I have been doing the demos for my band for a few weeks, recording using 2 condensers and whatever dynamics we had to hand in our rehearsal space (all no-name brands). As I have literally no experience recording or mixing, this seemed like an interesting experiment.
Anyway, after having 5 or so songs recorded like this, we decided it would probably be a good idea to get them recorded professionally, as my mixes aren't exactly what one might call "pro-quality".
However, once we got the tracks back from the producer, we were a little surprised at the quality of the final product. This may be to do with the expectations we had going into the session, so I was wondering if I could get some constructive criticism about the mixes, and whether you think that the studio mix is better (or at least, worth paying for in the future).
To avoid any biases, the tracks are all unnamed (other than ABC). One of them is my mix, one the studios, and one our guitarists take on it (which he is convinced is better than the studio).
Track C sounds like the beastie boys Sabotoage. this first track is the warmeast more vintage. It's hard to say which people would prefer. seems like the moderen ear like that super commpressed sound. I like Track A just feels warmer. but I wouldn't say it's Blackbird studios quality. I feel you we are mixing and recording our own album as well. and What we see to be lacking is that 10% that makes it sound GREAT! We use protool rig and the tweaks seem to work. If you want to hear our stuff get some Ideas of what we think our listners would like be happy to send you some. You got my respect in trying to make it great few bands these days even try!
C sounded the best to me, but it could use more crunch on the guitar. The whole track lacks a little punchiness.
B was...ouch. All those cymbals really hurt and the guitars/bass are clipping hard.
A sounds really dark and kind of weak. It sounds warm, but is definitely lacking something. It's a little muddy at times.
Interesting stuff already - the band all hated A. There is clearly something going on with the Hi-hats, and cymbals in general in A.
I'm amazed that people replied so quickly, so I thank you for that! I wasn't expecting any response at all :P !
A was the studio version, C the home recording, and B the guitarists mix. C is very over-produced I agree, as that was my attempt at masking the terrible microphones!
I'm pretty certain the odd hi-hat thing is to do with some very aggressive gating used on the cymbals, although I could be wrong. I did notice that the bass cuts out from time to time due to gating, which is kinda poor coming from a producer who was paid to mix the track.
__________________
AccuGroove Tri12l - EBMM 'StatusRay'
Bassists Who Drive Manual Club #102, Club Sadowsky #359 Club Bongo #111
I agree with hennessybass. Actually, he just beat me to the post.
The cymbals and hi-hat sound phased in A and B. And the hard panning makes them hard to listen to. My attention is immediately drawn to that. Dunno if it's my musician's ear in general, or because I'm also a drummer. The phasing and panning issues are fixed in C, which I'd guess is the studio cut.
The A version sounds best to me. It has an overall nice sound - maybe lacking a bit in treble. Maybe that's why the cymbals stand out so much in my head. They're the only instrument in that frequency range at all. I'd consider re-recording the drum track. For overheads, phasing issues are easily fixed with the mics placed directly above the drum kit - the higher, the better - crossed at the point where the cartridges are located. It's okay to pan them a bit. But don't go hard left/right. Personally, I like my hi-hat and ride to appear dead center in the mix if they're individually mic'd. Else, just don't pan the overheads very much at all. Also, don't cut too much mid/low frequency from the overheads. Good cymbals will have pretty broad voicing and shouldn't sound that tinny.
The band sounds great in all versions. FWIW, the B version was my least favorite.
__________________
Jacob
Buddhist #33, Drummers Who Became Bassists #1, Roland #20, Schecter #191
Last edited by dalahorse : 08-08-2011 at 11:08 AM.
Reason: Typo (as usual)
I'm pretty certain the odd hi-hat thing is to do with some very aggressive gating used on the cymbals, although I could be wrong.
Hrm. I wouldn't gate the overheads at all. Some (but not too much!) low frequency roll off will cut some of the drum bleed through. But it's going to be there, regardless. And that's not necessarily a bad thing - unless you pan the close mic'd drums different than you pan the overheads. Depending on the drummer's cymbal placement and drumming volume, the gate is unlikely to be useful at all, IMO.
That being said, a gate on the snare - just enough to cut down on extraneous buzzing - can be a good thing. But in this recording, if it wasn't used, it wasn't really needed. If it was used, it was used well!
__________________
Jacob
Buddhist #33, Drummers Who Became Bassists #1, Roland #20, Schecter #191
C sounds like an unmastered rough mix from a studio. The imaging on the drums in A is just weird. B is over compressed and badly EQ'ed. Hurts my ears. As I said, C sounds like a rough mix from a studio.
None of them are ready to be released to the world. I work at a studio in Colorado. Wanna fly out? I'll make you sound good.
None of them are ready to be released to the world.
I can certainly agree on that much!
Hopefully, when I get the original masters from the studio (some point this week) I can work on doing a very basic mastering myself. At that point we should be able to tell if it was a complete waste of money or not
And I would love to fly over and have you make us sound great (I have no doubt that you could!), I just couldn't justify the costs
__________________
AccuGroove Tri12l - EBMM 'StatusRay'
Bassists Who Drive Manual Club #102, Club Sadowsky #359 Club Bongo #111
Hopefully, when I get the original masters from the studio (some point this week) I can work on doing a very basic mastering myself. At that point we should be able to tell if it was a complete waste of money or not
And I would love to fly over and have you make us sound great (I have no doubt that you could!), I just couldn't justify the costs
Keep us posted on what happens. Just goes to show you just because you own a studio doesn't mean you can record things well.
Hopefully, when I get the original masters from the studio (some point this week) I can work on doing a very basic mastering myself. At that point we should be able to tell if it was a complete waste of money or not
And I would love to fly over and have you make us sound great (I have no doubt that you could!), I just couldn't justify the costs
A: +1 on phasing sound of the drums - especially the cymbals. The snare had that 'studio crack' sound to it, which (IMO) is obvious and sounds like some engineer showing off how tight and cracky he can make the snare sound.
Also - of the 3, it's better than "B" and different from C. But C has a lot of 'stuff' going on that's different from A, but not necessarily better - just different to me. So it's a toss up for me between A and C.
If "A" is anything more than a daily rough mix from the studio - in other words, if that's supposed to be a finished product, it's not.
Regarding mastering. Do yourself a favor and have a third party master it.
I think C has the best separation between the guitar and bass, I can hear both instruments well. I like both B&C, but B sounded like there was some unwanted clipping in the bass.
