We could use your ears, no matter if you are an old hand or a novice.

Me is having sort of a match with another audio friend about mixing a song.
So we are having two versions now and would like to know which could be perceived as more appealing to people.

We had appointed about keeping the stage somewhat similar in accordance to what the band wanted. Also both aren´t too loud for being not mastered yet, and levelled in at about same volume as much as possible.

And a couple of things both of us just couldn´t fix, like for instance a crappy recorded and blown guitar amp to boot.

Thanks for listening!
And please vote for my mix, thank you. heh

Ruphus

* Edit: The final version from below https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachmen...achmentid=8085

Mix one wins on my crappy laptop speakers..

Any particular things that you thought could have been made with the mixes, Randy? What would have been actions that had made it spectacular in your opinion?

Thanks,

Ruphus

what if you unite forces? heh

generally I like the 2. better, but from the 1. the softer parts without the drums are clearer/more modern and could be useful...

Almost all the time that I hear other people´s mixes I think theirs to sound better than what I am doing.
So I´m really interested to hear suggestions and impressions, though I know that people can kill you.
Granted the pieces of this band have been of the harder category. It´s only a trio and they have none of the "sunshine" instruments that spice up a song in mids to highs like acustic guitars, synths, shakers or shells. But we know from The Police and other examples with too hardly any of those sounds that still a whole lot can be done with just bass guitar and and electrical axe.

And I think their arrangement is fine, so I blame it on my mixing why there is too little sweetness in there.

I´ve been lying, BTW.
This is both me, first being the original mix, number two the remix. The difference has been that no.1 was ITB and the other mix introduced spatial software, while for FX and EQ going through outboard this time. The other point has been aiming to keep tracks as low in amount as possible with that version.
- And guitars were panned differently.

I think the procedere on the second example has been to the better in general. Only not to the lows, due to the 3D FX.

For the spatial software I must say that I was really thrilled at first for always having been crazy for 3D effects in sound. However, the tool showed to bring in some sonical loss. Still, it helped in spicing the stereo image when mixed under the original in a cautious measure. Unfortunately it eats up especially of the lows and I have overdone it with the kick. Just wanted the effect so badly for putting the bass drum closer to ground level "below" the singer. ( But as I read, bottom level placement generally is regarded the hardest to achieve with spatial applications, anyway.)
Too bad I missed out an rss for only 200 bucks days ago. :°(

In the original mix without the 3D trial you can hear the kick sufficiently - if not a bit too much already ( some stereos would take it as boomy. Seems too much LF and a bit too loud too maybe.)



Hi Neo,

Thanks, that sound s like a great idea to me. I was trying to have the tracks together in a room and thus applied a grain more verb, but too much yet. Will be backing it off a bit on those parts.

Thanks for the input!



I´m very interested to hear that on the hunt for improvement. And also for the very interesting differences in taste, which is great too.

Here my intensions have been the opposite of what you like.
I was going for a somewhat stage like image, and besides of that, am done to a degree with the close miking thing.
I put her about 40 / 50 cm back from the mic and would had liked to track her from even further, but that was the max without getting too much of the damn booth ghost into the mic. It is such a pity that it couldn´t be done outside the booth in the good sounding but just too noisy room.

The FX is a delay at the lowest mix-in level possible ( "1" in that case ) and followed by a Roland reverb. The verb could be a bit too wet still, but if it was sounding bad then I can´t hear it.

I could think of that others would had broadened the vocal a bit more, but I nudged it back to smallest width thinking it to be hitting nicely between the ears and allowing the other tracks more room ( maybe that´s what you don´t like?) Shall be listening into it again.

BTW, I havn´t mentioned yet, no. 2 was intended for stereo speakers, not phones.

This must be phantom noise. heh Because funnily she caused some rumble indeed, but it got cut out when the parts between takes were removed. Yet, just listened again through phones and couldn´t hear any rumble. (?)

The drum kit is a Ddrum. And you are so right, the plates are the weakest part of it. Most annoyingly often too short in tails. Had to replace a couple of hits and most urgently the very last one at the end of the song. The replacement was a most suiting of the samples I own, but still to bright I believe. EQ helped only little.

Also agree on the toms. They are washed out. Originally, like on mix 1 they were much more solid. Same with the kick.
Can´t agree on this one. They couldn´t take a chorus by all means. Its layered to help the very bad amd weak sound of the blown amp ( Had also recorded them very badly on top of it. If you only knew how they sounded originally you´d be calling me an EQ talent now, hihi ) and would become sole mush with a chorus on them.

