URM Academy: Decoding Client Feedback, Fixing Muddy Mixes, Taming Problem Vocals

Speaker 1 (00:01):

Welcome to the Unstoppable Recording Machine Podcast, brought to you by Kush Audio, a premium manufacturer of top quality audio, hardware and plugins. The high end just got higher. Visit the house of kush.com for more information. And now your hosts, Joey Sturgis. Joel, Wanasek and Eyal Levi. Hey everybody. Hey,

Speaker 2 (00:24):

How you doing? Welcome to the Joey Sturgis Forum podcast show.

Speaker 3 (00:28):

I feel like it's been a couple of years since we last did one. Yes. It's

Speaker 2 (00:33):

Funny how a week can feel like a month. Has it really only been a week? I think it's been like maybe two weeks, maybe a week. I don't know. Yeah,

Speaker 4 (00:41):

We did 'em all in back to back.

Speaker 2 (00:43):

I've been mixing a lot. I don't know about you guys, but I'm ready for a good mix crit Monday.

Speaker 3 (00:49):

Yeah, and I've got plenty to talk about for this one.

Speaker 4 (00:53):

I haven't been mixing over a week.

Speaker 2 (00:56):

Well, what about those, the nine songs we did for Kick Forge?

Speaker 4 (01:00):

Well, that was like two or three weeks ago.

Speaker 2 (01:03):

The thing that's cool though about those mixes by the way, is that they're all different. I love that.

Speaker 4 (01:08):

Well, thank you. We spent a lot, and I mean a lot of time working on those and trying to get them to be, what would the word be, genre specific for the style of drums we were going to use.

Speaker 2 (01:19):

Yeah, but what's so powerful about the way that worked is that you were a part of the production. So there was a couple songs on there where we had someone else play guitar and et cetera, but once everyone is involved in the same thing and everyone's on the same page, the mix comes out so much better because the production is being made for a specific, there's a guide, there's a direction for the sound. And I think what might happen in some of these, I think the same person is doing the production in the mix, but sometimes it's different people and they're not on the same page. I'm not sure if that's true for any of the songs you're going to listen to today, but there's definitely a strength to working with working closely with every step of the process.

Speaker 3 (02:10):

Well, I think that on one of these songs, the guy recorded everything and on the other one, the guy co-wrote it, but I believe that the music was recorded in China and then he mixed it in Canada. I kind of feel like long distance production can be rough sometimes.

Speaker 4 (02:31):

I don't know, man. I'll tell you why I just mix or I shouldn't say mix. Sorry. I was going to say I just mastered a bunch of stuff from India over the last month and the guy I work with over there was really stellar and we have a great relationship. The first time I mastered from it took us a couple of back and forths to figure out his preferences. But

Speaker 2 (02:49):

You just said it. You just said it right there. You got a great relationship with him and the back and forth took a while to get it right. That's you guys getting on the same page and making that work, that long distance thing work. I think there's people out there trying to do this long distance. I mean, the internet has made it so easy, but they're not on the same page and you can hear that.

Speaker 3 (03:12):

And just to echo that point, and to kind take this back in time to our mastering month when we had Alan Cheson, who is one of the best and most employed mastering engineers in our genre, even in the day and age where people are doing their own masters. And I think that it's because he does take that time to get on the same page with his clients, and that's one of the things that he does that a lot of other mastering engineers don't do. I do think that it's probably less of a process to get on the same page for mastering than for production and mixing just way more moving parts. But that doesn't mean that it's any less important. I think

Speaker 4 (03:57):

Mixing is a whole nother beast because there's just so many dynamic elements. The first time you mix a song for somebody new, you have to learn all of their expectations. And unlike mastering where it's usually how compressed do they like it, how loud, what kind of low end to treble balance, the minor things mixing gets crazy like, okay, what kind of snare drums does this person, what kind of kick drum? Do they like their stuff really separated or do they like it warm? Do they like lots of vocals in the mix or a lot of guitars or do they hate bass? Things like that. So mixing is always a very, very challenging thing to do on the first shot, I believe.

Speaker 3 (04:33):

Yeah. I have a question for you guys. I think there's two schools of thought. One is that you do what the client wants, right? You got to meet their tastes and expectations. But on the other hand, if you have your own sound or your own thing, for instance, a Kurt Ballou sound, he's actually very accommodating to his clients. But just for sake of example, if someone goes to Kurt wanting a Joey mix, even if he's trying to accommodate them, that might not work and vice versa. So where's the line drawn?

Speaker 2 (05:09):

I think you just have to be responsible enough to make the right decisions. And this is something that happened. There was a project that Joel and I had taken, it was a good friend, you guys might know him if you're in the forum. His name's John Wolf and he wanted his album to sound like the SEN album. Can't remember the name of the album. So Joel and I spent a great deal of time talking about how to do that and went and did all the research and figured it out and made it sound exactly like the, I mean, not exactly, but very close to the SEN album. And we showed it to John and he hated it. And this was a classic example of when the client doesn't know what they want, the client thinks they want it to sound like Sen because they like that Sen record. They don't realize those are real drums. You got program drums in your recordings.

Speaker 3 (06:08):

That exact same thing happened to me when I was working with that band Reflections a few years ago, and they wanted real drums, real this, real that. And when I gave them that, they freaked out in a bad way. And when I then made it as sample heavy as they were saying they were over the moon. So yeah, there's definitely a matter of learning to interpret what they actually want versus what they say they want.

Speaker 2 (06:39):

Yeah, you got to know when they're a little bit out of their minds.

Speaker 3 (06:46):

Well, and also at the same time, maybe they're hiring the wrong person. When do you draw the line and say, maybe I'm not the right guy?

Speaker 2 (06:55):

Absolutely. That's happened to me. Will Putney had a band that wanted me to mix something and the manager was into it and the band was into it. I don't know about Will, but I got the project, I started mixing it, me and Will go back and forth for a good, I think four weeks or so. And finally at the end I was like, if we're at four weeks right now and we're still talking about the snare, I don't think I'm the right guy. I don't think I'm the right guy. So he ended up mixing it and that was me being responsible to know that man, I really love to work on this project. I'd like to have this name on my resume and I really like to have this money, but at the end of the day it's art and if I'm not helping the art come across the way that the producer wants it to come across and the way the band wants it and everything, then I need to step out and let the right person step in.

Speaker 4 (07:50):

Yeah, it's kind of an interesting dichotomy because as a mixer, you definitely are going to have a sound and a style that you're going to get known and recognized for, and people will hire you based off that. But then when somebody walks in and says, I want you to mix it like this or like that, which isn't your style, you kind of have to find that happy medium of imparting your style and your sound on it, but meeting their expectations and it's very interesting. So you just got to educate the client I feel like upfront and have a good long discussion and get inside of their head. And once you figure out at least a ballpark direction, that way if they say they hate it on the first mix, you can at least go back to them and say, okay, well I did what you told me to do. Now I'm going to do what I think I should do, and let's see if that gets you closer. Then usually on the second time you can nail it, but sometimes weird situations like that happen

Speaker 3 (08:35):

And just remember, since they probably don't have a good frame of reference for their suggestions or what they say they want, the only thing they can point to are records. They, for whatever reason, they're not going to be pointing to those records because they're the most educated choices just because that's what they listen to and that's what they like. And maybe when they say they want it natural, what they mean is they just don't want it to sound like a typewriter machine gun basketball. Yeah,

Speaker 4 (09:10):

That's very true. For example, this happens all the time. Somebody will be like, okay, I want the drums to be blended every time I do a mix with a mixer, the drums are blended X amount and they give you a percentage and you're like, okay. Then you send 'em a mix and they're like, well, it sounds too natural. And then you listen to the records they reference and those records are straight up a hundred percent sample replaced, but the client somehow thinks they're blended. And it's interesting because I feel like a lot of that stuff gets lost in translation and people think they understand it, but they don't. And being that we do this stuff for a living, you can hear it right away and you can be like, okay, well that doesn't sound like it's blended. It sounds like it's 90 10 minimum, if not flat out a hundred percent replaced.

Speaker 3 (09:54):

Wasn't it Kane Chiko who said that instead of arguing with words about mixed directions or whatever, he'll just do it and show people, or was that someone else? I think that that's whoever it was who said that, one of our guests said that. I think that's great advice right there because you can talk all day long about what something sounds like, but if you don't have something to actually listen to, it's hot air for the most part.

Speaker 2 (10:21):

Yeah, the reference point and what words mean, and we relate them to sounds and color and stuff. It can be different for different people. And so sometimes it's good to just get out of the language barrier and actually utilize, well, now we have plugins and I know one of the guests was saying that they use DFX site and they'll let the artist come up to the computer and actually turn some knobs on D FX site to kind of convey what they want to hear or what they want different, which I thought was really cool because D FX site was meant to be a creative tool, and sometimes I think that's much more powerful than arguing over what dark means.

Speaker 4 (11:03):

Punchy,

Speaker 2 (11:05):

Warm.

Speaker 1 (11:06):

It's on for Monday. Monday.

Speaker 2 (11:15):

So this first song is called A Game That Won't Get Old by Riley Jackson and Jesse Collins.

Speaker 3 (11:22):

Yeah, it's actually by Jesse Collins. Riley Jackson Mixed and produced it.

Speaker 2 (11:26):

Okay, awesome. So yeah, let's hear that song now.

Speaker 5 (11:48):

We met each other some night. They came across each other's eyes. She smiled at him. He made a wish, he kissed a cheek and told her this, let's play a gay swear old. I play the play the other role. Let's play our cards on the table, won't. She's got sold. He'll never fall. She begs her bags into words and walks away. She'll never know that it's the best for everything. He'll never learn. That's what she sold. Chasing faces. When girls come down, it's all the same. We take a chance and then we blame. Instead of them playing in bed, he's thinking back to when he said, let's play a game, and I swear, we'll get on. I'll play the Prince if you play the other role, let's lay our cards on the table. I'll fold. She's got em sold. He'll never fall. She begs her bags into words and walks away. She'll never know that it's the best for everything. Let's play Swear. I'll play the Prince if you play the other role, let's lay our cards on the table. I'll fall. She's got them sold. She'll never fall. She picks her bags into words and walks away. She'll never know that it's the best for everything. She'll never learn. That's what she sold. Chasing faces is a that won't get, she breaks her bags into words and walks away. She'll never know that best for everything Learn. That's what she chasing faces won't get.

