51m0n

Nice effort Ironside, Never fear heres always the next one, hope you dig on Country and Western though

Cheat

[quote name='pantherairsoft' timestamp='1365447179' post='2039808'] I had a hunt around and to get buckeye ones it looked to be expensive and down to just a few places in the US (at least that advertise the fact!). I noticed on eBay a guy selling decent looking knobs in a huge range of woods, from Pau Ferro to Rosewood etc and his prices were a quarter (or less) than the big names. I emailed him and he had some Buckeye in stock. It's trickier to work with than most but still only charged me ($7.50/knob plus $7 shipping - general knobs he does on eBay are around $5 each wood depending). Took a week from order to delivery. eBay seller name is brianwilliams5. Very helpful and a great quality result. [/quote] Oh cheers! Very tempted to get some swamp ash ones, reckon they would be very nice, or something a bit darker so they dont look they are trying to hide . How does he cope with stacked knobs? They always seem a tad complex to find in wood at a reasonable price...

[quote name='bobbass4k' timestamp='1365514437' post='2040538'] I'll definitely be having a crack this month, I know bugger all about mixing, but this seems like a good way to learn, although I'm not sure I'll be able to take a month of repeated country... [/quote] Good for you for having a go, if nothing else you may find a new way of listening to music, and different things to appreciate in your entire collection. Hopefully we'll be able to help you along too.... And I chose Country partly to see who has the mettle to cope wiht it (I am fearing for my sanity already ) It could be worse, I could have chosen Bebop

Yes please. The more varied the genre the better, the last thing I want to do is end up doing repeated mixes in the same genres, so far we've done a Reggae track, an Indie pop/rock anthem type of affair and a heaier type rock thing (my poor efforts at categorising arent helpful). The danger on a bass forum is we end up doing something in one of those three categories for ever. I want to try and get some hip hop, electronica, funk (old school preferably, the techniques of r capturing it are often quite 'guerrilla'), not to mention some break beats, dubstep or any other form of EDM in the mix. But mainly I wanted to do country, because it is [i]really[/i] different from the previous ones... [quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1365511824' post='2040476'] Nice one Si! You are evil This is going to be fun... [/quote] Heh wait till you've heard that country twang for a month, you'll be after my head on a platter!

Ok well, Moonbass has asked me to choose a track since he is going to be tied up for the next coupl eof evenings (fnaaarrr!) So I suggest we change tack and go for someone elses music for once, since no one on the site who has stems hasnt already put themselves forward once (much thanks). I fell some really annoying country would seperate the men from the boys a bit this time, so I chose this lovely little ditty ([b]Uncle Dad: 'Who I Am'[/b]) from the Mixing Secrets website:- [url="http://cambridge-mt.com/ms-mtk.htm#UncleDad"]http://cambridge-mt....tk.htm#UncleDad[/url] Please download the zip files from there and get cracking! I'll set up the official April Mix comp thread this evening. It may well be an April/May one since we are getting through this month at the rate of 24 hours a day, which clearly isnt enough....

They look fafantastic. Where did you get them??

Having read this thread I gave the Chord OC-50 a punt, stupid cheap from amazon of all places. Had a play before I took it to rehearsal on Sunday, and initially I honestly wasnt sure, the tracking glitches and warbling are rather all over the place and alarming when you are soloed. However in a band setting that really doesnt matter, this is simply the most entertaining pedal on my board, especially followed by my Maxon AF9, just insanely funky. Comments from the band included "Thats fat as f***", "Sounds all Moogy does that", and "How much!??!". Better yet its definitely not a one setting wonder at all, and finally if that werent enough if you give it the full beans on the lower octave and the drive and then pass that through a band pass filter you can produce a perfect rendition of the theme from Rhubarb and Custard, could you ever want more from a pedal? Hugely recommended

You're absolutely bang on Lurks. Its all about critical listening. If you cant analyse the sound you are hearing then you cant possibly even guess wht to do to it to make it 'better'.

That site is my fallback if we don'tget any offers Lurks.....

Thanks!!!

