[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

[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
...

"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

[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

[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.

[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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"hank alrich" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Not sure this helps but.

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

Thank you Hank, he should be totally confused by now. They don't seem to
know how to google. Take white noise and roll it off with 6 dB pr. octave
above 320 Hz. Someone back then, I think it was Rodney in
alt.sci.physics.acoustics, told me that there is a standard noise with that
characteristic.

It is based on analyzing a lot of natural recordings with Cool Edit and a
Pentium 133 computer to see if a "natural sound characteristic" existed. The
idea was an expansion of something a dane at an AES meeting in Radiohuset
about restoration explained about comparing a new recording of a string
quartet with an old to get data that would be useful in recovering the
original frequency content, I'm very sorry that I can not remember his name.

There are then some modifying factors to be aware of, magnetic recordings
generally have less treble and for large rooms that also applies and there
will be extra bass in some musical genres.

The mechanism appears to me to be the sound radiation characteristics of
objects, with increased frequency you get increased directivity.

I also made a lot of crest factor analyses. Being an enthusiastic idiot I
tried to put too much stuff in one paper instead of in dividing it in three,
so it didn't pass the review process for the journal.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

It is based on analyzing a lot of natural recordings with Cool Edit and a
Pentium 133 computer to see if a "natural sound characteristic" existed. The
idea was an expansion of something a dane at an AES meeting in Radiohuset
about restoration explained about comparing a new recording of a string
quartet with an old to get data that would be useful in recovering the
original frequency content, I'm very sorry that I can not remember his name.


this is an interesting topic.

I was under the impression that the average spectral density of most music follows the 75us FM radio de-emphasis curve. It is flat from 20 Hz to about 2.2 kHz and rolls off at 6 dB per octave above 2.2 kHz. And I do find that recordings that violate this on the high side do seem to sound harsh.


Then another tib-bit.....

It all depends on the type of analyzer you use.
A so called real time octave based audio analyzer has "bins" that get wider as you go up in frequency.
A "normal" spectrum anlyzer has "bins" that are of a constant bandwidth.
This makes no difference when you are analyzing tones.
But when you are analyzing distributed wideband spectrums, it can make a difference.
For example, pink noise appears "flat" on an RTA and slopes down on an SA. White noise appears flat on an SA and slopes upwards on an RTA.

Having fun yet?

Mark

[Luxey]

�реда, 29. април 2015. 18..20.10 UTC+2, Peter Larsen је напи�ао/ла:
"hank alrich" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Not sure this helps but.

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

Thank you Hank, he should be totally confused by now. They don't seem to
know how to google.

Where can I google for the meaning of above statement?!

To avoid any confusion:
Provided you were talking about me, I mean, obviously, you continued on Hank's
response to my post ...
Why would you want me confused and/or why do you think I am?
Why do you think Hank would want to cunfuse me?
Why do you think I do not know how to Google?

[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

--

[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

[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

[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

[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

--
.

[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

[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
--

[[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

[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

[[email protected]]

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

Mark

[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."