Thank you for the update!
Cheers,
Jeroen
2024-JUN-02 Info: Happy 10 Years Anniversary, everyone! Check out our current running games Mix Challenge 098 and Songwriting Competition 082.
MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Winners announced
-
JeroenZuiderwijk
- Wild Card x2
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2022 01:09 CEST
-
A Future in Noise
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 09:26 CET
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
Thank you all for your submissions. It has been a pleasure to listen to them. I apologize that my comments have taken a little longer than perhaps expected.
I don't always understand aspects of mixing, when they are sophisticated and advanced in such a way that they are beyond my level of education and experience. And maybe also capacity. For example, it may be difficult to hear the difference between a track to which saturation has been added and the original one. And what it would mean to cut treble on the sides (but not in the middle) is not easy to understand. What NLS channel means, I have no idea. Just to mention a few examples.
When I judge these 15 tracks, I do so first and foremost as a songwriter (and lyricist). Have parts of my "arrangement" been lost, or is everything still there? (I'm not sure that "arrangement" is the right word, but you know what I mean.) The song is made up of a large amount of details, and for example, it contains some "call & response" (this should be the correct term). An example is the triplets on the Wurlitzer at the beginning of the chorus (measure No. 3) and the triplets from the strings (the synth strings) in measure No. 7. If the triplets from the electric piano are fully audible, I also expect the triplets from the strings to be perceptible, and vice versa. They belong together.
Another example of call & response is a phrase (or should I call it a riff/lick?) from the electric piano that appears in several places, for example in the joint between “ ... takes hold of man ... “ and " ... despite of all the superstition ... ". The electric piano kind of says (=talks), if you use your imagination: "Try to get a grip on better future..." At least the beginning of that phrase. (Instead of calling it call & response, you could perhaps say that the electric piano is commenting on the lyrics here?) In any case, I think that it is important that at least some of these riffs/licks can be perceived, and if it is the case that you choose to let an instrument be more in the background, it is still always possible to highlight this type of ingredients through automation.
One more example as to where automation could be needed: When the backing vocals appears for the last time, at the end of the song – at the same time we hear a drum fill consisting of six hits on the snare (from beat No. three in that measure) – 16th notes – followed by two hits on one of the toms (16th notes). The snare and the tom gotta be played back with the same volume, here (dB). For those of you who want to dampen the toms throughout the whole song, or want to have extra loud toms, try to use automation. I'm aware that you could argue that for all instruments it's a fact that when you hit them harder, the timbre changes as well – not only do they sound louder! But I'm convinced that the world is full of albums where automation has been used the way I try to describe, ignoring the timbre aspect of it. And that this is accepted, so to speak.
Another tool I use, in addition to analyzing to what extent the mix is following the composer's intentions, when judging the songs, is my personal taste. It must be allowed for anyone to have his or her personal taste – mustn't it? I can't always objectively explain why I prefer a certain kick over another – who can?
Added a day later: Some participants have received somewhat summary feedback. I've had both the loss of my best laptop (a lot of hassles ensue) and my studio headphones breaking the next day. I've had a hard time finding enough time, but I didn't want to delay the completion of Round 1 any more than this.
When it comes to feedback, however, my opening words apply to all participants! Here are clues to what a mix of Get A Grip might look like.
A few words about your production notes: A lot of what you write is stuff I don't know - various plugins that do things I don't understand. However, I comment on what I hear with my own ears, even if I don't always know which plugin or technology made this happen. However: if you are happy with your approach to give this song the right "costume", then I think you should stick with your ideas as how to mix this in the best imaginable way, but maybe you should also read through my opening words and also look at the feedback that other participants received!
I realize I have said very little about the vocal performance and how it has been treated in the mixing process. Probably because I've heard it so many times that I have become blind – I no longer notice it. On the other hand she's got a very lovely voice and no matter what plugins you use, it's probably still going to be appealing. Anyway, there is no time to add anything now. Here's my feedback:
15 tracks:
1 PostID016 PauPeu
Pleasant sounding first verse with acoustic guitars that seem to be embedded in cotton. I like the way you have played with the electric guitar, it sounds unusually good in this mix. (Is there a short delay involved?)
When the two cellos go into the string section (synth), the volume is reduced so much that it is difficult to perceive that there are any strings. You obviously don't like my synth strings, but then the question is, shouldn't the two cellos also be quieter? With almost no strings in the choruses, the eighth notes from the electric guitar get a more important role to play, and it's certainly a pleasing sound, what you've produced. (By the way, both electric guitar and hi hat are panned in the middle / center ... hmm ... OK.)
The electric piano lingers with a lot of extra delay where the first chorus ends - cool!
Back to the strings: In the bridge, a crescendo builds. The string section creeps up and increases in strength. Here you can sense that there are strings in your mix, but then you have to listen carefully! But what kind of strange orchestra is it, where two cellos are significantly more audible than a whole bunch of violins? Maybe you can solve this somehow?
The toms sound OK in the bridge. They are very loud, but they serve a function (but the cymbal that comes right after the toms should probably be louder, given that the toms are heard so well, although I generally don't mind moderate cymbals (the very last cymbals in this song, feel free to mute quite a lot)). However, you should probably make them quieter - the toms - in the rest of the song. There is a drum fill in the middle of chorus one. It is repeated several times, and it probably gets a bit annoying/repetitive in the end (I could have added more variety to the different choruses). But with quieter toms (with less reverb (have you also increased the low frequencies with EQ?)) the risk of the listener perceiving these fills as annoying gets reduced.
Wordless vocals panned to the left (different EQ + reverb) is a good idea.
The snare drum sounds great. You write that you had a lot of problems with the hi hat. I don't understand this, because I think it sounds great just the way it does, without any EQ, but it sounds OK in your version, too.
It is difficult to perceive the electric piano at all in the second verse (that is, before the first chorus). Since the intro starts with the electric piano - don't you expect the electric piano to be "a supporting element" in the rest of the song?
Kick = pulse = OK.
Why do I only hear an acoustic guitar (on the right) in the bridge?
The trumpets sound fine.
Electric bass: It has an important function in this song. The bass guitar is not that prominent in your mix. Maybe you can find a way to make it more audible?
2 PostID023 BenjiRage
I like that the electric piano is audible, all the way, behind the vocals in the first verse and that the guitars do not take over. The Wurlitzer has an almost hollow sound (or however to describe it) which sounds cool. Just the right amount of dist, too. Along with the guitars, I hear a little dreamy sound here in the opening.
The triplets at the beginning of the chorus (third measure) from the electric piano can be perceived with difficulty. (The triplets from the strings are heard a little more clearly.) That phrase / the lick / the riff from the piano right in the middle of the (first) chorus (which I mentioned in my opening words) I don't hear at all. I think it's needed there, because otherwise it sounds “empty” (something is missing). There is such a thing as (volume) automation. But other people than me might have a different opinion.
Just before verse 3 starts (after the first chorus), there are some fast notes on the electric bass - in other words, you can hear the bass guitar clearly. Maybe it would be a good idea to try to emphasize the pluck sound (every time I try to describe this I get confused about which word to use: pluck, transient - whatever). The bass line contains many sixteenth notes, which have a rhythmic function - throughout the song. If you want, maybe you can try to find a way to make the electric bass more audible in the mix? Unless you prefer more rumbling notes to slightly more distinctive ones? But maybe emphasizing the bass doesn't have to be about the pluck sound (the transient), maybe you can use distortion, instead?
You say you want a soft sound without sharp edges. That's exactly what you've given the song through your mixing. If you want to try to brighten up the vocals, but also the accompaniment in general, is up to you, of course. I have a bit of a hard time deciding what I prefer in this regard. It varies from time to time, when I listen, whether I want a soft sound, or one with more treble.
Some details: I find nothing to criticize about the drums. However: where the double chorus ends, and turns into the bridge, there are three quite loud beats on one of the toms (sixteenth notes). Soon after, the pianist plays some sixteenth notes, which are like a response. I go on and on about this, both in my opening words and also in my feedback below. Take this with a pinch of salt. Increasing the volume of the electric piano here, so that this “response” becomes fully audible, would perhaps just sound strange? I don't really have time to experiment myself, nor do I remember exactly how it sounded in the original mix.
You have done well with the bridge. Also with the guitar solo.
No complaints about the trumpets.
What I somewhat carelessly called wail (should one say wordless singing or vocalizing, instead?) is panned back and forth between right and left, which is a good idea. Maybe you could somehow separate these “exclamations” a bit more from the lead vocals? Through EQ, different reverb or something else?
Those closing cymbals in the outro/coda - I mention them quite a few times in this post - are a mistake of mine. Maybe there shouldn't have been any cymbals at all, at least not that many and loud. The rules don't allow you to change the arrangement, but if I were to do this song again, I would probably mute the final cymbals by volume automation (but not make them totally silent).
As you can see, I don't suggest so many changes, which is probably a good rating.
