Living Fossil
Senior Member
Mix 2 is ([very] much) better than mix 1....
Maybe you're listening to the music in a room which adds some strange coloration?
Maybe you're listening to the music in a room which adds some strange coloration?
Not happy with production results
- Thread starter otisvillain
- Start date
otisvillain
New Member
There's definitely going to be a difference of opinion on this one! Music is probably the most subjective thing on earth. I disagree with mix 2 being better. You can't hear all of the elements clearly, lacks the punch of mix 1, and has key elements panning left to right, back and forth, which makes little sense. Mix 2 is brighter for sure, and the brightness issue for mix 1 was taken care of in the mastering stage. Overall, I do not like music that sounds sorta fake due to processing, and mix 2 sounds semi phony to me.
If someone is looking for an organic, clean mix where all of the elements are heard, I would say mix 1 takes the cake. Thanks all!
If someone is looking for an organic, clean mix where all of the elements are heard, I would say mix 1 takes the cake. Thanks all!
Living Fossil
Senior Member
If you want to be proud of yourself, of course feel free to pretend that your mix is better.
Vanity is a human right.
However, i can't see a single objective argument which supports your view.
Maybe you should try to trust a littel bit people who are more experienced??
Said that, it's none of my business. Do what you think is right.
Vanity is a human right.
However, i can't see a single objective argument which supports your view.
Maybe you should try to trust a littel bit people who are more experienced??
Said that, it's none of my business. Do what you think is right.
LondonMike
Active Member
I too prefer mix 2 because it seems to do more justice to the material. It's an atmospheric track and mix 1 is a bit dry and not as big. If I was mixing the track I'd probably want to be even more radical with FX etc. But then, you'd probably give me the sack! 
otisvillain
New Member
Londonmike- I do agree with you, if you are looking for more of an atmospheric feeling and a bigger, wider sound, then yes, mix 2 would be the choice.
living fossil- With all due respect, you come off as an arrogant musical snob, of which there are many in this world. It's people like yourself that others should avoid!
living fossil- With all due respect, you come off as an arrogant musical snob, of which there are many in this world. It's people like yourself that others should avoid!
Living Fossil
Senior Member
Ok. So you're posting two different versions of a track.
One is your version, the other not.
You prefer your version.
If people disagree with you, they are "arrogant musical snobs" "which there are many in this world" and which "others should avoid".
If insulting people who try to help you works for you, that's fine. Go for it!
storyteller
Senior Member
Otis, I definitely can understand why Mix 2 may not be what you are looking for, but speaking very objectively, Mix 2 is very much on another mixing level above Mix 1. However, what I think you are trying to express is something I learned the hard way early on (and even still confront from time to time on a mix). I hope this story helps a bit...
I once had a track that I thought was excellent. I thought, "let's mix it and send it off to the radio and the world would return boatloads of money in kind for such a perfect contribution to the music world." But the problem was, the mix engineer seemed to turn everything I thought made the track great into mush, and expose parts that I wanted more subtle. Even the vocals became a frustrating point for me. I liked my rough mix better. Period. It took me a while to realize that the problem was not the engineer. In fact, his mixes were fantastic and he had many radio successes! The problem was that my production ear was focused on the sounds I was using rather than how those sounds combined together. After I reluctantly acknowledged the problem was of my own making, I could substitute sounds and record new parts and harmonies that could fill the sonic and stereo spectrums like I was originally hoping for. It just took the self-realization that production is more than the initial vision of the raw tracks. It is finding the right sounds, rhythms, harmonies, melodies, etc to fill the sonic and stereo spectrums appropriately to bring that vision to life. Then engineers make THAT sound great! It is so easy to hear the product envisioned in the mind but not have it fully supported in the content delivered to an engineer.... then it gets messy....
It is such an easy mistake to make! I still do it today!! The problem can be especially apparent with pop/rock/country music. When we hear the sounds raw, there are certain characteristics that we like (as producers). But, most of these sounds are thin (or too thick), not spread over the stereo spectrum properly with the other instruments, have strange reverb/delay lengths, and so on. So we add our own touches to clean it up. It's like putting a band-aid on something that requires surgery even when we think it is a slight scratch that just needs mended. Engineers who are good at their job know the difference and often have to make adjustments to a song that go against the original vision in order to make it sound polished. It is a math equation with few creative liberties once it has been submitted to an engineer. And that is why the mixes aren't what you are hoping for.
So, moral of the story.... chances are what you are hearing is not the engineer (if you paid for a quality mix). Chances are, there are areas that can be improved in production/recording to help the mix before it reaches the engineer. And, if you like a certain style of fx on the vocals, send some examples. Then the engineer can determine if there is enough stuff to work with to achieve that product!
Anyway, hope that helps. I wish you the best with it.
I once had a track that I thought was excellent. I thought, "let's mix it and send it off to the radio and the world would return boatloads of money in kind for such a perfect contribution to the music world." But the problem was, the mix engineer seemed to turn everything I thought made the track great into mush, and expose parts that I wanted more subtle. Even the vocals became a frustrating point for me. I liked my rough mix better. Period. It took me a while to realize that the problem was not the engineer. In fact, his mixes were fantastic and he had many radio successes! The problem was that my production ear was focused on the sounds I was using rather than how those sounds combined together. After I reluctantly acknowledged the problem was of my own making, I could substitute sounds and record new parts and harmonies that could fill the sonic and stereo spectrums like I was originally hoping for. It just took the self-realization that production is more than the initial vision of the raw tracks. It is finding the right sounds, rhythms, harmonies, melodies, etc to fill the sonic and stereo spectrums appropriately to bring that vision to life. Then engineers make THAT sound great! It is so easy to hear the product envisioned in the mind but not have it fully supported in the content delivered to an engineer.... then it gets messy....
It is such an easy mistake to make! I still do it today!! The problem can be especially apparent with pop/rock/country music. When we hear the sounds raw, there are certain characteristics that we like (as producers). But, most of these sounds are thin (or too thick), not spread over the stereo spectrum properly with the other instruments, have strange reverb/delay lengths, and so on. So we add our own touches to clean it up. It's like putting a band-aid on something that requires surgery even when we think it is a slight scratch that just needs mended. Engineers who are good at their job know the difference and often have to make adjustments to a song that go against the original vision in order to make it sound polished. It is a math equation with few creative liberties once it has been submitted to an engineer. And that is why the mixes aren't what you are hoping for.
So, moral of the story.... chances are what you are hearing is not the engineer (if you paid for a quality mix). Chances are, there are areas that can be improved in production/recording to help the mix before it reaches the engineer. And, if you like a certain style of fx on the vocals, send some examples. Then the engineer can determine if there is enough stuff to work with to achieve that product!
Anyway, hope that helps. I wish you the best with it.
otisvillain
New Member
Get off your high horse dude! Your one comment was snobbish, plain and simple. I forgot, you are the "professional" so you must be right!
otisvillain
New Member
Storyteller- you make great points. I think my issue with the mix is that it was mixed to sound like everything else you hear on the radio, and the unique qualities of the song were lost. Uniqueness is important if you are not industry created. Also, I don't think bongos, violins, and percs bouncing around all over the stereo image makes for an ideal mix, but rather a busy & distracting mix, IMO. I never said mine was the greatest since sliced bread, but it was certainly cleaner and more balanced.
In this small test I did, 4 regular listeners liked mine better (not my friends), and VI control liked his. Interesting indeed!
In this small test I did, 4 regular listeners liked mine better (not my friends), and VI control liked his. Interesting indeed!
Jeremy Spencer
Senior Member
I didn't read anything snobbish about Living Fossil's post, he took the time to provide an educated opinion on the mixes. In this industry, you need a THICK skin and must be open to constructive criticism.
Johann F.
Member
I've heard both mixes yesterday *blind*, trying to be as unbiased as possible, and thought mix 1 sounded dull, while mix 2 had more clarity, depth and overall creative value.
OP, you came here, posted your music and asked for opinions. Living Fossil took the time to listen and give you valid feedback that you didn't agree because you already made your mind in the initial post. So why even bother asking if you can't take constructive criticism? If you are looking for a hug bubble or echo chamber to validate your work, public forums aren't the best place. But if you want to learn and improve, you came to the right place.
OP, you came here, posted your music and asked for opinions. Living Fossil took the time to listen and give you valid feedback that you didn't agree because you already made your mind in the initial post. So why even bother asking if you can't take constructive criticism? If you are looking for a hug bubble or echo chamber to validate your work, public forums aren't the best place. But if you want to learn and improve, you came to the right place.
LondonMike
Active Member
I'd say the only kind of critique that is valuable is a negative one because it makes you rethink and reconsider.
Once we get over the disappointment of others not loving our stuff as much as we do, we can hear it with their ears and then we improve.
Sometimes it's just a matter of different tastes but often it's more than that.
Once we get over the disappointment of others not loving our stuff as much as we do, we can hear it with their ears and then we improve.
Sometimes it's just a matter of different tastes but often it's more than that.
otisvillain
New Member
Living Fossil said--"If you want to be proud of yourself, of course feel free to pretend that your mix is better.
Vanity is a human right."
That is a snobbish comment. I have no problem with criticism, and give it out all the time. But I don't do it in a condescending manner. I simply gave reasons why I thought mine was better.
The consensus here is that mix 2 was better and that is fine, I have no issues with that. I am simply saying that I found that mix sorta phony sounding. I didn't like the delay effect on the snare. I didn't like the concept of the violin, bongo, and the other perc panning from left to right, back and forth. All of this panning and such was occurring at the same time. To me, that is not appealing to the ear, but is rather confusing. You all might like the idea of a busy, panning all over the place type mix, with semi-weak transitions, but I don't. Difference of opinion.
His mix also had a quick master on it, which mine did not.
I'm officially leaving this thread for good, but will be active in the samples thread!
Happy Writing- Otisvillain
Vanity is a human right."
That is a snobbish comment. I have no problem with criticism, and give it out all the time. But I don't do it in a condescending manner. I simply gave reasons why I thought mine was better.
The consensus here is that mix 2 was better and that is fine, I have no issues with that. I am simply saying that I found that mix sorta phony sounding. I didn't like the delay effect on the snare. I didn't like the concept of the violin, bongo, and the other perc panning from left to right, back and forth. All of this panning and such was occurring at the same time. To me, that is not appealing to the ear, but is rather confusing. You all might like the idea of a busy, panning all over the place type mix, with semi-weak transitions, but I don't. Difference of opinion.
His mix also had a quick master on it, which mine did not.
I'm officially leaving this thread for good, but will be active in the samples thread!
Happy Writing- Otisvillain
Last edited:
jononotbono
Luke Johnson
Can you please put the links back in this thread so I and many others can listen to them and not feel like we have just wasted some of our precious time reading through all of this?
I've spent my life writing music in various bands and even had some mild BBC Radio One airtime and I am very much aware of how I love my mixes and how different the final mixes become. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the two. VI-C is full of wonderful people giving their wisdom, experience and knowledge completely for free and the range of people here are from absolute beginners "should I buy Albion One? I'm a Guitarist but love realistic Orchestral music" to "My last film just grossed Billions of dollars". It's a humbling place.
otisvillain
New Member
Hi all-
Check out the final master copy and download! Onto song #2!
https://www.cryptycmusic.com/
Cryptyc
Check out the final master copy and download! Onto song #2!
https://www.cryptycmusic.com/
Cryptyc
Replicant
Active Member
I haven't heard the comparisons since they're gone, but I can tell from listening to your final version that problem stems from the fact that, and I await your ire, it's just not a very good composition and arrangement.
90% of "mix problems" stem from poor choice of timbre, bad writing leading to voices crossing over eachother a lot (fastest and best way to lose clarity), etc.
There is very little going on in this track aside from drums and vocals; your singer, btw, doesn't have great pitch in a lot of places. I definitely would have had her re-record those parts.
I think there is a bass synth, but it is very inactive and ultra low. Doubling it with a sound that has more mids and highs would make it more prominent on all speaker systems.
There is an ambient "pad" of sorts, but it doesn't fill out much of the spectrum and like that violin and other instruments that come in occasionally, steps on the vocals a bit in places and regarding the violin and co.: the melodies you've written for them often sound fairly random in phrasing and out of key.
All of this leads to there being no engineer who can give you what you want; they can't add what's not there and can't create any semblence of clarity with tracks that mask each other without removing one or mangling it horribly with an EQ.
If clarity, punch and depth are what you're after, that is all up to the tracks you've sent them to begin with — not what they do with it afterward.
There was a time when recording and amplifying music wasn't even possible, but squeaky clean mixes were still achieved regardless.
90% of "mix problems" stem from poor choice of timbre, bad writing leading to voices crossing over eachother a lot (fastest and best way to lose clarity), etc.
There is very little going on in this track aside from drums and vocals; your singer, btw, doesn't have great pitch in a lot of places. I definitely would have had her re-record those parts.
I think there is a bass synth, but it is very inactive and ultra low. Doubling it with a sound that has more mids and highs would make it more prominent on all speaker systems.
There is an ambient "pad" of sorts, but it doesn't fill out much of the spectrum and like that violin and other instruments that come in occasionally, steps on the vocals a bit in places and regarding the violin and co.: the melodies you've written for them often sound fairly random in phrasing and out of key.
All of this leads to there being no engineer who can give you what you want; they can't add what's not there and can't create any semblence of clarity with tracks that mask each other without removing one or mangling it horribly with an EQ.
If clarity, punch and depth are what you're after, that is all up to the tracks you've sent them to begin with — not what they do with it afterward.
There was a time when recording and amplifying music wasn't even possible, but squeaky clean mixes were still achieved regardless.
Jeremy Spencer
Senior Member
I think the sound quality and overall mix is fairly decent (although it needs more tweaking and ultimately, mastering). And for the song itself, I'm not feeling it. There's no structure, and it lacks any type of melody. Honestly, it does not have any radio friendly qualities...especially for the mainstream commercial market. But perhaps that is not the intent?
Last edited:
