Quantcast
Mix width - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Mix width
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
Yeh, contrast is always useful. There's no loud without quiet. And wide after narrow sounds even wider.
+1. The key to stereo is mono.
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
+1. Mono is absolutely the key to stereo.
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by filin ➑️
+1. The key to stereo is mono.
+2
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
James Meeker's Avatar
I told you my opinion would be unpopular.

Yes, I've heard home productions sound great and compete with 'the big records.' However, they are very few and very far between. Often they represent months or in some cases years of hard work on behalf of the artists, not to mention years of practice beforehand to even acquire the skills that can make it possible.

It's not about elitism or snobbishness.

How many people here play sports and think they could go head-to-head against the best athletes in the world and come out equal? I don't even think there would be an argument that you're going to lose because you are outmatched.

It's just life. Some people have better sounding stuff, work with better music and players, and are just far, far better than you. Consequently their recordings are going to sound better. Where you find the most of this 'best of everything' are on the top records being made. An average dude doing average music with average players is not going to be able to compete with that.

That's just life. I guess you can accept it, or stick your head in the sand. As far as who's going to be making the best records 10 years from now, my bet is on the person that realizes that top guys make top records and works on becoming a top guy themselves.

Just my opinion. Maybe it works the other way around--the best albums are going to be made by the most mediocre gear, using the most mediocre musicians and songs, by the most mediocre engineers....
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
cavern's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
i think james is right. it's not the only reason but it takes years of practice to become a pro at anything whether it be a pro hockey player or a pro bass player or a pro engineer. it's experience, doing it a million times.
it's almost impossible to have time in a lifetime to become a pro at playing,mixing, producing,mastering,troubleshooting,ect. not to mention, staying objective when your doing it all yourself.

the pro studios have 5 guys with years of experience in each category and the very best equipment and rooms.
im not saying it's impossible to do what they do by yourself, just saying it's unlikely and my friend tom doesn't play guitar anywhere near as good as mark knoffler either and those studios have access to great players like that. all of these things equal width or big imo.

also, don't underestimate the power of arrangements when it comes to width.
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Lives for gear
 
thenoiseflower's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq ➑️
it's not the mixing
it's the tracking
I was not born yet, but I believe that is the truth. AE's had confidence in what they would print, and make those decisions based mostly on experience but certainly somewhat based on limitations in the technology . Limitations are amazing creative guides.

BUT I'm romantic about tracking.

I believe a good part of it what happens in that room with those players feeling a good arrangement and being on top of their game. feeling it. Not just the AE's role at all. tho its hard not to get nerdy over what cool **** we us in turning that energy into electricity. But the energy from all people involved & the vibe that was set leading up to the moment of the performance creates bigness, width, and dynamic realness...

The Mixer has to work with what he's given, or what he tracked himself.
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
i think james is right. it's not the only reason but it takes years of practice to become a pro at anything whether it be a pro hockey player or a pro bass player or a pro engineer. it's experience, doing it a million times.
I agree with that, though it's nowwhere near a million times.

Quote:
it's almost impossible to have time in a lifetime to become a pro at playing,mixing, producing,mastering,troubleshooting,ect. not to mention, staying objective when your doing it all yourself.
I completely disagree with that. Plenty of people do it, so it can't be even close to impossible. All it takes is consistent application, and a reasonable amount of intelligence. The only thing that is remotely close to being in the 'you either have it or don't' category is being to consistently write songs that are great, and even that can be developed. Everything else is just process and technique and learnable by anyone willing to work hard at it for a decade.

Will you be one of the best in the world in a decade? No, probably not unless you just happen to have a natural aptitude of some sort. But most anyone with a brain who applies himself seriously can become a very competent professional level practicioner of any trade that doesn't require some physical attribute that the person doesn't have, i.e. something that just requires understanding and experience, within a decade.

And if your desire is to create your own stuff, you don't have to be an uber-technical player. Actually, you don't even have to be an uber-technical player to be considered one of the great musicians of an age for that matter.