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1365108819' post='2035589'] I voted for yours Si as it happens [/quote] You have impeccable taste

I dont like bookshelf monitors for anything other than really accurate mids, so if they dotn deliver in the mids they are utter gash IMO. I have an old pait of Rogers for really dialing into a mix's mid range area, they dont do much below 80Hz, but above therethey are really accurate to my ear, and if I can get a mix to 'pop' on those I'm doing pretty well. In truth I can do as well on cans (Studiospares H1000 - excellent value for money, highly recommended) with plenty of reference to the laptops internal speakers (in mono usuallly) for the much over emphasised reference to a really awful system. No mix is complete without it being tweaked on the big old RTLs though, and thats because they are pretty flat down to 25Hz, and I know them really well, they arent officially studio monitors by any means, but to my ear they are flat 'enough' have great midrange definition and a yweeter that will show up anything nasty in the top couple of octaves, and most importantly I know them very well.... Why the long rambling post? Because if you dont really know your monitoring situation inside out it is all irrelevant IME, you can have great monitors in an average room and not have a clue how your mix will translate, so spend hours and hours really critically listening to CDs and commercial releases on whatever monitors you have, learn what is good sound [i]in your listening/mixing environment[/i], refer back to these tracks when mixing and you will be doing pretty much all you can outside of a commercially designed and contructed studio.

Oh you will like that!

Nah mate nothing naughty at all. I hadnt bothered to bang on about k-metering and mixing and yada yada on this one. If we reintroduce K-metering all that will happen is your level will be the same as everyone elses, but you would get slight less transient through. I think it wasnt your mix buss so much as the fx on the groups, your level goes up and down between different sections, but each section sits pretty much in one place level wise, the crescendos appear to have gone. Its a really unusual pattern, and I guess you are compressing various key components in those sections fairly heavily, or the groups they are in, or you are doing a scary job riding gains Gated sine wave on the kick was completely inspired, nice one: I've done this before myself, but not for years and years, in fact I did it with a hardware synth and gate and an aux send to the sidechain all with real metal boxes, it was that long ago and Ihad totally forgotten about that trick - thanks! I never ever put any delay or reverb on bass, it just disappears for me when I do that and I'm listening in a room. But your kick has so much authority in the mix (missing from mine!) that it completely hides the fact that your bass is a bit 'over there'. It wasnt a great bass sound to work on I agree, but it seemed to have all the right ideas in there, some growl, some od, some punch, just not enough depth for me. I wonder how new the strings were? As for reverbs you simply cannot beat a great convolution reverb IMO. Its taken me a long time to feel really happy with ambiences and reverbs from ITB mixes I've done, and I've gone round a ridiculously circuitous route to get to where I am now, a couple of really great reverbs and some well set up delays and you can get such a lush and believe space. Nothing like the reverbs of yore at all. And I never ever leave a reverb without filtering it at the least to low and high pass the gash out of it, otherwise you cant get as much in there wihtout it sounding smashy and harsh IME, and reverb to me is the great 'smootherator' . It is a damned fine effort, I take my hat off to you. Your prize is to choose the stems for next month. Lets hope its Country and Western eh!

Given time I automate vocals, I never ever cut out the breathing altogether, it kills the feel for me, however if you compress the vocal to add punch and 'spit' as it were, you bring the level of the breathing right up, and the only way to really precisely control it is to automate pulling the input level into the compressor down for every breath. A track like this it would take about 20 minutes to do one vocal channel really well (you actually have to listen to every bit of every phrase in the song repeatedly to get every breath right). I left the acoustic in, but the eq had devastating amounts of cut in it. I am again really pleased with the ambience I achieved in the opening, and I love the vocal part, beautiful voice to work with - having said that knowing that I wouldnt have time for any automation I built the mother of all vocal chains, something like three compressors with different threshold levels (and everthing else) and a de-esser and an eq and saturation plugins, just to keep it under control through the entire track. I would much prefer to do this kind of thing with automation, but the final result wasnt too bad really. I struggled a bit with the bass this time, it seemed to lack low end and be trying to cover the entire frequency range all the time, with a rather nasty fizz to it. Didnt produce anything like as nice a final tone as for the previous months track IMO, but I did manage to keep a lid on it in the outro, tough one to mix that! I think I had a bit too much ambience on the extra guitar layers which mushed them out a touch too much in the latter stages of the track which I think lost punch as a result, the snare was ducking the guitars and the kick was ducking the bass to help the drums poke through. Careful eqing and gating controlled the snare ring, it was definitely centred around a couple of frequencies (different ones on each snare) and so relatively controllable I thought. I really really want to know where Moonbass found the low end on his kick drum, total mystery to me, it wasnt on the original track (that I could find) so either there was additional samples, or there was some use of a bass generator tool of some kind (pitch shifter, waves bass plugin thingy, whatever) to give it that lovely 'heft' to use a GM term I too thoroughly enjoyed the song, and am still humming it, I really like the vocal part, its excellent stuff, no idea what he's banging on about though

