Actually if you incresased bass... The perceived loudness varies for the human eara. Higher tones with the same numerical power are percieved louder than lower ones. So you put all the energy you need in the low frequency area (the long waveforms you can see) and little into the mid and high frequencies. A proper mix should have them all well-balanced, you can see that if you look at both pieces through an spectrum analyzer while playing them.

I'd look into the perceived bass from Zimmer's piece which usually can be ofund above and close below the mud frequencies around 100Hz.

Just my not worthy 2 cents,
PolarBear

You're right, Zimmer's track is louder in those frequencies.
After a while I started gradually removing those frequencies more and more.

I'm going to try to put those frequencies back.

By the way, is there a way to make mono rewire tracks group into stereo tracks like the first 2 rewire tracks in Nuendo? I've been using group channels to handle pairs of mono rewire tracks, but the track count gets pretty high.

Just saw this now Chem.

Your track has an excess of very-low end energy, from 45-55hz and downwards. Take a sine tone and run through your RMS meter, and pitch it from 10Khz all the way down to 35hz (watch your speakers, not too loud!), and you will discover that the lower u go, the more RMS will be displayed. That is a rule of sound that lower frequencies carry more energy, and thus will make ur RMS meter show higher output with a bass-heavy track. Im doing mixing and mastering, and are faced with these worries every day. [[;)]]

Thank a lot for the tip, yet I have already fixed the problem, which was using maxbass, which increased the ultra low frequencies thus increasing hte RMS power without sounding loud, as you said.

I found that using the BBE sonic maximizer helped much more.

Just to correct u, u are reducing the ultralow frequencies by using Maxxbass. [[;)]]

how? I used the Die Bassum preset.... and the RMS power was much higher and the song was still at a low level. The low frequencies (sub area) had to be higher in order to increase the RMS without making the track sound louder.

My reply was maybe a tad simplified. [[;)]]

Maxxbass primary function is to add harmonics, thus making very low frequencies translate well on smaller speakers, but can also be used to add in more of the treated signal than just plain 1:1. In that case yes, you will ofcourse get more RMS in ur mix. But skip Maxxbss, and start working on ur EQing on the tracks themselves - hi-passing some of the bass-heavy tracks to let go of some of that energy that plaques ur mix. Cut everything u dont need is a good rule of thumb.

Maxxbass on the entire mix wont yield the results u are looking for.

I stopped using maxbass and re-equed everything and applied few other processings, here is the last version, which I am extremely satisfied with:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/chemicalseb/Imsoclose%201-01%20processed.mp3

if the link does not work please go to to http://members.lycos.co.uk/chemicalseb and choose the file called Imsoclose 1-01 processed (or which ever looks close to that)

@Chemicalseb said:

The reason why I was wondering if I should start using protools is because I've been reading that Hans Zimmer and the big guys use protools to mix.
I've been trying to mix properly for a long time now and I am getting close.

I understand you wanting to improve things, but just using PT won't improve your mixes a jot. I'm afraid that there isn't a magic wand as far as mixing is concerned; if there was, there wouldn't be any professional engineers, as we'd all be doing it ourselves.

Most big studios use PT, simply because they do and that's why the "big guys" use it, as they are using live players recorded at these studios. If they didn't, there would be no reason to change from their sequencer, which certainly isn't PT [:D]

DG


Just for some balance here...

Most people/studios who use Pro Tools don't just use it because "the big guys use it"...they use it because it's interface is one of the most user friendly on the planet, mainly because it was conceived as an audio product. Most others were sequencers with audio added later, and their 8,000 windows show that unfortunately. Digital Performer can do a million things and has a million windows, mini menus, and commands to prove it. Logic as well.

Certainly it's each to his own, but:

1 The PT Interface is elegantly simple and brutally powerful.

2 The program just works all day...I haven't had a PT crash in over a year now...(MAC OSX TIGER)

3 The Tech Support (in US anyway) is available and very responsive...

4 There are a hundred finesse things you can do in Logic and other sequencers (notation being the one big thing) that you can't in Pro Tools. Personally, if I need to do more than change velocity, quantize, edit, move, slice...etc...then I'll play the part again. Other sequencers don't offer me anything (other than notation) that I miss using Pro Tools only.

5 Pro Tools does not have to be thousands of dollars. I had a huge TDM system and dumped it when the G5s came out. I'm now on 002R and getting wonderful results, with the same interface that the guys spending thousands are looking at. With an Apogee convertor in front and a great mic pre, and SPDIF going in for samples, my music sounds terrific for a minimal cash outlay. It's amazing what I'm doing now that a few years ago would have required me to have a huge system.

6 There is no need to go to Pro Tools over problems you are having with mixing. PT won't help...only experience will do that. From all I have heard about Nuendo, it's a great product.

JMHO

TH

@tom@aerovons.com said:

[...] only experience will do that. [...]

In the end, it all boils down to this.

Many pros prefer nuendo, I have used both and also prefer nuendo.

yeah, I've been trying protools lately and I will never use it, unless in a studio different from my own haha.
It is just a pain in the butt to compose in there,
And my ...life decision.. has become that I will always use Nuendo! haha

It has just been the best DAW I have ever used.