Depth ITB calling Thrillfactor and others.

Guys I'm over the hump of most of what I used to suffer with mixing ITB now that I'm using a hybrid folcrom/ptools HD and/outboard comps (though for now my folcrom is stuck in New Orleans) NOW I'm missing one other key element.

Front to back depth. I can make it sound Wide via creative panning/ffx I can get drums to punch/hit via compression and EQ but front to back depth still eludes me. BUT this is partially because I lack practice/knowledge and also because I only have plugins to work with.

So if you had to spell out a starter kit of ffx to use what would they be for mixing rnb/hip hop? I know that for drums I can get by with outboard comps/plugin eqs and carefully selected sample mults. But is there no "cheating" for depth?

I need that elusive 3rd dimension. I've had the priviledge of studying old recall notes of mixes done by KD, and Pensado. I know that their use of ffx is extensive in comparison to the average dude at home mixing itb. Also, I've looked over Charles Dye's old ffx template for mixing in ptools. Is there a starter kit that should work? Do altiverb and others make the process easier. Is there no way around buying a 480L a few PCM 42, 70,81,91s and some TC and Eventide units?

Which should I look to first? When I listen to mixes I think are the shit I seem to hear a bunch of small spaces put to use on each instrument. THIS would require a pretty hefty investment in ffx. Should I just go have a beer and write some songs?

[RKrizman]

Limited bandwidth. If you want to stick a vocal line way back, in addition to the usual techniques, shave off a bunch of top and bottom and boost a little 1 k. Then pull it way back (and now it can go there without gettting lost). Get out of the midset that says every sound has to be big and wide and 3-D and full frequency.

-R

[Igotsoul4u]

Picking up a 480 sounds like a good idea. If you flank it with a PCM 91 you shoud have enough to get some nice vibes going especially if you get a 224 as well. Rich plate is so good and I miss it everyday.

[cdog]

There's really no ITB substitue for an Eventide unit.

Delays and reverbs you can do quite well ITB, but you have to play around with a bunch of plugs to see what you like... i.e., not all plugs are created equal.

The PSP 608/82/42, Voxengo tempo delay, Kjaerhus Audio, and stock Logic delays are the ones I keep coming back to. As well as of course Eventide and Kurzweil, but those are usually pitched delays or laserverb.

For reverb.... there are so many choices but I would say at least one convolution and a few DSP based. ITB reverb selections and quality have come such a long way the past few years.

Reamping a mix element through a speaker into a hallway or stairway mic'd in stereo is usually the fastest way to get realistic ambience...but not every studio has a great sounding stairwell... concrete or tile are

I'm trying to mix with less effects these days.

But sometimes the reverb just feels soooo good its hard.

FWIW I'm pretty sure Thrill mixes on an SSL with tons of outboard.... which probably lets you know hes in the camp that considers "ITB depth" something like "military intelligence".... like, the CIA giving Iran "flawed" advanced nuclear weapon plans...i.e., oxymoronic.. but I digress.

[Produce_dept]

What do you have so far to work with?

Which DAW are you running?

I have been getting improved results with the Eventide bundle, Oxford Reverb, Revibe, Echoboy, in combination with the standard digi delays..

What do you usually use as your starting FX template?

-Kurt

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Guys I'm over the hump of most of what I used to suffer with mixing ITB now that I'm using a hybrid folcrom/ptools HD and/outboard comps (though for now my folcrom is stuck in New Orleans)

Congrats.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

NOW I'm missing one other key element.

Ok here we go.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Front to back depth. I can make it sound Wide via creative panning/ffx I can get drums to punch/hit via compression and EQ but front to back depth still eludes me. BUT this is partially because I lack practice/knowledge and also because I only have plugins to work with.

Totally understood its one of the hardest things to get right in a mix.

But to me its just not a practice thing, its more of a personal "how i hear things" thing.

A personal sonic philosophy.

Some people hear dimension and depth in certain way.

Some don't.

Its also the songs and the times you grew up listening to songs.

The sound in today is very 2 dimensional.

No front to back depth.

