Mono mixing...

[RAMI]

When I do a song, the last thing I do is put things in the stereo spread. I do all my volumes, eq-ing, effects, etc...in mono, with everything panned up the middle.

It just hit me that this might not be what people mean when they "checking the mix in mono". Should I be placing everything in stereo and then hitting the mono switch??? There is a difference. The relative volumes wouldn't be the same because the tracks that are already panned up the middle would be more "true" to their volume than the panned ones when switched to mono, no? So, have I been doing it wrong all along?? Or is it just another way and not really that much of a difference.

Does this question make sense?

 

[SonicAlbert]

I think what most people mean is to mix in stereo and check in mono. Or at least spend some time in mono, but have the stereo mix be the base mix you work from.

 

[RAMI]

I think what most people mean is to mix in stereo and check in mono. Or at least spend some time in mono, but have the stereo mix be the base mix you work from.

Right. I was beginning to think so. Mainly because I found that once I started putting things in stereo, I had to pretty much re-adjust all the volumes. I guess it can also be looked at as just doing one before the other, you'll have to do both anyway. But I'm going to try the same song both ways and see what happens. Thanx.

 

[Massive Master]

I tend to get the mix as close as I can in mono, then pan - and yes, you'll very likely want to adjust levels - then adjust in mono again.

If you can get all the instruments to "be nice" in mono (not fighting for space, etc.), then you're almost insuring good focus and separation in stereo.

 

[scrubs]

I think what you're doing is a good technique. Once you get everything panned, you may need to make a few tweaks, but you'll have a solid mix that will translate well to mono if you do most of your mixing there.

 

[Llarion]

When I do a song, the last thing I do is put things in the stereo spread. I do all my volumes, eq-ing, effects, etc...in mono, with everything panned up the middle.

It just hit me that this might not be what people mean when they "checking the mix in mono". Should I be placing everything in stereo and then hitting the mono switch??? There is a difference. The relative volumes wouldn't be the same because the tracks that are already panned up the middle would be more "true" to their volume than the panned ones when switched to mono, no? So, have I been doing it wrong all along?? Or is it just another way and not really that much of a difference.

Does this question make sense?

Yes, there is indeed a difference. You don't use a very big soundfield on most of your stuff, and this may be part of the reason. Personally, I mix for stereo, and I check it mono, and I check it on seven different audio sources (Studio monitors, PC speakers, boom box, car, "real" stereo, good aftermarket iPod buds, studio phones). If it doesn't pass the car test and iPod buds test, it's back to the drawing board. For me, oddly enough; my car stereo reveals more of my bad imaging choices and bass EQ issues than any other medium. The studio monitors are seductively deceptive.

 

[RAMI]

Thanx guys....I can see valid reasons to do both, but as Llarion and others have said, mixing in stereo and checking in mono is something I'm going to try. I just had this thing about "I don't want to hear it in stereo at all until I get it sounding as good as possible in mono, then it's GOT TO sound good in stereo".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Thanx guys....I can see valid reasons to do both, but as Llarion and others have said, mixing in stereo and checking in mono is something I'm going to try. I just had this thing about "I don't want to hear it in stereo at all until I get it sounding as good as possible in mono, then it's GOT TO sound good in stereo".

Mono checks are for

- those who's ears are not yet trustworthy enough to be able to tell how two sounds compare side-by-side and can only tell by comparing them stacked on top of each other. And if I have track 5 at 30% R with track 7 at 65% L, then it really doesn't matter if one winds up covering the other in a mono check, unless your one of...

- those who cares how their stuff sounds on AM radio. In which case you got more issues to worry about with your mix than just mono compatability.

G.

 

[RAMI]

Mono checks are for

- those who's ears are not yet trustworthy enough to be able to tell how two sounds compare side-by-side and can only tell by comparing them stacked on top of each other. And if I have track 5 at 30% R with track 7 at 65% L, then it really doesn't matter if one winds up covering the other in a mono check, unless your one of...

- those who cares how their stuff sounds on AM radio. In which case you got more issues to worry about with your mix than just mono compatability.

G.

So, other than for phase issues, you say it's an un-neccassarry step I'm adding????

Whether it's useful or not, I found it was good practice for someone with less-than-pro engineering abilities like myself. I found it really forced me to work with the mix instead of just relying on panning something somewhere to give it it's own space. Maybe I'm over evaluating the importance of it all.

 

[Llarion]

. Maybe I'm over evaluating the importance of it all.

Maybe; ultimately, if it sounds right, it probably is... ("right" being highly subjective, of course, but I've never heard a significant issue with any mix I've heard of yours...)

 

[cusebassman]

Of course, I've seen plenty of small desk stereos/radios that only have one speaker, so one would assume that whatever signal is coming into that thing is getting pressed together into mono to come out the speaker. While it might be wishful thinking to say that you have to worry about how your mix sounds coming in through the radio, these players also have CD, etc., so I do think it is still necessary to test your mix in mono... if someone pops that CD into a little desktop player that plays back in mono, you don't want half your frequency range disappearing

And yes, technically, things should be recorded properly so that that sort of thing wouldn't happen - but for a lot of us novices, how would we know unless we made a mono mix? Just seems like a step that doesn't take all that long and does provide some sort of useful information, even if it is just for peace of mind.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So, other than for phase issues, you say it's an un-neccassarry step I'm adding????

