Hi Larry, welcome to RO.

Your song is really nice, nicely balanced , a bit thin sounding but "even" which is the main thing right now!

Being said, the first thing I noticed is your main vocal is panned left and right. I would keep the main vocal in the center and (if you had harmonies) how you have your main vocal.

Nice song, thanks for posting.
I think it has a nice Ambiance. The only think that doesn't work for me is the lead vocal. It should be in the center. You could keep the stereo effect if you want but and center sound should dominate. For now, I can perceive all the words because it's a bit burried with the stereo mix.
The voice has a nice texture, and seems on pitch enough, so no need to hide it ;)

For the instruments ; good job !

Chris, post: 425307, member: 1 wrote: Hi Larry, welcome to RO.

Your song is really nice, nicely balanced , a bit thin sounding but "even" which is the main thing right now!

Being said, the first thing I noticed is your main vocal is panned left and right. I would keep the main vocal in the center and (if you had harmonies) how you have your main vocal.

Thanks Chris. I see what you mean about the vocals, I can fix that.

I'm not sure what do to make it fuller. I could bring out the organ part a little more, or perhaps double the guitar. What do you think?

pcrecord, post: 425308, member: 46460 wrote: Nice song, thanks for posting.
I think it has a nice Ambiance. The only think that doesn't work for me is the lead vocal. It should be in the center. You could keep the stereo effect if you want but and center sound should dominate. For now, I can perceive all the words because it's a bit burried with the stereo mix.
The voice has a nice texture, and seems on pitch enough, so no need to hide it ;)

For the instruments ; good job !

Hello pcrecord, thanks for the suggestions. Chris made a similar observation about the vocals, this is really very helpful.

Larry Allen, post: 425309, member: 48895 wrote: I'm not sure what do to make it fuller. I could bring out the organ part a little more, or perhaps double the guitar. What do you think?

No!!
Its not one individual instrument, its the overall sound which is a bit thin, However, because the thinness is "ALL" consistent to the rest of the tracks, its okay. Other than the vocal issue, everything sounds balanced, just a bit thin like AM radio thin.
It sounds like you have rolled off the bass a bit too much on everything but its better to be where you are now in comparison to a boomy muddy mix. Does that make sense?

Fix the vocals and don't mess with the mix. Post it again and lets hear what it sounds like! :)

I understand, thanks!

Out Of The Blue 0.2:

* Panned lead vocals center
* Added reverb to vocals
* Added (less) reverb to guitars
* Bumped up the 100 Hz region on the acoustic guitar.

much better but the vocals are still unnaturally distant from the doubling effect you have. Its 100% better, but I would like to hear the voice dead center without the reflective add-on.

You guys are good, I can't sneak anything past you o_O. Watch this space tomorrow.

Thanks!

I'm thinking... do you have a doubling delay on the vocal track apposed to it on an Aux?

this is of course just my opinion. Vocals sound much better when reverbs and delays are generally on a Aux or Bus opposed to individual tracks. Aux that have either a stereo verb or delay that is the same setting for all the tracks creates a more cohesive unified space rather than all sorts of separate rooms fighting each other. Make sense?

The vocals don't sound natural to the performance.

Chris, post: 425317, member: 1 wrote: I'm thinking... do you have a doubling delay on the vocal track apposed to it on an Aux?

this is of course just my opinion. Vocals sound much better when reverbs and delays are generally on a Aux or Bus opposed to individual tracks. Aux that have either a stereo verb or delay that is the same setting for all the tracks creates a more cohesive unified space rather than all sorts of separate rooms fighting each other. Make sense?

The vocals don't sound natural to the performance.

This is getting deep, I love it. Here's some background on the vocal tracks.

I send the singer backing tracks, he sends me back a Sonar project with 2 or 3 takes of the vocals. I edit them down and keep 2 for double tracking. The lead vocals are on one bus, and I've got one of [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.manualsl…"]these[/]="http://www.manualsl…"]these[/] vocal plugins in the fx bin of the bus.

The plugin is adding parametric eq and de-essing. There's also a doubler effect, I think it's the one that's bothering you. I'll turn it off and post another mix.

Thanks Chris, I feel like I should buy you lunch.

It's there, I'll wait for your next mix ;)

It's a good song (very similar in structure to Damon Barnett's "[[url=http://[/URL]="

"]Another lonely day[/]="

"]Another lonely day[/]") and nicely performed. The production is not quite there yet, as others have indicated.

What would be good to hear is a mix that had only the one vocal track, centred with no plug-ins, effects or doubling.

Another thing you might try is playing the current mix switched to mono just to hear how much disappears. That's a sure sign that there is too much artificial spread in some of the component tracks.