The Ipod sound.

So because that's what people listen to, this whole generation of engineers will be influenced by it.

And the work being sold today reflects it.

Its part of the reason when you listen to the older R&B,funk and dance songs from the 70's, 80's and early 90's they sound so punchy and full.

I mean when you hear a song by Barry White,Sly and the Family Stone,EWF,the Commodores,Evelyn King,Rick James,Chic,the Gap Band,Cameo(and i could go on) it just stands out so much(even if its part of a commercial).

Growing up in that generation not only did the songs have to move people, but it had to sound good as well.

What can you do for a practice exercise to develop depth?

Well one thing i can think of i mentioned in this post:

******//gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?t=57213

Try mixing a song with just one track hitting the outside and everything else being tucked in from there.

Or even a tougher exercise...mix a song with everything panned in the middle and see how you can use effects,EQ and volume to make it fit and still sound huge and be clear.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

So if you had to spell out a starter kit of ffx to use what would they be for mixing rnb/hip hop? I know that for drums I can get by with outboard comps/plugin eqs and carefully selected sample mults. But is there no "cheating" for depth?

Read above.

You can use a panned delayed reverb on claps and snare you know.

This whole myth that people don't use reverbs anymore is a crock.

People did in the good days and those songs sound as good as ever.

I mean these are the tracks everyone samples and copies.

It really comes from the fact that it takes a lot of work and great monitoring to hear it right.

Its lazy engineering if you ask me.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

I need that elusive 3rd dimension. I've had the priviledge of studying old recall notes of mixes done by KD, and Pensado. I know that their use of ffx is extensive in comparison to the average dude at home mixing itb. Also, I've looked over Charles Dye's old ffx template for mixing in ptools. Is there a starter kit that should work? Do altiverb and others make the process easier. Is there no way around buying a 480L a few PCM 42, 70,81,91s and some TC and Eventide units?

Any sonic decisions are a personal choice bro.

It comes through trial and error mixed in with some experimentation.

That's my advice these days when people ask me for advice on gear.

I mean this is the way it should be so your stuff will sound totally like your own creation.

I mean KD,Pensado,Marrouquin,Maserati,D. Simmons all sound different.

If you want to sound like them than maybe have them mix your stuff.

But one thing the outboard boxes still f***cking rule!!!(well in my studio it still does).

I do like the Digi delays though and use them for fillers often.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Which should I look to first? When I listen to mixes I think are the shit I seem to hear a bunch of small spaces put to use on each instrument. THIS would require a pretty hefty investment in ffx.

Well i have over 34 outboard effects(and still growing).

And on certain songs a majority get used.

But that's only because that's how i hear things in my head.

Maybe for you it will be different.

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Should I just go have a beer and write some songs?

Yes have a cold one on me. thumbsup

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by cdog

FWIW I'm pretty sure Thrill mixes on an SSL with tons of outboard.... which probably lets you know hes in the camp that considers "ITB depth" something like "military intelligence".... like, the CIA giving Iran "flawed" advanced nuclear weapon plans...i.e., oxymoronic.. but I digress.

Nah to me its more a personal choice thing.

Actually on my SSL i've modified it and run as short of a line as i can get away with to avoid the common "SSL sonic" pitfalls.

I've stripped alot of the so called "SSL character" as i could.

As my tech says basically "its a straight wire with the SSL logo".

[dolo]

most people know how to get width with panning and fx processors. the real trick is the depth. back in the days this came mostly by the way the source was miked. for instance, the further away something is the more high end you lose becuase high frequencies do not travel as far as low frequencies. on the flip side things that are close tend to high more high frequency presence and the low end has fully developed becuase of the lenght of the sound wave. this was achieved in miking live session by how far or close the mike was to the source.

today most of the stuff is synths, samples and god knows everything is close miked becuase a lot of people either lack the skills or are trying to compensate from bad sounding rooms.

the point is, in mixing your song figure out where you want each instrument to be fron to back. i.e. drums in back, bass a little in in front of the drums. maybe guitars. then the vocals. once you have that in mind cut or boast high end accordingly. i usually set my "flat line behind the vocals so thta it is acual in front of that line therefore boasting the upper mids to stimiulate a more in your face type of thing.

