KVR Audio

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:57 am

an-electric-heart wrote:Moving to round 2 are (I think I'm meant to choose 5?):

5-7 participants according to the rules. But if you're fine with 5, then we go with 5.

Now that the results are in, let us kick off Round 2 which will run until Friday, 05-08-2016 at 11:59pm CEST/GMT+1

The following participants go into Round 2:

3ee
davemcisaac
erictracks
Kolyev
piranha81

Thank you for your participation, and good luck for Round 2!

davemcisaac · Post by **davemcisaac** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:20 am

Thanks for including me in round 2 and congratulations to the rest that are moving on. But it would be wonderful to know what you would like us to do to improve upon our current mixes to get them where you want. I know you have been busy, but I don't want to start changing what you liked and adding more of what you didn't like - if you know what I mean.

an-electric-heart · Post by **an-electric-heart** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:33 am

davemcisaac wrote:Thanks for including me in round 2 and congratulations to the rest that are moving on. But it would be wonderful to know what you would like us to do to improve upon our current mixes to get them where you want. I know you have been busy, but I don't want to start changing what you liked and adding more of what you didn't like - if you know what I mean.

Hi there. I believe that's what the notes are for, I've given you all at least a couple of things to work on.

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:50 am

I think DaveMcIsaac means that your description is a bit vague.

In his case, you essentially said that his mix is "a bit midrange heavy" and that he should "look for some more high end content in there somewhere". His logical question would then be "where?!".

Additional to that you said that you appreciate him cleaning up the oldschool drum machine toms from artifacts, yet you don't see this as a concern. Even though you'd appreciate to use the toms "as is". This is confusing.

The whole part of the Mix Challenge and the "client interaction" is to clearly state, which route to go. You summed it up nicely with your commentary that each mix is subjective and great in it's on way. But you selected 5 people that now swim a bit blind still with the information given.

This is all that Dave is pointing out.

Ichad.c · Post by **Ichad.c** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:03 pm

Thanks for the response, and good luck to all in the 2nd round!

an-electric-heart · Post by **an-electric-heart** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:12 pm

Compyfox wrote:I think DaveMcIsaac means that your description is a bit vague.

In his case, you essentially said that his mix is "a bit midrange heavy" and that he should "look for some more high end content in there somewhere". His logical question would then be "where?!".

Additional to that you said that you appreciate him cleaning up the oldschool drum machine toms from artifacts, yet you don't see this as a concern. Even though you'd appreciate to use the toms "as is". This is confusing.

The whole part of the Mix Challenge and the "client interaction" is to clearly state, which route to go. You summed it up nicely with your commentary that each mix is subjective and great in it's on way. But you selected 5 people that now swim a bit blind still with the information given.

This is all that Dave is pointing out.

Well, his mix is good, that's all I'm saying, I had to provide some kind of feedback. So I just feel the whole mix tonally is a touch mid heavy, you've got to fill out the whole of the frequency spectrum, that's all I can say

And as for the comment about the toms, I guess I was just making conversation, the toms sound good.

photonic · Post by **photonic** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:08 am

Glad to know that my mix was pretty OK. Thanx for the feedback!
Good luck to all who reached the second round.

davemcisaac · Post by **davemcisaac** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:43 am

an-electric-heart wrote:
Well, his mix is good, that's all I'm saying, I had to provide some kind of feedback. So I just feel the whole mix tonally is a touch mid heavy, you've got to fill out the whole of the frequency spectrum, that's all I can say
And as for the comment about the toms, I guess I was just making conversation, the toms sound good.

It's all good

Just a slight misunderstanding on my part due to too many things on my mind. Just rest assured it's all good!

erictracks · Post by **erictracks** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:35 pm

Hey thanks for selecting my mix for the second round. It takes me forever to mix. Not only do I procrastinate in general, but between my day job and family, I just don't get that much time.

I'll try and bring up the elements you mentioned. I used melodyne for some of the sustained notes, but mostly used microshift to even things out.

3ee · Post by **3ee** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:38 pm

Round2:

wave: https://app.box.com/s/j9j5dpi9haikgdig01urrd7q6hetquxq
mp3: https://app.box.com/s/af41w6o9j8bsfzmx9niusr9b372z2j59

kick now has a more clicky presence (it was a bit dull indeed), in contrast it's lower-freq part seems lower in volume now as I also touched it's volume fader a bit also.

EL GTRs - notched some high-mid resonances that gave the impression that the GTRs were bright/harshy + got rid of a high-shelf boost...

Vocal: automated a parallel channel (which has a dynamic eq on it) to level the vocal nicely especially during the chorus parts
vocal is also "phater and wider" thanks to a subtle send to a stereo "harmonizer" send I usually use, most importantly, vocal is a bit louder now (especially the lower parts since loudness was achieved via parallel dynamics and automation) since this is after all, a vocal driven song...

overall sound should be a tiny bit warmer thanks to a master tape plug with even more pre-emphasis on the highs...

Kolyev · Post by **Kolyev** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:54 pm

Here we go:
mp3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/brln0r2cn7nl1 ... v.mp3?dl=0
wav: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hhyu5o2h54qa ... v.wav?dl=0

I dialed back the extra brightness on the snare and guitars that I had added in mix round 1. It's not a big difference though. The rest of the mix was left untouched.

Good luck to everyone!

erictracks · Post by **erictracks** » Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:27 pm

This one is rubber bass up, with a touch more ambience on the snare, toms, and overall keys.

Thanks again for the feedback. Glad you didn't kill me on chopping some of it up

MP3:

http://www.erictracks.com/wp-content/up ... tracks.mp3

WAV:

http://www.erictracks.com/wp-content/up ... tracks.wav

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:11 pm

A friendly reminder
24 hours left to submit your mix for Mix Round 2

Another reminder.
Please join the discussion about the possible future of the Mix Challenge here:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 8#p6527658

piranha81 · Post by **piranha81** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 8:48 pm

I tried to correct every flaw AEH noticed me, and also tried to clean up and balance the various track a bit better. Good luck to all the others participants!

WAV:
https://soundcloud.com/roberto-ortenzi/ ... iranha81-1
MP3:
https://soundcloud.com/roberto-ortenzi/ ... ha81-mp3-1

davemcisaac · Post by **davemcisaac** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:37 pm

"Again, really good, but a bit midd'y (not to the problematic end of the scale), find some high end somewhere."
What I did was add in more high end elements without actually adding in more high end - Brought up the hats, shaker, strings, arp, etc. Naturally it changed the mix and brightened it up, but the original elements went unchanged other than a bit of rebalancing to keep the vocals on top.

https://soundcloud.com/dr-audio-labs/se ... -2nd-round

MIX CHALLENGE - MC23 July 2016 - Winners announced