Speaker 2 (14:28):

Alright, so that was a game that won't get old by Jesse Collins,

Speaker 3 (14:31):

But mixed and produced by our subscriber Riley Jackson.

Speaker 2 (14:35):

Yeah, so first things first for me, the snare drum I kind of feel like was under processed and I can tell that. I think the other problem I have with it is that I can tell that it's a certain sampler. Yeah,

Speaker 3 (14:51):

It's also kind of thin in my opinion.

Speaker 4 (14:53):

Yeah. Do you guys think the whole mix is kind of really thin on the thin side and it just needs a lot more? Not a lot, but maybe 20% more just beef everywhere.

Speaker 3 (15:03):

My first note right here was drums need more low end, but as I kept listening, I was like, actually everything needs a little more low end.

Speaker 2 (15:10):

Yeah. I remember when I listened to this, I was thinking, where's the base?

Speaker 4 (15:14):

Yeah, here's the kicker for me. So in the beginning it starts out and it's a little bit kind of lofi and affected, and then when it comes in and it's supposed to hit, it feels like it just moves sideways instead of coming in and going, holy shit. Yes, it comes in and it's supposed to rock, but it doesn't rock because it's too thin.

Speaker 3 (15:32):

If

Speaker 4 (15:32):

It was a little bit thicker, it would rock harder.

Speaker 3 (15:35):

Also, there's just some weird levels going on from part to part. And let me just preface that by saying that I definitely think that different parts of a song should have different mixes. I totally backed that. If guitars need to come up in a chorus, cool. Whatever you got to do to get the point across is fine. But when the song first comes in and the whoa oh oh part, the symbols are really loud and kind of painful and the guitar is pretty much, and then when the guitars do finally get loud, and I guess in the second part of the verse they're super fucking loud, but then the symbols are really unclear. There's stuff like that going on through the entire song where the level jumps are way extreme, not smooth,

Speaker 4 (16:25):

Over automated,

Speaker 2 (16:27):

Possibly,

Speaker 3 (16:28):

Possibly.

Speaker 2 (16:28):

Now, I don't know what Riley Jackson's situation is, but I'm going to assume, and I hope I'm right, that this was done in improperly treated room. I think in that room this song might sound great, but if your room's not tuned properly, then it doesn't sound good anywhere else. I think that there could be an issue somewhere in the 150 to 250 hertz range where he's getting too much of that in his room, so he's kind of cutting it out.

Speaker 3 (17:03):

That would make sense,

Speaker 2 (17:04):

And I think that might be the problem here, but I'd be interested to know what his setup is.

Speaker 3 (17:08):

Yeah, he didn't give us any info on that. He just told us what he used, but I don't know anything about his room. Now another thing is I definitely think that the compression and desing on the vocals is kind of weird. I'm hearing a ton of sance that's just ouch. So I would definitely say Ds those a little better. But then also I'm hearing all kinds of weird things sticking out in the vocals volume-wise, like at the beginning of words, vocal sounds, throat sounds, things like that. So I think that also his compression settings are a little whacked, so check those attack times.

Speaker 4 (17:52):

Yeah, definitely. What did you guys think about the overall volume and balance of the vocals? I mean, usually I like stuff pretty loud, but you guys feel like they were a little bit too hot Actually sometimes.

Speaker 3 (18:03):

Yep.

Speaker 4 (18:04):

I don't know. It's right on the edge for me, but sometimes I wish they were like, man, I don't know. Maybe. Okay. I just figured out what it is because the mix doesn't have quite enough beef to it. It's not full enough. It's way too separated and thinned out. It feels to me normally I'd really like the loud vocals, but they feel a little disjointed because they're super loud, which is very stylistic for the genre of song and definitely something that most people would do. It just needs that there's not enough beef under them to support the vocal, and so they feel, at least to me in my ear, a little bit disconnected.

Speaker 3 (18:40):

I think fixing the low end would help that tremendously for sure.

Speaker 2 (18:43):

Yeah, that makes sense.

Speaker 3 (18:45):

Also, I think there's an acoustic guitar in there. He didn't say that there is, but I feel like I'm hearing one, especially in the bridge when it goes to the glockenspiel part. It sounds like there's a background strum thing, and I also feel like I'm hearing that in other parts of the song, and I understand why you would want to layer an acoustic, I guess for extra texture rhythm and all that, but it sounds so non distinct and weird that it's just kind of adding noise. And then also I was noticing that I was hearing this weird clicky distortion weird thing on the kicks, and I was hearing that mainly when they were going in rapid succession, and then I noticed there was an acoustic that sounded like that weird clicky noise I was hearing, and now I'm thinking that it's just on those parts. So what I'm hearing is that weird acoustic sound that's just doesn't sound like an acoustic, but doesn't sound like a texture. It just sounds like a weird noise

Speaker 4 (19:47):

Acoustic anomaly.

Speaker 3 (19:49):

Yeah, I mean, I get it. I get why you would want to put one in a song like this, but I just think that that needs a little more work. Also, I was going to say that the glockenspiel chime thingy sounds really, really plastic O to take out some three K and add some cool effects or Valhalla shimmer and make that thing sound more dreamy. Not like you, Cassie oed it, Cassie

Speaker 4 (20:16):

O in.