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

The sound in today is very 2 dimensional.

No front to back depth.

The Ipod sound.

So because that's what people listen to, this whole generation of engineers will be influenced by it.

And the work being sold today reflects it.

Its part of the reason when you listen to the older R&B,funk and dance songs from the 70's, 80's and early 90's they sound so punchy and full.

I mean when you hear a song by Barry White,Sly and the Family Stone,EWF,the Commodores,Evelyn King,Rick James,Chic,the Gap Band,Cameo(and i could go on) it just stands out so much(even if its part of a commercial).

Growing up in that generation not only did the songs have to move people, but it had to sound good as well.


Yes have a cold one on me. thumbsup

THIS is the Era of Depth that I'm after. This is exactly what is elusive for me. THe only way I hear it in music today for the most part is if it contains a sample from that era or if it was mixed by one of the probably elite 5 people mixing major records. IT's like the difference in looking into a lense and being in the picture or looking at a picture that's sitting on a wall that is 8 ft away where everything seems to be on the same plane with no depth

[Casey]

Another factor to take into account is simple phase relationships between signals. Placing similar tracks out of phase with each other will bring them forward in the mix. Conversly signals which are largly in phase will stay more or less within the 2D stereo stage. Varying the amount of the phase differences is ideal, and there are really nice ways to do this without being quite as heavy handed, but... try this simple experiment. Take a mono mix element, mult it to stereo, flip the phase between the two new signals resulting from the mult, and mix it in at a fairly low level, hard panned left / right.

Try this on a mono drum room mic for example. The cymbals tend to just come right out of the 2D stage.

As another example, to get heavy guitar tracks to really hit in the chorus say, have the player record a third track thats similar to what he just double tracked. Take this third track and do the mult/flip/wide pan thing (mixed in low!). The guitars take on a depth and presence that sounds really nice.

Of course in this simple example the flipped track will disapear in mono, so don't have any unique elements in the track.

If you ever have a chance to listen to existing stereo mixes through a Lexicon Logic 7 or Dolby stereo to surround setup, you can really here some amazing mix work using phase relationships to create depth in the soundstage. It becomes more evident that this is whats going on when listening in surround through Dolby or Lexicon Logic 7, because it is the phase manipulation that these systems key off of to move things from stereo into surround. Two great examples that come to mind are MJ's Thriller, and Gentle Giants Octopus (something for everyone!). These recordings have nice depth when listened to in stereo, and are amazingly surround sounding on a Dolby or Lexicon Logic 7 system.

In fact, if anyone knows the details of how the Octopus album was recorded, and mixed, I would really like to hear about it, it is probably the best sounding surround disc I have, and yet it is a stereo mix, done many years ago.

[lclyman]

Thrill..
I PM'd you..

Thanks,
Larry Clyman

[xist]

Originally Posted by Casey

try this simple experiment. Take a mono mix element, mult it to stereo, flip the phase between the two new signals resulting from the mult, and mix it in at a fairly low level, hard panned left / right.
Try this on a mono drum room mic for example. The cymbals tend to just come right out of the 2D stage.
As another example, to get heavy guitar tracks to really hit in the chorus say, have the player record a third track thats similar to what he just double tracked. Take this third track and do the mult/flip/wide pan thing (mixed in low!). The guitars take on a depth and presence that sounds really nice.

Hi Casey, I can't understand what you mean exactly in your 3 steps process (especially the "mult"?). Could you explain it again? Thanks :-)

[mtstudios@charter]

A Rock album that I think sounds great is "Metallica Black". If you listen to that album for sonics only, you will notice that that "Sad but True" and "Enter Sand Man" sound slightly superior from the remainder of that record. I believe this is due too arrangement, and song. IMHO

www.bluethumbproductions.com

I'm pretty good at using short delays on a duplicate of a signal to stretch a signal between the speakers. and

Another thing that I do is bring up a track on 3 faders:

1. an IN Phase
2. a Mono track in phase and panned up the middle (usually with a bandpass filter to add back only what I need to bring up in the mono signal
3. an out of phase signal

I might pan the in phase just inside the left hand "wall" of the mix and the out of phase just inside the right. Then I alter them both via eq until I get something that sits outside of the speakers where I want it, but is ok in mono because I'm adding back the mono track.

