More depth in a mix...

[Worlez]

While I feel my mixes are sounding better than ever at the moment, I'm always looking to improve. One thing I'd really like to accomplish is getting more depth, mainly in terms of 'up and down', rather than front to back or left to right. Not so much dynamic range, but sounds that appear vertically larger etc.

Any tips or thoughts on this?

Cheers

Al

[rwhitney]

Are you talking about frequency spectrum?

Maybe like the wall of guitars with a down-tuned bass on the bottom? One way to get it that way is, as in orchestration, as an analog to the overtone series: larger distances between low freq. sources to avoid muddiness (5th, octave, 7th, 10th), with tighter intervals at the top (3rds, 2nds--though the classical period 4th has its appeal).

Another way in arrangement is to have events occur sequentially spanning the frequency spectrum (way low-mid range-very high), or even spanning large gaps (way low to very high) within a relatively short period of time.

Another way, opposite of the first example, is to sometimes leave registers free (drop kick and bass out; or, conversely, reduce to bass and kick only) so that the spectrum is emphasized and brought into fresh contrast when it "reappears" (this doesn't happen enough in commercial music, imo).

Principles of mixing and processing, even recording, can be logically derived from those old composition/arrangement techniques, though it's strongest when they're already fundamental to the music.

Apologies if you weren't talking abaout this kind of verticality.

[rwhitney]

I can't resist mentioning also timbre, or tone color. Briefly, higher contrasting colors between registers will usually produce a greater sense of space than homogeneous colors will. Complex sounds in the low register produces more audible overtones and cover more vertical space than simpler sounds. Alternating simple and complex sounds between registers is one way to achieve the aforementioned contrast as well as "transparency".

Okay, I'm finished now....

[Gregg Sartiano]

Cut to make it sound better, boost to make it sound different.

One cut is worth a thousand boosts.

The tracking engineer add-eth, and the mixing engineer taketh away.

Tracking is like painting, mixing is like sculpting (not that I would know about either...).

Depth (to me) is "space." You can't "add" space to a mix. You have to create "room" by subtracting. Then your additions (turning a channel up, adding ambience, EQ boosting, hard limiting or distorting/harsh FX on a channel) will have somewhere to exist.

Just my philosophical 2c.

*** note: if I type "addet h without splitting up "d eth," I get this: ad with the skull & crossbones () "smiley" -- go figure.

[u b k]

all very good points below. my .02 is that your tracks gotta have depth in order for your mix to have depth. then, your arrangement has to leave space for that depth to play a role.

if you have a crowded arrangement with too many close-mic'd elements, a good engineer can create an interesting and exciting mix but it won't have much in the depth department. witness the vast majority of radio pop these days.

having good fx helps, they can do wonders for creating cool spaces but they are not enough to give a production that palpable 3d sensibility. that comes from having air around the source, and that comes from tracking in a good room using good mic technique.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by u b i k

that comes from having air around the source, and that comes from tracking in a good room using good mic technique.

And, this being GS, don't forget proper gear!!!

Nothing like trying to pull "depth" out of "plastic" sounding tracks.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by u b i k

having good fx helps, they can do wonders for creating cool spaces but they are not enough to give a production that palpable 3d sensibility.

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by rwhitney

Are you talking about frequency spectrum?

Maybe like the wall of guitars with a down-tuned bass on the bottom? One way to get it that way is, as in orchestration, as an analog to the overtone series: larger distances between low freq. sources to avoid muddiness (5th, octave, 7th, 10th), with tighter intervals at the top (3rds, 2nds--though the classical period 4th has its appeal).

Another way in arrangement is to have events occur sequentially spanning the frequency spectrum (way low-mid range-very high), or even spanning large gaps (way low to very high) within a relatively short period of time.

Another way, opposite of the first example, is to sometimes leave registers free (drop kick and bass out; or, conversely, reduce to bass and kick only) so that the spectrum is emphasized and brought into fresh contrast when it "reappears" (this doesn't happen enough in commercial music, imo).

Principles of mixing and processing, even recording, can be logically derived from those old composition/arrangement techniques, though it's strongest when they're already fundamental to the music.

Apologies if you weren't talking abaout this kind of verticality.

Stop making my neurons fire too quickly

seriously, thats all good info but I dont think they had that mind when recording Freebird

[Worlez]

Interesting, and very useful stuff.

