triviul

Again, thanks everyone for taking part -- it's been great hearing the new versions, and I hope some of the comments have been useful.

[size=5][b]Mix 4: [/b][/size] This is a very confident and assured mix on a technical level -- the balancing and the naturalness of the sounds are both commendable. It also takes the highly advisable route with any third-party mix of taking the sounds at face value and trying to enhance those, rather than reinventing sounds and risking alienating the artist who chose them. I hasten to add, though, that I'm the last person who'd get annoyed by people taking liberties with my sounds, so no worries for anyone there, but it's just that this mix demonstrates great tact on that count. Fundamentally, this is a mix that doesn't spring any surprises, and relies on the quality of the balancing to speak for itself. The only specific balancing query I'd have is that the organ entries doesn't really make the impact they need to for me. It's not that the organ sound doesn't work when everything kicks off with the BVs, it's just that it's not cutting or powerful enough right at the outset -- especially in Chorus 2, where the chord is a lower register anyway, because of the way the key's different there. In other words, it's a question of automation mostly, I think. However, there is one thing that's missing in this mix, for me: drama. It all sounds great, but it seems very static and a bit too safe somehow. The lyric is about a nihilist walking into a diner and shooting everyone hoping for some kind of enlightenment which ultimately fails to materialise -- but it sounds a bit too much like the St Matthew Passion! (Not that I'm implying the music is a patch on that, but hopefully you get what I mean... ) It somehow doesn't feel right to me without a touch of Tarantino or John Woo about it, to put it another way. A bit more compression, a bit more fighting going on between the lead vox and BVs, a bit more fader riding to bring out the details, maybe even a bit of extra grunge here and there... that would make a world of difference for me. Still, this is an excellent presentation of the material, and you deserve serious props for that, because it's not an easy thiing to do, and implies to me that you treat the material you're working on with respect -- which is a great instinct to have in general.

[b][size=5]Mix 3:[/size][/b] Wow! Reminds me of Depeche Mode somehow, in a good way! I always love hearing a bold creative vision, and this certainly is that. What's particularly interesting to me is that you've turned many of my own instincts on their heads -- the telephoney vocal, the heavy effects, the reduced contrast between verses and choruses... but it still functions very cohesively, so it stands on its own two feet. This is why I always enjoy comparing people's mixes of the same multitracks -- it always expands my own horizons! As a result the song feels more cohesive, and once I've got used to it (I've lived with this track for 10 years, after all!) I can begin to feel the logic in it. You lose some of the inter-section dynamics, clearly, but you also gain a greater cohesion across the whole song, which I never achieved in my version. Definitely food for thought on my part. On a technical level, I'd try to de-ess the lead vocal a bit more, though, because the telephone EQ is making the 's' sounds rather harsh and distracting. I'd maybe also be tempted to smooth the backing vocals a little and give them a bit more verb, because they're sounding like they're in front of the lead, and I'm not sure that really works emotionally. I probably wouldn't hard-pan them, either, because that also tends to dislocate them a little from the simulated space -- the reverb doesn't surround them any more if they're all the way on one side. I wonder whether the hard panning is also leaving a bit too much of a gap in the panorama between the centre and the edges, which means the lead vocal feels a bit stranded, rather than part of the 'gang'! I like hearing the verse synth part clearly, but I'd probably fade up the tails a bit more, because that's where the freakier elements of the sound design really make themselves heard. The start of each note is quite traditional, really -- it's the third or fourth repeat in each case that goes a bit off the rails. (Just to give some background: those delays aren't a send effect -- each repeat is actually a separate programmed MIDI part, which is why the later repeats can have the portamento on them when the earlier ones don't. It's also why they can match the harmonies -- a normal delay would clash with the harmony changes.) The organ sound feels a bit of a let-down, though, when it arrives. Maybe just fade it up a little, especially in the first few bars of each chorus? Anyway, I like the ideas you've brought to the table here, and a few technical niggles don't take away from the fact that you've blown my tiny mind with this new direction -- something I'm always grateful for! Thanks for posting!

