Face to Face

ido1957

ido1957

9K Gold Member
We got the drum tracks for this tune this afternoon so I did a quick mix to see if I could get things started.
Details - Mike - acoustic and bass. Me - Leads, Jason - drums.
Let's see if it's going anywhere. :guitar:

Mike let me know this morning's upload was 96K instead of 320MP3. Checked Sound Forge and sure enough it was all screwed up.
Uploaded a new 320K to Google Play which I verified is correct.

January 21 - Mix 4
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7IadKZ1K8uUZmtqZ1BMLXNqZzA
320 MP3 Google Play
 
Last edited:
Good song and performances. The mix overall is midrangey and dark to my ears. When your electric rhythm guitars kick in, for example around 1:30, the lead vocal is getting buried just a bit. You might consider automating to bring the vocal level up, or clear space in the center of the mix to give it more room. The panning choices are not the ones I would make but we've kind of been over that before, so no need to rehash.
 
There's only 1 guitar in the center at the end which is playing the outro. All others are panned 100% L/R. The vocals are all alone in the center. If you can't hear them I don't know what to tell you.
Edit - and the guitars are all HPassed so there's very little mud coming from there as far as I can tell. Oh and the guitar solo is centered because a panned solo would sound dumb. It's automated at the end of the solo (-2b) where the vocals come in.
 
For some reason, I thought it sounded rather mono when it all started. I do hear the acoustic on the right and left now, though. The vocal is dark and the whole mix seems like there's a LP filter around 10khz.

Really great song and performances. Excellent playing all around. Who wrote the vocal melody? Top notch. Great tune Ido.
 
Goos song, but missing all the high end. I had to put headphones on to hear the cymbals. The vocal could use some 'air', too, it's got a 'muffled sound right now, so probably scooping a little of the mids on it. The bass is pretty punchy, could probably take it down a dB or 2.
 
Mix #2 - I added some changes to the mix, it's a little more "open and airy".

deleted this link to bad MP3 file
 
Last edited:
To answer Andrew’s question, the song was written by Mike (his user name on HR is mjhamil)). The song took a while to compose, trying different arrangements and scrapping them, but the main melody and the lyrics always stayed fixed.

Here’s some background on the whole process. In the beginning it was probably 50BPM faster. After slowing the tempo, the drum pattern needed to be adjusted to give it what many would call “swing”. Once that was done, it started to groove, and we were set to track all the parts, which only took a few sessions in the studio.

Mike plays the main rhythm on his Takamine P2DC acoustic, which is a first for us. We’re known for our electric guitar based music. The Takamine is definitely made for recording though (as well as live feed to a board). It has a high quality built-in preamp with 3 band eq, volume, and a custom microphone/pickup knob so you can choose either, or a blend of both. He also has a Yamaha acoustic (not sure the model) which has similar features but we found the Takamine had a much more natural sounding preamp. It’s fed through an ISA2 preamp into the computer and has a touch of room reverb on it to give it some air.

One of the goals was to write something with a touch of “The Who” added. Mike’s Daltry-style acoustic runs throughout, with the Townsend windmill electric guitar chords accentuate the choruses. It turned out well….

:D:D:D:D
 
the wide panned guitars need to be tightened up rhythm wise and the vox needs some air, like in the high high eq range.
 
Mike let me know this morning's upload was 96K instead of 320MP3. Checked Sound Forge and sure enough it was all screwed up.
Uploaded a new 320K to Google Play which I verified is correct.

January 15B - Mix 3 is on the OP
 
Last edited:
ido1957 said:
Mike let me know this morning's upload was 96K instead of 320MP3. Checked Sound Forge and sure enough it was all screwed up.
Uploaded a new 320K to Google Play which I verified is correct.

January 15B - Mix 3
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7IadKZ1K8uUZW1JQnBFaWJfNHM
Click to expand...

Instantly more open and airy man. lol. HUge improvement - was it just the file size?

The acoustic are on the "tinny" side, possibly just EQ thing. Bass real nice, toms fantastic. Since the kick is coming through my HD280's rather hard, I'd think it could come down a touch - these aren't the most bass reliable.

Back to the acoustics - in my opinion, since they are the most wide panned rhythms, they are giving the vibe of thinness to the whole thing. That the guitars just aren't as full as everything else. So, it's just as much a matter of their positioning as it is their EQ. To me. make sense
 
Yeah the filesize was somewhere around 2MB so a lot of information was probably sheered away by the compression.
The correct size is around 8MB.

The acoustics are eq'd with a HP otherwise they just become a rumble in the mix. That mucks up the vocals and especially the bass.
It's not an electric; it won't fill in anywhere near the same amount of sonic space. Any louder or bassy-er and it will just get mucky and wash out the whole mix. It also contributes to a deliberate sense of dynamics in the song, quieter verse, punchier chorus.

The kick is fine on my TR8's; on headphones there's no where to go except right into the ear drum and yes it sounds louder. Kick and bass is where the punch to the chest comes from.
 
The 2nd mix sounds worse to me. It's got a very boxy and lo-fi sound to it (but not in the good way).
The first one did sound mono/claustrophobic, so I understand why you tried to open it up, but there's no clarity to it now.

