The BIG Thread

Uladine

Uladine

New member
We all strive to make mixes that sound "big", but usually it seems kind of hit or miss. Are there any certain formulas for making something sound absolutely enormous? Is it EQ? Reverb? Gain Staging? Dynamics? Something in the tracking stage? Or likely all of the above? Anyone have any certain techniques they like to employ when going for a huge mix?

I apologize if there has already been a thread like this, I did a search and couldn't find one.
 
I would say the right reverb is a big part of it. For me the key is to get the bass right, so the kick hits and the bass booms without muddying the rest of the mix. This is also the most difficult thing for me to achieve. Hopefully when I finish up my room treatment I'll will help some. As it is the low end is a total nightmare for me.:(
 
I've never been able to get anywhere close to a big sound without having a nice room to work with. A heavily limited room mic in a lively room is like having a "huge" knob for the drum mix. Panning a guitar's room mic to one side and having the close mic on the other can widen things up tremendously.

You can try and fake the sound with reverb but it never sounds the same to me.
 
Probably 75% of the mixes I hear where the engineer is complaining about a lack of "big" were tracked too hot.

Or just plain wrong...

Every recording is 90% tracking. If it doesn't sound (realistically) "big" on the way in, it probably isn't going to sound "big" on the way out.
 
Last edited:
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I have no idea what this thread is about. :o

G.
Click to expand...

apparent BIGness...

how BIG are YOU?

....................................................................

"big" like the spector wall-of-sound?

or "big" like "la vida loca", where material was mixed to within a micron of 0db?

a
 
toobalicious said:
how BIG are YOU?
Click to expand...
That'll cost you a nice 3rd date dinner to find out, big boy! ;) :D
toobalicious said:
"big" like the spector wall-of-sound?

or "big" like "la vida loca", where material was mixed to within a micron of 0db?
a
Click to expand...
Or BIG like meaning big fat bass, or BIG like meaning -3dBFS RMS, or BIG like meaning two drummers, a 5-piece horn section and three female backup vocalists, or BIG like meaning a wide stage that fills the playback room, or BIG like meaning it sounds like they are playing in Notre Dame cathedral, or BIG like meaning that the listener's favorite hook or instrument track is up front and smacking him in the face, or...

I think Massive is absolutely right, that what ever one may define as "BIG" is rarely created in the control room or mastering suite, but rather in the performance, arrangement and tracking. I'm just not sure which definition of BIG we're actually talking about here.

G.
 
big like the vertical span of the soundstage when you listen on speakers is what i always listen for.
 
Can't say I know how to get there directly, but one aspect would be to allow some things to be smaller or distant perhaps, relative to the limited stage space available. (Listed to The Doors 'Strange Days last night- (excuse me that was--) 'When the Music's Over' and some of the others go there. Mono drums (center focus), modest sizes on the guit and keys, lots of space left for a huge backdrop. :) It's an illusion.
This could be the opposite tack of going for everything big/in your face.
 
Last edited:
I think the kind of "big" you're making reference to ... usually has a lot more to do with arrangement, and just overall being smart / economical about your track count. i.e. only using or adding tracks that contribute to the perceived "size" of the mix rather than cluttering it up.

When all of the tracks in the arrangement compliment one another rather than compete ... then you usually wind up with a larger-sounding end product. When tracks compete, then you generally wind up with a product that is smaller than the sum of it's parts. If that makes any sense.
 
Daisy said:
I think the kind of "big" you're making reference to ... usually has a lot more to do with arrangement, and just overall being smart / economical about your track count. i.e. only using or adding tracks that contribute to the perceived "size" of the mix rather than cluttering it up.

When all of the tracks in the arrangement compliment one another rather than compete ... then you usually wind up with a larger-sounding end product. When tracks compete, then you generally wind up with a product that is smaller than the sum of it's parts. If that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

As in my reference? Yes that makes perfect sense. A good analogy.
 
This all makes a lot of sense. As for my definition of big, it's kind of hard to describe. It's almost like in a sense of space, but then I've heard "big" mixes where everything seemed apparently dry, with little to no ambience. I'm thinking the low end has a lot to do with this effect. I'm definitely going to have to try that heavily limited room mic on drums sometime. Thanks TexRoadkill!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top