2020-SEP-01 Info: Please check out Songwriting Competition 037 (Mental Health Awareness Month) and create some soothing "Lo-fi Hip Hop"

MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

Join the Mix Challenge - recurrence: February until December
HerbFelho
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 13:15 CEST
Location: Munich

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#91

Post by HerbFelho »

Thx! Also congrats to Mork and Photonic!
Btw. I´ve chosen the Acon Digital Restoration Suite...

OctopusOnFire
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 14:28 CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#92

Post by OctopusOnFire »

Congrats to the winners and thanks el-bo for the tracks and feedback once again! :tu:

Mork
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 21:55 CEST
Location: Hamburg

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#93

Post by Mork »

Hi all!

First of all: Congrats to Herb and Photonic!

el-bo, after listening and to Herbs mix I think you absolutely made the right decision. It's a very different, more hifi,in your face and open approach, whereas I was going for a more natural approach with a lot of warm "rehearsel room/club" midrange goodness (but still with a little sheen on it). I understand that the instruments are not real instruments recorded in a real room, but nonetheless I really wanted to make it work with the absolutely least amount of processing as possible, questioned every step in the chain and spend a good amount of time to find the right room sound.
So which is the better mix? The one that suits your vision best, there is no right or wrong. The vibe you dig the most wins - period. As a client, forget the technical aspects. That's why I never post any crest factors, LUFS or whatnot. Who cares about that? Noone listens to a song saying: "Oh man, this one has the best LUFS!" or "Wow, what an incredible low cut at 92,7Hz, great song!". The only thing that matters is the picture you've painted. I gave you a picture of a dark house in the woods when you really wanted - hmm... a beach house :) To be honest, I wanted to convince you of the woods. The rough mix also has this processed and bright character but I wanted to sell you my vision of your song - and got destroyed (as Dwight Schrute would put it)! That's fine :grin:

Sidenote: Talking about levels and processing decisions in context of the big picture is absolutely what this forum is about, I really don't want to discredit anyone for posting stuff like that (LUFS etc.). It shows that you are aware of those things, which is important. Just be aware of that matching some numbers might not match the song (as we probably all have already pain-in-the-ear-fully discovered, while trying to get to -5 rms "with ease") :wink:

I pick the Metric Halo Transient Control to gain me some crest factor - just to eat it up! :cool:

Almost forgot: Check out the Fusion playlist on Spotify. Every track has a completely different character. Some are clean, some are dirty, some are bright and wide, some are small and super-glued, some I really don't get. So much for "correct" mixing.

Cheers
Mork

User avatar
Photonic
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2017 13:44 CEST
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#94

Post by Photonic »

Gongratulation to HerbFelho ! :tu:

And also to Mork for his second place.
I can totaly agree to the comment from Mork. I can hear the different to my mix. Herb's mix is much more upfront and brighter. Mine is more discreet, more like lounge music. But it is OK for me. I am happy with the result!

I will take no prize, thanx!

el-bo
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 09:43 CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#95

Post by el-bo »

@ Mork, OctopusOnFire and Photonic: Cheers guys!

Thanks for the extended comments, Mork. I'm going to be busy for a few days, but your post brings up some points that i would definitely like to address.

All the best :tu:

HerbFelho
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 13:15 CEST
Location: Munich

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#96

Post by HerbFelho »

Thanks guys for the congratulations!
As we all know it´s all highly subjective and there´s no right or wrong anyway, and that´s what makes mixing even more exiting to me.
Interestingly after listening again now on my main monitors i found my mix turned out a bit too bright during round 2, so I guess I would reduce it a little bit if it was just me.

I also may be interesting for some of you that i did the second half of the mix and the revision for round 2 exclusively on headphones (DT770) using the Sonarworks calibration software. Since el-bo mentioned in a previous post he´s checking the mixes on headphones also with Sonarworks i think, this may have been the factor that provided the tiny advantage for my mix for this challenge.

Apart from that I can really recommend Sonarworks to anyone mixing a lot on headphones. Before using it I was really not able to craft mixes on headphones that translated well on other listening systems. Now I´m much more confident in making the right EQ decisions and more and more I find my mixes instantly translating to other systems and speakers without the need to adjust a lot.
The only thing I have to keep in mind is on headphones there is still a tendency to mix vocals and reverbs to low in level.

