eternalsound, post: 426343, member: 48927 wrote: What system are you using? I just see a bunch of analog gear (more than I will ever have.)

Sequoia 13, laptop, headphones and a TV for monitors. :)

My hybrid system ( some of what you see is sold) is at my lake home where I am hoping to relocate.
Cross my fingers.

PS
Most of what you see is for tracking and mixing . Most of it is never used in the chain for mixing or mastering; analog processing smears the audio up.
Uncoupling DAW's and mixing into a master is what I like the most about a hybrid system.

Big rails and Digital Audio is wonderful.

It's funny, because as you know, you have enough analog gear to easily pull off an analog master if you wanted to. But I know you don't want to do that.

I've never been a fan of digital music, myself. When I think of an album like Back in Black on vinyl it's just not the same to me. It's where we are now though so it has to be dealt with. We never fought with music trying to make it warm in the past. The battle continues now. And mp3's ....oh my...I think over time the world has become so disconnected with audiophile quality music that the sound really doesn't matter anymore so long as it's loud and bright. It's like the ongoing cheapening of products in general ...you just get used to it.

eternalsound, post: 426346, member: 48927 wrote: It's funny, because as you know, you have enough analog gear to easily pull off an analog master if you wanted to. But I know you don't want to do that.

Thanks Chuck, here's why.

As mass learn more about recording and mixing, I personally don't see Mastering as a profitable or even busy business of the future. I started out loving mastering, but the better the mastering gear and my game got, the more I realized it was all about improving peoples tracking and mix and not the master. It didn't take more than a few months to emulate everything I could with Sequoia.

People are learning how to do it all themselves and computers are replacing everything, including me.
Lying to myself serves me no good so, I'm emulating all the hardware I hear replaceable and prefer to push clients and friends towards improving their chain and performances over patching bad recordings that always point back to the mix. It makes your job, my job better too because not everyone has a golden ear. Its a win win.

Once ITB, Sequoia and a few other plug-ins goes a lot further and deeper into audio than the best analog gear. Once ITB, its not about the tracking gear then, its about hearing cause and effect and increments as we mix into a master. The area I feel weak with a DAW used to be on the 2-bus but no more. Mastering is all about the 2-bus and this is where a DAW wins hands down.

From my POV, mixing OTB is way over rated by those who can't mix or track well. I do love sitting in around a cockpit of gear , but sonically and where audio and video is going, once ITB, stay ITB.
People need to improve their tracking and knowledge of mixing rather than thinking analog gear is going to take a bad mix to a new level simply by running it through copper a few extra times.
The best analog products sound more like digital lol.
The best analog gear doesn't smear audio quite as much as cheap analog gear.
The better the analog gear, the closer it is to the digital but it's never is quite as true and open sounding as digital after a DAD pass through outboard comps/limiters and EQ.
Use a Bricasti M7 and you will never think the same about analog again. There is nothing brittle about those and nothing better for processing a 2-bus that that. ;)

eternalsound, post: 426346, member: 48927 wrote: I've never been a fan of digital music, myself.

Its not the digital music that is the problem, it is the lack of grey matter, good acoustics and good tracking gear. Acoustics however, can be removed and emulated (possibly even better) through acoustic emulation and sound replacement technology. But you need great tracking gear to get up to par with digital technology. Which is why I'm convinced so many are struggling with digtal audio today. People are using less that par tracking gear with stellar sounding VSTi and libraries. The two stick out like sore thumbs. Which is what we are hearing here and everywhere.
Mixing ITB has nothing to do with why music sounds bad today. That was resolved around 2006 when converters and clocks got the jump on it.
We are going to learn how to do better ITB day by day which is why we are here right now. Most people want digital to win. Its something we all can afford and once we learn where we need to improve, there is nothing left but a computer and the internet stopping us.