Personally, I would go back to mix 1 and start over from that framework. All it needs is some reverb and more aggressive EQ (I'd HP the acoustics at like 400hz since they're not very important). The vocal can use a bit more reverb to sink it into the mix. The kick is a hair loud.
 
A lot of good stuff going on. Basically agree with all above except, the first chorus "face to face", need the harmonies like the others. Not only is it the first time you sing the hook, it does add more impact which I think you need really need in the first chorus. Just my 2 cents. Good job otherwise.
 
Nola said:
The 2nd mix sounds worse to me. It's got a very boxy and lo-fi sound to it (but not in the good way).
The first one did sound mono/claustrophobic, so I understand why you tried to open it up, but there's no clarity to it now.
Personally, I would go back to mix 1 and start over from that framework. All it needs is some reverb and more aggressive EQ (I'd HP the acoustics at like 400hz since they're not very important). The vocal can use a bit more reverb to sink it into the mix. The kick is a hair loud.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to be more specific so I understand what you mean:
Boxy - people throw this term around a lot. What is your definition of boxy? What mix components do you believe are causing this issue? How would you rectify it?
Lo-Fi - same question - what is your definition and which components sound lo-fi and why?
Reverb - all the instrument and vocal busses are loaded with plate reverbs. Plates are very subtle compared to Halls and Chambers, and give the effect without sounding obvious. They help retain the clarity without washing them away. If I turn them off you will notice a substantial difference. Any more and it is too obvious.
Acoustics - Why do you refer to the acoustic tracks as "not important" ? Each piece in the arrangement is there for a reason otherwise I wouldn't have included them. They are HP at 334hz already.

Just curious - what are you using to listen to this mix?
 
secretsound5 said:
A lot of good stuff going on. Basically agree with all above except, the first chorus "face to face", need the harmonies like the others. Not only is it the first time you sing the hook, it does add more impact which I think you need really need in the first chorus. Just my 2 cents. Good job otherwise.
Click to expand...

This arrangement was intentionally designed to not include the vocal harmonies until the second chorus. The third verse includes verse and chorus harmonies as a further add. Don't want to give everything away right from the beginning.
 
Nola said:
The 2nd mix sounds worse to me. It's got a very boxy and lo-fi sound to it (but not in the good way).
The first one did sound mono/claustrophobic, so I understand why you tried to open it up, but there's no clarity to it now.

Personally, I would go back to mix 1 and start over from that framework. All it needs is some reverb and more aggressive EQ (I'd HP the acoustics at like 400hz since they're not very important). The vocal can use a bit more reverb to sink it into the mix. The kick is a hair loud.
Click to expand...

ido1957 said:
You're going to have to be more specific so I understand what you mean:
Boxy - people throw this term around a lot. What is your definition of boxy? What mix components do you believe are causing this issue? How would you rectify it?
Lo-Fi - same question - what is your definition and which components sound lo-fi and why?
Reverb - all the instrument and vocal busses are loaded with plate reverbs. Plates are very subtle compared to Halls and Chambers, and give the effect without sounding obvious. They help retain the clarity without washing them away. If I turn them off you will notice a substantial difference. Any more and it is too obvious.
Acoustics - Why do you refer to the acoustic tracks as "not important" ? Each piece in the arrangement is there for a reason otherwise I wouldn't have included them. They are HP at 334hz already.

Just curious - what are you using to listen to this mix?
Click to expand...

I started listening to the mix in the OP and then switched over to the second mix, not realizing that it was an older mix. Nola might have done the same thing. You might want to clarify that when you edit new mixes into the first post.

Anyway, on to mix 3. It is much airier than 2. The vocals are clear; the panning is pretty solid.

I might put a touch of verb or something on the hard-panned acoustics to make them sound more in the "space" of the rest of the song.

The big thing that stuck out as not working is the cymbals. There's a a ton of warble on them. It's not quite mp3 swishiness. It sounds more like maybe they were distorting the mic or something. What's happening there?
 
VomitHatSteve said:
I started listening to the mix in the OP and then switched over to the second mix, not realizing that it was an older mix. Nola might have done the same thing. You might want to clarify that when you edit new mixes into the first post.

Anyway, on to mix 3. It is much airier than 2. The vocals are clear; the panning is pretty solid.

I might put a touch of verb or something on the hard-panned acoustics to make them sound more in the "space" of the rest of the song.

The big thing that stuck out as not working is the cymbals. There's a a ton of warble on them. It's not quite mp3 swishiness. It sounds more like maybe they were distorting the mic or something. What's happening there?
Click to expand...

NP - The OP always had the latest mix - I deleted any previous mixes in that post when a new one was added. Be that as it may, I've gone through the thread and deleted any reference to the old versions in my posts. The latest (Mix 3) is in the OP by itself. It may be an issue where the user is taken to his last read post which contains an old mix.

The cymbals are ok on the wav, it's probably just an MP3 conversion issue.

Acoustics have a send to the same reverb bus as the rest of the guitars, so same treatment there. It's a DI feed so it will not have the same sonic qualities as a mic. I tried a room reverb plugin on the individual tracks and it just got washed out when you stacked all the reverbs together.
 
Oh, Yes Steve, did the same thing. In that case, I thought the latest mix in the OP sounded much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top