I can get mixes that sound pretty good from top to bottom and left to right. IT's just front to back that kicks my ass

[BrianT]

One other thing, and it's out of the mixer's control.

The vintage records bring referred to as having depth.....

They were recorded in acoustic environments completely different than today. Each track contains it's own ambient signature, and it's often a good one. People built rooms with the goal of balancing a band playing in them. Beyond that, the era had a different mindset, as mega-isolation and enough tracks to accomodate recording everything seperately was unheard of.

Front to back depth? Easy. Get Frank Sinatra and his band in a great sounding room and put up 3 killer sounding tube mics. One for Frank, 2 for the band. Done.

My point is, outside of PT's tendency to choke things down, there's a whole lot about the way things are recorded that has impact on front to back depth. I think some of the deal is that DAW based studios tend to have worse acoustic recording environments than traditional rooms.

Yeah, I know that's not all of it, but it is a factor. Maybe not a Thrillfactor, but a factor nonethless

[Casey]

NSY, now decorrelate that center mono in phase tract. Its limiting any depth you might gain from messing with the 2 outer tracks. To decorrelate the center track you can either make it something similar, for example, two different recordings of a shaker, or if you need to use the very same signal up the middle, get to know your convolver. In particular, using very short ir samples (<50msec) that sound dry even when they are mixed in 100% wet.

I understand that the middle (mono) track is gonna kill some of the apparent width of the sounds placement from left to right. But it enables me to control the volume of the mono signal, kinda like the mono volume knob on a spatializer type ffx. I dont keep it all the way up in the mix volumewise, but if it's a sound that I dont want to dissapear when played in mono I have to be concious of that

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by BrianT

One other thing, and it's out of the mixer's control.

The vintage records bring referred to as having depth.....

They were recorded in acoustic environments completely different than today. Each track contains it's own ambient signature, and it's often a good one. People built rooms with the goal of balancing a band playing in them. Beyond that, the era had a different mindset, as mega-isolation and enough tracks to accomodate recording everything seperately was unheard of.

Front to back depth? Easy. Get Frank Sinatra and his band in a great sounding room and put up 3 killer sounding tube mics. One for Frank, 2 for the band. Done.

My point is, outside of PT's tendency to choke things down, there's a whole lot about the way things are recorded that has impact on front to back depth. I think some of the deal is that DAW based studios tend to have worse acoustic recording environments than traditional rooms.

Yeah, I know that's not all of it, but it is a factor. Maybe not a Thrillfactor, but a factor nonethless

Brian you'd be suprised to find some of those records were recorded in shitty rooms or under shitty circumstances(very demanding producers and artists).

I think what made them work were engineers who were really busting their asses and not taking prisoners to make them work no matter what.

If their is one thing lacking intoday's productions is fear.

The Fear of failure, of getting fired, of ruining your reputation, of getting compared to the preceding engineer who has all the credits and awards, of trying an idea and maybe having it shot down, or even getting beat up for not doing a kick ass job, all of that fear propellled you to better work.

Now alot of guys play it too safe and too comfertable.


So they settle.


To me todays sound is just guys settling out.


When i started you really had to prove yourself and bring something new,refreshing and interesting to the table to stand out.

If not you were always looked at as an OK engineer and bypassed for the good gigs.

And we know that OK engineering translates into little money and boring preproduction/tracking sessions.

You wanted the great sessions, you had to prove that you were better than the guy with the name.

Because we all know he is expensive.

And we know that producers & artists were always looking for ways they could pocket some of the advance money back then.

Working with artists and producers that are demanding and maniacal pushes you sometimes to some of your best work.

Even just to prove their opinions wrong about you.

