What “Depth” Means and How to Hear It? (Part II)

[MogwaiBoy]

Once I decided to take mixing and mastering more seriously, I began hearing songs (especially on headphones, far more pronounced 3D-ness) like this...



Unfortunately now I can't turn it off and go back to being a casual listener!

The benchmark for me is feeling like I'm standing in the centre of the venue and the music is on stage in front of me. A lot of good 70s/80s rock captured this perfectly.

[plexuss]

you didn't have to say "nice back-pedal," either.

I'm not Ghandi. I won't start a fight but if someone drags me into one, I'll fight back. PM jancivil with your concerns for starting the nonesense perhaps.

[sleepcircle]

everyone has their own justification.

[cron]

It's maybe worth listening to old pop music before stereo sound was common. Left-to-right space was of course unavailable in mono, but many producers mastered the art of getting front-to-back space in their mono mixes. It's perhaps a lost art these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GYj1wgtRrE

[acYm]

how come there's not some sort of "output converter + cable + connectors + input converter" emulator vst? I'm under the impression it's the missing link (figuratively and otherwise), and that the signal's travel through cable plays a large role in this... but maybe that's complete nonsense

[plexuss]

how come there's not some sort of "output converter + cable + connectors + input converter" emulator vst? I'm under the impression it's the missing link (figuratively and otherwise), and that the signal's travel through cable plays a large role in this... but maybe that's complete nonsense.

That is a whole can of worms - the topic of "do cables matter", "do connectors matter" etc is argued ad noseum in audio circles. Some swear by certain cables, connectors and even power cords. Others think it's all bunk. There is some quantifiable repeatable evidence for some claims but it's all down in the weeds so even the evidence is weak in certain regards. I think the best thing is to look for opportunities to determine your own opinion.

Perhaps because if there is an effect it's so small that no one has bothered to create a "cable emulation" vst. The dev who does is brave, in my books and I'd like to observe the ensuing forum threads on it.

[acYm]

it's something I'd like to see Boz release, to go along with my Boz Rack Spacer (which I use a lot (for real (really))).

[MogwaiBoy]

Imagine a cable emulation VST that you put in between all of your other plugins. Shu'up and take our money?

I think the Klevgrand DAW vinyl plugin has a "cable quality" control - very novel

PS getting depth in mono is Obi Wan level skills. I do love mono reverb in a stereo mix.

[jancivil]

I like some non-linearity and analog distortion. I also think it's quite overrated. Complexity = depth, sure, why not? Today in the digital realm there is so much available to create complexity - and unpredictable phenomena - I just think the insistence on analog overstates things.

Nice back-pedal.

Both are my authentic views on the matter. You found it appropriate to impugn my integrity just because I'm not buying your sophistry? Your incredibly useless, fact-free assertions going nowhere and in service of nothing better than derailing of the idea of the thread out of reaction. What did I say here, even? It's overrated. It's seriously overrated to "insist" on that. You have nothing to call out but you had to try, isn't it. Instead of straightforward argument.

[jancivil]

you didn't have to say "nice back-pedal," either.

I'm not Ghandi. I won't start a fight but if someone drags me into one, I'll fight back. PM jancivil with your concerns for starting the nonesense perhaps.

I didn't start any fight, I argued against your points. Again: you aren't talking about any actual techniques for achieving depth in a mix, as per the actual idea of the thread. You didn't like the statement in the OP and instead of making a cogent argument for the depth of field as provided by anything actual, you went into the mystique in analog gear. This is sophistry.

If that's being "dragged into a fight", you have a personality that leads you to take things that way. Project that as though it turns it into something else, sure.

[sleepcircle]

calm down

[jancivil]

how come there's not some sort of "output converter + cable + connectors + input converter" emulator vst? I'm under the impression it's the missing link (figuratively and otherwise), and that the signal's travel through cable plays a large role in this... but maybe that's complete nonsense.

That is a whole can of worms - the topic of "do cables matter", "do connectors matter" etc is argued ad noseum in audio circles.

Off-topic. It looks like a joke to me. IE: you did not offer anything we can use to achieve depth of field.
Someone else noticed the argument from mystique?

After I argued against that thrust (and then went to be a little bit generous as to you analog advocates, who are not wrong to be, just off-topic here, only to be insulted for it), I went into what can be used.

You seem to have nothing to say regarding depth of field, stereo mix {this has been established as the meaning for our purposes}, how to hear it or by extension what creates it.

It's actually physical, sound is physically three dimensional; how does placement happen in space and what may be done to recreate it in speakers working in another space, ie., what can be abstracted?

[jancivil]

Here is the state-of-the-art for dealing with the stereo field in mixing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU9MAFS7J-M

The Imager particularly blew my mind.

[Harry_HH]

I would add delay to the parameters essential when creating depth.
In the context of reverbation, predelay is important, as well.
(Of course delay (time), as all the above, are in the core in the horizontal space, too.

[electricthing]

Here are other factors that contribute to depth, allthough some overlap;

transients; the more transients the more upfront a sound seems, want to bring something to the back; reduce them.

Another factor;

Compression, but that has to do with transients, volume, sustain.
You can give sounds a bounce front to back with the right amount of attack / release. Or keep a bass in the back with a longer release.
And a fast attack reduces transients and brings things to the back.

Distortion, saturation, of course means more hi frequencies, brings stuff up front.

Another factor.
The more something is panned to L or R; the closer it sounds.
So for things to seem further away; don't pan them too much,
things are smaller so also less wide when further away.
I have not worked this last one out completely myself.


And about the analog-depth discussion.
If I send a mono snare OTB through some outboard (plugins can work also) the result may sound more 3D.
That means another 3D than the front to back place in the mix.
The sound itself seems more 3D, less flat, like you can grab it.
Like there is space around the sound.
Of course can also be archieved with a bit of delay or reverb and other processing. Better yet; combined.
Well, most here will know this.

Michael White has good tutorials on the various processing for depth.

Some of these techniques can give a modest result on their own, but combined on all tracks can make a complete mix more natural than just using reverb and delays.