Mixing in mono...it always sounds like crap

[Monkey Allen]

How do you check your mix in mono? Pan everything dead centre? Turn off one speaker and pan everything to the other speaker?

 

[Massive Master]

Most programs have a "Mono" switch somewhere... If they don't, there are about 40,000 plugs that have it.

As a follow-up to SSG's post - I agree with the phasing issue thing -- I can't fathom how some people can't hear that certain elements in a mix are cranking their heads sideways. But my point to starting a mix in mono isn't for potential phase issues as much as just finding sounds that are going to "argue" with each other fighting for space. Not that I let it "rule" over what I'd want in the mix (as a biker, I also tend to "dress for the ride" as opposed to "dress for the crash") - But I find it a much quicker and effective process to find that 'sonic space' for everything before I reach for the pan controls. If there's clarity and focus in mono, that's going to almost universally translate to stereo - But not necessarily the other way around...

 

[rayc]

Somebody doesn't like any definition or directional cues for bass guitar.
I'm of limited gear and even more limited ability. I track in mono so I begin to mix in mono. I'm steeped in the preconceptions that a sound stage is a representation of a stage set up where the sounds are coming from the musicians rather than mono ed in the PA so once I have addressed major EQ clashes I begin to set up a stereo image to meet my preconceptions.
So, my limited setup & tracking process lead me toward or reinforce a mono beginning.
If mono is god am I monotheistic?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If mono is god am I monotheistic?

Oooohhh, I like that; that jives with me as a pantheist!

But my point to starting a mix in mono isn't for potential phase issues as much as just finding sounds that are going to "argue" with each other fighting for space.

I agree completely. But again, don't you find, John, that your ability to be able to find or avoid such clashes before even checking in mono has gotten better with practice/experience? I'm just saying that the more one can avoid such problems out of the gate, perhaps as early as tracking or even composition, but certainly at faders up, the more potentially productive their mix sessions will be.

The alternative trap that I've seen happen is that some people become so dependent upon the mono check that two things can happen: first is that they don't bother trying to anticipate the potential problems, they just wait to "fix it in mono", which can often involve a lot more work, and second - which I admit kinda bugs me as a pet peeve - that when they switch to stereo that all ability on their part to hear such conflicts virtually disappears in kind of a Pablovian response. It's not the fault of the test itself; I support the test. I'm just saying that it seems like some can become over-dependent on it.

You don't need to wait until you get on your bike and start riding to tell whether you'll need to put the liner in your leather jacket to stay warm enough on any given day, do you?

G.

 

[Massive Master]

Without question. I still just bring everything up in mono as a starting point anyway... Some people pan right off the bat, I EQ right off the bat.

Eh... On the jacket thing... Sometimes I know. Other times, I'm pulling over less than a mile from home putting on the sweatshirt I keep in one of my saddlebags. Wind chill changes everything...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I still just bring everything up in mono as a starting point anyway... Some people pan right off the bat, I EQ right off the bat.

Good point. That's kinda why I mentioned the faders up step. I've never really thought about it too much before but I guess I'm one of those that tends to split the tracks out before I do a lot of work on them. The exception is if I immediately hear a real phase issue or other problem that really sticks out like a snowball in a coal bin.

Otherwise, for reasons that I can't intellectually explain away, It just seems easier to me to put everything in place (as a first draft, anyway) and then work on them from there. It just doesn't seem all that tough to figure out that track A is going to mess badly with track C if I switch to mono, without having to actually make that switch.

But the reason I waited a couple of days to join in this thread with that is that I do realize that I seem to be in the teeny minority there, and that unless/until one can do pretty well without the mono check, that they indeed should use it. But with the caveat that - IMHO - one shouldn't let the mono check let their ears get lazy.

Wind chill changes everything...

I'm not a regular bike rider myself, but I've been on my share over the years. The worst ride I took was years ago on a friend's bike on a raw January day of about 15°F before wind chill. Yikes, that was one cold freakin' ride, but I discovered something interesting that day. On days like that when you come up to a red light or a stop sign, it all of a sudden feels like it's about 70° out Halfway through the ride I was praying that we'd get stopped by a long freight train .

G.

 

[Massive Master]

Yep, those are the rides you remember forever... Rode through the remnants of Hurricane Ike last year... Not too cold, but w-e-t like I've rarely experienced on a long haul (Photos). Good times...