And you have to consider that, if your desire is to just create your own stuff, you don't need to be highly competent in every possible genre, know every tool, and understand every technique. You only have to master the tools you own, and the techniques required to create your own stuff, though hopefully that territory will grow over time as your grow as a creator. But you only have to master what you need to do what you want to do.
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcm ➑️
sparser arrangements and analog consoles.
I've worked with analog tape, digital tape mixing analog, DAW + MIDI fold-in mixing analog, and full-on in-the-box. I don't believe the answer necessarily lies in analog consoles.

But there may be a clue there.


People hear a great mix that sounds big and well defined and they think that must be because there's some magic in the technology that was used. But analog consoles -- even good ones -- pretty much always have greater crosstalk than digital mixers. So, it seems reasonable to rule out the most obvious notion right off the top, that there's something 'wrong' with digital stereo.

What else is different?

Analog consoles have no practical latency. But it appears at least some digital mix engines do involve potentially uncompensated latencies.

Additionally, in my experience getting people to check their DAW's overdub timing alignment via a loopback test, most people who had not otherwise compensated for such timing misalignment (and more and more DAWs have stepped up to the plate with various forms of track alignment calibrating) may very well end up with mixes that are unsatisfying and lack focus.

Depending on the mix of latencies involved, this seems like it could result in anything from a vague sense that things are not glued together well to obvious phase issues between acoustically overlapping tracks with different routings (say you routed a snare differently from the rest of a kit and so induced latency related phase issues between tracks) -- to an outright sense of ragged timing. (A few milliseconds here, a few there, and pretty soon you're talking a hemisemidemiquaver... heh )



Barring those micro-timing issues, I'd say that -- like so much -- much of being able to create a good stereo mix still goes back to knowledge and mixing skill.

Knowing how to shape a mix around different elements, how to use signal dynamics (automated fades and compression), how to use EQ to focus the listener's attention and fit different elements into a mix where there is a dance of content and space around it -- not just a steady stream of filled information channels -- those are crucial to a good mix, above and beyond the technology.
Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Meeker ➑️
I'd argue that everything is better: gear, tracking, skill, mixing, mastering.... often times the musicianship and songwriting, better arrangements.

Sorry to point this out, but the average home recordist is going to be outclassed by a pro album. They are using great gear, great engineers, great producers and so on. How can one person doing something part-time hope to compete with a TEAM of first rate pros? Answer: you really can't.

I'm sure I'd be stoned to death in some corners for that opinion but that's how I see it. Modern digital tools are awesome, and have opened up a lot of doors but skill and experience is what rules the music world. No one person is going to be able to top a recording done by a first rate tracking engineer, mixed by Chris Lord Alge, and mastered by Bob Ludwig. Sorry, but that's like trying to beat Dr. J, Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley at a pickup game all by yourself... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMoon ➑️
I'd argue that simply isn't true at all... Problem is that. The albums and music that does compete with even the maestro's is wholly in the box. That is, it comes from the techno/dance field. Of course, the moment your live musician hears that they then become aspirational within their own field which is a whole different kettle of fish...

There was an album a couple of years back, won a whole rake of plaudits for its' recording quality. It was mixed on Pro sumer live speakers in an untreated room and was totally in ITB...

The problem arises, when you then expect, as a *live musician*, to be able to compete with that, ITB, on a domestic set up...
I'm not at all sure that FireMoon's post actually undercuts James' position at all.

For one thing, citing one particular instance to prove or disprove a general rule is not good logical practice.


But going a bit beyond that, let's take a look at the album cited. Unfortunately, we don't know which album it was.

But since FireMoon was talking about the techno/dance field, let's remember there are a lot of people working primarily from samples and sample loops. I'm not minimizing their creativity nor casting any aspersion on their music -- but for this discussion, it would be foolish to ignore one important facet: if someone else did the heavy lifting of recording and shaping the source material, the success of such a mix is hardly suggestive of the greater production capabilities of the mixer/producer's rig or his recording abilities. His end result was highly dependent on his source materials.

