As I leave this feedback, I have since a couple of days a new (and expensive) pair of headphones (besides my Yamaha HS5 monitors and sub, which I don't use that often). The headphones are open back reference headphones.
I imported the entries into a REAPER project - both the Round 1 and Round 2 versions.
But it became very difficult to not primarily compare different people's entries, rather than primarily compare each person's round 1 and 2 entries. (I had to eliminate two contestants because only seven people advance to round 3.)
Also, with new headphones, I'm not quite sure I'm hearing the same thing now as when I selected the 15 who went on to Round 2. Anyway, by now I've listened more than a lot to different entries, and I have also read a lot. And I finally came to the conclusion that the only thing I can do at this stage is to listen carefully and then decide which entries I like the most -
regardless of what has been written and discussed before.
And one more thing: Remember that I'm first and foremost a songwriter. I don't usually focus extremely much on the way I mix. And the reason is I'm not skilled enough, and I haven't got time enough to learn all the different techniques. But
you are dedicated producers and sound engineers! And
you gotta believe in your taste and your own judgment! (Maybe you can convince me your mix is the perfect one, even if I don't think so at first?)
This is the seven entries that advance to Round 3. I think the order is chronological, with respect to the order in which you posted your R2 submissions.
francobhalla:
It's a good thing that the monstrous kick is gone. You say you have improved the call & response-things. Well, when it comes to the triplets from the piano and strings, I hear no difference. But that was not a problem in your first version either, they were fully audible in that version too. (But you may think of other call & response elements.)
Anyway: The strings in the beginning of the bridge appears rather abruptly and they are rather loud (hence the abrupt appearance). Too loud IMO. And the trumpets/brass at the end are barely audible. I know that a lot of people think they sound artificial (and not so good), but I also know that some of the contestants (and now I think of the original 90 ones) succeeded in making them sound “real” (or almost real) even at a relatively loud volume. Maybe you should make them a little bit louder?
Apart from that I leave it to you, what you want to improve. Or if you think your mix is perfect as is – don't change anything!
JereoenZuiderwijk:
The changes I notice first and foremost - just by listening - are that the singer's voice has gotten brighter and the snare has gotten louder. I like those two changes, no matter how much or little it harks back to the early 70s (I find it hard to believe that women's voices were always done as if they were standing on the other side of a thick curtain back then; good microphones were certainly available already at that time).
You have an exposition where you discuss the bass and how much bite it has. I don't understand that paragraph at all, especially: “I was searching where I could hear the 'ratteling of the snares on the bass.” I actually have a hard time hearing any difference between the bass guitar as it sounds now and as it sounded before. But the louder snare is a step forward, as I said.
I read through all the text you and I have written a while ago. I don't recall you mentioning a de-esser anywhere, is that correct? I would still think that a de-esser is involved. Especially the 's' that ends the word 'has' in the phrase: “... the struggle only haS begun ...” sounds as if a person who lisps is pronouncing it. I myself have a split opinion about de-essers. I often think they do more harm than good. Throughout the song I hear this lisp-s in several places, but many 's' also sound perfectly normal. So if it is the case that you used a de-esser, and if it is possible to change some settings, then perhaps you should do so?
As you probably notice, I have a hard time finding things that can be improved. So you'll have to decide for yourself if you want to enter round three with a completely unchanged entry, or if you want to change something that you yourself think can be improved.
P.S. Maybe, in fact, the triplets from the strings are a little bit too loud (but just a little bit).
M.P.3.
There are very many things here that deserves to be praised. But since time is limited, and the main purpose with this feedback is to point out things that can be improved, I'll try to do that.
I'm not absolutely sure I like the piano's sway up and down with respect to pitch (in the intro). Guitars as well – don't they? Maybe this FX could be reduced just a tiny little bit?
The triplets from the strings are audible. But you have to listen very carefully. If you like them this way I suggest you keep them the way they are.
One thing that makes me puzzled: When the drums begin in verse 2 (you call it pre-chorus), you can hear both kick and snare rather clearly. But in the choruses, it's hard to hear the kick at all, and the snare seems to be more quiet here than in the verse. To be honest: yesterday, when I listened three or four times in a row (using another pair of headphones connected to my phone) I didn't at first notice that the kick is barely audible in the choruses. And this is strange – I normally notice a thing like that immediately! Has this been done deliberately? Or is it due to some kind of setting somewhere – different plugins affecting each other? (I still haven't read much of your original production notes and the main reason for that is that I still haven't learned to understand hieroglyphics
.)
OK, but now I listened to your first mix. Here's the kick more audible, but also “thinner”. It's probably better the way it is in your second version. But this is what it sounds like in open back reference phones. Now I'm gonna listen in speakers + sub: Result: The bass guitar sounds excellent in monitors + sub. But I really don't know about the drums. I almost get the impression that the hits on the snare which are not the ones on every beat 2 and 4 are the ones that are most audible (although they in reality are somewhat more quiet (but with a different timbre)).
Anyway: the overall impression is that it's much more pleasant to listen to mix 2 than 1.
The strings, BTW, as they fade out before the bridge, accompanied by a cymbal I think it is, they don't sound very much like strings, but I don't mind. I like the tonal landscape you have created.
Cellos seem to be louder in verse 3 than in 2? You probably did this deliberately?
Loud and good sounding trumpets. If other people think they sound like fake, I don't know, but I thought they sounded very realistic from the very beginning. I think you have chosen exactly the right volume.
