[CaliaMoko]

I want to get at least one song in "Finished Songs" before the end of the month, just so I can say I did. So here it is--the most recent incarnation of "Purple Shades". I've been playing with effects in Audacity I didn't even really know were there before.

I'm looking for advice for improving the mix. I played with the bass and treble and with compression. And some reverb on the vocal. I moved the vocal to the middle and moved the main accompaniment to the left a little. Live acoustic guitar remains to the right a bit.

Keep in mind I basically have no clue! what I'm doing. 

[tina m]

i much prefer the last version vicki ....you shouldnt have listened to that paulski fella!
the vocals are too lost in the mix bcos of the reverb &  turning up the bass has meant all the higher stuff in the canned backing  is too low & muffled now
what i did like now tho was that it sounded like a dance mix with that big beat  ....that will definitely help people get round the track

[Skub]

Just to further confuse you and muddy the waters,I like this version best. It sounds more polished and full...if that's what you were after Vicki. Almost hymnal in it's quality.

[pompeyjazz]

Hi Vicki. You have such an unique sixties voice which is lovely. Thought that you could concentrate on a bit of higher end eq (treble) to enhance the vocals and guitar (maybe)

Great song again 

Cheers pompeyjazz

[CaliaMoko]

Thank you: tinam, Skub, and pompeyjazz!

Like I mentioned, I really don't know what I'm doing. The way I added effects to this was to duplicate a track and add the effect to the new track. The vocal, for example, is now in the mix three times, one is  the original, one has compression added, and one has reverb added.

Audacity has an effect called "Equalization" and one called "Bass and treble". I used "Bass and treble" to turn up the bass and turn down the treble on a duplicated track of the canned accompaniment. The original track is still in the mix, too.

I can probably mess with the settings on those tracks and see if I can keep the "polish" and still bring the voice back up a bit.

I can't remember what I did to the guitar.

Two of my biggest handicaps (besides not knowing what I'm doing) is that Audacity doesn't give me any clue what I've done to a track once I've done it (I'll have to start keeping notes or maybe check out Reaper again). And not being able to listen to the output on or in a variety of speakers or environments. In my headset the bass sounded really good in the first recording. In this new one, it sounds really bass heavy to me.

If I get time before I have to turn the file over for Relay, I'll make a few new adjustments and ask for updated feedback.

Thanks again!

Vicki

[IronKnee]

I can't help with the mix.....I'm all thumbs and feet when it comes to mixing knobs, and balance.
But I can tell you that I like the song 
                                                                         -T

[adamfarr]

Hi Vicki - it's horses for courses I think. The WIP version was quite close and intimate (adding reverb can make things seem further away and I think that happened in this case). This version sounds to me like the "stadium version" - the big bass makes it like a marching song, which is what it's supposed to be, right?

The lyrics are quite simple and repetitive which again is probably perfect for the pupose.

I think you have a good ear for balance (which is the primary objective of mixing after all). Effects etc. can be helpful but won't make a bad song good. For the tools you have this is totally fine.

[CaliaMoko]

I can't help with the mix.....I'm all thumbs and feet when it comes to mixing knobs, and balance.

  That's pretty much what I always say....

But I can tell you that I like the song 

Thank you very much!
                                                                         -T

Hi Vicki - it's horses for courses I think.

I had to look that up, which inspired me to say, "Well, duh!"

I think you have a good ear for balance (which is the primary objective of mixing after all). Effects etc. can be helpful but won't make a bad song good. For the tools you have this is totally fine.

Thanks so much. I pretty much feel like I'm shooting in the dark, and what I get never sounds to me like the nice smooth mixes other people post, but I'm probably not objective enough to listen to my own stuff.

I'm going to give the guy who runs the sound equipment the two most recent versions and let him decide which sounds better over the system.

I so appreciate all the feedback; this is such a wonderful resource for me. And I'm trying to keep up with at least an equal number of reviews of my own (I actually hope I'm giving at least two for each one I get--maybe I should do an analysis to see...)

