Mix Challenge

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 23, 2024 02:35 CEST

Thanks very much malene, I notice that you didn't submit an entry for this challenge, but I hope that you have given it a go because it's an ideal project for learning mixing as we all are here.

Listening back to my mix which I had to do in a rush due to other commitments, I would say the bass is too high, not way off, but just to the point where the other sounds are a little bit engulfed into it. This would be hard to detect when listening on a laptop

The weird thing to say about this one if you like my mix is that I really didn't do that much at all and I think this perhaps a key realisation. The easiest way to get a bad mix is to do lots of things, if you have like 6 plugins on every channel, it's probably going to sound awful. Sure, there's great mixers out there who can do incredible things with lots of plugins used to create something innovative and new, but it needs to be noted that these kinds of people would have got to that level because to them it was too easy to do a normal mix - to do what we are doing here. They did a normal mix like the first time they ever tried and then they became advanced overnight and began to explore amazing things. For us mere mortals, we need to concentrate on learning the basic things and then progress later. The reason less is more in mixing is that every recorded piece of audio is a perfect thing in a way, the frequencies of a persons voice for example, if it's well enough recorded it will be a beautifully balanced sound just as it is. We can easily destroy it by making a 3dB cut almost anywhere. We can easily destroy it by compressing it by much more than 5dB or with bad release time. Because it's so easy to make something worse and hard to make it better, the rule I have is I must always be sure something is better and not convinced into it by some bias of mine. Unfortunately this means that you have to spend your life gain matching everything. If on every step you take you can make something a tiny bit better then the sum of all the tiny bits becomes a nice mix. Sadly, just one bad mistake will destroy everything. So these days I think of it as a very delicate process in which we are cautious to take steps and require a lot of testing to 'prove' that a move was indeed good or called for.

And of course you didn't ask for any of this But I think it could be useful for anyone here to read these thoughts.

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:30 CEST

LCM! wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 23, 2024 09:39 CEST

malene wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 22, 2024 22:51 CEST

Solid mix, listening on my macbook and if feels good. The vocal sounds good, but feels a little much 3k, but that's minor

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 01, 2024 07:10 CEST

Heres' the link to my entry
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BZKUq5 ... sp=sharing

Sounds nice. Two things: a little mono feeling and the level of the crash (excessive?).

Just listened to your mix, it's nice, you've done loads of things very well. I think your intro sounds better than mine for a start with a good balance and good separation between the 3 sounds. Then onto the verse I think you've handled this well and have dealt effectively with that tricky electric guitar part which I recall just putting lower in the mix (probably too low). You also have a much better set bass level than I did. Something you could improve upon is listening to how all the settings can become an issue when the section changes. Listen to the beginning of Chorus 1, the song should at this point spring to life, like moving up a gear maybe, or having panned instruments get wider, or the overall level jumping up a bit, or just the density of sound giving an apparent impression of a loudness increase. But on your mix I hear the overall level duck a bit, it's something I've done many times before. The compressors are set well for one section, but when the part changes on the second section, suddenly the compressors are doing much more GR than they were, so instead of hearing the song open out naturally with the performances, the compressors react by doing like twice as much as they were, over the chorus you can hear the mixbus compressor is doing too much. Despite this it still manages to sound very pleasant with all the good things you've done. I think your balance is better than mine overall as I put the bass too high! whoops. Anyway good luck and thanks for the feedback

TudorNacu wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2024 13:24 CEST

Hello! Here is my entry for this challenge:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wo4Pt3 ... sp=sharing

Had a great time mixing this song and am looking forward to any feedback i might receive. Thank you!

againstpower wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 21, 2024 21:07 CEST

Hi,
Beyond the challenge, I hope to receive feedback to allow me to learn and improve myself : this is why I'm here.

zed999 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 23, 2024 13:15 CEST

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 23, 2024 02:35 CEST

Thanks very much malene, I notice that you didn't submit an entry for this challenge, but I hope that you have given it a go because it's an ideal project for learning mixing as we all are here.

Listening back to my mix which I had to do in a rush due to other commitments, I would say the bass is too high, not way off, but just to the point where the other sounds are a little bit engulfed into it. This would be hard to detect when listening on a laptop

The weird thing to say about this one if you like my mix is that I really didn't do that much at all and I think this perhaps a key realisation. The easiest way to get a bad mix is to do lots of things, if you have like 6 plugins on every channel, it's probably going to sound awful. Sure, there's great mixers out there who can do incredible things with lots of plugins used to create something innovative and new, but it needs to be noted that these kinds of people would have got to that level because to them it was too easy to do a normal mix - to do what we are doing here. They did a normal mix like the first time they ever tried and then they became advanced overnight and began to explore amazing things. For us mere mortals, we need to concentrate on learning the basic things and then progress later. The reason less is more in mixing is that every recorded piece of audio is a perfect thing in a way, the frequencies of a persons voice for example, if it's well enough recorded it will be a beautifully balanced sound just as it is. We can easily destroy it by making a 3dB cut almost anywhere. We can easily destroy it by compressing it by much more than 5dB or with bad release time. Because it's so easy to make something worse and hard to make it better, the rule I have is I must always be sure something is better and not convinced into it by some bias of mine. Unfortunately this means that you have to spend your life gain matching everything. If on every step you take you can make something a tiny bit better then the sum of all the tiny bits becomes a nice mix. Sadly, just one bad mistake will destroy everything. So these days I think of it as a very delicate process in which we are cautious to take steps and require a lot of testing to 'prove' that a move was indeed good or called for.

And of course you didn't ask for any of this But I think it could be useful for anyone here to read these thoughts.

