[Jeff Henig]

"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project to be
released to the public, and it's now in the can, so to speak, so I want
to say a couple of things about what I've learned here.

1: Under no circumstances ever should a commitment to a release date be
made before the physical product is in the hand of the one making the
commitment.

Oi! I thought I had things on a pretty good schedule, so I felt
comfortable making arrangements and announcements. Then life happened.
Change of job, change of living arrangements, change of life schedule
all conspired to stop the recording process and just about scuttled the
project.

I ended up trying to complete about 75% of the bugger in about a month
of part-time duty, with the last available weekend taken up with bass
vocals, lead vocals AND mixdown.

Never again!

2: Take the time to get the project recorded EXACTLY the way you hear it
in your mind.

I had so many things I wanted to do, like using my own voice to mimic
instruments and experiment with effects, but I ended up using a lot more
samples and virtual choirs and beatboxes than I originally intended.

3: Check mix environments are CHECK MIX ENVIRONMENTS, not your go-to fix
it environments.

I went and listened to my mixdown CDs in the car to see how well it
translated. I ended up completely changing the mix based upon what I
heard in the car, rather than trusting that it was just going to sound
that way in the car. It turned out later that the EQ in the car was a
bit off, resulting in the issues I heard in there.

4: Add a mix engineer along with the mastering engineer so that you can
have ANOTHER set of ears before release.

I seem to mix the bass tracks way too hot. This was related to me by the
mastering engineer regarding the project as well as my FOH sound tech
regarding my performance tracks. Evidently, a total remix is in order
for my performance tracks, and if I want to release my project on vinyl,
I'll need to remix as well.

5: Don't try to do too much at once.

My voice was fine on the bass tracks, but was way ragged on a lot of my
leads. Again, not enough time taken to get it right.

6: Trust my ears more.

A very good friend helped me out a LOT by giving me a pair of Event
Opals. (Yeah, there's a backstory there--we're pretty much brothers. I
still about passed out when he ordered them for me.)

I learned a lot from this NG about sound treating the room, what good
equipment sounds like, proper recording techniques, and so on--but I
still had misgivings about my voice in the lead vocal track. I should've
trusted my ears to get it right, rather than over-obsessing about my
tone and how others might hear it.

Thanks so much to all of you for being my real world recording professors.

--
---Jeff

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 20:07:38 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
wrote:

BTW: I don't say all of this to say that I think this project is bad. IMO
it's not a train wreck, but it could've been better.

7: Let a finished project be finished.

facepalm


Jeff Henig wrote:
"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project to be
released to the public, and it's now in the can, so to speak, so I want
to say a couple of things about what I've learned here.

1: Under no circumstances ever should a commitment to a release date be
made before the physical product is in the hand of the one making the commitment.

Oi! I thought I had things on a pretty good schedule, so I felt
comfortable making arrangements and announcements. Then life happened.
Change of job, change of living arrangements, change of life schedule all
conspired to stop the recording process and just about scuttled the project.

I ended up trying to complete about 75% of the bugger in about a month of
part-time duty, with the last available weekend taken up with bass
vocals, lead vocals AND mixdown.

Never again!

2: Take the time to get the project recorded EXACTLY the way you hear it in your mind.

I had so many things I wanted to do, like using my own voice to mimic
instruments and experiment with effects, but I ended up using a lot more
samples and virtual choirs and beatboxes than I originally intended.

3: Check mix environments are CHECK MIX ENVIRONMENTS, not your go-to fix it environments.

I went and listened to my mixdown CDs in the car to see how well it
translated. I ended up completely changing the mix based upon what I
heard in the car, rather than trusting that it was just going to sound
that way in the car. It turned out later that the EQ in the car was a bit
off, resulting in the issues I heard in there.

4: Add a mix engineer along with the mastering engineer so that you can
have ANOTHER set of ears before release.

I seem to mix the bass tracks way too hot. This was related to me by the
mastering engineer regarding the project as well as my FOH sound tech
regarding my performance tracks. Evidently, a total remix is in order for
my performance tracks, and if I want to release my project on vinyl, I'll
need to remix as well.

5: Don't try to do too much at once.

My voice was fine on the bass tracks, but was way ragged on a lot of my
leads. Again, not enough time taken to get it right.

6: Trust my ears more.

A very good friend helped me out a LOT by giving me a pair of Event
Opals. (Yeah, there's a backstory there--we're pretty much brothers. I
still about passed out when he ordered them for me.)

I learned a lot from this NG about sound treating the room, what good
equipment sounds like, proper recording techniques, and so on--but I
still had misgivings about my voice in the lead vocal track. I should've
trusted my ears to get it right, rather than over-obsessing about my tone
and how others might hear it.

Thanks so much to all of you for being my real world recording professors.

One more for you. When you are convinced you have the perfect amount
of reverb, halve it.

d

[Frank Stearns]

(Don Pearce) writes:

snips

One more for you. When you are convinced you have the perfect amount
of reverb, halve it.

