What Have We Learned So Far??
- Thread starter chrisharris
- Start date
chrisharris
King of Bling
It's working now...now, being 2:01 CST, lmao. 
fenderlikingood
New member
TROLL! said:
Leave chris alone!!! he has a real problem! that's just insensitive!
chrisharris
King of Bling
lmao! ... no, wait...who am I signed in as right now?TROLL! said:
fenderlikingood
New member
Oh yeah, i can't wait for people to actually start posting about the "master test"!!!!! LMAO!
chrisharris
King of Bling
Hey Rick...while you're here...I'll spill the beans on those versions.
1. Dry Mix - No Bass
2. Dry Mix w/bass...straight off the multitrack, no eq'ing at all...little bit of limiting to cut off some peaks, but it was hard limiting at -.5db, with a gain of 3db. It basically just turned up the mix.
3. Same as #2, but then I did a low rolloff to kill some of the subsonics, then used "waves L1 Ultramaximizer." with an output of about 5db. THIS is what I usually do, but I also USUALLY do some more narrow surgical EQ cuts below 500Hz.
4. Same as 2, but then I did a low rolloff to kill some of the subsonics, then used "Renaissance Compressor" on the "warm opto" setting with an output of 3db, I think...
You were right on with what you heard, I think...especially with #2 and #4, b/c #4 (Ren. Compressor) on the "warm" setting adds in some "fake" subharmonics similar to what a "BBT Sonic Maximizer" might do...And the reason #1 responds so much more strongly to a "rock" preset is b/c all that subsonic stuff is still in there.
MY QUESTION: I like #2 better also, but no commercial mixes I see look like this, or really sound like this either...when you hit the "ROCK" or "LOUDNESS" preset on most commercial tunes, there's not as huge a noticeable difference, and my theory has always been that commercial mixes rolloff everything below 62Hz and above 16K so that they sound pretty similar on many different systems.
What I think I have to do, is either stop screwing with mixes after I hit mix them down (scary), or learn how to limit/compress like I did on #4, but then cut out some of the midrange and ultra highs to compensate for the harshness created by the limiting.
ANY THOUGHTS?
1. Dry Mix - No Bass
2. Dry Mix w/bass...straight off the multitrack, no eq'ing at all...little bit of limiting to cut off some peaks, but it was hard limiting at -.5db, with a gain of 3db. It basically just turned up the mix.
3. Same as #2, but then I did a low rolloff to kill some of the subsonics, then used "waves L1 Ultramaximizer." with an output of about 5db. THIS is what I usually do, but I also USUALLY do some more narrow surgical EQ cuts below 500Hz.
4. Same as 2, but then I did a low rolloff to kill some of the subsonics, then used "Renaissance Compressor" on the "warm opto" setting with an output of 3db, I think...
You were right on with what you heard, I think...especially with #2 and #4, b/c #4 (Ren. Compressor) on the "warm" setting adds in some "fake" subharmonics similar to what a "BBT Sonic Maximizer" might do...And the reason #1 responds so much more strongly to a "rock" preset is b/c all that subsonic stuff is still in there.
MY QUESTION: I like #2 better also, but no commercial mixes I see look like this, or really sound like this either...when you hit the "ROCK" or "LOUDNESS" preset on most commercial tunes, there's not as huge a noticeable difference, and my theory has always been that commercial mixes rolloff everything below 62Hz and above 16K so that they sound pretty similar on many different systems.
What I think I have to do, is either stop screwing with mixes after I hit mix them down (scary), or learn how to limit/compress like I did on #4, but then cut out some of the midrange and ultra highs to compensate for the harshness created by the limiting.
ANY THOUGHTS?
fenderlikingood
New member
chrisharris said:
Hehe...yeah right!!!!
All this talk of sonicwhachamahhickey's and rencompahhoodad's , has my head spinning!!!! (pardon my feeble attempt's at humor, but it's been a long day,i have to try!)
I don't know what to say? #2 is dry with some bass and a little limiting.......I mean damn, It just sound's right on to me. Not that the other one's are "bad", god know's i can't even come close, but they are lacking a certain "warmth" that #2 had( to me anyway) 3 and 4 had some subsonic's cut but sounded more "muddy" to me! I'm so confrused!
cutting some ultra high's and mid's on a "#4" sound's like a plan to me! I'm such a novice.......I'm talking out of my ass!! But i'm here to learn with ya, so i'm trying to soak this in, and try to process this info with my "mouse like" "sonic" melon!!!! I was listening to disturbed's "the sickness" again today(and we're talking loud!!!!)One thing i notice when i'm listening to music in a vehicle is.....When you roll the window's down, everything sound's so thin and harsh, you roll them back up, and BAM!!!!! there's the ASS!!!!!! #3 and #4 were a "window's down" kinda sound for me, you know the ass is there, but you can't feel it! It's like i rolled the window's up on #2!!!!!! and it sounded great with different eq's!....I don't know, man. and i just listened to your tune with toki's bass line."GHETTO BOOTY" BABY! is that version dry with just the added bass line? I can't wait for the "ear's to show up in this thread!
