tips on creating depth in your mixes.

[Rodgre]

The thread about the compression article in this month's issue inspired me to start this new post.

As someone pointed out, nowadays, it seems that every single track you record has to be HUMONGOUS and super loud and super compressed, when doing a typical pop/rock record. Some engineers are compressing EVERY track going to tape, coming from tape, and then compressing the bus, then sending it off to mastering to be squashed some more. HUGE HUGE HUGE! Everything in your face. Every track you overdub has to sound "special" and as big as possible.

But I know none of us do that, but it happens.

I don't know how people mix sludge like that. How do you make 24 completely in-your-face tracks work together?

A technique that I use, which seems pretty old school but modern super rock standards, is to create depth in mixes by tracking with depth. For example, if you listen to the first couple of REM records, Mike Mills' backup vocals sound like he's physically ten feet behind Michael Stipe's lead vocals. How did they do that? Did they just take his vocal and run it through some reverb? No, as far as I can tell, Mike Mills stood ten feet away from the mic.

I will track a basic rhythm guitar with a nice and full tone, close mic'd and maybe compressed. How am I going to make a single note line overdub fit with it? I pull the mic away. I make a track that needs to sit behind the main track sound like it is physically further away.

I do this with backup vocals all the time. If I want them to sound like a group or even a single backup singer, and not a duet, I put them away from the mic. I use an omni mic sometimes and make them sing facing the other way. The point is to create depth in the mix by tracking with depth.

I wish you could see my hands, because it's hard to describe. When all your your guitars are recorded with the same SM57 right on the speaker grille, all of your guitars are going to sound like they're "right here" (Roger makes hand gesture depicting right in front of you)

If you track with physical depth, your main tracks can be "here" (roger again motions right in front of you) and your secondary tracks can be back there (motions to behind the speakers)

I'm sure a lot of you already do this (and some of you might TOTALLY disagree with me) but some newbies might have a lightbulb go off when they read this.

I listen to Beck's Sea Change a lot. It's such a rich and deep sounding CD. The stereo imaging is super wide and the mixes are so dimensional and deep. I use that for inspiration and try to achieve that kind of "3-D" sound when i mix.

I never come close of course, but I try

That said, you can listen to the earliest recordings, and the whole sound comes from distance. They had one mic. Want the drums in the back of the mix, put them further from the mic. Listen to great mono records from the 50s and 60s. Without the aid of stereo, they created these fantastically detailed mixes by creating physical distances between the instruments/vocalists and the mics. Get inspired by that.

Try an experiment. Try to create a full dimensional recording in MONO, by recording with space (no artificial reverb!). I'll try it this week too. I'll let you know if I come close!

Roger

[@?,*???&?]

As someone pointed out, nowadays, it seems that every single track you record has to be HUMONGOUS and super loud and super compressed, when doing a typical pop/rock record.

If you're being paid to produce, record and mix a record, you have to be making competitive product. While we may not like the Joneses, you have to maintain a certain perspective. As a producer of a project, you should have the vision for what is appropriate and warranted. Sometimes, lengthy discussions with the band can lead to a better understanding of the music. Most times, seeing them live offers a good view of what is right. By the 4th album, a band will have better perspective and will likely be experimenting to control 'their end' a little bit more. Rarely does a young band come in with any kind of concrete vision or way to manipulate and control the recording medium to achieve their end. Usually, not great judges of performance at that level either. But they can grow into that. Production vision is key to making the most immediate material for the listener in an extremely competitive marketplace. It's not just compression that achieves that end.

[inverseroom]

Thanks a lot, Roger, this is an awesome thread. I've tried this a bit with double-tracking; I sing the lead vocal up close and then sing it again a few feet away. Or I'll play the rhythm guitar track twice (in this case subtly changing the settings on my preamp, pedals, and guitar, since I usually record direct through a Sansamp rack unit). None of this is at all hard to achieve, and the experimental possibilities are limitless (ie., try piping printed tracks through a transistor radio across the room, which you mike with room sound, and then bring in for some lo-fi action...)

JRL

[heylow]

I absolutely agree with Roger on his points....not everything can be in front and contrary to some popular belief, setting something back with reverb at mixdown time will not get the same space or depth as something you physically set back and make room for in advance.

The space I am referring to is natural space....you know that certain atmosphere that almost gives you a photo of the place it was recorded in when using headphones. Boxed verbs are ok for more overt effects but, in my opinion, fail at ever really achieving natural depth.

Try it sometime...record something with a very nice "spacial halo" around it and then record the same thing right in your face and attempt to match the sound of the "halo" with boxed verb. It's always a bit "off" in some way.

I'm kinda pushing this point because it's a mistake I've made a few times that I have vowed to master myself.

As far as Jeff's point go....I can certainly see where you are coming from but it also serves as a reminder that the only music I currently produce is my own and that's FINE with me!


heylow

[jajjguy]

Roger, Roger, I'm in complete agreement except...

Sea Change? Here I am hijacking a thread, but to my ears, Sea Change was a disc without depth. Okay, it had two depths, right in your face, and ten feet back. But that's like saying a painting has two colors, white, and gray. And the musical material demanded depth, i think.

Anyhow, i quite agree that lots of music ought to be recorded with depth, and a good way to achieve that is through geography.

[cgarges]

Yeah! Right on, Roger! I've been getting WAY into this the last few years. Good stuff. When you get a good grip on this, you start relying less and less on using outboard reverb or delays to create space. The more you do it in the same room (or rooms), the better grip you get on your rooms and the more creative (OR predictable) your results can be.