Yes and no.

MP3s will often mess up reverb (killing pretty tails and making reverb sound
stunted -- or sometimes nearly deleting it completely).

Some listening environments will do the same -- OR, they'll make reverb MORE
apparent because terrible things are happening to the center of the image, leaving
more L-minus-R than there really should be.

Some added suggestions:

1. Do a reverb check with multiple monitoring environments, including headphones.

2. Figure out how much reverb you really want, but then build it by using LESS from
two or MORE separate instances of reverb, both parallel but also on occasion serial.
Don't try to make one reverb instance do all the work, especially in the digital
world.

3. Think MUSICALLY about the reverb. Don's complaint is well-founded when the reverb
color and "feel" simply does not blend, go with, or sound natural with, the source
material. OTHO, when it *does* blend appropriately, you can use quite a bit
(assuming "wet" is appropriate for the music).

There's no formula for this -- you either hear what I'm talking about or you don't.

Some good practice, though, is to attend live acoustic events (UNAMPLIFIED) in a
really good acoustic space. PAY ATTENTION to what the room is sounding like; listen
to how the natural room sound is (hopefully) adding to the MUSIC. And, if you can,
move around the space; listen to how things change as you move in and out of the
near and far fields.

4. Dissect your reverb and the settings you might have for it -- of course the
reverb time, but also pre-delay, direct delays, near and far field delays, HF and LF
EQ and damping, density, etc, etc. See how adjusting those can help (or hurt) your
reverb sound.

And just because you get a good reverb sound on one project does not mean it will be
ideal for some other project.

There's a great deal more to reverb than just turning up (or down) a reverb send and
hoping for the best.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Luxey]

Is there a place to hear it?

[Luxey]

Yes, found it in another thread. I like the music.

I think one overall EQ tilt arrond 2k pivot spot (-12 @ 20Hz; +12 @ 20 kHz) would
do it good.
It may "sound" too drastic on paper but you'll get used to it in a minute.
After that, some more adjustment in specific bands, like 3 kHz and 80 Hz...

Now what that will do to reverb ..., you will hear.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Luxey wrote:
Yes, found it in another thread. I like the music.

I think one overall EQ tilt arrond 2k pivot spot (-12 @ 20Hz; +12 @ 20
kHz) would
do it good.
It may "sound" too drastic on paper but you'll get used to it in a
minute.
After that, some more adjustment in specific bands, like 3 kHz and 80
Hz...

Now what that will do to reverb ..., you will hear.

Thanks, Luxey! I'm glad you like it.

Now that I've released it, I don't plan to change the actual release, but
I'll definitely give this a shot as a learning exercise.

Should I do what you're suggesting even after pulling the bass tracks back
in the mix?

Let it be. Leave it be. Move on. You already have. And that said while not
yet listened. After a glance of listening I may want to mix you next time, I
can't listen today.

---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 21:20:54 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


One more for you. When you are convinced you have the perfect amount
of reverb, halve it.

d

Uh, oh.

Did I use a lot?

No. It is just a general problem that when adding reverb we tend to
lose track of how much we have used during the stress of a session.
Listening back a few days later it is quite usual to hear that it is
in fact overdone, and it needs to be backed off a bit. My advice is
just a time-saver.

d

[Luxey]

If all you change in remix are levels, I
think you would still end with not enough
hi end. So, for each individual track,
try leaving in, or adding, as much hi end
as you can, before find it to be
obviously wrong, distracting ... , Or, do
it just enough to hear the click and be
aware of the air, of each, ...

That would be my approach.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:


One more for you. When you are convinced you have the perfect amount
of reverb, halve it.

d

Uh, oh.

Did I use a lot?


I read Don as quoting a general rule.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 10:57:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jeff Henig wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:


One more for you. When you are convinced you have the perfect amount
of reverb, halve it.

d

Uh, oh.

Did I use a lot?


I read Don as quoting a general rule.

That was the idea. Of course as you get better, the amount you need to
back of decreases, until eventually you are getting it right straight
off.

d

[[email protected]]

Jeff,
I do not consider myself a pro mixer, I do get paid sometimes but I do not earn my living from mixing so this is just MHO.

I analyzed the first 3 tracks only.

My humble opinion is everything sounds nice except that there is about 10 dB too much bass. I thought the dynamic range is good.

To make it sound right to me, I added a shelving EQ bass cut starting at 200 Hz and leveling off at -10 dB at 100Hz and down. In other words no change to everything above 200 Hz and a 10 dB cut to everything below 100 Hz.

That is just my humble opinion and I am curious to see what the more experienced folks have to say.

Mark

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 4/26/2015 3:38 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 10:57:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jeff Henig wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:


One more for you. When you are convinced you have the perfect amount
of reverb, halve it.

d

Uh, oh.

Did I use a lot?


I read Don as quoting a general rule.

