R
RAMI
Guest
Great point, Poet.
You too??? It's fun, ain't it???nevermind. i'm retarded AND i don't know what i'm talking about.
G
Greg_L
Banned
All I worry about are the overheads. I'm not into shifting tracks around anymore. It just doesn't matter that much.
pandamonk
Well-known member
Well the overheads were only very very slightly out of phase for the snare but it didn't bother me when I was mixing. I don't think it matters a great deal unless it's really bad.
H
happymatty
New member
http://www.lightningmp3.com/live/file.php?id=24229
theres my crack. nothing special. and a little late lol
theres my crack. nothing special. and a little late lol
G
Greg_L
Banned
Lol. What the hell happened to it? It's all sped up.
H
happymatty
New member
:O
im guessing a major fek up with bit rate...... dammit!
im guessing a major fek up with bit rate...... dammit!
Fishmed
Well-known member
I am a little late for this one, but after mixing Greg’s other song I really wanted to take a crack at it. After reading how this song almost mixes itself, I decided to do two very different mixes. The first mix is closer to the submitted mixes of the contest (at least the ones I am still able to download) and the other, no so much.
In the first version (Simple), I did not use any EQ or compression on the individual tracks (I did edit out the bleed of the Tom tracks.) I also used a single reverb that was applied to several of the tracks. I mixed though a bus compressor with very low ratio and DB reduction. I then did my normal mastering to the mixed track.
With the second mix (Extreme), I did the opposite on the individual tracks, used EQ, compression, etc. The mix buss and mastering processes are the same.
In the first version (Simple), I did not use any EQ or compression on the individual tracks (I did edit out the bleed of the Tom tracks.) I also used a single reverb that was applied to several of the tracks. I mixed though a bus compressor with very low ratio and DB reduction. I then did my normal mastering to the mixed track.
With the second mix (Extreme), I did the opposite on the individual tracks, used EQ, compression, etc. The mix buss and mastering processes are the same.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Too much reverb! 
The only major difference between the two mixes seems to be the drums. The dums on the "extreme" mix are bad. Way too processed sounding. Too one-dimensional and reverby. The "simple" mix sounds and seems to breathe much better. Still too much reverb though.
The only major difference between the two mixes seems to be the drums. The dums on the "extreme" mix are bad. Way too processed sounding. Too one-dimensional and reverby. The "simple" mix sounds and seems to breathe much better. Still too much reverb though.
Rokket
Trailing Behind Again
Screw it, even if this is done and somebody won, I'm still going to try it.... 
Mick Doobie
Maderator
Maybe try tracking the kick on linked stereo tracks, panning one far right and one far left.
I know, it's sounds crazy. But it's so crazy that it just might work?
I know, it's sounds crazy. But it's so crazy that it just might work?
G
Greg_L
Banned
Maybe try tracking the kick on linked stereo tracks, panning one far right and one far left.
I know, it's sounds crazy. But it's so crazy that it just might work?
Might work for what? Sounding like one mono kick track?
Mick Doobie
Maderator
Yeah, that's what I discovered, eventually. I have no idea what I was thinking.
I could throw out a question asking what the best use of linked stereo tracks might be, but I reckon I won't soil the thread w/ knube cluelessness.
I could throw out a question asking what the best use of linked stereo tracks might be, but I reckon I won't soil the thread w/ knube cluelessness.
Rokket
Trailing Behind Again
Ha ha!!! I am having a blast mixing this! I love the machine gun kick, Greg!
As I suspected, I didn't have to do much to this. Only a little reverb (very little) and a smidgen of compression (which after I listen with fresh ears, may go away. Your playing is really consistant, which makes things really nice).
I'll post in a few hours when it's done. I know it won't win any awards, but it was fun.
As I suspected, I didn't have to do much to this. Only a little reverb (very little) and a smidgen of compression (which after I listen with fresh ears, may go away. Your playing is really consistant, which makes things really nice).
I'll post in a few hours when it's done. I know it won't win any awards, but it was fun.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Yeah, that's what I discovered, eventually. I have no idea what I was thinking.
I could throw out a question asking what the best use of linked stereo tracks might be, but I reckon I won't soil the thread w/ knube cluelessness.
Stereo tracks are great for stereo instruments - like for drum overheads - but not necessary for one piece of the kit. A kick drum is a mono source, recording it in stereo is pointless and will only be more headache than useful.
Doubling and panning a mono track to "stereo" does absolutely nothing but make it mono again. Try it and see for yourself.
kcearl
I see deaf people
Im not sure but with standalone recorders theres some kinda problem with the way they treat mono tracks...Id look into the manual in depth as even Heatmeister had troubles...Id send him a stereo wave then the stanadalone would split it in two again....
Im sure there has to be some mono setting and it may be worthwhile posting the question elsewhere in the forum
Gregs right, other than the haas trick, which you dont use on drums, any panning of the same wave just increases its volume and it retains its characteristics as a mono file
Im sure there has to be some mono setting and it may be worthwhile posting the question elsewhere in the forum
Gregs right, other than the haas trick, which you dont use on drums, any panning of the same wave just increases its volume and it retains its characteristics as a mono file
R
RAMI
Guest
Mick Doobie
Maderator
Yeah, I did try it. Eventually realized that it was doing nothing a single mono track wouldn't do on it's own. Not sure what I was initially thinking other than trying to utilize those linked stereo tracks. I have 6 sets of 2 (stereo tracks?), and I just put all the drums on those(13/14, 15/16, and so on), then started back at mono track one recording guits, bass,..panning those for space in the stereo field.
Anyway, thanks, pardon for mucking up the thread.
kcearl
I see deaf people
Seriously?!?!?!?!
yes unless the mono wave is treated by completely separate effects/filters, so in a words making two different sound waves, and/or delayed by up to 35ms...which is inaudible to the human ear and so will slightly "fatten" or widen the note..known as the Haas trick
glad you're paying attention
G
Greg_L
Banned
In my experience with basic home recording, there are very few instances where you'd truly need or want stereo mic anything. Drum overheads, a choir, a whole band, piano in a nice room, etc, could all benefit from stereo miking - if done right. A guitar amp, a bass amp, kick drum, or a vocal take really only needs to be done in mono. One sound source = mono. A mouth, a speaker, a drum, all one sound source, all mono. Drums are a stereo instrument made up of several mono instruments. Treat each drum like a mono source with a spot mic, and then capture the whole thing with stereo mics. Each drum mic is a mono track, and the overheads can be a stereo track, or two monos panned to stereo. Overheads don't really pick up the same thing equally all the time, so panning them as mono tracks is okay and gives you a stereo image. Having two mics in a kick drum is pointless and not stereo. It's equally as pointless to record a kick in mono, and duplicate and pan that track. Some people mic the inside of the kick and also externally mic the beater. That's cool too, but it's not stereo. You don't want spread in that instance. You would just correct the phase and blend the two to taste. You'd pan them equally - hopefully center or damn close to center.