SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I don't disagree with Ed's reasoning, really. And I don't really want to come across as a guy who's puuting his foot down and saying that mono checking is stupid or bad or wrong or anything like that. We keep this discussion going for much longer and that's how it'll come across; but that's not really what I'm saying.RAMI said: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 still do mono checking on a semi-regular basis, it really depends upon the mix. If there's something going on the the mix that's a usual suspect for phase problems - like doubled lines, for example - then, yeah, I'll check for potential phase problems. But if I am doing a typical 5-piece rock, pop, or R&B combo with arrangements where there is not a lot of line doubling going on*, it's usually fairly evident to the experienced ear where and when potential phase conflicts may arise, and in those instances I will indeed check. But honestly, assuming the tracking and EQ shaping of those potentially conflicting tracks is done something close to right, by the time the mix gets to mono, the phase problems are usually inconsequential.
Where I do disagree with Ed somewhat - though this I believe is more of a personal judgement call and not a declaration of right and wrong - is the idea of mixing for off-center boom box listening or similar horseshit listening enviroments. It's just not worth the studio time, IMHO, to worry about that. Under those conditions, A) it's going to sound like crap anyway, and B) the listener isn't going to be critical about the mix.
Finally, once again, the subject totally ignores the techniques involved in 4D mixing and design, where mono mixing is simply not part of the playbook, where issues like combative tracks are mostly handled long before a rough mono check comes up in the checklist, and where translation to listening to the mix on a transistor radio in a coffin is not a major consideration
. If mono mixing or it's close cousin, LCR mixing, are your bag, and they work for you, then more power to you. I'll not say you're wrong for using those techniques and methods. What I am saying is that if you don't use the mono mix technique like Ed does - and there are many of us, pro and amateur alike, who use alternative techniques - mono checking becomes less necessary as you become more proficient at the more textured mixing techniques. It's still done when called for, but it needn't be the unalterable commandment chiseled in marble that it can be made out to be in short, pat, oversimplified media such as your average forum post. That's all I'm saying
.It's not that Ed is wrong and I'm right, or vice versa (though I'm sure Ed will come back and say it *is* vice versa
). It's two different ways of approaching the situation. Admittedly, Ed's is easier. I prefer mine nonetheless. Make your own choices. Just don't get the idea that mono checking was, is, and always will be a necessary tool to use on every mix, and that if you don't use it, your mix will automatically suffer for it. That's way to simple and incorrect of an answer, right in line with you gotta use an LA2A on every mix, IMHO.*I don't know whether its geography or age, but I gotta tell ya that the amount of doubled distorted guitar lines alluded to on this board in one day is about three times the number that will cross my path in real life in my entire lifetime. This board is so hard rock and metal-biased as compared to the typical recording and performing acts in my area as to feel as though I'm on two different planets.
G.