That was the idea. Of course as you get better, the amount you need to
back of decreases, until eventually you are getting it right straight
off.

d


Ah that fine line. Wondering if I should have cut this reverb back...
[From an ancient archive of my NJ Editorial Minstrel stuff.]
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5qbt1rk59...ermon.mp3?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lv2fn4rmtk...Chant.mp3?dl=0

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Jeff Henig wrote:
BTW: I don't say all of this to say that I think this project is bad. IMO
it's not a train wreck, but it could've been better.

7: Let a finished project be finished.

"How can it be finished? We still have six tracks left!"


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 12:11:29 AM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

No. It is just a general problem that when adding reverb we tend to
lose track of how much we have used during the stress of a session.
Listening back a few days later it is quite usual to hear that it is
in fact overdone, and it needs to be backed off a bit. My advice is
just a time-saver.


I've told my students for years that the Iron Law of Reverb is to turn it up until it sounds right...then turn it down 6dB.

The thing is, your ears acclimate to a level of reverb and don't hear it any more...so you need to add more in order to hear it. Then, as Don notes, you come back a couple of days later and it sounds like it was recorded in a cave.

I always print a mix with the reverb turned down 6dB from what sounds right, and another mix with it turned down 6 *more* dB. About half the time, the latter mix is what I wind up liking in the long run.

Peace,
Paul

[JackA]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 10:42:29 PM UTC-4, Jeff Henig wrote:
Luxey wrote:
Yes, found it in another thread. I like the music.

I think one overall EQ tilt arrond 2k pivot spot (-12 @ 20Hz; +12 @ 20 kHz) would
do it good.
It may "sound" too drastic on paper but you'll get used to it in a minute.
After that, some more adjustment in specific bands, like 3 kHz and 80 Hz...


3 KHz? Not sure who previously mentioned that!

Jeff, sounds decent (sampled three songs). Not sure why you don't offer to FM radio, like 106.9 kHz K-Love WKVP (Camden, NJ). One other similar on the FM band, too, but more finicky what is played.

Jack

Now what that will do to reverb ..., you will hear.

Thanks, Luxey! I'm glad you like it.

Now that I've released it, I don't plan to change the actual release, but
I'll definitely give this a shot as a learning exercise.

Should I do what you're suggesting even after pulling the bass tracks back
in the mix?

--
---Jeff

[Frank Stearns]

PStamler writes:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 12:11:29 AM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

No. It is just a general problem that when adding reverb we tend to
lose track of how much we have used during the stress of a session.
Listening back a few days later it is quite usual to hear that it is
in fact overdone, and it needs to be backed off a bit. My advice is
just a time-saver.

I've told my students for years that the Iron Law of Reverb is to turn it up until
it sounds right...then turn it down 6dB.

The thing is, your ears acclimate to a level of reverb and don't hear it any
more...so you need to add more in order to hear it. Then, as Don notes, you come
back a couple of days later and it sounds like it was recorded in a cave.

I always print a mix with the reverb turned down 6dB from what sounds right, and
another mix with it turned down 6 *more* dB. About half the time, the latter mix is
what I wind up liking in the long run.

It's startling to me that even with "reverb fatigue" one could make a mix error on
the order of magnitude of even 3 dB, let alone 6 or 12. (In the classical and
acoustic music work I do, a reverb change of even 1 dB can be quite significant.)

I don't doubt the experience and observations, but I'm curious with two general
questions:

1. What music genres are we talking about where this rule seems to apply more often
than not?

2. Can you give some background on the reverbs used: general type, basic parameters
(such as decay time, predelay, EQ, and so on)

Thanks,
Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:29:50 -0500, Frank Stearns
wrote:

PStamler writes:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 12:11:29 AM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

No. It is just a general problem that when adding reverb we tend to
lose track of how much we have used during the stress of a session.
Listening back a few days later it is quite usual to hear that it is
in fact overdone, and it needs to be backed off a bit. My advice is
just a time-saver.

I've told my students for years that the Iron Law of Reverb is to turn it up until
it sounds right...then turn it down 6dB.

The thing is, your ears acclimate to a level of reverb and don't hear it any
more...so you need to add more in order to hear it. Then, as Don notes, you come
back a couple of days later and it sounds like it was recorded in a cave.

I always print a mix with the reverb turned down 6dB from what sounds right, and
another mix with it turned down 6 *more* dB. About half the time, the latter mix is
what I wind up liking in the long run.

It's startling to me that even with "reverb fatigue" one could make a mix error on
the order of magnitude of even 3 dB, let alone 6 or 12. (In the classical and
acoustic music work I do, a reverb change of even 1 dB can be quite significant.)

I don't doubt the experience and observations, but I'm curious with two general
questions:

1. What music genres are we talking about where this rule seems to apply more often
than not?

2. Can you give some background on the reverbs used: general type, basic parameters
(such as decay time, predelay, EQ, and so on)

Thanks,
Frank
Mobile Audio

I think we're talking about the kind of genre where the reverb is an
effect rather than a subtle added air. ""If you notice it, it's too
much" would be the rule in that second one.