Right thats it, times up, poll closed, all votes are in... [b]The results stand as follows:-[/b][list=1] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix A (1 votes [7.14%])[/b] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix B (5 votes [35.71%])[/b] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix C (0 votes [0.00%])[/b] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix D (3 votes [21.43%])[/b] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix E (4 votes [28.57%])[/b] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix F (0 votes [0.00%])[/b] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix G (0 votes [0.00%])[/b] [*][b]Sapere Aude - mix H (1 votes [7.14%])[/b] [/list] Mix B has won, top job there! And the 'big reveal' is this (unless of course I am very much mistaken!):- Mix A was skol303 [b]Mix B was moonbass[/b] (well done) Mix C was lurksalot Mix D was me Mix E was vasdim Mix F was Butlerk02 Mix G was oldG Mix H was twigman Mix I was nobody, there wasnt a mix I, what am I thinking??? Moonbass, in your own time (but soon!) - full disclosure on the mix please I'm particularly interested in the drum sounds, were samples used to beef them up? And any group or 2buss compression going on personally, great mix, love especially the way you glued all the guitar parts together fo rthe ending - huge sound, top job!

I was pointing out how the reality is that serious players do use 410s on really big stages as personal monitors, with the rest of the band naturally relying on PA monitors. And that no matter what the alignment no one would use a bass rig to cover a really large stage totally with the bass (not practical for FOH sound for one thing). So alignment is largely irrelevant on large stages IMO and IME. And IME on smaller stages a standard 410 has worked fine, and even in the backline as FOH scenario, since in these smaller venues IME the acoustic is shot to bits anyway, so the reflections off the boundaries do more damage to dispersion than your cabs alignment can ever fix. As for the mids thing, that is a direct reference to your thoughts on the recent Markbass thread where you stated the following:- [size=3][quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1364900155' post='2032269'] Low mids can kill your sound as much as save it... in that you might have a sound coming through everyones else, but what sort of sound..? Should you accept a punch through the hole approach... and the loss of any real interesting bass definition, potentially. or should you set the whole band up so you can get your sound to work? To my ears Markbass is punchy and efficient, but too many players use the mid punch approach and the bass is just plain dull and uninspiring. I don't blame Markbass so much as the people using it. and the way they choke off all character. I really don't get why you want to accept something that works in a mix...but doesn't if solo'd.. A wall of sound and volumes wars are never a good mix. [/quote][/size] I really couldn't be bothered before but here goes, in for a penny and all that:- [i]* Low mids can kill your sound as much as save it... in that you might have a sound coming through everyones else, but what sort of sound..? *[/i] A really great sound, musical, clear, definied, punchy and not just felt, not at all honky or nasal, just classy. Its a balancing act like everything else to do with mixing. [i]* Should you accept a punch through the hole approach... and the loss of any real interesting bass definition, potentially. or should you set the whole band up so you can get your sound to work? *[/i] What is "interesting bass definition", why is that in any way lost if you also adopt the practice of allowing some mids to poke through in useful places? Frequency mixing is an absolute staple of all forms of mixing it is about the only way to make everything heard. Definition is in the mids, not the bass... What on earth do you mean by set the "whole band up so you can get your sound to work" precisely? Cant imagine a worse way to make a good mix, live or anywhere else. The polar opposite of what is being suggested. [i]* To my ears Markbass is punchy and efficient, but too many players use the mid punch approach and the bass is just plain dull and uninspiring. *[/i] How? What is uninspiring about a great bass being heard musically (ie the pitches of the notes are relevant)? Your opinion appears to be that all that is required is deep bass. Fine, great, but the theory (and practice) is that we dont hear that so well (Fletcher-Munsen curves), and we cant differentiate pitch well from sound that low in pitch, and I am willing to back that up with real evidence. If you want the deep bass approach it works great in a recording, far less so at gig volumes. Its an unfortunate fact of life for anyone who doesn't like a less bass heavy sound. Again I would happily back that up, but you dont have any clips we can hear ogf your band anywhere, or you just arent willing to share. For what its worth I personally dotn find MB particularly punchy,, now my ae410 on the other hand, that really is all about the punch and definition. [i]* I don't blame Markbass so much as the people using it. and the way they choke off all character. *[/i] Thats big of you, please please show me on a recording what you consider great and characterful bass sound (it really needn't be you) I am truly fascinated by what you are drawn to at this point. One mans character is another mans dull thud. The other mans character may be the first mans nasal assault.... [i]* I really don't get why you want to accept something that works in a mix...but doesn't if solo'd.. *[/i] Clearly, but then you dont understand the first concepts of effective mixing as laid down by real legends in the art/science, and used for the last 5 decades to create well structured, musically pleasing mixes as enjoyed by everyone, in any and all styles of music. Until you get that we are doomed I guarantee you that any album you happen to hold up to be your guiding light for bass tone either used this approach to mixing or it would sound like utter garbage. [i]* A wall of sound and volumes wars are never a good mix. *[/i] Agreed. Which is precisely why we use frequency mixing to allow all the instruments their own space to be heard in, and its a lot more complex to do well than simply bass at the bottom, then kick, then guitar and snare; oh, wait what about the vocal? Doh! Good mixes are good because you can hear everything, it all works together to create a beautiful final product greater than the sum of its parts. The human brain does a staggering job of filling in the bits that have been cut away to allow this to happen for one thing. If you insist that a part sound beautiful on its own it may in fact ruin the mix. As many people on here have found getting heard at gig volume often means a less beautiful soloed timbre, what the hell does that matter? How many punters came to hear the bass and how many came to hear the band?

