Depth in Mixes

[Nola]

I'm kind of obsessed with depth. Width is pretty easy, and in general I don't like the sound of things panned wide, but to me depth is where great separation occurs and it's a lot harder. I always mix in mono to try to get separation that way first before panning, but I don't know..I kind of hit a wall with the depth I'm getting in mixes.

I've been reading these articles and others and putting the stuff they say into practice:
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb09/articles/deepspace.htm
13 Advanced Concepts for Creating Depth in a Mix

I'm curious what you guys think of the articles, what you do to achieve depth, etc.

Also, the article mentions to high pass AND low pass instruments you want further back, but I notice when I do this the mix gets muddy quickly (removing the high end does it, which makes sense, but they say to remove high end from everything you want further back). Like if I remove the high end from a floor tom and it sounds like 1960s velvet underground drums, which is cool, but sounds more lo-fi than far away.

An instrument like an organ that requires some high end to sound normal suddenly sounds further away and really odd when I remove the high end. The article doesn't mention that at all, but I'd be curious to hear solutions to that, too...like how to make an instrument that needs high end sound far away.

Oh, and what about distorted guitars? It's hard to get them audible yet far away because of all the compression/saturation from the distortion. Would you say removing the high end and just lowing them is the answer? Reverb sounds weird to me on distorted guitar so i don't think that's the answer.

Thanks everyone

 

[Massive Master]

IME, there's no better way to achieve depth than to have depth.

The mic hears something completely different from a few more feet away...

 

[jimmys69]

I'm kind of obsessed with depth. Width is pretty easy, and in general I don't like the sound of things panned wide, but to me depth is where great separation occurs and it's a lot harder. I always mix in mono to try to get separation that way first before panning, but I don't know..I kind of hit a wall with the depth I'm getting in mixes.

I've been reading these articles and others and putting the stuff they say into practice:
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb09/articles/deepspace.htm
13 Advanced Concepts for Creating Depth in a Mix

I'm curious what you guys think of the articles, what you do to achieve depth, etc.

Also, the article mentions to high pass AND low pass instruments you want further back, but I notice when I do this the mix gets muddy quickly (removing the high end does it, which makes sense, but they say to remove high end from everything you want further back). Like if I remove the high end from a floor tom and it sounds like 1960s velvet underground drums, which is cool, but sounds more lo-fi than far away.

An instrument like an organ that requires some high end to sound normal suddenly sounds further away and really odd when I remove the high end. The article doesn't mention that at all, but I'd be curious to hear solutions to that, too...like how to make an instrument that needs high end sound far away.

Oh, and what about distorted guitars? It's hard to get them audible yet far away because of all the compression/saturation from the distortion. Would you say removing the high end and just lowing them is the answer? Reverb sounds weird to me on distorted guitar so i don't think that's the answer.

Thanks everyone

From those articles, where did you read that taking high end out creates depth? There are some instruments that might need a bit of eq control but I can't recall anytime that I have used a LPF for anything other than fixing something like a movie clip taken from YouTube or a really poorly recorded track by someone else. Get it right at the source and the issues are not issues.

High pass filters are a regular thing for me with most instruments or vocals. There is no one setting for everything but if there is crap in there that you don't need for the mix, get rid of it. I would say depth is something that is achieved with layers of instruments that fit in the space.

Massive M is right. You achieve depth by having depth. It is not really a fix or effect that will do that for you. Though don't get me wrong, verb and delays can help there but the most important thing to get that full 3D/depth in a mix is really dependent on the composition and the quality of the things that are recorded for it.

I remember when I first started recording at home and I friggen hated responses like I just gave. I wanted the magic answer. The 'secret' to great everything. Over time you will realize that is the little things that end up giving you the 'secret' answer. It starts with the instrument, the room, the mic, and the performance. Lack in any of these and the tail chasing begins..