Settings? Whatever - I don't think you could pin down anything
specific.

d

[Frank Stearns]

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:29:50 -0500, Frank Stearns
wrote:

PStamler writes:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 12:11:29 AM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

No. It is just a general problem that when adding reverb we tend to
lose track of how much we have used during the stress of a session.
Listening back a few days later it is quite usual to hear that it is
in fact overdone, and it needs to be backed off a bit. My advice is
just a time-saver.

I've told my students for years that the Iron Law of Reverb is to turn it up until
it sounds right...then turn it down 6dB.

The thing is, your ears acclimate to a level of reverb and don't hear it any
more...so you need to add more in order to hear it. Then, as Don notes, you come
back a couple of days later and it sounds like it was recorded in a cave.

I always print a mix with the reverb turned down 6dB from what sounds right, and
another mix with it turned down 6 *more* dB. About half the time, the latter mix is
what I wind up liking in the long run.

It's startling to me that even with "reverb fatigue" one could make a mix error on
the order of magnitude of even 3 dB, let alone 6 or 12. (In the classical and
acoustic music work I do, a reverb change of even 1 dB can be quite significant.)

I don't doubt the experience and observations, but I'm curious with two general
questions:

1. What music genres are we talking about where this rule seems to apply more often
than not?

2. Can you give some background on the reverbs used: general type, basic parameters
(such as decay time, predelay, EQ, and so on)

Thanks,
Frank
Mobile Audio

I think we're talking about the kind of genre where the reverb is an
effect rather than a subtle added air. ""If you notice it, it's too
much" would be the rule in that second one.

Depends on what you're trying to do -- or fix. One example: I've done several music
recordings now in the local theater, which is mostly voiced for stage plays and
spoken word. It has an RT60 of about 1.5 seconds at 1Khz, but then very quickly
drops to 50-60 ms by the time you hit 3K on out. It's horrid for choirs and
orchestras.

First time I brought back tracks from that place I wondered what was broken with my
kit. As I discovered, the only way to get good sound (such that the client goes,
"wow! never knew we sounded so good!") was to use several spots on stage, then
"pre-wash" EACH channel with a short-decay reverb, tilted toward the top end. That
was a good starting point; each channel in turn had a send to a "normal" set of
parallel stereo reverbs, again with a tilt toward the top end. (Normally, you'd
likely go the other way with reverb HF.)

So in this instance there's quite a bit of wet, but it's needed to make the music
believable because of what the hall has done.

Another example: you can take even a studio pop recording and add quite a bit of
front-to-back dimensionality with the right kind of reverb(s). It's the kind of
thing where you've created a lovely performance space with the reverb.

You don't notice just how good it is until you mute all the reverb returns.
That's when you notice how flat and dead everything becomes. (In this instance, a 12
dB drop in reverb return would simulate a near mute.)

What is required is detailed attention to the reverb field(s) being used -- just as
much mix effort as one might have put into dialing in any gain automations, EQs,
comps, etc.

Settings? Whatever - I don't think you could pin down anything
specific.

I have heard reverbs with a lack of predelay, too much predelay, inappropriate
spectral balance, etc, calling far too much attention to themselves as a result --
and if you can't adjust them then by all means, turn them down. But that might be a
bandaid on a more serious problem.

I suppose that my theme in these posts has been that reverb isn't necessarily bad,
but there surely are some bad reverbs out there (inherently, or by less-than-ideal
settings).

So, yes, maybe one should turn it down -- and maybe one should also examine the
settings before making a final reverb level decision.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

skrev i en meddelelse
...

Jeff,
I do not consider myself a pro mixer, I do get paid sometimes but I do not
earn my living from mixing so this is just MHO.

I analyzed the first 3 tracks only.

My humble opinion is everything sounds nice except that there is about 10
dB too much bass. I thought the dynamic range is good.

I still have to get back to this .... anyway, sounds like standard headphone
mixing error to me. Sorry for being terse, offense is not intended, been
there, done it.

Mark

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Frank Stearns" skrev i en meddelelse
...

PStamler writes:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 12:11:29 AM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

No. It is just a general problem that when adding reverb we tend to
lose track of how much we have used during the stress of a session.
Listening back a few days later it is quite usual to hear that it is
in fact overdone, and it needs to be backed off a bit. My advice is
just a time-saver.

I've told my students for years that the Iron Law of Reverb is to turn it
up until
it sounds right...then turn it down 6dB.

The thing is, your ears acclimate to a level of reverb and don't hear it
any
more...so you need to add more in order to hear it. Then, as Don notes,
you come
back a couple of days later and it sounds like it was recorded in a cave.

I always print a mix with the reverb turned down 6dB from what sounds
right, and
another mix with it turned down 6 *more* dB. About half the time, the
latter mix is
what I wind up liking in the long run.