Had another listen this morning, I think I found the problem. I did have a doubler on the vocals (it's gone now), but that wasn't the only problem. When I made the vocal bus I forgot to turn off the processing on the individual tracks.

[MEDIA=soundcloud]harrellsferry/out-of-the-blue

Thanks for the suggestion Boswell, I'll try that mono thing in a little while.

100% better. Now we can start discussing the mix a bit more.

My next suggestion would be to add some soft compression on a variety of the bus's to help the sharp dynamics cutting through. I always group (drums, bass, keys, harmonies, guitars, cymbals etc) then only if necessary, I add some compression on those bus' . In your case, I would do this.

As Bos suggests.(y) We are in the camp to always check mixes in mono around here.

I would avoid those vocal riders like the plague but they may be a useful for auditioning how a track would sound if improved other ways before you get into it. I've never heard a vocal rider I thought was worth using. I suppose they are on hundreds of mixes but I'm certain there are better ways to skin it.

You are being fun, thanks for sharing your work and posting results back. Kudo's!

Chris, post: 425332, member: 1 wrote: You are being fun, thanks for sharing your work and posting results back. Kudo's!

The pleasure is all mine

Chris, post: 425332, member: 1 wrote:
My next suggestion would be to add some soft compression on a variety of the bus's to help the sharp dynamics cutting through. I always group (drums, bass, keys, harmonies, guitars, cymbals etc) then only if necessary, I add some compression on those bus' . In your case, I would do this.

I hear some over-exuberance from the rhythm guitarist (me) during the solo. Where else do you hear unpleasant peaks?

Below is a screen shot of the buses in the project. I think everything is self-explanatory, except that 'Band' = keys, bass, & acoustic guitar.

All of the sub-mixes feed the Automation bus, where I control the bus gain to fade out the song. The Automation bus feeds the Master where I control the overall level of the mix.

I'm sure others would like to chime in with their suggestions too, please do so as I don't want to dominate this thread. In the mean time, thanks for your kind words so here we go.

I have a common approach which helps me avoid mistakes. I mix peoples work so I find a common way that seems to help clean up and get down to business pretty fast.
I don't understand Sonar's layout like my DAW so I'll come at this from my DAW approach.

NOTE: THIS "particular mix". Before I start messing with the individual tracks here, I once again suggests creating groups and putting a few key processors on them to see if it will tame the overall tones first. A small amount of compression on your drums, guitars, vocals , keys is a good start. And I wouldn't be heavy handed here. Your mix is really good. its just needs some careful touches right now. If the guitars or drums are still peaking out or not sitting in the pockets, you can go into the individual track later (after this step) and clinically approach problematic areas. We first need to gently tame the sharpness of the peaks or dynamics. Make sense? If you start going into the tracks, you will open up a Pandora box and we will loose where we are now.

I am a firm believer to keep tracks raw on the channels ( we hopefully tracked well ) and use bus' and aux to glue things first. I like getting the balances lined up, then group transient common sections on their own bus's,
I will also create common delay Aux and common reverb Aux, and approx 8 bus for the groups ( drums, vocals, guitars, keys, effects, etc) to go into.
Once I get it all sorted, balanced (which you have most of this done now) , I will then approach individual tracks.

I personally think we go about mixing wrong a lot of times where we spoil the source before its even gets a chance to be in the natural space of the performance. I refer to this as is mixing backwards. Or, mastering backwards.
Get the console all in place, glue the groups together and then start chiseling or carving out the individual session until its all big and clear. I know this seems backwards, but we are actually doing that correctly because it has already been mixed. So we need to go backwards and fix it were you last left off.

If you are still game,
Do you have your tracks grouped?

Yes, I'm game. This is my kind of school.

And yes, my tracks are grouped into the buses I mentioned before. Breaking out the cymbals now ...

Cool!

Once you have this done, I'm expecting your mix should sound near identical to whats been posted with the vocals centered now, yes?

yes

PS, can you avoid removing your other soundcloud links as we will use them to refer back on changes as we go here.

What are all the sub groups (bus's) you have now, including Auxes ?

Chris, post: 425340, member: 1 wrote: PS, can you avoid removing your other soundcloud links as we will use them to refer back on changes as we go here.

Will do

Chris, post: 425341, member: 1 wrote: What are all the sub groups (bus's) you have now including Aux ?

Here are the buses and sends:

(Admin Edit: Removed dead image link)

I can't see your image but I'm listening to your track again and its sounding so much better than before. There is still a doubling effect on the main vocal. I think Bos' suggestion to just post the vocal now would be a great idea.
I would love to hear all the buses separately but hearing the vocals will really serve you well.

