Collapsed Stereo Image

Suppose you’ve hard-panned a number of tracks, but your mix still doesn’t sound as wide as you’d like. What’s wrong with this psychoacoustic picture?

Your hard-panned tracks might have too much bottom end. Bass frequencies are inherently omnidirectional, meaning it’s hard for the human ear to determine where they originate. That’s because bass frequencies have long wavelengths, and easily wrap around the listener’s head to either ear with minimal phase difference.

From a stereo-field perspective, tracks that are panned hard left and hard right are potentially the most directional elements of a mix, whereas center-panned tracks are the least directional. The more the prominent omnidirectional bass frequencies are in hard-panned tracks, the more the hard-panned tracks’ perceived positions in the stereo field get pulled toward the center. Conversely, rolling off bass frequencies on hard-panned tracks will move them farther from the center.

FIG. 6: The iZotope Ozone 3 plug-in bundle includes a Multiband Stereo Imaging component that can independently widen the stereo image of up to four frequency bands of a track.

There is no magic frequency at which omnidirectionality occurs. Sound becomes progressively more omnidirectional as its frequency gets lower. So the lower in frequency the bass content of a panned track, the more it will move toward the center (assuming that the high frequencies also present in the track don’t compensate). Even hard-panned tracks with a lot of low-midrange frequency content will move slightly toward the center image.

To make a mix sound wider, try rolling off the bass and possibly some low-midrange frequencies on hard-panned tracks. Also, hard-pan tracks with lots of high-frequency content — such as cymbals, shaker, and piccolos — to gain more apparent width. If you still need more width in your production, running a single stereo track through a stereo-imaging plug-in such as Waves S1 Stereo Shuffler or iZotope Multiband Stereo Imaging (which is part of the Ozone 3 multicomponent plug-in bundle) will do the trick nicely. Be judicious, however; using this kind of processing on multiple tracks or on an entire mix can quickly make your production swim in a washy, diffuse soup (see Figs. 5 and 6).

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

Adding reverb to a mix is a great way to make it sound bigger. The larger the implied acoustic space, the more depth and width the production takes on. But running virtually everything through reverb in an attempt to make the mix sound huge is a common mistake of neophyte mix engineers.

Something can sound big only if something else sounds small. In part, it’s the contrast between close-up and far away that gives a mix depth. (The nuance captured by superior mics and mic preamps is another contributing factor, but that’s a discussion best left for another article.)

When many tracks are drowning in reverb, everything begins to sound indeterminately far away, and there is not enough of an anchor for the brain to get a picture of what is psychoacoustically up-close. Not only has depth gone out the window at that point, but the mix also takes on a washy character dominated by diffuse echoes that blanket any semblance of detail and punch.

One solution, of course, is to make some tracks very dry. You might even need to make a lot of tracks completely dry in order to attain the depth you desire. Instruments that produce inherently sustained or reverberant sounds, like cymbals and strummed acoustic guitars, often benefit by turning their reverb sends way down or completely off. That’s especially true of dense arrangements that are prone to drown in ambient soup. The acoustic guitar already supplies built-in reverb from the resonating chamber that is its body. Piling on a bunch of additional reverb makes little sense, unless that instrument is being played in short, percussive bursts such as during a largely monophonic introduction or solo.

Despite the foregoing, there are instances where a healthy dose of time-based effects is needed to create the desired sonic landscape. In such cases, try adding predelay to some of your reverbs, or try substituting single echoes or multitap delays for reverb effects. These alternatives allow the dry signal to voice before the effect kicks in, giving a front-to-back effect in the soundstage that can really enhance perceived depth while preserving detail.

Another remedy for a washy mix is to eliminate one of the channels of a stereo track, thereby reducing that track to mono. Converting most of your stereo tracks to mono will help provide the pinpoint imaging that is a remedy for a washy mix. Conversely, using a lot of tracks that were recorded with spaced-pair stereo-miking is a recipe for mud soup. Each of those tracks is a rendering of an instrument playing in an acoustic space, and simply panning them differently to separate them won’t necessarily lend focus and depth to your mix.

