"In your Face" vs "depth and space"

[dbonin]

With today’s equipment it's relatively easy to capture a “hot” signal from any source with lots of energy and character. Well, perhaps more energy than character for most of us, but let’s assume for a second, if we can, that our tracks are wonderful.

At the mixing stage I seem to miss the mark when it comes to filling out the space between my ears. Mixing for “in your face” type of stuff seems more straight forward – get everything as hot and as upfront as possible, add some EQ, panning, sprinkle of reverb and it’s not too disappointing, even to my own ears.

However, as soon as I want to go for more subtle placement of my instruments I’m lost as to how to do it. The mixes I like seem to have the space of a large room, while try as I may, my mixes have the space of a shoe box.

So you say: reverb, compression, panning, eq. I know it’s an art!

As soon as I want to add depth I end up with instruments that are quieter but still only six inches from everything else. It just lacks definition and sits in the mix like I accidentally ignored it instead of punching through with that “quiet clarity” I’m looking for. Drums are a great example – you want to hear that snare crack thru the mix in a pleasing, unmistakably snare way, but each hit NEVER overpowers anything else. You can always hear it, sitting over there, no matter how much else seems to be playing in parallel. Suddenly there are ten things going on in the mix and you can hear them all, pleasingly floating through the air between your ears. Wow! How did they do that? Three instruments into MY mix and I’m drowning in mud inside of that shoe box.

If there were an easy answer audio engineering would not be the art that it is, I know.
Is anyone else in the shoebox, mixing in mud?

For examples of work that I aspire too:

Guss Dudgeon did it for Elton John on most of his early albums – have a critical listen to “Rocket Man” on your studio monitors, or any song from the “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” album. Gus Dudgeon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alan Parsons helped Floyd do it on “Dark Side Of The Moon”
Alan Parsons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Audio~Geek]

Good topic!

Some ideas to get you started in the right direction
-Room mics
-close mics not right up on the grill
-the predelay function of your favorite reverb
-filtering the lows and sometimes highs from your reverb

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by dbonin

The mixes I like seem to have the space of a large room, while try as I may, my mixes have the space of a shoe box.

One good solution is to set up two reverbs on buses. One has the typical "hall" or "plate" type preset, and the other has what's called a "small room" or "stage" type preset. That's the key to making closed-mic'd sources sound real as if in a real room, but without being washed out with reverb. Try it, you'll like it.

--Ethan

[P.P.T.]

Ethan,

How do you use the 2 reverbs? Do you send the instruments to both reverbs?

[garageband]

Compression and EQ (but not panning - it should work in mono, as well). In the old days, this was a no-brainer: the equipment took care of large amounts of this. A large, nice-sounding console, big tape recorder, top quality mics in large rooms recording top quality instruments that are properly tuned by players that have a deep knowledge of and skill with music.

Today, folks are sold a bill of goods. They are told that with a PC, a $200 interface and a $100 Chinese microphone, they can expect "professional results". They chase specs like 20-24k +/-.5dB, 110S/N, 140dB max SPL, 5dB self-noise. Full-spectrum rubbish and gibberish. This is where the mud begins. You've got to thin things out. When multitracking, remember that what sounds thin soloed is probably about right in the mix. What sounds big and full soloed will sound tubby and out-of-place in the full mix... Hey, wait a minute... you bought Brandon's book. You should know all this already.

[paul999]

Originally Posted by dbonin

Is anyone else in the shoebox, mixing in mud?

Good mic pre's. I know this is an unpopular thing to say on this site but it is true IMO. When recorded with a good mic pre the sound gets focused and contained. The metaphor I use is this. If sound is like water a good mic pre is the glass. You can put several on the table that are different sizes with more or less water and you have something interesting to look at. If you have no glass (cheap pre) buy the time you pour three puddles on the table your done.

[dbonin]

Ahhh. I knew it. Everything you all say is part of the puzzle.
garageband and paul999 seem to be complementing each other in the sense that perhaps the better the mic pre (don't care how you define better, just pick one) the better you can capture and contain the parts, keep them thin without loosing the instrument. Now that you mention it, garageband, I'm guilty of going in big, track by track - I guess that's ok as long as you go back and compress and eq the space for each sound you are mixing to give each part it's piece of the spectrum you are trying to tame or contain, as paul999 might suggest. Back to mixing school I go. Thanks!

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by P.P.T.

How do you use the 2 reverbs? Do you send the instruments to both reverbs?

Sure, though I don't always use both for everything. Sounds you want more in the front get the "stage" type reverb, and stuff that should sound farther back gets less of that and more "hall" type.

--Ethan

[dbonin]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Sure, though I don't always use both for everything. Sounds you want more in the front get the "stage" type reverb, and stuff that should sound farther back gets less of that and more "hall" type.

--Ethan

Ahh, ok, now that you say it this way I'm on borad to give this a try. Makes sense!

[Freddy G]

Stereo mic technique. I love stereo mics on just about anything....especially if you have a nice sounding room. You can get a kind of dimension that is not possible with a single mic on a source.
Check out what Bruce Swedien has recorded, he's the man.