At present, the reason Tony's mix is brittle is because he isn't up to par with his new rig and monitoring.
His mix needed 15db of sub information and it is still rash. That isn't a mastering solution, that is huge red flag pointing to serious phase issues and the domino effect trying to mix it.
From where I am sitting, my audio examples sound huge in comparison. What I hear as harsh isn't a bad thing. Its the sound of very obvious tracking and gear problems. If he's listening, he will fix that rather than miss the punch line. I could easily suck out the sizzle, force this mix smaller but then Tony wouldn't hear where he is going wrong.
The question is, can he hear it now or are we seriously thinking the analog masking is warmer? The analog master sounds like a thick cotton blanket just got thrown over a small speaker to me. The mix isn't remotely ready for mastering and masking it all to make this warmer is really going backwards.

Tony, where you hear harsh is where you are killing it. Look at the Graph I uploaded. Its really obvious what you need to do.

See, I think digital music especially needs an analog master. Like you said, it adds the blanket. I don't see that as a bad thing. After processing music with many plugins it's in need of it. Otherwise it remains a bit icy sounding, at best. I have no idea what Tony is using but not everyone can afford the best converters or the best ...gulp ...plugins and outboard gear to produce their music. So the analog master can offer a lot. When I do mixing I don't bother adding things like tape saturation or bus limiters, parallel ...whatever, side chaining, polish, etc,. I know what I can leave for the master because I know what mastering does. It's just my approach. In my opinion I know what and what not to bother doing digitally. So, I don't necessarily see all of what Tony is doing as masking.

eternalsound, post: 426346, member: 48927 wrote: It's funny, because as you know, you have enough analog gear to easily pull off an analog master if you wanted to. But I know you don't want to do that.

I've never been a fan of digital music, myself. When I think of an album like Back in Black on vinyl it's just not the same to me. It's where we are now though so it has to be dealt with. We never fought with music trying to make it warm in the past. The battle continues now. And mp3's ....oh my...I think over time the world has become so disconnected with audiophile quality music that the sound really doesn't matter anymore so long as it's loud and bright. It's like the ongoing cheapening of products in general ...you just get used to it.

LOL... no, but we sure fought like hell to make it quiet. ;)

I'm tossed on this, Chuck. In a way, I understand what you are saying, but a part of me wonders if there isn't some nostalgia involved when we think about certain albums belonging on vinyl...

For example, I have fond memories of me and my friends sitting around my bedroom on snowy Sunday afternoons, listening to albums like Rubber Soul, DSOTM, Pet Sounds, Killer Queen, etc., and I don't want to think about those albums being on anything other than vinyl. Perhaps the music was warmer, or, maybe it was the experience that was warm, listening with friends, a more innocent and less worrisome time for all of us, as 15-16 year old guys, reeking of Jade East cologne - LOL - sharing music that we loved.

This is part of that nostalgia - and something that has all but disappeared with the advent of personal music players - the social aspect. There was a time when you listened to music with other people... your friends, family, etc.
I have vivid memories of my best friend ( who still remains my best friend 45 years later, BTW) coming over to my house with a new Todd Rundgren/Utopia album... "Hey Don, man... you gotta hear this record..!" and we would listen to it together.

(And on that note, I will say that there's absolutely no doubt that Double Album Covers were great for cleaning the seeds out of your .... uhm.... "herbal tea".) ;)

This type of shared listening doesn't seem to happen nearly as much anymore. I was at my sister's house not long ago, and I saw my niece and her friends sitting in the living room listening to music, except they were all wearing ear buds and each was listening to different music.

There was no "Hey, that's a great guitar riff" or "do you hear those harmonies?" They were all isolated in their own little worlds... there was no interaction between them.

So I often wonder if vinyl - with it's crackles, pops and fragile nature - actually did sound better? Or if that's just the way we want to remember it...

I'm not arguing with you - I'm just presenting another side.

eternalsound, post: 426349, member: 48927 wrote: See, I think digital music especially needs an analog master. Like you said, it adds the blanket.