I realize this became more of a discussion than a couple of good advices. It'll be up to you if you want to change anything or keep everything as is.
SimaGT:
I liked your first mix very much, probably among other things because of the frequency spectrum, as a whole. In connection with this second mix, however, there is one thing that has to be corrected, since this is a huge flaw/mistake: the wailings (or if it should be called wordless vocals?) are much too loud in several places (almost all places), most notably, perhaps, when the lead vocals goes: “ … is in sight ...” Anyone can here that it is the same singer who is shouting in such a way that it's hard to perceive the word “sight” (verse 3).
I would recommend a way (panning, EQ or whatever) to make lead and exclamations different from one another.
Your kick is fully audible through the choruses, but not too strong. This seems to be a perfect combination of the two different kicks (and probably a lot of studio tricks from your side I wouldn't understand if you tried to explain).
And just as the backing vocals begin for the first time, is seems (in my imagination) as if the bass guitar adopts a new kind of timbre (in a pair of Audio-Technica ATH-R70x), together with the backing vocals. This kind of sound from the bass guitar together with the backing vox is very joyful to listen to, so I strongly recommend you keep the bass guitar settings! (Even if this probably isn't a typical early 70s sound.)
A last minute remark: The wurly is very loud in the intro and during the first verse. I can't tell if this is done by automation, or if the original recording is like that. Anyway, I think it would be better if the wurly were a little quieter in the beginning. First and foremost in the intro, maybe also the first verse.
BenjiRage:
I hope you don't think I'm being unfair to you if I only write a few lines here. But I just can't think of anything that could be improved.
Maybe, maybe the trumpets could be a little bit louder. But then it is required that they are not perceived as artificial (which they are not). I'm actually quite happy with the riffs that I improvised.
That phrase (lick, riff - whatever) from the electric piano in the middle of the chorus, now it's audible. (Maybe you agree with me that it is needed there?)
I simply have nothing to add.
O'MIX:
I had great difficulty assessing your mix the other day. I listened, I listened again - and compared with the others' mixes - but I kept coming to different conclusions.
I did write in my first review that I liked that the bass guitar, with its sixteenth notes, was clearly heard. But now I'm starting to wonder if it's not simply too loud (in terms of volume / dB).
BUT: I took a good break before writing what I'm writing now, and here's the deal:
I really only have one objection (forget about the bass guitar being too loud): I think the kick is way too loud in relation to the snare. (And now you can't blame my headphones.) I'm aware that you've stated that you've already raised the snare a bit. But I think it needs more. And maybe the kick should actually be lowered. It sounds like it's only the kick that belongs to the brush kit that you have used. And mixing that kind of kick sound so that it comes through in this way makes the mix as a whole sound “unreal” to me (although one can argue that just about everything is unreal in this kind of context).
Anyway, you mention 3D somewhere in your production notes. I usually find it difficult to understand how 3D could occur in two-channel stereo. But now I actually thought I could hear 3D in a few different places.
A curious detail, by the way: I found the other day that the timbre of the singer's voice (the way you have EQed, etc), together with my backing vocals, sounds strange. She sounds unnaturally dull together with the backing vocals - with all their bright frequencies (the impression is bright although it's a man who is singing). I thought so at the time. But then I listened again, just now, and then everything sounded perfect. But then I listened once more, and again I thought that there is something about the frequencies of the lead vocals and the frequencies of the backing vocals that do not work together. I've never been this confused before.
Well, your choice of amp sim for the guitar solo is really good, anyway - here I immediately buy that it could be a guitar solo from the early 70s.
juhu:
You mention a plate reverb in your original production notes. I'm not sure, but you mention an a cappella section. Then your words must be about the lead vocals, together with that reverb. (And probably also some of the instruments.) I don't think I mentioned anything about the reverb in my first feedback. Probably because the right-left effect was drawing my attention to it. But I do think the choice of reverb (for the vocals) seems a bit odd. Not very wet, quite short, and therefore it's hard to tell if it's a mono reverb. But it is mono - isn't it? A reverb as if the singer is singing in a rather small space. Not many others in this competition have made that choice. I'm not familiar enough with what kind of reverbs were in vogue in the early 70s, but maybe this was one of them? If you want to keep this reverb for the lead vocals, maybe it's because the rest of the production is not drowning in reverb? But then you can object that the right-left effect still creates a slightly artificial sense of space.
Now that I've listened to the track three or four more times, I can perhaps perceive a beauty in the UAD pure plate plugin that I didn't hear there initially.
Anyway, it's an original idea to have the electric guitar and the sampled acoustic guitar “cross” each other all the time in the choruses. And I like to encourage originality. But perhaps, if you listen in headphones, it will be a bit exhausting for the sense of hearing in the long run (even though you have softened the effect somewhat). A lot of people listen in headphones or earbuds nowadays. On the other hand, I've spent quite a few hours today with headphones on, but situations like this (where I'm possibly affected by many hours of listening) are sometimes unavoidable.
Just a small piece of reflection, here at the end: as far as the drums are concerned, I think you succeeded with the snare in particular. I don't know exactly what you did (I don't think it's clear from your production notes (?)) but it has somehow got quite a lot of both attack and bottom, without one doubting that it's a brush hitting the drum. And I'm almost sure it's the same reverb I hear, as used for the vocals.
] reference headphones, rather exclusive. Unfortunately I forgot them at a friends place, and I didn't get them back until today. But the plan is to try to use them tomorrow, to finally decide who's gonna be on the podium.