Speaker 2 (20:16):

Yeah. In regards to the whole DSR thing, sometimes you can get into a mix and it could be a complicated mess of inserts and chains and routing, and then you're kind of like, well, I don't really know where to put the dsr. One quick fix trick for Desing that you can do is take all of your vocal tracks, bust them to one group, throw a multi-band compressor on there and just bypass all of the bands except for the highest two. You're going to want your highest, highest band from let's say, I don't know, maybe 12 k and up and between 5K and 12 K, you're going to have two bands there, and you just treat the attack and release times a little bit differently on those two, obviously one being sharper than the other, and a lot of times doing that on the whole group of all the vocals will be just fine.

(21:12):

I've done it many times. There's been times where I've turned in a mix to the label and the band, everyone's like, yep, it proved this is a great mix. And then I go and listen to it in my car afterwards and crap, I forgot to do the desing and nobody had a note on it. But me wanting to have the best work I possibly can have, I'm thinking to myself, man, I got to fix this Desing problem, but I don't want to change the mix too much because it's been improved. So I will do that as an emergency fix, and it works a lot of the time. So

Speaker 4 (21:46):

Here's something worth noting on Desing, and I know we're talking about mix and creating mixes, but I feel like 80 to 90% of Desing scenarios where I have a hard time in mixes with the vocal is because I feel like sometimes people record a vocal where it's the wrong microphone for the singers, or they'll use a really cheap microphone condenser or something like that in the a hundred dollars range and it's just super sibilant or even in the expensive range because the Manly cardio reference mic or whatever that thing is called that thing, if you don't have the right singer for that, it can sound incredible and it can sound like absolute dog shit because it's just so bright and it brings out way too much of that stuff. So sometimes if you get a really vocal track, you can ask them, Hey guys, retract this with a dynamic, or just figure out what they did and find the opposite of what that is and try using that. And sometimes that'll save a mix. I've had that happen to

Speaker 3 (22:42):

Me. He used an SM seven B, but he didn't say

Speaker 4 (22:45):

Really?

Speaker 3 (22:46):

Yeah, and he says he's got super eser on it at 40%, and I'm guessing the super esser is a Ds or, but maybe he's just not targeting the right frequency range properly,

Speaker 4 (22:57):

Or we have a super sibilant type. I mean,

Speaker 3 (23:00):

There's

Speaker 4 (23:00):

So many variables without actually hearing the tracks in the raw state soloed, it's very difficult to listen to the final thing and say, okay, here's what you should have done.

Speaker 2 (23:08):

You can also tape a pencil to the front and in front of the diaphragm because the treble sounds move faster than the bass sounds. So the idea is that they'll hit that pencil and they'll have to maneuver around it to get into the diaphragm, and that little tiny delay in that little tiny reflection reduces it just enough to help with the processing. It doesn't negate the fact, you'll still probably have to Ds it depending on what your production techniques and your mixing techniques are, but it does allow you to do less of it and have it sound more natural. So you could also try that if you're not sure what the pencil trick is, I'm sure you could just Google it. It's a very, very popular trick.

Speaker 3 (23:57):

Yeah, totally.

Speaker 2 (23:58):

Okay, so should we go into the next song? Yeah,

Speaker 3 (24:00):

Let's do it.

Speaker 2 (29:17):

Okay. That was never Meet again mixed by our subscriber James Za,

Speaker 3 (29:23):

And he also was the co-writer and the mastering engineer.

Speaker 4 (29:26):

Oh, cool. Hey, do you guys remember the Band Night? Wish

Speaker 3 (29:31):

They're still around?

Speaker 4 (29:32):

Yeah. Well, maybe early two thousands was the first time I heard of that band, but it just definitely reminds me of that because you don't hear operatic singing very often and heavy music. So anytime I hear that, because they were the first band, I always think of that band.

Speaker 3 (29:47):

Let me tell you something about Night Wish because I don't listen to that kind of stuff, and I believe that that whole thing that Americans say about metal being bigger in Europe is mainly just a myth. And I say that from having gone over there many times and on metal tours, I mean there are some good festivals and some big bands, but there's also good festivals here. I mean, they do have the festival season, but I still don't think that metal is that much bigger there. I definitely think grass is greener. However, Nightwish is enormous. I was dating someone who worked for them, ran their merch. Now when you think of a merch person, you're thinking lower on the totem pole, but when you're making 25,000 euros a night in merch sales, that's a huge responsibility.

Speaker 4 (30:43):

Yeah, that's a pretty high amount of money considering I've been on arena tours and watched a headliner sell 10,000 people out and move between 35 to 45 KA night. So that'll show you how big of a deal that is.

Speaker 3 (30:56):

Yeah, 20 5K euros, which is I think back then was close to $50,000, more like $42,000 or something was the average and 5,000 people was a small show. Their averaging 15 to 25,000. So yeah, that's one case where it really is a lot bigger in Europe. But back to this mix, this is weird because I think it's muddy and thin at the same time

Speaker 4 (31:25):

And harsh in some places

Speaker 3 (31:26):

Too. Yeah, it's weird. I normally don't say that something is muddy and thin, but I feel like it's lacking from a hundred and down, but then a hundred to 400 is just this weird soupy thing. You guys noticing that?