I get your point Chuck, but the blanket isn't helping Tony right now. I'm purposely not doing that because the mix needs to be expanded. You cannot do that by sucking 6db off the top mids.
No disrespect intended, Patting Tony on that back isn't helping matters. You are masking his problems in a track clearly needing work. I personally think its ridiculous to even be mastering this and when that time comes, he won't want a blanket over it.
If you were here to help him improve his mix, we both would would be closer in comparisons at this point and shouting as clear as I am. "something needs to be improved in the mix or tracking" You would be on the same page as me and not so far away in freqs.

eternalsound, post: 426349, member: 48927 wrote: After processing music with many plugins it's in need of it. Otherwise it remains a bit icy sounding,

Again, his problem is more than plug-ins right now.

eternalsound, post: 426349, member: 48927 wrote: I have no idea what Tony is using but not everyone can afford the best converters or the best ...gulp ...plugins and outboard gear to produce their music. So the analog master can offer a lot.

He is using excellent converters and interfacing. I'm not sure what he is using for outboard gear though, but something isn't right.
If the tracking was excellent, there would be no need to mask anything. If the mixing was excellent, an analog pass like you are doing would be instantly effect the imaging. This is why more and more mastering is 100% ITB now. Poor mixes benefit more with an analog pass but that isn't helping Tony improve his game. I don't think you are getting this?

eternalsound, post: 426349, member: 48927 wrote: So, I don't necessarily see all of what Tony is doing as masking.

Back on track.

@eternalsound
Please don't misunderstand me Chuck, I'm glad we are both sharing audio like this (I wish there were more of us!)
However, we are both doing this for very different reasons You are here to show mastering skills , I am here to help Tony improve his game. The reverb I added was to help him understand the gel factor.
I think its important to either move this Analog vs Digital mastering debate into the mastering forum and you can shoot this out as a finished mix or stop the insanity and continue the focus of this discussion, which is Track Talk, a problem based learning approach to improve the mix.

This is an important question. I am not reducing the upper freq in this right now, but you are, why is that?
What should he be doing prior to mastering to avoid such drastic "savage" curves?
What freq and how many DB are you reducing?

:)

mixing:
@Makzimia , in both mixes, there is nothing below 100hz. What are you doing to chop that off? Why are you chopping that off?

monitoring:
Are you by chance using a graphic EQ on your monitors or somehow between your monitoring?

Ok, for more fun and fodder I've added another file with reverb.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[Back on track.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]@eternalsound[/]="http://recording.or…"]@eternalsound[/]
Please don't misunderstand me Chuck, I'm glad we are both sharing audio like this (I wish there were more of us!) Please please.

However, we are both doing this for very different reasons You are here to show mastering skills , I am here to help Tony improve his game. The reverb I added was to help him understand the gel factor and a over use of the wrong place or something he was doing with his Eventide back in the first part of this thread.
I think its important to either move this Analog vs Digital mastering debate into the mastering forum and you can shoot this out as a finished mix or stop the insanity and continue the focus of this discussion, which is Track Talk, a problem based learning approach to improve the mix. I can't waste time trying to master a broken mix when I am trying to expand the bandwidth and isolate where he is going wrong.

This is an important question. I am not reducing the upper freq in this right now, but you are, why is that?
What should he be doing prior to mastering to avoid such drastic "savage" curves?
What freq and how many DB are you reducing?

audiokid, post: 426360, member: 1 wrote: I get your point Chuck, but the blanket isn't helping Tony right now. I'm purposely not doing that because the mix needs to be expanded. You cannot do that by sucking 6db off the top mids.
No disrespect intended, Patting Tony on that back isn't helping matters. You are masking his problems in a track clearly needing work. I personally think its ridiculous to even be mastering this and when that time comes, he won't want a blanket over it.
If you were here to help him improve his mix, we both would would be closer in comparisons at this point and shouting as clear as I am. "something needs to be improved in the mix or tracking" You would be on the same page as me and not so far away in freqs.

Again, his problem is more than plug-ins right now.

He is using excellent converters and interfacing. I'm not sure what he is using for outboard gear though, but something isn't right.
If the tracking was excellent, there would be no need to mask anything. If the mixing was excellent, an analog pass like you are doing would be instantly effect the imaging. This is why more and more mastering is 100% ITB now. Poor mixes benefit more with an analog pass but that isn't helping Tony improve his game. I don't think you are getting this?