(Now, of course, if he wasn't using any loops or samples and creating his own synth patch parameters, that is a different story, to some extent -- and I'd have to definitely take my hat off to anyone who can produce well-balanced electronica in that fashion on prosumer speakers (depending on how you define that -- I'm thinking here that means something along the lines of a $200 pair of 5 inch powered monitors or such). I tried mixing electronica on NS10m's for a while and never had any idea what was going on in the bottom octave. I'd say the guy must be lucky, have ESP, or refer to a visual spectrum analyzer a lot. heh )


Another thing, and no slag on techno, but the abilities that go into the typical techno/trance/electronica creation -- while possibly quite deep -- are not at all similar to abilities it takes to track a live jazz or rock band. (Mixing abilities do tend to overlap, of course. But, again, the limitations of gear will rear their ugly, mundial head, again, as even the best mixer will tend to have problems with bad monitors in bad room)


Now, I'll be among the first say that knowledge and skill trump gear expense or even gear quality (obviously two often very different things).

But if one doesn't have any of the above, I'm thinking he's going to have to be a pretty lucky guy.


Old 25th January 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Additionally, in my experience getting people to check their DAW's overdub timing alignment via a loopback test, most people who had not otherwise compensated for such timing misalignment (and more and more DAWs have stepped up to the plate with various forms of track alignment calibrating) may very well end up with mixes that are unsatisfying and lack focus.
I understand what you are saying, but all those kinds of delays are present in even a fully analog system, I would think. A foot of distance from a mic'd subject is a millisecond delay basically. Not everything is mic'd the same distance, so there's all kinds of small differentials in the various tracks. If you are playing to what you hear in the phones, which have not latency, but what you record back is delayed by a 5ms because the mic is 5 feet from the cab, then what you record will be 5 ms behind what you are playing to as recorded, right?

And of course the same applies to live performance, and often even more so because the distances between the performances might be even larger, so it might 5ms or 10ms or more before you hear the drum that you are playing to.

I kind of figured that was a mostly good thing, and created a and warmer, fuller sound. Yeh, it does cause cancellations sometimes as well. But overall, given that these types of delays are inherent in a real performance, are they really that bad (assuming that they are introduced by the DAW sometimes?)

For myself, I don't find that there's a problem, at least so far. When I lay down a bass track, I like it to be super tight with the kick. And they do come out super-tight with the kick (with the contraints of my playing ability anyway), despite the fact that I'm monitoring through the DAW and using a big fat drum synth that would have to be a worst case scenario, and with all of the processing alread in place on the drums, (i.e. multiple layers of bussing, delay, convolution reverb, etc...) Since both are quite percussive, it would be pretty obvious if there was any significant problem.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #41
Deleted 99dc753
Guest
He just asked to getting his mix wider and now we discuss if he can compete with a 500.000 $$ Production.

Sometimes I thnik this is not Gearslutz .... Coming Soon...
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
RCM - Ronan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES ➑️
He just asked to getting his mix wider

[/url]

Actually the original post did not ask that question. He asked why there was a difference and many people have made suggestions about why those differences might exist.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
I don't think it's about being just as wide ITB vs. a OTB project.
I don't think it's about being just as good at home vs.in a pro studio.
I don't think it's about being just as good as a pro AE when only a self-taught home recordist.
I think the point, for me, is to get a little better every day, using forums like this to help (and it does help, so thanks to all). I personally appreciate positive and specific tips to loaded debates. My stuff is already to the point where the average person listening on the average system (or an ipod or computer), in the average context (double or triple tasking) thinks my finished mastered mixes sound lexactly ike a record, not at all amateurish or indy or lo-fi. BUT I know better, and pro engineers would tear me a new one after listening. The priorities are 1. songs. 2 audience connection, 3. doing one's best with what one has, and 4. trying to get better all the time. If I sold a million and could afford a pro studio and mix, I'm not sure I'd go for it (but I'd be exptremely tempted!!). It might be self-indulgent and make bad business sense.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 ➑️
.
But analog consoles -- even good ones -- pretty much always have greater crosstalk than digital mixers. So, it seems reasonable to rule out the most obvious notion right off the top, that there's something 'wrong' with digital stereo.

.

This theory in theory should actually work towards the opposite.

And i've heard mixes done by Mick G who has been mixing on high end digital platforms since the mid 90's and his mixes sound more analog/taller/deeper/wider than alot of people analog only mixes.

