Mixing mono tracks

[dobro]

Okay, here's what I've tried in the mixing department with mono tracks on my computer:

* outboard reverb - really noisy - it's an analog unit, and all the conversions make it sound crappy

* panning duplicated tracks - doesn't make much of a difference

* delaying a duplicated track - interesting effect

* EQing a duplicated track differently - interesting

* software reverb on a duplicated track - interesting

* combinations of the above - less interesting - too much going on

Thing is, every time I mess with the duplicated track in some way, although the effect is interesting (more space and depth), the result is less clear, with less detail, than the original track played by itself. Is this always the case? Is it always a trade-off? Do interesting effects always degrade the sound slightly?

At this point, I just feel like telling the girl: "Okay, forget the cosmetics - just wash your hair and wear something nice."

[pglewis]

The best luck I've had with seperation is the ol' fashioned double track (recording 2 takes). I don't always pan hard right and left... sometimes 9:00 and 3:00 or even less drastic. It all depends, this is one of the areas where I love to experiment. With the type of recording I do, the only times I've actually setup stereo mic'ing (2 mics, 2 tracks, one take) is on drum overheads. I might use a close mic and a "room mic" on an amp, but that's not really stereo mic'ing in the same sense.

Since you're working with sparse arrangements, why not pan the vocs just a smidgen to the left and the guitar a smidgen to the right (or vice versa). It might give just enough seperation to have some depth without cluttering the mix unnecessarily. Just one thing to try.

[Skyline609]

whatever tracks i record in mono will usually wind up being panned pretty hard except the bass guitar which pretty much stays in the middle. i think a cool key in adding good depth to a mix is pan your track where you want it, then just apply a wet only effect signal to the opposite side. like having a sax panned hard left, and then having a slight reverb on the right. It really makes the tracks recorded in mono dance. ive also really started getting into panning effects. If you have enough tracks, plug the Left and right outputs of your processor into two channels of the mixer. that can open up a lot of ideas. but it eats up channels and busses we all know.

i tend to think that if you want something to be in stereo, record it that way from the beginning.

[Razor]

Scoop areas of track to give room for their reverbs.

[twist]

Razor,
Could you please elaborate?

Thanks.

[Razor]

Give certain freqs priority in the dry signal and other complimentary freqs priority in the effected signal.
For example if some higher-mids are scooped (gently) out of an acoustic guitar track, leaving its chimey, percussive top panned right, then a wet sigal highlighting some of those mids that sit nicely under the chime could be panned left.
The desired result is an enveloping kind of sound where diffrent aspects of the same sound are treated differently accross the stereo field.
The same effect can be acheived without effects. Just, say keep the mids in the center and send the highs and high-mids over to the right.
If you think about it when you sit in a room listening to a guitar you are also hearing successive reflections from different directions at different times, each with their own frequency content.
The easiest way to try this quickly (something you have probably already done) is to pan a mono signal, send it to a stereo reverb and then play with the eq on the different sides of the reverb. (i.e. cut some mids on the same side that dry signal sits and boost on the other.) This is a clumsy example but that is kinda what I'm drivin at.
The danger, of course there has to be one, is creating a confusing stereo image by over doing it.
One last thought, take a short stereo verb panned fairly tightly to either side. Take a long stereo verb with a pre-delay set just before the end of the short verb and pan it hard left right. Give the short verb just the highs and the long verb the lows....
Hope I have been clear enough I tend to digress....

[twist]

Razor,
That was excellent! Just the kind of info I was looking for. Thanks a million! Hmmmmm.... Got any more?

Twist