Thread: Whats wrong with this mix?

I know whats driving me nuts.

Adele - Set Fire To The Rain (Live at The Royal Albert Hall) - YouTube

Originally Posted by Alan Sledzieski

I know whats driving me nuts.

Adele - Set Fire To The Rain (Live at The Royal Albert Hall) - YouTube

It's a track?

if it WAS live it was seriously remastered before this copy of it was released

Jason

I need a money channel mic that is both incredibly tolerant of off-axis use all the while picking up absolutely no room/stage bleed. That looks like the one.

Originally Posted by Milt Hathaway

I need a money channel mic that is both incredibly tolerant of off-axis use all the while picking up absolutely no room/stage bleed. That looks like the one.

Physics defied through a clever technique known as cheating...

Ssssss's, are terrible, thats what driving me nuts.

There is no way this can be the house mix. Strings are on the left, guitar on the right, etc...

Originally Posted by Burak Yildirmaz

There is no way this can be the house mix. Strings are on the left, guitar on the right, etc...

It's a multitrack live recording. What is in question? They fix stuff. They don't use a live 2 track board mix for a video!

I have the Blu-Ray.
The quality of the wireless mic drives me nuts.

Too much sonic maximizer? Kind of kidding, but her mic does sound a tad over processed.

Originally Posted by Milt Hathaway

I need a money channel mic that is both incredibly tolerant of off-axis use all the while picking up absolutely no room/stage bleed. That looks like the one.

Actually when you have a performer that can belt put the notes, your gain settings help reduce your stage bleed and she's still always singing into the diaphram.

Originally Posted by Alan Sledzieski

I know whats driving me nuts.

Adele - Set Fire To The Rain (Live at The Royal Albert Hall) - YouTube

Is it the fact that the snare doesn't make you eyes twitch or the kick is not caving in your chest?

I wish people would post REAL live recordings. You know like a XY pair of mics at FOH direct to tape. NO post processing and so forth.

Then that would give an idea of what was really going on and what the audience (at least some of them) heard.

Nobody in that room heard that sound-I am pretty sure.

Originally Posted by Jordan Lahr

Actually when you have a performer that can belt put the notes, your gain settings help reduce your stage bleed and she's still always singing into the diaphram.

Gain doesn't change anything. The ratio of voice to everything else would be the same regardless. Singing louder will make bleed less apparent because the ratio is higher.

Originally Posted by Ivan Beaver

I wish people would post REAL live recordings. You know like a XY pair of mics at FOH direct to tape. NO post processing and so forth.

Then that would give an idea of what was really going on and what the audience (at least some of them) heard.

For psychoacoustic reasons an X/Y recording from the audience area can't give you a true record of what it sounded like to people in the audience.

Originally Posted by Milt Hathaway

For psychoacoustic reasons an X/Y recording from the audience area can't give you a true record of what it sounded like to people in the audience.

Don't they make those heads with mics where ears would be for this? How do those work?

Originally Posted by Silas Pradetto

Don't they make those heads with mics where ears would be for this? How do those work?

Psychoacoustics research has shown that when you sit in the 3d audio space of a live event your brain can sort out the wanted signal from the noise (crowd, reverb, etc.) When you reduce all of that information down to two sources (speakers, headphones, etc.) your brain can't sort it out as well so the signal-to-noise ratio seems worse.

Many of us run into a variation of the theory every time we mix monitors. It's much easier for a singer to pick his voice/instrument out of a stereo IEM mix than it is to pick it out of a mono IEM mix. That's also a big reason why the trick of running multiple wedge mixes to the same stage position can help keep a difficult musician happy.

Originally Posted by Milt Hathaway

Psychoacoustics research has shown that when you sit in the 3d audio space of a live event your brain can sort out the wanted signal from the noise (crowd, reverb, etc.) When you reduce all of that information down to two sources (speakers, headphones, etc.) your brain can't sort it out as well so the signal-to-noise ratio seems worse.

Many of us run into a variation of the theory every time we mix monitors. It's much easier for a singer to pick his voice/instrument out of a stereo IEM mix than it is to pick it out of a mono IEM mix. That's also a big reason why the trick of running multiple wedge mixes to the same stage position can help keep a difficult musician happy.

So, while the head with mic-ears might make the stereo image a bit more realistic, it's not going to be much of an improvement over an X-Y stereo pair as far as overall sound quality goes. Interesting.

Originally Posted by Alan Sledzieski

Ssssss's, are terrible, thats what driving me nuts.

Check your listening system, it's OK on my AKG 271s

Originally Posted by John Chiara

It's a multitrack live recording.

Paying close attention to the high hat and floor tom during the intro I'm suspecting we're into overdub territory here.

Originally Posted by Silas Pradetto

So, while the head with mic-ears might make the stereo image a bit more realistic, it's not going to be much of an improvement over an X-Y stereo pair as far as overall sound quality goes. Interesting.

We filter out a bunch of stuff our brain doesn't realize it needs to filter out when listening to the playback as it's environment/setting-dependent.