|
Post by 000 on Nov 17, 2019 22:23:50 GMT -6
I always thought “height” as referred to in audio mixing was directly related to the contrast between the lowest frequencies and highest frequencies. Not the same thing as “depth” which has more to due with volume, panning, and overlapping frequencies. Modern digital/pop/electronic music sounds “taller” with its extended frequency ranges than more band passed recordings of the past. Never ever dreamed of it being that way.
That (toxic) meme speaks to me of people having ZERO experience with doing live sound or even listening to live musis.
It makes no sense AND it's anti-artistic.
It seems to me a result of the toxic meme that everything should be separate inastead of being a united work of art.
Real humans don't hear that way.
As someone who has done live sound for over 150 live performances this year (including Grammy award winning artists) - I assure you that your misunderstanding of this concept has little to do with how a band sounds on stage. What makes good “art” is super subjective and someone should explain to you what a meme is. Once again what is being referenced when folks talk about “height” in a recording context is the contrast between high and low frequencies. In the same way contrast between left and right channels can dictate how “wide” a mix sounds - contrast between lows and highs create how “tall” a mix sounds. Perhaps a semantic argument at best - this is at least what is being described. As far as creating a cohesive artistic vision is concerned - it really depends on the song - does it not? Understanding and applying certain concepts and ideas doesn’t inherently imply a higher or lower artistic value. It’s always about what works for you - on that day - on that particular track. Disparaging how others understand making art is well - just silly.
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Nov 18, 2019 3:59:45 GMT -6
If panning goes from left to right, and volume moves forward to back, curious what people perceive as top to bottom
Assuming that a mix occupies three axes
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 18, 2019 4:06:41 GMT -6
If panning goes from left to right, and volume moves forward to back, curious what people perceive as top to bottom Assuming that a mix occupies three axes The type of reverb can do this
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 18, 2019 5:20:25 GMT -6
Now, we may be discussing the same thing, but with different words, but I've never heard "floating" vocals or the like. I have, but not anywhere near in the context of height. Side-chain a vocal to a compressor on a buss of the rhythm section and shaving just a little off the top helps the vocal "float" on top of the mix. It's actually a pretty good descriptor of the effect.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 18, 2019 10:32:50 GMT -6
Now, we may be discussing the same thing, but with different words, but I've never heard "floating" vocals or the like. I have, but not anywhere near in the context of height. Side-chain a vocal to a compressor on a buss of the rhythm section and shaving just a little off the top helps the vocal "float" on top of the mix. It's actually a pretty good descriptor of the effect. See...I think this is a semantics thing. I know exactly what you're talking about , but I'd call it bring a vocal to the front of a mix - or perhaps sitting atop the mix. not floating. But who cares - we're talking about the same thing I think. But what some of the height proponents are talking about - and I can't speak for anyone in this thread - is essentially a vertical (instead of L/R) panning technique. Being able to move something from sitting in your lap or down at your feet to up over your head. I'd love to hear a good example of that. Especially in the context of a raw mix where the mixer can "move" the source higher or lower in the sound field with the tools used to do it. To wiz - yeah, I've been a big proponent of multiple verbs on a source for years. I don't define it as specifically as you do, but it does help me put things into the mix where I want them. Now moving them up and down on the vertical soundstage....I have not experienced that. Can you pull up a mix and take a mix element and move it up and down in an example? Thx.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Nov 18, 2019 11:07:56 GMT -6
I think it’s fine if others don’t hear things, or describe them, the same way as I do. We’re talking about subjective experiences and yes, semantics...but personally I feel it’s a little rude to tell someone that the descriptions they use were just made up by people trying to sell them garbage. Thus implying that they’ve been fooled by the powers that be, and aren’t actually hearing what they claim they are. If I’m misunderstanding your point I apologize No worries, and I'm sorry if I offended you. I figured I'd offend SOMEone. I'm old school. And I had the incredible good fortune to be mentored by some even older schooled guys. Guys who helped create a good bit of the classic repertoire so many call the DNA of their musical lives.... Call it semantics, call it a changing of the vernacular, call it new-tech terms, call it whatever you like, but the terms in this thread used to describe "height" and such were never really used in the old days, and I never saw them used until we started to see internet mixing seminars, youtube tutorials and for profit AE schools pop up. It's a new phenomenon. And in reality, I kind of see it as a dismissal of old school philosophy on mixing technique. Now, we may be discussing the same thing, but with different words, but I've never heard "floating" vocals or the like. In either my own mixes, or other songs on CD's, etc.. Maybe I'm just deaf..... Offended? Naw. Irked? Yeah a little...But its all good, I really respect your opinion and your general demeanor on this forum. I think about 90% of this whole thing comes down to semantics. The other 10% is, imho, just a subjective musical experience. I can only speak for myself here, but to me the height of a mix is not some technique, at least not directly. And it has nothing to do with any old school (or new school) philosophy on mixing.
