theguitarplayer
WOW!! "Guys, just fy! Makes me want to reply for sure!!

John, I am a little puzzled at this comment. Why would sharing information about an organization devoted to preserving dynamic range in music ruffle your feathers?  I am simply sharing information that I have found useful as well as explaining my work flow.  If this somehow bothers you on a forum dedicated to sharing information, I regret it.
Certainly no harm was intended. Have a blessed day.  steve
 
www.soundclick.com/stevestallings
www.stevestallingsmusic.com

http://www.stevestallingsmusic.com/audio/Time_Off_Dr14_16_bit_wav_hifi.m3u   ( A complete remix)
 
Hmm, When I got back to my studio this evening, I opened up the mix in question. The mix was nothing at all like I recalled above. I had just purchased UBK "Kush" and SPL Vitalizer and had used liberal doses of both. I did not even have the TT DR meter across the final mix so I don't know what I was thinking. Perhaps seduced by the "Fletcher Munson" curve.       Regardless, I spent about two hours remixing this. It is set up now as I initially thought with some differences in the master buss now. I did not use Ozone 5. Each individual tack starts with a slate virtual channel and ends with a Slate Virtual Tape set on 16 track. The only compression on the tracks is on the bass. It is a UAD LA2. The tracks are 10 or so tracks of Slate Drums mixed to a stereo track with no additional tweaking at all. Mono bass, 2 rhythm guitar tracks, 2 lead guitar tracks, one steel track, one vocal track, one keys track. The master buss was Slate Channel buss, Manley Massive Passive, Slate Virtual Compressor (gray) on the "glue " preset, Slate Virtual Tape on 1/2 inch, Ozone Insight, TT DR tool. This mix complies with the DR14 standard. The prior mix was actually closer to a DR9-10, so yes... certainly more compressed. I also did some EQ tweak on the keys to reduce smear.
 
So, thanks for the comments and discourse. I appreciate and enjoy it.

Hey Steve, this new mix sounds worlds better to me.  I love the space you've created.  You might even be able to bring the rhythm tracks back up a little bit to give some more drive, but be careful not to overdo it if you do. :)

Steve, I don't think you understood my post at all. It was the just fy that was in question, as it didn't seem to work out well for me and seemed directed to those that had given you there honest critique and for doing so this was you response and so I didn't want to response because you might throw a hammer at me and hit me in the head if my critique was anything but positive. Do you understand where I was coming from now?
 
With that said,  I liked a lot of the first mix and some of it was more compressed than others like, but I use compression on just about all of my work and sometimes even a bit to much, but I like it. One this new version it is somewhat better, but the drums now sound back further than the first mix and there is still the sound of compression on the very tail at the end and so there is still a lot of compression going on. You did bring the vocals up some, but I have to agree with Rimshot about their energy level vs the music energy level, it seems like you are holding back on them and not letting them flow out with seriousness and true grit. Understand, I not a great singer at all, but when I do sing I let it all go from the soul. It's a really good song you have here going but if you willing to sing it over again with the same energy of the instrumentation, then I think it will be even much better that what you have so far done. Hope this is constructive critique and not taken in a negative light. It's just my own opinion and hope it's worth something.
 
Peace and Blessings, John

Not as dynamic as these guys.

 
They're the "Dynamic Duo..."

Dynamic Range.  I at this point am going back to square one.  I thought I understood this stuff fairly well but even after removing virtually all compression from a mix, it still is "too compressed".  Obviously, I must be doing something wrong somewhere.  This has actually prompted me to, at age 62, with over 30 years of recording experience, to enroll in Berklee online. I am one week in and it is pretty rudimentary at this point. Hopefully, I will be able to figure out the problem and where I am failing.  thanks, steve

May I ask which course(s) you enrolled in?  Some of those look pretty good, and I'd consider taking them myself if I had the time and money to spare.  But $1200 a course is a lot of cash for me right now.  Particularly interesting to me were these:

• http://online.berklee.edu/courses/music-production-from-pre-production-to-final-audio-master
• http://online.berklee.edu/courses/art-of-mixing
• http://online.berklee.edu/courses/audio-mastering-techniques

Personally, I think your latest mix sounds pretty darn good.

Walt, I am taking "Introduction to Music Production".  Professor is Loudin Stearns.  This is a course thru "Coursera" which is a portal for free college courses.  This is free! I enrolled almost a week late but  will finally be caught up tonight. You can get a certificate of completion if you pay $39 and meet the course requirements. This is part of the MOOC's  (massive open online courses)   I certainly could not pay $1200 either.
 
www.coursera.org

Well I hope you are able to find something in there that's useful.  I suspect you may already know all that stuff, considering your past experience.  At least it'll be a good review, if nothing else.

Walt, it cost nothing and all it takes is enrolling. If you wanted to see the lecture schedule, I bet you could still enroll.  Yes, it has been pretty basic review so far.  Line level, spectrograms, terms, human hearing,  gain staging, audio signals, mic types, etc.  This week is pretty much basic DAW functions.  I will make of it what I can. The  extra out of class assignments are more interesting.  Take care.