Back on track.

@eternalsound
Please don't misunderstand me Chuck, I'm glad we are both sharing audio like this (I wish there were more of us!)
However, we are both doing this for very different reasons You are here to show mastering skills , I am here to help Tony improve his game. The reverb I added was to help him understand the gel factor.
I think its important to either move this Analog vs Digital mastering debate into the mastering forum and you can shoot this out as a finished mix or stop the insanity and continue the focus of this discussion, which is Track Talk, a problem based learning approach to improve the mix.

This is an important question. I am not reducing the upper freq in this right now, but you are, why is that?
What should he be doing prior to mastering to avoid such drastic "savage" curves?
What freq and how many DB are you reducing?

:)

Chris, I agree totally with you on the intent of this thread. I did a master for him with the material I had and we've gone off course. My job as a ME is to fix. The mix I received I believe I fixed even though more needs to be done with it. Understand, these are not final masters by any means. My intent is not to cover over techniques that you are helping Tony with. Like I said, we have gone astray even though I think it was a real good process for all of us to go through, for many reasons.

I only added my file to match the reverb on yours. We can move on with this thread and the initial intentions.

Why did I cut? The guitar did not have a lot of punch so I tried to cut a little to pack it a little tighter. To me it has a punchier sound now. Also, I tried to balance for more of a flat feel with no accented frequencies. There was also harshness I had to deal with too. This is where revisions come into place if the client is not happy with it. Obviously you are not happy with it and I'd have to adjust; however, Tony finds warmth in it and seems to like it. I admit, it's not exactly ready for mastering but you and I got to playing the analog vs. digital game. :^)

Makzimia, post: 426323, member: 48344 wrote: I would agree it's more than yours, but, as you saw from my graph I was close to right, considering, and with EQ I adjust for those couple of 5-6db bumps and valleys. However, to the subject hand, while it is a little more pleasing (again on my 2.1 harmon kardons), it sounds a little more brittle? to us.

Oh, almost forgot, I did in fact peel more bass off some of the sound after being told something earlier in the thread. So, in fact me stuffing up, not the room :D.

You remember our phone conversation, it's not about gear, it's about ears of lots of experience, and you sir out weigh me considerably there (y)

Ah, I read this again. I would question this Tony. In both version of your mix's, I am hearing severe bottom end red flags. Bos early on mentioned compression as a factor, which I agree was a tiny part of the bigger issues you are having.
Later we found out you had a MS effect going on. It sounds like you have a lot more problematic irons in this fire, yet to be determined.
At this point, and your description of what you are translating through all this discussion, I would look even closer at your room and where your monitors are about now. I have a feeling your studio is producing mass low standing waves more than you are aware of. I think the graph you are using is lying to you as well. looking at the huge amount of low end I added, your room is severely distorting your ability to make proper steps. Until you get this right, we cant even make sense because we cannot sonically relate.

Thats how I'm reading this right now.

eternalsound, post: 426369, member: 48927 wrote: Chris, I agree totally with you on the intent of this thread. I did a master for him with the material I had and we've gone off course. My job as a ME is to fix. The mix I received I believe I fixed even though more needs to be done with it. Understand, these are not final masters by any means. My intent is not to cover over techniques that you are helping Tony with. Like I said, we have gone astray even though I think it was a real good process for all of us to go through, for many reasons.

I only added my file to match the reverb on yours. We can move on with this thread and the initial intentions.

Why did I cut? The guitar did not have a lot of punch so I tried to cut a little to pack it a little tighter. To me it has a punchier sound now. Also, I tried to balance for more of a flat feel with no accented frequencies. There was also harshness I had to deal with too. This is where revisions come into place if the client is not happy with it. Obviously you are not happy with it and I'd have to adjust; however, Tony finds warmth in it and seems to like it. I admit, it's not exactly ready for mastering but you and I got to playing the analog vs. digital game. :^)

cool, you are indeed a great asset here but still not utilizing your skills when needed.:love:

You need to stop padding the concept that Tony liked the blanket, its steering it once again in the wrong direction. He's liking that because his room is whacked and the acoustic guitar and whatever stereo process he is pursuing/ tracked and mixed is just wrong.

