SongCraft


Danny: A little DC will never hurt anything...but it's a good rule of thumb to remove as much as you can anyway. Just don't let any of those dumb numbers deter your progress. :) 


Agree :) and yeah it was interesting reading BK's reply. 


Philip: IOWs: How can an ME play artist if she/he is not a performing artist (and/or relying on audience feedback?

Other than online feedback, luckily I have family who are good musicians and I trust them for their honest feedback without being bias at all and yep they're usually right for example; vocal levels, so I figured it best (for my purpose goal) for the vocals to be a little louder rather than too low in the mix. I also ask them if they hear any noise (clicks, pops, whatever), and I get other constructive critiques such as; the beat, guitar and piano performances... 

Playing live with a band gives good feedback from the audience but mostly 'on which songs they like most' and 'performances' or not even music related; performing live is not only about the performances (musicianship skills) it's also about 'showmanship' ;)  

Then there's the 'composer' + many years of experience - musicianship skills on piano, bass and guitar (an outstanding performer) but may not always get the opportunity to for that sort of feedback 'live' on stage but still; honest unbiased outsider perspective (feedback) can be good although sometimes not always if the listener is not being honest or is trying to be a smartypants or whatever so in that case of course taken with a boat load of salt and hot sauce lol 

Jeff Evans


Happy New year to all. Well Danny (and other interested others!) I have uploaded another track called 'Atlanta Falcons' from a band called 'The Fire Alive'

http://soundcloud.com/jeff-evans

This track was tracked and mixed in Pro Tools and by another engineer. I have mastered this one. Be interested on your thoughts here. This is more in line with the sort of music you have to deal with I thnik. Now this is a very strong mix rescue issue. The raw tracks sound much different compared to the mastered result. Here is when I find a reference track useful. (Black Keys in this case) Of course it is in the exact (or very similar) genre with instrumentation, mix etc so it is a good place to start in terms of where the overall EQ might have to be set.

This raw track had a lot of built up energy at 200-300Hz and required a fairly big dip there just to even that out. The very low end was good and did not need much attention. Mids were down. I needed to push up the mids and upper mids in order to get this to sound normal. Highs very low indeed. Had to brighten this mix. I don't mind boosting a mix that is lacking in highs. It seems to sound better to me than turning down a very bright mix. (Is that my imagination?) I love the sound of the C2 on this one too. (Fat!)

DC offsets were checked on this one so it should be perfect with no DC offset. The other tracks I realise are in a quite a different place genre wise. Dan has also done some big kickass tracks too on his CD. It is just that 'Jack Frost' and 'Song I Sing for You' are very laid back. Nice mixes on those though before the mastering phase. Ideal situation.

The final mastered result from Altlantic Falcons is a case ehere if you get the mix so killer and big sounding then it should be delivered sounding that way before any mastering takes place. (Without obvious overall compression and limiting of course) Then you are just into polishing and that is such a nice way to have to master.

Jeff Evans


Danny I love it! Now normally I would not do such a surgical EQ as that but in this case it seems to work really well. The track sounds pretty good without it but after repeated listenings I find I like it better with it in now.

Fortunately we are in that great stage of just listening for a week before the pressing gets sorted so we are in that time frame where changes can be made easily. It's another reason I like to print the overall EQ and the C2 as a pass. Then I can put in an EQ and make changes still just prior to the limiter. I am doing it with the LP64 EQ. The files are still at 24 bit at this point and I have got double precision switched in. I like what the 800 Hz clearing up mode is doing and punching that 4.6 K through a little harder. You cannot pull that 800 dip down too far either as the mix goes astray if you do, so that very gentle 800 dip was well chosen. It seems to balance up the mix a little more I think. The lower highs are coming through a little clearer and the LPF at the top end is just smoothing things a little more. Good thing to do after you have done some serious boosting like you have. So thanks for that for sure. I know they are going to want some tweaks with gaps between and there are some sound effects here and there that may need some fine tuning. So slipping in a nicer EQ won't be hard!

I suppose the moral of the story is if you are dealing with a less than perfect mix then the EQ may become more surgical in places in order to treat it. But it can be harder to find the right spots and the right shapes to do it well. You have nailed with this one Danny.  It is leaning a little closer to the reference track now in terms of mid EQ. The ref is still a little brighter in the mids than even the modified Danny curve but I prefer that sound now to the ref. You don't have to copy a ref track fully either. I find I sometimes stop a bit shy of it in certain areas.

But the previous mixes I mastered were so good an EQ like that Danny would have been a disater and you would never get away with it in a million years. It would ruin it. But then those mixes did not warrant anything like that. Sometimes I think you can get a little conservative in terms of doing something like what you suggested Danny so thanks a lot for reminding me that you can still do something like that if it is needed. Those mixes will sound good for having that applied now. All the other tracks will benefit too for the same extra EQ curve as they all have that similar type of sound.

Am I the only one who has trouble using the LP64?