For example, if you listen to the first couple of REM records, Mike Mills' backup vocals sound like he's physically ten feet behind Michael Stipe's lead vocals. How did they do that? Did they just take his vocal and run it through some reverb? No, as far as I can tell, Mike Mills stood ten feet away from the mic. Roger

Don Dixon and Mitch Easter are really into this. I've heard Don talk about this alot and it's ALL OVER his solo stuff. Part of the cool thing about it is that you can have a background vocal every bit as loud as a lead vocal but without the presence or intelligibility competition. Pretty cool.

An excellent engineer and friend of mine named Joe Zook did a lot of records with Tchad Blake. He pointed out to me that if you listen to those albums with headphones on and it sounds like something's coming from behind you, chances are that it's Tchad's Neumann binaural mic facing away from the source. He told me that on some of the Los Lobos stuff, they'd have the drummer facing the percussionist and the "head" mic in between. So sometimes, the percussion came from the back. Don Dixon records B3 like this all the time. You can go really deep with this by assigning pan positions naturally, too. Use a stereo mic setup off center with a bit of distance and you get really great natural imaging.

Great thread, Rog!

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[rhythm ranch]

Very cool thread Roger, thank you. I've been using reverb less and less for years, except as an effect. As you stated, true spaciousness in a recording comes from including the space. Seems obvious now, but for so long it was a matter of recording in a dead space and then slathering on the reverb.

It's been said elsewhere, but who listens to a guitar amp from 1" off the speaker? Who listens to a kick from inside the shell? The sound we hear while listening to a drum kit or an electric guitar through an amp or anything else, includes the room.

I'd love to get one of those binaural heads to record with - a transducer that parallels the experience of being there. Cool!
Mark

[cgarges]

I'd love to get one of those binaural heads to record with - a transducer that parallels the experience of being there. Cool!
Mark

You can get similar spacial effects by putting two high quality small diapraghm condensers on either side of a cardboard box stuffed with paper or something. Just find a box that's about the size of someone's head and make sure it's not empty. (Insert numerous ridiculous jokes here.) For really nutty stuff you can point one mic forward and one mic backwards. Or play with the polarity of the mics.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[rhythm ranch]

You can get similar spacial effects by putting two high quality small diapraghm condensers on either side of a cardboard box stuffed with paper or something. Just find a box that's about the size of someone's head and make sure it's not empty. (Insert numerous ridiculous jokes here.) For really nutty stuff you can point one mic forward and one mic backwards. Or play with the polarity of the mics.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

Excellent! Now I'm wondering if one of those styrofoam heads used for holding wigs would work. I've got to find one of those things and give it a try. I think I'll go do some experiments now! Thanks Chris!

[record]

I used to have a rig like the aforementioned "head". I used the styrofoam container that my first mic, a CAD equitech, came in, cut holes in the side and inserted two shure SM-something-or-others. They were old ceiling-mount concert hall omnis. The thing worked great, but kept on scaring the drummers. I had put a wig and hat on it.

The wisdom I've heard is to use omnis - I guess our ears are essentially "omni" anyway. Try a pair of Stapes stuck in on of those styrofoam dummies that wigs come on. (you may have to buy the wig though)



Mark Addison
Austin

[cgarges]

Excellent! Now I'm wondering if one of those styrofoam heads used for holding wigs would work. I've got to find one of those things and give it a try. I think I'll go do some experiments now! Thanks Chris!

Sure! A friend of mine actually dug up a manequin head. Sometimes you can get them from costume shops, although I think my friend told me that they're like $25 or $35 bucks. I used to record drums like that for a while. The head I've got has some sort of disturbing-looking eyes. Not Marilyn Manson or anything, just not quite right. It used to freak drummers out. I loved it.

As far as the omni thing goes, there's probably some legitimacy to that, but remember that the backs of our ears do contribute to some directional characteristics. Also, if you're using omni mics in a guerilla setup like this, you won't really get differences from anything set up behind the head.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[Randall]

here ya go, I want one but at 10K it wont happen soon
http://www.neumannusa.com/pages/product ... hone=KU100

[cgarges]

By the way, if you stumble across an AKG D-99, don't get too excited about it. It was a "Consumer" model binaural head with really lo-fi dynamic mics in the ears. I bought one, expecting something much cooler (at least I got a good deal on it) and I still use it, but more as a lo-fi "effecty"-type thing. Not the least bit accurate.

Chris

[heylow]

It's been said elsewhere, but who listens to a guitar amp from 1" off the speaker? Who listens to a kick from inside the shell? The sound we hear while listening to a drum kit or an electric guitar through an amp or anything else, includes the room.
Mark

For the record....

These are great points as well. I DO think it's OK to record things very closely as well, though....you just have to pick and choose how many instruments you actually WANT in your face. I mean, you DO have to have "close" to establish "far". Kinda like....how can you feel "hot" if you don't have "cold" to gauge it off of.

I don't think you were inferring that all things need be recorded from a distance but Roger DID mention the clarification of such ideas setting off lightbulbs in heads and all that and I don't want anyone to get the impression that "close" is wrong either.


heylow

[heylow]

By the way, if you stumble across an AKG D-99, don't get too excited about it. It was a "Consumer" model binaural head with really lo-fi dynamic mics in the ears. I bought one, expecting something much cooler (at least I got a good deal on it) and I still use it, but more as a lo-fi "effecty"-type thing. Not the least bit accurate.

Chris

I dunno...

Maybe "accuracy" here depends on the context.....sounds like the head of the average guitar player to me...accurate construction to boot, from the sounds of it!

Doh!

Ok...I kid, I kid...I'm a guitar player.....don't shoot. I would've said "drummer" but I think that would've been an unfair assessment of the peice, as I have never heard it. I mean IT'S probably useful for SOMETHING, no?

AGH! I can't stop...it's late.



heylow