Last Lost Letters

rayc

retroreprobate
http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=4214178&q=hi
Mix #42 - yes really - since 1st putting this up 1/2 a doz months ago.
Hopefully it's scrubbed up well.
I'd like to thank all who participated with suggestions, comments & encouragement as well as Faderbug for his clean up.
As usual I've learnt quite a bit in the process & can onoly hope that I'll remember some of it when I come to mix a new one.
Thanks folks.
 
vocals are a tad too bright they could do with a gentle roll off around 4-6000 (?). also the reverb on the vox (my ears/brain aren't playing any tricks on me ? there's verb on those vox right?) is too bright emphasising the esses.

that's the only thing i can come up with that's wrong with this mix.

maybe the flute/recorder (is it a flute AND a recorder or a hybrid flute/recorder ?) could come upfront somewhat more, but then again maybe that's just a matter of opinion. the panned spoken voices in the interlude maybe could do with a small volume boost.

you mentioned that this mix was a long and cumbersome process but the result is great!

your work is an assuagement in these times of bad taste and ugliness.


edit : i just realised maybe this thread wasn't intented for extra critisism/feedback!

either way : great job!
 
Last edited:
I'm liking the mix now but, Faderbug has some interesting points that may be worth trying on remix # 43....

The comment on the reverb is most interesting. I roll off some highs on my reverb channel on my analog mixer when downmixing - just something that I read somewhere. But if you're mixing in the box, would you apply the reverb then re-eq the track???

I heard some top40 track the other day that had gobs of esses in it and thought hmmmm that's different. I wonder if we're so accustomed to them that they are less significant than we make them? Not sure.....

Anyway - enjoy listening to this every time ......
 
faderbug,
I'll listen to & follow up on that kind of crit. anyday. I'll play with it. there's no reverb on the vox other than the gentle dollop I put across the entire mix but I did note the ssss return after all your work to control them.
Ido1957,
You're right #43 seems sensible - close enough for rock'n'roll doesn't mean spot on and after so many why not get it right! Thanks!
 
#43

http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=4214178&q=hi is the link to #43
The BBE S/Max seemed to bring a tiny bit of the essing back so I experimented with & without - it was a minimal addition & since the BBE added significantly to the final mix after all the top end rolling I left it on.
I rolled off the suggested frqs.from both the vox track & the stereo bus in addition to sticking Spitfish on the main vox.
There was no rev on the vox but there was a tiny sense of it that may have come from the exciter in clean up.
I tweaked the spoken vox a bit more as suggested.
Still some esses but better I think.
 
I like overall mix. :) The vox sound pretty good now. The cello sounds cool.

The guitar arpeggios sounds really good. The music going thinner behind the spoken parts is cool.

The violins/cello sound cool.
 
I like it a lot. If it were me i'd cut down the space/reverby stuff a little on those guitars. Maybe do that and then to compensate make the string stuff more spacy and sit further back in the mix.
 
I liked mix #42 because the vocals are louder/clearer but mix #43 is good too because the essing on the vocals is reduced. This is a good mix but I would up the vocals and add some of that sparkle back in... :)
 
i agree with ido.

what i would do is get rid of the overall 'verb, apply the maximizer to an instruments mix and then add the vocals later to the mix so you don't have to use spitfish on it.

also the eq on the vox : i know i said roll off but i actualy meanth shelve with a couple of dB
 
Last edited:
#44

bigbubba,
Thanks mate, you're very generous.
BRIEFCASEMANX,
Ta, can't cut any effcts from the guitars as they went in with the orig signal. Whish I'd been paying attention at the time.
ido1957,
Yeah the treatment to get #43 cut the highs in the vox and therefore the vol & sense of position. Sparkel became the cause, effect & solution - hope the latest makes the diff.
faderbug,
This mix is basically what you suggested, (mix the backing to stereo with BBE then dropped then vocals on top of the backing), though I didn't do the shelving & left spit in place. Does it work or do I need to drop Spitfish?

http://www.soundclick.com/util/getplayer.m3u?id=4214178&q=hi
 
Wheyyyywwwhhh....
Yep, god spare me from mixing stuff like that. There's shitloads going on constantly there is.
I liked the 43.mix for the vocal clarity, the cellos are a nice touch. The vox sounds fine to me. Id give the cymbals a slight lift (only drums?) just to give it some more rhythm in the mellowiness. But that's just me.
 
It sounds like that BBE really adds the shine and sparkle to the tracks. The vocals now sounds rather flat without the BBE. That may be where a lot of the essing comes from too so....there's the catch 22...
If you could add a separate smaller amount of BBE or maybe some reverb + high end eq... The esses are not there now so you have some room to eq.
The vocals in the second and third verses do not seem as loud as the first verse. They could come up a bit to balance... The rest seems good...

:):D:):D
 
drop spitfish. the effect is just too audable & i the esses don't necessarily have to be a problem - the occur in normal speech & aren't always unnatural in recordings.
 
Back
Top