Progressing with Friends

[ColdRoomStudio]

@Lophophora

Hi there! I’m back after a few weeks off due to being swamped with various things. Got a lot to catch up with!

I haven’t read the other comments, apologies if I’m not bringing anything new to the table here.

Hi Jean-Marc - Wow, this is a very detailed critique . Thanks for taking the time to really listen and outline your thoughts here… There is a LOT to take in!

@Lophophora

I like how the song sounds overall “deeper” than what I heard on your previous album, both from a sonic/arrangement perspective and lyrics-wise too, while still retaining your unique personality and sound.

That’s good to know… I guess I’m trying to…er… progress … forward from the last album!

@Lophophora

The first thing that strikes me as being the weak link (weak being highly relative in an overall great sounding production) is the lead vocal. It sounds a bit undefined sometimes, which makes it difficult to make out the notes: the vocal tends to float between two pitches at times. This is especially true on the long held notes when they are in the lower range.

I think I’ve outlined in my replies above where I’m at with the vocals. I think I could go on forever re-singing and tweaking the vocals, but it would never please everyone who listens to it. I think I mentioned in a post a while ago when discussing Dave’s (Chordwainer’s) vocals that he has the type of pleasing vocal tone where listeners tend not to look for pitch discrepancies, simply because his tone is so pleasing.

I believe the opposite is true of my voice. Some people seem to like it, but to many it doesn’t appeal, and I have no doubt that some here possibly really dislike it. Nevertheless, I often wonder if that may be the reason some use vague terms like “pitchy”.

When people talk about pitch, the impression I get is that many assume that no work has been done to correct pitch in the vocals. The fact is, every syllable of every vocal part in this mix has been examined and hand-tuned. I can assure you that, (at least as I perceive it pitch), nothing here is “out of tune” unless it has intentionally been left that way in the interests of more emotional impact and to more accurately represent my singing style.

I do nevertheless acknowledge that everyone perceives pitch slightly differently. Some are more tolerant of pitch discrepancies than others. For me, sliding into and out of a note, and throwing the occasional “blue” note in are all part and parcel of a natural, emotive, human and vulnerable sounding delivery. For others those things are unacceptable, and probably perceived as “pitchyness”.

Regardless, I am done with re-singing this tune. I’m happy that the vocal performance represents me and my intention.

@Lophophora

I believe the vocals could be made clearer in the mix with a different EQ treatment too. sometimes (especially in the lower notes) even though the volume itself doesn’t really seem to be too soft, it is still difficult to make out the exact words and the vocal sound a bit muddy. An example of this is around 1:18 on the last word of the sentence “anew” as well as “and the…” starting the next section (prechorus I guess?) This only happens in a few specific places, it’s not at all a major issue that keeps bugging me throughout the song.

Good point - I noticed that too, and I may revisit those issues at some stage in the future before the album is released.

@Lophophora

I’m impressed by the chorus, the rise in energy is huge and still everything stays balanced, there probably are a lot of skilled moves involved to achieve this.

Cool, that definitely was the aim. Most of it comes down to the arrangement, rather than anything special done in the mixing.

@Lophophora

There is just one little detail that doesn’t seem to fit perfectly in place on the last seconds of the chorus. I believe it is a ride bell or something similar, playing on the off beats, and it is just soft enough to leave me wondering what it is exactly but not loud enough to come through as something outright/intentional.

Hmmm… not really hearing that. If it’s in the drums, then it is there to stay, because they are live drums, and there is so much cymbal wash in that section of the song, that I think any edits would stand out like a sore thumb.

@Lophophora

I like how the panned guitars bring something new and different during the bridge, but they tend to bury the vocals. I think they could simply be softer, and maybe the arrangement could be stripped (further, since it already is) of some of the things in the background that we can’t really hear clearly anyway, just to help with that and to create even more contrast with the previous and following sections.

That is all part of the gradual arrangement build. I’ve tried the “whisper” test on the vocals there, and they seem to be fine as far as level goes. I’m not of the belief that everything recorded should be heard clearly and distinctly in the mix. The way I produce and mix is that some things are designed more to be “felt” or “perceived” than clearly “heard” as a separate, distinct mix element. There are TONNES of layers in this mix. Do they all need to be there? No, the song will make perfect sense without them. However, they add a sense of depth and complexity that (I believe) really elevates the song on a subconscious level.

@Lophophora

In the denser parts of the arrangement I believe the bass drum could use just a bit more click , although it sounds fine in the rest of the song.

Thanks, I may look at adjusting that too. In the first mix I posted, I got lots of comments about an overly clicky kick (and it was), so I went for a very different approach here, but you’re right, it could possibly use a little more attack to cut through the dense chorus.

@Lophophora

One last comment: this audio file is too loud for me. During the chorus everything is very compressed and there’s barely any dynamics going on anymore, which I find tiring to listen to.