[b][size=5]Mix 2:[/size][/b] Interesting use of panning for the verse synth sounds, and I like the sucking modulated dynamic effects you're using -- whatever they are! Really emphasises what I like about that part, and makes the SFX parts more dramatic. Overall the atmosphere really works for me. The bass part's rasping sustain also makes a nice impression in the intro to the first verse. I like the impact that the organ makes when it comes in, and the BVs really make their presence felt, which is always going to win points with me! However, I do feel that the bass and drums take a bit of hit there, and the track therefore begins to lose subjective power at that point as a result. I wonder where it's just that the vocals lift the whole level of the track, and then the buss compression/limiting you're using responds by fading down the backing too much. You can really hear it on "just reasons modernise" for example, and "a new thrill, a new change". Could the lead vocal have a bit more of a tail on it for the choruses, too? Again, I think it might just help sit it back into the mix better, so that it doesn't push the rhythm parts as far into the background. One small thing too: the moment the snare first properly comes in just after "generation" feels like a missed opportunity at the moment. I think it should be a bit more a statement. You've chosen quite a lightweight sound for it too, in general, which feels unnecessary, given that there's a lot of space for its low end in this particular (and rather non-standard!) arrangement. On the whole, though, I like a lot of what you've done here, and you clearly have good balancing instincts -- hearing your mix of the verses in particular actually reminds me of a lot of background details that I'd forgotten were there, which can't be a bad thing!

Hello again, everyone, Finally had a proper listen to all the finalists -- thanks again everyone for taking the time to work with these tracks, and for the kind words about the music. Apologies for the heaviness of the tone. I'm really quite a cheerful person, honest! As promised, here's some 'artist feedback' on each of the mixes, for what it's worth. I'll put each one in a separate post to make it easier to separate any reply history. [size=5][b]Mix 1:[/b][/size] Buckets of vibe in this one. Kind of lurching and creepy, which I like a lot -- it reminds me of the song's protagonist! Love the way the effects are flipping in and out, and that things don't stay static. It's always keeping my ear entertained, and making me want to listen more than once, which is always a good sign in my view. Nice idea to leave the synthy thing out of the opening verse, and only bring it in for "generation" -- I should have done that myself, with hindsight, I think. It really focuses you of the details of the beat, verse vocal, and effects then before it comes in. It's also good that you've got effects in there creating the depth, but without recessing the vocal. I like to hear all the phlegm in there! I wonder whether that synth could be a bit higher in level, though -- again, because there are quirky details in the sound-design of it that I really enjoy hearing (eg. the little pitch-glide things). The organ entry is a key moment in this arrangement, and you've made a pretty good judgement with that -- at least for the first fraction of a second, but the moment the bass hits whatever buss compressor/limiter you've got going there, it ducks it suddenly, reducing the impact for me. The main problem is that your bass is overblown below 40Hz. I know it's perhaps heresy to say so in a bass forum, but you can actually have too much bass in a mix! In this case there's a mass of low end below about 30-40Hz that's doing nothing much more than just messing with the action of your buss processing. By all means boost the low end if you like, but combine that with a high-pass filter around 30Hz to prevent the real subsonics coming through too strongly and blowing up people's subwoofers. That said, I think it's the odd way that the bass is pumping the mix compression during the verses that is one of the things I like about it, so getting the best of both worlds might be tricky -- a job for automation, I'd imagine. Like the way you really dry up the lead vocal for the second chorus -- great psychological effect that, in particular the way it focuses attention on the moment of fragility in the word "revelation". Always been a favourite moment for me, that, and it really comes across nicely for me. On the downside, the main thing that I'd rethink are the backing-vocal levels, because those parts are a massive part of the long-term dynamics of the track, and I can't really hear them much at all in this version. In particular the massed "the seraphic glow" is, for me, the climax of the track (it's just such a ridiculous chord!), and should be led by those BVs. Also, bear in mind that the lyrics in the backing vocals are commenting on what the lead's singing, not just repeating it, so you lose some of the sense of what the song's about if you can't hear them clearly enough. I'd always envisioned the lead having to fight a bit to stay above the BVs anyway, because it suits the way its sung. Overall, though, I love the vibe of this one -- really transports you into the scene, which isn't easy to do, and makes it feel emotionally real. Great work!

Just caught up with this -- cool stuff! I'm a bit out of action at the moment, but I'll try to have a proper listen to all the mixes and give my thoughts on 10th Feb when I'm back on line studio-wise. Hope you've enjoyed mixing the track!

