Giving a song depth

[Christopher_xo]

Hey all,

After listening to my recordings and then to other artist recordings, I notice one irritating thing, my recordings sound empty, not full....

How can I mix and match a mix to make it sound full and not empty....

 

[joeym]

How about posting a sample in the mp3 clinic? No-one can give you any advice before they hear what you mean.

 

[pathdoc]

One thing for sure is work towards making each song dynamic. Don't be affraid to drop a guitar track out during one of the verses so when the chorus comes around and the guitar returns it really sounds bigger. Small things like this can really add dynamics to a song. Other places usually used in the song to build dynamics include the bridge which can be really light on instruments or really really heavy.
Also make sure you are using the stereo image and not just running each track up the middle which in really just a mono recording. Try panning things around. Experiment and see if that helps.

 

[Bristol Posse]

One thing I've started thinking about is depth in a real live acoustic performance and the physical effect of distance on sound at different distances.
When we mic stuff it's usually up close, that's not how you hear things in a real setting


If you look at bluegrass, the vocalist is up front with the guitar, bass and drums etc are further away. Quite often when there is an instrument solo that instrumentalist steps forward to be front and center and the backing instrumentalists instinctively play a little softer.
This variation in distance has an effect on the sound. things in the backgground have slightly less high end (It takes more energy to push a higher frequency through the air and they run out of energy faster than low frequency)
Often in home recording, because we don't have big live rooms, everything is pretty close mic'd and so sounds as it would if you had your ear 6 inches away from every element that is playing which also could not happen in an accoustic setting
I'm starting to think low pass filters are underated. Everyone wants lots of air on everything but that's not really how things sound. Just like if you have too much low end everything sounds muddy and the bass elements can't cut through. if everything is shimmering full of air how can anything shine through.

 

[MikeDesert]

some reverb, some compression, some EQing and getting it mastered (or using mastering software like iZotope Ozone 4)

 

[jlewis]

some reverb, some compression, some EQing and getting it mastered (or using mastering software like iZotope Ozone 4)

but be careful, you can go overboard easily with these things, there is a thread a few under this one that talks about how 'less is more' in regards to that stuff

 

[DrewPeterson7]

but be careful, you can go overboard easily with these things, there is a thread a few under this one that talks about how 'less is more' in regards to that stuff

Alternately, too much compression and too heavy-handed EQing could be exactly WHY everything sounds "empty."

Christopher - really, man, some clips would go a long way here. Describing a mix as "empty, not full" after describing it as not having "depth" just confuses me - I have no idea what exactly you're talking about. Hearing firsthand would do wonders.

There's no magic recipe to recording and mixing a good track, so it's not as easy as "oh, do this, this, this, this, this, and use this plugin, and then your mix will sound 'full.'" If you want good constructive criticism, some idea of what the end product sounds like, as well as how you got there would REALLY help us.

 

[dobro]

Alternately, too much compression and too heavy-handed EQing could be exactly WHY everything sounds "empty."

Exactly. A couple posts above, Bristol Posse was talking about the value of leaving some low end in tracks. Of course, you have to make sure that leaving low end in doesn't make the mix muddy, but I've noticed, listening to the mixes I first did ten years ago, that I often EQ'ed so much mud out of tracks that the result was a bit bright and unnatural. To be precise, it isn't the lows that caused this, it was the low mids. When I started mixing ten years ago, everybody was all like 'careful of those low mids, Eugene - they'll muddy up a mix faster than a muddy thing'. Make your cuts, but don't take out too much.

 

[mixsit]

Exactly. A couple posts above, Bristol Posse was talking about the value of leaving some low end in tracks. Of course, you have to make sure that leaving low end in doesn't make the mix muddy, but I've noticed, listening to the mixes I first did ten years ago, that I often EQ'ed so much mud out of tracks that the result was a bit bright and unnatural. To be precise, it isn't the lows that caused this, it was the low mids. When I started mixing ten years ago, everybody was all like 'careful of those low mids, Eugene - they'll muddy up a mix faster than a muddy thing'. Make your cuts, but don't take out too much.

Though I'd like to know what OP meant as 'empty, Big yes for Bristol, and you there.
And in point of recent example- I've done two recent 'lives of our Wed night acoustic band, covering 5-6 pieces + vocals. One, with 3 condensers and an re20 at moderate distances (working the mics' a bit, mics doing double+ duties) all in a smaller but nice lively sounding living room, no treatment. The other, 11 mics (all 'close) in my reasonably sound treated/gobo'ed room.
Three lessons (relearned) here. a) With 'close mics both tone and volume are less forgiving of mike technique/error. (Sub lesson- phase issues suck ) b) Proximity adds unnatural size', = more eq' and other fixes.
c) The first recording is deeper', more fun to hear, and easier to mix (and I don't mean just the time due to there being less options'.
Contrast = depth.
Even at the greater working distances there are/were enough 'direct info, in addition to there being more depth' cues.