So much for that,
Cheers,
Herb

el-bo
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 09:43 CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#97

Post by el-bo »

Mork wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 01:24 CEST
Hi all!

First of all: Congrats to Herb and Photonic!

el-bo, after listening and to Herbs mix I think you absolutely made the right decision. It's a very different, more hifi,in your face and open approach, whereas I was going for a more natural approach with a lot of warm "rehearsel room/club" midrange goodness (but still with a little sheen on it). I understand that the instruments are not real instruments recorded in a real room, but nonetheless I really wanted to make it work with the absolutely least amount of processing as possible, questioned every step in the chain and spend a good amount of time to find the right room sound.
So which is the better mix? The one that suits your vision best, there is no right or wrong. The vibe you dig the most wins - period. As a client, forget the technical aspects. That's why I never post any crest factors, LUFS or whatnot. Who cares about that? Noone listens to a song saying: "Oh man, this one has the best LUFS!" or "Wow, what an incredible low cut at 92,7Hz, great song!". The only thing that matters is the picture you've painted. I gave you a picture of a dark house in the woods when you really wanted - hmm... a beach house :) To be honest, I wanted to convince you of the woods. The rough mix also has this processed and bright character but I wanted to sell you my vision of your song - and got destroyed (as Dwight Schrute would put it)! That's fine :grin:

Sidenote: Talking about levels and processing decisions in context of the big picture is absolutely what this forum is about, I really don't want to discredit anyone for posting stuff like that (LUFS etc.). It shows that you are aware of those things, which is important. Just be aware of that matching some numbers might not match the song (as we probably all have already pain-in-the-ear-fully discovered, while trying to get to -5 rms "with ease") :wink:

I pick the Metric Halo Transient Control to gain me some crest factor - just to eat it up! :cool:

Almost forgot: Check out the Fusion playlist on Spotify. Every track has a completely different character. Some are clean, some are dirty, some are bright and wide, some are small and super-glued, some I really don't get. So much for "correct" mixing.

Cheers
Mork
Much of what you wrote explains the dilemma I was having. Not only did i think your mix was perhaps a truer representation of how these instruments would sound in the real world, but I also think that you probably got closer to what I initially asked for.

In the first round, I judged every mix in isolation, and it wasn't till the number of mixes decreased that I was able to start a/b'ing the tracks. All the second-round tracks sounded good on their own (especially the top three), but while a/b'ing them I just really fell for the open/3d sound of Herb's mix. When I listened to your mix in isolation it sounded more 'intimate', but that intimate became 'caged' when a/b'ing with Herb's mix.

I'm also not a huge fan of midrange. While I don't cut huge swathes of it out, I do tend to favour cutting away some of that congestion to leave things a little lighter, and brighter. Normally, I do this as I produce/arrange, as part of sculpting sounds to fit together. Of course, this was a different project - being a 'real' instrument type of gig, with the request that I submit tracks with as little prior processing as possible.

One other issue, which I touched on earlier, is that I much preferred the effected versions of the bass and organ that I originally recorded. It's not a case of the alternatives being better or worse; Rather, that these were sounds I have listened to for months (years, for the bass), and so familiarity won out.

I think that had I been in the studio by your side, the final mix would have naturally ended up brighter, lighter, and more 'hi-fi'.

el-bo
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 09:43 CEST

Re: MIX CHALLENGE - MC32 May 2017 - Winners announced

#98

Post by el-bo »

HerbFelho wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 14:19 CEST
Thanks guys for the congratulations!
As we all know it´s all highly subjective and there´s no right or wrong anyway, and that´s what makes mixing even more exiting to me.
Interestingly after listening again now on my main monitors i found my mix turned out a bit too bright during round 2, so I guess I would reduce it a little bit if it was just me.
This could definitely be due to my age/hearing loss, or maybe just due to fatigue from listening to the mixes for too long (This is another reason why I asked that we leave making the changes for a little while, so that we can come at it with 'fresh' ears)
HerbFelho wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 14:19 CEST
I also may be interesting for some of you that i did the second half of the mix and the revision for round 2 exclusively on headphones (DT770) using the Sonarworks calibration software. Since el-bo mentioned in a previous post he´s checking the mixes on headphones also with Sonarworks i think, this may have been the factor that provided the tiny advantage for my mix for this challenge.
Yes! As I mentioned in the into, all mixes were monitored via headphones, run through Sonarworks calibration software

Post Reply