3 PostID024 UHLS
The first thing I noticed that was a bit special about this submission was the cellos that got a lot of extra (long) reverb (because that's what happens, right?). The notes kind of follow you into the next bar, and in this particular case it works pretty well. It's fun with innovations sometimes - not every track has to sound the same.
Another thing that stands out is the trumpets at the end: I think (if I remember correctly) this is the submission that has the loudest trumpets. I've heard complaints more than once that the trumpets sound synthetic - even though they're not - but to me they sound real, and I don't see any problem with giving them the space they get here - quite the opposite.
I don't really know what to think about the kick ... From what I hear, you've only used the one that comes with the brush kit (?). It's a natural choice. But it should probably not be so loud. If we think about the places ... concerts where the drummer has used brushes instead of drumsticks, then maybe in some cases they had only one microphone for the whole orchestra (?). And then maybe the kick was just barely audible. (Such considerations are in reality, when we're making music nowadays, compromises between old and new, of course.)
I think the crescendo in the bridge is built up in the right way. The strings get stronger and stronger until the big bang. But there is one thing that is not perfect: I know I wrote in my “instructions” for the contest that the electric guitar chords in the bridge almost require adding a lot of “ping-pong delay”. You haven't done that here, and then there is, IMO, no point with the electric guitar in the bridge. In general, I think your electric guitar has got a little too sharp sound. I looked at your production notes, but the designations don't mean very much to me.
Although it's an innovative idea with the lingering cellos in the verses, the volume should probably be reduced by 1-2 dB. The strings are also a bit too loud, in the choruses, also here a reduction of maybe 1-2 dB is needed.
I think the cymbals sound a bit strange. Apart from being properly muted, they also have some kind of “fragile” sound. Correct me if I'm wrong: is this just my imagination, did you just turn down the volume?
The acoustic guitars at the beginning sound a bit “raw”. Maybe you could get a more elegant sound somehow?
4 PostID044 Valter Zape
When I heard the third verse (after the first chorus) I spontaneously thought the mix was perfect. So you probably did a good job. However, here are some things that could be improved:
I think the acoustic guitars dominate the electric piano a little too much at the beginning. For example: Behind the singer's "self-defeating actions", the pianist plays a few sixteenth notes. They are barely perceptible at all in your mix, but I actually think they are needed, there.
The short chords on the electric guitar at the beginning of the song (second verse) are rather loud in the mix. I like that they are audible, but I think you should turn them down just a little bit (maybe 0.5 dB is enough). That you can perceive - if you listen carefully - the eighth notes from the electric guitar in the choruses is a good thing - there I think the volume is perfect.
It seems as if the toms' volumes goes up and down in a slightly random way? For example, the toms are hardly audible at all where chorus 1 ends. But just before the bridge begins, I hear a tom on the left side that is unnecessarily loud. And also just before the crescendo in the bridge, one of the toms – just one – is louder than the rest.
You say you combined the two trumpet tracks into one. I can't help but feel that some of the notes from the trumpets are missing, if I listen from "superstition" onwards. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
The cymbals are quiet overall, maybe they should be turned up a bit?
I like the electric bass and the kick, the level – I mean how loud they are (dB). The kick has a nice sound, but maybe you could make the electric bass a little more... I don't know what word to use... punchy, maybe. So that the pick-sound / transient (although fingered) becomes a little bit more audible? There are plenty of sixteenth notes.
The Wurlitzer's triplets AND the string's triplets (which I rant about in my general words above) have been given just the right volume: they're not overly prominent, but they're perceptible.
I hear the reverb for the lead vox mostly on the left, the same goes for the snare. Any particular thought behind this?
The fact that you chose not to have the cymbals mixed loud makes that "forest" of cymbals at the end of the outro easier to bear (the cymbals that I should have edited before I posted my song here on the Mix-Challenge). But maybe by means of automation you could let some cymbals get a little louder, while at the end they can be more quiet (they can't be muted totally according to the rules).
It seems as if 0.5 – 1.5 seconds are missing at the end. Why? Wurlitzer and cymbal are gradually muted (quick) before they end in a natural way.
5 PostID064 juhu
This submission differs from most other submissions in that it doesn't sound soft or flattering at all. Almost a bit raw and messy, instead. And I like it! That guitar that moves between right and left at lightning speed - it sounded really cool when I first heard it. But in the long run it can get a bit annoying - especially in headphones. Maybe you could lower the volume a bit in the verses, or keep the right-left thing only in the choruses, and create a stereo electric guitar in some other way in the verses?
I really like that I get to hear my Wurlitzer stuff (licks, riffs, fills - call them what you want to) in this version. It seems that this has been done at the cost of the strings being heavily muted(?). This means that I can't hear the triplets from the strings in the seventh bar of the chorus, but maybe I can live with that.
You've done a lot of work on how the drums sound. I don't understand even half of your production notes, but the snare drum has got a sound that comes through in a good way (maybe reduce the volume by 1 dB?). The toms also sound (except in some cases) OK. I think your approach is better than trying to boost the toms' low frequencies with EQ (make their sustain more audible), and then maybe in the worst case adding a reverb that just creates a lot of noise, if a lot of low frequencies are allowed to reverberate. BUT: some of the toms (maybe it's the middle one every time - I don't know) get a sound in a couple of places that sounds more like a carpet beater hitting a carpet. But only in a few places, as I said (maybe three to five different places, I'll try to go back and see if I can pinpoint, but I don't know if I have time). Otherwise, I'm mostly happy with the drums, I think.
The bass guitar!
The electric bass is important in this song, it contributes to the rhythm. And here it really comes through! (Is it that simple that you have to turn the strings way down for me to hear my Wurlitzer stuff and my bass line?)
The de-essing process works well here. I have heard attempts to de-ess, in the past, where all the s's have almost disappeared completely.
As I've pointed out in several other places already: I regret a bit that I wasn't more restrained with the cymbals right at the end (in the outro / the coda). Maybe one way to hide the mistake is to lower the volume of the cymbals here by automation?
6 PostID065 SimaGT
First, may I just ask: which Wurlitzer version did you use - with or without tube drive?
There is not much I would like to change in your mix. The overall sound, if I listen in the middle of one of the choruses, is very pleasant (I guess it has to do with the frequency spectrum). So I concentrate on things that need improvement, when I judge your version:
But first a little wonder: The electric piano seems to have gained stereo width in the intro, with the treble notes on the left - is this possible (that it is not mono, I mean)? I don't see anything about it in your production notes.
Things that could be improved, IMO: 1. The toms are too loud. For example, towards the end of the first chorus, where the sixteenth notes on the toms are not balanced (in terms of volume (dB)) by the cymbals that come right after. The drum fill that is in the middle of the first chorus, the one that comes back several times, can get a little repetitive / annoying after a while (I wish I had added more variations from the beginning), but if you dampen (volume / dB) the toms a little perhaps you can avoid the repetitions becoming too obvious. The toms that I described in my opening paragraphs (after six 16th notes on the snare) has the right volume, though, IMO. 2. The vocals without words, it's centered all the time, right? Here you might be able, in different ways, to make it differ a little more from the lead vocals (different reverb, EQ etc). 3. The electric guitar solo: here I actually don't understand what you had in mind. What musical period is represented here? Well - I don't know. But the tone from the guitar cuts like a razor blade in my eardrums. Your Amp sim also seems to make the fading of the very last note from the guitar not work - it's heard as much as all the other notes, but then it stops very abruptly a bit into one of the singer's first words. I suggest you give the solo guitar a completely different sound, but whether it should sound early 70s or more modern - that's up to you. 5. That "forest" of cymbals at the end of the outro (not the very last cymbal) is a problem in almost all submissions. I wish I had been a little more restrained from the start. Now it is as it is, and you can't just mute them completely, because the rules don't allow it. But maybe some kind of automation could make them a bit quieter in relation to the other instruments (although I have a feeling you've already made them somewhat more quiet)? 6. I guess you raise the volume of the electric piano by automation where the bridge starts? If you raise the volume a little bit earlier, just before the three closing sixteenth notes from the piano, then perhaps these come through better - these three (four) notes that are a response of three sixteenths from one of the toms just before (call and response). But it's fine to lower the toms too, as I said. 7. The short electric guitar chords in the first verse could perhaps be somewhat louder?
P.S. When I compare your mix with the other 14, yours have more “treble” to it than most of the others. There is almost like a gap between the high frequencies (3000 – 5000 Hz?) and the low ones (100 – 300 Hz). Not a total gap, of course. I liked this at first and I still do. But what will be my preferences in the end, I do not know.
7 PostID088 O'MIX
The singer sounds quite “natural”, as if not much reverb, EQ or other effects have been added. Maybe she could be made to sound a bit more “lively”? (But when I read your production notes, I see that several plugins have been used... Well, but not all these tricks are meant to be obvious to the listener, as you write yourself!)
The bass guitar is more audible here than in most of the other mixes, and I think that's excellent. The electric bass has an important role to play in this song.
