...first MP3 clinic entry

Sean,

Thanks for reposting this very cool tune. I saved the new version in my downloads folder. The sax adds a nice flavor, but at a few points, I thought it got a little too buried in the mix when it could have been featured a little more. During vocals it should stay back there- that part was fine. but it could come forward a little during the solo at 2:20. and in the intro.

By the way Sean, This is one of my all time favorites here.

What's your keyboard (that Rhodes sound)?


Twist
 
powderfinger: I think you might be right about the vocal effect. On earlier mixes, I think it worked better before the solo was added, but I'm not sure if I like it now either. It's a flange on the main side of the doubled vox. Thanks for the comments.

Kramer: Thanks mang. You helped me out a lot with the earlier mixes (and got me to give the double-vox another try). Mucho graci'

JCMM: Thanks! I learned that sax wasn't as easy to do as I thought, but I think it was worth it. I had her to 3 takes, just blowin' through the whole song, and I comp'ed the best of each. On the 3rd take I shut the lights off and told her to just play whatever she felt and not to worry about anything. Most of the track came from that take.

twist: Thanks for the re-review mang. The addition of the sax seems to magnify the differences between speakers I listened on. I didn't want to compress the sax and squash the dynamics, but at the same time, I've noticed the same thing. On some the solo is too soft, on others it's a bit too loud (or harsh). I'll try a bit of careful compression and try to find and cut some of the harshness.

I'm using an Alesis QS6.1, and the Rhodes sound is a Ray Charles preset (RayzRoadz), with very minor tweaks. It's my all-time favorite Rhodes, outside of the real thing - it feels great to play because of the way it responds to finger pressure.
 
I loved this the first time and still do. However.........the sax sound is not happening. First, twist is right....it's too far back in the mix and the sound is buzzy...almost sounds more like a keyboard patch than a sax. The playings ok but the sound's not right. I think you're right about being too close to the horn and a clip-on would be horrible for recording IMHOP. It's very important to get the 'body' of the sax because the sound doesn't just come from the bell; it comes from all the tone holes and from the resonating body of the horn so if you just get the bell, you miss a lot of the sound. I always record my sax with whatever mic I use from at least a foot away and sometimes more. Also I don't aim the mic at the bell, I aim it at about midway up the body. Try that next time and you'll get a much fuller, more realistic tone. It's a great tune and I think the sax was a useful addition. Since you can't recut it if she's that busy....try bumping up the EQ on the sax at aroung 500-800hz. That might help some.
Maybe add a few db at that range.
 
...those are words of wisdom I wish I had known before I tracked. I think you're exactly right. Believe me, it's not a keyboard patch, but it does sound a bit like one, especially when she gets louder. I'm not crazy about the tone - I had a goofy, contorted look on my face when I started mixing :)

I would be like pulling teeth to get her to re-do it, so I'll try to EQ some of the cheese out of it. I don't want to compress it if I can avoid it, so I'll try automating the mix to bring the low parts up.

Thanks for the great tip.
 
I liked listening to the three versions as I read down the posts. What I noticed, that as the song got better with each version (imo), alot of that had to do with more production coming in, than in the previous versions. It got more interesting with the added instruments, etc... Glad you ditched the vinyl effect in the beginning. I thought it was cool, but I think most would misinterpret the effect...especially non musicians/recordists. There is a pretty nasty hum/buzz going thru the clip...that actually seemed to change from version to version. I might track that down, as eliminating that would noticeably clean up your mix, imo again. The vocals are the weak point, and I think doubling them up helped a good bit. You might try some "shower singing"...uninhibited...kinda like, and you might get something you like....or maybe not.

The rhodes feel you played reminds me of that Doogie Howser TV show...I think that was it... Nice riffage, however...not a slam. And definately nice sound. The drums coming in sounded good too.
 
smellyfuzz: Thanks mang! (it makes me feel good to have to keep saying that - at least I'm on the right track :)

mixmkr: Looks like you read through most of the posts - you're a brave man :D I did do a lot more production each time thanks to the help and advice of everybody who responded - I can't say enough how much that's helped me out. If I understand your statement correctly, the hum you heard on the 2nd version is actually a function of Izotope Vinyl - it adds it intentionally to try to make it sound like an authentic record player (there's actually a "Mechanical Hum" fader :) If you're hearing a hum throughout the whole track, I'm very interested in finding it - I can't hear one from here, but then I'm using less-than-ideal monitors (too embarassed even to mention what they are).

I do agree about the vocals. I play in a local cover band, and my guitar player said he thought I was a better singer than that. The problem is the range I forced myself into. I should have probably transposed it up a step or so, but it just didn't feel right. I've pretty much chalked it up to a limitation I have that I won't get past easily (I already do the shower thing - my fiance hates it :) ). I'm working on a different project now (a little edgier) and I placed the vocal range higher and it feels a lot better. Yet another lesson learned :D

Thanks for taking time to go through it mang - it's much appreciated.
 
I am familiar with the isotope plugin... but I heard a different hum. You didn't have the effect on the beginning of the 1st and 3rd versions....right?...and I still hear the buzz/hum. Also, if I rememeber, it is prominant on the fade out note of the song...

it's pretty noticeable...listen before the music even starts. In the beginning, ...you could edit out...the fade out note...well....

yeah...up a couple steps or so on the vocals might be the trick...

still like the rhodes. I'm gonna look like a fool...was that real?...sure sounded like it when you started banging harder on it.
 
mixmkr said:

still like the rhodes. I'm gonna look like a fool...was that real?...sure sounded like it when you started banging harder on it.
Click to expand...

Sean said a little farther up in this thread:
Originally posted by Seanmorse I'm using an Alesis QS6.1, and the Rhodes sound is a Ray Charles preset (RayzRoadz), with very minor tweaks. It's my all-time favorite Rhodes, outside of the real thing - it feels great to play because of the way it responds to finger pressure.
Click to expand...

Just thought I would help answer for him since im bored out of my mind tonight.:eek:
 
I hear that buzz really loud on the last note of the song too.Almost like a guitar pick-up right in front of a Television or something.

I really like your vocals in this tune Sean.I can tell the key is a little low for your voice(almost to the point of talking instead of singing) but the doubling helped that out a whole lot.I can also tell that your voice would have a lot more power singing in a key a step up or more.

That fake rhodes is killer man.:)
 
Doh! I cranked it at the end on the last note, and there it is, plain as day. It's in the keyboard track. Sounds like either electrical interference or my unruly monster cable (grrr....) I gig with it to, and it's seen a bit of abuse. I've since taken it back to GC and gotten it replaced, but I'm going to have to try and yank it out of the mix.

Nice catch, guys. I'll try narrowly EQ-ing it out at the front & back - hopefully I can get away without having to pull that frequency out of the whole mix. I'll have to track down the source to fix it for future stuff. Any ideas (other than EQ) for getting rid of that in the mix?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top