The arrangement point is a useful one, but not always applicable, especially when I get remix work. When it's my own arrangements then fair do's, I have total freedom to work on them, but I don't often get that luxury when I'm working with my clients.

What I'm really thinking is howto make things 'taller/bigger/larger/bolder/fill the room'. I am happy with the stereo image I can get, but its now the vertical image I want to imrpove upon. Classic example is the track 'Shiver' off Coldplays Parachutes. Those guitars sound ENORMOUS.

Cool discussion though, I'd love to hear more from you guys

Al

[Brian Middleton]

One thing I'm hearing on "Shiver" that might relate to what you're talking about is double-tracking the lead part with more distortion on one side than the other. The distortion seems to pull the timbre on that side down into the swamp, as it were (I can hear this particularly at about :32 into the song), thus vertically widening the stereo guitar image.

If that makes any sense....?

[No4PCs]

Maybe reverbs and delays with good set up ?

[Worlez]

Originally Posted by Brian Middleton

One thing I'm hearing on "Shiver" that might relate to what you're talking about is double-tracking the lead part with more distortion on one side than the other. The distortion seems to pull the timbre on that side down into the swamp, as it were (I can hear this particularly at about :32 into the song), thus vertically widening the stereo guitar image.

If that makes any sense....?

Thats actually a trick I use A LOT and it works wonders It's also cool just to play with funky guitar tones!

Al

[Worlez]

Originally Posted by No4PCs

Maybe reverbs and delays with good set up ?

Well this is exactly where I'm looking for advice on

Al

I dont have the cold play song at hand, but I've always thought of placement in the stereo field as:

Top/bottom (HEIGHT) = Frequency/Pitch

Left/Right (WIDTH) = Pan, Phase

Front/Back (DEPTH) = Reverb (Early Reflections), Delay,Volume, Frequency

It seems you are discussing height and calling it depth (IF I'm understanding correctly)
Since you're looking at enhancing your top/bottom range I'd start by figuring what elements of the mix define the bottom, and begin to clean up other instruments with low cut filters.


What I found to be a definate help in my own mixes was studying ref mixes with a multiband compressor (set to 0 compression), in place so that I could solo individual frequency ranges.

I don't know your mixing skill level or what I like to call you "listening" level, but for me, listening to ref mixes and studying what was happening in different ranges/octaves would tell me instantly what my own mixes were lacking.

After a while, you develop the ability to listen to the entire mix and hear what's happening.


This helped me alot on drum mults/replacement.

OF course, for all I know this may be silly giberish to everyone else. But, it has worked for me.thumbsup



EDIT: Also depending on the quality of your source material. Don't be afraid to experiment with adding some type of exciter to instrument tracks on duplicate tracks that you filter the lows from and add back to the original. It's kinda like adding a sample to the drums to supply whatever's missing. In this case if you are missing the hi freq range you have to find a way to synthesize it.

[Brian Middleton]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

I dont have the cold play song at hand, but I've always thought of placement in the stereo field as:

Top/bottom (HEIGHT) = Frequency/Pitch

Right, this is what I've always been taught. But what I'm hearing in the Colplay is more like

Top/bottom (HEIGHT) = Focus/Diffusion

I.e., the left-side guitar is cleaner, and more focused/sharp/narrow, and the right-side guitar, being dirtier, has a more diffuse/soft/wide presence, and since we naturally are used, on our gravity-ruled planet, to seeing the narrowest part of an object at the top, and the widest part at the bottom (cf. pyramids), our brains configure the cleaner, sharper sound as higher than the dirtier, looser, more diffuse sound.

Then again, that could be the Bellhaven talking...

[Absolute]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

I dont have the cold play song at hand, but I've always thought of placement in the stereo field as:

Top/bottom (HEIGHT) = Frequency/Pitch

Left/Right (WIDTH) = Pan, Phase

Front/Back (DEPTH) = Reverb (Early Reflections), Delay,Volume, Frequency

.

Actually, frequency belongs in the width catagory too

[George Necola]

One cut is worth a thousand boosts.

Tracking is like painting, mixing is like sculpting (not that I would know about either...).

Depth (to me) is "space." You can't "add" space to a mix. You have to create "room" by subtracting. Then your additions (turning a channel up, adding ambience, EQ boosting, hard limiting or distorting/harsh FX on a channel) will have somewhere to

like he sais

Originally Posted by Absolute

Actually, frequency belongs in the width catagory too

You're right I didnt mean to omit that one.