How much image-widening goes into your mixes?
- Thread starter Ice Man
- Start date
metalkingdom
the kinder, gentler me
- Jan 1, 2005
- 1,634
- 2
- 38
brandy
Iguana Hell
Don't use stereo widening plugins! But sometimes a tiny bit can be cool... Try it on synth. From time to time i use a stereo processor in mastering - but only about 5% or something around that.
The key of a stereo-sounding mix etc (as described above) is NOT to hardpan everything in the first place. It is done by a proper recording first. I don't know why, but most home-studio guys are recording everything in mono! Try to record more true-stereo stuff. If there are some acousic instruments: Record them in stereo! Be carefull to record a decent stereo image of the drums - using the overheads and the room mics.
In the mixing stage the key is proper use of early reflections and modulation stuff... Well balanced instruments/frequencys. Not clipping everything with gclip and stuff.
I noticed that the main difference you can hear between cheap recording equipment and quality gear (mic pres, converters...) is in the stereo image.
As i swaped my old and trusty Motu 24i to the Lynx Aurora 16 i didn't realized a huge difference frequency wise (a mono-snaretrack just sounded like bevore) - but the 3dimensionality of a stereo track (full mix, classic recording etc) increased A LOT!! As well as it seems that the decent recorded tracks will stay "3dimensional" even with a lot of processing, the cheap recorded tracks will imediatelly soundn flat and lifeless after processing a lot.
brandy
The key of a stereo-sounding mix etc (as described above) is NOT to hardpan everything in the first place. It is done by a proper recording first. I don't know why, but most home-studio guys are recording everything in mono! Try to record more true-stereo stuff. If there are some acousic instruments: Record them in stereo! Be carefull to record a decent stereo image of the drums - using the overheads and the room mics.
In the mixing stage the key is proper use of early reflections and modulation stuff... Well balanced instruments/frequencys. Not clipping everything with gclip and stuff.
I noticed that the main difference you can hear between cheap recording equipment and quality gear (mic pres, converters...) is in the stereo image.
As i swaped my old and trusty Motu 24i to the Lynx Aurora 16 i didn't realized a huge difference frequency wise (a mono-snaretrack just sounded like bevore) - but the 3dimensionality of a stereo track (full mix, classic recording etc) increased A LOT!! As well as it seems that the decent recorded tracks will stay "3dimensional" even with a lot of processing, the cheap recorded tracks will imediatelly soundn flat and lifeless after processing a lot.
brandy
BattleTits = Methlab??? That S-1 trick sounds familiar...
haha..props to you man..I like this name better though!
Can't believe you remembered that I posted that.
Similar threads
