How does this recording sound?

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Dave Hicks

Thanks!

Like so, maybe? I moved the lead instruments L/R and rhythm toward the middle. Since there's only one lead at a time, does it seem unbalanced?

D.H.

That's night and day and a couple of afternoons better!

[Dave Hicks]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

That's night and day and a couple of afternoons better!

Thanks, Frank!

D.H.

[catdaddy]

Great improvement!! Nice work!

[SprintBob]

The second is more pleasant to listen to, nice work there.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Dave Hicks

PLEASE SEE POST 12 FOR A REMIX WITH INSTRUMENTS REARRANGED IN STEREO SPACE.

OK, I remixed it (gave the new version a different name to keep it straight - original in first post.

What I did:

Exported tracks to Cubase*.
Ditched the drum track.
Brought the bass and rhythm guitars up (maybe too much?).
I usually EQ bass by cutting around 300 Hz, boosting around 800. I accentuated that a bit.
Boosted guitar around 125 Hz and mandolin around 300 to differentiate them a bit better.
Compressed and limited the leads.
Other miscellaneous, too.

Still some examples of involuntary syncopation, but oh well.

Link removed - see update in post 12.

* I've had Cubase for a while, but it insisted on sending output to the laptop speakers. I finally figured out how to send to headphones, so I used some cheapo Presonus monitors to mix.

D.H.

Overall much improved
here is what I would do next

I would try some changes related to (your list of changes ) But remember the frequencies I mention are only general starting places

Do you know how to do narrow Q , boost and sweep to find problem frequencies ? Because that is the bast way to determine what specific frequencies to do narrow cut for each instrument
That said : As per your changes list......

I would leave the level of bass, but back off the rhythm guitar just a few db.

I would change the cut and boost on the bass.
I would do relatively narrow Q cuts at say 250 and 500 (depending on what the boost and sweep technique on the bass reveals ) and and do slightly wider Q boosts (of a few db) right in the middle of the bad frequency cuts say for example 125 and 325 (based on cuts at 250 and 500)

As far as "differentiate them" IMO getting more separation (differentiation) between instruments is much better served by cutting first, before if any boosting.(Because there is a common misconstrued belief that more frequency ( Boost) makes for separation , it doesn't,,,,,, less frequency (cutting) first,, actually makes for more separation.

So I would slightly cut both the leads first with a fairly narrow Q right at the 125 and 325 (or what ever you boost) on the base
Then I would also solo the two leads and try to decide what mid frequency (again fairly narrow say a range of 50 to 100 ) sounds the best for each lead instrument and then cut that range slightly on the other instrument.
Only then would I consider boosting in those best sounding ranges respectively

Also in the second lead section (I assume guitar) sounds fine with the compression in balance,,, BUT first in general I would not limit on an individual instrument track (unless it was definitely clipping into the red,,,and then I would limit it by the db's necessary to get it to quit clipping and not add any gain)

The 1 st lead (I assume mandolin) I would loose the compression and limiting because it too far forward in the mix (which is the optimum reason to use compression not to boost level)
And then after you have used all the above to get a good balance Then consider a limiter (preferably a good Look Ahead Brick Wall limiter on either the 2 Bus or the master out track

[Dave Hicks]

I put a new version up (probably the final one, as I’d like to go on to something new). I’ll just leave the track up for a few days.

Order of solos is mandolin-guitar-mandolin-guitar,

What I did:

Took off most of the EQ, other than cutting below 80 Hz. On the leads, I also cut some frequencies around 1000-1500 that I thought sounded a bit harsh when I scrolled through the frequency spectrum. On the bass, I scanned around and found a small cut near 300 and boost near 800 did sound better than flat. Other than that, the EQ is subtractive.

Added a little reverb to most of the leads

Took compression off the first mandolin. Kept the limiter on the guitar leads, as they have some isolated notes that redlined; also gated some as some sections were rather quiet. (I’ll have to be more careful about my playing next time around.) Compressed the second mando.

Moved the rhythm guitars out a little further, cut overall volume on them and compressed to even out the volume.

[fitness1]

Sounds pretty darn good to me

[Dave Hicks]

Originally Posted by fitness1

Sounds pretty darn good to me

Thanks for listening to so many versions. (Not as many as my wife, though. )

D.H.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Dave Hicks

I put a new version up (probably the final one, as I’d like to go on to something new). I’ll just leave the track up for a few days.