Panning a few stereo tracks across the stereo field is a common strategy. But if you pan one stereo track hard left and at ten o’clock (for left and right channels, respectively), another at ten and two o’clock, and a third at two o’clock and hard right, what have you accomplished? You now have three small rooms in a left-center-right arrangement superimposed over whatever other acoustic spaces are implied by added reverb on other tracks. No wonder the mix sounds washy!

In summary, to clean up a washy mix: Keep a number of your tracks mostly or completely dry. Mute one side of one or more stereo tracks. And use discrete delays and reverb predelays to create depth without sacrificing detail.

FIG. 5: A previously rendered track of a Sonic Implants Symphonic Strings ensemble section is patched through the Waves S1 Stereo Shuffler plug-in to increase its stereo width and create a dreamier sound.

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

You had high hopes for your new power-pop ballad, but something is holding it back. Your tracks were all captured with plenty of dynamic range, the performances were killer, and the arrangement positively soars during the hook. Yet for some reason, the chorus just doesn’t deliver the big payoff it should in your mix. It’s time to look at your mix-bus compressor settings again.

Sometimes an engineer will set up the mix-bus compressor for a big, in-your-face sound at the beginning of mixdown, when working on relatively quiet verses, and will just assume it’s going to sound even bigger during the choruses and other climaxes. A compressor with too low of a threshold and too high of a ratio will suck the life out of the hook when it hits — sometimes the chorus will actually sound lower than the verses. Raise the compressor’s threshold and lower its ratio to no more than 2:1 to give the hooks room to explode. You might also need to back off the compressor’s attack time a bit.

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

These days, many mixes are so overcompressed that they become irritating and fatiguing to listen to after only one or two minutes. Overcompression is like a plague contaminating our industry. Make no mistake — I love stereo-bus compression, and I like my mixes loud, but there’s a big difference between pumped-up, exciting dynamics and just plain annoying noise and distortion.

The old saw about using your ears when determining how far to push mix-bus compression is all well and good, but I have a more practical suggestion: watch the crest factor on your stereo-bus meters. The crest factor is essentially the difference between peak and average levels, and keeping tabs on it is a good reality check against what ears addicted to volume might otherwise be pushing to accomplish.

Spend time listening to your favorite records — particularly those that have dynamics you’d like to emulate in your mixes — patched through the 2-track return of your mixing console or DAW, and keep a close eye on the meters. (Make sure that the meters are peak reading and set to prefader listen, and that all processing is disabled.) Note how much the meters rise above average levels during transient peaks throughout various sections of each song. Then shoot for roughly the same crest factor in your mixes. You can learn a lot by being a good meter reader.

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

A mix lacking detail will also often lack punch, or transient elements married to tightly focused bass-frequency content. When a mix’s spectral balance is already great, it can be a mistake to boost both bass and high frequencies to achieve more punch. The added highs might just make the mix sound glassy, whereas the extra bass boost could make it boomy.

FIG. 4: The Waves TransX Wide plug-in, part of the company’s Transform bundle, is set up here to deliver extra punch to a kick drum track.

Instead, use a dynamics processor to emphasize the attack portion of the low-frequency elements from which you want more punch (for example, trap drums and electric bass guitar). A solid-state, VCA-based compressor set to relatively slow attack and fast release times (start with 60 ms for each) will often do the trick.

The SPL Transient Designer, available in both 2- and 4-channel models, is an outstanding solution for increasing punch on individual tracks (see Fig. 3). This amazing analog processor uses an envelope follower to change the amplitude of the attack and release portions of an audio signal. With the twist of a single knob, the Transient Designer can greatly enhance the beater slap of a kick drum or the crack of a snare drum, and it can make a bass guitar track pop like balloons.

For reshaping transients inside the box, I often turn to the Waves TransX Wide plug-in, which is part of the Transform bundle (see Fig. 4). It offers much greater control over the attack portion of sounds than the Transient Designer but gives you no control over the release phase. TransX Wide is a surefire ticket to slammin’ drum tracks.