Can we stop going backwards and can you tell us how many db you pulled out of the upper freq? This will be a clear indication (a confirmation) on how much Tony's guitar process is out. Follow?

I added 15 db of low end freq, and refrained from reducing this mix for a reason. If this mix and his room was right, I would be blowing my monitors to pieces . In 35 years I have never been able to push this much low end into a mix by someone.

Ahhh ...Chis, you're great! hahah!

I:
took 2db off 1k (tighten guitar up)
added 1db to 6k (increase volume)
took 2 db off 2k (tighten guitar up)
shelved 1db off 10k (calm some brash brightness)

As you know, this may not translate exactly the same with another EQ.

Cheers!

I'm assuming this is the second version, yesterday?
I would have thought you reduced even more upper end issues but hardly even worth mention until we move past 3db imho. I'm guessing your EQ doesn't take much to hear change.

And you've added nothing to the low freq?

@eternalsound
imho, The flute is the most sonically stable part to this mix so far. Everything else sounds compromised to fit in.

DonnyThompson, post: 426352, member: 46114 wrote: LOL... no, but we sure fought like hell to make it quiet. ;)

Very true!!

I'm tossed on this, Chuck. In a way, I understand what you are saying, but a part of me wonders if there isn't some nostalgia involved when we think about certain albums belonging on vinyl...

For example, I have fond memories of me and my friends sitting around my bedroom on snowy Sunday afternoons, listening to albums like Rubber Soul, DSOTM, Pet Sounds, Killer Queen, etc., and I don't want to think about those albums being on anything other than vinyl. Perhaps the music was warmer, or, maybe it was the experience that was warm, listening with friends, a more innocent and less worrisome time for all of us, as 15-16 year old guys, reeking of Jade East cologne - LOL - sharing music that we loved.

This is part of that nostalgia - and something that has all but disappeared with the advent of personal music players - the social aspect. There was a time when you listened to music with other people... your friends, family, etc.
I have vivid memories of my best friend ( who still remains my best friend 45 years later, BTW) coming over to my house with a new Todd Rundgren/Utopia album... "Hey Don, man... you gotta hear this record..!" and we would listen to it together.

(And on that note, I will say that there's absolutely no doubt that Double Album Covers were great for cleaning the seeds out of your .... uhm.... "herbal tea".) ;)

This type of shared listening doesn't seem to happen nearly as much anymore. I was at my sister's house not long ago, and I saw my niece and her friends sitting in the living room listening to music, except they were all wearing ear buds and each was listening to different music.

There was no "Hey, that's a great guitar riff" or "do you hear those harmonies?" They were all isolated in their own little worlds... there was no interaction between them.

So I often wonder if vinyl - with it's crackles, pops and fragile nature - actually did sound better? Or if that's just the way we want to remember it...

I'm not arguing with you - I'm just presenting another side.

No, I know you're not arguing. I didn't even take it that way. I'm just a tad bit too young to remember the days of gathering for a record play. I do know that people just a few years older used to do it. I was more the cassette tape generation. I do remember ONE time I was over a friend of the friend's house and they were gathered listening to a Rush album (vinyl). It was interesting because we all just sat there enjoying the music. I don't think people have the attention span these days to do something like that. Very cool how engaged people were with the music back then. Almost to a spiritual point. Ahhhh ...yes the double album - what goodies can we find inside and what subliminal message can we get from the cover?? hahha! Funny stuff!

There is no doubt there is an element of nostalgia, that's for sure.

audiokid, post: 426361, member: 1 wrote: mixing:
@Makzimia , in both mixes, there is nothing below 100hz. What are you doing to chop that off? Why are you chopping that off?

monitoring:
Are you by chance using a graphic EQ on your monitors or somehow between your monitoring?