Sorry i'm not more help.......But i am enjoying myself!!!!
Thank's Chris!
Peace
Rick
chrisharris
King of Bling
hehehe...No man, I know exactly what you're talking about, even if you think you don't, lol. When I was 18, I started playing in a band with some older guys, the lead guitarist was 27, and he told me something that has always kinda' stuck with me...(LISTEN TO THE BOTTOM...DRUMS AND BASS...THEY ARE EVERYWHERE...AND EVERYTHING). This was from a lead guitar player?? I'm starting to understand what he meant, though. The "Bigness" in music comes from the ass, no doubt...getting definition is the whole game. ANYWAY, I just got some tracks from Crawdad this afternoon on another tune ("Juliet"), and I put new drums in, and a new bass, and resang it...and well...you know, just re-did the damned thing trying to use some of what I *think* I learned here this week. So I posted a mix with no EQ whatsoever (like #2 here), THEN...I rolled off the lows, did a wide mid cut, and some surgical top end cutting...and it sounds as good to me as the un-messed-with version, but I don't think it has the big subsonic problems...I'm gonna' upload THAT version in a bit, and if you get some time in the next couple of weeks, give 'em a spin. I know this thread was maybe dumb, but I seriously think a little light is going off for me right now, lol...so sue me.fenderlikingood said:
Thanks to Kramer, too...btw. Well, and to everybody, really....sorry it didn't work for most of you who tried.
BIG PEACE,
Chris
flat-9
New member
Man do I Love this tune....no I'm not sick of it.....good music is timeless!This is REALLY nitpicky , but what is that sound that occurs @1:26 , 2:17 & 3:08 on takes 2,3 & 4, directly after the lyric 'tonight'? ......It doesn't happen on the Suck take #1. (sounds like an alien saying 'yup' way off in the distance.)
Either way , this is a great chorus to the tune and personal preferences are totally subjective.... my vote is as follows.
ps to joro: You the Man!
(see 'capture' in a following thread.)
chrisharris
King of Bling
Oh, and what Toki taught me is that if you let Toki play bass on your tune, and you let him EQ his instrument, it takes care of everything, and you don't have to do any post mix EQ'ing, so long as the rest of your instruments are already fitting.
So from now on, Toki plays on everything, lol.
Seriously, I've never EQ'd the bass much, but I can see that if I knew what I was doing, that would fix 95% of my problems...
yeah...I'm still rambling.
So from now on, Toki plays on everything, lol.
Seriously, I've never EQ'd the bass much, but I can see that if I knew what I was doing, that would fix 95% of my problems...
yeah...I'm still rambling.
chrisharris
King of Bling
flat9 - Much thanks, man. That noise (I think) was some massive fretnoise I picked up on the bass (which is why it's not on the first cut)...I didn't sweat it too much, b/c I knew a REAL bass track was on the way from Toki...man, that's the ONE thing I was right about, lmao.
Again, thanks man.
Again, thanks man.
chrisharris
King of Bling
HAHAHAHAHAHahahaha...
You know I use the same software, right? I've got it on the same screen settings too, and I sat here for a second thinking, "How the FUCK did that guy get a screen shot of my session?"
Louder is better, I agree...hehehee.
You know I use the same software, right? I've got it on the same screen settings too, and I sat here for a second thinking, "How the FUCK did that guy get a screen shot of my session?"
Louder is better, I agree...hehehee.
flat-9
New member
chrisharris said:HAHAHAHAHAHahahaha...
You know I use the same software, right? I've got it on the same screen settings too, and I sat here for a second thinking, "How the FUCK did that guy get a screen shot of my session?"
Louder is better, I agree...hehehee.
Took me a whole fuckin hour to figure out how to do it.......but it was way worth it, considering your reaction..........LMAO
wfaraoni
ear art's not a science
I actually preferred the third one because the vox seemed better overall, more together and finished. I also was looking around for what was making that record scratch noise myself but I guess thats what gives it that special character
Id leave that ,,,,,,wrrrriiipp part out
Bill
Id leave that ,,,,,,wrrrriiipp
part outBill
flat-9
New member
M.Brane said:Actually according to modern A&R criteria, mix 4 is the best.
I liked #2 out of this batch. 3 & 4 just got louder & thicker, two things it didn't need.
Fuck A & R ......my EARS say #4 ......but then again, my Mari (wifey) tells me to turn the tv &/or the stereo down ALLthe time & swears I'm losin' my hearing......seriously, I simply hear that #4 is rich, full....has a much wider spectrum.
As stated in a previous post, this is purely preferential and subjective.
(yeah , a couple of "heineys" tonite!
)