The kick is of the “pulse” type, that is, you have chosen only the one associated with the brush kit, and that is a natural choice. I think you have chosen the right volume (dB) for the kick.
The trumpets have also been given the right volume. When I look at your production notes, I see that you made an effort to get a realistic trumpet sound – very well done!
Good vintage sound of the electric guitar solo.
The singer's lower voice is unusually loud in relation to the lead. But it works well.
I perceive more of the Wurlitzer stuff than in most of the other submissions, and I like that. The licks, riffs or fills (or whatever you choose to call them) from the electric piano are there because they are NEEDED - at least in my opinion.
You've put a lot of effort into making the drums sound OK. I think you've succeeded, but I think the snare is living its life a little too much in the shadows. You can certainly raise it by 1 dB (possibly more). But wait ... come to think of it, maybe the snare drum doesn't need to adapt to contemporary ideals in this particular song? Maybe it doesn't need to be heard anymore? I imagine a lot of mixing professionals would object to what I'm saying here, but if only the audience/listeners like it, then ...
The strings in the choruses are not very prominent in your mix (leaves more room for the electric piano = good) but still I hear those triplets from the strings, which I've been nagging a lot about. Which I see as an advantage, of course.
You mention 3D: at least for “wails” (or should we call it wordless singing?) I think I perceive the three dimensions.
And so now, for the hundredth time, I apologize for the ugly cymbals in the outro, which are my own fault. You could probably reduce the volume a bit.
Is there anything that needs to be changed?
When I compare with the other 14 tracks, I find several that have chosen to emphasize the higher frequencies more than you did (more treble in the song as a whole). But I realize that you worked carefully and that you made your choices consciously. Whether or not I will prefer a song with more treble (more lively) when I choose the winners in round 2 - I can't say now. This whole competition will be a learning process for me too, and there are still a few weeks left.
8 PostID102 M.P.3.
Your production notes are so extensive AND complicated that I've had to largely ignore them (I'd only understand a fraction of them if I tried to read them anyway). Anyway, I get the impression that you have tried to create a Phil Spector Wall Of Sound-sound - right? Those who like a strong and firm bass are NOT getting what they want, here. Nor do those who think you should be moderate with the reverb. (But yes - the kick is fully audible and it sounds early 70's.)
Anyway, your mix sounds very good - if this is the sound you want! I'm having a very hard time coming up with amendments. Possibly that the synth strings in the choruses take over a bit too much over the other instruments. By the way: the bass guitar IS distinguishable, I notice now. But compared to the other submissions here, the low frequencies are noticeablylower (in terms of volume (dB)) in your mix. One small detail, by the way, that stands out: Where the bridge ends, some quick notes come from the sampled acoustic guitar. They are heard unnecessarily clearly in your mix, I would attenuate them by automation.
As I said: You've got most of it right (if you like Phil Spector) and I really have nothing more to add … Or yes, one ore two things: If you want to keep the loud strings, I would recommend that they be toned down gradually, before the bridge in particular - that the fading starts earlier. You can do that with automation on just that track. Now they stay strong/loud for a bit too long, almost until they fade out anyway. And one more thing: just like in (almost) all other submissions, you have chosen to let the closing cymbals (the outro) be just as strong as they are on my original track. I think more and more that those cymbals were a mistake on my part: they should not have been so many and so loud. With automation you can certainly lower the volume a bit, if you want.
9 PostID113 JeroenZuiderwijk
We start, for some reason, with a checklist:
Intro: The electric piano has had its low frequencies filtered out - quite dreamy (not much dist). Electric piano on the right, low (>frequency) guitar on the left with the high (>frequency) complementary guitar on the right at lower volume (as I originally intended).
Electric bass with somewhat audible transient. I appreciate that the electric bass has been made more audible with some studio tricks. But maybe it's possible to make it a bit more audible? (I don't know if it's the right term to use 'transient' here, but I'm talking about emphasizing what you might call the pick sound, even though we're dealing with a bass guitar that's fingered.) Note: I listened once again in my studio monitors: just before the third verse (after the first chorus), the bass guitar is almost soloed. Maybe you already have achieved the perfect sound, after all. I'm not sure I would like to change anything, when it comes to the bass guitar.
Cellos are prominent. Sliding into strings in a natural way. But I would perhaps like to dampen the strings a little in the choruses (just a little bit) - this can be done without the strings' triplets becoming inaudible.
The electric guitar has by some trick become stereo. Maybe the short chords during the verses are a bit too loud.
Drums: First cymbals just loud enough, followed by kick and snare which are pleasant to listen to. HiHat and toms excellent. The toms fill in the middle of the choruses OK - not too loud. But the snare drum should be increased in volume, and one reason would be to match the prominent electric bass and the kick. The snare drum is too “thin”, too, together with the rest of the sound. Maybe you can find a way, Jeroen, to give it more ... attack/punch ... some way to bring out any lower frequencies that might be hidden somewhere in the sound of the snare drum?
Bridge: All good I think. Those notes from the acoustic (sampled) guitar right at the end are not overly loud like in some other submissions, but they could be a little louder as they are a continuation of the sixteenth notes on one of the toms. The sixteenth notes from the electric piano for two or three bars towards the end of the bridge are audible, but just barely so, which is a good thing.
Electric guitar solo: mono reverb.
Trumpets: audible, nothing more to say about that.
Backing vocals: good with no oddities.
Audible, but just barely so, lower voice in the choruses from the vocalist. Good.
Closing cymbals: my own mistake: I should have cleared the forest of cymbals in the last two or three bars. It is not forbidden to mute these cymbals by automation (but not mute totally – the rules don't allow for this).
The final sixteenth notes from the e-piano just before the bridge could be raised a bit, as they are a continuation of the toms, which come before. At the end of chorus 1, toms and cymbals work well together.
With speakers instead of headphones: electric bass and kick are powerful! But not too powerful, the question is whether it sounded like this in the 70s? But maybe it doesn't matter, for me it's not a problem if you mix influences from different decades.
You say in your production notes that you want the vocals to be warm and full, which means you haven't brightened them up. As a whole, I could have imagined some ingredients, from all the contributing instruments, with their high frequencies more accentuated (apart from the snare), against the background of kick and bass guitar. But if you like this sound, avoiding sharp/harsh sounds, I think you should stick with it. I'm actually a bit ambivalent, when I listen alternately to different submissions, where the people in question have chosen different frequency spectrums (how much high frequencies they allow).
I simply have to be more concise when giving feedback to the last six participants on this list. I apologize for this, but I have no choice. There is an absolute deadline of Tuesday morning at 07:45 (CET), and I'll be busy for the rest of this evening. However, I am giving feedback to all 15 who moves on to round 2, and I think it might be fruitful for each of you to read the feedback given to other participants - not just your own. That way, maybe this still will be fair.
10 PostID117 floodo
You say, in your production notes: “I took the piano as the main instrument, so I lowered all the others considerably in the 200 zone.” The fact that the piano is the main instrument is much appreciated. I think that's what I had in mind from the beginning, although at the moment I feel mostly dizzy after all this listening.
I like your “lightweight guitars” at the beginning, and the fact that you can hear the electric piano clearly. The kick has a well-balanced sound: you can hear the high frequencies of the transient at a reasonable level (100% alternative kick, I guess?). The snare drum also sounds good. I have no complaints about hi hats, toms or cymbals either.
You have a long exposition about the bass (trippled) that I don't really understand. But the bass line is important in this song, and if your trick makes the bass more audible (it is audible) then of course it's a good thing.
I don't know if you've treated the trumpets in any special way, they might sound a bit more “real” than they do in my original version, for example.
Have you used any plugin that makes the intro sway a bit in pitch? I think I hear it, but I'm not sure.
By the way: I can imagine that I only hear one acoustic guitar in the intro. In that case, it's not allowed (to opt out of something completely), but I'm not sure if that's true, what I'm saying now.
And yes - you manage to make both the piano's and string's triplets (those little details I've been going on and on about) audible.
But is there anything that could be improved? If I compare with other submissions, it seems to me that, in terms of the frequency spectrum as a whole, there is a little too much emphasis on the frequency range between the deep bass and the high treble. You say you've reduced most of the instruments in the 200 range, but what about the 1000 Hz range? I'm really not a master of this stuff, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm talking nonsense. But maybe there is something in it?
11 PostID120 francobhalla
Leaving aside the monstrous kick, there are certainly several good ideas here. But what have you done with the kick? With studio monitors and a sub, it makes the whole room vibrate. In headphones (small ones) it just sounds loud, hard and without any real shape at all.
I don't remember what headphones I had when I picked your mix as one of the 15. Now that I'm listening, it's very hard to “think away” the kick. But I still think that if you replace the kick with one that is more normal, then there will probably be a mix there that is quite good. But I can't go into details now that everything is hidden behind that noise. I suggest you read what I've written here, in other places, to get a hint of what sound I'm after. So: replace the kick. And then you have the opportunity to improve as much as you want - if needed.
12 PostID126 cpsmusic
Acoustic guitars embedded in cotton, well why not?
