K
K-dub
Well-known member
I think I have this pretty close. I'm merely looking for folks to mention anything that pokes out at them on a listen through.
Thanks a bunch, folks!
I think I have this pretty close. I'm merely looking for folks to mention anything that pokes out at them on a listen through.
Thanks a bunch, folks!
HumanPlanet
Un-known member
It's nice, I like it.
To my ear, the immediate thing that I'd change is to back off the background vocals and pay attention to the lead vocal as it starts to get a bit swamped/lost after the 3 minute mark, and perhaps at times before.
To my ear, the immediate thing that I'd change is to back off the background vocals and pay attention to the lead vocal as it starts to get a bit swamped/lost after the 3 minute mark, and perhaps at times before.
Last edited:
K
K-dub
Well-known member
The background vocal fills are meant to wander under the choral parts. I don't want the lead out front as of that point, bud. But I'll listen again in context of your mention. I don't want things too buried either. Thanks guy!
Trojka
Member
It sounds a bit like a tilted eq. I hear lots of energy around 4K (vocals) and around 10K (cymbals) and too little in the low end and low mids. It seems like only the kick is filling the low end. In most mixes you need to cut some between 150 and 250 (230Hz usually), but in this one you can safely boost it. The high end sounds brittle, gritty and a bit digital on my system. If I had to master this I would add a tape emulation + eq with a wide bump around 200, low shelf maybe to get the eq balance better, cut around 750-800 (hearing some resonance there but I haven't checked it so I could be off there), and wide cuts around 4K and 10K. Because of the Soundcloud compression it's hard to determine what else needs to be done, but my advice is to reference it to a commercial track and you'll immediately hear it.
Bass part is a bit high up the neck to fill the low end but still I think you can add some beef (maybe you need more compression too). I agree with the comment about the backing vocals, they're too close. I understand what effect you're going for but I think you need more compression (individual voices ánd bus) to push them back a little, maybe even add more ambience. They're very dry and naked and it's distracting.
Bass part is a bit high up the neck to fill the low end but still I think you can add some beef (maybe you need more compression too). I agree with the comment about the backing vocals, they're too close. I understand what effect you're going for but I think you need more compression (individual voices ánd bus) to push them back a little, maybe even add more ambience. They're very dry and naked and it's distracting.
K
K-dub
Well-known member
Thanks T!! I will attend to your suggestions. I let the AI algorithm determine where to apply EQ (predicated on their internal model) - and sometimes it doesn't get things quite right. Great insights! Always appreciated.
K
K-dub
Well-known member
Since I had to roll my sleeves back up and fix the mix, I decided to completely rethink my approach. I know folks said some of the vocals were forward, but I wound up stripping a bunch of the background bed out so detail could be even more heard.
I also swapped panning and parts to the side to clear out the middle so they could sit cleaner. I left both links active for comparison.
Did I miss the mark?
P
packrobottom
Active member
No, some of your best sounding vocals. These vocals are great. Whatever you did differently here keep doing it. The only thing I don't like is the initial first lone vocal it's a bit wordy. I wish there was a pause in intro after . "well I've been up and down over the same old ground" that continuation after ground is where it becomes wordy for me especially so early. it works the second time with harmonies. After the callous crowd line going forward from there it all works. Also the intro guitar has a DI sound to it. The dry vocals work.. All these comments refer to the link directly above this post.