Need Help With Trance Project (CD Completed)

[vurt]

i know youll hate this bit...

it depends what youre trying to achieve.

if youre looking to create a real space with a real sounding band, you might avoid it.

however, think of where you are now as like the matrix, where you are in charge of the rules of physics now. be creative with the spaces.

[wagtunes]

i know youll hate this bit...

it depends what youre trying to achieve.

if youre looking to create a real space with a real sounding band, you might avoid it.

however, think of where you are now as like the matrix, where you are in charge of the rules of physics now. be creative with the spaces.

Actually, that's a fine answer. But my main concern is with getting the "space" to be Trance like. As there's no guide coming with all these tracks I've been listening to (just hit 200 today) that says "On this track we used...." then it's all guesswork. I can listen to all the Trance tracks in the world, but without knowing exactly what they're doing to get the sound they're getting, it's all just trial and error.

At some point you have to say "I can't do anymore with this" and put it to bed. Agree?

[vurt]

At some point you have to say "I can't do anymore with this" and put it to bed. Agree?

yes of course.
when youre happy with it.
and when you think you've learned enough to go again.


is there anything in particular that you can hear that you think is wrong?
if so i can give pointers for info, but to my ears you've taken a huge leap in your production skills here.
considering the depth of this compared to the sparser arrangements, i seriously think you need to be proud of yourself.

[wagtunes]

At some point you have to say "I can't do anymore with this" and put it to bed. Agree?

yes of course.
when youre happy with it.
and when you think you've learned enough to go again.


is there anything in particular that you can hear that you think is wrong?
if so i can give pointers for info, but to my ears you've taken a huge leap in your production skills here.
considering the depth of this compared to the sparser arrangements, i seriously think you need to be proud of yourself.

Well, I've also been working on this for a long time. But thanks.

And no, I'm not 100% happy with it yet. I'm getting closer but as I dive more and more into each second of this thing, I'm finding little things I don't like. Most have to do with the relationships between the parts in volume, space, etc. I still think the vocals need to be brought up a db. They sound low in the phones but fine on the monitors. Still, not as up front as I'd like. But at the same time, I don't want them dry. Maybe more EQ cut. Don't know. I'm getting closer and like I said, it'll probably be a good 2 weeks before I'm really happy with it. Right now I'm on day 10. Never thought I'd ever spend this much time on one song.

[vurt]

you know there is another option, put it aside for a day or two. return to it with fresh ears.

the repetition over days, bits that are fine, that you even loved once, become annoying. you can get fatigued and lose your judgement on a piece.

start on something new, learn some new tricks through a new track, then return with extra knowledge and remix the first track.

[wagtunes]

you know there is another option, put it aside for a day or two. return to it with fresh ears.

the repetition over days, bits that are fine, that you even loved once, become annoying. you can get fatigued and lose your judgement on a piece.

start on something new, learn some new tricks through a new track, then return with extra knowledge and remix the first track.

Oh believe me, I never loved this piece that much. And I can now see why. With the changes I just made, this thing is getting huge. This is what I wanted to get to when I made the first mix but had no idea what the problem was. Now I do. I'm going to toss up one last revision and then work on mastering it. I think it's gotten as good as it's going to get without blowing it up to hell.

[Tj Shredder]

Okay, I made some significant changes.

1. Added hi hat to certain parts. Really improved the groove there.

2. Against my better judgment, I went in and inspected all the reverb sends and made a number of adjustments. I think the all around space has been improved significantly. I did not touch the reverb time, however. It is still at 2.54 seconds, which I feel is more than enough. But okay, I'll ask. What is the typical reverb time for a Trance track?

Anyway, here is the updated version.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... e-home-wip

Yes, now the overall balance is much better.
My idea was actually to not only automate the mix levels, but also automate the reverb send levels. That way you could bring elements closer or move them away, as if the listener would move in a space...
Keeping the reverb time constant is fine, leaves it more consistant...
Anyway progress is evident...
Btw, I never made a dance track in my life...; - )

[donkey tugger]

I've said it before and I'll say it again..cut the low end from the reverb, especially in full/busy mixes it's only mush;

https://westlakepro.com/abbey-road-reverb-trick/

[wagtunes]

I've said it before and I'll say it again..cut the low end from the reverb, especially in full/busy mixes it's only mush;

https://westlakepro.com/abbey-road-reverb-trick/

Will this do it? On the FX send where I have the reverb and the compressor, if I put an EQ on it, will that do the trick?

[vurt]

I've said it before and I'll say it again..cut the low end from the reverb, especially in full/busy mixes it's only mush;

https://westlakepro.com/abbey-road-reverb-trick/

true.

and when the mix is compressed for mastering, you will just end up with soup.

[JoaquinAce]

I've said it before and I'll say it again..cut the low end from the reverb, especially in full/busy mixes it's only mush;

https://westlakepro.com/abbey-road-reverb-trick/

+1. The low end needs to get cleaned up, its too muddy. You can hear the muddiness at 2:45 where its pretty prominent, sounds like a blanket has been put over the track. So like mentioned above, EQ the low end of the reverb. EQ the low end of the saw/lead synth sound if you haven't yet.

[vurt]

I've said it before and I'll say it again..cut the low end from the reverb, especially in full/busy mixes it's only mush;

https://westlakepro.com/abbey-road-reverb-trick/

Will this do it? On the FX send where I have the reverb and the compressor, if I put an EQ on it, will that do the trick?

yeah, you only want to eq the reverb channel, not the original signal.
so after the reverb.
whether you put it in front of the compressor is not written in stone.

[donkey tugger]

I've said it before and I'll say it again..cut the low end from the reverb, especially in full/busy mixes it's only mush;

https://westlakepro.com/abbey-road-reverb-trick/

Will this do it? On the FX send where I have the reverb and the compressor, if I put an EQ on it, will that do the trick?

Dunno about having a compressor on a send, but that's by the by...

But yes, if you eq the low end out before the signal hits the reverb then it will cut a lot of the clutter. Where you set the cut of course depends on the track etc.

Of course a lot of reverbs have low cut built in. Give it a go and see.

[vurt]

pre reverb?
i usually go post fx, but that's where my sends channel eq is...
i suppose that way the reverb is doing less work.

[JoaquinAce]

pre reverb?
i usually go post fx, but that's where my sends channel eq is...
i suppose that way the reverb is doing less work.

Depends but in this case I would EQ the sounds before they go to the reverb bus.