The vocalist sounds a bit brighter than in some other submissions. Well, I don't mind that.
Have you volume automated the hi hat? In the second verse, where it's closed hi hat on every quarter, I like that it rattles a lot. However, when it comes to the hi hat on every eighth note, you have to be more restrained, otherwise it often just sounds mechanically repetitive. But I think the hi hat is at a reasonable level in the choruses (the open hi hat is heard well, but I like the sound of that particular open hi hat (not everyone does, I've noticed)).
Both the electric guitar and the hi hat are panned in the middle/center (at least in the second verse) and I don't think I would have done it that way, when the electric piano is already in the middle. But I hear that the cellos give stereo width, so maybe it works, after all.
Damn nice to hear the Wurlitzer properly, now that I'm writing the last “review” of these fifteen! But the notes from the electric piano high up on the keyboard, from “participate” and a bit forward for example, should definitely be reduced in volume by automation (because I don't think a compressor works that way). They are simply too loud.
Nice bass guitar that is audible in the right way - needed in this song.
Nice change of reverb in the bridge.
Odd timbre in the solo, but why not.
And I think you actually volume automated away the most annoying cymbals in the outro without me having to say it.
Well, at least I had one amendment - some loud notes from the Wurlitzer. But I hope you let the rest still be audible at the right level. By the way, one more thing that seems pretty important to fix: the snare sounds thin, and it also needs to be louder. (And you've changed the toms' sound, I notice now. They don't sound bad, but the question is whether it sounds like a tom being hit by a brush? By the way: just after the solo I hear a couple of toms that don't sound so good... I don't think I like them.)
Possible wild cards:
13 PostID055 hjchjc
Very distorted Wurlitzer, it sounds nice.
You've managed to “manufacture” a very distinctive snare drum that demands to have its place. It takes a while to get used to it, and I think it should probably get lowered at least 1 dB. The Toms are also too loud.
Choir and wail/exclamation towards the end of the double chorus after the third verse: the singer's exclamation has been panned to the right and they are quite wet - good (that they differ in expression from the lead vocals). The choir has also become super wet. I feel a bit conflicted about it. But sure - you can do this.
A bit too much reverb on the electric guitar solo.
The cymbals at the end have been muted quite a bit, and I appreciate that. Those very last hits on the snare drum suggest that a cool reverb has been used, and by now I've also gotten used to the slightly unusual sound of this brush snare. It's probably possible to keep it just the way you've mixed it, but I still maintain that the toms are too loud.
14 PostID104 Havol
Apart from the sample rate being wrong, you have also removed/deleted a couple of notes, namely just before the bridge starts. It is the final note on the bass guitar in that chorus, and also a kick hit (I think) and maybe something more. This is not allowed (and I don't see the reason?), but then you got an X, too.
To be honest, I don't really like the kind of vinyl effect you've used. It sounds a lot like when you put an LP on a turntable a long time ago - an album where the hole in the record wasn't centered (or like a tape player with a lot of sway). I think the notes that are out of pitch are too much out of pitch (it's not as noticeable in the bridge, though (which you call brake)).
The guitars have a pleasant sound in the intro and first verse. When the song gets going more, with verse 2, for example, you can enjoy the bass guitar, you can hear the individual notes in the bass line throughout the song - except that it seems that the really high notes on the electric bass (high in terms of frequency) are not as audible as would be desirable.
The triplets from the Wurlitzer (bar 3 of the chorus) and the triplets from the string section (bar 7) - I've been harping on about this before - have, in my opinion, exactly the right volume here: you can hear them, but they're not overly conspicuous.
I think you've done well with the drums.
The Wurlitzer in your mix is a little higher (dB) than the average for the other 14 songs, and I think that's good, of course, because the song starts with the electric piano, and then it's not supposed to be so much in the background afterwards that you can't hear it.
15 PostID105 SyroniC_GP
You say that you deliberately removed instruments at the end: “In the end I muted the instruments; I like her voice in the silence”, you said. But there is also a mistake that I don't think is deliberate, namely that the song is cut off several seconds before the end. Now, there is this system of wild cards, and you only got an X (not OUT).
Changing the arrangement - completely removing notes or longer pieces - is not allowed under the rules, but now you have the chance to fix this.
I thought it was an innovative idea with the vinyl effect. Also that the dynamic range between the quiet opening and what comes next is so big - no other participant has done that (and having a big jump in volume (dB) must be allowed by the rules).
But the vinyl effect - you should probably use it more moderately. At least when it comes to the singer's voice, because in places it sounds a bit too low-fi as it is now.
Otherwise, I have hardly any remarks. You have chosen a sound that is a bit low-fi (and I think there is a touch of Phil Spector - Wall of sound, too?). I can hear the individual notes in my bass line, and I like that.
You're in Round 2!
I don't always understand aspects of mixing, when they are sophisticated and advanced in such a way that they are beyond my level of education and experience. And maybe also capacity. For example, it may be difficult to hear the difference between a track to which saturation has been added and the original one. And what it would mean to cut treble on the sides (but not in the middle) is not easy to understand. What NLS channel means, I have no idea. Just to mention a few examples.
When I judge these 15 tracks, I do so first and foremost as a songwriter (and lyricist). Have parts of my "arrangement" been lost, or is everything still there? (I'm not sure that "arrangement" is the right word, but you know what I mean.) The song is made up of a large amount of details, and for example, it contains some "call & response" (this should be the correct term). An example is the triplets on the Wurlitzer at the beginning of the chorus (measure No. 3) and the triplets from the strings (the synth strings) in measure No. 7. If the triplets from the electric piano are fully audible, I also expect the triplets from the strings to be perceptible, and vice versa. They belong together.
Another example of call & response is a phrase (or should I call it a riff/lick?) from the electric piano that appears in several places, for example in the joint between “ ... takes hold of man ... “ and " ... despite of all the superstition ... ". The electric piano kind of says (=talks), if you use your imagination: "Try to get a grip on better future..." At least the beginning of that phrase. (Instead of calling it call & response, you could perhaps say that the electric piano is commenting on the lyrics here?) In any case, I think that it is important that at least some of these riffs/licks can be perceived, and if it is the case that you choose to let an instrument be more in the background, it is still always possible to highlight this type of ingredients through automation.
One more example as to where automation could be needed: When the backing vocals appears for the last time, at the end of the song – at the same time we hear a drum fill consisting of six hits on the snare (from beat No. three in that measure) – 16th notes – followed by two hits on one of the toms (16th notes). The snare and the tom gotta be played back with the same volume, here (dB). For those of you who want to dampen the toms throughout the whole song, or want to have extra loud toms, try to use automation. I'm aware that you could argue that for all instruments it's a fact that when you hit them harder, the timbre changes as well – not only do they sound louder! But I'm convinced that the world is full of albums where automation has been used the way I try to describe, ignoring the timbre aspect of it. And that this is accepted, so to speak.
Another tool I use, in addition to analyzing to what extent the mix is following the composer's intentions, when judging the songs, is my personal taste. It must be allowed for anyone to have his or her personal taste – mustn't it? I can't always objectively explain why I prefer a certain kick over another – who can?
Added a day later: Some participants have received somewhat summary feedback. I've had both the loss of my best laptop (a lot of hassles ensue) and my studio headphones breaking the next day. I've had a hard time finding enough time, but I didn't want to delay the completion of Round 1 any more than this.
When it comes to feedback, however, my opening words apply to all participants! Here are clues to what a mix of Get A Grip might look like.
A few words about your production notes: A lot of what you write is stuff I don't know - various plugins that do things I don't understand. However, I comment on what I hear with my own ears, even if I don't always know which plugin or technology made this happen. However: if you are happy with your approach to give this song the right "costume", then I think you should stick with your ideas as how to mix this in the best imaginable way, but maybe you should also read through my opening words and also look at the feedback that other participants received!
I realize I have said very little about the vocal performance and how it has been treated in the mixing process. Probably because I've heard it so many times that I have become blind – I no longer notice it. On the other hand she's got a very lovely voice and no matter what plugins you use, it's probably still going to be appealing. Anyway, there is no time to add anything now. Here's my feedback:
15 tracks:
1 PostID016 PauPeu
Pleasant sounding first verse with acoustic guitars that seem to be embedded in cotton. I like the way you have played with the electric guitar, it sounds unusually good in this mix. (Is there a short delay involved?)
When the two cellos go into the string section (synth), the volume is reduced so much that it is difficult to perceive that there are any strings. You obviously don't like my synth strings, but then the question is, shouldn't the two cellos also be quieter? With almost no strings in the choruses, the eighth notes from the electric guitar get a more important role to play, and it's certainly a pleasing sound, what you've produced. (By the way, both electric guitar and hi hat are panned in the middle / center ... hmm ... OK.)
The electric piano lingers with a lot of extra delay where the first chorus ends - cool!
