daddy

[blinddrew]

Out of curiousity, what are you using for your references?

[awjoe]

I forget what I used for that one, but for most of my stuff, I trawl through the usual culprits - a Dylan and a Nick Drake for my end stops, a Richard Thompson to aim at, an Aldous Harding just to see, stuff like that.

[blinddrew]

It's worth bearing in mind then that things like Dylan and Drake are likely to have been mixed with a lot less of that bottom octave than modern equivalents. So if that's what you're aiming for, you're there, but it's also why people like me are suggesting that there's more space available to exploit down there.
If that makes sense.

[awjoe]

A lot more space down there to exploit for what?

Okay, let's open this can of worms. You've been suggesting less bottom end in this mix would benefit it, right? I think you're right. I would add a 'however', however. The 'however' has different parts. The first is that shifting the rolloff on the bass track from 40 Hz to 70 Hz (12 dB per octave) produced a subtle difference to my ears. I preferred the new sound, but it wasn't huge. The second is that, where bass is often mixed politely down in the mix, I really like the sound of bass and want it to be heard. The third is that, on another site I posted this tune on, nobody responded to my question about whether there was too much low end in the affirmative. The fourth is that there's a very good chance that my ears simply aren't hearing stuff that other ears can hear.

Okay, taking all of this together, I'm concluding that the problem isn't glaring, but still I'm going to employ a lighter touch in future. What's your take on it?

[blinddrew]

My take on it is that it's 99% preference, personally I like a lot of really low end so take it with a pinch of salt.

[awjoe]

Ah, we worked that one out, then. it's the sound you're not keen on, not the amount of low end. Got it.