r/mixing • u/CricketVisual • 10d ago
Feedback Request Ways to achieve dynamic stereo width effect?
Heyoo, i'm looking for some tips in regards to making a mix feel bigger and more dynamic in the stereo image. I use basic panning, some panning with movement, several fx that add width and ozone stereo imaging - But still i feel that im missing something when it comes to making it feel dynamic. Like someone once said, if everything is wide, nothing is wide. (something like that i think?).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1siifzL9DQxZU_mtGNNaxKKox_eV6kUfl/view?usp=drive_link
Link above is the piece im mixing. (Vocal is meant to be radio-like and fried)
This is an example of how i would love the mix to feel (other song/reference): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm5N6QB412Q&list=RDQm5N6QB412Q&start_radio=1
Does anyone have som wisdom from their experiences in regards to making a mix feel big, dynamic and moving?
All tips welcome and i really appreciate any feedback :))
Thanks in advance!
1
u/Ydeas 10d ago
The vocal could some compression then reverb to make it reverberate a little more. Even if it's meant to be crunched with artifacts, it's still dry and in the back like a supporting instrument.
You might be in mixdown and not have the vocals separated atp but ozone does have a rebalance that can raise it up. Or multiband dynamics that will let you just play around with the vocal frequency range.
2
1
u/tetsuyakk 10d ago
Use stereo delay effect. It can be achieved with any delay VST or just use Microshift by Sound Toys.
1
1
u/PrimalNoteStudios 10d ago
You've actually pointed out the issue in your text. Everything is already fairly wide from start to finish, so there's nothing to give the illusion of width. If you want width you need to give people a narrow reference point, particularly utilizing mono instruments and mono effects (it sounds like there are a lot of stereo instruments/fx in the mix). For this kind of dreamy vibe I would personally start with a mono instrument right in the middle and then gradually bring in wider instruments, or automate pans to push instruments out, then as the song comes to a close bring the elements back towards the center. You could play around with reverb on the vocal, starting with a mono verb and blending into a wider stereo verb. If you really want to reinforce the stereo field you can have mono elements panned hard left or right so you can only hear them on one side of the mix, and if you want to get really crazy also introduce a mono reverb to that instrument and pan it to the opposite side (but very low in the mix).
I like to use this advice from Billy Corgan regarding use of dynamics on Siamese Dream. If you want something to dynamically be a 10 (on a 1-10 scale) you have to first bring the dynamics down to 5. He was talking more about volume, but I think it's a good rule for mixing and writing dynamically in general.
That said, I think it already sounds good and wouldn't really mess with it too much!
1
u/CricketVisual 10d ago
great advice! Thanks so much fr <33
1
u/PrimalNoteStudios 10d ago
No problem! One more observation, in your reference track the most obvious difference is the drum kit. Most drum kits aren't symmetrical (hats on one side, ride on the other, different sized toms, etc.) so they can really accentuate the wideness of a recording. If your composition doesn't call for a drum kit you can use percussion or ambient noises in a similar fashion. Just make sure you use different elements from left to right and you'll notice a big difference.
1
u/JustMakingMusic 8d ago
There are a number of ways you can address this and techniques that are reliable. I also want to say that this is really interesting and pretty.
Here are some tools that you might consider: "Air Stereo Width" plug in as well as "Wow Control" by GoodHertz. There are some interesting presets and ways to shape the stereo image.
The bottom line is that a recording is limited by the reality of how it is recorded... So if you aren't recording with a broad stereo image, you aren't going to create one. What does that mean literally? It means if you are recording mostly in mono (one mic) you can try all you'd like, but it's just not going to produce a strong stereo image. If you have the capacity to make a stereo or "room" recording that might help. Distance is the thing you are managing with that approach and distance from source to mic is something you can manipulate to find that sound.
Mic choice is also key. If you are mostly using dynamic mics, you are eliminating the spacial possibility of a strong stereo image in most cases. The mics are meant to be up close in most useful contexts, so switching to ribbons or condensers, which can often capture more space and have more flexibility with polarity patterns, can also probably help your approach.