Back to the strings: In the bridge, a crescendo builds. The string section creeps up and increases in strength. Here you can sense that there are strings in your mix, but then you have to listen carefully! But what kind of strange orchestra is it, where two cellos are significantly more audible than a whole bunch of violins? Maybe you can solve this somehow?
The toms sound OK in the bridge. They are very loud, but they serve a function (but the cymbal that comes right after the toms should probably be louder, given that the toms are heard so well, although I generally don't mind moderate cymbals (the very last cymbals in this song, feel free to mute quite a lot)). However, you should probably make them quieter - the toms - in the rest of the song. There is a drum fill in the middle of chorus one. It is repeated several times, and it probably gets a bit annoying/repetitive in the end (I could have added more variety to the different choruses). But with quieter toms (with less reverb (have you also increased the low frequencies with EQ?)) the risk of the listener perceiving these fills as annoying gets reduced.
Wordless vocals panned to the left (different EQ + reverb) is a good idea.
The snare drum sounds great. You write that you had a lot of problems with the hi hat. I don't understand this, because I think it sounds great just the way it does, without any EQ, but it sounds OK in your version, too.
It is difficult to perceive the electric piano at all in the second verse (that is, before the first chorus). Since the intro starts with the electric piano - don't you expect the electric piano to be "a supporting element" in the rest of the song?
Kick = pulse = OK.
Why do I only hear an acoustic guitar (on the right) in the bridge?
The trumpets sound fine.
Electric bass: It has an important function in this song. The bass guitar is not that prominent in your mix. Maybe you can find a way to make it more audible?
2 PostID023 BenjiRage
I like that the electric piano is audible, all the way, behind the vocals in the first verse and that the guitars do not take over. The Wurlitzer has an almost hollow sound (or however to describe it) which sounds cool. Just the right amount of dist, too. Along with the guitars, I hear a little dreamy sound here in the opening.
The triplets at the beginning of the chorus (third measure) from the electric piano can be perceived with difficulty. (The triplets from the strings are heard a little more clearly.) That phrase / the lick / the riff from the piano right in the middle of the (first) chorus (which I mentioned in my opening words) I don't hear at all. I think it's needed there, because otherwise it sounds “empty” (something is missing). There is such a thing as (volume) automation. But other people than me might have a different opinion.
Just before verse 3 starts (after the first chorus), there are some fast notes on the electric bass - in other words, you can hear the bass guitar clearly. Maybe it would be a good idea to try to emphasize the pluck sound (every time I try to describe this I get confused about which word to use: pluck, transient - whatever). The bass line contains many sixteenth notes, which have a rhythmic function - throughout the song. If you want, maybe you can try to find a way to make the electric bass more audible in the mix? Unless you prefer more rumbling notes to slightly more distinctive ones? But maybe emphasizing the bass doesn't have to be about the pluck sound (the transient), maybe you can use distortion, instead?
You say you want a soft sound without sharp edges. That's exactly what you've given the song through your mixing. If you want to try to brighten up the vocals, but also the accompaniment in general, is up to you, of course. I have a bit of a hard time deciding what I prefer in this regard. It varies from time to time, when I listen, whether I want a soft sound, or one with more treble.
Some details: I find nothing to criticize about the drums. However: where the double chorus ends, and turns into the bridge, there are three quite loud beats on one of the toms (sixteenth notes). Soon after, the pianist plays some sixteenth notes, which are like a response. I go on and on about this, both in my opening words and also in my feedback below. Take this with a pinch of salt. Increasing the volume of the electric piano here, so that this “response” becomes fully audible, would perhaps just sound strange? I don't really have time to experiment myself, nor do I remember exactly how it sounded in the original mix.
You have done well with the bridge. Also with the guitar solo.
No complaints about the trumpets.
What I somewhat carelessly called wail (should one say wordless singing or vocalizing, instead?) is panned back and forth between right and left, which is a good idea. Maybe you could somehow separate these “exclamations” a bit more from the lead vocals? Through EQ, different reverb or something else?
Those closing cymbals in the outro/coda - I mention them quite a few times in this post - are a mistake of mine. Maybe there shouldn't have been any cymbals at all, at least not that many and loud. The rules don't allow you to change the arrangement, but if I were to do this song again, I would probably mute the final cymbals by volume automation (but not make them totally silent).
As you can see, I don't suggest so many changes, which is probably a good rating.
3 PostID024 UHLS
The first thing I noticed that was a bit special about this submission was the cellos that got a lot of extra (long) reverb (because that's what happens, right?). The notes kind of follow you into the next bar, and in this particular case it works pretty well. It's fun with innovations sometimes - not every track has to sound the same.
Another thing that stands out is the trumpets at the end: I think (if I remember correctly) this is the submission that has the loudest trumpets. I've heard complaints more than once that the trumpets sound synthetic - even though they're not - but to me they sound real, and I don't see any problem with giving them the space they get here - quite the opposite.
I don't really know what to think about the kick ... From what I hear, you've only used the one that comes with the brush kit (?). It's a natural choice. But it should probably not be so loud. If we think about the places ... concerts where the drummer has used brushes instead of drumsticks, then maybe in some cases they had only one microphone for the whole orchestra (?). And then maybe the kick was just barely audible. (Such considerations are in reality, when we're making music nowadays, compromises between old and new, of course.)
I think the crescendo in the bridge is built up in the right way. The strings get stronger and stronger until the big bang. But there is one thing that is not perfect: I know I wrote in my “instructions” for the contest that the electric guitar chords in the bridge almost require adding a lot of “ping-pong delay”. You haven't done that here, and then there is, IMO, no point with the electric guitar in the bridge. In general, I think your electric guitar has got a little too sharp sound. I looked at your production notes, but the designations don't mean very much to me.
Although it's an innovative idea with the lingering cellos in the verses, the volume should probably be reduced by 1-2 dB. The strings are also a bit too loud, in the choruses, also here a reduction of maybe 1-2 dB is needed.
I think the cymbals sound a bit strange. Apart from being properly muted, they also have some kind of “fragile” sound. Correct me if I'm wrong: is this just my imagination, did you just turn down the volume?
The acoustic guitars at the beginning sound a bit “raw”. Maybe you could get a more elegant sound somehow?
4 PostID044 Valter Zape
When I heard the third verse (after the first chorus) I spontaneously thought the mix was perfect. So you probably did a good job. However, here are some things that could be improved:
I think the acoustic guitars dominate the electric piano a little too much at the beginning. For example: Behind the singer's "self-defeating actions", the pianist plays a few sixteenth notes. They are barely perceptible at all in your mix, but I actually think they are needed, there.
The short chords on the electric guitar at the beginning of the song (second verse) are rather loud in the mix. I like that they are audible, but I think you should turn them down just a little bit (maybe 0.5 dB is enough). That you can perceive - if you listen carefully - the eighth notes from the electric guitar in the choruses is a good thing - there I think the volume is perfect.
It seems as if the toms' volumes goes up and down in a slightly random way? For example, the toms are hardly audible at all where chorus 1 ends. But just before the bridge begins, I hear a tom on the left side that is unnecessarily loud. And also just before the crescendo in the bridge, one of the toms – just one – is louder than the rest.
You say you combined the two trumpet tracks into one. I can't help but feel that some of the notes from the trumpets are missing, if I listen from "superstition" onwards. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
The cymbals are quiet overall, maybe they should be turned up a bit?
I like the electric bass and the kick, the level – I mean how loud they are (dB). The kick has a nice sound, but maybe you could make the electric bass a little more... I don't know what word to use... punchy, maybe. So that the pick-sound / transient (although fingered) becomes a little bit more audible? There are plenty of sixteenth notes.
The Wurlitzer's triplets AND the string's triplets (which I rant about in my general words above) have been given just the right volume: they're not overly prominent, but they're perceptible.
I hear the reverb for the lead vox mostly on the left, the same goes for the snare. Any particular thought behind this?
The fact that you chose not to have the cymbals mixed loud makes that "forest" of cymbals at the end of the outro easier to bear (the cymbals that I should have edited before I posted my song here on the Mix-Challenge). But maybe by means of automation you could let some cymbals get a little louder, while at the end they can be more quiet (they can't be muted totally according to the rules).
It seems as if 0.5 – 1.5 seconds are missing at the end. Why? Wurlitzer and cymbal are gradually muted (quick) before they end in a natural way.
5 PostID064 juhu
This submission differs from most other submissions in that it doesn't sound soft or flattering at all. Almost a bit raw and messy, instead. And I like it! That guitar that moves between right and left at lightning speed - it sounded really cool when I first heard it. But in the long run it can get a bit annoying - especially in headphones. Maybe you could lower the volume a bit in the verses, or keep the right-left thing only in the choruses, and create a stereo electric guitar in some other way in the verses?
I really like that I get to hear my Wurlitzer stuff (licks, riffs, fills - call them what you want to) in this version. It seems that this has been done at the cost of the strings being heavily muted(?). This means that I can't hear the triplets from the strings in the seventh bar of the chorus, but maybe I can live with that.
