what makes the sound of a recording "big"?

[quahtemoc]

I'm pretty much new in the whole business of recording arts..

but I really do need some ideas to this..

there are many ways of achieving a "warmth" and feel of "strength" at the mixing stage no doubt about it...but what actually makes a recordings soundscape wide and full?

it is true that by breaking that signal (say just a single layer recording of a guitar track on 2 channels: L/R) and applying about 15 miliseconds of delay (also panned L/R) actually gives a wider sound scope?

i would really like to know...perhaps what i am trying to ask is too subjective..but just answer me anyways...your replies might actually be the answer i'm looking for..

cheers!
:D

[David Klausner]

That particular trick with the guitar track is really an artificial doubler. It will actually sound "bigger" if you spend the time to record the the track a second time and pan it, instead of using a delay. A lot of the really "heavy" guitar sounds on today's records are double, triple, or quadruple tracked (sometimes even more!). The same for background vocals, etc.

That can help make a mix big, but the basic principles of balancing frequencies and timbres, using great arrangements, and fully utilizing the stereo field are the building blocks for good mixes. Whether you want a full, big sound, or are purposely going for a stark, thin mood, those are the things to pay attention to. After that is taken care of, I'm all for tricks!

[d-dmusic]

Double, triple, quadruple track GTR's- definitely.
I've tried a multi-mic set-up on GTR's but its just not the same.

Careful use of compression ! Don't squash the hell out of everything. Let the music have DYNAMICS !

I A/B'ed a Trisha Yearwood CD with a heavy mental CD I was listening to and the Trisha CD sounded HUGE compared to the tiny, wee, wee overly compressed metal CD. Thin. Quite mono-relatively.
Who knows where the thing got squashed-mixing or mastering or both. Too bad. It's the trend.