Hey Eric,

the 3rd last mix is better indeed. (btw,What is the tape saturation plug you pushed too hard ?)


BUT it's pretty annoying (because maybe it comes from the secret tools of the big magicians of mastering) as it were a lack of definition if compare to the BK master : it's particularly obvious on the guitar which has lost character, as if the sound lost its darker tone, its presence and became like "plastic", thinner. The whole mix is less accurate too.
I suspect that Bob Katz used a very high quality converter through which he summed up the track to its final version.

The challenge would be to achieve the same result with Sonar X(2). 

Did you master only with Ozone 5 or did you use particular plugs from Sonar ? I wonder if certain plugs "destroy" more than they do good. What would be interesting is to hear the original mix and verify if Bob Katz  preserved the signal integrity or if he added "something"new to this signal !

Nevertheless, Eric, once again, all these things are part of the subtle field and your music and talent are excellent ! I watched your videos on You Tube, and you have filled me with pleasure; you and every musician of your band are  high top class... and the live sound of your performances (including with sequence backtrack) is flawless.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for checking out the updated mix. I was trying out a plugin called Magnetic II from Nomad Factory on the master bus. http://www.nomadfactory.com/products/magnetic_II/index.html

After listening to the new mixes I'm not that happy with them either. At first it seemed like I was going in the right direction but perhaps I went too far. The guitar is washy in the mix because I have too much reverb on it. I recently purchased the B2 Reverb from 2CAudio and it an excellent reverb but I haven't really learned it yet. I just slapped a preset on a bus. 

You may be right about Bob's converters. There is something there I can't replicate on my own yet. The interesting thing is the original mix was done at Bob's mastering house. I brought my computer to his studio and we mixed several tunes there. It was a great learning experience. I tweaked the mixes when I got home and uploaded them to his server for him to master. He builds his own processors and also uses the TC System 6000. I'm not sure what he uses for SRC (Sample Rate Conversion) and Bit-Rate reduction or what processing he applied to my project.  

I applied gentle mastering from Ozone. Basically I added 4dB of limiting and some gentle stereo widening and that is it. 

I'm not sure if this is a factor but I'm doing the SRC from Sonar during the export. This not ideal because I should be lowering the sample rate before I reduce 24 to 16-bit but it's time consuming. When you export in Sonar, sample rate changes are the last thing to be applied. Normally I would turn off Ozone and export from Sonar to a 32-bit float file at 48kHz. Then I would use Voxengo's R8Brain to do the SRC to 44.1kHz. Finally I would open the 32-bit 44.1 mix in Sound Forge and apply Ozone's mastering effects and bit rate reduction. I can try that and see if it makes a difference. 

This whole remix of an old tune has just been an exercise in learning X2's console emulation plugs along with the tape saturation and reverb plugs I've recently acquired. I usually tend to go overboard with new toys in the beginning. :)

Thanks again for lending your ears. I do appreciate the critique. 

My apologies to the OP for the secondary conversation taking place in his thread.

Hi Peter.

Here is one last mix. I did my SRC before the bit reduction so aside from the MP3 format it should be highest fidelity I can produce from here. I also tweaked some spots of the mix and reverb settings. I tamed the tape saturation and turned off the built in EQ that was making things sound harsh. I also switched to the Pro Channel Bus Compressor on the master bus. I was using the Waves API compressor but disabled it for now. 

I feel this mix is definitely an improvement over the original. I always felt the original mix sounded kind of boxy, like talking with my hands cupped around my mouth.  The new mix sounds more open, a little wider and all the parts gel together better. 

http://www.nuevo-flamenco.com/files/Alright_4.mp3


Thanks again!

Hola Eric,

It's getting better (once again, I'm not sound engineer but just an attentive listener) but it would seem that the trick would come from the mix itself :

In your different mixes, the high mid and high registers tend to encroach on the correct mid  and low registers ; those treble "are eatening" the right space of the medium register and even the bass which has to give the pulse is affected.


In the Bob Katz mix/master, everything has its own place : the high register is tamed to leave the solo instruments express themselves, and the high mediums (and "bad" mediums) of the solo instruments are tamed (or removed) to give space to the bass : in fact, this the bass  which is the fundamental establishment of the mix : the bass confers movement/groove to the track

Now, it seems to be obvious that there is an "effect" on the bass in the Bob Katz mix (like Renaissance Bass from Waves): it is as if the sound of the bass would "bounce" and adds life to the track. In comparison, the bass in your mix may appear to sound "flat", we hear it but it doesn't enhance/emphasize the piece. 