 

[Nola]

From those articles, where did you read that taking high end out creates depth?

hi jimmy. the 2nd paragraph of the sos article:

If you want to place something at the back of the mix, it not only needs to be quieter than the up‑front sounds: it also needs to have less top end, to emulate the way air absorbs high frequencies.

they should a graph on the right of their eq and it has the top and low end cut off.

 

[mixsit]

hi jimmy. the 2nd paragraph of the sos article:

If you want to place something at the back of the mix, it not only needs to be quieter than the up‑front sounds: it also needs to have less top end, to emulate the way air absorbs high frequencies.

they should a graph on the right of their eq and it has the top and low end cut off.

Admittedly the 'cut highs' is a popular notion, probably to some degree perhaps useful in a mix to help simulate distance (I guess.
But look uo the numbers. Most of what we'd refer to as 'mix depths' (shall we look at it as depth or our 'sound stage'?).. is in tens of feet.
Now look up 'Air absorption by frequencies and distances.
You'll be surprised, and it'll be obvious why you're getting off track.. here for example

An instrument like an organ that requires some high end to sound normal suddenly sounds further away and really odd when I remove the high end. The article doesn't mention that at all, but I'd be curious to hear solutions to that, too...like how to make an instrument that needs high end sound far away.
Thanks everyone

 

[Nola]

Admittedly the 'cut highs' is a popular notion, probably to some degree perhaps useful in a mix to help simulate distance (I guess.
But look uo the numbers. Most of what we'd refer to as 'mix depths' (shall we look at it as depth or our 'sound stage'?).. is in tens of feet.
Now look up 'Air absorption by frequencies and distances.
You'll be surprised, and it'll be obvious why you're getting off track.. here for example

thanks mixsit. so are you saying the soundstage or mix depth is small enough where we shouldn't and wouldn't really notice the loss of high frequency?

that makes sense. so maybe a solution would be to roll off only the very upper frequencies on the things you want further back, like 10k and higher?

 

[mixsit]

Check this out, from the second of your links.

"I almost never cut the high out of sounds I want in the back, unless they have a ton of highs that I need to get rid of. A big reason is because I’m usually adding some mids and higs to things I want to sit up front (ie Vocals and Drums). This automatically makes other things sound dull and means that you might not have to cut the highs from those other instruments."
Yes-- if they have too much highs anyway, and then that's fixing tone balance isn't it. :>)

In the SOS link, wow. A very drastic 'high cut eq, listed as one of their first in their 'list of things to do to make depth'? Ii you take that by weight of effectiveness? That's sort of upside down.

 

[Nola]

In the SOS link, wow. A very drastic 'high cut eq, listed as one of their first in their 'list of things to do to make depth'? Ii you take that by weight of effectiveness? That's sort of upside down.

I agree that SOS article seemed weird. When I tried it the organ suddenly sounded like crap, not far away but just bad. It needs that high end. Maybe trimming a tiny bit makes sense but even that begins to sound odd. SOS is usually pretty good, imo, so I don't know what happened in that article.

I guess I'll just keep in mind that cutting highs can potentially create distance, but might sound weird so isn't a great method.

I don't really have the option to create distance at the source b/c my room is awful. I have to mic everything closely or even go ITB. Treating the room isn't really an option nor something I know how to do, and I don't have hundreds of $ to do it, so it's all moot. I have to try more to get creative and give an illusion of depth. I was hoping for tips on that b/c I know if I had a good room or could afford to build one, then I'd just move a mic back.

Thanks everyone. Hopefully more people give tips.

 

[mixsit]

thanks mixsit. so are you saying the soundstage or mix depth is small enough where we shouldn't and wouldn't really notice the loss of high frequency?

that makes sense. so maybe a solution would be to roll off only the very upper frequencies on the things you want further back, like 10k and higher?

Google it. Really it'll put it in perspective- which all we're shooting for here.
Last time I went to an orchestra concert, I could here very nice high freq detail- from the back of the hall.
And-- tip-- I could discern the direct line of site sound details (with their nice high details),, and the reflected effects off the hall- walls etc. Those would be 'duller- because they have absorption losses and-- they are 'detached in time-- easily distinguishable from the sources; one of the Haas localization effects.