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

When a mix is lacking in detail, boosting high-frequency EQ is often the wrong approach. When that just creates a glassy mix without solving the problem, try cutting the upper-bass and low-midrange frequencies instead. Too much energy in these bands can create a blanket of mud that obscures a mix’s underlying transients, so try cutting between 200 and 500 Hz before boosting highs. Just be sure not to overdo it, or else you’ll end up with a thin mix and too much detail.

FIG. 3: The SPL Transient Designer can be used to increase the amplitude of the attack portion of drum tracks to create a punchier mix. The 2-channel TD2 is shown here.

Another thing to consider on a cloudy-sounding mix is whether sustained sounds such as string or synth pads are too loud. By simply lowering some or all of the tracks that exhibit minimal transients and loud average levels (sustain), percussive elements will more readily punch through. The end result will be a mix with plenty of detail that nevertheless retains its warmth because of minimal use of EQ.

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

Sometimes the timbre of specific elements of a mix (or of the whole enchilada) is a moving target. For example, the electric bass or acoustic guitar might sound boomy on some phrases yet be well balanced everywhere else in the song. The lead singer might have a shrill high register that bites your head off during the choruses, whereas the lower register sounds perfect during the verses. Or the entire mix might get edgy when, for instance, a bunch of midrange instruments pile on for one section of the song.

FIG. 2: Electric guitars sound awesome when processed with the PSP VintageWarmer 2 split-band compressor plug-in.

In these cases, static EQ settings won’t sound good throughout the song. One worthy solution, albeit a time-consuming one, is to ride the EQ on individual tracks as needed. But a quicker and sometimes more elegant-sounding fix is to slap a split-band (aka multiband) compressor on the unruly tracks — or even on the entire mix. A split-band compressor divides the audio spectrum into multiple, adjustable frequency bands so that each can be compressed independently. Examples of outstanding split-band compressors include the Tube Tech SMC-2BM (a high-end analog unit) and the Waves C4 Multiband Parametric Processor, Waves Linear Phase Multiband, and PSP VintageWarmer 2 plug-ins (see Fig. 2).

Adjust the bandwidth of one or more of the split-band compressor’s bands to include only the frequencies that exhibit large swings in level (for instance, bass frequencies that sometimes get too loud and make the mix boomy), and bypass the other bands. Then set each active band’s threshold to be at or slightly below the level where the offending frequencies begin to annoy. Adjust each active band’s ratio, attack, and release controls to taste to limit how much (if at all) the unruly frequencies can bloom above the thresholds you’ve set. With the proper settings, a split-band compressor will automatically nip large swings in spectral balance in the bud. (For more in-depth information on how to use split-band compressors, see “Let’s Split!” in the January 2004 issue of EM, available online at www.emusician.com.)

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

Of course, sometimes EQ boost is needed to make a mix sound great. You can generally get away with boosting extreme bass and high frequencies more than you can boosting midrange frequencies. That’s because the human ear is less sensitive to phase shift at the extremes of the audible spectrum. Even after boosting the bass and highs a bit, you may find that your mix still doesn’t have the huge bottom end and sparkly highs you yearn to hear.

Again, the reason may be that you’re listening at too loud a level while making EQ decisions. That’s a problem because the human ear is subject to the Fletcher-Munson effect. In plain English, this means the ear is much less sensitive to bass and high frequencies when listening at low volumes than at high volumes. (Many consumer stereos have a Bass Loudness button to compensate for this reduced sensitivity to bass frequencies at low listening levels.) Ear fatigue aside, if you adjust EQ to taste while monitoring at loud levels, your mix might not sound sparkly and thunderous enough once the playback level is turned down.

Knowing this (and to preserve my hearing), I spend most of my mixdown time with my monitors set no louder than a spirited two-way conversation, and I’ll often set them a lot lower. If I can get the mix to scintillate and thunder while listening at that low level, it is going to absolutely rock when it’s cranked. Also working in my favor, my high-frequency sensitivity won’t be trashed by sustained listening at loud levels, helping me retain an accurate perspective of spectral balance. That said, I will crank my control room monitors for about 20 seconds or so every hour when I’m mixing to confirm that the bottom and top ends still sound great and that I haven’t taken any EQ boost too far.

