51m0n

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.

Can you answer the question ?

Chaps, if you have a song you'd like to hear mixed by a group of enthusiastic 14 year olds, well we can get as close to making that a reality as any secondary school... If so please put a link to your song in this thread and be ready in case yours is chosen byt the winner of the March mix competition to upload the stems of the track so that we can get to it and mix it. I've already had a coupl of offers but I'd love to do a Country track or some EDM as a total change of pace from what we've done already! As always a huge thank you from all involved in the monthly mix comps!

Cant tell exactly what Soundcloud does as part of its processing, there is definitely some normalisation type of thing going on or at least something that changes the level somewhat (Mix D got louder on Soundcloud IIRC), plus preping for streaming (whatever conversion that goes through) and the waveform output. I dont know what area of the spectrum it measures for that waveform, possibly its not full range though, Mix H is pretty heavy in the mids to my ear , and the snare ring is huge, that could be part of what is making it look so loud, plus the quiet bits have their instrumentation much louder than Mix B. Its difficult to work out just from the Soundcloud pics thats for sure! Its all supposition and listening though, looking forward to hearing the answers from Mr Mix B and everyone else when the votes are done though

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1364918197' post='2032621'] I am saying that a 410 is ok for a small stage and a small band, .. but anything like a decent sized stage, say 12 mtrs or more wide will need very good monitoring or you'll be standing right on top of your 410 and no one else will hear it. And if that is the case, then a 810 will struggle as well.. so nobody has specc'd it very well. There is a reason why nobody takes 212's onto these stages as well. [/quote] Funny, when I saw Bela Fleck and the Flecktones at The Barbican Vic was playing through a Hartke 410 on a flightcase, actually it may have been two 410s. Didnt seem to bother him, thats a pretty big stage too... Dr John at Brighton Dome, bloody massive stage, Bass player had a 410 on a flightcase. Sounded superb, owned half the stage so he did, monster of a man, monster bassist, no IEMs that I could see (I'm sad enough to look for this stuff), the guitarist was easily 40ft away and didnt seem bothered, because he was relying on the monitor at his feet. The drummer was using the immense side fill, Dr John himself had monitors. Of course like I said, on a big stage I'd expect decent monitoring, and decent PA. On a really big stage, if I was considering running around alot (not likely I can promise you), I'd go down the IEM route, same as everyoine else. 410, 810, 212 all irrelevant in those applications, none of them will suffice at all. You cant just turn you amp up loud enough to hear it from the other side of the stage, it will be far too loud for the sound engineer to deal with the spill. You need localised sound on big stages, provided either by monitors or IEMs. A big rig with great dispersion is not the solution. What exactly do you take on these immense stages?

Thats great, then you are doing exactly what I've said, you are slotting everything in around each other. You dont need to bump the mids a mile to do that, no one is suggesting you should, but if you cut them away (those two MB filters set to 9 O'clock is getting on for 20dB of cut in the mids IIRC) it IS harder to hear the bass as a pitched instrument rather than a wobbly noise in the room. I like a LOT of my bass in my head when I play, with masses of headroom so I dont dig in too hard. I have found that if I dont get my rig up high I will set it too loud for the mix out front (dispersion perhaps but simply distance too) I get it right from where I am standing with it up higher and I find the out front mix is pretty darned good in smaller venues. Or so I've been told by several audience members who I trust to know their beans (cant add up the numebr of years of sound engineering experience between them, but enough to tell me the mix is toilet if it is). So by positioning my rig to help me, I actually help the FOH sound a great deal, and that is a common issue with bass live especially in smal venues, the player sets their amp up really loud because they cant hear it because they've cut the mids out and its shooting past their calves, so its far too loud and just a huge booom in the room with the punters. Is your sound super bassy then? Or is it fairly evenly eq'ed, you never actually say and I've not heard a single clip of your band. Genuinely interested in where your sound and attitude to mids fit together with your band sound to be honest....

Heh, I set this up and cant remember whose is whose (I can recognise mine, but have nolonger got any idea without referring back to my original set up scheme who did the rest). Doing my head in too!

Well, on a proper big stage I'd expect decent PA support, so I'm stood next to my rig as my monitor and have the rest of the band through my monitor(s) - thats how its always worked for me on larger stages in days of yore (when I had a significantly less capable rig and it was still fine) Punters arent listening to my rig at all in that scenario and the band arent either really (drumer has sidefills with everything in, guitarist has decent monitors) so how is that any different exactly? I've never entertained the idea of running backline for FOH on a big stage, not entirely sure what you are getting at?