I'll use my color example again. Certain moods and feelings, in a musical context, convey color to me. Its a fluid thing, constantly changing, like a slow river of colors that changes with the mood of the music. At the same time, certain timbres and specific instruments tend to convey specific colors in my minds eye as well. Some of these are just my imagination, and/or psychological associations. A lot of it, however, is not.
How does this apply to mix height? Well, when I close my eyes and listen to music my minds eye starts separating the sounds, keying in on different elements and I start to perceive them in a different space. Panning, depth, timing, etc, all come into play here, but so does a certain separation by frequency. That, to me, is the height. I see things subtly sitting on top of each other, not just next to each other. Its the best description I can come up with, and for the record not one I've ever heard by a youtube mixer or AE school to describe anything.
Now, I'm not claiming this to be some crazy, or exceptional phenomenon. Its really quite ordinary to me. And again, really just a semantic difference for the most part.
On a side note, this may all be related to certain experiences I've had on psychedelics. I'll probably get roasted for saying that. And there's a person or two on this forum who will most likely pounce on that as proof that I'm an idiot and they're all knowing, but fuck it. I've had psychedelic experiences that have led to me perceiving the world in profoundly different ways. One of these ways is that I can "notice" things that were always there but often overlooked. For example, I can see certain patterns (branches in a tree, leaves on a flower, street lights lining a dark street), and if I'm in the right head space, so to speak, things look hyper real. Like the difference between standard def and HD TV. It's like my brain realizes that this amazing detail and complexity in design has always been staring me in the face but my mind is usually stuck seeing things with a dull haze over it. I become aware of it, and bam...things look more real than real, more 3-D, more detailed, more brilliant. The same thing has happens when I listen to music. It's somewhat different of coarse, because its a different medium, but still a very real, personally subjective experience.
Hope that makes sense, and clarifies this subject somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Nov 18, 2019 11:11:58 GMT -6
I always thought “height” as referred to in audio mixing was directly related to the contrast between the lowest frequencies and highest frequencies. Not the same thing as “depth” which has more to due with volume, panning, and overlapping frequencies. Modern digital/pop/electronic music sounds “taller” with its extended frequency ranges than more band passed recordings of the past.
That (toxic) meme speaks to me of people having ZERO experience with doing live sound or even listening to live musis.
It makes no sense AND it's anti-artistic.
It seems to me a result of the toxic meme that everything should be separate inastead of being a united work of art.
Real humans don't hear that way.