You've done a lot of work on how the drums sound. I don't understand even half of your production notes, but the snare drum has got a sound that comes through in a good way (maybe reduce the volume by 1 dB?). The toms also sound (except in some cases) OK. I think your approach is better than trying to boost the toms' low frequencies with EQ (make their sustain more audible), and then maybe in the worst case adding a reverb that just creates a lot of noise, if a lot of low frequencies are allowed to reverberate. BUT: some of the toms (maybe it's the middle one every time - I don't know) get a sound in a couple of places that sounds more like a carpet beater hitting a carpet. But only in a few places, as I said (maybe three to five different places, I'll try to go back and see if I can pinpoint, but I don't know if I have time). Otherwise, I'm mostly happy with the drums, I think.
The bass guitar!
The electric bass is important in this song, it contributes to the rhythm. And here it really comes through! (Is it that simple that you have to turn the strings way down for me to hear my Wurlitzer stuff and my bass line?)The de-essing process works well here. I have heard attempts to de-ess, in the past, where all the s's have almost disappeared completely.
As I've pointed out in several other places already: I regret a bit that I wasn't more restrained with the cymbals right at the end (in the outro / the coda). Maybe one way to hide the mistake is to lower the volume of the cymbals here by automation?
6 PostID065 SimaGT
First, may I just ask: which Wurlitzer version did you use - with or without tube drive?
There is not much I would like to change in your mix. The overall sound, if I listen in the middle of one of the choruses, is very pleasant (I guess it has to do with the frequency spectrum). So I concentrate on things that need improvement, when I judge your version:
But first a little wonder: The electric piano seems to have gained stereo width in the intro, with the treble notes on the left - is this possible (that it is not mono, I mean)? I don't see anything about it in your production notes.
Things that could be improved, IMO: 1. The toms are too loud. For example, towards the end of the first chorus, where the sixteenth notes on the toms are not balanced (in terms of volume (dB)) by the cymbals that come right after. The drum fill that is in the middle of the first chorus, the one that comes back several times, can get a little repetitive / annoying after a while (I wish I had added more variations from the beginning), but if you dampen (volume / dB) the toms a little perhaps you can avoid the repetitions becoming too obvious. The toms that I described in my opening paragraphs (after six 16th notes on the snare) has the right volume, though, IMO. 2. The vocals without words, it's centered all the time, right? Here you might be able, in different ways, to make it differ a little more from the lead vocals (different reverb, EQ etc). 3. The electric guitar solo: here I actually don't understand what you had in mind. What musical period is represented here? Well - I don't know. But the tone from the guitar cuts like a razor blade in my eardrums. Your Amp sim also seems to make the fading of the very last note from the guitar not work - it's heard as much as all the other notes, but then it stops very abruptly a bit into one of the singer's first words. I suggest you give the solo guitar a completely different sound, but whether it should sound early 70s or more modern - that's up to you. 5. That "forest" of cymbals at the end of the outro (not the very last cymbal) is a problem in almost all submissions. I wish I had been a little more restrained from the start. Now it is as it is, and you can't just mute them completely, because the rules don't allow it. But maybe some kind of automation could make them a bit quieter in relation to the other instruments (although I have a feeling you've already made them somewhat more quiet)? 6. I guess you raise the volume of the electric piano by automation where the bridge starts? If you raise the volume a little bit earlier, just before the three closing sixteenth notes from the piano, then perhaps these come through better - these three (four) notes that are a response of three sixteenths from one of the toms just before (call and response). But it's fine to lower the toms too, as I said. 7. The short electric guitar chords in the first verse could perhaps be somewhat louder?
P.S. When I compare your mix with the other 14, yours have more “treble” to it than most of the others. There is almost like a gap between the high frequencies (3000 – 5000 Hz?) and the low ones (100 – 300 Hz). Not a total gap, of course. I liked this at first and I still do. But what will be my preferences in the end, I do not know.
7 PostID088 O'MIX
The singer sounds quite “natural”, as if not much reverb, EQ or other effects have been added. Maybe she could be made to sound a bit more “lively”? (But when I read your production notes, I see that several plugins have been used... Well, but not all these tricks are meant to be obvious to the listener, as you write yourself!)
The bass guitar is more audible here than in most of the other mixes, and I think that's excellent. The electric bass has an important role to play in this song.
The kick is of the “pulse” type, that is, you have chosen only the one associated with the brush kit, and that is a natural choice. I think you have chosen the right volume (dB) for the kick.
The trumpets have also been given the right volume. When I look at your production notes, I see that you made an effort to get a realistic trumpet sound – very well done!
Good vintage sound of the electric guitar solo.
The singer's lower voice is unusually loud in relation to the lead. But it works well.
I perceive more of the Wurlitzer stuff than in most of the other submissions, and I like that. The licks, riffs or fills (or whatever you choose to call them) from the electric piano are there because they are NEEDED - at least in my opinion.
You've put a lot of effort into making the drums sound OK. I think you've succeeded, but I think the snare is living its life a little too much in the shadows. You can certainly raise it by 1 dB (possibly more). But wait ... come to think of it, maybe the snare drum doesn't need to adapt to contemporary ideals in this particular song? Maybe it doesn't need to be heard anymore? I imagine a lot of mixing professionals would object to what I'm saying here, but if only the audience/listeners like it, then ...
The strings in the choruses are not very prominent in your mix (leaves more room for the electric piano = good) but still I hear those triplets from the strings, which I've been nagging a lot about. Which I see as an advantage, of course.
You mention 3D: at least for “wails” (or should we call it wordless singing?) I think I perceive the three dimensions.
And so now, for the hundredth time, I apologize for the ugly cymbals in the outro, which are my own fault. You could probably reduce the volume a bit.
Is there anything that needs to be changed?
When I compare with the other 14 tracks, I find several that have chosen to emphasize the higher frequencies more than you did (more treble in the song as a whole). But I realize that you worked carefully and that you made your choices consciously. Whether or not I will prefer a song with more treble (more lively) when I choose the winners in round 2 - I can't say now. This whole competition will be a learning process for me too, and there are still a few weeks left.
8 PostID102 M.P.3.
Your production notes are so extensive AND complicated that I've had to largely ignore them (I'd only understand a fraction of them if I tried to read them anyway). Anyway, I get the impression that you have tried to create a Phil Spector Wall Of Sound-sound - right? Those who like a strong and firm bass are NOT getting what they want, here. Nor do those who think you should be moderate with the reverb. (But yes - the kick is fully audible and it sounds early 70's.)
Anyway, your mix sounds very good - if this is the sound you want! I'm having a very hard time coming up with amendments. Possibly that the synth strings in the choruses take over a bit too much over the other instruments. By the way: the bass guitar IS distinguishable, I notice now. But compared to the other submissions here, the low frequencies are noticeablylower (in terms of volume (dB)) in your mix. One small detail, by the way, that stands out: Where the bridge ends, some quick notes come from the sampled acoustic guitar. They are heard unnecessarily clearly in your mix, I would attenuate them by automation.
As I said: You've got most of it right (if you like Phil Spector) and I really have nothing more to add … Or yes, one ore two things: If you want to keep the loud strings, I would recommend that they be toned down gradually, before the bridge in particular - that the fading starts earlier. You can do that with automation on just that track. Now they stay strong/loud for a bit too long, almost until they fade out anyway. And one more thing: just like in (almost) all other submissions, you have chosen to let the closing cymbals (the outro) be just as strong as they are on my original track. I think more and more that those cymbals were a mistake on my part: they should not have been so many and so loud. With automation you can certainly lower the volume a bit, if you want.
9 PostID113 JeroenZuiderwijk
We start, for some reason, with a checklist:
Intro: The electric piano has had its low frequencies filtered out - quite dreamy (not much dist). Electric piano on the right, low (>frequency) guitar on the left with the high (>frequency) complementary guitar on the right at lower volume (as I originally intended).
Electric bass with somewhat audible transient. I appreciate that the electric bass has been made more audible with some studio tricks. But maybe it's possible to make it a bit more audible? (I don't know if it's the right term to use 'transient' here, but I'm talking about emphasizing what you might call the pick sound, even though we're dealing with a bass guitar that's fingered.) Note: I listened once again in my studio monitors: just before the third verse (after the first chorus), the bass guitar is almost soloed. Maybe you already have achieved the perfect sound, after all. I'm not sure I would like to change anything, when it comes to the bass guitar.
Cellos are prominent. Sliding into strings in a natural way. But I would perhaps like to dampen the strings a little in the choruses (just a little bit) - this can be done without the strings' triplets becoming inaudible.
The electric guitar has by some trick become stereo. Maybe the short chords during the verses are a bit too loud.
Drums: First cymbals just loud enough, followed by kick and snare which are pleasant to listen to. HiHat and toms excellent. The toms fill in the middle of the choruses OK - not too loud. But the snare drum should be increased in volume, and one reason would be to match the prominent electric bass and the kick. The snare drum is too “thin”, too, together with the rest of the sound. Maybe you can find a way, Jeroen, to give it more ... attack/punch ... some way to bring out any lower frequencies that might be hidden somewhere in the sound of the snare drum?
