Understanding the TALL DEEP WIDE aspect of mixing

  • Thread starter Thread starter beatdilla
  • Start date Start date
beatdilla

beatdilla

Beat Dilla
In mixing , the best way to jump into the project is to think "Tall, deep, and wide". Basically put, every instrument is in their own space , make sure their is depth , and stereo dimensioning within the mix . TALL is referring to the clarity of the mix overall . Making sure ur hats are soundin crisp n sizzlin in their zone and ur basses are BOOMING n their neck of the woods. Knowing each instruments magic frequency is key. DEEP is the dimensions u add to the mix. That cathedral reverb u put on ur choir or the delays that bring out the lower harmonics in ur concert piano all are examples of the deep aspect. WIDE is simply panning the instruments into their own sound field so they are heard clear and crisp w no hang-up. I abide by these rules heavily in my mixes and they have served greatly to my mixes sounding that of A1 quality.
 
Last edited:
But Mixing is not only panning and space for every sound. Volumes,EQ,Compression,Limiters.
Every tool must work properly. Too much bass freq- and mix is muddy. Too much mid freq and mix is annoying. And one more thing in mixdown- You will not see results. What I mean is that when I make html web page or paint an image i see results of my work. In music every system translates diffrently.
 
When you say eq everything in there own space like shaping instruments or increasing certain peaks along the spectrum. I've feel in love with the multiband compressor over the EQ on single instruments not sure how right or wrong it is but thats what i like! Any take on that?
 
I'd say that wide is the last issue in mixing, everything else happens before and the stereo image is just panning/widening the product for stereo systems or headphones. Unlike precise compression, it's obvious and you have no problems in soundchecking. So the first place for me is CORRECTIVE EQing (I mean creative EQing happens in the arranging stage and is a part of sound design for me). I'd focus mainly on the frequency balance(DEEP) and how full the mix is (Should be coherent), then the dynamics and color(TALL) and finally the mix buss and panning stuff...(WIDE)
 
This is why good monitors and acoustics are so important and headphones don't cut it as a primary mixing medium.
 
Yeah, getting a clear frequency response is more important than getting a real stereo image, most people will hear it like mono anyway.
 
^mixing is important no matter what genre of music.

Crappy mix = crappy music. 100% of the time.

Also.. mixing doesn't always have to mean "doing a lot of corrective things". If it sounds go as is, it sounds good as is. But those are very rare cases. For example... if you made a beat using only preset rhythms from something like Wizoo's Latigo, something where each sound is essentially premixed for you more-or-less... then you don't NEED to do anything unless you want to. But if you've got some synths coming from Sylenth, some 808 drums from a pack you found on the net, Kontakt bassline and strings, and a live recorded guitar.... those might not compliment each other well until you mix them to sound good relative to each other.
 
When people talk about corrective eqing they are talking about rescuing some sound from
  • the shortcomings in its design (including creative eqing choices) or
  • in its recording (if an external acoustic source).

Corrective eqing certainly cannot fix a poorly recorded acoustic source; it is easier and less time-consuming to
  • just rerecord the instrument with more attention paid to mic placement and levels
  • than it is to spend lots of time trying to polish a turd only to come the conclusion after hours of work that it needs to rerecorded anyway

several recent threads on this aspect
 
I think this is a great thread conceptually. However, I dont think TALL, DEEP and WIDE can be explained in one paragraph, I really wish it could though. The most important thing an engineer can do (atleast I think) is get out of the way. If things have to be corrected and shaped, then do it, but adding EQ because you feel like it has to be done, usually is not a good thing.
 
I recently got used into an idea "the less, the better" and it's true, sometimes I wonder how much channels I can let dry without any effect on and still sounding great. And on most other I just call up some high-shelving or cutting the higher frequencies out for balance. But before that I used to do just everything on every channel because I thought this would magically improve my poor mixes :P
I'd say the first problem the mix engineer have to solve is to decide what NOT to use, and when NOT to use...
For some interesting insights about mixing, thinking outside the box and learning how to set your mind for clever audio work, I recommend therecordingrevolution.com (sorry, can't post links yet)
 
Compressors are a useful tactic n shaping all the instruments together. The most effective way ta use ur compressors would proceed onced u've seperated the instruments in their own frequency first. One thing i learned is eq is mostly taking out frequencies

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------

You say shape but thats essentially wat EQ is .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top