M
MiNuS...
New member
Is there a difference?...what would be better...i know that panning effects work better on stereo...
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Mono more or less. Unless you're trying to capture some stereo aspect -room, group image, movement.. what else?
Panning is in some ways simpler or more versatile in mono.
___________
Monitoring just fine at CathouseSound
SP Tech Continuum AD
Panning is in some ways simpler or more versatile in mono.
___________
Monitoring just fine at CathouseSound
SP Tech Continuum AD
Last edited:
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
One mic, one source - MONO.
You can run it to a stereo channel and it'll be MONO. You can run it to 6 channels and it'll be MONO.
1 = 1. 1 does not = 2. 1 to the first power is 1. 1 to the 57th power is 1.
Jeeesus, how many times do we have to go over this stuff in one day?
You can run it to a stereo channel and it'll be MONO. You can run it to 6 channels and it'll be MONO.
1 = 1. 1 does not = 2. 1 to the first power is 1. 1 to the 57th power is 1.
Jeeesus, how many times do we have to go over this stuff in one day?
M
MiNuS...
New member
Thanks...i can kinda hear a differences...mono sounds more natural...
Mish
New member
I guess it depends - it might be worth a shot Y-routing mic signal. Clean sound to one channel and the double of it thru some effects bus - say reverb+phase (kinda like Van Halen's guitar in Aint Talking Bout Love intro), then blend/pan them in a mix.
I wouldn't go for it but hell, it doesn't hurt to experiment.
Otherwise mono.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Just do a aux send.. Don't even need stereo or second track for that.
Must have missed it. I presumed MiNuS meant two mics/stereo.Massive Master said:
Mish
New member
M
mixsit
Well-known member
..goes with out saying..Unless you're a real masochist
LeeRosario
New member
now a solid figure 8 mic and you have a mono mic that gives stereo-like depth . Jack Johnson's latest album is a great example, having used an original demo U47.
But don't forget, the dimensions will come later during mixing with your time based FX.
. Jack Johnson's latest album is a great example, having used an original demo U47.But don't forget, the dimensions will come later during mixing with your time based FX.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
Care to expand?
Fig 8 picks up room/backside -comes up in compresion make-up gain(?) What about the time effects?___________
Monitoring just fine at CathouseSound
SP Tech Continuum AD
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
You're not going to hear a difference -- 1x mono = MONO.
2x mono = MONO.
9.675x mono = MONO.
There is no such thing as stereo until there is a difference between the left and the right. One signal is not and will never be stereo. If you want to record a dozen vocal tracks and pan them all over the place, you'll have stereo at the buss. If you take the *same* audio information and pan it all over the place, it's still a single source (although it may favor one side).
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
He could be being tricked by the pan laws in his DAW software and reading a 3dB or so difference in volume as "more natural".
G.
G.
R
RAMI
Guest
OK, not trying to be a smart-ass....But are you sure you've ever really heard a vocal track in stereo??? And if you have, what tune was it???
I'm not even sure I can give an example of one, to be honest. I'm sure they exist, but I'd be more willing to bet that most of us have never heard one....and wouldn't know if we did.
LeeRosario
New member
Care to expand?
___________
Monitoring just fine at CathouseSound
assuming I understood your question correctly...
Yes. Compression will definitely bring out any ambiance the mic picks up, so in a sense, it's telling of how good your room and equipment have to be.
When I say 3D by using a good figure 8, I'm really emphasizing the "good" in that statement. For example, a U87 in figure 8 compared to a CAD in figure 8 are two completely different things. The timbre, color and overall balance of mics like that just give an awesome illusion of really being inside a performance from the get go. Not saying you can't do it with a cheaper mic, but it's just giving you the notion, "you never treat two mics the same, so the ears are your guide".
You can record figure 8, with a solid mic that beautifully emphasizes everything directly in front of it and assuming you have a good space to track in, you can still compress the hell out of it with little reverb effect.
It's really all about your mic, preamp and space at that point. Certain preamps actually deemphasize ambiance by viture of the kind of components they are built with. I won't really go into that, because it ends up being more of a listening test thing.
Also, it depends on the genre of music. If I know ahead of time that I'm going to be working with a heavy mix with tons of shit to balance (like metal or something), I'd prefer the dryest vocals possible. So in that case, probably no figure 8. But if it's something light, that breathes well (like jazz, folk, blues, etc) then figure 8 can really set up the mix really well.
The time based thing ends up being simple with practice. When I say time based, I'm implying the use of stuff like pitch shifting, delays and reverbs to put your vocalist within a space. Not anything revolutionary, but essentially, thats what you're hearing in a commercial mix.
Even when vocals appear dry in a mix, there's probably a really short reverb and or delay going on there to help it pop out of a mix. Someone who is still learning to listen for that kind of stuff won't be able to pick it up. Again, it's a practice in application type thing. Same goes with EQ, the darker the vocals, the more distant they will appear in the mix.
Put simply, give the vocals just the right amount of verb, EQ delay and pitch shift, either all or in part, and you've got vocals that seem to pop out of the mix and slap you in the face. It's such a tight rope walk at times, but easy with practice.
S
santiu
Rock-scientist
I'm confused. Is the original poster asking about recording vocals with one mic and routing it to mono or "stereo", or is he asking about the difference in tracking vocals with one mic versus using an m-s setup or something? I hope it's not the latter, because if it is, you guys are a bunch of assholes for ripping on him so hard 
If it isn't, then seriously dude, like it has been said, mono is mono no matter how many channels you route it to.
If it isn't, then seriously dude, like it has been said, mono is mono no matter how many channels you route it to.
fraserhutch
Flypaper for freaks
And why is the thread title in quotes? Is there some subliminal message to be had there?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Z
Zed10R
New member
If you can sing the lead vocals same the same way twice, track them twice and pan 20 L and 20 R...sounds good to me...i like it.
but some peeps don't...
MadAudio
Damned if I do
You don't want to know how many times you're going to see this come up, so don't ask!
FWIW, I was once doing a session where I was recording an acoustic guitar with the M/S technique. After we got the take, the artist said, "Hey while I'm in here let me add a scratch vocal." So I recorded that with the same set-up to a stereo track, and I must say it sounded quite good in the mix. Too bad the scratch performance wasn't up to snuff, 'cause I would have used it in the final mix.
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
Doesn't recording it twice give you two sources?If you can sing the lead vocals same the same way twice, track them twice and pan 20 L and 20 R...sounds good to me...i like it.
D
djfontana
New member
do you know the song "you've lost that loving feeling"? does that sound good to you? if yes then you might like doing mono. mono gives you the wall of sound effect... unlike stereo that naturally separates the sounds. phil spector was one of the pioneers of this technique.