That Elusive 3D Depth ITB

[Scheme]

How do you all go about getting it? My delimma is I can achieve that "sound" with short verbs/delays and such but the main two people I mix for like that reeeeaaalll dry sound. Most new Rap albums sound very dry nowadays (Lil Wayne - The Carter 2 leads the pack), and I have a few acapellas where it sounds like there aren't any verbs or delays going on anywhere in the mix outside the hook.

My question is how do they get the vocals that dry, that small pocket for the vox to sit in? Compress the hell out of it? Wouldn't that lead to it still sounding flat and just loud?

[Matej]

Like you've been doing it all along, verbs and delays. You just gotta be a bit more stealth about them. You definately need to adjust them according to the songs bpm, otherwise it sounds too effected.

Stuff that is perceived "dry" is very often very much processed, but you gotta be smart about it. The catch is to make it sound natural. A little goes a long way.

Matej

[Scheme]

Yeah when I use verbs and delays it always SOUNDS like I used verbs and delays, even if I'm very easy with them. I use Wizooverb and Rverb on the verb side then Waves doubler or Supertap for the slight delay. Should I try an even more generous approach where it sounds like it doesn't even make a difference?

[djui5]

It's not easy to make something "effected" but sounding dry.

Massaging delay times, pre-delays etc to fit the tempo of the song helps.

Also you have to "bury" things behind other instruments. You have to pan the verb and delay for the lead vox right behind the lead vox, and make sure it's in a similar freq response scheme, so it blends in with the vox.

Panning everything hard left and right will pile up verbs/delays and that's not what you want.

Rverb can sound incredible ITB, if you work it properly.

[hitsville]

very interesting stuff !

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Scheme

My question is how do they get the vocals that dry, that small pocket for the vox to sit in? Compress the hell out of it? Wouldn't that lead to it still sounding flat and just loud?

The mixture of the right analog EQ, compression and multi effect units.

I know nothing out of this world but its really that simple.

The secret is finding the right combination of EQ and compression that will make the vocal sit up and take the focus of the song.

That takes experience and the right tools.

In terms of effects a combination of chorused delays, stereo harmonization and very tight short rooms work great.

Again finding the right units is key.

Certain effect units work best for vocal work while a lot can't.

On the subject of 3D when it comes to ITB mixing the trick is to establish the "back" of the mix.

ITB mixers tend to do really well at establishing the front and sides.

But its hard to hear the resolution or tails of sounds that help establish the depth.

With all of the closed miked techniques and samples being used its easy to hear why.

What i would do to establish some depth is to mix the sides different than the front and push them back with some predelays that EQ from bright to dark.

That way the ear would be fooled into thinking that the track is moving from front to back(kinda what happens naturally to sounds in a room).

Also another trick is to use 2 different mono reverbs panned and EQ'd differently to establish movement from lets say back right to back left.

If you predelay it correctly you will hear it move around.

Lastly get used to mixing in mono.

It will keep you from panning everything hard right and hard left.

By panning things in between it will give your mix more pockets/placements to play around with.

In mono you can hear where the pockets feel right and when you play it in stereo it will feel solid, deep and wide.

[Raggedy]

It may not be exactly the response you're after, but I have to say that high-quality converters made a HUGE difference in the depth, width, and weight of my ITB mixes. Tracking through them also helps vocals sit better, so you don't have to "carve out" as much of a pocket for them, if any at all.

It's true what they say... getting a better signal recorded is the best way to mix. Upgrading my front end has given me much better results than any mixing tricks ever have.

[e-cue]

Cranesong's Phoenix plug in is extremely helpful for ITB depth IME. I have to practically glue one of them to my bass everytime, no matter how much I fight it.

[Dopamine]

So you guys are not panning your reverb returns hard left and right? I usually use 3 verbs per mix and always pan them hard L/R.

Would it be better to pan them 50/50? I thought it actually helped the stereo field by having them panned wider.

Any other opinions on this?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Dopamine

So you guys are not panning your reverb returns hard left and right? I usually use 3 verbs per mix and always pan them hard L/R.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Sometimes mono and a little off center.

Sometimes L+R panned to one side and a delay on the other.

The truth is it depends.

Originally Posted by Dopamine

Would it be better to pan them 50/50? I thought it actually helped the stereo field by having them panned wider.

Any other opinions on this?

Again it depends on the arrangement and what kind of picture you want to give to the mix.


The sides determine the width of the mix.

Once you give away the cues as to the width you can't go any wider.

That's one of the tricks when mixing dual mono or as we call it today "stereo".

I always say that be very careful how you choose your boundary because once you go there you are stuck.

What most guys with not much experience do is continue to stack the sides with the idea its going to get wider while the effect is the opposite.

A better trick is to have things that don't play that often be on the sides(it could be something bright for example) to give the ears the cue for the size and with the tracks that are consistently going have them tucked in a little bit but not as bright.

This will give the mix more depth and width.


You can pan them a little asymetrical on each side or do the pseudo stereo thing...basically whatever.

The idea being to trick the listener that there are complex and interesting things happening to entertain them.

Mixing really involves a lot of subtle deception because we are creating images which aren't really there.

The whole "dual mono" speaker thing is a deception in itself.

[H-Rezz]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Sometimes mono and a little off center.

Sometimes L+R panned to one side and a delay on the other.

The truth is it depends.




Again it depends on the arrangement and what kind of picture you want to give to the mix.


The sides determine the width of the mix.

Once you give away the cues as to the width you can't go any wider.

That's one of the tricks when mixing dual mono or as we call it today "stereo".

I always say that be very careful how you choose your boundary because once you go there you are stuck.

What most guys with not much experience do is continue to stack the sides with the idea its going to get wider while the effect is the opposite.