Yes, just added verb to a concert band in too dry a room, turned it up to
actually audible in the mix and then down so that it only barely was.
Listening to the tails afterwards it is almost too much. Yes, it was a
2-track. Yes mix, because doing it as a mix and exporting the mixdown allows
one stage processing in post for cleanest sound.

It's startling to me that even with "reverb fatigue" one could
make a mix error on the order of magnitude of even 3 dB, let alone
6 or 12. (In the classical and acoustic music work I do, a reverb
change of even 1 dB can be quite significant.)

Yes, and first we need to talk pre-delay. The most frequent error is too
little predelay and adding verb in ketchup amounts to make the room appear
larger because that most often is what one needs. The catch is that adding
predelay is what makes the room appear larger, not adding more reverb, it
just blurs.

Applies to all genres and scenarios.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

I don't doubt the experience and observations, but I'm curious with two
general
questions:

1. What music genres are we talking about where this rule seems to apply
more often
than not?

2. Can you give some background on the reverbs used: general type, basic
parameters
(such as decay time, predelay, EQ, and so on)

Thanks,
Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:15:31 -0500, Frank Stearns
wrote:

(Don Pearce) writes:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:29:50 -0500, Frank Stearns
wrote:

PStamler writes:

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 12:11:29 AM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

No. It is just a general problem that when adding reverb we tend to
lose track of how much we have used during the stress of a session.
Listening back a few days later it is quite usual to hear that it is
in fact overdone, and it needs to be backed off a bit. My advice is
just a time-saver.

I've told my students for years that the Iron Law of Reverb is to turn it up until
it sounds right...then turn it down 6dB.

The thing is, your ears acclimate to a level of reverb and don't hear it any
more...so you need to add more in order to hear it. Then, as Don notes, you come
back a couple of days later and it sounds like it was recorded in a cave.

I always print a mix with the reverb turned down 6dB from what sounds right, and
another mix with it turned down 6 *more* dB. About half the time, the latter mix is
what I wind up liking in the long run.

It's startling to me that even with "reverb fatigue" one could make a mix error on
the order of magnitude of even 3 dB, let alone 6 or 12. (In the classical and
acoustic music work I do, a reverb change of even 1 dB can be quite significant.)

I don't doubt the experience and observations, but I'm curious with two general
questions:

1. What music genres are we talking about where this rule seems to apply more often
than not?

2. Can you give some background on the reverbs used: general type, basic parameters
(such as decay time, predelay, EQ, and so on)

Thanks,
Frank
Mobile Audio

I think we're talking about the kind of genre where the reverb is an
effect rather than a subtle added air. ""If you notice it, it's too
much" would be the rule in that second one.

Depends on what you're trying to do -- or fix. One example: I've done several music
recordings now in the local theater, which is mostly voiced for stage plays and
spoken word. It has an RT60 of about 1.5 seconds at 1Khz, but then very quickly
drops to 50-60 ms by the time you hit 3K on out. It's horrid for choirs and
orchestras.

First time I brought back tracks from that place I wondered what was broken with my
kit. As I discovered, the only way to get good sound (such that the client goes,
"wow! never knew we sounded so good!") was to use several spots on stage, then
"pre-wash" EACH channel with a short-decay reverb, tilted toward the top end. That
was a good starting point; each channel in turn had a send to a "normal" set of
parallel stereo reverbs, again with a tilt toward the top end. (Normally, you'd
likely go the other way with reverb HF.)

So in this instance there's quite a bit of wet, but it's needed to make the music
believable because of what the hall has done.

Another example: you can take even a studio pop recording and add quite a bit of
front-to-back dimensionality with the right kind of reverb(s). It's the kind of
thing where you've created a lovely performance space with the reverb.

You don't notice just how good it is until you mute all the reverb returns.
That's when you notice how flat and dead everything becomes. (In this instance, a 12
dB drop in reverb return would simulate a near mute.)

What is required is detailed attention to the reverb field(s) being used -- just as
much mix effort as one might have put into dialing in any gain automations, EQs,
comps, etc.

Settings? Whatever - I don't think you could pin down anything
specific.

I have heard reverbs with a lack of predelay, too much predelay, inappropriate
spectral balance, etc, calling far too much attention to themselves as a result --
and if you can't adjust them then by all means, turn them down. But that might be a
bandaid on a more serious problem.

I suppose that my theme in these posts has been that reverb isn't necessarily bad,
but there surely are some bad reverbs out there (inherently, or by less-than-ideal
settings).

So, yes, maybe one should turn it down -- and maybe one should also examine the
settings before making a final reverb level decision.

YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio

I get what you are saying, particularly about the choir in too dry a
space. I'm afraid I can usually hear when that kind of fix has been
applied - not so much from the sound, provided a good impulse has been
used with convolution reverb - but the choir itself. Singers respond
to the acoustics, and choirs sing very differently in a huge
reverberant space than they do in a dry room. You can always hear the
technique change - there is a sense of waiting in the larger space.

