Alec Eiffel - Pixies cover

[paulman]

I've always been horribly unorganized in the way that I record and mix. It's almost like I'm trying to reinvent the wheel every time I do a song, and I have only on a couple of occasions managed a master that I think is spot on. So I'm working very hard on remedying that by a) really learning what the fuck I'm doing and not just fumbling around by feel and b) working out mix and master templates (hard rock, acoustic, etc.) so that I have more consistency and speed in what I do. I got a book by Billy Decker called Template Mixing and Mastering. He's produced a lot of hits, mostly in the pop country realm (gag) but also some metal and other styles. He's famous for being fast. He mixes a song in like 45 minutes. The book is a step-by-step tutorial on building his exact template that he uses for everything he mixes. In his words, the template will get you about 80% of the way there for any song you drop into it. Then you just have to tweak for that specific song. He tells you the exact plugins he uses, but explains the reasoning behind everything and gives you the exact settings so you can do it with another plugin.

Listening to some of his work, I know that I need to customize his template a good bit to make it work for me. It took me three nights to copy his template as exactly as possible (I have a lot of his plugins, but had to research replacements for others). After working with this Pixies song in the template, it's clear that this experience with his book is going to be more of a learning experience to help me find my own way, rather than a cookie cutter approach. He uses the same template for everything regardless of style, whereas I will be making a hard rock template (this one) and an acoustic/country/Americana/whatever-you-want-to-call-it template, at a minimum. Probably a couple more. And I'm just not trying to copy the guy's style, as I already like a lot of the things that I do and have plugins that I like better than some of his. I just want to get on point technically and get shit done without obsessing over it.

So what I'm asking for here is for you guys to nitpick this, please. I'm trying to find my ideal hard rock sound for a mix and master. It's not just about this song, it's about every song I do in the future. It's a little tricky because my guitar sound is way different than the Pixies. Mine is more overdriven and crunchy, and I like to accentuate that crunch while keeping a deep and clear low end. So a direct comparison between mine and the original can be helpful, but I have to keep reminding myself that it won't do to try to mimic the sound of the original.


FINAL MIX (new vocal):

Alec Eiffel master 29.mp3

NEWER NEWEST MIX:

Alec Eiffel master 24.mp3

NEWEST MIX:

Alec Eiffel master 18.mp3

First mix:

Alec Eiffel master 10.mp3

[Greg_L]

I'm very familiar with The Pixies and this song.

The main problem is you have snare but pretty much no other drums make an appearance. Where's the kick? Cymbals? Hats? Nothing else there, just snare. If you had some kick in there it'd be pretty damn close to the original or at least a solid rock mix.

The rest of the mix seems pretty good and you've done a nice job capturing much of the little nuances that make this song.

[rayc]

It's a very narrow mix apart from the bvox.
Yeah, all snare and a tiny bit of cymbals but I can't hear much else from the drums.
Clash does the Pixies or visa versa.
I bought a book that seems the reverse of your chap
Analogue Approach to Digital

[paulman]

I've been fighting trying to get the kick where I want it. Previous mixes had it much louder. I'll work with it some more. There is virtually no hi hat in the song, apart from some open hat banging in the beginning. I brought the ride down cause it made the whole thing sound too bright, but I suppose I could EQ it and bring it up.

Thanks guys, this is what I need.

[Bubba]

Hi Paulman

I can only reiterate what the others have said. I can hear the kick, but I think the thing that is mashing the whole thing is that snare. The mix sounds like it's just a massive snare drum, with some feeble accessory sounds in the background. If I try to ignore the snare and assess the rest of the instrument balance, then I get the impression that it would be ok if only the snare was brought down a LOT. Even the kick would reappear, I think, but I think some more beater attack is needed.

[paulman]

Thanks @Bubba . I worked out a new mix last night, but waited until this morning with fresher ears before posting it. So I'm posting it at the same time I'm seeing your comments. The snare did come down some, but I'm not sure it's enough. The kick is definitely there now. I feel like maybe the drums overall are now a little too forward, or maybe just the snare (I know the kick in the original is really big so mine is probably ok), and muscling the guitars out of the way just a bit. The whole thing is a good bit louder and fatter than the first mix, so it's not exactly a direct comparison with the snare volume between the two mixes. I've been doing so many little tweaks (as you can tell by my master numbers on the mp3 files) that I think it's best to see what ya'll think before tweaking again.

[paulman]

I bought a book that seems the reverse of your chap
Analogue Approach to Digital

How do you like it? Definitely sounds like a good read.

[Bubba]

Thanks @Bubba . I worked out a new mix last night, but waited until this morning with fresher ears before posting it. So I'm posting it at the same time I'm seeing your comments. The snare did come down some, but I'm not sure it's enough. The kick is definitely there now. I feel like maybe the drums overall are now a little too forward, or maybe just the snare (I know the kick in the original is really big so mine is probably ok), and muscling the guitars out of the way just a bit. The whole thing is a good bit louder and fatter than the first mix, so it's not exactly a direct comparison with the snare volume between the two mixes. I've been doing so many little tweaks (as you can tell by my master numbers on the mp3 files) that I think it's best to see what ya'll think before tweaking again.