 

[mixsit]

...
I don't really have the option to create distance at the source b/c my room is awful. I have to mic everything closely or even go ITB. Treating the room isn't really an option nor something I know how to do, and I don't have hundreds of $ to do it, so it's all moot. I have to try more to get creative and give an illusion of depth. I was hoping for tips on that b/c I know if I had a good room or could afford to build one, then I'd just move a mic back.

Thanks everyone. Hopefully more people give tips.

The next best thing(s)
Close mic; get the low-low mid in shape (as needed) to un-do the proximity effect.
As one of the traits of a mic farther back also includes 'ambiance cues (reflections etc) - that is where small doses of close (or 'early) reflection portions of reverb- or just the right medium size reverb come in.
Rule of thumb; 'Source with (or 'in) reflections = source farther back.
Same reflections but pre-delayed = source dry = source up front', verb/room behind it. Or any blend anywhere between the two

 

[andrushkiwt]

It sounds like you're taking the article to mean "everything that isn't directly in front needs a LPF to sit in the back". I read this article quite awhile ago. Use this advice for things like background vocals...not toms. If the highest frequencies are associated with the airy sound, then removing those airy sounds makes it sound further away, right? Just don't go overboard with it and put it on everything! Be very selective with it. Of course if you put it on your toms and this or that the whole mix will sound muddy...so just be smart about what you are using it on. Only things that definitely need to be in the background. Of course, like they said before me, standing further away from the mic on background vocals is good too.

 

[Raz Klinghoffer]

Depth is created by a great mixes , no formula, choosing the right sounds and mix them properly creates depth, and it's not a simple element of eq, compression or reverb.

It's really hard to explain I was looking for a formula myself but as I kept going depth started to merge without doing anything special.

 

[jkuehlin]

Massive M is right. You achieve depth by having depth. It is not really a fix or effect that will do that for you. Though don't get me wrong, verb and delays can help there but the most important thing to get that full 3D/depth in a mix is really dependent on the composition and the quality of the things that are recorded for it.

I don't know if I completely agree with this. Manipulating the actual proximity of a source to a mic can sometimes be a very bad idea. Manipulating the actual proximity of the source to a differing mic (which is designed with a longer range), maybe. If anything, mic the source at various distances then blend the detail of the close mics with the 'spacyness' of the room mics. (this is assuming your mixing music and not sound FX). But I would never compromise detail at for proximity, simply for the sake of depth.

Nola, use different delay times with different EQs on each delay, and return them to different places in the stereo spectrum. That'll give you depth. Study Hass theory (which has to do with how our ears perceive virtual distance in a mix). Work with Mid/Side compression and EQing, that'll allow you to move elements forward and back in a mix. Contrary to common belief, m/s processing does not just arrange things side to side. Also learn how to stack and layer reverbs in parallel and series. Even across the bus sends on your console. Learn what compressors work on the tails of some reverbs vs the early reflections of the others. Also, if you have a high quality algorhytmic reverb, and you need it to manipulate depth, experiment with the way some of your outboard hardware units imprint a sonic signature on the reverb tales. The frequency dialogue I'm hearing is more of a height discussion than a depth discussion imo.

Hope this helps.

 

[Massive Master]

Haas is faking width (with certain adjustments, you can "fake" depth also). But it's still not the same as mic'ing at various distances.... The source signal is not (and will not be) the same. Extreme transient signals show this the most of course (triangle, tambourine, etc.), but the same occurs with basically anything that produces sound.

Capture everything from 1' away, expect the mix to sound 1' deep (well, sometimes with a reverb or other time-based function added post-capture). This is why just about every studio on the planet puts so much effort and expense into their tracking spaces.

 

[jkuehlin]

Yeah, Hass is faking width. Applying a wet reverb with a long tail is also faking depth. Faking is ok. And Haas is a technique people need to have some understanding of. No engineer should be without this in the arsenal of tactics. In and of itself, sure. It's not going to save you. My point was diversifying the vocabulary of depth enhancing tactics.