 

[flatcat]

I tend to sum things to mono, but then I only hear in one ear. My monitors are set up sideways to my good ear because I get tired of craning my neck when I mix.

Setting up a soundstage is something I do basically visually. I will often ask my wife to check my stereo mixes - while she is not an engineer, she is an avid music lover and is pretty sharp in her ability to hear when things are a little too "crowded".

 

[gecko zzed]

Somewhere in another thread faraway there was a similar discussion, and I mentioned then that I tend to be careless about phase issues.

I mix in stereo as I go, creating first of all the landscape that will form the basis of the song. I rarely check in mono.

The reasons are:

1 I get a better sense of progress, and of what's missing (or what's too much this way);

2 Most of the work I do is track by track, and phase issues arising from multiple mikes don't occur;

3 But because I use a firepod which provides input monitoring in mono only, when I do use multiple mikes (say, on a kit, on a vocal ensemble, or on a guitar), monitoring while tracking tends to reveal any phase problems.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I mix in stereo as I go, creating first of all the landscape that will form the basis of the song.

This sounds much like how I attack it. I can't speak for you, zzed, but for me the stereo image is such an integral part of the mix production that it's something for me that needs to be part of the foundation of the mix decisions, not something that's done as a later stage if the process. While I don't recall it ever explicitly being said anywhere here, there seems to be a general tendency here to treat the stereo image with less care than other dimensions - with the huge exception of the seemingly mandatory hard-panning of multipled rhythm guitars.

That last point which leads to this...

Most of the work I do is track by track, and phase issues arising from multiple mikes don't occur

Like practically every other important issue in music production techniques, it is so incredibly dependent upon context, content and genre.

I have been accused of being anti-metal in the past simply because I point out the incredible artificial emphasis on metal in the amateur home recording arena. The simple fact is that this over-shifted emphasis is mostly because of the large number of 16-22 year old white male amateur musicians jumping into home recording; a demographic the majority of whom by effect of nature and marketing happen to be the lifeblood of metal music.That's not a bias on my part, just a statement of the way things are.

I only bring this up here not as a commentary on genre itself, but rather to put the question of mono-checking raised on this board in it's true context. There are two hallmarks of most metal productions; one is the wall of doubled and tripled Gibson-ish guitar sustain and feedback into Marshal/Mesa-ish tube distortion, which happens to sound kinda "k3wl" when hard-panned to emphasize stereophony. The other is the extreme miking of the drum kit, treating virtually every surface of the kit as as if it were a separate instrument.

The very nature of these two signature techniques of metal production also happen to be highly vulnerable to and rife with potential phase issues. This will, frankly, heighten the need for mono mixing or checking to the point of almost mandatory. Even the very best ears behind the desk will probably want to do some mono tweaking when the interplay of tracks is so complicated as it is in such situations.

For those for whom metal is not where most of their work is done, though; those who tend to use between 2 and 4 mics maximum per drum kit, for whom "guitar" does not automatically mean a wall of sustain, feedback and distortion, and for whom individual instruments tend to have a bit more discrete and defined roles within the song's arrangement, phase and spectrum division are by nature nowhere near the issue that they would otherwise be. They are still issues, to be sure, but they are much easier to define and manage, lessening the priority and necessity of mono mixing for those with the ear to hear.

So, it's IMHO simply not a black and white answer as to how important mono mixing or checking may or may not be. One has to consider the question in terms of both content of the material on which one is working and the context of just how well one's ears are tuned to her them in stereo.

G.

 

[iqi616]

Start with the bass and EQ it like a bass. Cut any frequencies above 500 hz.

Where's the smiley? You're not serious I hope!

 

[MCI2424]

Where's the smiley? You're not serious I hope!

It helps to toubleshoot his problem. I get a decent bass cutting above 500Hz on my computer speakers no problem. I would not do this in a mix, but it is a good thing to do to see if his speakers are capable of reproducing these instruments clearly in their seperated frequency ranges. If the listening environment is so f-ed up, no matter how the instruments are EQed, it sounds muddy. I troubleshoot rooms like this all the time.

 

[GOYA]

I tend to sum things to mono, but then I only hear in one ear. My monitors are set up sideways to my good ear because I get tired of craning my neck when I mix.

