Mix Challenge

Hey @scottfitz , sorry for the confusion on the 'Loudness' metric. Mister Fox definitely got it right:

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 13, 2022 04:19 CEST

Before there are endless debates on the "rules", I think with "(Perceived) Loudness", @Jorgeelalto doesn't mean the "absolute loudness" of the whole mix measured in LUFS in this case. In combination with the "Punchiness", I think he talks about the "density" and what felt "impact" this has to the listener.

If instruments are clogged together, then you might have a more consistent loudness overall, but no dynamic and everything just feels lifeless and less impactful. If the instruments drift too far apart, then things start to to feel imbalanced and . Finding a middle-ground is not that easy.

Before listening to your mixes I normalised them to the same loudness values so they are all competing fairly in that regard. Having said that, depending on the compression (or lack of it), the balance between transients and sustained sounds, amount of bass, etc. you will perceive the track as being more or less loud.

Ideally (with a good balance between transients and sustained content, so a good LUFS and dynamic range value), it won't sound too quiet (too compressed, high LUFS values) neither you will be able to perceive only transients (too 'loose', big difference between transient peaks and sustained content). Hope I could clarify it a bit, I definitely did not check the absolute loudness metrics whatsoever

Thanks for both of your responses. I think I understand part of it. My transients are huge, probably the biggest of every entry. So when you normalise, my transients will cause my track to me the most punished by this process and it could even boost some of the other entries that were already louder than mine.

The punchiness I don't get apart from to say that if it's listened to at a lower level than I'd hoped then of course it will be like that.

The low end seeming lacking also would be explained if listened to at a lower level than I'd hoped.

What I did was match the subjective loudness of each track to be the same and then see which one has the life in it.

Next month I will work to -16LUFS and -1.0 true peak and normalise all the mixes to see how mine is comparing under the same evaluation process that might be used.

Thanks for all your help, I learnt huge amounts on this challenge.

Hi @Jorgeelalto

thanks for voting my mix into the second round! After listening to my mix after a few weeks I totally agree with your feedback. I often
tend to overdo kicks level wise.

A question regarding your feedback of being "too creative". I guess you´re referring to my rhythmic fx approach on the noise track which altered your initial vision a lot. In my opinion it fits better into the track with such a rhythmic approach but I can dial it back (fx is in parallel already) or completely get rid of the fx on the noise track and apply it as a pad/layer as you intended. (or a mix in between) Please let me know what you think.

Cheers Ron

Hello,
Here's my R2.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19JA5DE ... sp=sharing

I turned down the drums, put more feedback on dub delay, added some automation to make the song more alive.

Thanks @Jorgeelalto for your feedback and R2.

Bye.

Are we supposed to post the second round mix? Do we need to get some feedback before?

Thanx.

Ok now I see the google drive file, all right

Ok here's the R2 mix, adjusted and aligned the kicks, adjusted some levels of the percussion elements and added and automated a bunch of different delay Finally I adjusted the compression and saturation of the marching band snare (still the volume is relativelty high).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EJ_gKJ ... sp=sharing

Good Luck everyone!

Ronson79 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 13, 2022 15:46 CEST

Hi @Jorgeelalto

thanks for voting my mix into the second round! After listening to my mix after a few weeks I totally agree with your feedback. I often
tend to overdo kicks level wise.

A question regarding your feedback of being "too creative". I guess you´re referring to my rhythmic fx approach on the noise track which altered your initial vision a lot. In my opinion it fits better into the track with such a rhythmic approach but I can dial it back (fx is in parallel already) or completely get rid of the fx on the noise track and apply it as a pad/layer as you intended. (or a mix in between) Please let me know what you think.

Cheers Ron

Hi Ron,

Cool mix honestly. I'd love if you could try to dial the FXs back, I'm interested to see if you can keep the mix creative/interesting but regain some clarity. Removing the FXs all together would be the easy but boring way So yep, definitely keep them but try to get to a mix where it only spices the mix up a bit instead of modifying the original sound so much

Regards mate

@Jorgeelalto Thanks for providing the song and giving an honest feedback.

It is not easy to make the song sound as the artist has intented without meeting them irl.
Therefore i'm very glad to have made it to the second round! Its shows i've done something right .

MC086_7thPyramid_NoEscape_spafles_R2

Regards

@Jorgeelalto Thanks for the feedback and giving me another chance in R2 to improve the mix.

I have removed the "trash 2" on the fills/percussion and marching snare which was responsible for the metallic effect you were hearing. I also dialed back the saturation in a few other tracks, hopefully that has removed the lo-fi sound you were hearing.

After making those changes I felt a little rebalancing was needed, and took the oportunity to try and improve the "dub delay" effects in places to give a more rhythmic motion when possible. The biggest rebalance was the "background" track, which I have lowered in voume and tried to give it more rhythmic motion, sidechaining against the kick.

Hopefully the ending is sounding less weird as well now

Thanks for the chance to play with your track, it has given me a great chance to understanding using delay in a creative way.

Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ikuRhq ... sp=sharing