and some filtering by fabfilter, and 2 C2A, Rvb > LXC.

So i took the multitrack of this live performence and tried to re mix it to practice mixing with bleeding from other track, phase issues ..

So this is the link of the original mix and then my mix, what do you think ?

Cheers

 

I like it a lot.
Very easy to listen to, and very "soft".

 

Thank you, there is maybe +2db diff from the original and mine, so you wanna do a -2db to have the same level, but you got the point ;)

 

In all honestly you made a great mix significantly worse. The original was wide, dynamic, even, really open, and I thought it sounded great. Your version (which is actually 4db louder, not 2) is extremely overly bass heavy. To the point that it's almost like a resonance. Extremely obnoxious. Everything is a lot narrower leaving me feeling more claustrophobic and crowded. Your mix comes across muddy and nasally.

Sorry, really not trying to be a jerk. Just honest. And I don't think this is at all a knock at Slate plugins, they're fine, but a tool is only as good as the person using it.

 

Not a problem Walmart, i accept all point of views. thanks for the feedback.
Where did you listend to the both mixes ?

 

Yup agree, sorry You flater the image debth quite a bit and ruin the 3d space and somehow the quality of recording.

 

in the original mix, how do you find the voice and the 3D'ness ? i need more feedback. for the wideness i'm not a hard panner so ok i can see you point, but the orignal one is boxier and mudier then mine? come on.
the bass mic have lot of bad bleeding so i used more of the DI, but i can do better on this.

 

Yes original is not the best example of good balance so it's a bit uneven(there is something felt on right side(lower frequency spectrum) to suport left side, but probably that was intentional. But othervise quality is there. On the voice part, original is simply more natural and less processed(digital nad harsh) sounding. What you probably did(and that is not only problem of your mix, but many others), you try clear out voice, but that is problem with digital processing. If you do just a little to much or wrong, you can loose dynamics and sound become harsh, thin and overprocessed sounding. I see people do this all the time and they think clearing the voice will sound better, but they actually ruing it. They make it like it come from computer daw, not analog console, which should be goal even if its computer recorded. By 3d i mean some instruments are at different distances from listener so that with help of natural reverb make virtual space. You make it more 2d(left, right, up, down, but less near or far). There is just more body in instruments and voice in original.

 

Last edited: Jan 8, 2016

I'd also just like to point out that the low end problem in your mix is a fairly common thing with beginners who mix in an untreated room and/or headphones with anything but a flat frequency response. If you address your room's problems, it won't lie to you so much and your mix will translate across systems much better.

 

Well my room is not the driest one, but it correct, i have a dynaudio bmx5. It's my first live mixing, i'ts really different then standard mixing
there's bleeding everywhere. there is all the instruments on the vocal, but i'll get better on this thype of mixing

 

Mixing in general is a bit like cooking, its up to the individual and what their taste is. One mans trash is anothers treasure and in the end, the listener is the critique. If the song is good enough, NOBODY cares whether or not its mixed correctly except for the artists, engineers and producers involved. That being said, that doesnt mean that a quality mixed song isnt deserved or appreciated. I understand what has been presented by the other reviewers. Ive thoroughly listened to both mixes and both have the pros/cons and although you have heard it in your studio speakers/headphones, have you listened to it in your car or through a TV? Referencing your material is the BEST way to find a good medium to your decisions. Having a "properly" treated room will run you about 50K and up depending on who your architect is. And you cant just use any architect, you need to find someone who is trained in the field. Others might disagree with that last statement but to each their own. Been there, done that! :P My 2¢

 

Hey bud, we're talking about a home studio here. If you think you need an architect for your beginner home studio then you have bigger problems than an untreated room. You can treat your room properly DIY for under $1000.

 

Having the vocal in the center is working much better for me. and when you address the bass issues your mix would be pretty acceptabel. I like the punch.

 

Not everyone here works from home! :D

 

It's safe to assume the majority do, and in particular OP, so your point is moot.

 

Thanks relexted. Of course that the room can be treated under 1000$ with DIY basstraps and panels. I mix so much better the low end normaly. this time it was really special. but i learned so much from this experience.
Those are 2 videos (cover of radiohead and muse) that i mixed (6months/1year ago), the low end is much smoother.

 

I like nao mix better. The instruments are glued together, and you acually managed to make a better groove out of them... on the original mix, the groove is all over the place. Wider stereo field doesn't make music better...in fact, very often can make it worse.

But yeah, llittle shame for loosing the depth, snare in particual.

+1 for the punch, too

 

thanks shomyca, agree of the snare depth. The big question was gate or not gate ?! so hard to choose between a clean sounding, punchy but no 3d feeling or let the bad bleed and have the sensation of space. mixing a live performance is really different than regular mixing. big respect to those who mix live albums ....

 

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RoomProPlus

This kit goes at max 1500$ and you're talking about 50 grand, lol. I know this is a kit for "project studios" or home-studios, but seriously now. i consider 50K being a Max price in a really big studio. It all depends on the square-feet we're talking about.

Another thing is, the mixing/mastering room will never be FULLY treated, because too much absorption means killing the whole sound and defeating the purpose. That's why they also include diffusers in the kit or why they have bookshelvs in the backside of the room as an acoustic-related recommendation from a pro, so there's still some "liveliness" inside. You'll never see a control-room/mixing room maxed-out with acoustic foam. Maybe only if we're talking about a vocal recording booth. Also in case you're including the "soundproof" treatments of the walls structure inside out so you keep the studio free of the outside noise, then yeah, it can get you a lot of big $ depending also on the square-feet ratio. But if your studio is located in a quiet space and the room have a decent size, you won't reach not even 10k $.

Back to the topic, at OP:

There's some splashy mids around 3 - 3.7- 4 khz and also some reso around 2.8khz (and not only).
Lows are uncontrolled.
So i thought i could personally "touch" your mix a bit to give it a brief tweak: http://we.tl/oKRzEJ6Yar
P.S. loudness-wise my version is a bit quieter but no problem because this way you can actually focus on the balance diferences.

Cheers.

 

Last edited: Jan 9, 2016

Hi,
Nice Song the NAO mix is definitely better Loud and Proud for Radio is Good ( Love it )

1. The voice is very soft and the front
2. The Backing Voice more Stereo and louder wider
3. The Bass is extremely overly bass heavy (Resonance) Boom Boom
4. The Banjo or Guitar more "Stereo" and wider
5. Good Job