Oh, and one other thing -- if you fancy any more feedback on your mixes of multitracks in cambridge-mt download library, there are links by each multitrack listing which lead to the library's own discussion zone too, and that seems to be pretty busy these days.

As promised, here are some (again rather disorganised, I'm afraid!) thoughts on the rest of the mixes. Glad the previous comments have been of some use. Overall, I have to say that the quality of all these mixes was really high, especially given that the BassChat site seems ostensibly more aimed at musicians/performers than at mix engineers! It just goes to show that it's ears that make a mix, more than engineering techniques... [b]Mix H: Ziphoblat[/b] The kick seems overblown here. It sounds like you're boosting some extreme lows here for no useful result -- it just sounds bloated and uncontrolled. It's so low, in fact, that I wonder whether you're just not hearing what's going on down there on your monitoring system. Not many small systems give you much information about the sub-40Hz octave you're hitting there. If you find yourself boosting down there, I'd very much suggest using a spectrum analyser to keep any eye out for problems. I also wonder whether there's a bit too much rock 'slap' on the kick sound too. I suspect both issues might also be exacerbated by heavy compression on the kick channel, so I'd back off it a bit if that guess is well-founded. The snare feels a bit thin too -- did you match the polarities? Nice relative balance of the lead vocal versus the main violin/dobro hook. In fact, where most people underplayed the hook for me, you've if anything slightly overcooked it. It holds it place in mono beautifully, too, which is great. The bass is also well controlled, which is a rarity in mixes of this multitrack, but if it's the compression that's working that magic then I think you might want to use more EQ and less compresion to reduce the dynamic pumping side-effects. [b]Mix I: Skol[/b] Crumbs! This one hurts my ears a bit, I'm afraid, because you've hit the 4kHz region pretty hard -- I had to take out 3dB there straight away to be able to get further with it. If you line it up against anything else in this style I think you'll see what I mean. Anyway, otherwise the main thing that hits me is that you're also compressing hard on most things, so that it comes out sounding rather too much like Tom Waits! Not that I dislike Tom Waits, it's just that he's not really country... I also wonder whether you're trying a bit too hard to change these sounds with your EQ -- the arrangement already has a sound of its own, and for me a lot of the secret of mixing acoustic music is in letting the multitrack itself set the agenda. Try balancing it as simply as you can, without any plug-ins at all, and I reckon it'll tell you how it wants to sound. It really should take such aggressive processing work, I don't think. I like the warmer kick sound, although you'll need to sort out the bass resonance before the low-end balance really locks down. The snare could maybe be warmer to match it, though. At the moment, there's a bit of a mismatch for me. [b]Mix J: VasDim[/b] Your kick drum is triggering some kind of buss compression more than I'd expect for this style. Try reducing the gain reduction a couple of decibels and maybe also take a bit of LF out of that compressor's side-chain so that it doesn't choke the kick/bass combination as much. Other than that I like a lot of the decisions you made, here. There's a hint of the harshness that's crept in on some other mixes, though, so I'd maybe reconsider your EQ on the snare, acoustic guitars, and maybe even the lead vocal -- it seems like his nasality has been emphasised in a way that I'm not sure really flatters him, especially when he hits his higher registers. The bass resonance could do with a bit more work too. The vocal reverb feels a bit too obvious -- I wonder whether you're trying to get sustain by using a reverb that's too short, which is leading you to turn it up too much. Try turning the short reverb down until it invisbly blends, and then use something like narrowed plate reverb and/or tempo-sync'ed delay to give you the sustain. [b]Mix K: MiltyG565[/b] There's something a bit funny going on in this mix, I think. I'm not sure whether it's just super-heavy compression on everything, or you've been adding some kind of sitar/harpsichord-like layer in there. Whatever the reason, I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick with this style, because you shouldn't have to process it till your nose bleeds! It reminds me a bit of Private Psychedelic Reel... Anyway, my advice would be to got back to the drawing board here, take off all your plug-ins and concentrate more on getting the balance with faders, phase matching, and high-pass filtering. Once you've got something that makes sense like that you can work more subtly with compression and effects to enrich the basic raw materials, rather than trying to completely reinvent the sounds as you seem to have done here. [b]Mix L: Xgsjx[/b] First things first, your mono-compatibility is exceptional -- or, to put it another way, you seem to have bounced out your mix in mono! The main fiddle/dobro riff seems very low in the mono balance too, which implies to me that you've followed a similar approach as Ironside1966 here. The bass resonance is upsetting the low end balance as for most people, but I think your hat, cymbals, and toms also seem overloud to me -- the hat in particular is distracting me from the vocal, which isn't a good idea in any type of country music. The vocal should be king, really.