I still hold true to the fact that its the operator and not the tools. Some people are born to mix and some aren't. There are some elements to great sounding mixes that just can't be learned or practiced on. You have to have these things already. Lots of people produce records but only certain producers set themselvers apart. Same goes for the singers, writers, musicians etc.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
wider mixes can be worse, better, or just different

wider mixes can be worse, better, or just different but the real question is why some records sound or are just better. the music itself, as in the writing, arrangement, the performance and the artists relevancy to the marketplace today, all make up much more importance to that question than the ITB or total analog path. Great production and tracking and mixing is about experience and talent, because...... some of "the up and coming" will become great, or luck out with all the parts of a project being great and have enough talent to know not screw it up. As they become more experienced they become more consistent. Unfortunately a lot of people get a computer and discover the great power of a real studio and think they can get great results, but it's never truly great, but once in a while it's pretty darn good because of talent and luck and working with a real good artist.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Deleted 99dc753
Guest
Ok rcm you got me....sorry.

I never bought all my equipment with in mind taht I could comapre with Abbey Road Studios.

Waht I have at my side:

I can arrange and record my own stuff in a not bad way.

I can do fair to good mixes some turn out better as good but I never thought in the past 6 years taht I will compete with Chris Lord Alge who is doing 2-3 mixes a day.

I know people like CLA etc. hang around in studios since they are young guys. It never came to my mind to compete with them.

So what for every muscian is having a DAW today.

To have a fair little studio to do great demos and sometimes more.

But all this has nothing to do taht we cant get wide mixes in a DAW.

I dont get the point here is the next advise we are giving to the OP:

BUY AN SSL G+ otherwise you cant have wide mixes?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Unclenny's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrillfactor ➑️
I still hold true to the fact that its the operator and not the tools.
I have ALWAYS believed in that premise.....in whatever discipline.

Surely applies here.

Just wondering...and this has been alluded to in above comments....how much does depth apply in getting things wider?

I do like my delays.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
In some ways, realistic depth would kind of be the enemy of width. Visually and audibly any object of a given size subtends a smaller and smaller angle as it moves further away. If you, for instance, mix the drums really wide, but you treat them otherwise as through they are to sound distant, the brain will have to kind of hear that as a Godzilla sized drum kit. To get something distant realistically, it has to move closer to the center.

But, in a way, that relates to the previous comments on contrast. The things in the back, come closer to the center. The things up front move further out, and that creates a realistic sense of an arrangement of instruments in front of you, some further way and some closer up. The ones brought in by distance may provide a nice contrast to the wider, brighter, more up front widely panned stuff maybe, I dunno.

But if you want a whole mix to be fully pushed back, I would think that there would always be some auditory dissonance if it was also still very wide. Your brain would tell you that it's far back, but it would also hear it filling up the entire sound scape in front of you, which mean in real world terms either it's enormous or you are very small.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Deleted 99dc753
Guest
Just for fun I went to I tunes and listened to some stuff e.g. off Mr JJP.

I ask myself why do labels spend thousand of dollars to let it mix by a top notch engineer when it all squashed down durng mastering.

It all sounds at one level no dynamic and awfully distorted.

In this case all the nice tools Mr. JJP has at Ocean Way makes no sense anymore.

Here is my opinion:

Dear labels save your money for wider mixes and let it mix for less money in the box because all the live will be sucked out during mastering, because you piss for the loudest mix anyway.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
I agree, you'll need to have a little foresight at the pre production stage in order to aquire the sound you want to achieve when it comes to the finished product. I think it would be foolish to believe that home studio owners can compete with people who work in million dollar studios. However, I have worked in both sceranrio's. Some producers that I have worked with have sold millions of albums that where produced in; what would be regarded as a budget digital enviroment and have they have produced fantastically sounding songs.

For more width as was said earlier ,obvious thngs like panning mono sounds a little to the left and right, doubling up on "say" strings, panning them left and right and moving one of the forward slightly, using different reverbs and compression on each side will really widen the stereo field, changing the strings sound (or whatever sound) for one similar for other side will all help achieve what you want. I like my BD and SD drums in the middle, "Punchy" everything else wide as hell, that is not to say all left all right, its just got to sound wide.

