Depth in Mixes

[bouldersoundguy]

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.

You lose HF to some degree at distances on the order of hundreds of feet, and even then it's more subtle than that eq shown. It's totally irrelevant to depth in the sense of front of the band versus back of the band. For distance of that type it's going to come from how you record and how you set your reverbs and delays, especially early reflections. There's a third version of distance, mic proximity effect. Things recorded close to a mic tend to cause proximity effect, a boosting of the lows and low-mids. If you do a cut in that range it can suggest that the source is not so close to a mic.

 

[FingerzAndKeyz]

1

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I might be talking out of place or saying something someone has already said. If so, disregard.

Done.

 

[Nola]

You lose HF to some degree at distances on the order of hundreds of feet, and even then it's more subtle than that eq shown. It's totally irrelevant to depth in the sense of front of the band versus back of the band. For distance of that type it's going to come from how you record and how you set your reverbs and delays, especially early reflections. There's a third version of distance, mic proximity effect. Things recorded close to a mic tend to cause proximity effect, a boosting of the lows and low-mids. If you do a cut in that range it can suggest that the source is not so close to a mic.

thanks boulder. so that sos article is kind of an extreme setting then...

 

[bouldersoundguy]

thanks boulder. so that sos article is kind of an extreme setting then...

It's something I learned from what they do with large PA systems, especially line arrays. They sometimes "shade" the eq, which means they give the upper speakers a boost in the highs. But if the loss were as bad as that curve large PAs would sound a lot worse at distance than what I've heard no matter what eq was used. Maybe if someone were a few hundred feet away in a forest the highs would sound like that. The low cut would make sense for a track recorded with a lot of proximity effect or indoors with some low resonance.

 

[mixsit]

You lose HF to some degree at distances on the order of hundreds of feet, and even then it's more subtle than that eq shown. It's totally irrelevant to depth in the sense of front of the band versus back of the band. ..[etc

thanks boulder. so that sos article is kind of an extreme setting then...

Gees. This'is been 'done' said a week ago-- page one. Did you ever do it?-- check it out as was suggested then.

 

[mixsit]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en..._occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Calculation method of absorption of sound by atmosphere air damping dissipation absorbtion high frequencies attenuation sound during propagation outdoors outdoor - sengpielaudio Sengpiel Berlin
Sengpielaudio.com is a real good one to have around. There's a mess of good tools, solutions there.