Depth in Tracking

[soupking]

Hi GS,

Is there anything I could do during tracking to help prepare/mic a certain amount of sonic depth in mixdown?

I'm trying to keep my tracks from flatsville. Reverb kind of helps, but I'm afraid I'm going to end up in a mids-swamp in the mix. I can EQ it some (awkwardly), but I figure the thicker I get, the more space I'm going to need. How can I accomplish this before tape?

Any suggestions to prepare for a mix in this fashion or rule of thumb I might be missing?

[Seamus TM]

1. mic placement
2. room

[soupking]

I'm getting the feeling that listening for EQ registration when placing mics is something to keep in mind when checking it through the monitors.

[max cooper]

It's different for everything, but backing mics off is nice. Especially for guitar amps and drumkits.

As far as acoustic guitars, if you pre-think what sound you want, you can get almost all the way there with mic angle and distance.

I also find that backing off on the mixbus can help in this regard. I know what the literature says, but in Pro Tools, if I pull all the faders back a little, things sound less "choked" for some reason.

Another way to keep things dynamic is to find the input gain level on the preamp where it sounds most dynamic. As you get towards the top end, things flatten out. If you find the "sweet spot", you'll get something more like a linear response; in other words, an increase in the volume of the instrument will give you a similar increase in output from the preamp.

I know the conventional wisdom is to "drive" the preamps into the "crush" all the time, but if you do this on everything, it gets boring, IMO.

[dbbubba]

A room with a good room tone helps.
A console that has an open sound helps (this is in the summing.)
NOT over-compressing things helps.
NOT using all kinds of buss compression helps.
NOT over-compressing the final mix helps, too.

Mixing a whole lot of different kinds of stuff in a whole lot of environments on different equipment for a whole lot of years will teach you how to do it, too.

Danny Brown

[warhead]

I favor delays to create depth, too much reverb can get too swimmy too fast. At the beginning of a typical rock / beat driven mix, I'll usually set up several delays of varying tempo and signature. Most of the time they are in sync with the beat of the song, and then I'll experiment with sending small amounts to long delays, short delays and sometimes triplets etc.

Tracking is where to start thinking of depth though, space in the mic placement can do wonders even if you're just backing it off a couple more inches.

War

[Protools Guy]

I agree totally w/ War on this, and will add that different delays w/ different eq on each will also help different with creating depth in the placement of instruments and vocals. I'll wave the flag of Soundtoys Echoboy here!! GREAT plug for this IMO.

[jeff deff]

I leave room mics up in my room permanently. When tracking basic tracks I always record the room. I usually do drums, bass and guitar together in the same room. Whenever possible, I always track a room mic when doing overdubs. After recording the vocals, I like to run it through a PA in the room into the room mics. When mixing, I have these room tracks to add depth to the tracks. It sounds natural and it really helps in keeping the mixes from sounding flat or drenched in reverb or other effects.

[softwareguy]

It's hard for me to quantify, and definitely something that I'm still figuring out, but I think that mic choice can also help a lot in creating depth in tracking.

As close as I can get to a systematic viewpoint is, less high end and smaller transient peaks = further away in the mix.

So, for example, those ribbon mics that don't sound as snazzy on drum ovhd's as your SDC's might actually be doing you a favor by providing you with some realistic inner detail, but less highs and smaller transient peaks, thereby putting the drums a little deeper in the track.

As I say, I don't really have this figured out yet, but it seems to me to have a helpful result.

[RusRant]

Beyond good basic recording technique in a great room, the delay thing really helps. I generally use one or to max. reverbs in a mix. But I'll use as much delay as needed. I also find tracking in stereo for instruments that will benifit it to help. Like percussion, acoustic guitars, backing vox, piano/keys, etc. I learned along time ago the benifits of a great monitoring system in a tuned room. You may have the potential for a very big, deep mix, but lose it in mixing due to phase, masking, etc. I've remixed several tracks that were very small before the remix, but small tweaks brought them back from the land of the dead.

[soupking]

It sounds like depth in tracking is essential almost like blocking a cast in a scene before a show. Then knowing the gentle balance of hierachy of this depth based on how the elements in the scene or soundscape interact is the main focus or function of approaching depth.

To further analyze this metaphor, mic distance would play a large factor in 'stage' presence as far as lead and secondary cast.

Very useful in shaping my perspective. Thanks guys!

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by soupking

To further analyze this metaphor, mic distance would play a large factor in 'stage' presence as far as lead and secondary cast.

I'd be careful with this. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner before you send your tracks to mix. The VAST majority of radio-oriented rock, pop, rap, R&B, metal/hard rock, and country (and others) songs DEPEND on a sense of focus and presence SURROUNDED BY depth and spaciousness. I typed almost this same exact thing two weeks ago, but it bears repeating.

If you don't mind posting an mp3, we can try to diagnose "flatsville." It's like you're coming to the doctor saying, "I have chest pains." O.K., did you pull a muscle, do you have heart trouble, or did you break a rib or something?

Is your arrangement off? Are you using plastic-sounding conversion -- or are you strictly analog? Are you using modeled guitar preamps expecting them to sound like real amps? Is your drummer using new heads? >IS< there a drummer?