Speaker 4 (31:39):

Yeah. You know what I think the main propagator of that is is the keys. Well, I mean one of the main things, there's a lot of issues in the guitars, drums, and bass, but there's this keyboard patch thing, and I feel like it has way too much mid range in it, and it's masking a lot of stuff.

Speaker 3 (31:57):

Also, the part itself is just weird. The timing's weird. I've noticed this throughout the whole song. I know we're talking about mixing and not editing or whatever, but I feel like when the feel is this strange and discombobulated, it's going to be hard to get a good mix. I feel like that keyboard line is not only weird eqi, but the timing of it is just odd. And I don't mean odd time and cool, I mean it's just odd and feels disjointed, but it's not just that some of the drum patterns and the way they line up with the guitars are also a little like that. So

Speaker 4 (32:45):

One thing with keyboards, just to highlight, a lot of times this is a major problem I run into the more songs I mix from people who just do things like in their bedroom, for example, and they'll have it out mixed and they'll spend a lot of money on mixing, but they'll just record it at home and not put any, they won't hire a professional producer, for example, to come in and work with their band. So when the band records it is more what I'm saying as opposed to somebody who's in their bedroom and actually does this and is attempting to do this for a living. So a major problem that I run into is a lot of times people put the keyboard parts in the wrong octave. So if all the guitars are in the mid-range and then they put the mid-range keyboard behind it, that's in the same octave playing similar notes, you have to go up or down, usually up because you're fighting for all that frequency room. They don't even think about it like that. They're like, okay, I got this piano and this string that's going to go behind the guitar, but it's in the exact same octave as the guitar, so it's almost impossible to get them to switch with eq and you can't highlight any of the instruments because it's all just fighting for the exact same space. So from an arrangement point of view, sometimes simply taking a keyboard part up an octave makes a huge difference.

Speaker 3 (33:54):

And that I think there's one exception to that and I feel like it's when you're trying to make a blend, a blended sound right, where

(34:05):

It could just be that even though you have a guitar playing a part and a keyboard playing a part and they're in the same octave, it could just be that it's not supposed to sound like a guitar or a keyboard. It's supposed to sound like the blend of those two, the way that Band Muse does it a lot, but I feel like in this case, it's not supposed to be a blended hybrid sound. It's supposed to be guitar with symphonic kind of arrangements. And in that case, your arrangements need to be totally on the money. And a good example of bands to listen to would be Night Wish or Dmu Borg Gear

Speaker 4 (34:42):

Rhapsody.

Speaker 3 (34:43):

Well, they're not as good, in my opinion, with their arrangements. I'm pointing out those two bands because they hire film composers to help orchestrate their parts, and so their arrangements are always dead nuts on.

Speaker 4 (35:00):

Yeah, definitely. That may or may not be the solution for this. It's been 30 some minutes since I've listened to that actual mix, but that's just a good, I would say starting point because sometimes I'll just pitch shift in the DAW when I'm mixing, if I feel like a part's in the same octave and just hear what it sounds like. Sometimes you can get away with it and sometimes it sounds corny or you have to ask the band to reprint it, but it can make a huge difference and can be a lifesaver. So I just kind of wanted to interject that and throw that out there.

Speaker 3 (35:25):

Here's another edit and arrangement and just performance issue, but I feel like it sours the mix a little, so I noticed that, well, first of all, let's just say that damn, that vibrato is really wide. So the last vocal note sounds a half step too low. To me, it sounds weird and I feel like it's confusing due to the super wide vibrato because vibratos into the right note, but it sounds like it's centered a half step too low. That makes me think of, I remember when Tim Ripper Owens was down in Florida recording and it was impossible to really tune his vocals. His vibrato is so loud, and I feel like, or more, I'm wondering, do you guys have any solutions for tuning vocals when vibrato is this this wide?

Speaker 4 (36:20):

I do. I had a band once where the guy was like, ah, he was ridiculous vibrato and every single thing. And in Cub Base's stock, you have to do it in block editing. So in Cubase stock, very audio, which is what I used to tune, which is similar to meloy, you can generally adjust the block and then you can tighten the range of the vibrato a little bit and it can help it sound more in pitch. And if you can't get away with that, you're pretty much screwed. So I would start with a block tuning editor. If you do autotune in a non block where you're just drawing a line, it's going to pull everything down in a

Speaker 2 (36:56):

I was using autotune.

Speaker 4 (36:57):

Yeah,

Speaker 2 (36:58):

Well, it depends on what version. If you use Evo, you can draw those lines and you can actually address the vibrato of the line.

Speaker 4 (37:05):

Yeah, okay. Fair enough. I haven't used Evo, but I know it's just so quick in a block to just kind of squish it down a little bit by say 20% it compresses the range and then it's,

Speaker 3 (37:15):

But let me just say that we were using autotune Evo and we're pretty good at tuning, but I think that, you know, when you hit a tuner with stuff that's way out of its capabilities, weird shit comes out.

Speaker 4 (37:29):

Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 3 (37:31):

I just wonder if my experience was feeding stuff this vibrato into it ended up with bad results, but maybe it would be easier on Melaine.

