Making Masters Sound "Bigger"

[KyleDiSanto]

Just wondering what some of you guys/gals do to make a mix sound bigger.

Sometimes I'll get a song in that really needs to sound "Bigger". Not wider per se, I can do that fine, but Bigger.

I find that alot of the lower budget stuff that I get in has a "smaller" sound to it overall...no matter what type of EQ adjustments I make.

I know that its hard to polish a turd but I'm just wondering what can be done as an overall enhancement.

I mean I'm not one to say that one needs this or that piece of gear, but let's face it certain gear has a certain sound. Is a Manley Vari Mu or Massive Passive really going to make something sound Bigger just by going through it?

I've run stuff through pultec's before and they definitly beef things up a bit...

SO what do you think?

Thanks,
Kyle D

[bcgood]

DW VT7 in parallel sounds HUGE and deep on a mix used in moderation with sensible ratios.

[Proggm]

I like the "<W>" button in my Neve summing box

[Ecktronic]

Originally Posted by KyleDiSanto

Just wondering what some of you guys/gals do to make a mix sound bigger.

Sometimes I'll get a song in that really needs to sound "Bigger". Not wider per se, I can do that fine, but Bigger.

I find that alot of the lower budget stuff that I get in has a "smaller" sound to it overall...no matter what type of EQ adjustments I make.

I know that its hard to polish a turd but I'm just wondering what can be done as an overall enhancement.

I mean I'm not one to say that one needs this or that piece of gear, but let's face it certain gear has a certain sound. Is a Manley Vari Mu or Massive Passive really going to make something sound Bigger just by going through it?

I've run stuff through pultec's before and they definitly beef things up a bit...

SO what do you think?

Thanks,
Kyle D

If you are talking about getting the Mix Mastered for loudness without mushing the sound, in general it is good to use less low end, as low end takes up a lot of room and too much of it can squash Masters when limiting and/or clipping.
Try to minimize the low end and keep the low end solid and tight to get more volume at Mastering if that is what you are after.
Multi-band comps can come in handy for low end at Mastering if you are carefull with using it.

As for EQ use a thin Q cut and sweep till you find the low end that is taking up the space mainly in the low end.
Remember that cutting low frequencies brings out the highs.
So first listen to the Mix a good few times and listen out for boomy low end, muddy low mids and the mid highs and the hi end.

From there you can then start to know what EQ band(s) to cut or boost firstly. You can also try thin Q boosts or cuts at certain frequencies even if people say to use thin Q for cuts and wide Q for boosts it doesn't matter, just take your time and get a good EQ balance.

At the end of the day if the Mix sounds a bit thin then it can be hard to get a beefy sound. Using a reverb with an EQ built in to boost certain lowish frequencies can bring out some nice smooth big sounds.

Hope some of my words help out in some way.

Eck (G)

[finetuner]

Originally Posted by KyleDiSanto

..I'm just wondering what can be done as an overall enhancement...

Honestly, i don't think there's such a thing.

Originally Posted by KyleDiSanto

... let's face it certain gear has a certain sound. Is a Manley Vari Mu or Massive Passive really going to make something sound Bigger just by going through it?

I've run stuff through pultec's before and they definitly beef things up a bit...

Surely. But it's the addition of all such little things and most of all the right choice of when and how to apply.

I like it during attended sessions when clients sit quietly, hardly hearing what i'm doing untill i toggle the overall bypass (level corrected or not )

Until then they might say: "ok i like where it's going" (gradually) , but hardly ever: "wow what was that?"

[macc]

EQ and compression. Pretty much everything else is parsley.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by macc

Pretty much everything else is parsley.

lol

[Darius van H]

If i think about making something "bigger" (while at the same time actually making it smaller in terms of transients), then i'd reach for some kind of distortion - EQ and compression alone won't do it for me. And MS EQ is also an important tool (picking out different frequency ranges on the M&S).

Obviously, the mix can't already be unpleasantly distorted, 'cause then it won't work.

[Slogun]

M/S-treatment with EQ and comp usually satisfies my customers if they want bigger.

But I've also noticed that some musicians use the word 'bigger' when they're actually looking for a 'fuller' sound. Perhaps they have compensated (filtered out too much) in the mix due to lack of proper acoustic treatment etc and they want you to make better use of the whole frequency spectra.

[Lee-L6MM]

Parallel compression is always a good way to achieve a bigger sounding mix. All you do is simply take a chain of the full mix, send it through a compressor and remix this processed audio path back into the original audio.

