This is the second share of this particular project. I'm kinda torn about which one to post.
As has always been the RO way, I want this to generate Q&A about techniques, tones, processing, trade tricks etc. I certainly don't own any secret society recorder rings so what ever I have learned should be public forum.
If you like what you hear and are curious. ask.
Remember it's MP3. Some things may be cut off..
This one is an important song in it's lyrical content. She writes and sings from a teen girls viewpoint of watching marital abuse towards her Mom. Sobering. Superb lyrics. Same crew as the other one.
SHE HIDES IT WELL- Megan James @ Drool'nDogg Records
Attached files She Hides It Well newest mix.mp3 (10.2 MB)
Hi Dave, very good job, I like both songs and the perfo.
The only thing and this might be due to my cheap headphones.. I'll try to listen to them at my studio this evening.
I feel that the acoustic guitars have a lot of clarity and high frequencies compared to the rest of the intruments. It makes them stand kinda alone and seperated from the rest of the band.
As I say I might be tricked by the phones.. but if not, I would lower some of the brittle sound on the acoustics and then in the mastering phase the rest of the instruments could gain some.
Hope it makes sense.. ;)
Thanks for the reply. The acoustics in both songs is pretty hot. I was looking for the percussive effect . Your phones may be part of the issue I don't know. These tracks have NOT been mastered. They are brought to level but not mastered . I noticed right away the "thinning" around the 2k with the mp3 conversion, so some of it may be that.
Ok I got to listen to it at my studio, I still feel the acoustic is too bright compared to the rest of the band.. It has some energy above 10k, namely some peaks around 16-17k and the rest of the band doesn't seem to have much in this area.
Of course this ain't a problem if you made the decision to mix it like that. Maybe you can mute the acoustic guitars and listen to the band than add it and hear if there is a big frequency difference or not for your taste..
If you decide to send it like that to a mastering engineer, he might have a big challenge if he needs to brightens other instruments, that's all I'm saying...
I wish somebody else would shime in and either confirm or correct me if I'm wrong. ;)
Appreciate the critique. Trust me when I say that I have been over these tracks a million times. I do know that the acoustics are "up front". In my listening environment they sound like I envisioned. I also know my mastering engineer's system will show whats needed in all areas and he doesn't usually have very much work to do when I send him stuff. He's pretty used to shaving a half a db off the top from my mixes. I do like to mix "bright". It's a lot easier to take out than add in and I feel the balances are right where they need to be when that occurs.
As I said I appreciate it. There's no automation applied to these mixes at this time so I know that things will change a little when that occurs. Perhaps the balance will be better! When I listen to the wav files as compared to the mp3 I am missing a whole bunch of stuff in the 2k area which to me makes it sound more "toppy" than it really is. The snare became too loud when it was converted with a little more knife edge in it than the wav files demonstrate. Theres also some 'flattening' in the 100hz area that makes the kik a bit harder sounding.
There is only a multiband limiter on the output at this time and it seems to be running fairly flat except in certain passages. Other than that it is what it is. Thanks again.