Well, you’re entitled to that opinion. I know I won’t change your mind on this, but I have a different viewpoint…

This mix comes in at -10dB LUFs. The modern (post 2015) mixes of this genre that I’m using for reference are coming in at -9 to -8 LUFs. So while my mix is in no way soft, it is not outrageously loud either. Yes the chorus is very loud and dense (some might even say fatiguing), but that is by design, and not a result of tonnes of limiting on the mixbuss. It still retains good short term dynamics (ie transients), and the verses and bridge provide good long term dynamic variation to my ear.

@Lophophora

I believe this level of loudness is detrimental to the music: the bass guitar for instance is not very audible in the arrangement, and in this case I bet the reason is that it is hitting the limiter first, so whatever transients or dynamic content it had has been entirely flattened. The low frequencies are still very much here (the tonal balance is great) but it is just difficult to clearly hear a bass guitar playing.

No, that is not the reason the bass is less present. It is simply because I have mixed it differently and little lower than I normally would. It was a bit of an experiment, and I’m not completely satisfied where the bass is at. Again, I may look at this further, once I get a bit of distance from the mix process.

@Lophophora

There are a lot of other things I didn’t comment, like the guitar tones, the songwriting etc. and it is all because it’s just great.

Thanks. I appreciate the detailed and comprehensive critique - very helpful!

[Lophophora]

Hey Andrew,

About the vocals, sorry for leading you to repeat things you already mentioned. I understand where you’re at. I’ll just say that my general feeling about the vocals is that your tone is great and the grit and flaws (both deliberate and unintended) fit your genre very well, but for some reason on this particular song there are a few small things that are throwing me off, which I had never experienced before on your songs.

About the loudness, clearly there is no point in trying to change each other’s minds and I totally respect your taste, which many seasoned professionals share as well. However I’m curious about this. I’m sure you are well acquainted with the way normalisation algorithms work on the streaming platforms, so what benefit do you find in mastering at -10 LUFS when you know for a fact that your song’s loudness is going to be turned down (and not just a little)?

I’m not trying to fuel an old debate here, I’m just genuinely interested in understanding what drives people to master way above the thresholds when they know their songs will be turned down significantly anyway. Maybe I’m just missing something.

@ColdRoomStudio

It still retains good short term dynamics (ie transients)

“Good” is debatable here. But did you mean momentary loudness? Because transients are not in the realm of short term loudness since the latter is measured over several seconds.

That being said, I’m starting a BandCamp page soon and will do louder masters than what I usually do for BandCamp and SoundCloud since they are the only ones who don’t normalise (yet), and I see the benefit in being at least in the ballpark of the majority of the music there.

Again sorry for missing the news if this has already been mentioned but have you uploaded other tracks? What is the album current status?

[ColdRoomStudio]

@Lophophora

I’m not trying to fuel an old debate here, I’m just genuinely interested in understanding what drives people to master way above the thresholds when they know their songs will be turned down significantly anyway. Maybe I’m just missing something.

@Lophophora

That being said, I’m starting a BandCamp page soon and will do louder masters than what I usually do for BandCamp and SoundCloud since they are the only ones who don’t normalise (yet), and I see the benefit in being at least in the ballpark of the majority of the music there.

I think you just answered your own question here. I want to do one master, and one master only. I don’t want to have to master for every different streaming platform’s peculiar quirks. One master that sounds good across all formats - that’s what I’m aiming at.

@Lophophora

But did you mean momentary loudness? Because transients are not in the realm of short term loudness since the latter is measured over several seconds.

I’m not talking about short term loudness at all… I said:

@ColdRoomStudio

It still retains good short term dynamics

… and by that I was referring to what is sometimes termed “micro-dynamics” - the retention of significant transient information in the mix.

[Lophophora]

Oh I see, I never heard that term “short-term dynamics” before, I always just say “transients”.

Ok fair enough, thanks for clarifying. And keep on making great, loud rock songs!

[Lophophora]

I just learned something interesting related to this “mastering loudness” topic today: the album Fear Inoculum by Tool (which I would personally consider an excellent reference for sound quality in the rock or heavy music genre in general) has been mastered at -14 LUFS by Bob Ludwig.

[StylesBitchley]

Thank you, Bob Ludwig. Maybe someone is realizing that loudness isn’t a sales tool like it used to be. Make it sound good, and rely on your fan base to turn the volume up to their taste, preserving a tiny bit of dynamic range.
Maybe we’ve reached the point where producers realize that acts like Tool don’t need to compete with Katy Perry, or whoever the soup du jour is on pop radio.
I firmly believe music should be engineered, produced, and mastered for the true followers of the artist; the select few who will actually invest in a proper recording, whatever the format. If you really like an artist’s music you should be willing to pay for the best version of it. If it’s just background music to you, who cares about loudness?