I am in learning curve concerning the mixing sound techniques, and ... pfffff...; it's rather complicated !
So what were the techniques Bob Katz used to TAME the disturbing overlapping frequencies in order to air the mix and get a f*** well balanced mix ? Have we to search towards the control of the attacks/transients and the decay of the elements ? ( Is this that which is called "enveloppe" ?) What tools allow that ? : compressors, transient shapers ?...

One question : Has Bob Katz worked with the individual tracks or just with the final mix ?

If he worked with the whole mix, he is very skilled and has high quality materials . 
What plugs in in Sonar or from other company is able to give gentle separation among the distinct frequency regions and  is able to air the mix ?
A multiband compressor ?
An esoteric tool like Kush Audio ubk ?
A clever combination of EQ, compressor, vintage plugs, stereo tools, psychoacoustic effects, enhancers... ?


Concerning the work on individual track, every sound mix experts insists on the necessity to clean up every track with radical high pass (with a slope of 24/48dB min) and EQ adjustments : 
I don't know if you understand French language, but there is interesting tips and tricks given by a guy called Cybertrech with his tutorial videos in particularly here :
http://vimeo.com/10091391

Eric, let me know;     we keep in touch

Pierre

Pierre,

Sorry I was calling you Peter based on your avatar name. 

Thanks again for listening. Your observations are very accurate and I do appreciate the feedback very much. 

To answer your question Bob only worked with the final mix. It was a completed mix I brought to him that he tweaked. We used mostly Voxengo plugs at the time like the Original Gliss EQ and the Marquis compressor. There was probably a few Ren EQs used as well. Yes there was R-Bass on the bass track. That's a excellent observation! Unfortunately, I've lost access to the Renaissance plugs so I can't even load the original mix in and hear it exactly as we left it. 

To my ears the new mix is translating much better than the old mix on all the systems I tested. In the new mix I have the rhythm guitars up a bit more which is probably giving you the that sense of something eating up the melodic instruments. The rhythm tracks have a steep HPF with a flat high end. Lowering the highs might make a nice difference or perhaps dropping the rhythm guitars a few dB since they are much lower in the old mix. Concerning the bass, I felt in the old mix the bass guitar was swallowing up the kick drum on some notes that is why I shot for a less dynamics on the bass with longer release time on the compressor. I played the bass on the track and I'm not a good bass player. I just went direct with it but I've never been happy with the sound of my bass direct. I don't own a bass amp to mic up. 

I have HPFs on just about everything track the mix. Without it, I would have a mud fest. I also use LPF's on some tracks that had hyped up high end like the cabasa and shaker track. 

I don't speak French but I will check the video out regardless. Thanks again! This has been a fun exchange. 

Eric I think version 4 is really good. I can understand why people like the definition and separation of the old mix, but I really prefer the newer ones. There is something a little mellower about them, and I think there is a tension between having everything in its place and having things glue together.

The benefit of the glue in the new versions outweighs any loss of definition for me. I think the new ones are more pleasant to listen to. The arpeggiated guitar sounds MUCH better now.

I could be wrong, but the Sony 7506 headphones Pierre is using tend to be pretty bright to my ears compared with other popular headphones. On my AudioTechnica ATH-M50 headphones the 4th mix sounds really good. It's a little bright on my Sennheiser HD 280 Pros, but they are a bit bright, so I think that reflects my tool, not the mix. 

The first new one was a little brighter, but I don't think it "was out of bounds."

Great sounding tune. 

I also think you nailed the description of the mid-range. This is where I hear the biggest difference with console emulation. It's the mellower mid-range glue. 

I listened to all four mp3's.  I preferred #4 as it maintained the dynamics and clarity of the original yet seemed to glue it together.  #2 and #3 had loss of clarity and dynamics.  #4 seems polished, transparent and mastered to me.  Just my 2cents.  BTW, nice piece.

The 4th mix is very good, and it does work very well through distinct monitoring systems, from the little lo-fi radio to hi-fi devices, including radio car and on sound system loudspeakers... and maybe even better than the original mix which is a bit less loud.

Listening through headphones is not ideal at all as it doesn't reflect the acoustic reality, but I have not received my set yet, so I am concentrating on the details with headphones.
It's true that the 7506 headphones are bright; I listened through a Beyerdynamic dt770 which is darker and the difference between the original mix and the last one is much less obvious and the 4th mix can appear more sparkle, more front in your face with much more energy. 
Nevertheless (but it is just for haggling, indeed)I can hear, even through the dt770, that the original mix remains more detailed in the main, and particularly concerning the treble which leaves more space to the other instruments : it is obvious for the percussions that we can hear more precisely.

But the most important is there : very good composition, very good sound, very good playing and arrangements. By the way Eric, I thought you have recorded this piece with your complete band : you played the bass (that I find very good), but drums and percu, is it you as well ?