[oceantracks]

One quite obvious difference is that the old tracks were live people in a studio. No samples, no softsynths, etc. Real people playing real instruments. It is not difficult to discover both size and depth when you are mixing tracks completely composed of human beings on them, rather than doing it with mirrors

TH

[u b k]

and let's not forget sweet, sweet tape. i'm guessing that anyone who is asking about itb mixing isn't tracking to, or mixing to, tape. bummer!

put a voice, a brushed snare, and an organ on 2", and the song feels huge, complete. do the same to digital, and i immediately feel like things need to be done to make it sound interesting.


gregoire
del ubik

Originally Posted by u b i k

and let's not forget sweet, sweet tape. i'm guessing that anyone who is asking about itb mixing isn't tracking to, or mixing to, tape. bummer!

put a voice, a brushed snare, and an organ on 2", and the song feels huge, complete. do the same to digital, and i immediately feel like things need to be done to make it sound interesting.


gregoire
del ubik

I agree with this. It's why I'm not gonna invest in say a fatso or some other Tape emulation. AS soon as I'm back in my house/studio I'm investing in a 2". I've heard the same song tracked to 2" and dumped to digital vs mixed/trackd digital and the difference wasnt subtle. It just sounded BIGGER and more There in the room with you. While plugs like the Cranesong are a Godsend for making something more apparent in the mix, it doesnt add the beef of analog.

Man if I keep hanging around this place and chasing "that" sound in my head, I'm gonna end up with a huge outboard list, 20 ffx units and a 2"

Between u guys and the sounds I hear in my head somewhere I'm being pulled to the dark side

[Bob Olhsson]

Here are a few things to think about.

Distant sounds have less top and bottom than close sounds. Sounds from different distances also have different cancellations which can be imitated with strategically placed dips at various mid-range frequencies. EQ is your friend when it comes to imitating depth!

Distant sounds are heard with ambiance. Close sounds are heard separated from and ahead of any ambiance.

Mixing different combinations of a short reverb and a longer reverb both with and without pre-delays can help place objects in the front or the back. Don't be afraid to eq reverb sends and returns a lot.

Visualizing exactly where you want to place each element and then using these concepts can bring a whole new quality to your mixing. With a little practice you can get really good at depth without getting lost in thinking about it.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Visualizing exactly where you want to place each element and then using these concepts can bring a whole new quality to your mixing. With a little practice you can get really good at depth without getting lost in thinking about it.

This is the key but it takes a certain amount of imagination.

Especially when working with sampled and synthethic sounds.

[MichaelT]

Great post, Bob! Nice, simple, and effective!

[dtucker]

Wouldn't the way something is tracked have a lot to do with depth of field? Maybe what you're hearing has a lot to do with the way the song was recorded.

Right?

[nukmusic]

it helps on the master fader.......after i get the mix the way I like..... 12% seems to work the best. I combine this with the Sony plug

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by nukmusic

it helps on the master fader.......after i get the mix the way I like..... 12% seems to work the best. I combine this with the Sony plug

This just seems like a crazy idea. YMMV

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Here are a few things to think about
Distant sounds have less top and bottom than close sounds. Sounds from different distances also have different cancellations which can be imitated with strategically placed dips at various mid-range frequencies. EQ is your friend when it comes to imitating depth!

Distant sounds are heard with ambiance. Close sounds are heard separated from and ahead of any ambiance.

Mixing different combinations of a short reverb and a longer reverb both with and without pre-delays can help place objects in the front or the back. Don't be afraid to eq reverb sends and returns a lot.

Visualizing exactly where you want to place each element and then using these concepts can bring a whole new quality to your mixing. With a little practice you can get really good at depth without getting lost in thinking about it.

Bob, these are things I'm aware of but the theory still doesnt work out via plugins as I would like

[nukmusic]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

This just seems like a crazy idea. YMMV

right....til you try it

[u b k]

Originally Posted by nukmusic

right....til you try it

are you implying there's a difference between conjecture and experience?

SCANDALOUS!


gregoire
del ubik