What I'm really thinking of though is just the general "it needs some
reverb" attitude that usually ends up plastering too much over the
sound. It loses clarity and gets muddied. That is what you usually
pick up on the next day, and fix by dialling it all back a few
notches.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project ...

For a starter, several comments have been made on the tonal balance, here is
a rendering of the perceived tonal balance for the entire cd/ep:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2009.12.19.png

The reference is a modified version of the inverse orange curve that has
shown itself to apply well to close recorded music, ie. allowing for
increased bass content of the genre.

---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Peter Larsen" skrev i en meddelelse
k...

"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project ...

For a starter, several comments have been made on the tonal balance, here
is a rendering of the perceived tonal balance for the entire cd/ep:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2009.12.19.png

The reference is a modified version of the inverse orange curve that has
shown itself to apply well to close recorded music, ie. allowing for
increased bass content of the genre.

And with longer wordlength fft:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34064013/hires.png

---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:33:32 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

"Peter Larsen" skrev i en meddelelse
. dk...

"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project ...

For a starter, several comments have been made on the tonal balance, here
is a rendering of the perceived tonal balance for the entire cd/ep:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2009.12.19.png

The reference is a modified version of the inverse orange curve that has
shown itself to apply well to close recorded music, ie. allowing for
increased bass content of the genre.

And with longer wordlength fft:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34064013/hires.png


That second one isn't there.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Don Pearce" skrev i en meddelelse
...

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:33:32 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

And with longer wordlength fft:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34064013/hires.png

That second one isn't there.

Thanks, fixed it, sorry.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

And with longer wordlength fft:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34064013/hires.png


Peter Larsen

That's an interesting tool..

What is it?

Mark

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
Luxey wrote:
If all you change in remix are levels, I
think you would still end with not enough
hi end. So, for each individual track,
try leaving in, or adding, as much hi end
as you can, before find it to be
obviously wrong, distracting ... , Or, do
it just enough to hear the click and be
aware of the air, of each, ...

That would be my approach.

Am I maybe mixing with not enough bass in my monitor EQ? Or, I wonder, was
I maybe paying too much attention to the painful high end of the automotive
check mix?



If you are questioning your decisions and you have the luxury of time,
stick a pin in it for a while. It'll be there when you get back.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:54:23 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" skrev i en meddelelse
...

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:33:32 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

And with longer wordlength fft:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34064013/hires.png

That second one isn't there.

Thanks, fixed it, sorry.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


What did you use to flatten it out, +3dB per octave FFT filter?

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Don Pearce" skrev i en meddelelse
...

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:33:32 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

And with longer wordlength fft:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34064013/hires.png

What did you use to flatten it out, +3dB per octave FFT filter?

Yes, above 320 Hz, see also:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...nge%20rock.png

Note: just applying the correction curve is not likely to work well because
not all sound sources in the mix need eq and because it is an average of all
songs en suite, using a multiband compressor carefully might be to the
point.

d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

(Don Pearce) writes:

snips

I get what you are saying, particularly about the choir in too dry a
space. I'm afraid I can usually hear when that kind of fix has been
applied - not so much from the sound, provided a good impulse has been
used with convolution reverb - but the choir itself. Singers respond
to the acoustics, and choirs sing very differently in a huge
reverberant space than they do in a dry room. You can always hear the
technique change - there is a sense of waiting in the larger space.

This is an excellent point, and one certainly verified from my own experience with
musicians playing in a space where they can hear themselves (good room reverb is a
large part of that), and where they cannot.

I'm able to get a faux room tone that's hard to tell from a good room, but it's
practically impossible to do much about intonation and timing issues brought on by a
space that's unfriendly to musicians.


What I'm really thinking of though is just the general "it needs some
reverb" attitude that usually ends up plastering too much over the
sound. It loses clarity and gets muddied. That is what you usually
pick up on the next day, and fix by dialling it all back a few
notches.

Sure, and this is the very moment the mix engineer ought to pause and ask
of the reverb not only "how much" but of what shape? Tonality?

Too many simply open a reverb plug in, accept the defaults (in digital-land
typically the worst-sounding reverb the thing will produce), and call it good.
Yes, indeed, turn THAT down! Otherwise, give it some care before applying.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 4:23:34 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
(Don Pearce) writes:

snips

I get what you are saying, particularly about the choir in too dry a
space. I'm afraid I can usually hear when that kind of fix has been
applied - not so much from the sound, provided a good impulse has been
used with convolution reverb - but the choir itself. Singers respond
to the acoustics, and choirs sing very differently in a huge
reverberant space than they do in a dry room. You can always hear the
technique change - there is a sense of waiting in the larger space.

This is an excellent point, and one certainly verified from my own experience with
musicians playing in a space where they can hear themselves (good room reverb is a
large part of that), and where they cannot.