Vicki

[delb0y]

Hi Vicki

Lovely song - has a very traditional feel, yet it is wholly original. Very nice. Timeless, I'd say. Can't really help with the mixing questions as I'm equally, or probably more, unknowledgeable than yourself. What I would say is that I prefer the WiP version vocalwise - I couldn't really pick out the vocals very well on the finished version so I went in search of the lyrics, found the WIP take, and listened to that. The vocals sit more on top of the mix in that earlier take. However... there's always a however - I am listening on the laptop. I suspect if I had headphones on I might have a different view. I've found even different headphones can make a world of different, let alone laptop speakers.

But lovely song! 

Derek 

[Movin Flavour]

Vicki

Ditto...not a production expert but the song has a great 60s feel about it.

Echoes of Joni Mithell.

I like this.


Sandeep

[PaulAds]

you've done a great job here, Vicki 

your voice is lovely, as ever...with a beautiful vibrato that sounds really effortless

very nice work

[tboswell]

Sorry, listen to this a while back and didn't get chance to comment.

Liked it very much, has a timeless feel about it. You music has a real natural feel Vicki that never feels forced at all and this is the same.
Vocals and very sweet and I love the "trilling frogs"

The mix I think is a bit off though, the vocal seems too far back and I can't hear your voice well enough. Even with the reverb you need to keep the feel of the vocal "up front and centre", as it is it just sounds further away.

Great track! 

Tom.

[CaliaMoko]

Thank you to delb0y, Movin Flavour, PaulAds, and tboswell! I appreciate all the great feedback; it is so helpful.

I keep experimenting with the mixing; I totally don't know what I'm doing but it's so interesting. I'm intrigued by the changes when I put copies of the same track in the mix over and over and apply different effects to different copies. Sometimes I just end up with a bunch of clipping....  I'd like to take a mixing class at some point.

Anyway, I've decided to keep the trilling frogs, as research supports the idea that frogs can "trill", and the word provides what I need. I'm going with lesser reverb in the voice to pull it back, err, more forward in the mix. More like the WIP version than the "Finished" version. I'll just say I got those two backwards.

I'll update the finished version when I get a chance. I've had a house full of family for a few days, but it has quieted back down now and I hope to get back to a higher level of musical activity again.

Thanks again. I love the compliments, of course.   And the constructive criticism is very helpful to me.

Vicki

[Boydie]

Another lovely song and I liked the backing when I got used to it

The overall mix is actually quite good - but the bass is over powering the track and the lead vocal is a little lost

There is no need to do anything fancy though, just turn the bass track down (assuming it is a mulit-track, if not then the can attack it with some EQ)

RE: processing one track and leaving the other one there

What you are effectively doing here is "parallel processing" - which means you can quite drastically affect one track but if you mix it back in with the original it doesn't sound as "severe" but gives a flavour to the original

This can be a useful "safety net" but you need to be conscious that every time you duplicate a track you are increasing the volume (2 tracks of the same thing are now playing) so you need to be wary of clipping

The downside is that you have less "control" over the mix (eg if you EQ a duplicate to get rid of a nasty frequency and then mix it back with the original the nasty frequency will still be there!) and you may end up with many (many many) more tracks than you need as you keep duplicating - so you could end up "chasing your tail" as you mix

It may be worth duplicating your track and then mute the original (so you have something to go back to) and then try less severe tweaks on one track to get the effect you want

I agree with ADAMFARR tat you have a good ear for "balance" so you are at a good starting point to learn more about mixing

I'd like to take a mixing class at some point.

I am planning a "video series" on mixing soon so hold on 

[Doodles]

Hi Vicki,

The song itself sounds promising - I have no doubts in your songcraft abilities.

For me the vocal is too quiet and lost. I'm a pretty clumsy amateur when it comes to production, but I would recommend increasing the volume of the vocal. I think Kevin (Shadowfax) shared a little trick on here a while back about doubling the vocals. Pan one channel left, the other right and slightly detune one channel up and the other down. That might be worth a try - would be better coming from the horses mouth though - or at least someone else who is a bit of a production maestro.

Ben