After a while here you get to know who consistently enter good sounding mixes and you are on that list for me.
For the sake of discussion.
In general I agree. You get a fader balance with this particular multi track and already it sounds pretty darn good. I don't hear a bunch of tracks with problems that need fixing. Quite the opposite! The provider knows the basic balance should be straightforward so the question is what do they hope to hear beyond that? Emulation of analogue gear? I doubt that's even on the list.

There were some pointers I thought. Technical things like the reverb and echos on some tracks of course but mainly the vocal which was for me impossible to get up front and personal (because that was not the intention?). Exaggerating a little, mixing this like a band in a small club wasn't going to work. Not to mention cello, violin, strings, brass, the choir, the low vocal, the wail - all very dramatic "big scene". Almost maybe 70's rock opera / 60's cinematic faux orchestra bigness was called for. Ha-ha nurse! The subject/lyrics/delivery of course also steered heavily - big, serious, positive, philosophical "we're all in this together, do the best you can to live positively"?

My intro is weak. But it gets going and by the end the music seems to come out in constant waves of one thing after another. I am of course biased. My kick takes up too much energy though, it made the whole mix sound a bit quiet and there are of course other balance changes I'd make through the song (automation fine tuning).

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 24, 2024 01:36 CEST

zed999 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 23, 2024 13:15 CEST

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 23, 2024 02:35 CEST

Thanks very much malene, I notice that you didn't submit an entry for this challenge, but I hope that you have given it a go because it's an ideal project for learning mixing as we all are here.

Listening back to my mix which I had to do in a rush due to other commitments, I would say the bass is too high, not way off, but just to the point where the other sounds are a little bit engulfed into it. This would be hard to detect when listening on a laptop

The weird thing to say about this one if you like my mix is that I really didn't do that much at all and I think this perhaps a key realisation. The easiest way to get a bad mix is to do lots of things, if you have like 6 plugins on every channel, it's probably going to sound awful. Sure, there's great mixers out there who can do incredible things with lots of plugins used to create something innovative and new, but it needs to be noted that these kinds of people would have got to that level because to them it was too easy to do a normal mix - to do what we are doing here. They did a normal mix like the first time they ever tried and then they became advanced overnight and began to explore amazing things. For us mere mortals, we need to concentrate on learning the basic things and then progress later. The reason less is more in mixing is that every recorded piece of audio is a perfect thing in a way, the frequencies of a persons voice for example, if it's well enough recorded it will be a beautifully balanced sound just as it is. We can easily destroy it by making a 3dB cut almost anywhere. We can easily destroy it by compressing it by much more than 5dB or with bad release time. Because it's so easy to make something worse and hard to make it better, the rule I have is I must always be sure something is better and not convinced into it by some bias of mine. Unfortunately this means that you have to spend your life gain matching everything. If on every step you take you can make something a tiny bit better then the sum of all the tiny bits becomes a nice mix. Sadly, just one bad mistake will destroy everything. So these days I think of it as a very delicate process in which we are cautious to take steps and require a lot of testing to 'prove' that a move was indeed good or called for.

And of course you didn't ask for any of this But I think it could be useful for anyone here to read these thoughts.

After a while here you get to know who consistently enter good sounding mixes and you are on that list for me.
For the sake of discussion.
In general I agree. You get a fader balance with this particular multi track and already it sounds pretty darn good. I don't hear a bunch of tracks with problems that need fixing. Quite the opposite! The provider knows the basic balance should be straightforward so the question is what do they hope to hear beyond that? Emulation of analogue gear? I doubt that's even on the list.

There were some pointers I thought. Technical things like the reverb and echos on some tracks of course but mainly the vocal which was for me impossible to get up front and personal (because that was not the intention?). Exaggerating a little, mixing this like a band in a small club wasn't going to work. Not to mention cello, violin, strings, brass, the choir, the low vocal, the wail - all very dramatic "big scene". Almost maybe 70's rock opera / 60's cinematic faux orchestra bigness was called for. Ha-ha nurse! The subject/lyrics/delivery of course also steered heavily - big, serious, positive, philosophical "we're all in this together, do the best you can to live positively"?

My intro is weak. But it gets going and by the end the music seems to come out in constant waves of one thing after another. I am of course biased. My kick takes up too much energy though, it made the whole mix sound a bit quiet and there are of course other balance changes I'd make through the song (automation fine tuning).

Hey there zed999, thanks for your kind words. On listening to your mix I'd say that similarly to the LCM! entry, you have an overworked mixbus compressor. What i think could be happening is that your bass compressor didn't do quite enough to get it under control, so then the mixbus compressor gets pushed around by that bass and then the mix becomes a bit unstable. It's easy to forget about that if you are listening for other things, but focus on the overall dynamics and bass energy in the chorus and you will hear it. The bass can take quite a bit of compression sometimes. On this one I see to remember I used like 6dB max spread across two units. I have in the past seen a pro mixer apply like 10dB of GR. For reference, on the bass guitar track, light compression is 2-4dB, moderate is 4-6dB and aggressive is 6-10dB according to my AI assistant! It's surprisingly good these days for simple audio engineering questions btw.
Ok that's all the feedback I have time for and good luck to all.

scottfitz wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 24, 2024 14:57 CEST

Hi,
It's quite tricky to figure out what's going on, but perhaps you could disable the whole mixbus and then just put the peaks below -1 by gain staging and then upload this mix to a public folder and we can listen to whether it sounds much different. If your mixbus really isn't doing much at all then disabling it won't change much.
Cheers

DSBotez wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 20, 2024 08:33 CEST

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 19, 2024 23:46 CEST

My aim was to create the original 70s feel by using emulations gear of this time. ok, to be true on almost every track I have my beloved 4000 G channel, so not really 70s And I had to use some dynamic EQ.

Hope you like my mix

Cheers
Gunnar

Wow, really like the vintage feel