Re: review demo tracks

[Josh Brown]

OK, I am getting closer now... The tracks have draft vocal tracks on
them and I have made various breakthroughs in the mix.

I think I've finally gotten a handle on mixing the bass frequencies,
which are so important but whose control is elusive to beings whose
ears weren't evolutionarily designed to really hear lower frequencies
very well. It used to be that the low end of my mix was a constant
rumble, with occasional odd booms here and there, which caused massive
distortion in the high end come limiting/mastering time. Now Ive got
it held down dynamically, inaudible low frequencies filtered out,
clear bass tone and deep kick drum accentuation.

Please take another listen and let me know what you think:

http://www.undertone.com/secretz/roughcuts.html

My approach was to calibrate my mixing/monitoring environment, using
test tones and various phase/spectrum analysis tools. I also found it
very very very helpful to A/B my mixes against more professionally
released tracks that I enjoy.

No matter what I did, though, I could not get my mix, and especially
the bass frequencies to sound as "loud" or as "wide" and "huge" as the
recent Evanescence release. Do they have some multi-million dollar
psycho-acoustic DSP processes going on or something? When you compare
the level meters, spectrum/phase graph and waveform visualization of
my mixes with the evanesence mix, they are very close to identical,
but there's literally, to my ears, sounds at least 4db louder and the
bass frequencies seem to surround and envelop the stereo image of the
track, whereas mine sit pretty plainly in the center. Did they
possibly double and hard pan the bassline??

Thanks,

Josh Brown
Freezer Burn - http://www.freezerburnband.com
Undertone Productions - http://www.undertone.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> No matter what I did, though, I could not get my mix, and especially
> the bass frequencies to sound as "loud" or as "wide" and "huge" as the
> recent Evanescence release.

Hate to tell you this but you won't.

> Do they have some multi-million dollar
> psycho-acoustic DSP processes going on or something?

Maybe, but what they have is Evanescence, their engineer, their
studio, a lot of better mics than you have, as many tracks as they
need (you don't know how many layers they've put down on a single
"track.") and much more experience than you have.

Also, their recording has been mastered by an experienced engineer
(who didn't mix it) with the goals of getting the sound you're
missing. If you want an eductation and are willing to pay for it,
spring for a $1,000 mastering job for one of your songs by an engineer
who does the sort of work you're dreaming about and see how it comes
back. You won't be able to do this at home.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George W. Bush]

Hey thanks for all the advice, but that wasn't really the point of my post.
Mainly I'm looking for reviews of the music and production, tips and
tricks, pointing out errors like "at 2:11 there's a wrong note", basically
advice I can actually use. Some day it would be nice to have a pro
mastering job and I'm sure once I get that major record deal it will
happen. Until then I have to make the most out of what I have. AND, I don't
mean to be arrogant or anything but I got pretty close on my mixes. That
last 5% of pro quality is missing, but it's a demo for chissakes.

J