One other point: if you compress tracks such as bass-guitar and cymbals post-EQ, the compression will at least partially negate the effects of any EQ boost on those tracks. Try placing the compressors before any EQ boost to get more sparkle and boom.

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper

In fact, I think as Americans in general, we are addicted to self-help books and formulas for success. What is missing in our day-to-day lives that demands such lofty goals from us? Is there a difference between the attitude of successful, well known acts and the attitude of upcoming acts? Why do some musicians make it big, while other equally talented people songwriters and musicians never get their music heard by the masses? What specific skills and/or inherent talents do the successful artists embody that so many ‘wannabees’ do not?

Is it charisma? That special something that many artists seem to exude the minute they walk into a room? I think that is part of it, but many successful acts have as much charisma as a pitcher of milk, and yet do quite well for themselves.

How about a lot of money? Yeah that seems to be the one sure thing behind every star. There are always major labels with deep pockets who know how to spend the money to push their acts into the hearts and minds of the public, right?…well lets talk about that for a moment. Money can only push something out to the public for their acceptance or rejection…that’s all it can do. Nobody reaches into their wallets and purses and spends their hard earned money on anything….unless there is some real value in what is being offered to them.

Think about it. Today there is a lot of what some observers call ‘shallow and immature’ lyrics and disposable pop music out there on the charts….and yet, no one who bought that music would cop to that criticism. The people who buy the latest sounds on the pop charts bought that music because it gave them some kind of pleasure. It meant something to them.

I think we should look at what sells and what is successful from this standpoint; music fulfills the needs, wants, and desires of any group of fans because they identify with it. And they like a song because they can hum it in the shower.

The ONE thing that all successful acts have in common when they cross over to mass appeal is great songs! This is true as well for the more edgy artists who seem to eek out a living from smaller fanbases, they still write compelling songs that touch the hearts and minds of their fans. Whether or not you personally ‘like’ hit songs or not has nothing to do with it. Enough somebodys coughed up $15 each to prove your tastes are not always the most accurate barometer for what other people may enjoy.

What other thing is it that successful artists and bands have that separates them from those who struggle. My answer is business savvy. Yup…that’s it. Somebody somewhere in every successful acts history had enough business savvy people behind them to make them the stars that they are or were.

NOW….listen up! It isn’t as simple as you think. Historically that business savvy may have been solely the talents and skills of a weasel-like manager, or record label executive. It may have been the unscrupulous business practices of shady lawyers and booking agents, as well as greedy club owners, or money hungry publishers.

My point is that no matter what the behavior of a particular music business gatekeeper may have been…they got a certain part of the job done…they broke on through to the other side of the competition, and got their act’s song into the ears of the thousands of music fans. And to do that, I can assure you they had a plan.

There are no short cuts to success, and there just isn’t enough room at the top for everyone who makes music to make a living from their music. But there is a balance that can be obtained in ones life. With the tools available on the Internet, and the technology of downloadable music now an every day reality, no musician who writes great songs should have that much problem realizing modest successes with their music.

Be careful of the “10 Steps To Musical Success” and the ” What every A&R Rep Is Looking For” articles and books. I have written some articles with such titles, only because they are my way of getting the attention of an ever growing group of music star ‘wannabees’. Once I get their attention, I try to give them proven tactics and strategy tips that are time-tested ways that record labels and industry professionals work.

In reality, there are no 10 steps to anything! There is the conscious involvement, and commitment to your music and the business of music. That, and relentless dedication to the art of making music.

Remember that the world of commercial music is a world of dollars and cents, whether you like it or not. But that does not mean that Art and Commerce cannot walk hand in hand…they must do that.

I teach a history of popular music course, and it never ceases to amaze me how often history repeats itself when it comes to the question of artistic achievement and music business savvy. Most ‘artists’ in the truest sense of the world are narrowly focused people who never take no for an answer. No matter what challenge comes their way, they have no recourse but to turn to their creative side and get lost in their music as a way of staying alive, in the truest sense of the term. Then, along comes a business person who either is or is not ethical, but knows the music business inside out, and hears the magic in their music, and does what it takes to get that music heard. More and more as the decades unravel however, those people are becoming the artists themselves.