And now, given that I listened to all the mixes anyway, here are also a few brief comments on the others, so that hopefully no-one feels they been left empty-handed! [b]Mix A: Dad3353[/b] Feels like there's a bit too much midrange in the mix, both around 350Hz and 1.5kHz -- a decibel of so cut in those spots makes it feel better balanced across the spectrum. The vocal gets recessed a bit by this, though, and already feels too far back in the balance for a song like this. Seems a slightly odd choice of vocal reverb to me -- rather artificial, in a way that manages to distract from the vocal while not really gluing it to the track. If you're after blend, I'd suggest reducing the decay time and going for a more natural room-like character. Other than that I like a lot of the sound here, and the way the instruments are balanced to make up the ensemble. More piano perhaps? That bass resonance needs sorting out though. The kick feels a bit too upfront, especially compared with the snare, which is a lot further back. There's an argument for some kick reverb/ambience on a track like this for that reason. [b]Mix B: Lurksalot[/b] You've got some good clarity going on here, but this is partly by virtue of rather a stark presentation which is short on blend -- it sounds rather too much like a collection of close-miked overdubs, instead of a believable ensemble. I'd get some short reverb on the go at the very leasts to glue the tracks together, and allow more of the overhead mics into the balance to make the drums feel more coherent. A higher level of rhythm guitars and piano might also help -- just keep an eye on the EQ for those tracks so you don't lose too much of the clarity you've already got. I wonder whether you've tried to address the bass resonance, but it still needs a bit more work I think, as well as slightly firmer compression to keep the overall level a bit more consistent. [b]Mix C: 51m0n[/b] Another mix that feels slightly overcompressed on the drums, guitars, and mix buss, but you have managed to deliver a lovely warmth and sustain with this and your effects that provides a good deal of consolation! The vocal sound in particular is great -- very smooth and stable, nicely taming the upper midrange nasality that is one of the less nice elements of the singer's raw tone. Nice drum presentation in general, with great cymbals -- not too much HF, but plenty of richness nonetheless. Bass rather nicely controlled, with little sign of the resonance issue -- well done on that one! [b]Mix D: Cheddatom[/b] This mix feels rather too crispy in the top octave for me, and quickly starts to get abrasive at high volumes. I'd take 3dB out up there probably. I think you may have done it to balance the low end, where you've balanced the bass according to the non-resonant notes, so the resonance is making an undue impact when it occurs. Either way, an imbalance in the top octave of the frequency spectrum is very easy to get used to, and can only be headed off by taking regular breaks and referencing your work against commercial mixes. As with Ironside1966's mix, I think you're overcooking the HF and and transients on the acoustic guitars, which is also pushing the lead vocal a bit too far back for me in the balance -- and it's not particularly loud as it is. It sounds like you're boosting your cymbals around 5kHz, and I'm not sure that's helping either -- and it also gives them a slightly trashy tone that seems out of character in this style. [b]Mix F: Twigman[/b] Another nice rich-sounding vocal, although I'd still de-ess it a bit more firmly and back off the reverb a little -- that effect feels too audible in general (partly because it's quite bright -- natural reverb tends to be duller than that) and also rather unnatural (I'd go for something with more of an acoustic character), which dates the production undesirably I think. The same kind of reverb on the side-stick is also taking us back to the 80s a bit much for my liking. The cymbals are pumping a fair deal, which holds some appeal to me, but it feels a bit too deep and obvious for something like this song. You've got nice mono-compatibility here despite a decent sense of stereo width, and small-speaker translation is also good. Hope that's of some help. Still five or so to go, so stay tuned for more tomorrow...