Again, well done.

I bet Kurt would have a few excellent suggestions too.

There is no doubling effect, but it is double-tracked

Ah, I would remove the double. Its not serving you well. If you feel its needed to fatten up the lead, I'd try a slap echo instead of the doubling.

Chris, post: 425348, member: 1 wrote: Ah, I would remove the double. Its not serving you well. If you feel its needed to fatten up the lead, I'd try a slap echo instead of the doubling.

I'll try that. Can you see this picture?

I like your last mix very much. I agree with the double tracks being a bit disturbing but, it's not so bad as it was with the doubler effect.
For this point comes artistic decisions. As is, your mix sound a bit retro which is not a problem at all. you could keep it like that and it would be enjoyable.
Make sure you save your projects on different files so you can go back the way it was.
If you are willing to try stuff, one thing could be done about the ambiance space. You see, right now, your drum sound like it's in a drum room the vocal in another and so on with the other instruments. A thing that I like is when all the band sound like it is in one single room. it could be done by using a single reverb to glue the band together.
This doesn't meen you have to remove all the other ambiance, but rather lower them and let a nice verb surround the whole mix.
Also, depending on what YOU like, you can play with how far instruments are from the listener by ajusting the amount and lenght of the reverb.

Those are just thoughts, you alone can decide if they fit your goal ;)

pcrecord and I are on the same page.

I understand everything that has been discussed here. I silenced all the double tracks, and made a delay bus to experiment with slap-back.

pcrecord's suggestion of a 'glue' reverb is a technique I'm familiar with, I intend to try it on this song. Does the technique tend to play well with slap-back on the vocals? When I play guitar live I use delay and reverb in series (Delay -> Reverb). Is that likely to work with vocals?

I'll be chewing on your suggestions for a while, I'll post another mix when ready.

Thanks to everyone for all your help, I don't often encounter this kind of generosity.

I usually don't send delays in reverbs but that's just me. Everything could be done if it's sounds right to you ;)

What do you guys define as sends?

Do you load the Reverb plug-in on the track or on a bus?

Always on a bus for me... I usually don't use a reverb for just one thing anyway...

what do you call sends?

Chris, post: 425317, member: 1 wrote: I'm thinking... do you have a doubling delay on the vocal track apposed to it on an Aux?

this is of course just my opinion. Vocals sound much better when reverbs and delays are generally on a Aux or Bus opposed to individual tracks. Aux that have either a stereo verb or delay that is the same setting for all the tracks creates a more cohesive unified space rather than all sorts of separate rooms fighting each other. Make sense?

The vocals don't sound natural to the performance.

same here then.
So are sends on Sonar , your aux "send" which "sends" a pre or post level of the individual channel to the Aux bus where the reverb or delay is, yes?
Larry, is this how you have your effects on the vocals?

In Sonar, there is 2 ways to route a track signal to a bus.

1. the aux send which let you choose the level that you send and if it's pre or post fader.
2. the track output is usually routed to the masterbus and it is always post fader. You can change the output and route it to a aux bus, when output is used that way, you can't blend the track and the aux signal.
   But, Aux bus have aux sends and outputs exactly like a track. So = enless possibilities ;)

   Usually, if I have an instrument recorded in stereo with 2 identical mic for exemple in X/Y, I'll probably send both track to a stereo aux bus on with I'll put an EQ and a comp, then I might send the aux sends of that bus to other buses with reverb or other effects..

   I hope that makes sens ;)

Chris, post: 425336, member: 1 wrote: I personally think we go about mixing wrong a lot of times where we spoil the source before its even gets a chance to be in the natural space of the performance.

absoluely agree. and speaking of spoiling the source.... I will even go so far as to clone the original source track for editing. This way, if something weird happens and I happen to mess something up during editing, I always have the original untouched source track to fall back on.

I don't do this with every track, because many tracks are fine as they were performed and don't need editing, but for those focal tracks - lead vocals, guitar solos, etc., I always make a clone and work on that instead of the original.

I've also done this with entire project files, where I will leave the original project alone and then save it as another version from which I can mix.

DonnyThompson, post: 425363, member: 46114 wrote: I will even go so far as to clone the original source track for editing. This way, if something weird happens and I happen to mess something up during editing, I always have the original untouched source track to fall back on.

My approach to it is, never mixdown a track which create a new file and I make sure that any punch ins starts with the measures. That way, I can always re-import the file.
Cloning tracks in the DAW is a good way too but I find it hard to deal with the archiving and hiding tracks all the time.