51m0n

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!

Never had a problem with my ae410 being heard on stage or off.... Yes dispersion is not ideal, hoever in the venues where I'm playing without PA (ie its all backline) the acoustics of the place more than mess with any chance of perfect dispersion anyway. And if I am playing with a super duper PA then I only need it as my monitor (lovely). However I do always get it up off the floor, I dont see any benefit with it shooting off past my knees, then again I dont see how putting a 212 down there is a good idea either.... So Get yourself a nice strong hop-up like this (good for 150Kg apparently, and about £50):- Drape a nice bit of dark cloth over it, put your "single cab solution" of choice on top and all your bags and guff under it behind the cloth and you are good to go. I hear every note and nuance when I play, my drummer claims he's never heard the bass better (previous bands the bassist had a single 15 apparently - lost it was, and nothing to do with dispersion), and the guiatrist says he can hear it perfectly too. Weird that, the maths and theory are undeniable, but in practice I havent really heard it yet...

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1364900155' post='2032269'] [size=5][sup]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..?[/sup][/size] [size=5][sup]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[/sup][/size] [size=5][sup]so you can get your sound to work?[/sup][/size] [size=5][sup]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.[/sup][/size] [size=5][sup]I don't blame Markbass so much as the people using it. and the way they choke off all character.[/sup][/size] [size=5][sup]I really don't get why you want to accept something that works in a mix...but doesn't if solo'd.. [/sup][/size] [size=5][sup]A wall of sound and volumes wars are never a good mix.[/sup][/size] [/quote] Err you can try and set the whole bands sound up around yours, and to some degree you certainly should. But that wont necessarily make the best mix, or indeed make the bass easy to hear on stage, or in the audience. Mids are not mud, unless there is too much mid, the OPs setting would more than hint that he had removed, not only all the mid, but all the top as well, just leaving sludge: thats what those two filters set like that will do, every time, to any bass sound, because thats how they work. Mixing is not about shaping everything around one thing, rather it is shaping everything around everything else, if you can pick and choose the right parts of each sound and have the tools to do it no one will hear the missing bits, and this all comes down to human perception of sound. We are very very bad at working out what is cut, compared to how well we can tell if something is boosted (too much boost too steep sounds very unnatural, whereas a steep cut we dont ven notice as missing). Add to this the fact that Fletcher Munsen curves dictate absolutely that we hear pitch and other information better in the mid range at all volumes and you can see why having a hole in the mids (where mr guitar is making his smiley eq cut) for the bass to have a little bit of room (and a boost to match) to be heard, will make the entire bass sound more punchy, easier to hear and allow you to meld better with the guitar and indeed entire band sound without disappearing. This isnt some new idea, ever since George Massenburg popularised the parametric EQ in the 70s every mix you have heard live or on record has had chunks cut out of one instrument to make another easier to hear (he used his parametric originally in the PA he built for Earth Wind and Fire tours where there was a tonne of competing instruments at various frequencies). It is 'the right way to do it' and done right the cuts do not in some way destroy the timbre of any one instrument, but instead allow it to be heard. The brain does a really good job of filling in those gaps where there are cuts and another instrument takes the lead in that area of the spectrum. This is before anyone even mentions acoustics and how variable they can be and how much they can damage the sound, and are often particularly tricky in upper mids, and deep bass. The former because as a venue fills the upper mids are effectively soaked up by the audience (bags of meat are great absorption) and the latter because of structural shapes of venues and the difficulties of providing reasonable bass trapping to control reflections in the bass and all that energy crashing around the room in the sub 120Hz area. The nature of the buildings we tend to play in means there are often real issues in the control of these areas which will turn to mud any mix with a big dollop of really low bass. I can't remember the last time I heard a band pull off proper sub bass from an instrument live without it actually damaging the mix (I include all efforts to make kick drums sound like cannons) in a building (outdoors can be different). It is ridiculously difficult to control in an untreated building at high volume.

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1364899551' post='2032259'] Fixed it for ya. [/quote] Doh, ta!

Yup VLE and VPF off for me too. I have more mid control with my sa450 than on an LMII (which is precisely why I bought it), I boost a little low end (which is a stupidly low 40Hz on MB amps), and add a little very low mid (about 120Hz I think), cut a little mid top (about 1KHz I think), and leave the highs where they are. Thats into a Bergantino ae410 (Tweeter on at the normal halfway point) which is a cab that punches like a boxer on PCP and is forward in the upper mids. I get a huge tone that way, loads of bite and growl and clarity, and just enough low end to fill a mix out in the room. I transition from slapping and fingerstyle all the way through gigs, all the time, I have no time or wish to be mucking around with settings or pedals whilst doing this, its far more about what feels right at the time. I use a heavy neck pickup bias on the Roscoe, its a quite P bass like sound, but at the same time clearly isnt a P. Hard to describe, but its a good big sound anyway, and with these settings whatever technique I'm using it sounds 'right', to me anyway, and the rest of the band love it too. It always sounds like bass, and could certainly be described as an old school kind of tone rather than anything remotely hifi. I should add that I run a Focusrite Compounder which allows me to add some low end in to the signal around the compressor so that it isnt clamping down too hard just on the low energy. So that gives a bit more oomph too, and also helps to just keep the fx I use all sounding the same level wise. I dotn thik its really necessary to run a compressor, but I like what it does to my tone... The VPF is a cut in the mids, the more you turn it up the more dB it pulls out. Anything above 9 O'clock and you will disappear from the mix completely. Leave it off in a band mix, it will work better that way. The VPF is a low pass filter and the more you turn it up the more you roll the frequency down, so off its set at 20KHz, and all the way on its not letting much of anything out above 250Hz. It was designed to make up for the lack of a tweeter control on early MB combos. Again just try leaving it off, its a very unusual control with a very specific intended usage, and I personally think the hi and upper mid controls will give you what you want in a way you would expect better than this particular filter does. Just my opinion, but I've gigged this amp for 4 or 5 years to get that opinion....

I look like a fat bloke in a white T-shirt who needs dancing lesson, if not gurning lessons (neanderthal would be unnecessarily complimentary re the odd shapes I squeeze my visage into whilst playing), I move like a well overweight ostrich, my head bobs back and forward like a chicken after seed, and I do this weird little kick of my right foot every now and then at random. Dont really care though, I'm giving it my best to bring the funk, I'm not stationary by any means, and its highly entertaining if you are in need of comical light relief (I've seen video evidence, its hysterical!)....

I'd never call my sa450 sterile at all, how odd.....

I noticed that about B too, which I thought was a rather odd omission, I really liked the singers voice, accent, and phrasing, wouldnt want to leave out a single bit, I wonder if it was just a simple mistake on the render rather than a definite decision to prune it out? Whoevers mix it is, don't answer that yet!

I think so. I found that if you let it play through, and opened another browser tab, then in Firefox at least the currently playing mix title is displayed in the soundcloud tab. Which meant should listen at work and 'mark up' a track as good really easily.

Weird double post. Sorry!

Oh and is anyone struggling to recognise their own mix?