To my ears on mix1 they sound even much worse, totally mud. I was so thankful that the Roland reverb helped it to breath a little bit.
Completely agrred though that they should be much bigger for the song. But with that crappy source material ... Messed that one up at recording stage already.

Something you like on it, that´s great! Does me poor fella good.
I had it much wider but with that it lost definition in the same time and I was also concerned about boom when being too broad. ( I´m still finding sometimes things booming in the outside world, despite the Adams. Prolly due to my crappy placement here.)

The singer is the drummer in the same time. I think she to be doing pretty well for only one year druming agenda.
Sure, I tightened up their songs somewhat, but the band wanted it to stay roughly in the imperfect state. Some track parts even went back in original shape as they thought it too much made up ( not to grid though ).
They wanted to have it close to stage performance and I can respect the thought.

Thanks a bunch for your thoughts, very appreciated.

thumbsup

Ruphus

Ok guys, in case you´re interested to hear how your hints came out heh, here´s the file.

Subtle changes, but they really helped tightening the thing up.
Backed off the verb on the vocal in the drum-less passage and also a tiny bit on the rest.
BTW, gotta apologize to Randy. You were right about something weird in the vocal. Found that the delay on the track which had been feeding the reverb before was still on. I had forgotten to turn it off afterwards.
Also about your proposal to compress the tins a bit ... I had been of the impression that comps on plates were hardly any good, but that was wrong. Your advice turned out to be just right.

Brought the drums up a bit in general too.

Think I´m through with it now. It finally appears pretty good for how it had been sounding with the original performance and much, much worse even the very crappy instruments used ( most annoying the cheapo bass which someone had wired himself so that it was producing endless amounts of clicks that had to be removed as much as possible )

Thank you very much for your help!

Ruphus

I think you made it! the style is hitting now.
I give 99%, you might care for the hum&noise 2:08-2:12 and edit out a bit, and the snare is somewhat sharp at the louder hits. but only minimal corrections, not such a change like from first to now.
thumbsup

Hey Neo,

Yep, the snare´s a bit bright and I guess it is waiting for a smooth outboard comp, but I won´t be able to buy anything for a while. ( What a downer ... drool heh ) However, in a way I thought it would fit this song somewhat. - If you are interested I can show you the session the way it was after the recording. Guess I used too little hardware high pass during session time.-


In the end it´s just an electronical kit. The band was surprised for what it finally did. - And I´ve been told it´s been used for Madonna productions too, not that I liked her stuff though, he he, but it can be used. ( Only need to throw out all the techno crap from its brain and fill in more natural samples. - And only that I´m fleeing the midi upload procedure all the time. Never been too much into sysex stuff.)

The other band I talked too wouldn´t accept electronical drums though. But they have an incredible good sounding kit anyway.


And yeah that noise ... It is still there intentionally. Because the whole song is so full of it from the bass track ( have a radar station nearby that likes to sneak into pickups ) that it would had been too interrupting to just cut it out at the quiet sequence. In my mind one might not bother with the sudden silence at first, but it would be disturbing on the long run, because your unconsciousness ( or `stomach´ so to say ) would always be aware that noise of the background to have suddenly ceased. That would make it predictable in a way and a fatiguening factor, that´s why I left it in and lowered it as inconspicuously as it seemed fungible.

Samp has a noise removing feature, but I couldn´t make it work acceptable. Seems too rough.

Ruphus

song has potential in that naive contental style, i preffered 2. found cymbal work from drummer eccentric - liked whats cooking with the bass and guitar - this is my first night listening to mp3s on gearslutz and that little things still rattling around my head. and ive listened to a few tonight.
but forget both mixes and do the song again and maybe again and again, and you might get a result - drums need to be re-thought? voice could be mystified back from its too present position in the mix.

the noise isn't nice in headphones. shortly before the kick-in it suddenly increases.
I had such a track and silenced the break completely (fade out and in of course), and then re-filled the gap with a dull ambience reverb, it sounds quite natural, you wouldn't guess that there was a crappy glitch before.
but tuning denoisers needs much practice.

Thank you for the tip.
The voice has already been lowered in the last posted version. I think the track balance to be fine now. Maybe except of the kick which could possibly be a tad more still, but I think it can be left like is now.