We live in a capitalist, consumer driven society. The successful musicians of tomorrow will be those people who either attract dedicated, knowledgeable business men and women to do the marketing and promotion for them, or take that responsibility on themselves and realize that no artist has to sell hundreds of thousands of copies of their music to make some money with their music.

Being a musician/business person means you have to be able to write and perform great songs, and then produce them with a contemporary sound, AND you have to take the time to read Billboard and other music business trades and tip sheets, AND also find time to call club bookers (over and over), read bad and good music reviews, stay in touch with your fans on a regular basis, AND still put on a great show when you’re exhausted or sick.

Do you know what being a professional musician is really all about?…entertaining people. Entertaining the public as a life commitment involves getting yourself into a deep sense of personal commitment to your art. It seems to me that artists who are able to that have come to grips with the notion that success is more an internal experience, and not necessarily one that will be satisfied by a money-hungry music industry that defines success only in dollars and cents calculations.

Looking at the work habits of most big stars, I think they all have an ‘Entertainer’ inside them. That’s what allows them to succeed in all areas of the business. That is what keeps them going during the fifth press interview of the day, and all the other crap that has nothing to do with music and everything to do with the business of music marketing.

When an upcoming artist finally ‘makes it’, the pressure to keep producing sellable music is huge. So the ‘artist’ has to be healthy and ready to create on demand. You may be asked to hit the road for nine straight months, then make a world class album immediately following the grueling tour.

What it all boils down to is that stars have to be on top of their game, both artistically and business-wise. It is essential to create a balance between music and business early on. First make sure your psyche is in the right place. You know, screw your head on right! Be honest with yourself regarding what things you are and aren’t willing to do to be successful with your music.

Then, make a plan. Map out how you will improve your skills in both business and art. Put it on paper. Try living the 50% business – 50% music rule. Make sure you honor your business commitments and always act professionally. Make sure you keep your artist side healthy and creative. Take days off, take walks in nature, take time to noodle around that song idea that just popped into your head. Such activities will help keep the artist inside you healthy and able to nourish your creative juices.

Being a famous musician is not a “normal” life. To survive and thrive requires a special set of skills. The good news is those skills can be learned and developed. Every bit you learn now will benefit your career plan down the road. Believe in yourself, and never stop improving. Your hard work will pay off, if not at the cash register, at least with a sense of personal satisfaction for having done the best work creatively and business-wise, that you could.

via Thoughts for the aspiring musician.

Digital audio has a reputation for producing cold, brittle sound, but the problem often stems from poor engineering techniques. The most common factor contributing to an edgy, fatiguing mix is indiscriminate boosting of upper-midrange and high-frequency EQ on multiple tracks.

Here’s a typical scenario: hours of mixing at high sound-pressure levels (SPLs) progressively compresses your ears’ high-frequency sensitivity, and they become starved for the highs they’re missing. To compensate, you boost the highs and upper mids to get back the detail and presence your tired ears can no longer hear clearly.

You check your mix the next morning after your hearing has recovered, and it’s like fingernails on a blackboard. Rather than cut the offending frequencies, you opt to boost the bottom end to warm up the mix. Now you have phase shift (unless you’ve been consistently boosting using a linear-phase equalizer) and alternating peaks in response across virtually the entire spectrum, resulting in an overly edgy sound, not to mention decreased headroom.

The solution is to mix at lower SPLs and to cut offending frequencies whenever possible instead of boosting other frequencies to compensate. For instance, it usually sounds better to carve away bass frequencies than to hype the midrange EQ when trying to make a mix sound more present. As a general rule, using EQ to cut will sound better than using it to boost.

Other factors leading to a harsh-sounding mix include having too many midrange instruments in the arrangement or mixing them too up front with respect to the other elements. Know when to lower that bright organ pad to mellow things out a bit. Similarly, do you really need those 13 electric guitar overdubs? Consider muting some of the midrange elements that aren’t essential and that only make the mix more fatiguing to listen to. Often the problem with a mix lies with the arrangement, and no amount of EQ will help.

From: EM Magazine – Jul 1, 2007, By Michael Cooper