Next up, our other joint winner... [b]Mix E: Moonbass[/b] A closer and more naturalistic interpretation here, but no less successful for that! The overall tonality of the mix felt a bit muffled on the whole, so I found myself pretty quickly adding 3dB of shelving boost across the top two octaves while listening. I like the way you've really featured the vocal, and kept the rhythm and harmony parts well out of the way of it so that we can really appreciate its expression. The balance in general is very respectable in fact, which implies you've already had some practice in this mixing game! The cymbals are particularly nice here too, although maybe just a touch over-balanced, and the fiddle fills have a nice rich timbre to them that appeals to me a lot. Right, now on to the niggles... First off, to avoid repeating things I've already said about Ironside1966's, the same bass-resonance and mono-compatibility issues I identified there also affect your mix. Beyond that, I mentioned that you've left plenty of room for your vocals by going easy on the harmony instruments, and while that's a good thing in general, it does mean that your mix does feel like it lacks a bit of midrange sustain, width, and harmonic warmth, despite the LF bias of the overall mix timbre. I'd suggest fading up the guitars and piano a bit more, and then reclaiming space for the vocal with tactical EQ cuts instead, because I think you could afford to have more of the body of the guitar/piano tone in there without overloading the vocal's midrange and presence zones. I can't tell you exactly what frequencies to cut, but the trick is this: fade up the guitars and pianos too loud in the mix (so it's easier to hear their frequency-masking effects), and then try cutting them with a Q=1 peak, looking for the frequency range that unveils the vocal details more, allowing it to be most upfront. Once you've cut a few decibels in that frequency region, you can then rebalance the guitars and piano back to more appropriate fader levels, which should hopefully be a little higher than before. While I have no problem with the generally drier approach you've taken, I do wonder whether you might be able to do more with your effects to fill out the texture, without making it seem any more 'reverby'. In particular I think I'd look into using stereo tempo-delay on several of the tracks here -- just a single-tap 1/4-note patch at -15dB works surprisingly well over the whole mix for me, and would work even better with per-track send settings and a bit of send-level automation. I'd also recommend investigating plate reverb patches if you've not already, because (when assertively EQ'd) these can melt into a mix without adding excessive spatial character and deliver tons of sustain and richness, especially with things like acoustic guitars and piano. Although I like the drums presentation in general, again I wonder whether you've taken things in a bit too much of a rock direction still -- the kick and snare both feel overly reliant on a sharp and rather aggressive initial spike, where it feels like their pure solidity in the lows and mids respectively would be more than enough to keep them well anchored in the balance. The snare also feels rather choked, as if you're pounding it with a medium-attack, medium-release compressor for bite. Hope some of that helps, and as with Ironside1966's mix, I don't want to give the impression of being overly critical, because you've a lot of very sensible decisions and have every right to be proud of what you've already achieved. Thanks for posting the mix for us all to hear!