Nah you're fine mate, my bands shortest track is 7 minutes, longest is 25 minutes and we don't have a vocalist. Totally different genre mind, but the last gig the punters sais they had no idea the tracks were anywhere near that long they were enjoying it so much... Of course they may have all been off their heads

Nope I have it, it was me referring back to the 3 O'clock in the OP, and confusing it (as is my want) with the 9 O'clock of the second post with your settings in. How very typical!

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1364924876' post='2032780'] Can you read ..?? or are you so intent on banging out your own posts you kind of skip that bit?? [/quote] So you are being rude about being agreed with in principle then about the real world cabability of a 410 rig of any alignment, if not the detail of the alignment of the cabs. Thats a very special talent that is... Have you got an example of this magnificent bass tone that does you so well and can be heard so clearly with your bass rig alone? The one that doesn't have any of those annoying mids in that you hate so much, that is. I am truly intrigued to hear your band, and your bass tone - the one with so little mids that is produced by your 4 10 inch cones and yet sits holding its own in the mix - in a decent sized room, small stage and no PA suppor (other than vocal) would be fab. Really... You see you have agreed with everything I've said, except the alignment of your 410s, and the requirement for mids to help the bass be a more defined and musical presence in the mix, every other thing you agree with. So humour me and provide a clip of your band please... All I'm saying is I have had no practical example whereby a standard 410 doesnt deliver as expected in a given sized venue on a given sized stage. And a tonne of experience (and theory to back it up) that proves that cutting the mids from your tone kills your chance to be heard and hear yourself in a mix.

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1364944245' post='2033262'] PS: I'd personally be happy to reintroduce the original idea of standardizing these mixes using K-metering. I think it'd need a mini- tutorial to clarify (and simplify) what's involved - and would probably also need 'policing' to make sure everyone sticks to it. But in the long run I think it'd be worth the effort. Anyway, food for thought... [/quote] Well I mixed mine to K-14 (which is an totally enormous giveaway!). The reason I didnt make that a stipulation is because I spent a month explaining what K-metering was, how I wanted us to use it, and why. For the whole month. Some people got very confused about it and I think a little intimidated. All I wanted was a way of ensuring that people mixed to a certain level using a known set of meters with a very very strict algorithm behind them controlling their bandwidth, ballistics and sensitivity. Using essentially the same meters to measure the average volume (that are designed to measure average volume) is pretty much the best way to do that IME.

[quote name='OldG' timestamp='1364972689' post='2033377'] Voted. Hard to choose I found - I don't think soundcloud has been very kind to them... It seems the busier the material - the more the processing kicks the life outta things. I know it's the same for everyone - but all the same, hard to predict what the final version will end up like... Any way we can render/host our own mp3's to be in control of the end sound? +1, makes sense... [/quote] You can download the original tracks off the soundcloud pages, what you download is what I uploaded, which wasa selection of 44.1KHz 16bit wavs... Thats the same as whatever other option you attempt really I think.

Oh balls, I seem to have some form of dyslexia with clock face settings, sorry. That would probably be my absolute limit on those filters, its a good few db cut in the mids (3 to 6) and a cut above about 10kHz (all the zing goes) Sorry! I used to get that far up with the filters but eventually found I could get more useful tone using just the eq. Try it, it may be exactly what you need. I suggest you play a couple of songs at full volume flat first then apply as little eq to get the sound shaped as you can. At band volumes our hearing behaves very differently from normal practice volumes.