Also having too many things happening at the same will clutter the mix. With R&B & Hip Hop, I believe allowing for a little bit of space between whats going on adds more emphasis to the drums and drives the track.

Last but not least, remember the Jodeci song "My heart belongs to you", it sounded like it was produced in a telephone box, but that **** was as hot as hell, give me a great song over great production all day. We can all live with a great song that is not as polished to the production standards of Dr Dre & Timbaland, but a well produced poor song is just a poor song.

Keep producing and keep writing and all the best!!!
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
RCM - Ronan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES ➑️

BUY AN SSL G+ otherwise you cant have wide mixes?
Who said that?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Deleted 99dc753
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottFreeStyle ➑️
Keep producing and keep writing and all the best!!!
And we come back to the old:

We need in first great music instead of tools.
A good song will sound good anyway and thats the main point.

Here is my view and with this I will have a long GS BREAK.

Even with the finest Massenburg Eqs and the greatest Equipment we can buy we wont get the listener to be involved in the song if it is a bad song.

We need a great song and a great arrangement in first everything else is secondary. Sad but true.....when we listen to myspace 95% **** 5% TOP and the Massenburg EQ does not turn **** into GOLD.

Why do I know this so good 95% of my enquiry come from musicians which overate their skills ... bad arranged bad played and not open for critic.
See you in a few weeks.......BYE BYE
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Here for the gear
 
functionoverform's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
well obviously if you can get it sounding right in the room and you apply some basic mic placement techniques then you're on the right track. a little tip if you're really struggling that has more than likely been posted on this forum at some point in time is to draw out or just imagine where the musicians would be playing if they were performing live. this helps to keep the instruments in their proper place. for example the kit isn't really going to be the entire length of the stage but i see plenty of people pan overheads 100% left and right. use time based effects like verb or delay to create space around the instrument instead of getting unrealistic with your imaging. if you really got a lot of **** happening with overdubs and what not you should still have some space there to bring them in and out to create complexity and give your mix the appearance of having a larger soundstage. knowing how to properly eq as well as learning to pick up on frequencies that are masking each other ect. is another thread, but maybe that common knowledge will help some people out. i do believe that getting a great mix is all about what you know not how much you spent or what's in your rack. i'm no lord alge nor do i have a hundred 1176s around here but i have gotten damn good results from fairly inexpensive gear. oh and whether it's itb or otb the application is the same and so should be the results.

fuuck the gear. use your head.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Kadden Heart's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
i've found it easy to forget relativity in my stereo image while mixing,...

some sounds are just meant to be EQ'ed and compressed more subtly, and left at a lower volume.
Panned percussive elements often seem to create quite a sense of depth to my ear.
for example a shaker, or tambourine, steel drum, etc,...

just something to pop out every once in a while and remind your ear about the width you've actually created.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Lives for gear
 
aermotor's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
This always comes up, and many people start talking about how you need higher end gear. But they continually ignore the the ongoing examples of really great mixes that were done with lesser gear and in the box in many cases. If it was the gear, then it would be impossible for there to be even a single such example, would it not?

It seems pretty clear that it's about experience, doing a LOT of experimentation to figure out what works with the equipment you have, and doing a good job tracking the performances, and of course good performances.

I'm not saying any of this because I'm Super-Mixer, since I'm definitely not. But you don't have to be Super-Mixer to realize that, if there are people out there doing great mixes in the box and fairly moderate outboard gear, then it is logically impossible to argue that it's the gear, right?

The most obvious reason why the mix wouldn't be as wide is that you have similar content on both sides. You can't have a wide mix unless the ear is hearing differences between the right and left. Some obvious ways to do that (in the very common l/r doubled parts scenario) are:

1. Make sure both sides of any doubled parts are complemetarily EQ'd, have different compression, and optimally are tracked with different amps, instruments, mics, mic positions, etc... It makes a huge difference relative to just tracking it again with all the same setup.
2. Delay one of the doubled parts by about 10 to 15ms, which will massively increase the apparent width even above and beyond #1.
3. Use an imager on sub-busses where such l/r doubled parts are sent, to remove some more remaining content that might have ended up being the same in both sides by accident.
4. Be sure to pan the sends of any reverb and delay type effects busses out of the center, and maybe use an imager on those busses after the reverb or delay, to reduce the centered content relative to the sides.
5. Use appropriate pre-delay on your reverbs, so that the attack is correctly separated from the reverb tails, which keeps the wash of reverb in the background (which can be nice) from lessening the apparent separation of the initial attack of the instruments.)

