Community Forum
https://mix-challenge.com/forum/
To be honest, I wanted to convince you of the woods. The rough mix also has this processed and bright character but I wanted to sell you my vision of your song - and got destroyed (as Dwight Schrute would put it)! That's fine 
Much of what you wrote explains the dilemma I was having. Not only did i think your mix was perhaps a truer representation of how these instruments would sound in the real world, but I also think that you probably got closer to what I initially asked for.Mork wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2017 01:24 CESTHi all!
First of all: Congrats to Herb and Photonic!
el-bo, after listening and to Herbs mix I think you absolutely made the right decision. It's a very different, more hifi,in your face and open approach, whereas I was going for a more natural approach with a lot of warm "rehearsel room/club" midrange goodness (but still with a little sheen on it). I understand that the instruments are not real instruments recorded in a real room, but nonetheless I really wanted to make it work with the absolutely least amount of processing as possible, questioned every step in the chain and spend a good amount of time to find the right room sound.
So which is the better mix? The one that suits your vision best, there is no right or wrong. The vibe you dig the most wins - period. As a client, forget the technical aspects. That's why I never post any crest factors, LUFS or whatnot. Who cares about that? Noone listens to a song saying: "Oh man, this one has the best LUFS!" or "Wow, what an incredible low cut at 92,7Hz, great song!". The only thing that matters is the picture you've painted. I gave you a picture of a dark house in the woods when you really wanted - hmm... a beach house
Sidenote: Talking about levels and processing decisions in context of the big picture is absolutely what this forum is about, I really don't want to discredit anyone for posting stuff like that (LUFS etc.). It shows that you are aware of those things, which is important. Just be aware of that matching some numbers might not match the song (as we probably all have already pain-in-the-ear-fully discovered, while trying to get to -5 rms "with ease")
I pick the Metric Halo Transient Control to gain me some crest factor - just to eat it up!
Almost forgot: Check out the Fusion playlist on Spotify. Every track has a completely different character. Some are clean, some are dirty, some are bright and wide, some are small and super-glued, some I really don't get. So much for "correct" mixing.
Cheers
Mork
This could definitely be due to my age/hearing loss, or maybe just due to fatigue from listening to the mixes for too long (This is another reason why I asked that we leave making the changes for a little while, so that we can come at it with 'fresh' ears)HerbFelho wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2017 14:19 CESTThanks guys for the congratulations!
As we all know it´s all highly subjective and there´s no right or wrong anyway, and that´s what makes mixing even more exiting to me.
Interestingly after listening again now on my main monitors i found my mix turned out a bit too bright during round 2, so I guess I would reduce it a little bit if it was just me.
Yes! As I mentioned in the into, all mixes were monitored via headphones, run through Sonarworks calibration softwareHerbFelho wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2017 14:19 CESTI also may be interesting for some of you that i did the second half of the mix and the revision for round 2 exclusively on headphones (DT770) using the Sonarworks calibration software. Since el-bo mentioned in a previous post he´s checking the mixes on headphones also with Sonarworks i think, this may have been the factor that provided the tiny advantage for my mix for this challenge.