Hello again, all, As promised, I've had a listen to the mixes, so here's some feedback. Let me start by addressing Ironside1966 first... [b]Mix G: Ironside1966[/b] You've done a pretty good job with the overall tonality here, which instantly gives this mix a sense of rightness for me. It's maybe still a little on the bright side for me, and could perhaps have a decibel or so more going on in the 300-600Hz octave to give it a touch more warmth, but those are pretty small things. You also clearly have a pretty solid grasp of balancing, because everything seems to be in a very sensible place level-wise, and the mix also translates well to small speakers. I like the effects use in general too, which uses enough to provide warmth, width, and space, but without swamping everything or distancing the lead vocal. Enough of the good stuff, though... Seriously, I'm about to go into detail about various things I think you could improve on this mix, but I don't want to take away from the fact that you've already done a lot right! This multitrack was already processed a fair bit during the recording process, I think, but that hasn't stopped you giving it the heave-ho with your compression here, by the sounds of things! However, I'm not sure that your approach is necessarily in the best interests of the style of music your working with here. It's much more of a 'heavy rock' sound to me, especially in the buss compression -- from the very opening 'upbeat-downbeat' the compression is kicking like mule, and although I'm as much a fan of heavy compression as anyone it feels out of character for a laid-back down-home country song like this. I also wonder whether heavy compression of the acoustic guitars is overemphasising the picking noise, especially in the left-channel rhythm part. If you're compressing in search of serious sustain from the acoustic guitars, I think a parallel-compression approach would probably give better results, as long as you went with an attack time fast enough to avoid transients breaking through in the parallel channel. Alternatively, you could also try something like the SPL transient designer, which would enable you to control the attack and sustain in a more level-independent manner -- that thing's great on acoustics. I think the transient enhancement from your compression may also be contributing to my feeling that the overall mix tonality is a bit fatiguing, especially if I'm listening loud. Clearly the general brightness has something to do with this (I'd probably dip a decibel at 4.5kHz and another decibel or two with a high shelf in the top octave), but I think the HF transients from the guitars aren't helping here either, especially as it seems that you've given those instruments a fair bit of HF emphasis with your EQ too. On a general level, I wonder whether you might be EQ'ing a bit too much in solo mode? Using EQ at the mix is mostly about removing conflict between different instruments, rather than enhancing the sounds, so it's important that you evaluate all your EQ moves within a mix context so that you can factor in frequency masking between the instruments. In your mix it's the 4-6kHz zone that feels like its still in conflict, with the acoustic guitars, fiddles, snare, and vocals all battling it out there a bit too much. To be honest, I'd probably sacrifice a bit of presence on the snare and acoustic guitars to keep the vocal, and the mix as a whole, smoother and clearer. The kick seems quite clicky in your mix too (another hard rock refugee?), and I'm not sure it's necessary to have that much definition in a song like this -- just let it gently support the bass rhythms at the low end and in the low midrange, without that HF stuff bringing it out of its background role. You could always give the snare more real 500Hz-1kHz midrange to keep its solidity in the balance, as there's not too much competing in that zone at the moment, and acoustic styles can often afford to have a bit more girth in that department than overdriven electric bands -- especially in this case given that the main close mic is pretty beefy in its raw state, and it's usually not a bad assumption to make in acoustic styles that the parts are recorded pretty much the way the producer wanted them to sound in the mix. Also, did you invert the polarity of the undersnare mic? It's the wrong polarity by default, and it really makes a difference to the sound. I like your general panning and stereo width decisions, but with one exception: the fiddle solo. The wide panning is causing this line to really drop in mono -- they sound a million miles away compared with the vocals -- and it also sounds a little odd in stereo having a solo instrument that far off to the side to me. A lot of panning is about personal taste, of course, but I think there's a strong argument for a slightly more moderate stance in this instance. The final thing is that you've fallen foul of a problem that a lot of people who attempt this particular multitrack come up against: the unevenness of the upright bass part. This is primarily on account of a powerful low-frequency resonance that's been captured in the recording, and which, for example, causes the 'D' note of the choruses to overpower the root note 'A', which feels strange musically. It also means that most people either balance the bass so that the resonance is at the right level for the track, in which case the rest of the bass notes sound anaemic, or they set the level of the non-resonant notes to the right level for the track, at which point the resonant note eats the mix for breakfast! The solution, however, is pretty simple. Try this: a peaking filter with a Q value of around 3, set to cut 6dB at 76Hz. That seems to even things out a bit when applied over your full mix, but the exact gain setting may need adjusting if you apply it on your bass channel. Then, when you've rebalanced the resonance frequency to get a smooth line, you should be able to boost with a gentler low shelf at 100Hz or so to increase the bass's general low-frequency weight, which feels like it needs a bit of help once the resonance has been factored out of the equation. I'd probably give that 2-3dB, but it's up to you. Again, though, please take all my nitpicking in a positive spirit, because it's obvious to me that you already have some great mixing instincts that were justifiably recognised in the voting. Thanks for letting everyone listen to your work!

Well done Moonbass and Ironside! Glad to see everyone's been getting into the spirit with this competition. As promised, I'll be posting critiques of those two mixes, as well as some comments on the other entries, soon. I'm away for the coming week, but will hope to get something posted pretty quickly after I get back on 10th June. Mike S.

Hello everyone, One of your members tipped me off that you were running this mix competition, and I'm glad you're getting good use out of the multitrack library -- it's what it was designed for! I hope everyone learns a lot from all the voting, comparing, and discussing. Nothing beats it! For anyone who still hasn't submitted their mix, here are a couple of links you might find useful: - [url="http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/showthread.php?tid=79"]some mix tips from me relating to this specific multitrack[/url]. - [url="http://discussion.cambridge-mt.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=28"]17 alternative mixes of 'Who I Am' with mixing feedback[/url]. Also, because I think it's great what you're all doing, and because I generally like to support people learning to mix, I'm happy to post my own detailed critiques of the winning and runner-up mixes once voting has closed (along the lines of the feedback I provided for [url="http://www.cambridge-mt.com/YoungGriffoCompetition.htm"]The Great 'Blood To Bone' Mixoff[/url]) as a further incentive. Mike Senior