I do agree about the depth. Pumping a mixdown through a PA soley for the purposes of capturing a room could be called 'faking' depth, but it's a pretty smart way of doing it if you know how to pull it off. Again I agree that micing at various distances is huge, as long as the detail close mics can give you is not compromised when you pull the mics back. In other words, it's wise to catch them both even if you don't use both. At times when this is not possible, you need another way to fake it.

 

[Massive Master]

I get that -- But then everyone goes "I've tried [this and that and the other thing] and it just doesn't quite sound the same" --

And that's why.

The same as true bokeh on a fine lens vs. photo-shop blurring the background of an image. The former has a visual perception of depth that's natural and lovely when done properly. The latter is a "reasonably effective substitute" that will never truly capture what the lens would've seen.

 

[jkuehlin]

Ah. yes. Point taken.

For some crazy reason there's two sources that come to mind when discussing this. Drums of course, and choirs. I've done a bunch of them. Byzantine chanters, anglican boy choirs, gospel choirs, southern baptist choirs, even college choral groups...you name it, I've probably tracked one.

It took me years to realize this, but when you're in a giant stone cathedral, to me, the source is the resonant cavity in the front of the sanctuary. Not really the voices.

I was watching a video by Eric Sarafin just last night. He talked about how the drum overheads really give you the 3 dimensional picture of a drum kit and the near mics kind of fill in the missing parts. My approach to choirs and depth is kind of the same. I want the close mic, but the stereo room mics are doing the majority of the work. I guess I think its very true that you can't manufacture the perception of depth in the way that a good mic can authentically capture it. Manufactured depth is still a valuable tool...I mean you need good reverbs (and many of them) on a lead vocal. Loose your room verbs and the detail in your early reflections and you loose width as well as depth. But you often need to have some control of the ambience to sit it in the mix properly.

Haha...your comment about 'I've tried this and that and it doesn't quite sound the same' was quite on the money when I thought about it some more. I guess you have to start with the end in mind. If you know you want a cathedral sound on a choir, record it in a dang cathedral. Don't rely on a convolution if you have a choice. No substitute. True that.

 

[Nola]

I'd definitely mic things further away if i had a real studio or even a decent room, but it's an apartment with bad acoustics. :/
I'm going to try to get the room to sound better, but I doubt much can save it.

I tried recording DI guitar last night and trying to add depth to it...holy cow is that hard to do. Thing is, it started to happen, but I could still hear the "chime" of the pickup and it sounded extremely up close, even though the notes began to sound far away. It was so odd.

 

[johnny shnizz]

i usually achieve more depth by using a fitting reverb for a given situation and dial it in more or less. lowering the high end can help, but i wouldn´t filter it. a wide high shelf would do better imo because you don´t get rid of all high end information that way.

 

[jkuehlin]

I'd definitely mic things further away if i had a real studio or even a decent room, but it's an apartment with bad acoustics. :/

Don't sweat it. Even if you had a room with stellar acoustics, you still need a mic with a minimal proximity effect. Mics have different ranges (if I can call them that). Apartment with bad acoustics, you may want to go direct. Ni guitar rig? Kemper profiler? 2 notes torpedo? I personally can't use any of them for anything more than drafts and concept demos but I might attempt it if I had no other option.

I'm going to try to get the room to sound better, but I doubt much can save it.

screw it. Save your money. Don't bother. I mean room really matters. The room is an extension of your monitoring, and you can't mix something in your computer if you can't accurately hear it. What I'm saying is don't spend time polishing turds unless you have to. Apartments are not designed to be recording spaces lol. Call a spade a spade and wait for the opportunity to draw a different hand

I tried recording DI guitar last night and trying to add depth to it...holy cow is that hard to do. Thing is, it started to happen, but I could still hear the "chime" of the pickup and it sounded extremely up close, even though the notes began to sound far away. It was so odd.

The point of recording a guitar directly is usually for re-amping. Check it out if you get a chance.