Whether it's useful or not, I found it was good practice for someone with less-than-pro engineering abilities like myself.

I love it when folks inadvertantly answer their own questions . No, Rami, I'm not saying it's an unnecessary step, any more than I'm saying that training wheels or a skyjump tether are unnecessary. What I'm saying is that unless one is actually creating a mono mix, mono checking is IME in the same category as those other two tools; it's a wise thing to do until you don't need to anymore.

But, if you're good, the time will come when the mono checking is no longer necessary to ensure a good mix; your ears will know without having to go through the extra rigor. When will that be? When you reach the point where you do a stereo mix and you find very little, if any, problems in mono, and/or you can predict hat when you go to mono that sounds A and B are going to clash.

And as far as phasing issues go, remember, checking that in mono only matters if you really care about the mono mix. Phasing issues in stereo will be audible in stereo, no need to check for them in mono unless you are really concerned that people are going to be listeing to your stuff in mono. If you're creating a CD or a demo disc or something to put on meSpace or something, the chances of that stuff winding up on a mono broadcast or on a player with only one speaker somewhere are electron-microscopically small. And if your stuff does wind up there, it's probably because you've already broken through to the other side; which means that your mixes must have been just fine if people liked them that much .

G.

 

[Ford Van]

Very few listening environment are truly stereo for the listener. Also, in cases of a boom box, if you are not in fact VERY close to it, you wind up hearing everything in mono anyway.

What I am getting at is that I wouldn't give my credence to what Glen is saying here. There are MANY instances when your music will be heard in mono (for all practical purposes) and you still need mono compatibility if you want the mix to translate.

There are other acoustical phenomenons that come into play on how sound interacts in a stereo environment on how tonal aspects are perceived that I cannot describe well enough to make any sense, but at least get the gist, which is that ONLY if you can reproduce the same stereo environment upon listening can you appreciate the mix as intended. Thus again, some mono compatibility is advisable. It has something to do with how sound develops/volume/tonal shape.

I can guarantee that if you spent at least 40% of your mixing time in mono, your mixes will sound noticeably better. I have spent as long as 75% of my time in mono on some stuff, and managed some of my best mixes that way.

 

[RAMI]

No, Rami, I'm not saying it's an unnecessary step

Cool. It was an honest question, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

But, if you're good, the time will come when the mono checking is no longer necessary

Looks like I'll be going mono for a looooooooooooong time.

no need to check for them in mono unless you are really concerned that people are going to be listeing to your stuff in mono. If you're creating a CD or a demo disc or something to put on meSpace or something, the chances of that stuff winding up on a mono broadcast or on a player with only one speaker somewhere are electron-microscopically small.

OK, here's where 2 guys who's knowledge of all this far surpasses mine. Ford Van disagrees here. (not trying to stir anything up, but it's right there in black and white on the 2 previous posts )

And Ford's examples of "boom boxes" and certain rooms and systems makes sense to me. Actually, I wasn't even checking my mixes in mono for that reason, but now that I think of it, there's something I didn't think of.

I guess, for the sake of practice and getting better, it doesn't hurt to do it both ways. Thanx guys.

 

[ecktronic]

Why would anyone listen to a stereo mix in mono?
I know there will be a few radio stations that still transmit in mono, but there cant really be that many left now.

Eck

 

[RAMI]

For the reasons stated in Ford Van's post...Also, phase issues, etc. It's a lot harder to get everything to sit wellin a mono mix. I don't think many of us here can claim to be good enough at mixing to not NEED anything.

 

[ecktronic]

Good stuff Ford Van.
My mono mixes usually sound pretty similar. When I listen in mono the guitars dissapear and the vocals apear louder since the guitars phase and loose volume.
I wouldnt say they sound very good in mono, but neither do commercial mixes.

Eck

 

[Ford Van]

Good stuff Ford Van.
My mono mixes usually sound pretty similar. When I listen in mono the guitars dissapear and the vocals apear louder since the guitars phase and loose volume.
I wouldnt say they sound very good in mono, but neither do commercial mixes.

Eck

I would venture to say that there is a whole new "breed" of mixing engineers who cannot shake a stick at the more popular guys from 10 or more years ago! Oh well.

 

[Bartman]

Once you go mono....

Once you go mono.....you'll never go back!

Seriously, I always check my mixes in mono for possible phase issues or to identify an opportunity for greater clarity. Seems to work OK for me.

 

[danny.guitar]

Good stuff Ford Van.
My mono mixes usually sound pretty similar. When I listen in mono the guitars dissapear and the vocals apear louder since the guitars phase and loose volume.
I wouldnt say they sound very good in mono, but neither do commercial mixes.

Eck

If you listen to a lot of classic rock stuff you'll notice the mix sounds just as good in mono as stereo. In fact, in a lot of songs there's not much difference. I don't listen to most modern music, so I can't really comment on that.