You accusing others of being toxic is hilarious. I needed an little humor in my day, thank you
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 18, 2019 17:47:20 GMT -6
I have, but not anywhere near in the context of height. Side-chain a vocal to a compressor on a buss of the rhythm section and shaving just a little off the top helps the vocal "float" on top of the mix. It's actually a pretty good descriptor of the effect. See...I think this is a semantics thing. I know exactly what you're talking about , but I'd call it bring a vocal to the front of a mix - or perhaps sitting atop the mix. not floating. But who cares - we're talking about the same thing I think. But what some of the height proponents are talking about - and I can't speak for anyone in this thread - is essentially a vertical (instead of L/R) panning technique. Being able to move something from sitting in your lap or down at your feet to up over your head. I'd love to hear a good example of that. Especially in the context of a raw mix where the mixer can "move" the source higher or lower in the sound field with the tools used to do it. To wiz - yeah, I've been a big proponent of multiple verbs on a source for years. I don't define it as specifically as you do, but it does help me put things into the mix where I want them. Now moving them up and down on the vertical soundstage....I have not experienced that. Can you pull up a mix and take a mix element and move it up and down in an example? Thx. Hey Bill no I can't move something up and down, like you can left to right, but you can give it the sense that it is in a room that has "height" and if it has height and something else doesn't.... then thats what i am on about Cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 18, 2019 21:35:22 GMT -6
See...I think this is a semantics thing. I know exactly what you're talking about , but I'd call it bring a vocal to the front of a mix - or perhaps sitting atop the mix. not floating. But who cares - we're talking about the same thing I think. But what some of the height proponents are talking about - and I can't speak for anyone in this thread - is essentially a vertical (instead of L/R) panning technique. Being able to move something from sitting in your lap or down at your feet to up over your head. I'd love to hear a good example of that. Especially in the context of a raw mix where the mixer can "move" the source higher or lower in the sound field with the tools used to do it. To wiz - yeah, I've been a big proponent of multiple verbs on a source for years. I don't define it as specifically as you do, but it does help me put things into the mix where I want them. Now moving them up and down on the vertical soundstage....I have not experienced that. Can you pull up a mix and take a mix element and move it up and down in an example? Thx. Hey Bill no I can't move something up and down, like you can left to right, but you can give it the sense that it is in a room that has "height" and if it has height and something else doesn't.... then thats what i am on about Cheers Wiz Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 18, 2019 22:45:37 GMT -6
That (toxic) meme speaks to me of people having ZERO experience with doing live sound or even listening to live musis.
It makes no sense AND it's anti-artistic.
It seems to me a result of the toxic meme that everything should be separate inastead of being a united work of art.
Real humans don't hear that way.
You accusing others of being toxic is hilarious. I needed an little humor in my day, thank you
The irony is quite laughable indeed! ha
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 18, 2019 23:50:59 GMT -6
See...I think this is a semantics thing. I know exactly what you're talking about , but I'd call it bring a vocal to the front of a mix - or perhaps sitting atop the mix. not floating. But who cares - we're talking about the same thing I think. But what some of the height proponents are talking about - and I can't speak for anyone in this thread - is essentially a vertical (instead of L/R) panning technique. Being able to move something from sitting in your lap or down at your feet to up over your head. I'd love to hear a good example of that. Especially in the context of a raw mix where the mixer can "move" the source higher or lower in the sound field with the tools used to do it. To wiz - yeah, I've been a big proponent of multiple verbs on a source for years. I don't define it as specifically as you do, but it does help me put things into the mix where I want them. Now moving them up and down on the vertical soundstage....I have not experienced that. Can you pull up a mix and take a mix element and move it up and down in an example? Thx. Hey Bill no I can't move something up and down, like you can left to right, but you can give it the sense that it is in a room that has "height" and if it has height and something else doesn't.... then thats what i am on about Cheers Wiz That makes more sense than anything else I've seen on this topic. A room that has height, rather than some EQ thing. I'm assuming you would accomplish this primarily via the use of reverbs andf delays, not EQ, yes?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 18, 2019 23:55:23 GMT -6
That (toxic) meme speaks to me of people having ZERO experience with doing live sound or even listening to live musis.
It makes no sense AND it's anti-artistic.
It seems to me a result of the toxic meme that everything should be separate inastead of being a united work of art.
Real humans don't hear that way.
You accusing others of being toxic is hilarious. I needed an little humor in my day, thank you
Glad I made you laugh. Did not mean to imply that any person was toxic, was referring to ideas. Can't we discuss ideas without taking things personally?