Speaker 4 (37:42):

Well, I'll tell you a story. Actually. The reason I use very audio is because that exact record, it was the only tuner, and I had melaine and autotune. It wasn't evil. I mean, this is maybe 2008, no, maybe 10. I did this record and I tried very audio. It was a last ditch effort, like, okay, I'll just use the stock one. And it was literally the only one that could track the pitch correctly, meaning I'm like not have blocks all over and it sounded the most natural. So ever since then I've switched to very audio and I just use it and I like it. So try it. I guess if you use Cubase, it's worth a shot.

Speaker 2 (38:16):

Alright. Yeah, and I think this style of singing is hard to process because it's not projected the same and you can hear that the mixing is struggling with that. I kind of feel like my suggestion on that would be to use more outboard, maybe the lunchbox style compression in the analog realm because I feel like it can handle that a little bit better than plugins. I could be wrong, but I don't know. That's just my gut is it feels like it needs to be compressed in the analog realm. There's times where certain parts of the voice are too loud or too soft. It's kind of all over the place dynamically when we're talking about the actual balance of what's coming out of her mouth.

Speaker 3 (39:05):

Yeah, there's lots of syllables at weird spots that just stick out crazy.

Speaker 2 (39:10):

Yeah. And what do you think, Joel? Do you think it needs analog compression?

Speaker 4 (39:14):

Yeah. Well, as we were talking about last week with Gregory Scott is analog, at least to me and everybody will have their opinion on this, but I feel like has a different feel and a different reaction than digital compressors. You push into a digital compressor and even the best, most modeled realistic ones don't have the same blow back or rubber banding effect to them. You can push into 'em and they don't push back the same. Some of them just you push into and it never comes back to you. So it is worth a try. I would definitely try it.

Speaker 2 (39:45):

And I would also say on the guitars,

Speaker 4 (39:50):

They need some cleanup.

Speaker 2 (39:51):

Yeah. Well, you know what it is, they still sound a little bit too, it's like, I want to say crunchy, but in a bad way.

Speaker 3 (40:00):

I feel like the low mids are soupy and undefined flubby, but then the high parts have the painful kinds of highs and high mids, but not the kind that help the definition out. And then I also feel like they sound like over compressed or limited, and you can really hear that in the pauses when it comes back in after a pause, you can really hear that the compression is real weird on the guitars.

Speaker 4 (40:29):

Yeah, maybe they just need to be, I don't know, even know if it's an option, but maybe they just need to be replayed with better pick attack, for example, and more a stronger strike against the string.

Speaker 2 (40:39):

Well, even if that's not the option, I think it could be, it still could be salvaged with better mixing and better processing, or at least amping it and paying attention to the things that we mentioned.

Speaker 3 (40:52):

Well, it sounds to me also, so his chain is pod farm ozone, eq, fab filter, Saturn and L one. So right there, fab filter Saturn is adding more distortion sometimes that's a good thing. But

Speaker 2 (41:07):

Does Saturn have a mix knob?

Speaker 3 (41:09):

Yes.

Speaker 2 (41:09):

Okay. Maybe the mix is off. I think maybe too much or maybe you don't need it at all. I'd be interested to hear it without it. I feel like that's, there's something on that guitar, something additional that is annoying from

Speaker 4 (41:26):

A, yeah, it's like the low end is all over and the high end is just

Speaker 3 (41:29):

Ceiling all over.

Speaker 4 (41:30):

Yeah, it's a weird combination.

Speaker 3 (41:34):

But I'm also hearing that the leads are weird because I can hear them, but they're non distinct and they sound really, really thin. And dy,

Speaker 4 (41:47):

I'm glad you can hear half the time I can't. Well,

Speaker 3 (41:49):

At first I thought they were a keyboard and then I realized that there were a guitar. I could hear the pick noise.

Speaker 2 (41:56):

Well, maybe we can agree that there's probably not a listening environment problem on this one. Maybe your center image could be off. That might be the one thing in terms of your reflections and your environment and how your sound is moving around your room. You might have an issue with your center being too quiet or too loud, which I will say for the first half of my career, that was my problem. So you'll listen to a lot of stuff I did a long time ago, and the vocals aren't very loud because in my listening position, the vocals were way too loud. So when people were telling me, Hey, the vocals need to be turned up, I'm going, because where I'm sitting, they sound really loud. And that's just because my center image was too, it was off. So that might be one thing to look at.

Speaker 4 (42:49):

If the speakers are really close to each other, you're going to have an over, what's the word I'm looking for? Center

Speaker 3 (42:54):

Exaggerated. Well, I've seen a picture of his room and I know his speakers are very close to him.

Speaker 4 (43:00):

Farther out they go, the weaker the center image is, but the closer they are, the stronger it is. So you got to, it's like a rubber band. It either sags or it stretched too tight or it balloons.

Speaker 2 (43:13):

And it can depend on other things too, where your screen is, because the sound can bounce off of your screen and make the center image more, make it louder as well.

Speaker 3 (43:23):

Real quick, right back to the league guitars just wanted to say that I do think they need to be replayed, but say that they can't be replayed. I would either multi-band compress or EQ that pick noise out of them because on those, whenever he's picking, I just hear that clicky, clicky, clicky pick noise, and then

Speaker 2 (43:46):

Dynamic EQ can fix that too

Speaker 3 (43:49):

And then fix those low mids. Those leads are way too thin and also volume wise, they're way too quiet. Can

Speaker 4 (43:58):

We talk about base now and low end? Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:01):

Oh yeah.