A better trick is to have things that don't play that often be on the sides(it could be something bright for example) to give the ears the cue for the size and with the tracks that are consistently going have them tucked in a little bit but not as bright.

This will give the mix more depth and width.


You can pan them a little asymetrical on each side or do the pseudo stereo thing...basically whatever.

The idea being to trick the listener that there are complex and interesting things happening to entertain them.

Mixing really involves a lot of subtle deception because we are creating images which aren't really there.

The whole "dual mono" speaker thing is a deception in itself.

Great advice Thrill , the king for me in this style of mixing is Manny Marroquin , dry yet 3D .....

[Jesse Miller]

Depth of soundfield can be lost by stacking close miked sources from the tracking sessions. Try nudging (in PT) back some of the percussion and drum sources. 10ms is aprox 10'. Do it all the time on Rock drums and it will put the Drums "behind" the other sources. It will give depth and open up the Center sound field so other sources can poke thru.

Sessions Recording
Islamorada FL Keys

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by Jesse Miller

Depth of soundfield can be lost by stacking close miked sources from the tracking sessions. Try nudging (in PT) back some of the percussion and drum sources. 10ms is aprox 10'. Do it all the time on Rock drums and it will put the Drums "behind" the other sources. It will give depth and open up the Center sound field so other sources can poke thru.

Sessions Recording
Islamorada FL Keys

Yep, I'm doing similar techniques.

I use mainly these things to get it done:
- Relative track offset
- Reverb/delay
- Panning
- Track volume/ EQ control

1. Relative track offset
By moving tracks in time I can modify the effect of certain comb filtering/phase cancellation issues caused by the typical delay of 3 samples with the RME Fireface 800 converter. Some instruments move forward, some move back. The ones that become more clear move forward, those that become less clear move back.

2. Reverb/delay
By deciding in what order I put the compressor and the reverb I can more easily control the 3D depth. I place most of the reverb before the compressor for the instruments at the front and most of the reverb after the compressor for the instruments at the rear. I use different delay times depending on where in the room the instrument is, to enhance the localization ability, which enhances 3D depth.

3. Panning
By panning tracks slightly within each stereo spot it's easier to clear up the sound field such that the instruments that are on a certain layer can be better heard, hence the whole layer can be better perceived.

4. Track volume/ EQ control
In a real world situation persons in the band and their instruments often tend to block one another. For instance the singer might stand in front of the hi hat which will have the effect of the highs becoming slightly less clear on the hi-hat. This can be simulated by boosting high frequencies on the vocals if the vocals are dominant there and reducing track volume on the hi-hat. All these types of effects need to be simulated to create high realism and the sense of different layers. It needs to be done in the correct way though.

You can combine this approach with trying to avoid things that destroy 3D depth. These things are bad compressors, bad reverbs, bad delays, bad converters, bad mics, bad mic-pres, bad stereo processors, bad monitors, lack of stereo analyzers and using these in the wrong way (using a too low sample rate, applying hard limiting on the mix bus, setting up too much long reverb on the mix bus, distributing reverb/delay unrealistically on different tracks, panning tracks to the wrong place, using the wrong mics and pre-amps on the instrument and miking it in the wrong way, putting the monitors in a room where they don't belong etc).

I would say that a good 3D depth is probably what makes a mix most professional sounding today.

I hope these things help!

[yeloocproducer]

Great thread. You sound like may already know this, but the short delay/ verb thing can get really short. Use any delay/pitch plugin to do the 'ol dual 910 harmonizer thing... 9ms left +6 cents, 14ms right -6 cents... that should help if you blend it in way underneath, barely perceptible. Or try panning that delay at 12 and 1 instead of hard L/R if it's spreading out too much. Sometimes a 2016 verb at less than a second decay time, just to create a halo around the sound... you can even use it mono. But use these really, really low in the mix. It'll sound almost bone dry but with just that extra hair of dimension. Just making sure your "short" is as short as it can get...

Also, find frequencies in the vocal that you can gently eq down... like low-mid room resonance around 200-300, or high passing the vocals (30-100), or low passing (12-16K) the vocals. Then hit your compressor... it should tighten up your sound and push it forward if done correctly.

[ill Factor]

Aight one thing is... beware of some of those mis leading accapellas... a lot of the ones being printed on to 2 track arnt being printed with Fx on it... some times the engineer will not have the same fx they got going on during the over mix and just print dry vox... But to go about the question you asked, i let the verbs from other elements in the track give pressence to the vocals sometimes it does just the trick

www.illfactormusic.com

[hitsville]

Originally Posted by yeloocproducer

Great thread. You sound like may already know this, but the short delay/ verb thing can get really short. Use any delay/pitch plugin to do the 'ol dual 910 harmonizer thing... 9ms left +6 cents, 14ms right -6 cents... that should help if you blend it in way underneath, barely perceptible. .

would you only do this on vox, or on other instruments as well ? drums, bass, etc..


thanks for all the info thrill, great post ! very interesting

[tommymakestapes]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

Mixing really involves a lot of subtle deception because we are creating images which aren't really there.

Thats mantra material.

[yeloocproducer]

Originally Posted by hitsville

would you only do this on vox, or on other instruments as well ? drums, bass, etc..


thanks for all the info thrill, great post ! very interesting

That specific one (dual eventide 910 style) is mostly a vocal trick, or good for 80's guitar leads if you're into that kind of thing. But it's really common to use little short delays and pitch shifts on instruments as well. On hats and percussion alot of times really really short delays give a bit of dimension to elements... maybe panned on top or off to the side. Slip them in so you barely barely hear them. There's lots of threads on this stuff already, though.

Thrill's info here is so great... high level thinking for sure.