Order of solos is mandolin-guitar-mandolin-guitar,

What I did:

Took off most of the EQ, other than cutting below 80 Hz. On the leads, I also cut some frequencies around 1000-1500 that I thought sounded a bit harsh when I scrolled through the frequency spectrum. On the bass, I scanned around and found a small cut near 300 and boost near 800 did sound better than flat. Other than that, the EQ is subtractive.

Added a little reverb to most of the leads

Took compression off the first mandolin. Kept the limiter on the guitar leads, as they have some isolated notes that redlined; also gated some as some sections were rather quiet. (I’ll have to be more careful about my playing next time around.) Compressed the second mando.

Moved the rhythm guitars out a little further, cut overall volume on them and compressed to even out the volume.

Much improved good work .
Note as far as leveling the overall volume and sound balance and eliminating red line spikes . Besides using compression gating or limiting on the entire track
Are you doing any volume "automation" first ? , (or what used to be called "Riding the faders") ...

I don't use Cubase, but it no doubt has some type of individual "Clip gain" feature . Where on the edit window waveform, you highlight and separate just those really loud parts and drag only that selection level down or the reverse for really quiet parts ,,,, then once you have the track more evenly balanced then try compression (if you even need it after volume automation) (what this does level things out and help avoid over compressing in a effort to tame spikes in volume) It's a bit tedious at first , BUT with practice you will get much faster and begin to know what kind of relative db cut from original you want .

Also note Cubase should allow you to automate both when your plugin effects are working and not (i.e. automate and toggle in and out of by-pass as the play head moves along the waveform) and also automate amount of effect per individual section. More advance for sure,,, But for example you can automate an EQ to just do a momentary 1 band narrow Q cut on say a specific transient that is causing a red line clip., as opposed to a compressor or limiter on the entire track. These methods are exactly why a full feature DAW is such a great tool

[Dave Hicks]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Much improved good work .
Note as far as leveling the overall volume and sound balance and eliminating red line spikes . Besides using compression gating or limiting on the entire track
Are you doing any volume "automation" first ? , (or what used to be called "Riding the faders") ...

I don't use Cubase, but it no doubt has some type of individual "Clip gain" feature . Where on the edit window waveform, you highlight and separate just those really loud parts and drag only that selection level down or the reverse for really quiet parts ,,,, then once you have the track more evenly balanced then try compression (if you even need it after volume automation) (what this does level things out and help avoid over compressing in a effort to tame spikes in volume) It's a bit tedious at first , BUT with practice you will get much faster and begin to know what kind of relative db cut from original you want .

Also note Cubase should allow you to automate both when your plugin effects are working and not (i.e. automate and toggle in and out of by-pass as the play head moves along the waveform) and also automate amount of effect per individual section. More advance for sure,,, But for example you can automate an EQ to just do a momentary 1 band narrow Q cut on say a specific transient that is causing a red line clip., as opposed to a compressor or limiter on the entire track. These methods are exactly why a full feature DAW is such a great tool

Thanks for your helpful comments. Thus far I haven't used Cubase much. I've used the faders quite a bit on the Zoom, but I haven't used the write animation features in Cubase yet. A quick www search indicates that Cubase does have clip gain, but nobody seems to like it very much. Always more to learn...

D.H.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Dave Hicks

Thanks for your helpful comments. Thus far I haven't used Cubase much. I've used the faders quite a bit on the Zoom, but I haven't used the write animation features in Cubase yet. A quick www search indicates that Cubase does have clip gain, but nobody seems to like it very much. Always more to learn...
D.H.

Humm ? interesting I don't know why people would not like it ?? I find it one of the most useful tools in Pro Tools. Now if it used incorrectly with noticeable volume differences OR if for some reason Cubase does not have X (Cross) fades you can apply to all the clip edges (which seems unlikely) and you hear clicks, then that unpopularity makes no sense to me. ( kind of like saying I don't like remote automatic garage door openers)

However lets back up a bit, and say in general ,,,,,,No amount of "fix it in the Mix" (as far as all the editing tricks or correction plugin FX etc. is called ) is as desirable as getting an optimum recording going into the DAW in the first place, ..through good performance technique , mic placement and choice , room treatment ect. etc. But that does not negate the value of the great editing tools available in DAWs and why with very few exceptions Professional recording studios all use DAWs