Setting up a soundstage is something I do basically visually. I will often ask my wife to check my stereo mixes - while she is not an engineer, she is an avid music lover and is pretty sharp in her ability to hear when things are a little too "crowded".

I have one deaf ear as well. Stereo mixes, if they happen at all, are an afterthought. And they are done theoretically or abstractly. I'm told they are often very "unusual".

I'm curious how most folks here feel about older recordings that only used one mic. Or even a newer bluegrass recording that uses the same technique. To me, there are some fine older recordings of very dense music that never had possibility of the now standard EQ treatments for defining sonic space.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Hmm. This is actually a really interesting read for me, as I'm primarily self-taught and learned most of the "basics" by farting around and listening to other recordings, and have only really delved deeply on the 'net about more intermediate- and advanced-level stuff. I've never even tried collapsing a mix into mono.

I'll have to go home tonight and try, just to see what happens. I've either just sort of learned to avoid phase issues and clashes on my own (and the fact I don't get to record live drums very often at all probably makes this easier), or I'm about to have my eyes opened in a BIG way, lol.

Either way, thanks!

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I'm curious how most folks here feel about older recordings that only used one mic. Or even a newer bluegrass recording that uses the same technique. To me, there are some fine older recordings of very dense music that never had possibility of the now standard EQ treatments for defining sonic space.

A lot of that comes out in the instrumentation and the arrangements, though - a bluegrass ensemble with an upright bass, an acoustic guitar, a mandolin, a fiddle, and a couple guys singing harmony is one actually a pretty sparse mix considering no single instrument is going to take up a lot of harmonic space, and two is already pretty well differentiated, where each instrument has very different frequency ranges and dynamic responses (i.e - the mandolin and fiddle are both voiced fairly high, but the mandolin is a little higher, often, and is very "sharp" without much sustain, whereas the fiddle is almost ALL sustain - the guitar is fairly sharp but voiced quite a bit lower than the mandolin, and the bass is both a lot lower, and dynamically much smoother and more like the violin, but several octaves lower - it all "fits" together pretty well. You can't say the same about your average hard rock mix).

I really don't see the point of recording an entire band with a single mic, unless you simply don't have any other options - if you want a "live" recording and don't feel like micing each individual instrument, that's fine, but why not just do a simple stereo array? I understand the appeal of minimalism and "vintage" recording techniques, but there's a point past which it seems silly to limit yourself, and intentionally choosing not to capture the natural stereo spread of a band playing in a room strikes me as past that...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm curious how most folks here feel about older recordings that only used one mic. Or even a newer bluegrass recording that uses the same technique. To me, there are some fine older recordings of very dense music that never had possibility of the now standard EQ treatments for defining sonic space.

I'm not sure what you're asking when you ask how we "feel about" those recordings.

My strongest feeling is that they show what can be accomplaished when folks do get serious about it and don't just play around. I'd also add that many of those recordings went direct-to-disc, with the mastering engineer right there in the control room mastering the sound for cutting on the lathe in real time. No tape. Bo punch-ins. Everything from musician's mouth to master cutting in one real-time take.

Extreme care was taken in room acoustics and mic placement. Equal - if not more - care was taken in musical arrangement. Not to conflict with you Drew, but mixing a bluegrass ensemble can be a pain in the ass without the proper arrangement because when you get an acoustic guitar or two, banjo, mandolin and fiddle together, they will step all over each other if everyone (especially the engineers) are not careful and the upper mids will sound as mushy and noisy as a bad metal mix (just in a different way, of course ).

But for the most part with the old mono recordings, we're probably talking mostly big band/orchestral arrangements. Imagine having to record and mix Count Basie's band of some 12-15 or more members, all playing LOUD instruments at the same time. Yet they did entire sides in single continuous takes with a single microphone, mastered in real time, often to pretty incredible (considering the circumstances and technology of the time) results.

But that's when composers had real skillz, musicians were true artisans*and the engineers actually wore ties and white lab coats.