Speaker 4 (44:03):

All right. This is a major thing for me, just like the last mix. I'm kind of like, where's the base? I don't know. The low end to me feels weird. It's hard to pinpoint.

Speaker 2 (44:13):

Yeah. Well, the thing that I find in a lot of, at least for my mixes, I really can't go back to not having a fabricated base. Whenever I get a real base track, unless the player is just amazing and I'm talking about somebody who's paying attention to in their hands, they're feeling how much the instrument is vibrating, and when it doesn't vibrate a certain amount, they go, Nope, that wasn't good. Even though they hit the note perfectly on time, it played the note, right? And it's pitch perfect. There's this whole other matrix, sixth sense that's happening with a good player. They know the instruments just not making that. It's not vibrating like how they want it to. And they stop when that happens. Unless you're working with someone like that, the low end is never there for me. I always have to fabricate it to get my mix to do what I want it to do. So I'm wondering if that, do we have notes on how that was done?

Speaker 3 (45:18):

He used massive metal base pod, farm fab filter, Saturn and L one.

Speaker 2 (45:24):

Okay, so massive metal base. That's a base VST, right?

Speaker 3 (45:31):

Yes.

Speaker 2 (45:32):

Okay. So maybe I am wrong there. It could be that the low end isn't tight enough.

Speaker 3 (45:38):

It's a base instrument.

Speaker 2 (45:39):

Yeah, the low end could not be, maybe it's not compressed enough, but I just noticed I wanted to say if you're dealing with real bases and wondering about should I use fake bass or should I make my low end fabricated? Just know that it's very rare that a musician is capable of controlling the low end enough to where it really works in the mix. And sometimes you can get away with a decent performance and compressing that into something that's more stable and consistent. But even if you are using a base instrument, don't take it for granted. It can still be off. The low end can be different in all of the notes that are recorded. And lemme tell you, making a bass instrument is freaking hard. I've tried, and you would know that if I succeeded because it would be out, but it's very hard to do. So this bass instrument could have their low end levels all over the place. Who knows?

Speaker 3 (46:41):

Yeah,

Speaker 2 (46:41):

I'm looking it up right now. I want to see who made it.

Speaker 3 (46:43):

Corey Breneman did.

Speaker 2 (46:45):

Okay. Corey Breneman. So it is possible that, and no hate on Corey, but it is possible that those low ends could be the low end balance of all the different notes that were recorded to make up that bass instrument that could be a little bit inconsistent. So it's possible that maybe you need more balance down there on the low end. Maybe you need more compression

Speaker 3 (47:11):

Or it could just be pilot error

Speaker 4 (47:12):

Or you just need to turn it up.

Speaker 3 (47:16):

Yeah, I think it's hard to know unless we're actually in the session, but I think that either way that issue needs to be solved. It just sounds anemic.

Speaker 2 (47:28):

Well, I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that don't take it for granted just because you're using a bass instrument that it was built perfectly.

Speaker 3 (47:35):

Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean that's the same thing as when using certain drum instruments, not drum forge, but some other ones if layering different drums together and getting phasing issues. And a lot of people assume that just because pros made it that every single possible thing was fixed, and that's not the case. It's still made by people.

Speaker 2 (48:04):

And even if the instrument's perfect, perfectly made and nothing's wrong with the instrument itself, maybe it performing your song isn't the right thing at that exact moment too.

(48:18):

Take that into consideration and think about how the balance of your base and your mix is being controlled by this one little midi note that you have somewhere in your song. It's like, no, that might not be what it needs. You might need to turn it up. It might need to be automated louder. You might need to EQ it differently. There's a lot of things that go into it and the performance could be off. So it's a lot of variables that go into making sure it sounds exactly how you want. And that would be my first look. I would go back to the drawing board and see is the instrument consistent? Okay, notes are consistent, they're aware. I want them to be, are these notes, are they eqd properly? Are they loud enough? Are they in balance with the drums and the vocals and the guitars and all this? And then once you've gotten all that leveled out, I would say the next thing would be multi-band compression and limiting the range of movement on those low end frequency.

Speaker 3 (49:17):

Let me just read you my first note on this song. Yeah,

Speaker 2 (49:20):

Let's hear it.

Speaker 3 (49:20):

Sure. Low end is muddy and the mix sounds thin. That means that you need to add more of the right type of low end, meaning the balance of the sub kick with the bass, the low mids of the guitars, the low end of the guitars, and control the flub more. Exactly. Yeah. That was the first thing that came to mind. So also I think the snare is pretty quiet. I feel like it's probably got some good impact. It's hard to tell from the volume, but I feel like at least the punch of it is probably okay. But I have a feeling also that when you turn it up, it might sound a little thin. So maybe a hundred to 200 hertz to two 50 hertz could stand some examination.

Speaker 2 (50:05):

Yeah. The big problem with that is as soon as he gets the base right, that's all going to go to shit.

Speaker 3 (50:10):

Yep. Precisely.

Speaker 2 (50:12):

Start with the base because the low end is going to dictate almost every move you make, all the way down to how loud the vocals are and what kind of EQ is on the vocals.