[dbbubba]

I went back to this thread because while I was half asleep while riding along in a 757 at 7:00 am EST thgis morning I started thinking about the question again.

I have been in the middle of resurecting a project that a good friend recorded with his band (Blowphish) at A&M Studios and my room in Texas way back in 1992/93.
The band consisted of my good friend Terry Glaze (Pantera, Lord Tracy, etc...) on vocals and GTR, Dave Hineman on GTR and Mike Malinin (now of the Goo Goo Dolls) and a bass player who's name I forget now.
Both sessions were tracked with the band playing live in one room with gobos between some amps. The vocals were overdubbed.

The A&M sessions have "near" stereo, room mics as well as "far" stereo room mics.
I am not sure what room they were in at A&M, but it sounds like a fairly large space.
The GTRs and bass sound like they are behind gobos and maybe the bass is in another iso room. You can hear them in the room mics quite well though.

My room was a duplicate of Devonshire Sound's B room which was based on a few other Hollywood studios. I belive the basic design was a variation of a room designed by Bill Putnam. I forget the details now.

ANYWAYS...

I have made demo or temp mixes of the A&M sessions in order to get an idea of where we are. I am not using anything except EQ and compression on the kick and snare mics. The room mics are not compressed either.
All I am using for drum reverb/ambience is the "near" room mics except on a ballad where I am using the "far" mics along with the "near" mics. I have a slight amount of 224xl (small room) and two DDLs on vocals (one long, one short.) The GTRs are dry except for during solos I add a bit of the DDL used on the vocals.

Because of the room mics and the overall quality of the room tone at A&M the sound is VERY powerfull and the band sounds huge. There is a real sense of depth and you can hear the space the band is playing in. I am not sure that the GTRs are not overdubbed in places, but the GTR parts that are bleeding into the room mics are the same parts. There are no wierd ghost parts thankfully!

My room is smaller than the room at A&M and the bleed is more close in sounding.
There is enough bass on the kick mic that I might have to resort to triggering a sample.

Still, while previewing the material cut in my room I am really liking the "space."

While I have always recorded as much room sound as possible, my production technique over the years has mainly dealt with over-dubbing. I occasionally did a big band CD that had a full band with lots of mics and some C&W stuff that was usually a full band playing at once with a lot of D.I.'d stuff. I pretty much avoided recording a full band for "quality control" reasons. I rarely ever had them set up i a line pout in the studio like the session at my studio.

So, here is a great example of how the room sound inflences the sense of space.
Even with close mic'd GTRs (which I usually leave dry) the mix benefits hugely by the use of the room bleed on the drum tracks. If thge GTRs are good enough sounding they can remain dry and the only real ambience is on the drums.

On the otherhand, on the A&M tapes the GTRs are definitely in the room mics.

It'll be interesting to see which room sounds "best."

In case you wonder. We intend to re-track all of the GTRs and possibly have another bass player Kinley Wolf (Black Oak Arkansas, Lord Tracy, The Cult) track new bass parts.
Only Mike's drums and Terry's vocals will remain from the '92/'93 sessons.

I'll try to post some examples as we progress.

Danny Brown

[soupking]

Sounds cool Danny, I'll be checking the thread.

[Ganglion]

Bleed!

I know many records are made in LA where the drums are tracked with way too many mics, then chopped. Then the bass player overdubs to that with usually a DI and close mic'd amp. Then way too many GTR overdubs to that. Usually just close miked. If there are keyboards they're often direct. Then vocals. Then the mixer has to go ape shit and work his ass off with delays and reverb and possibly reamping to try to get some depth. Its a fight to get things to sit and "gel".

As others have mentioned, having a band track live in one room (a good sounding room helps) can do wonders for "depth". Of course you have to control the bleed -- too much can ruin things. With the creative use of band/instrument/amp positioning, gobos, mic positions (and polar patterns) you'd would be surprised how much isolation you can get between instruments (but still have enough bleed to give you depth). I think using minimal mics when tracking live also helps this.

When there is just a little bit of everything in most mics it does wonders. Its not always appropriate to track a band live, but it can be amazing.

When doing overdubs, it really helps to not close mic everything in cardiod. Try using omni mode when doing most of your overdubs. Micing from 2-8 feet away instead of 1" can also be helpful. The hardest part about that is that you have to have a vision for the song and know what overdubs will be done and where things will realistically sit in the end. For example, say a band wants some tambourine in their song. When ever you get a sound for an overdub, you have the musician play and you hear it by itself. It sounds great with the mic 2 feet away pointed at them in cardiod. If you were to turn the mic around and face it the wrong way, you would think it sounded like shit. However, by the time all of the other overdubs are done (guitars, bass, keyboards, piano, background vocals, lead vocal) I guarantee the tambourine track would sound better if you mic'd it facing the wrong way. If there are a lot of tracks, I find it hard to get some super close mic'd tracks to sit. They may seem to low in the mix, then you turn them up to hear them and they seem completely out of place. When there's nice ambience on an overdub track, I find that when I push up the fader, the track will often just kind of creep up behind everything else and sit better and play nice with all the other tracks.

