Stereo or Mono?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abbott
  • Start date Start date
A

Abbott

New member
I was thinking about my four track and recording and life and girls...and i was wondering what the problem with recording in mono on four tracks is? no one ever seems to want to do it, always panning everything all over the damn place, but would the sound really suffer that much if it was in mono? i mean, pet sounds was in mono wasn't it?
 
Yep, Pet Sounds was mono and a lot of other important records were in mono also. I think a lot of Beatle records were in mono originally and some of Jimi's stuff was too. In 4-track you have no choice but to put some things in mono if you're going to do any pinging at all. Your rythym track will usually end up in mono. That being said, when you can pan, even just a little bit; it will help to seperate different instruments to the ears. I'd like to hear some of your mono mixes. Let me know when you have some posted. :):):):)
 
A good-sounding mono mix will be far better than a mediocre stereo mix!

Bruce
 
I've always preferred mono to stereo. It seems more natural and fatter I think. It produces more midrange usually which might explain the "biggness" of the sound. A lot of the old guys in the 50's said they didn't like mono when it came out. I even remember Elvis saying he didn't like it. I was born in 59 so I got interested in music in the late 60's whan AM radio was still hot and it was all mono. Most kids had a little mono record player too although your parents might have a big couch length hi-fi (they were very fashionable at the time.) When FM and stereo really took hold in the 70's I didn't understand all the fuss about either one. As a kid it just didn't sound all that different to me.

Heck I don't know. I'm just talking to myself now. :rolleyes: Snore....
 
I personally like stereo

I mix things differently though and sometimes different tracks will lie on opposites sides. Mono just does not offer the percieved depth I prefer. With only 4 tracks you may not benefit as much from stereo as say 16+.
Peter
 
WM is right about some people not liking stereo when it came out. Especially some of the important early engineers prefered mono. It also didn't help that in the early days they tended to use stereo as an effect. Ping pong balls going back and forth, trains crossing the room,...stuff like that. And, of course, even in stereo you tend to mix a lot of the instruments and voices centered in the mix which is mono. But for me the main thing I can get is a realistic room ambience. I tend to use reverb and delay to create a "space or room" that the music takes place in and I can get a bit closer to that with a stereo mix and if you have 16 tracks, why not? But certainly some of the best jazz and rock and even classical music was done in mono and those versions are often prized by collectors.
 
yeah, i was just thinking to myself how the average youth of today has never really experienced the magic of mono, which sounds beautiful when done right...

as far as i'm concerned, i'll probably end up doing the backing tracks in mono since i'll be ping-ponging anyway and maybe have the room mic'd guitar reach out a bit, as well as vocals and second guitar. i always liked the sound of a room mic'd acoustic just enveloping the whole track... something like that. i'll try and post the songs when i'm done though...
 
Mono is the new black.

I personally record everything to mono and use stereo reverb on the final mix to fake slight stereo.

One thing to note is that people listen to music on infinite systems having wild degrees of quality so if your big L.A. power ballad guitar solo is panned hard left (the acceptable norm and industry standard) sister susan (the nun next door not your sibling) might not get to fully enjoy the wringing emotiveness of your singing axe in her 1982 powder-blue vega.

Sometimes lopsided mixes make me feel sick if listening to headphones. Stereo is ear candy in extreme cases and in reality is a contextual location device for your body.
 
what do you guys mean are you guys talking about mixing down in mono or recording just mono sorry for stupidity for asking but do you guys mean recording tracks in mono then mixing it down to stereo? Is this a good way to record and mix?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I almost always record in mono and then use stereo "verb for the ambience. The only things I usually record in stereo is drums and sometimes certain guitar sounds.
 
FiVeL said:
what do you guys mean are you guys talking about mixing down in mono or recording just mono sorry for stupidity for asking but do you guys mean recording tracks in mono then mixing it down to stereo? Is this a good way to record and mix?
Click to expand...
Both. (or at least i am) Sometimes people use a stereo mic setup and use up 2 tracks for that in recording or will pan something that is on one track in the mixdown. Recording in mono is very basically not panning any of the tracks in mixing and not having any 2 tracks with a stereo image. The mention of "fake" stereo is running a mono mix through a bit of stereo reverb which delays the left and right channels enough to give it a sense of space which is what "stereo" really is.

I saw that you edited your post and before it had asked what mono is. Did you still want to know?
 
If I were a big guy in the music biz I think it'd be fun to record a whole CD in mono and not tell anybody just to see if anyone even noticed. Heck, 5 feet away from the speakers it all sounds like mono anyway. :p People worry too much about the sound of their recordings I think. I just want to hear a guy tear it up on his instrument. As long as it's intelligible I don't care if it were recorded on a cassette deck, I'll still buy it. You should hear my old Django 78 transfers. In glorious mono by the way. :D
 
Thanks spiral and I found out what mono means but thanks for getting it strait cause when it comes to audio terms Im lost. So basically if people want to record in stereo is because they want to have that spacial feeling in their music using more then 1 mic? When recording in mono you can use only one track and can put reverbs and what ever effects so it will be like stereo recording?
 