*Of all those band members one would think that maybe there'd be one or two true stars to come out, like Michael Jordan and Scotty Pippen out of the 90's Bulls. But look at this (only partial) list: Count Basie, Harry “Sweets” Edison , Paul Gonsalves, Lester Young, Earl Warren, Buck Clayton and Benny Morton. Granted they were not all there at the same time necessarily, but that would be like one single rock band having Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger, Neal Peart, Eric Clapton, Wynton Marsalles, Joe Satriani and Paul McCartney as it's members.

G.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Not to conflict with you Drew, but mixing a bluegrass ensemble can be a pain in the ass without the proper arrangement because when you get an acoustic guitar or two, banjo, mandolin and fiddle together, they will step all over each other if everyone (especially the engineers) are not careful and the upper mids will sound as mushy and noisy as a bad metal mix (just in a different way, of course ).

No worries, man - I mentioned arrangements in passing, then went on to talk about how the instruments were voiced for like 15 paragraphs, lol. I guess that was the next step I just forgot to go on to, if you're playing all these instruments with very different sonic responses, then it's certainly possible to come up with interlocking parts such that no one is stepping on anyone else's toes, if you're careful.

A 15-piece jazz ensemble? My brain melts at the prospect. :lol:

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

No worries, man - I mentioned arrangements in passing, then went on to talk about how the instruments were voiced for like 15 paragraphs, lol. I guess that was the next step I just forgot to go on to, if you're playing all these instruments with very different sonic responses, then it's certainly possible to come up with interlocking parts such that no one is stepping on anyone else's toes, if you're careful.

Exactly. Well said .


Oh, and let's not forget, on those old recordings, they had zero benefit from compressors (they weren't around yet for most of those sides) only the most basic of EQ/tone control, if at all, and unless they had a physical plate room or reverb chamber, no reverb outside of the room acoustics themselves.

G.

 

[GOYA]

What I meant by "feel about" was pretty much what you've responded to but perhaps a bit more. It basically starts with my feeling that in most cases, there really isn't a need for "creating space" or helping a certain part fit in the mix. Before anyone jumps down my throat, please note I said most cases. I've certainly heard mixes that needed EQ help. I recorded some myself. But for me, they've been quite rare. And you went straight to the heart of the matter with a swing big band. Think about it. You've got Benny Goodman's orchestra 30 feet in front of you in an at least decently acoustically prepared space. Do you expect to hear a need to EQ the tenor saxes so Peggy Lee will sit in the mix better? I would expect it to sound (and look) like heaven on earth. And yes, these were outstanding musicians but I don't believe Harry James could attenuate a 700 Hz hole in his trumpet.

In short, if the sound is there live, it should be there in a decent recording.

But perhaps this is more of a problem of tracking single instruments? Or perhaps I overestimate the use of this engineering tool/technique.

As far as bluegrass bands performing live with a single mic, it is mostly because of tradition. But it also adds a bit of showmanship and dynamic to what is normally a very static stage performance. When done well, the fading up and down of the instruments by the movement of the musicians in relation to the mic can sound quite good. And worthy of recording, IMO.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Hmm. This is actually a really interesting read for me, as I'm primarily self-taught and learned most of the "basics" by farting around and listening to other recordings, and have only really delved deeply on the 'net about more intermediate- and advanced-level stuff. I've never even tried collapsing a mix into mono.

I'll have to go home tonight and try, just to see what happens. I've either just sort of learned to avoid phase issues and clashes on my own (and the fact I don't get to record live drums very often at all probably makes this easier), or I'm about to have my eyes opened in a BIG way, lol.

Either way, thanks!

Following up on this - I felt too run down after the work week last night to go out, so I pulled up the last mix I did and started fucking around.

In mono, there wasn't MUCH phasing or clashing, so I'm going to guess I either 1.) got lucky, or 2.) have been doing this the hard way long enough that I did sort of get the hang of identifying phase issues in a stereo mix (not that I'm exactly a master, or even close)...

However, there was a little bit of phasing going on on the rhythm guitars (which I'd recorded with two mics on my cab) and the acoustics (which were done with a stereo X array). So I started farting around, and ended up zooming in about as far as I could. Sure enough, they were ever-so-slightly slightly out of line. A quick slide...

Holy shit, why haven't I been doing this for years? It's subtle, but it's nice... I'll definitely be doing this whenever I have more than one mic on a source from now on - it's no substitute for just paying attentrion to mic placement in the first place, but if you're already 99% of the way there it helps.