I think arrangement has a big part too. If every instrument is going all the time, each instrument masks all the other instruments. If things drop out often, then more can be revealed of each instrument. Try dropping the bass or the guitars in a verse sometime, you'll say "wow, i didn't realize the piano (or drums, banjo, marimba, washboard) sounded so beautiful and roomy."

Severe limiting in mastering seems to also take away depth -- like "smashing everything up against the window".

I'm constantly listening to vinyl and am blown away by the sense of depth in recordings from the 40s to 60s. I'm guessing a big part of that is the number of tracks available.

Less Tracks --> Less Mics
Less Mics --> More people tracking at once
More people tracking at once --> bigger rooms

[dbbubba]

Exactly

I mixed two of the cuts that were done at my room in 1992.
The room is definitely smaller than A&M, but it wasn't by any means a cramped space.

I have more bleed than the A&M sessions because when I tracked the band they were set up like they do on stage. The A&M tapes have band bleed on the room mics. My tapes have bass on the kick and snare (I could do w/o that!) and GTRs in the OHs. I also had a U87 up at about 10 ft. over the drums picking up everything. That mic has noise on it, so I can't use it. There was also a guide vocal mic set up, but the vocalist didn't sing on it much. It works for a good room mic.

So, I somewhat prefer5 the sound of my studio because of several factors, but the bass bleed on the kick makes things harder to control in the low end. The sound IS full!
If I could have the A&M room mic situation with my studio's close mic stuff I'd be happy.

Both sessions are a good study in using room bleed for depth. The are two completely different situations that yield completely different results.

Another huge factor is that my tape deck (JH24) was set up for +9 over 185 nwbr and I was using 456, so I was burning a hole in the tape for sure! You can't hear anything bad, but I was blazing a trail onto that +6 tape for sure!
The A&M sessions were recorded at +3 over 185 on Studer decks, so the sound completely is different.
This alone could be a new thread, but in a nutshell I'd say that the A&M stuff sounds more "hifi" while my stuff sounds more aggresive and in-your-face.

So there you go... it's room bleed for rock-n-roll that does the trick.

Danny Brown

[seaneldon]

regarding microphone placement:

distance makes depth!

very simple equation.

[dbbubba]

While it is true that moving the mics back from sources helps it is really the fact that you are getting a bit more of the "air" or "room sound" along with the dierct sound.

I find that using different mic techniques really helps place stuff in the soundfield.
As an example, I tend to prefer close mic'd GTR cabs, but if I do have room mics I kinda' want a stereo pair. If I am going to have the room's personality showing up I want it to be a "space" and one mono track doesn't really define much of a space. On the other hand, it does eat up track space to have every GTR in stereo!

So, I don't really mind a close mic'd GTR cab for distorted GTRs because I want them panned hard left and right and living in a pretty tight area. If the parts are "open" or have holes in the playing (chucky with stops and starts) where the room ambience can be heard then I'd want a stereo ambience.

I don't want ambience on the bass mic, but I do want a bass mic. If for nothing else I want to know what the bass player's rig actually sounds like.

Drums... close and room mics. I pretty well can use the drum kit's ambience to define the ambient space that the entire band is playing in. The only real problem is when the arrangement drops down to one GTR. That one GTR can sound pretty small and isolated on it's own, but with the whole band playing it'll be OK. This is where the stereo ambience on the GTTR helps. Reverb can get close, but the real deal is WAY better.

I pretty much only use DDL on vocals for rock stuff. I set up a short (120 msec.) and a longer (242 msec.) slap with not a lot of regeneration or feedback. If the song asks for it, I'll use longer delays that fit the tempo. The two delay times I listed above are close to the delay you'd get with 7.5 ips and 15 ips on most tape decks. That is how many classic rock records were mixed and those DDl times are somewhat set it stone.

I do put a touch of a really short room (reverb) on the vocals as well because it makes them sound "bigger." I don't always have the short reverb on the vocals since some cuts or styles sound better where it sounds like the vocalist is really working to be heard above the band. I gues that I'd use "close" ambient stuff for intimate verses and a more distant sound for the chorus or parts where the vocalist is really opening up.

Another interesting trick that I used to use a lot was to build an ambience that might only be in the intro or quiter sections of a piece, but would totally disappear once the band was going full tilt. I used to do a few Goth or Gloom and Doom CDs per year (some years ago now) and it would require the typical sound of a band in a castle or church or what-ever. While that sounded OK on the intros, it would be too dense for the parts when the whole band came in. The reverb would just get lost in the roar of the band.
In this case I would mix in sections and only use the "cathedral" ambience in placves where it could be actually heard.

You just have to use the creative part of your brain and think ahead while tracking.

I have recorded more stuff than I usually end up using in the final mix for almost everything I have done for years. I just want the option should I find it is neccesary.
I have driven a few players crazy (GTR players especially) because as soon as we'd finish an OD I'd say, "OK, let's track that." I want two of every GTR although I might not use both parts all of the time.

Stuff coming and going can build space, too.

Danny Brown