I´m always in for questioning, but not dumb.
Denoisers just differ. While not exactly a fan of waves plugs, I remember their denoiser to work very well. No rocket science at all.
( Too bad highcom has disappeared from the market. That was a great tool!)

The one in Samplitude just doesn´t work good enough, at least not for what I want.

The mix was intented for speakers ( spatial stuff adjusted to it ) anyway, I´m just glad that it seems to work somewhat on phones in the same time.

Ruphus

I see...
I thought the samplitude tool should work well, if it is at least similar to the adobe/cool. didn't want to be impolite, just wasn't sure if you had the patience to experiment.
the cool edit denoiser did never sound right until I discovered that the transition width can be negative, and precision >30 without a cpu problem (nowadays). this way it is nearly as good as the waves, except the missing extra parameters.

They seem to really differ.
Magix have some separate denoising plugs that they sell for insane price ( 3000 bucks or so if I recall that right ), maybe they preserved the quality function for that one.

Best,

Ruphus

Hi,

Algorithmix NoisefreePro is just under 2000$ /1600 Euros and denoises in real time. It can even eliminate excessive reverb...


Cheers,

Sebastian

First of all this mix has been declared to be made for speakers. Let me explain to you that reverb effects get perceived in a different way than on the headphones that you use. ( Now, he´ll be claiming to have listened on speakers anyway, hihi.)
Also if that is "excessive" then there have been many hits out with mega-excessive reverbs. Many of them in the eighties ... I thought you had been in the listening age already at that time, but I could well be wrong.

Secondly, to my defense. It´s been about brand new tools. Such get overused not only by people you can´t stand. If you want to know how hold back I can be on reverb seek up some former thread.
Guess you did already.

But you mustn´t, because can gather what you want anyway.

Oh yeah, the plugin is only 1600,00 EUROS!
I´m so sorry for mistaking, this is ACTUALLY A TOTAL BARGAIN!
I should have said "somewhere in the thousands of bucks" instead.

I have been eagerly waiting for Magix representatives to show up on this board.

And I´m sure that Mr. Sebastian - who has come over to Gearslutz to take revange for the meanwhile spoiled and complaining magix forum that he had so nicely under knout once - to be sincerely knowing how a reverb should be applied.
So, I´d be pleased to hear a song from Sebastian which he has recorded and mixed.

But please, don´t eventually borrow other´s work, let us hear your own product that would demonstrate how you are the right man to know of studio demands and write flawless software that has a down to the last detail well thought out layout and no intermediate dropouts of memory and functions, nor multifarious variety of bugs.

As a side aspect some of us might know already how you shined as a customer oriented forum administrator on the magix website, now I would be pleased to experience your background on studio work too with a not yet mastered mix.

And I´m also sure that you will be helping us to understand the client consideration of the software company much better, so that we could later just link to some of the coming threads when interested folks, like from time to time, ask about Magix products and customer politics. I sensed how you have improved in response on the forum, sounds much less repelling already.

Thank you very much in advance.


Ruphus

PS: Have you by chance been involved in the track volume automation shape by chance? ( Guess you havn´t been with the crew at that time ... ) It is one of my favouredly sculptured features.
... And yes, I do know how slicing tracks and object related procedure works.

Got one gremlin left over for my first max out ... I´ll take this one for ****s ´n giggles

WTF?! sebastian has only 1 posting in this thread?
I felt so sunny this morning...
a one-liner with a link to another thread would keep us updated about possibly ongoing discussions about magix costumer care..
(and kudos for the great thread topic, no bad intention with this remark...)

voxengo has also a new version of a denoiser, within their wellknown price range.

We can´t link to their forum, because it´s kept absolutely privately, but we might be getting our own GS examples over time for future links.

I didn´t know, and good to hear they do. Thanks for the hint, man!


Ruphus

'scuse me Mr. Rufus, but I have not listened to your song.

I felt free to say something about the Noisefree PlugIn without referring to the quality of your Song, and the automatic environment noise removal of NoiseFreePro is something special. I doesn't work with music, it does rather with original movie recordings.

I am digressing... I thought it to be ok to say something about Denoiser PlugIns at that point of the discussion. Sorry for that.

Bye,

Sebastian

Oh chit ... ...
The hypersensitive piece of stupid me got you completely wrong there.

Please take my apologies for having been so nasty.



Ruphus