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 19, 2019 1:27:46 GMT -6
Hey Bill no I can't move something up and down, like you can left to right, but you can give it the sense that it is in a room that has "height" and if it has height and something else doesn't.... then thats what i am on about Cheers Wiz That makes more sense than anything else I've seen on this topic. A room that has height, rather than some EQ thing. I'm assuming you would accomplish this primarily via the use of reverbs andf delays, not EQ, yes? Yes for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 19, 2019 7:52:32 GMT -6
PJ Harvey - Let England Shake LP is the only pop thing coming to mind that evokes height. It was recorded in a large stone church. The vocals are extremely high passed and the reverbs tailored.
Otherwise I’m at a loss to categorize the concept.
|
|
|
Post by saltyjames on Nov 19, 2019 8:36:09 GMT -6
You accusing others of being toxic is hilarious. I needed an little humor in my day, thank you
The irony is quite laughable indeed! ha Got him on full ignore.
|
|
|
Post by saltyjames on Nov 19, 2019 9:04:55 GMT -6
My take on this is this: Sometimes elements can float outside or above the perceived stereo field. We have all heard stuff that seems to come from like the other room or when playing on a laptop from under the table or other crazy locations. I will say I have never heard this in my room which is well treated with my speakers balanced to a millimeter with very proper wall and ceiling treatment. What I have heard is some of this height stuff. And when I say height I mean like it's not literal height, but like a lifting.. like a few inches above the music when sitting 4 ft from my speakers. But still a vertical lift somehow.
In my mind it can be heard on Led Zep 4's vocals. What I think is the cause of this perception is this: The main rhythm (instrument) elements have the same weight / ambience. Yet the vocals have more ambience (verb and echo). Granted simply adding verb and echo does not do this, but there is a line where the right amount compared to the ambience and weight of the instruments makes the vocal sound like it is not just centered or more verby, but like it actually sits on top of all the instruments. Although I could be completely wrong, I mean I also hear this a lot when my favorite musicians play. Jaco's bass on Joni Mitchell albums, tons of Judee Sill: Ridge Rider, The Donor, The Kiss. Yeah, everything by her. Stewart Copeland drums. Maybe somehow in my mind I lift them up. I want to say that denigrating people who hear things this way or differently is kinda crude. People hearing and playing things differently is the essence of what art is.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 19, 2019 16:10:54 GMT -6
My take on this is this: Sometimes elements can float outside or above the perceived stereo field. We have all heard stuff that seems to come from like the other room or when playing on a laptop from under the table or other crazy locations. I will say I have never heard this in my room which is well treated with my speakers balanced to a millimeter with very proper wall and ceiling treatment. What I have heard is some of this height stuff. And when I say height I mean like it's not literal height, but like a lifting.. like a few inches above the music when sitting 4 ft from my speakers. But still a vertical lift somehow.
In my mind it can be heard on Led Zep 4's vocals. What I think is the cause of this perception is this: The main rhythm (instrument) elements have the same weight / ambience. Yet the vocals have more ambience (verb and echo). Granted simply adding verb and echo does not do this, but there is a line where the right amount compared to the ambience and weight of the instruments makes the vocal sound like it is not just centered or more verby, but like it actually sits on top of all the instruments. Although I could be completely wrong, I mean I also hear this a lot when my favorite musicians play. Jaco's bass on Joni Mitchell albums, tons of Judee Sill: Ridge Rider, The Donor, The Kiss. Yeah, everything by her. Stewart Copeland drums. Maybe somehow in my mind I lift them up. I want to say that denigrating people who hear things this way or differently is kinda crude. People hearing and playing things differently is the essence of what art is. It's not a matter of "denigrating" people based on perceptual differences. It's a matter of being skeptical about the advisability of proposing mix philosophies based on personal perceptual quirks that probably won't translate to other listeners - or engineers.
I'm wondering if this might in some way be related to some form of synesthesia, which is a recognizxed perceptual, um, I don't like the semantic implications of the word but can't think of a better one, abberration. I find the phenomenon of synesthesia to be very interesting but have never experience anything like it myself*. My perceptons are boringly normal.
* - well, not since my college psychedelic days, anyway.
|
|