Tweak the levels to get the right sound. This method adds density to the sound but keeps the original dynamics. Makes a big difference!

[macc]

Originally Posted by Darius van H

If i think about making something "bigger" (while at the same time actually making it smaller in terms of transients), then i'd reach for some kind of distortion - EQ and compression alone won't do it for me. And MS EQ is also an important tool (picking out different frequency ranges on the M&S).

Obviously, the mix can't already be unpleasantly distorted, 'cause then it won't work.

Aye, fair point - I was probably subconsciously thinking of tube eq and comp (which I tend to use a fair bit, sometimes quite hot). So, similar kind of thing I spose

[Tropicana]

In my experience it almost always begins with proper EQing. If you dip the freq's which are "the pain in the ear" a mix will sound bigger.

Pain in the ear freqs are easy to hear but there are some subtle freqs only a trained ear will hear. Its like a puzzle. In the end after puzling it out you will see the whole picture if you put a maximizer or something else on it.

M/S EQ is another trick but much more difficult and especially if you combine it with M/S (dynamic) compressor.
I mean with "much more difficult" that you have very quickly a not bad result at the first impression. After you put a maximizer on then you realise you did something wrong.
Well, dont get me wrong, I only speak for myself.

[KyleDiSanto]

Thanks for all the replies so far


Just to clear things up, I'm talking less of a Level thing, and more of a deep/just all around bigger sound.

[aleatoric]

slap a large hall reverb on there

[Ecktronic]

Originally Posted by aleatoric

slap a large hall reverb on there

LMAO!!!

KyleDiSanto: getting a big Master does depend on the Mix quality and the quality of the recordings. Very careful use of EQ is the main thing for getting a Mix and a Master sounding big.
Small EQ cuts and boosts can really beef up a Mix.

Send us a PM so we can talk more in detail about this.

Speak soon,
Eck (G)

[monstersound]

Originally Posted by KyleDiSanto

Thanks for all the replies so far


Just to clear things up, I'm talking less of a Level thing, and more of a deep/just all around bigger sound.

All around bigness? Gotta love the ambiguity of audio terms.

I take it you're looking to beef it up? Kinda thing?

I'd suggest running parallel compression on it, which helps fatten up the lower-amplitude stuff, while leaving the transient attacks relatively untouched. This way you can boost the over all beefyness/bigness while staying as transparent as possible.

That's where I'd start...

[KyleDiSanto]

Originally Posted by monstersound

All around bigness? Gotta love the ambiguity of audio terms.

I take it you're looking to beef it up? Kinda thing?

I'd suggest running parallel compression on it, which helps fatten up the lower-amplitude stuff, while leaving the transient attacks relatively untouched. This way you can boost the over all beefyness/bigness while staying as transparent as possible.

That's where I'd start...

LOL I know..the terms can mean anything to anyone..haha.

Ya know I did try Parallel Compression on a Master once and really liked where it went. I use it all the time in mixing (Although I want to make the move into mastering exclusively eventually)...

I feel Parallel Compression definitly makes something sound more dense and fuller, but not necessarily bigger in terms of its sound.

I agree very much so with "Ecktronic" on the topic that getting that BIG sound really does depend on what's there to begin with, however, I do feel there are ways to make those "smaller" sounding recordings larger (again with the terms...ha ha).

Thanks Again to everyone's replies....Very helpful!!

[lucey]

I used to get emails about a pill for this...


Bigness is found within the 4 balances: eq, compression-to-transients, harmonic distortion and mid power-to-sides.

[Key]

Use some big ass speakers.


My knee jerk answer is parallel compression with low pass filter on the compressed channel.

[KyleDiSanto]

Originally Posted by lucey

I used to get emails about a pill for this...


Bigness is found within the 4 balances: eq, compression-to-transients, harmonic distortion and mid power-to-sides.

great line!

[Table Of Tone]

Originally Posted by Key

Use some big ass speakers.


My knee jerk answer is parallel compression with low pass filter on the compressed channel.

Oh that'll f*****g do it!

[monstersound]

Originally Posted by Key

Use some big ass speakers.


My knee jerk answer is parallel compression with low pass filter on the compressed channel.

I like how it's all horn loaded, so s/he doesn't really need the 10,000 watts of what looks like JE Sugden amplification gold.

Anyways, I never thought of putting a LPF on the compressed channel, I will have to try that myself in the near future.