FiVeL said:
Thanks spiral and I found out what mono means but thanks for getting it strait cause when it comes to audio terms Im lost.
Click to expand...
Cool. It's good to ask questions even if you think they are dumb (questions aren't dumb - people are! :) ). Chances are if you've made an effort to research it and come up blank this is a great place to ask because of the broad range of approaches and answers to a question.

windowman: you are right on about the limited reach of stereo. that is what i was trying to get at with my previous post about limitations of locale. headphones are about the only place "everyman" will hear stereo effects.

If you listen to the radio, doesn't it seem like there are very few mixes with ear candy or extreme panning? I would venture a guess that producers realize that there would be few places their stereo effects could be heard.
 
Lately I have been trying to do my mixes in mono before I do any panning. All my levels and EQ are based on getting everything to fit right in a mono mix. Then when I add the panning it is just the extra spice.
 
Right on Spiral! That's why bands that play in stereo are wasting their time. All that happens is the people on the right just don't hear whatever's panned to the left. Stereo only works if you're sitting in the sweet spot. BUT, I don't do my mixes for other people..I do them for myself. If I did them based on what other people heard, then I wouldn't have to put much effort into them at all 'cause most people can't hear worth crap. :)
Hey Windowman...you mentioned 78 transfers. You a vinyl guy? If so we should talk. I'm a major vinylphile with about 5000 LP's and a wife who's, thank goodness, is pretty tolerant.
 
Stanley Kubrick often mixed his films in mono(2001 being a noticable exception...), becuase he didn't trust theatres to have there sound setup correct. nothing worse than seeing an object move left to right and having the sound of it go right to left.

musics different and I really love the effect of stereo. but most of the posters are right, 90% of people wont hear the stereo mix properly. I work in a hifi store, and most of the people buying aren't setting up there hifi to get a good stereo image. most people today don't sit and listen to music, they listen to it as they do other things.

I like to record guitars with two mics, and pan them in the mix. the last track I did was a countryish number, and we used one mic on the guitar cab, and the other to mic the strings on the electric. panned one each way and voila, interesting effect.

Dr_Sbaitso
 
You know, if you're in a position where you don't have to do any recording in the near future it might be a fun test to try and go without stereo for an entire month. Just listen in mono to any music and even TV/VCR stuff and then go back to stereo later on and see if you still like it as well as you once did. I have to think that we like certain things in stereo because we've become acustomed to it. Like, I used to hate diet cola but after being on a ton of diets over the years where I was forced to drink it, I've now developed a taste for the stuff to the point of actually not liking regular Coke and Pepsi as much as the diet versions.

Bob,

I don't have any vinal at all anymore. It's a long story but when I hit 30 several years ago I went through this period where I decided I was to old for the music bug and sold all my gear except for my acoustic guitar. CD's were also coming into vogue then and I sold my entire vinal collection and just bought the few CD's that I couldn't live without. I never had anything like you though. I don't remember ever having more than 400 or 500 hundred records at one time, but I was constantly trading. I didn't have many 78's anyhow. And the transfers I was referring to were transferred to metal cassette. It was mostly just The Quintet of the Hotclub of France stuff and some classical things. I also had a few reel to reel 7 1/2 IPS stereo recordings (I'm referring to reel to reel hi-fi recordings that were sold and marketed to 60's audiophiles. You probably remember them.) I transferred those to metal cassette too. I wish I would have waited till CDRW's came along but they were still many years off. I had a reel to reel of Brubeck's "Time Out" that was stellar. I've always wondered how the CD's that are out now of that same recording would stack up to it. I doubt very much that the original accetates were in good shape after all these years (they're only good for about 10 plays before they start crackling) and a lot of times these CD reissues of old recordings are actually taken from someone's mint LP. So in a case like that my rare reel to reel may have actually been better than the CD's. But it went in the dumpster behind my condo. Bummer! :rolleyes:
 
Oh hey, I forgot about the ballgames! Man that's one thing that sounds great in stereo, I don't know if I could give it up!

I don't know how they do it but the local TV station that broadcasts Cardinal Baseball games does it in such a way that if you listen to it on just regular stereo speakers it'll sound like there's a third channel coming from the rear of the speakers. It sounds like a seperate feed of the crowd cheering and talking behind homeplate or something. Man, the crack of the bat, everything just sounds so cool. I don't have a clue how they do it but I ain't giving up my stereo baseball games. No way! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top