6. Mid-side type techniques. Not something I've tried, so I can't say much about it, but clearly it's one of the techniques often used, and is often what underlies imager tools and allows them to selectively lower the common center content. I think it's best to use such things on specific sub-busses than on the overall mix, but others may disagree.

You can create very wide sounding mixes like that, and it's nothing fancy that anyone can't do in a home studio. Maybe it'll still be somewhat less wide, since there are plenty more tricks I'm sure. But those fairly straightforward ones should get you a very long way there.

Really good points, thanks for those. Sometimes you need to be reminded of what you're technically trying to do.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Gear Guru
 
10 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I agree with deans list and will just add this... I've started going back to basics.

Now, I pretty much track everything mono with rare exceptions intended for specific effect (like an acoustic guitar part perhaps).

I've doing some experiments to limit myself to 24 mono tracks - and that process, for me, has brought about surprising revelations when I get to mixing. I'm getting way wider and deeper mixes.

I was a midi/synth/programmer guy for years. Started playing guitar about six months ago, just for fun, and it's totally changed the way I think about recording.

Ironically I think a big killer of wide mixes is all these stereo softsynth synth plugins. I heard it said that just creates a bigger mono, and I can attest to this in my own recordings. I always bounce these to a mono track now, per instrument.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
FadersmakmeHappy's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I think a major issue with home mixing is understanding the whole process and tracking of parts. Conversion quality is also a factor. While I am in no way about to sell off the gear in my home studio, I am beginning to accept some of my limitations and encourage others to do the same.

I use a recording studio with a great piano and board to track some of the live instrumentation I need a great room for. I can handle guitars, vocals, bass, etc at home. If its a simple organic mix.....I do it at home. If I want it to sound like a pop masterpiece I mix it on an SSL board with the outboard gear I need to get a polished sound. I get someone else's to master. They have the experience and ears and the money is well spent.

This is part of knowing your limitations and being a good producer. There is no pride lost in getting a good sound. Understanding what your limitations are is a good thing.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Panned percussive elements often seem to create quite a sense of depth to my ear. for example a shaker, or tambourine, steel drum, etc,...
That's true. I've noticed that also. I was listening to something the other day, I can't remember what it was. But there was this tamborine way off the right that sounded like it was almost behind me. It may be because a sharp, percussive, bright sound way out to the side will tend to bounce of the side walls very effectively and pretty exclusively on one side, even if you have absorption for the low end stuff on the first reflection points, and create a sense of extension out beyond the speaker sometimes.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
There are certain frequencies on hard panned instruments which seems to expand the wideness, others seems to narrow them. That said as a homerecordist I'd rather focus on the emotional impact of the song, than getting lost to compete with the sound of a top-production.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrillfactor ➑️
And i've heard mixes done by Mick G who has been mixing on high end digital platforms since the mid 90's and his mixes sound more analog/taller/deeper/wider than alot of people analog only mixes.

I still hold true to the fact that its the operator and not the tools. Some people are born to mix and some aren't. There are some elements to great sounding mixes that just can't be learned or practiced on. You have to have these things already. Lots of people produce records but only certain producers set themselvers apart. Same goes for the singers, writers, musicians etc.
Yep.

And developing the the experience through tried and tested techniques and methods, use of reverb, pre-delay's, delay, panning, eq and developing an 'ear' and 'style'.

Some engineers will just be able to do 'wide' better than others.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 111 views: 21626
Avatar for The_K_Man
The_K_Man 3rd November 2014
replies: 295 views: 73944
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 5614 views: 947208
Avatar for zachaction
zachaction 18th February 2020
replies: 1296 views: 181234
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump