ReasonTalk.com

At 2.16 precisely,

The stereo field suddenly appears mono. Although the reverb/delay is killed or shortened at this point ...my question is how would you recreate this is reason ? . Kill/ shorten the 'side' eq information by automating it on the drum/vocal buses?. I know that reverb can 'distance' a sound but at 2.16 minutes ...even the panning on the drums are in a different place. Anyone guess the main ingredient here...any suggestions welcome. I ideally would like to create a similar trick with my music in reason but i'm not really sure where to start,, Thanks.

It sounds to me like the only thing that's really changing is the processing on the drums. The earlier part they are much more back in the mix and have some reverb on them. Then around 2:16 they are quite dry and the level is louder. I don't think it has anything to do with going from stereo to mono. It's just a clever mixing idea to treat the drums differently for different sections of the song. Never heard of Wolf Alice before... gonna have to look more into this band. To do this in Reason I would have the drums on different tracks with different processing and wouldn't mess with automation a whole lot.

What i feel a lot is plenty of stuff washed out in reverb until there and at 2:16 the mix is straight in your face in a more pop grungy mix with really short reverb for room and not a single db of long reverb.

You can achieve this in reason with no problem, i would maybe do it with a group and a parallel of the group that you could bring up or down reducing automation needs. Duplicating tracks, if you have a multi track drum can be more tedious and without track folders a big mess on the project.

The big monoi'sh colapse you feel (the mix does not colapse to mono) is because the mid frequency stronger instruments are completely dried out of reverb (which might be a stereo program or a convolution). The reverb also sounds quite dense and the "muffled" way the instruments and voice sounds, it seems not to have a big pre-delay.

PS.: Nice mix and song, and as MannequinRaces said, i have to check up these guys.

Man these guys are chameleons!!!
This king of stuff shows there's still hope for music in the midst of the crap!



@Reasonable man: I Luv it, thanks for the side share!

I hear the huge vocal reverb, pad, and piano go away and the drums change slightly. Otherwise the stereo image is 100% intact (nothing collapses to mono), but you DO miss the big stereo reverb.
I wouldn't necessarily call that an "effect" but more of a creative transition. It's not uncommon for vocal processing to get big on the chorus and small on the verse, fwiw.

To recreate, use a huge reverb (use pre-delay for sure!) on the vocal (and double it) them mute the reverb and the double track while also dropping out any other big/wide instruments, and make the drums a little smaller (use any method you like, the effect will be similar).

There's also the transition vocal (no lyrics) that is filtered and has a different med-length reverb on it, then it goes into the dry verse single track vocal.

It's all stereo throughout, fwiw.

Ok thanks guys. Alot to think about. I realise mono was the wrong term to use (i have to watch that!) I think 'mid/side' was what i ment to ask and i only refered to it as i watched a fab filter pro q tutorial some time ago where the guy slightly widened and increased db of the side channel during the choruses of a track and reduced them for the verses with tastefull automation . I'm guessing that this may be the case here towards the end of the track to help get that super wide mix? maybe maybe not .
For a practicle implementaion (in reason) i guess i could try muting a big reverb send effect on certain (or all tracks) at a certain point and then use a small room reverb as an insert for a verse or couple of bars as a contrast and then gradually automate the big reverb send in again over time. Those drums though ....in the track.... the apparent 'shift' to suddenly up close is so effective and neatly done . Its hardly a new trick but i dont really hear that knda thing enough these days,. its a beautifully produced track no doubt about it.
Thank you for all the help and suggestions.

In my opinion, anytime you can create dynamics in a mix it helps keep the listener engaged. There are so many ways to keep create dynamics in a mix, and having at least a few of these tricks up your sleeve definitely comes in handy.

Reasonable man wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2019

Those drums though ....in the track.... the apparent 'shift' to suddenly up close is so effective and neatly done . Its hardly a new trick but i dont really hear that knda thing enough these days,. its a beautifully produced track no doubt about it.
Thank you for all the help and suggestions.

Yeah but if you listen carefully even in the more dreamy part the drums are not as washed out as the rest of the mix. They are back in the mix and have way less energy but they do not have HUGE reverbs on it, i would even say there's no reverb changes in the drums.

In the dry parts they get thick and close to you because no long delays are used (probably only room short delay).

Automation, groups, parallels, sends, etc. You have multiple ways to work this out, and it's definitely doable in reason!

Cool track. It's simply less tracks on that "spot".

mcatalao wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2019

Yeah but if you listen carefully even in the more dreamy part the drums are not as washed out as the rest of the mix. They are back in the mix and have way less energy but they do not have HUGE reverbs on it, i would even say there's no reverb changes in the drums.

In the dry parts they get thick and close to you because no long delays are used (probably only room short delay).

Automation, groups, parallels, sends, etc. You have multiple ways to work this out, and it's definitely doable in reason!

Great observation - the drums never actually change at all now that I listen deeper. The drummer plays a little softer on the snare during that transition, but I'm not sure anything else changes on the drums from a mix perspective.