Basically I overdid the hpf across the board. There is no external hardware on this at all. All done itb, exception to the recordings is the guitar which travelled through the DBX and Eventide on the way in. First task tomorrow will be to just raise guitar volume and remove comp and reverb from it. If that doesn't work, then I rerecord the guitar.

Again it's a 12 string and was recorded with 2 Mics into dual mono instead of stereo. Should I do into stereo?.

Thanks again guys :),

Tony

good to know, thanks for sharing that now Tony.

Are your samples, (keyboards included) flat or are you eqing them? Harp??? (AT THIS POINT) I suggest not Eqing any of your Samples or Keyboard parts. Mix them to level but don't EQ them. And that includes the hand drum. I would put a bit of reverb on that drum btw. It should sound like in a courtyard.

One of my favourite guitar setups is an SF24 in the room and a DPA 4011 sdc pointing at the 12fret through some great analog hardware but thats not going to help you. I'd be keeping it simple and doing what you can to tame the top end going on there. There seems to be a combing sound with it as well.

Recording isn't my dept but thats my 2 cents on that. .

Anything not guitar is the keyboard :). Yes I used eqs on all. No stereo spreaders either. I was getting obsessed with not being dark after being told it was, and went overboard, pure and simple.

Lack of expert application, I'll get there.

Chris, I didn't add any low end. I found myslef fighting with the fact that there really didn't seem to be any and I ended up making the low mids pull up. It sounded awful so I just left it. Maybe I'm wrong and this is just a drawback from my phones. Not exactly sure.

Update: I added some low end using my Bose headphones (pulls out the low end more when there isn't much). I'll just add the file here for the sake of completeness.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Where can we continue this? I've got another file I want you to hear.

Good day all,

Hopefully now I approached this with a clearer idea and head (less stuffed up) I feel personally this is a lot better. I await honest appraisal of course :).

Thank you all,

Tony

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

The hand drum is too loud (just speculating) by 3 to 6 db. That would depend on how much sub information, including reverb you add into it as you reduce its overall level. It sounds too heavy in the 100hz area and not enough in the sub and spacial overall ambiences. Studios stop those subs in their room, I add them back which is what you learn about owning a Bricasti M7. Once I heard it, I didn't really need to own a Bricasti, having them was the training I needed. My plugin reverb does it just fine.
So, I'm just saying that in case there are people who say they can't afford a Bricasti. You don't need a bricasti to think like one.

Now, this is just another opinion that is always going back to "prevention rather than patching".
Its a bit wooly and dark (not bassy). Bass is a good thing and imho, you are still lacking the size in bass clarity. It can be had if you discover how to reduce the overlapping of other instruments in the low and low mids.

That being said, everything is sounding better and better. I like your texture of reverb now. I would look to the hand drum and make that the largest part in this mix and fit everything else inside it like we do with drums. It doesn't have to be loud! It needs to be calling you. Its not doing that right now. Its in our face. When you get that right, the mix will start to glue better and need a lot less of everything you were doing before..

thats my 2 cents.

Thanks Chris, let me restate this clearer, the drums are one track that was recorded live as I played it :). What is going on here is a difference in hearing now. I personally like how it sounds in the space, if it's louder in your perception it's because I am probably being heavy handed in the EQ for the overall mix and also on the perc track itself. Reason for that, trying to make up for your telling me it wasn't enough in previous mixes. And since I don't have your wealth of experience I will constantly overshoot each direction :(.

What I care about most at this point though is this, did I overall correct most issues and make the song gel a lot more. Phasing gone, guitar and vocals no longer thin, harp no longer standing out like dogs balls :) and stereo balance good?.

Thanks,

Tony

I think so. I would turn the drum down then but thats just me. Its sounds better. Maybe perfect for Chuck now.

Sounds good, except I too would turn the drum down.

Noted, thank you :)

Good morning all,

Adjustments made per audiokid and @eternalsound suggestions. I trimmed some 120hz off and open further towards 60 and lowered the percussion volume balance.