Have another look at B in close up (ie click on the link to B within the page) Now that may not be brickwall limiting, but either the 2 buss is hitting some heavy compression or various groups are. Its very well done, but i'm pretty sure (very sure) its on there. Directly compare that to mix E, lots more peaks and troughs within sections suggest less limiting/heavy compression oneither groups or 2 buss. Or mix D again the little peaks are there, and there is a volume swell visible in D and E where the Sapere Aude vocal comes in that doesnt show up at all in Mix B. E is loud though, D is quiet (the quietest?), B is also loud. Its not brickwall limiting set to 0dB, its either heavy compression or limiting set to a lower output level on either 2buss or different groups. None of this is intended to be derogatory to B, its just analysis to undeerstand what we are listening to...

Oi, I'm short and fat (not bald though, and I have never recited Hamlet knowingly), cant act either, but nevertheless, OI!

Voting closes on Wednesday Like I said mixing into a compressor is fine as far as I'm concerned, if you arent nailing it for level. Hitting a limiter for level is not. Its a tough call but if the waveform is looking really 'squared off' in places then there is a good cance its whacking hard into something! Of course you can just as easily apply a limiter to a group and dop the same thing to differnt sections of the mix. The line between mixing for level and mastering for level is ever more smudged!

Well I mix into a compressor (very very light compression, less than 2dB at the very loudest, and with an attack long enough to let transients through cleanly) because I like the sense of glue, but that isnt what makes mixes sound like these do In fact that compression isnt a mastering type of thing at all, unlike a limiter approach (whiuch is all about catching the transients int he first place).

Voting closes on Wednesday so do us all a favour and have a listen if you can, much appreciated!

I honestly cant remember for sure, but I think the room was more evident in your original mix than in B, and I'm fairly sure the kit has had some help with samples - not saying you shouldnt do it, if thats required, just there is depth to the kick on that mix that I couldnt find for love nor money on the tracks People should definitely go for the one they think is best overall, but its interesting that those appear to be fairly heavily limited, so even if people are choosing what seems best, it may be that for this style a more heavily limited sound is simply more compelling when its done 'right'. That in and of itself is a reason to do all this kind of thing at all, its a great way to find what sort of thing makes people think a mix is 'right' for a genre, regardless of your own preferences. I think mine could score better, if it were mastered and had slightly less ambience on some of the guitars, so I've learnt something very useful for the future when we get heavier stuff. Its not a style I mix often, and hearing what people perceive as a great mix in a genre is really fascinating and educational for all of us. But I tend to mix with a view to mastering being a later stage in the prcess and adding any limiting or heavy compressio on the 2 buss is an absolute nono if thats the case, it completely ties the mastering enhgineers hands and removes his ability to help a mix reach its final best state with the tools he has got specifically for that purpose. I might do one and master it just to illustrate what I mean, its hard to explain the difference that stage makes, and how people doing that kind of faux mastering treatment on their 2buss here will win votes but its not really the mix thats being voted for, its a mastered (however cheaply) mix instead.

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1364905748' post='2032374'] Sorry about that, he has such a range, going from quiet breathy parts to mental screaming. After watching the video Si linked I'll be recording two tracks at once, 20db apart, and then editing those together. [/quote] George M is a clever cat isnt he The results so far only show that you get what you pay for, I didnt put in much time this month and havent got much in the way of votes either. Oh well I am slightly concerned that the voting is tending to go toward the loudest (ie overtly comrpessed/limited on the 2 buss) mixes, which I wanted to avoid. Its human nature, loudest is best kind of thing, but it doesnt mean they are the best mix necessarily (ie at exactly equivalent volume they may actually sound rather weaker due to this kind of processing). This may well be sounding like sour grapes, I assure you it isnt, I am more than happy for someone else to 'win' this kind of thing, (as long as they disclose exactly what they did to do so, "Mwahahahahaahaaaaa!"), especially when I only got as far as a rough mix by my standards (although I think I nailed the intro vibe absolutely bang on, even if I do say so myself, and there arent too many level blunders going on in my mix) However B has got some awesome drums sounds, need to find out if they were beefed up with samples and how come the cymbals sound forward on it when the OH mics sound like they are in a different room from the kit I had some idea to rectify this using the room mics to 'subtract' the room from the OH (using god know what FET noise reduction type nonsense) but time wasnt available to even experiment unfortunately. Fascinating stuff though....

Thats fantastic!