Speaker 4 (50:22):

Yeah. I think the hallmark of an A-list mix is the low end treatment, the A-list. Dudes always nail their low end and it always sounds inspiring when you hear it.

Speaker 3 (50:33):

Yeah. Here, let's talk real quick about the heavy vocals. I think when the heavy voice comes in, it's super underwhelming.

Speaker 2 (50:40):

Well, first thing that's wrong with those, I think, I don't know what Mike was used. I'm not looking at the notes, but I'm going to say the wrong mic.

Speaker 3 (50:48):

And the mic was a shitty $10. Chinese made condenser mic.

Speaker 2 (50:55):

Nailed it. Now, the reason why it's the wrong mic, I mean, first of all, come on $10 mic. We can all agree that money doesn't matter and gear doesn't matter. But $10, Mike, you can't do that.

Speaker 4 (51:09):

No gear does matter with a lot of cheap condensers and they really screw them up if they're below a certain price point, in my opinion.

Speaker 3 (51:17):

Yeah, I mean, look, I think that gear does matter, but I think that there's a lot of other things that matter a lot more, but you're not going to recover from using a $10 mic.

Speaker 2 (51:28):

Yeah. Second thing is whatever this mic is doing, it's picking up way too much sub energy from the voice or way too much suber energy was left in because when he screams, you can hear like 50 hertz rumbling, and that just doesn't sound good with the rest of,

Speaker 4 (51:48):

Well, we had to get low end in the mix somehow.

Speaker 2 (51:52):

So I would put a filter on that bad boy right away. I would probably add a little bit of saturation slash distortion simply because I kind of feel like maybe in the production side the voice wasn't layered enough. Maybe that's just me.

Speaker 3 (52:07):

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I was thinking that running some parallel tracks of the heavy vocal with some heavy compression, saturation distortion effects would be very helpful.

Speaker 2 (52:20):

It would make it sound a lot more powerful and what it's intended to be.

Speaker 4 (52:24):

I got a good story about Chinese microphones.

Speaker 2 (52:27):

Let's hear it.

Speaker 4 (52:28):

So I got a lavalier mic so we can shoot some videos. And I remember the Sennheiser G two wireless, I paid $600 for it back in 2006 or seven or whatever. Really, really nice high-end wireless unit for the price range. So I order the mic thing because I have the guitar pack and it's just a different attachment. And they have one for like $20 and one for a hundred dollars. And I should know better because I do this for a living, and this is embarrassing, but I bought the $20 microphone and I got it and I hooked it up. I'm like, why does my voice sound lo-fi? Who flipped the lo-fi button and gained reduction on my voice? What's going on here? And it was really weird because I couldn't figure it out. And then I realized the lav mic I bought was an absolute piece of shit and it had to get sent back. So be careful.

Speaker 3 (53:21):

Yeah, definitely.

Speaker 4 (53:22):

It was literally a lo-fi sounding microphone. It's like there was nothing below 800 and nothing above 2K. It was literally just like a mid band.

Speaker 2 (53:31):

It's the quality of the parts can determine the frequency range of the output, and that's part of what you pay for. And there's definitely a range within a certain dollar range. You're going to get great results. And that's why we're always saying you don't need a $12,000 manly reference mic to record.

Speaker 4 (53:55):

Yes, you do.

Speaker 2 (53:57):

To record vocals when your vocalist isn't even singing in key yet. It's like worry about that first and then

Speaker 3 (54:05):

Yeah, definitely. But at the same time, radio Shack, USB Mike isn't going to do the trade. Right, right.

Speaker 4 (54:12):

Or a Chinese leveler, Mike.

Speaker 3 (54:14):

Yep. Precisely. And

Speaker 4 (54:16):

$20 special clearance on eBay. Bad decision.

Speaker 3 (54:19):

Well, cool guys, that's all I've got for this.

Speaker 2 (54:22):

Yeah,

Speaker 4 (54:22):

Definitely.

Speaker 2 (54:23):

Let us know if you guys learned some from this episode. Jump onto the Facebook group we have for you. Tell us what you think. And if you would like to be on mixed crib Monday, tell 'em how they can do that, Al.

Speaker 3 (54:34):

Well, everybody that subscribe should have a email or an email sitting in their inbox with the rules. And what you have to do is send an email to jsf [email protected] with the subject line mixed CRI Monday, submit and send us an MP three of the song along with the two release forms and fill out the questionnaire link that we gave you. And if you can't find that email, then just go to the Private Producers Club forum on Facebook and look in the rules. And those two releases and the questionnaire link are right there in the rules. So can't miss 'em. We won't crit without that questionnaire anymore because we need to know at least a minimum amount about the songs. We're going to be crit. Yeah,

Speaker 2 (55:31):

It's more helpful to you guys really, because we can guess all day long, but that doesn't help you out. So make sure you fill that form out. The more information we know about the song, the better. We can give you a more informed crit. So thanks for listening, guys. I hope you enjoyed this episode and hope you learn something and see you next time. Make it easy. The Unstoppable Recording

Speaker 1 (55:52):

Machine Podcast is brought to you by Kush Audio, a premium manufacturer of top quality audio, hardware and plugins. The high end just got higher. Visit the house of kush.com for more information to ask us questions, make suggestions and interact. Visit Uur m academy slash podcast and subscribe today.