Bridge: All good I think. Those notes from the acoustic (sampled) guitar right at the end are not overly loud like in some other submissions, but they could be a little louder as they are a continuation of the sixteenth notes on one of the toms. The sixteenth notes from the electric piano for two or three bars towards the end of the bridge are audible, but just barely so, which is a good thing.
Electric guitar solo: mono reverb.
Trumpets: audible, nothing more to say about that.
Backing vocals: good with no oddities.
Audible, but just barely so, lower voice in the choruses from the vocalist. Good.
Closing cymbals: my own mistake: I should have cleared the forest of cymbals in the last two or three bars. It is not forbidden to mute these cymbals by automation (but not mute totally – the rules don't allow for this).
The final sixteenth notes from the e-piano just before the bridge could be raised a bit, as they are a continuation of the toms, which come before. At the end of chorus 1, toms and cymbals work well together.
With speakers instead of headphones: electric bass and kick are powerful! But not too powerful, the question is whether it sounded like this in the 70s? But maybe it doesn't matter, for me it's not a problem if you mix influences from different decades.
You say in your production notes that you want the vocals to be warm and full, which means you haven't brightened them up. As a whole, I could have imagined some ingredients, from all the contributing instruments, with their high frequencies more accentuated (apart from the snare), against the background of kick and bass guitar. But if you like this sound, avoiding sharp/harsh sounds, I think you should stick with it. I'm actually a bit ambivalent, when I listen alternately to different submissions, where the people in question have chosen different frequency spectrums (how much high frequencies they allow).
I simply have to be more concise when giving feedback to the last six participants on this list. I apologize for this, but I have no choice. There is an absolute deadline of Tuesday morning at 07:45 (CET), and I'll be busy for the rest of this evening. However, I am giving feedback to all 15 who moves on to round 2, and I think it might be fruitful for each of you to read the feedback given to other participants - not just your own. That way, maybe this still will be fair.
10 PostID117 floodo
You say, in your production notes: “I took the piano as the main instrument, so I lowered all the others considerably in the 200 zone.” The fact that the piano is the main instrument is much appreciated. I think that's what I had in mind from the beginning, although at the moment I feel mostly dizzy after all this listening.
I like your “lightweight guitars” at the beginning, and the fact that you can hear the electric piano clearly. The kick has a well-balanced sound: you can hear the high frequencies of the transient at a reasonable level (100% alternative kick, I guess?). The snare drum also sounds good. I have no complaints about hi hats, toms or cymbals either.
You have a long exposition about the bass (trippled) that I don't really understand. But the bass line is important in this song, and if your trick makes the bass more audible (it is audible) then of course it's a good thing.
I don't know if you've treated the trumpets in any special way, they might sound a bit more “real” than they do in my original version, for example.
Have you used any plugin that makes the intro sway a bit in pitch? I think I hear it, but I'm not sure.
By the way: I can imagine that I only hear one acoustic guitar in the intro. In that case, it's not allowed (to opt out of something completely), but I'm not sure if that's true, what I'm saying now.
And yes - you manage to make both the piano's and string's triplets (those little details I've been going on and on about) audible.
But is there anything that could be improved? If I compare with other submissions, it seems to me that, in terms of the frequency spectrum as a whole, there is a little too much emphasis on the frequency range between the deep bass and the high treble. You say you've reduced most of the instruments in the 200 range, but what about the 1000 Hz range? I'm really not a master of this stuff, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm talking nonsense. But maybe there is something in it?
11 PostID120 francobhalla
Leaving aside the monstrous kick, there are certainly several good ideas here. But what have you done with the kick? With studio monitors and a sub, it makes the whole room vibrate. In headphones (small ones) it just sounds loud, hard and without any real shape at all.
I don't remember what headphones I had when I picked your mix as one of the 15. Now that I'm listening, it's very hard to “think away” the kick. But I still think that if you replace the kick with one that is more normal, then there will probably be a mix there that is quite good. But I can't go into details now that everything is hidden behind that noise. I suggest you read what I've written here, in other places, to get a hint of what sound I'm after. So: replace the kick. And then you have the opportunity to improve as much as you want - if needed.
12 PostID126 cpsmusic
Acoustic guitars embedded in cotton, well why not?
The vocalist sounds a bit brighter than in some other submissions. Well, I don't mind that.
Have you volume automated the hi hat? In the second verse, where it's closed hi hat on every quarter, I like that it rattles a lot. However, when it comes to the hi hat on every eighth note, you have to be more restrained, otherwise it often just sounds mechanically repetitive. But I think the hi hat is at a reasonable level in the choruses (the open hi hat is heard well, but I like the sound of that particular open hi hat (not everyone does, I've noticed)).
Both the electric guitar and the hi hat are panned in the middle/center (at least in the second verse) and I don't think I would have done it that way, when the electric piano is already in the middle. But I hear that the cellos give stereo width, so maybe it works, after all.
Damn nice to hear the Wurlitzer properly, now that I'm writing the last “review” of these fifteen!
But the notes from the electric piano high up on the keyboard, from “participate” and a bit forward for example, should definitely be reduced in volume by automation (because I don't think a compressor works that way). They are simply too loud.Nice bass guitar that is audible in the right way - needed in this song.
Nice change of reverb in the bridge.
Odd timbre in the solo, but why not.
And I think you actually volume automated away the most annoying cymbals in the outro without me having to say it.
Well, at least I had one amendment - some loud notes from the Wurlitzer. But I hope you let the rest still be audible at the right level. By the way, one more thing that seems pretty important to fix: the snare sounds thin, and it also needs to be louder. (And you've changed the toms' sound, I notice now. They don't sound bad, but the question is whether it sounds like a tom being hit by a brush? By the way: just after the solo I hear a couple of toms that don't sound so good... I don't think I like them.)
Possible wild cards:
13 PostID055 hjchjc
Very distorted Wurlitzer, it sounds nice.
You've managed to “manufacture” a very distinctive snare drum that demands to have its place. It takes a while to get used to it, and I think it should probably get lowered at least 1 dB. The Toms are also too loud.
Choir and wail/exclamation towards the end of the double chorus after the third verse: the singer's exclamation has been panned to the right and they are quite wet - good (that they differ in expression from the lead vocals). The choir has also become super wet. I feel a bit conflicted about it. But sure - you can do this.
A bit too much reverb on the electric guitar solo.
The cymbals at the end have been muted quite a bit, and I appreciate that. Those very last hits on the snare drum suggest that a cool reverb has been used, and by now I've also gotten used to the slightly unusual sound of this brush snare. It's probably possible to keep it just the way you've mixed it, but I still maintain that the toms are too loud.
14 PostID104 Havol
Apart from the sample rate being wrong, you have also removed/deleted a couple of notes, namely just before the bridge starts. It is the final note on the bass guitar in that chorus, and also a kick hit (I think) and maybe something more. This is not allowed (and I don't see the reason?), but then you got an X, too.
To be honest, I don't really like the kind of vinyl effect you've used. It sounds a lot like when you put an LP on a turntable a long time ago - an album where the hole in the record wasn't centered (or like a tape player with a lot of sway). I think the notes that are out of pitch are too much out of pitch (it's not as noticeable in the bridge, though (which you call brake)).
The guitars have a pleasant sound in the intro and first verse. When the song gets going more, with verse 2, for example, you can enjoy the bass guitar, you can hear the individual notes in the bass line throughout the song - except that it seems that the really high notes on the electric bass (high in terms of frequency) are not as audible as would be desirable.
The triplets from the Wurlitzer (bar 3 of the chorus) and the triplets from the string section (bar 7) - I've been harping on about this before - have, in my opinion, exactly the right volume here: you can hear them, but they're not overly conspicuous.
I think you've done well with the drums.
The Wurlitzer in your mix is a little higher (dB) than the average for the other 14 songs, and I think that's good, of course, because the song starts with the electric piano, and then it's not supposed to be so much in the background afterwards that you can't hear it.
15 PostID105 SyroniC_GP
You say that you deliberately removed instruments at the end: “In the end I muted the instruments; I like her voice in the silence”, you said. But there is also a mistake that I don't think is deliberate, namely that the song is cut off several seconds before the end. Now, there is this system of wild cards, and you only got an X (not OUT).
Changing the arrangement - completely removing notes or longer pieces - is not allowed under the rules, but now you have the chance to fix this.
I thought it was an innovative idea with the vinyl effect. Also that the dynamic range between the quiet opening and what comes next is so big - no other participant has done that (and having a big jump in volume (dB) must be allowed by the rules).
But the vinyl effect - you should probably use it more moderately. At least when it comes to the singer's voice, because in places it sounds a bit too low-fi as it is now.
Otherwise, I have hardly any remarks. You have chosen a sound that is a bit low-fi (and I think there is a touch of Phil Spector - Wall of sound, too?). I can hear the individual notes in my bass line, and I like that.
