awesome Marco. good job.

Kurt Foster, post: 465146, member: 7836 wrote: awesome Kyle. good job.

Thanks Kurt ! Nothing sounded out of place to you ?

Marco ;)

pcrecord, post: 465147, member: 46460 wrote: Thanks Kurt ! Nothing sounded out of place to you ?

Marco ;)

it sounds good to me. sorry about calling you Kyle. for some reason i thought he posted this. my baaaaaaad!

Kurt Foster, post: 465148, member: 7836 wrote: it sounds good to me. sorry about calling you Kyle. for some reason i thought he posted this. my baaaaaaad!

Thanks Kurt !
(no harm done ;) )

Good work. My two thoughts were that the sidestick comes in with a pretty strong velocity/attack, maybe a softer attack might fit a bit better. And id also experiment with some vocal effx, and some ear candy type effects and backups.

Sounds great on my system. The snare cuts nicely, and the bass is well defined. I want to hear a big more bottom on the kick. It could use some background vocals!

It's very good, Marco. If I didn't know you and your talents, I might have said "Ahh, mixed by a drummer!", but it works well!

THanks for all the suggestions.

Boswell : writen, performed, recorded and mixed by a Drummer.. yes !! ;)

I finally had time to work on the song a bit more..
I hope I'm going in the right direction.. please let me know !

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Hey bud!

My one comment in the first file was that it was hit a little hard w/ the limiter and was pressed a bit loud up against the sonic wall of glass. It had a lot of limiting sheen to it.

You obviously came to a similar conclusion, because the second mix breathed a LOT more.

Well done, you are done.

:D

kevinwhitect, post: 465296, member: 11453 wrote: Hey bud!

My one comment in the first file was that it was hit a little hard w/ the limiter and was pressed a bit loud up against the sonic wall of glass. It had a lot of limiting sheen to it.

You obviously came to a similar conclusion, because the second mix breathed a LOT more.

Well done, you are done.

:D

Thanks Kevin !

The second take was much better! The inter-harmonics of the tails on the drums were in much better control. Great writing. Great playing! (insert droll comment about "for a drummer") LOLOL

Davedog, post: 465327, member: 4495 wrote: Great writing. Great playing! (insert droll comment about "for a drummer") LOLOL

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Thanks !

I think I'm near the final version..
redone the drums and acoustic guitar, remixed...
Let me know ;)

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

That's really good, Marco - it's a huge improvement on the first version.

You might want to check the very low end again (below 70Hz). My sub was working overtime dealing with components in that range.

Boswell, post: 465720, member: 29034 wrote: That's really good, Marco - it's a huge improvement on the first version.

You might want to check the very low end again (below 70Hz). My sub was working overtime dealing with components in that range.

Thanks for the tip.. I'll check that right away !

Pretty good for a drummer ;). Nice mix Marco. Good song.

Boswell , let me know if this is better..
I did lower the threshold on the lower freq on the multiband comp.. Change the master EQ very slightly...

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Nice work, Marco. I can tell you would mix your vocals a bit louder (dominant) if it wasn't you singing. Interesting how we all seem to mix our own voice tracks with less dominance (hoping that makes sense).
Being said ... I would add a touch of 1/4 beat echo and a bit a reverb on your voice and turn it up/ possibly compress a bit more too. Make it more present using filters via side chain maybe. ( just a hunch)
I feel the background guitars are a bit too big when vocals are in. I feel your voice should be sitting in there instead (at least during the vocal parts).
Possible solution for me would HPF guitars so it made more (pocket) room for your vox tracks. Samplitude has a great side chain hfp/comp that might be interesting.

Never the less, well done... Reminds me or I should say, I’d mix it like Green Day .(y)

I think the mix is pretty good. Since you're getting good input from others on that, I'll stay out of that part of it.

On the mastering side it seems a bit loud at -8.9dBLUFS. It's probably about normal for a CD these days, but most streaming services are going to drop it down 5dB or so to about -14dBLUFS. Would it make sense to do a streaming master that leaves a little more of the dynamics intact? You could get 4dB and leave yourself the usual 1dB of headroom. Just a thought.

audiokid : thanks for the suggestions. I already had a delay but the volume was way to low.. I did automate more levels to choruses for the vocal. Hope it's more at its place now.
bouldersound : This new version is more streaming friendly.. (-12.8Lufs) I'll probably do a video for it and I doubt it'll go on a CD.. so thanks for reminding me.

Thank you so much for your help !

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

It gets better with each pass. I'm still hearing a build up in the low-mids. There seems to be a lot of information going on around there. Have you high-passed the acoustic guitar? It seems to be banging into the tom sounds. An old mixer mentor of mine (RIP) used to call those areas "A roomful of 100s" ...referring to a big bump usually centered @ 100hz. One other question. Did you mix this on a timeline or a grid? I hear little spots where something is hitting early or late instead of sync'd and it makes it feel like it's trying to speed up or slow down. Maybe thats what you want. Other wise it's really nice and full and the treatment of the instruments is well done.

Davedog, post: 465741, member: 4495 wrote: It seems to be banging into the tom sounds. An old mixer mentor of mine (RIP) used to call those areas "A roomful of 100s" ...referring to a big bump usually centered @ 100hz.

100-180hz range is a challenge for all studios not using flush mounted speakers, due to "floor bounce". It can result in a boost or null in that area. So its possible Marco isn't hearing it in his room.

The only fix im aware of in non-flush mount situations, is to use a sub and tune the crossover up in that area (along with optimized physical placement), to compensate for the floor bounce. This may result in a fairly high crossover point, relative to the typical 80hz area.

This might be something Marco could look into if the trend is across alot of his mixes.

kmetal, post: 465746, member: 37533 wrote: 100-180hz range is a challenge for all studios not using flush mounted speakers, due to "floor bounce". It can result in a boost or null in that area. So its possible Marco isn't hearing it in his room.

Kyle are you hearing this too?

I did find that a fairly deep half octave cut at 178Hz seemed to help.

Davedog, post: 465747, member: 4495 wrote: Kyle are you hearing this too?

No, im on my phone which doesn't go much below 300hz. No access right now to a full range system, unfortunately.

Thanks for all the suggestions..
The spectrum doesn't seem to go wild on those frequencies but it could be localised to certain parts of the song maybe :

Honestly, I think I'm going to let it go like that.. if it get's seriously distribute some day, I'd probably pay an ME to do the job anyway...
Here is the song with a bit of video :

pcrecord, post: 465751, member: 46460 wrote: Thanks for all the suggestions..
The spectrum doesn't seem to go wild on those frequencies but it could be localised to certain parts of the song maybe :

Your screen capture tells the tale.

pcrecord, post: 465751, member: 46460 wrote: Thanks for all the suggestions..
The spectrum doesn't seem to go wild on those frequencies but it could be localised to certain parts of the song maybe :

Your screen capture tells the tale

This is what I was mentioning earlier. A 4 - 5 dB low-Q cut at 60Hz cleans up the bottom end.