Well, you know I'm a big pixies fan. I think you've done it justice with the tracking, so you're most of the way there! I think the latest mix is a lot better.

[Greg_L]

Well, you know I'm a big pixies fan. I think you've done it justice with the tracking, so you're most of the way there!

That's what I'm saying. Seems like all the necessary parts are there, just needs a mix.

[Bubba]

Well, you know I'm a big pixies fan. I think you've done it justice with the tracking, so you're most of the way there!

That's what I'm saying. Seems like all the necessary parts are there, just needs a mix.

Absolutely.

[rayc]

I bought a book that seems the reverse of your chap
Analogue Approach to Digital

How do you like it? Definitely sounds like a good read.

It's pretty good - not bogged down in plug ins and such. The biggest take away for me was to bounce down until you've the essentials, (Guitars, Bass, vocals, and most drums plus the kick or snare - which ever has been problematic.), then mix them. Pretty much plan and execute as if it were a four track.

[Greg_L]

NEWEST MIX:
Alec Eiffel master 18.mp3

New mix way better. Maybe a little tub and flub in the bass guitar but not bad at all. Sounds pretty good.

[paulman]

That's what I'm saying. Seems like all the necessary parts are there, just needs a mix.

Absolutely.

Thanks guys. Got a new one. This sounds perfect, I think, on AirPods. It might be a little heavy on speakers, but I can't test it out any further until tomorrow.

Alec Eiffel master 24.mp3

[Bubba]

Thanks guys. Got a new one. This sounds perfect, I think, on AirPods. It might be a little heavy on speakers, but I can't test it out any further until tomorrow.

I agree, the music sounds spot on to me, now. The only thing I would suggest is that the lead vocal needs to be brighter, you can't hear the detail of the consonants and the sibilants. Other than that, I think you've nailed it.

[paulman]

I agree, the music sounds spot on to me, now. The only thing I would suggest is that the lead vocal needs to be brighter, you can't hear the detail of the consonants and the sibilants. Other than that, I think you've nailed it.

Thanks Bob! I hear the sibilants ok, but I have been struggling to get the brightness right on the vocal. My voice is darker than Frank Black's, plus I had a cold so I wasn't really pushing like maybe I would have otherwise. So I tried to make up for that in the mix by making it brighter. Took it way too far at first to where it sounded telephone-ish, and it's been vacillating between too bright and too dark ever since. I might retrack it and get a vocal I'm not afraid to put out there in the mix.

Also, turns out I was right about it being a little too boomy on systems other than AirPods. So I have to figure out how to carve that out a tad without taking away from how great it sounds on AirPods. On this last mix, I did something I've never done before, which is mix through the AirPods directly. I figured out how to route Reaper's output to them, and it worked pretty well. I always check my mixes on bluetooth speakers and AirPods anyway, so I figured why not cut to the chase? AirPods have been the bane of my mixing existence, I could never get anything to sound good on them no matter how magnificent it sounded on everything else. By working in reverse and getting the mix to first sound good on the most consumer of consumer sound devices, I figure it's easier to tweak it into a good all-around mix.

[musicturtle]

@paulman last mix does sound really good.

I get what Bubba is saying about the vocals, just a little "crispness" or "shine" would help. Maybe tweek the EQ on the reverb to make it brighter, or add a very faint sharp delay to it.

Funny you talk about the different listening environments. I recently go the VSX headphones/software from Steven Slate. And it's pretty amazing. The mix does sound great on the ear pod simulation. And just a bit boomy on the studio sim that I like to use most of the time.

[rayc]

A cut on the mix at 120.5Hz of -2.3 dBs with a Q of 0.70 really clears it up without sucking power.
Alternately if you do the same at 70 & 120 on the bass/drums bus though a little gentler you'll get a better result.
The latest mix if GOOOOOD. I don't mind the vocal as is & a cold means tweaking too hard will get unpleasant.

[paulman]

A cut on the mix at 120.5Hz of -2.3 dBs with a Q of 0.70 really clears it up without sucking power.
Alternately if you do the same at 70 & 120 on the bass/drums bus though a little gentler you'll get a better result.
The latest mix if GOOOOOD. I don't mind the vocal as is & a cold means tweaking too hard will get unpleasant.

Thank you Ray! I'll try that. That's exactly the kind of advice I need.

[paulman]

@paulman last mix does sound really good.

I get what Bubba is saying about the vocals, just a little "crispness" or "shine" would help. Maybe tweek the EQ on the reverb to make it brighter, or add a very faint sharp delay to it.

Funny you talk about the different listening environments. I recently go the VSX headphones/software from Steven Slate. And it's pretty amazing. The mix does sound great on the ear pod simulation. And just a bit boomy on the studio sim that I like to use most of the time.

Well, now you just made me spend $300 this afternoon. Thanks man. It'll be here Tuesday.

Funny you talk about EQing the reverb. I did that, but I made it darker because at the time the vocal was too bright. It's also got a slightly fuzzy slapback delay on it. I'll play with it when I get the headphones on Tuesday.

[vomitHatSteve]

Late to this one since I was entertaining family all weekend.

There's a world of difference between the master and the first mix. Amazing improvement.