You're in Round 2!
Last edited by A Future in Noise on Tue May 21, 2024 11:34 CEST, edited 3 times in total.
-
Mister Fox
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3162
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 16:15 CEST
- Location: Berlin, Germany
MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
Just a quick heads up for everyone.
I'm in touch with @A Future in Noise regarding individual feedback for the Top 15 entries, and/or if the current feedback is enough as "starting point". I hope we can sort this topic out within the next 24 to 48 hours absolute maximum.
To those that are listed, you can already start to take a closer look at your mix, think about possible adjustments. It is recommended to wait for more detailed feedback, related to your entry. Please do not post your adjusted entry yet. I will send out the usual reminders once Mix Round 2 starts officially.
Thank you for your patience.
I'm in touch with @A Future in Noise regarding individual feedback for the Top 15 entries, and/or if the current feedback is enough as "starting point". I hope we can sort this topic out within the next 24 to 48 hours absolute maximum.
To those that are listed, you can already start to take a closer look at your mix, think about possible adjustments. It is recommended to wait for more detailed feedback, related to your entry. Please do not post your adjusted entry yet. I will send out the usual reminders once Mix Round 2 starts officially.
Thank you for your patience.
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
Congratulations to the 15! Quite a broad selection in many ways but if there's one thing I hear immediately it's that you all achieved great vocal clarity.
Thanks to @A Future in Noise for providing the track and also for the explanation of your judging methodology. I could already see where I'd gone wrong but it's useful info to find that maybe I approached the arrangement part somewhat in line with your description even if I failed overall. Probably knocked out at the first listen - vocal clarity. Quite right too.
All in all this has been my favourite mix challenge since finding the site so thanks again for taking on this huge task, providing us with such a great track/arrangement and all your hours/days of deliberation.
See y'all next time.
Thanks to @A Future in Noise for providing the track and also for the explanation of your judging methodology. I could already see where I'd gone wrong but it's useful info to find that maybe I approached the arrangement part somewhat in line with your description even if I failed overall. Probably knocked out at the first listen - vocal clarity. Quite right too.
All in all this has been my favourite mix challenge since finding the site so thanks again for taking on this huge task, providing us with such a great track/arrangement and all your hours/days of deliberation.
See y'all next time.
-
A Future in Noise
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 09:26 CET
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
Oh, I merely updated my previous post. Maybe I should announce, as well, that I have posted the feedback.
-
5OVEREIGNTY
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2023 06:53 CET
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
What? Just how ridiculous is that LOL!
-
Mister Fox
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3162
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 16:15 CEST
- Location: Berlin, Germany
MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 2 until 25-MAY-2024 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
Thank you for handling the evaluation, @A Future in Noise .
Ladies and gentlemen, let us kick off Mix Round 2, which will end on Saturday, 25-MAY-2024 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
As of this moment, that is 5 days (plus the hours since @A Future in Noise's update). All Mix Round 2 participants will be sent a reminder via mail shortly.
There is a GLOBAL COUNTDOWN available to check for deadlines.
Just follow this link: Global Countdown (on homepage)
The following 15 participants go into Round 2 (alphabetical order), with "Wild Cards" being pointed out (if present this month).
(all Mix Round 2 participants should have been pinged, all participants will also get a reminder via the new newsletter engine)
@BenjiRage
@cpsmusic
@floodo
@francobhalla
@Havol (Wild Card usage offered)
@hjchjc (Wild Card usage offered)
@JeroenZuiderwijk
@juhu
@M.P.3.
@O'MIX
@PauPeu
@SimaGT
@SyroniC_GP (Wild Card usage offered)
@UHLS
@Valter Zape
.
The feedback to the productions can be found here:
Please see post #192 for individual feedback.
If you are unsure what to do exactly with your mix, reach out to the song provider and engage in a conversation here on the forum.
And please keep the Rules and Guidelines (post #6) in mind regarding submitting your entry. Please do pay attention to detail. (yes, please also check the song length of your entry!)
Ladies and gentlemen, let us kick off Mix Round 2, which will end on Saturday, 25-MAY-2024 23:59 UTC+2/CEST
As of this moment, that is 5 days (plus the hours since @A Future in Noise's update). All Mix Round 2 participants will be sent a reminder via mail shortly.
There is a GLOBAL COUNTDOWN available to check for deadlines.
Just follow this link: Global Countdown (on homepage)
The following 15 participants go into Round 2 (alphabetical order), with "Wild Cards" being pointed out (if present this month).
(all Mix Round 2 participants should have been pinged, all participants will also get a reminder via the new newsletter engine)
@BenjiRage
@cpsmusic
@floodo
@francobhalla
@Havol (Wild Card usage offered)
@hjchjc (Wild Card usage offered)
@JeroenZuiderwijk
@juhu
@M.P.3.
@O'MIX
@PauPeu
@SimaGT
@SyroniC_GP (Wild Card usage offered)
@UHLS
@Valter Zape
.
The feedback to the productions can be found here:
Please see post #192 for individual feedback.
If you are unsure what to do exactly with your mix, reach out to the song provider and engage in a conversation here on the forum.
And please keep the Rules and Guidelines (post #6) in mind regarding submitting your entry. Please do pay attention to detail. (yes, please also check the song length of your entry!)
-
A Future in Noise
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 09:26 CET
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
Please explain?
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
It maybe becos of the DQ decision
Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC097 April 2024 - Mix Round 1 in evaluation
The reason for lowering it to 200hz was because I wanted both the piano fundamental and the snare to dominate in that frequency range and give them more presence, between 200 and 350 since the piano fundamental is moving according to the note played.A Future in Noise wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 15:45 CEST
10 PostID117 floodo
You say, in your production notes: “I took the piano as the main instrument, so I lowered all the others considerably in the 200 zone.” The fact that the piano is the main instrument is much appreciated. I think that's what I had in mind from the beginning, although at the moment I feel mostly dizzy after all this listening.
I like your “lightweight guitars” at the beginning, and the fact that you can hear the electric piano clearly. The kick has a well-balanced sound: you can hear the high frequencies of the transient at a reasonable level (100% alternative kick, I guess?). The snare drum also sounds good. I have no complaints about hi hats, toms or cymbals either.
You have a long exposition about the bass (trippled) that I don't really understand. But the bass line is important in this song, and if your trick makes the bass more audible (it is audible) then of course it's a good thing.
I don't know if you've treated the trumpets in any special way, they might sound a bit more “real” than they do in my original version, for example.
Have you used any plugin that makes the intro sway a bit in pitch? I think I hear it, but I'm not sure.
By the way: I can imagine that I only hear one acoustic guitar in the intro. In that case, it's not allowed (to opt out of something completely), but I'm not sure if that's true, what I'm saying now.
And yes - you manage to make both the piano's and string's triplets (those little details I've been going on and on about) audible.
But is there anything that could be improved? If I compare with other submissions, it seems to me that, in terms of the frequency spectrum as a whole, there is a little too much emphasis on the frequency range between the deep bass and the high treble. You say you've reduced most of the instruments in the 200 range, but what about the 1000 Hz range? I'm really not a master of this stuff, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm talking nonsense. But maybe there is something in it?
The guitars, indeed there are the 2 acoustic guitars, the acoustic 1 I transformed it in Stereo and the acoustic 2 I left it in mono and a plane (5db) below the first one as a support creating an amalgam between the 2 guitars and yes, listening to them in solo you can distinguish the 2 but in context they work as a single guitar.
The Kick use the 2 samples even they are in the same plane the 2 send them to a bus where I apply a super aggressive EQ, then use a limiter and finally finish shaping with the KSHMR essential kick.
The trumpets, I only used 2 processes, a hard distortion I had quite aggressive and I softened the treble generated with the tape bus, in solo they sound really bad, but in context they sound a bit more realistic.
Considering the pitch swing, it's true, both the piano, strings and tropettes I sent them to a bus where I used a cassette emulation with a very slow wow rate (which should not be heard, evidently if you noticed it is because I put more effect than I intended) to give it some movement and to polish the treble part so it doesn't sound so artificial.
As for the triplets, I really hadn't read how important they were for you, maybe because of the difference between languages sometimes it's hard to understand everything, but during the mix I thought it would be nice to automate them to give them a little more presence, in the acoustic and electric guitars I also made some automations in places where I thought it was nice what they did, unfortunately there came a point where my computer was no longer responsive and I had to render many of the tracks to save resources and those automations were already printed.
As for the 200hz I already explained it above, but I don't understand what you mean with the 1000hz, I simply not having a reference for the mix I chose to reference it with folk music from USA for its soft and quiet character, I set the tonal balance 2 of izotope in FOLK and adjust the faders to achieve the balance that the izotope plugin advised me.
And now comes my question, it's not clear to me what I have to improve in my mix to make it completely to your liking, and I really don't know what to do, I don't know if you meant that there is too much accumulation in the 1000hz or if the smile balance is too exaggerated, I open the DAW and I'm left blank :S