I dont even know if this is possible but a thought came to me.... I really like when I hear mixes that feel three dimensional, like to where it's not just a flat plane where the usual drums, bass and vocals are centered, guitars, keys panned left and right etc, but to where there's a more forward to back separation too. I know some techniques are used like reverb delay and eq, but I was wondering if you could use surround plugins to say, move the vocals slightly forward or even put a Synth slightly behind you. While still having a stereo mix. I'm thinking subtlety, I know too much might mess up the mix and of course I'd want it to still translate well I'm mono. I've never messed with surround anything, so I don't know where to start of it this idea will even work , what do u think?
Depth in stereo mixes by using surround?
- Thread starter 4140
- Start date
garww
New member
Probably not, but you may find something that can work.
It's still a matter of placement in a reflective sound field, going say, backup vocals recorded a long distance from the stereo MICS, or, doing that with rack gear. What causes the eyes to look up and down, also. There is also frequency shifting. The in your face vocal can be dry and have mids up a bit. The midrange in my monitoring is set up a bit to help me define that limit. Everything else is "degraded" sonically, in comparison (broadly speaking)
I'd just dive in, see how bad you can make it sound, and then, try to bring parts into perspective one at a time.
It's still a matter of placement in a reflective sound field, going say, backup vocals recorded a long distance from the stereo MICS, or, doing that with rack gear. What causes the eyes to look up and down, also. There is also frequency shifting. The in your face vocal can be dry and have mids up a bit. The midrange in my monitoring is set up a bit to help me define that limit. Everything else is "degraded" sonically, in comparison (broadly speaking)
I'd just dive in, see how bad you can make it sound, and then, try to bring parts into perspective one at a time.
secretsound5
NO MUSIC = NO LIFE
Waves has a plugin, the Brauer Motion Machine that should do it.
AFAIK the human ear has no mechanism for detecting sound positions in the Z axis? We can detect sounds around us and even above and below (if the . speakers are put there but the only clue we would have for 'near and far' would be relative loudness. Perspective in pictures is the same, we have no way to tell if a teacup is normal sized or a huge one far away unless it is beside something, a London bus say that we are sure of the dimensions of.
This all does not of course stop reviewers of monitors writing about 'seeing into the mix' so I could be wrong?
Dave.
This all does not of course stop reviewers of monitors writing about 'seeing into the mix' so I could be wrong?
Dave.
leddy
Well-known member
It goes beyond volume. We can perceive distance cues by reverb. When something is up front in the image there will be more direct sound and less indirect. Something far away will have less direct sound and more indirect. The brain hears these cues (whether real or artificially added) and perceives depth.
I can stand 2 feet in front of you and whisper while a drum set bashes away 50 feet behind me. Volume won't help your brain sort that out as much as spacial cues from the reflections.
Last edited:
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
The best way to get "depth" and "space" in a mix is to use depth and space.
If you track everything from one foot away, the mix - no matter how wide you pan everything - will seem to lack that "3rd dimension" -- You can add verbs and delays and room simulations and what not, but the mic still heard what the mic heard. And what the mic hears from a foot away is totally different than what it hears from 6 or 12 feet away.
If you track everything from one foot away, the mix - no matter how wide you pan everything - will seem to lack that "3rd dimension" -- You can add verbs and delays and room simulations and what not, but the mic still heard what the mic heard. And what the mic hears from a foot away is totally different than what it hears from 6 or 12 feet away.
Nola
Well-known member
That's correct, but many HRs can't record a foot away without nasty room noise.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Ah - But that's why they need to understand why their room acoustics are so vital.
Nola
Well-known member
I know, but for many it's impractical or a lease violation if renting.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I've done the blanket tent thing, even posted some pics in previous threads, showing how I build it...but not because of any neighbor issues, I mean, I can play as loud as I want...it was more to minimize the room noise when the AC was going or the tape deck motors, if I had the mic gain way up.
Anyway...I agree that a couple of feet makes a noticeable difference from close miking, like up against the speaker grill.
