared to the power of hearing.