I'm able to get a faux room tone that's hard to tell from a good room, but it's
practically impossible to do much about intonation and timing issues brought on by a
space that's unfriendly to musicians.

Correct me if I'm in error, but I didn't "hear" any musicians. Thought it was mainly computer generated music, no real musicians required.

Jack


What I'm really thinking of though is just the general "it needs some
reverb" attitude that usually ends up plastering too much over the
sound. It loses clarity and gets muddied. That is what you usually
pick up on the next day, and fix by dialling it all back a few
notches.

Sure, and this is the very moment the mix engineer ought to pause and ask
of the reverb not only "how much" but of what shape? Tonality?

Too many simply open a reverb plug in, accept the defaults (in digital-land
typically the worst-sounding reverb the thing will produce), and call it good.
Yes, indeed, turn THAT down! Otherwise, give it some care before applying.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 7:14:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 4:23:34 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
(Don Pearce) writes:

snips

I get what you are saying, particularly about the choir in too dry a
space. I'm afraid I can usually hear when that kind of fix has been
applied - not so much from the sound, provided a good impulse has been
used with convolution reverb - but the choir itself. Singers respond
to the acoustics, and choirs sing very differently in a huge
reverberant space than they do in a dry room. You can always hear the
technique change - there is a sense of waiting in the larger space.

This is an excellent point, and one certainly verified from my own experience with
musicians playing in a space where they can hear themselves (good room reverb is a
large part of that), and where they cannot.

I'm able to get a faux room tone that's hard to tell from a good room, but it's
practically impossible to do much about intonation and timing issues brought on by a
space that's unfriendly to musicians.

Correct me if I'm in error, but I didn't "hear" any musicians. Thought it was
mainly computer generated music, no real musicians required.

This did migrate to a general discussion about reverb (that's why I changed the
subject and noted the change). But, in fact, several of the items discussed would
also apply to mixing a bunch of midi voices (or whatever).

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.


Oh, okay, Frank. Thanks. I didn't see any credits, other than song writing.

Actually, this is why I began to lose interest in music, primarily about the '80's, less musicians, more fabricated sound (cheapen the production). Listen to Pop music today. I had trouble of accepting overdubbing! Luckily, it doesn't seem this quest for fabrication hasn't hit Jazz music. I mean, from what I hear of Jazz on radio stations like WRTI-FM, still real musicians, even real sounding drums. I can appreciate it.

Best,
Jack

[[email protected]]

Ys I thought the high end was fine.
The bass was to hot.

Mark

[Frank Stearns]

JackA writes:

-snips-

Oh, okay, Frank. Thanks. I didn't see any credits, other than song writing.

Actually, this is why I began to lose interest in music, primarily about th=
e '80's, less musicians, more fabricated sound (cheapen the production). Li=
sten to Pop music today. I had trouble of accepting overdubbing! Luckily, i=
t doesn't seem this quest for fabrication hasn't hit Jazz music. I mean, fr=
om what I hear of Jazz on radio stations like WRTI-FM, still real musicians=
, even real sounding drums. I can appreciate it.

Well, strictly as a matter of personal opinion, I've come to disdain most of what's
called "jazz" these days, even though production values can be high. Seems to be a
symptom of the same underlying problem -- the disappearance of authentic music,
music where someone has sweated the hours of practice, along with the hours of study
devoted to fully understanding the history and broader horizons of their music, all
in an effort to elevate the art as high as humanly possible, and even beyond.

Most jazz I hear (and record) these days is for the most part mindless noodling.
Some players are smugly self-satisified because they've improv'd something. Yeah,
and my 11 month old niece can scribble on the wall with crayon and "improv" a
picture. Gimme a break.

Would-be jazz players ought to at least study the jazz written by Leonard Bernstein
or Dave Brubeck (among others, or even go back and understand some of the early
rules of jazz), and even study a few classical composers -- and then develop the
chops to play it all well.

At that point, after they've understood the fundamentals and have the foundation,
future musical noodling might actually have some value, rather than just an excuse
to hide a lack of depth, or prop up what is too often just musical slouching or
musical bad posture.

Sorry to offend any jazz devotees; again, just an opinion.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[hank alrich]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Would-be jazz players ought to at least study the jazz written by Leonard
Bernstein or Dave Brubeck (among others, or even go back and understand
some of the early rules of jazz), and even study a few classical composers
-- and then develop the chops to play it all well.

Go to the sources. Go back to Jelly Roll Morton, and take it forward
from there. Most people didn't understand that Ornette Coleman, John
Coltrane, and many others, could play all the music of their
predecessors. They had already dissected Charlie Parker, and moved
ahead.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 10:23:16 AM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:
"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project ...

For a starter, several comments have been made on the tonal balance, here is
a rendering of the perceived tonal balance for the entire cd/ep:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2009.12.19.png

The reference is a modified version of the inverse orange curve that has
shown itself to apply well to close recorded music, ie. allowing for
increased bass content of the genre.