While you can apply space/reverb/delay after tracking, it's different when you do it to a very close-miked source VS something distant. Even with the mic at 10 feet away, you're not going to get a big hall sound naturally, but then applying reverb to a more distant miked source makes it more realistic, than when applied to a close miked source.
I know that might be hard in some home rec situations, but it just what it is.
To get back to the OP...one of the ways to add some space/depth is to mix up the processing...IOW....100% dry tracks will feel up front, and then you can also add panning as needed. Then you do some tracks with a bit of wetness...and then maybe a couple with additional reverb/delay times. The mix of those tracks will give you a few layers of space/depth....and again, with panning, you also incorporate width.
The last thing is the vertical height, which is trickier in a basic stereo setup, but usually low frequencies tend to drop down more than higher frequencies. When you have a high-octave piano part, it always feels like it floats higher, above the low content material...etc..etc.
Thanks for the replies, everyone. What gave me the idea in the first place was a sample I heard, I was going thru some Synth sounds (I forgot where exactly it is now or else I'd upload it), anyway, there was this loop that literally swirled around my head... 360 degrees, in my stereo headphones... So it made me think how it was done....
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
There are ways to make things sound like they're coming from behind us, but it involves very careful filtering and some phase fuckery and only really works well under tightly controlled playback circumstances. The problem there being that in other playback situation the effect will either be totally lost, or actually make it sound really weird.
If you really want to play with it, look up things like ambisonics, HRTF, binaural recording.
If you really want to play with it, look up things like ambisonics, HRTF, binaural recording.
Found this article too, Add Depth to your Mix | JustMastering.com
The plugin from Tokio Dawn claims to be like a pan pot for front to back, I'll check it out and let u know....
The plugin from Tokio Dawn claims to be like a pan pot for front to back, I'll check it out and let u know....
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
Video games have been doing these things for some time and have gotten pretty good. The science is pretty well established. It still only really works on headphones, which is I think why we don't see that tech developed into decent audio tools. Well, not so many user-friendly plugins anyway.
I honestly don't believe that this is really the way to go if you want to get people to rave about the depth in your mixes, though. What creates a sense of depth is contrast. Darker sounds contrasted against brighter sounds. Wetter sounds against drier sounds. Squished sounds versus dynamic sounds. Like all things it should start at the arrangement stage - when you're deciding what instrument is going to play what when - and then you track (or create) sounds that support those decisions, and then you mix it and try not to fuck it up.
Nerdy stuff is fun, but all you need to create really deep mixes is the same basic EQ, comp, and verb that everybody else uses and a good ear.
I honestly don't believe that this is really the way to go if you want to get people to rave about the depth in your mixes, though. What creates a sense of depth is contrast. Darker sounds contrasted against brighter sounds. Wetter sounds against drier sounds. Squished sounds versus dynamic sounds. Like all things it should start at the arrangement stage - when you're deciding what instrument is going to play what when - and then you track (or create) sounds that support those decisions, and then you mix it and try not to fuck it up.
Nerdy stuff is fun, but all you need to create really deep mixes is the same basic EQ, comp, and verb that everybody else uses and a good ear.
Video games have been doing these things for some time and have gotten pretty good. The science is pretty well established. It still only really works on headphones, which is I think why we don't see that tech developed into decent audio tools. Well, not so many user-friendly plugins anyway.
I honestly don't believe that this is really the way to go if you want to get people to rave about the depth in your mixes, though. What creates a sense of depth is contrast. Darker sounds contrasted against brighter sounds. Wetter sounds against drier sounds. Squished sounds versus dynamic sounds. Like all things it should start at the arrangement stage - when you're deciding what instrument is going to play what when - and then you track (or create) sounds that support those decisions, and then you mix it and try not to fuck it up.
Nerdy stuff is fun, but all you need to create really deep mixes is the same basic EQ, comp, and verb that everybody else uses and a good ear.
I can dig that, thanks man
I am still sceptical. I can just about see the 'reverb' argument (link to data please) but I cannot se how on earth you can add artificial cues in that way? A 'real space' is a real space. Maybe some impulse technique could work?
Dave.