Bash this: Arthur's Song

Bash this: Arthur's Song
0
#21

No, it’s not mastered at all. It’s really kind of quiet. I’m trying to master it right now but as usual have no idea what I’m doing. :slight_smile:

0 Likes

#22

How interesting, Cristina! By in mono, do you mean keeping the stereo panning but listening through mono? Why would that be different than listening to mono on the headphones? I guess I’d have to see. But I do think mixing for headphones, phones, speakers, cars and TV consumption is one of my weakest skills. I am often disappointed with how my headphones mixed mix falters in other mediums.

But on to V3, it is much roomier than 2. Every part stands out clearer. These drums are bigger and have a lot more presence, where before it was Tracy Chapman or Counting Crows, it is now Cheryl Crow and REM. Frankly, I was enjoying the classic moody tone of 2 a lot, and I still do, but 3 does sound more live, more alive. I kept waiting for some of that original moodiness tone to be missed too much, but that never happened! It is such a good song in its structure that either one amazes the listener and inspires repeats to absorb it all.

But that said, 3 is my preference, although I might keep 2 just to remember.

0 Likes

#23

I’m not sure I understand the question. But what I did was just hit the “mono” button on the master track in Reaper. The idea behind it was that if I could get the song to sound good in mono on relatively lo-fi speakers (apple earbuds) it would sound great once I listened to it in stereo on better systems. I think it really helped me with the EQ especially, which is why there’s more clarity between the parts. Kind of like being on deck in baseball and swinging the bat with weights on it. Then when you go up to the plate the bat feels light as a feather. If your parts sound distinct in mono they’ll sound really nice in stereo.

0 Likes

#24

Ok, here comes the number one most lamest question of the century. I record a guitar track and put it 100% Left. I grab a capo or a different guitar, lay down a track, and put it 100% to the right. Bass, drums, and vox down the middle…done. Is that stereo. Seriously, I don’t know?

0 Likes

#25

Yep that’s stereo! If there’s any difference at all between the left and right channels it’s stereo.

1 Like

#26

O yay… this sounds lovely… with a sheen and sparkle and coherence… well done!!!

It’s interesting mixing in mono… and quite controversial sometimes within these audio circles. I tend to use it as a check and balance when my songs are nearly done and find it really helpful to get more balance in the mix. But because I play around a lot with panning and space, mixing in mono has clear limitations. It is a useful tool for sure and interesting how it enables you to hear some stuff that you hadn’t noticed before.

Hey well done with persevering, it’s a lovely povely song and really nicely done!!!
:beerbanger:

1 Like

#27

Sounding good. I am really digging this. I think i might pull back the vocals a few dbs but that is a personal taste thing.

1 Like

#28

Another good one! Nicely done. I just love the main guitar lick! :clap:

1 Like

#29

I tend to arrive late to the bash and now I have nothing to add that no one else hasn’t pointed out! I will confirm what others have said though - your voice is great in this and the tune kicks ass. My initial thought on the first acoustic part was how cool it was, my second reaction was “I wish I wrote that!” and then it maintained that level of writing throughout. Sorry I’m not much help on the mix but well done on the song!

1 Like

#30

Posted the final version. The experience of getting it mastered was… cautiously… good. I think it does sound more polished after making some subtle mix edits and getting it mastered.

On to the next one!

1 Like

#31

Very very very nice. The ending seems stronger than I remembered.
Bodes well for what is to come!

1 Like

#32

yay, I look forward to checking this out tomorrow - alas have no time tonight but will re-visit later…
:sunglasses:

0 Likes

#33

Sounds great!
Checked it out on your You Tube channel. I’m sure you’ve been asked this before: is Christine or Riley your artists name (I assume the last)?
In checking your channel I found out you did a version of Fever too! I love it. Very steamy in combination with the video, and off course with a fresh new twist :wink:
I am quite sure you would have had a big chance of winning that competition.

1 Like

#34

Ahhh interesting… quite a bit louder, smoother and yes, more polished but for me, it feels just a little “brittle”… clearly it depends on your objectives for the song and I can only really comment as a personal taste thing. I miss the transients, it seems to be a mastering thing where they process sound and sacrifice timbre and detail which just means for me that I lose something of the emotional impact/quality as a listener. That is my own fixation though so please ignore this aspect totally. Have been down this path myself and struggled to find a satisfying solution. I was not keen on the guitar tone at the ending piece, it sounded a little harsh and twangy where I had expected a sort of contemplative acoustic sweetness .
Thanks so much for sharing this musical journey, fascinating to listen to, I love hearing the changes and possibilities.

1 Like

#35

First chance I’ve had to listen to this on my studio monitors - Love it! I really enjoyed how the mastered version has your voice right out front; has a little more low end; is more “glued” and cohesive, and how the bass seems a little fuller. Nice!

1 Like

#36

Yeah my artist name is Riley Hawke. My real name is Cristina.

Yeah I wasn’t thrilled with the compression on the master either… but actually I chalk it up to my mix. I think that if you want a master that doesn’t do bad things to your mix when the volume is raised, you need to mix something that is already pretty compressed in a nice way, and I could have done a better job at that up front I think. As for the guitar tone at the end, I recorded it totally lo-fi. I sat far away from the mic, facing a different direction when I played. Always experimenting with something!

1 Like

#37

Yes, the mix definitely hasn’t been crushed in mastering, because YouTube is only turning it down about 2.4dB… So that puts it at around 10.6 LUFS…
However I noticed the mix “fold in” somewhat when it reached the “big” part of the song.

Avoiding that usually actually comes down to compressing the individual elements more assertively, rather than using master buss compression. If the individual elements are too dynamic, master buss compression will respond badly.

I once heard compression in a mix likened to layers of paint on vehicle. Thin, well applied layers of paint culminate in a duco that can be polished to a deep shine, whereas thick and uneven layers will crack up.

2 Likes

#38

Yeah I noticed that too. It’s my biggest issue with it, but I know from looking at the waveforms that it’s my fault in the mix. I just love dynamics! I want things loud and punchy at certain times, and I have a hard time getting that without them actually being loud and punchy. With this mix, I had an opportunity to go back and make some changes, and I did work on making the waveform a bit more sausage like before sending it to be mastered, which did help. But yeah there were still spikes. I couldn’t figure out how to get rid of them in a way that didn’t ruin the parts. I think that the next time I mix a song I’ll pay a lot closer attention to this from the start.

0 Likes

#39

Very nice, Cristina. I particularly like how prominent the vocals are. It’s like I’m right there, you’re right in front of me.

1 Like

#40

Cristina, one thing you might try to fix this is trim automation – not volume, but trim. Volume automation is generally post fx, whereas trim automation is pre-fx. The idea is that you balance the signal from the louder parts as well as the softer parts so they’re fairly even before they hit the compressor, so the effect of the compressor is also balanced on the soft parts as well as the loud parts. Then you can use volume automation after that to bring the dynamics back to where you want them (softer parts soft, louder loud, etc.). That happens post-fx.

In REAPER it’s the “trim volume” option in the envelope menu. Or, what Graham (Recording Revolution) rx’s is just cutting up the clips and adjusting the trim of each clip separately. I think that’s easier than drawing the envelope, at least for me.

He rx’s using a VU meter to get the raw signal, in all parts of the song, pre-fx, hanging around -18dB.

0 Likes