---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

I think I do not completely understand how your method works.
I guess if you'd analyze Orange Noise* the result would be a straight line?
If I'm correct, I'm interested in seeing what would be the picture if you
analyzed Brown, Pink and White.

*Orange noise, is it something you've came to, empirically, or analytically?
I do not remember I've ever heard of it, before you've mentioned it some time
ago.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:13:21 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" skrev i en meddelelse
...

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:33:32 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

And with longer wordlength fft:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34064013/hires.png

What did you use to flatten it out, +3dB per octave FFT filter?

Yes, above 320 Hz, see also:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...nge%20rock.png

Note: just applying the correction curve is not likely to work well because
not all sound sources in the mix need eq and because it is an average of all
songs en suite, using a multiband compressor carefully might be to the
point.

d
Here's the problem. The bass lift is down to the eq on the voice -
nothing else. So you can't fix this post-mix. It has to be done on the
individual channel. So if you are going to use a curve-matching system
to do what? - meet an ideal, or maybe make it look like something
similar - then it has to be done at the level of the individual
tracks, not the final output.

d

[hank alrich]

Luxey wrote:

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 10:23:16 AM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:
"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project ...

For a starter, several comments have been made on the tonal balance,
here is a rendering of the perceived tonal balance for the entire cd/ep:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...lede%202015-04
-28%2009.12.19.png

The reference is a modified version of the inverse orange curve that has
shown itself to apply well to close recorded music, ie. allowing for
increased bass content of the genre.

---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

I think I do not completely understand how your method works.
I guess if you'd analyze Orange Noise* the result would be a straight line?
If I'm correct, I'm interested in seeing what would be the picture if you
analyzed Brown, Pink and White.

*Orange noise, is it something you've came to, empirically, or analytically?
I do not remember I've ever heard of it, before you've mentioned it some time
ago.

Not sure this helps but€¦

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/no...nge-noise.html

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Luxey]

�реда, 29. април 2015. 14..51.33 UTC+2, hank alrich је напи�ао/ла:
Luxey wrote:

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 10:23:16 AM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:
"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"At Rock Bottom ...life begins" was my first recording project ...

For a starter, several comments have been made on the tonal balance,
here is a rendering of the perceived tonal balance for the entire cd/ep:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...lede%202015-04
-28%2009.12.19.png

The reference is a modified version of the inverse orange curve that has
shown itself to apply well to close recorded music, ie. allowing for
increased bass content of the genre.


Unfortunately, looks like it does not.
From the description seem to be something completely
different from Peter's reference.


---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

I think I do not completely understand how your method works.
I guess if you'd analyze Orange Noise* the result would be a straight line?
If I'm correct, I'm interested in seeing what would be the picture if you
analyzed Brown, Pink and White.

*Orange noise, is it something you've came to, empirically, or analytically?
I do not remember I've ever heard of it, before you've mentioned it some time
ago.

Not sure this helps but€¦

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/no...nge-noise.html

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[JackA]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 10:34:16 PM UTC-4, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

-snips-

Oh, okay, Frank. Thanks. I didn't see any credits, other than song writing.

Actually, this is why I began to lose interest in music, primarily about th=
e '80's, less musicians, more fabricated sound (cheapen the production). Li=
sten to Pop music today. I had trouble of accepting overdubbing! Luckily, i=
t doesn't seem this quest for fabrication hasn't hit Jazz music. I mean, fr=
om what I hear of Jazz on radio stations like WRTI-FM, still real musicians=
, even real sounding drums. I can appreciate it.

Well, strictly as a matter of personal opinion, I've come to disdain most of what's
called "jazz" these days, even though production values can be high. Seems to be a
symptom of the same underlying problem -- the disappearance of authentic music,
music where someone has sweated the hours of practice, along with the hours of study
devoted to fully understanding the history and broader horizons of their music, all
in an effort to elevate the art as high as humanly possible, and even beyond.

Most jazz I hear (and record) these days is for the most part mindless noodling.
Some players are smugly self-satisified because they've improv'd something. Yeah,
and my 11 month old niece can scribble on the wall with crayon and "improv" a
picture. Gimme a break.

Would-be jazz players ought to at least study the jazz written by Leonard Bernstein
or Dave Brubeck (among others, or even go back and understand some of the early
rules of jazz), and even study a few classical composers -- and then develop the
chops to play it all well.

At that point, after they've understood the fundamentals and have the foundation,
future musical noodling might actually have some value, rather than just an excuse
to hide a lack of depth, or prop up what is too often just musical slouching or
musical bad posture.

Sorry to offend any jazz devotees; again, just an opinion.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.

I do agree, I'm not in favor of whatever you call it, improv, freestyle, etc.. However, I still do hear real sounding drums.

Went to see Maynard Ferguson at a Pennsauken, NJ highschool, with a friend, about the '90's. It was nice to hear a Big Band in action - real people, real talent, real music. Even the drummer was impressive!

Jack