Thanks,

Tony

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

I think that sounds pretty darn good, Tony. Much more balanced and cohesive. :^)

eternalsound, post: 426443, member: 48927 wrote: I think that sounds pretty darn good, Tony. Much more balanced and cohesive. :^)

I am still fighting the flu, so, I was a little worried I was off still :). Thanks Chuck.

Tony

I thought Chris would be around by now to comment. Hmm..

Hey guys, I'm at a classical music festival all week now. Anything I'd suggest has already been mentioned. But! I'm sure if Chuck thinks its good, it is.

Great video Chris :).

Finally had a chance to listen, the drum is still too loud to me, but its much better. It, as well as the mix, has a much fuller sound.
The drum sounds not as consistent in level as before though. Sometimes it drops out? I never noticed that before. Did you change something?

Other than that.. much better!!! Its easy to master this now.

audiokid, post: 426469, member: 1 wrote: Sometimes it drops out? I never noticed that before. Did you change something?

Morning Chris,

Nope, I suspect since I am getting the levels and EQs better certain factors are showing up. I did in the very beginning have a COMP on the Perc track ( a Fairchild 670 UAD), I removed that when you and Boss said I should remove EQ too. Not doing anything today, feeling like crap, nose running like a river. Anyway thanks for the positive response. Chuck and I have discussed a couple of other small changes, but I am, overall, happy with the song now.

Cheers,

Tony

audiokid @eternalsound

Good morning all,

I finally wandered back into the studio today. I needed the downtime to fully recover and come back with fresh perspective too. ANYWAY!, to the chase, I have remixed a few bits again. I made a major break through with the vocal that I had been getting driven crazy by. The compressor issue made no sense in the end. I finally found the issue, breath control module for Nectar 2 was squishing the T from twas before it made the light of day. The weird thing is, it would be fine when played as a solo track, but then disappear when any other track was played alongside. And no, nothing else is linked or otherwise to the vocal track.. very weird, but solved. I merely dropped target db to -4 instead of -15 and sensitivity to 22% instead of 45%. I was never using default, but hadn't realized how much that could eat into something like that without giving any weird stuff otherwise. As Chris pointed out in the video of Nectar 2, it is very clean.

This is the latest mix includes having balanced the perc down a little more too :).

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Somewhat offbeat folky production, full of earthiness and evocative melodicism. As already hinted, the beats are perhaps a little too clever, maybe a bit less syncopation would give the song more punch and coherence. The voice is excellent, full of power, range and rich resonance, as well as lyrical clarity. The high sections however sound strained, either because the singer is singing too loud or hard or because the song needs to be in a lower key for his voice - I suspect a combination of both. But there's a great voice in there, and with correct production it should sound brilliant.
Overall this has a fine feeling, it's a well crafted and written song, tuneful and catchy and properly structured.

Above is for the original mix - now listening to the latest mix - glad to hear the rhythm problems are mostly sorted, the tambourine is a great addition. This now sounds mastered, with is a great improvement, giving a present, full sound. There's still the odd polyrhythmic strum that drops the beat, which is distracting. Still think that the voice strains in places, but mostly, especially with the mastering, the voice sounds excellent. Just needs to be down a key or two to remove the insecure high notes. Lovely flute, and generally a fine mix.

@Jathon Delsy

Thank you for the kind comments. Singer is me :), as is everything else, mastering is even me at this point, sort of, really left it for Chuck or someone else to finish it off more if needed. I am thinking on my next recordings I am going to do recordings with me singing and playing at the same time. I just cannot get the right balance etc when separating the two, if that makes sense?.

All the changes are thanks to all comments and advice given, and I am truly thankful for the patience and help.

Cheers,

Tony

Jathon Delsy, post: 427077, member: 48800 wrote: The high sections however sound strained, either because the singer is singing too loud or hard or because the song needs to be in a lower key for his voice

Ya, I agree on that, Tony. I think if you dropped this to the Em (is it in the key of A?), it would be much better for you.