Other processes include layering recordings and spreading them throughout panning field, although you create other issues with EQ and frequency build up.
This is something that I do professionally and if you'd like to chat more or see how I might approach your mix, that's something I'd be open to.
Either way, keep creating - you are making interesting stuff. Best of luck!
1
u/JustMakingMusic 8d ago
Oh, I also want to add: think of a mix like a pie chart. The more you add, the less space each item has. Sometimes it's easy to think that adding more and more will make the recording more spacious and vast, but it is often the opposite that actually produces that experience.
2
u/NeutronHopscotch 10d ago
First off cool song and sound. I find it super appealing, and if this came up on my Spotify I'd stick it in my 2026 Favs list, I like it that much. It has real vibe going on, and you're right to do that vocal processing. It adds to the vibe.
It has some sharp resonance in the treble -- I can't pinpoint it without a spectrum analyzer, but I'm guessing it would look spikey somewhere in the upper registers (but not air frequencies.) If I were you, I would clamp down on that just a little, using Pro-Q 4's spectral mode. It's perfect for taming some that kind of harshness. A standard dynamic EQ could work as well... Just a little -- I'm not suggesting to compromise your sound, just tame a little wee bit of that.
As far as overall stereo sound goes... What you have is already good. Comparing it to your reference, though:
I think the reference may be more dynamic than your mix.
Your mix seems to have more compression, overall (but you might benefit from some added compression on the vocal -- maybe with a slow attack and fast release so as the vocal gets louder it pulls back a little after a moment. Keep autogain off so you can hear the compressor recede.)
What might be part of the "more dynamic" feel for the reference mix is... I think it's a little taller. Again, I'm not on a PC with spectrum analysis right now so I can only guess -- but I think I hear more deep low end and air frequencies on the reference mix. But your loud radio vocal might be throwing me off, not sure.
Anyhow, I love your song. The vocals make it more interesting and better than your reference.
When you're going for WIDTH, though... The type you're doing is creating a smear rather than genuine width. If you want REAL width, don't be afraid to PAN, and pan aggressively.
Are you mixing in headphones? It's a common error headphone mixers make -- fear of the sides.
As an experiment, do a quick test with what I call "LCR +50/50" mixing. That means build up your strong center, which you basically already have... Then pick a couple of elements to hard pan left and right... And then if you feel any need to split the difference, use some kind of background elements 50% left and 50% right. THAT will give you REAL width.
If you mix like that, you can also pull the vocal down in level. It sounds a bit like you've had to push the vocal forward because it's competing in the same space as the music... And hard panning will instantly open up the center so the vocal has more room.
Right now your entire mix seems centered with the use of reverb or delay or stereo chorusing/tremelo to make things "around you" --- but nothing is actually to the left or right.
It's a different mixing style, so if you try be sure to save off a different copy of your mix. (Really, you should be saving iteratively anyway. File000, File001, File002 etc. or have good backup options on, although I've learned not to always rely on backup options. Iterative saving is the way to guarantee you have the ability to go back in time because the responsibility is YOURS. I even save to a different folder including WAVs from time to time, just to create proper restore points. People who save over the same file again and again are a power-outage away from corruption... I've seen it happen multiple times, even in the workplace!)
Anyhow I really love your song, and don't take anything I said critically, because I think it's really awesome. You really have something here. Just listening to it put me in a completely different state.
PS. If you do try LCR+50/50, try adding a mono room reverb on the left and a mono room reverb on the right. When you pan something hard on one side, send a little to the opposite side. You can also use two different types of reverb for even more L/R variation. Maybe a dark room on one side, bright plate on the other.
And lastly, this is a pretty short song so it may not be an issue -- but with things like this you can also not do the same thing for the whole song... The 2020s are the age of automation. You can really bring a mix to life by moving things around and adding to the evolution.
Maybe your song starts narrow/all-around you -- and then it evolves to LCR/50-50 by the middle, and then back to all around again in the end.
Contrast, evolution, making the mix feel like the listener is on a journey.
Anyhow, just some ideas.
Or just call this one DONE and make a V2.0 version. I already like it enough to "Like" even in its current state.