grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
What is it that disappoints you ?
S
sixer2007
New member
Just that I'd love for my mixes to sound anywhere near that, but there's a looooong road ahead. Oh well, keeps me humble and wanting more everyday
R
RAMI
Guest
Grim, you're an extremely intelligent guy, no sarcasm intended.
But for some reason, you're not able to wrap your around some pretty clear analogies. (eg. Walk 200 feet away from your speakers and you can't hear any stereo separation, which makes it mono, etc....) I'm getting the impression you don't WANT to understand it, because I know you totally understand much more complicated stuff.
But for some reason, you're not able to wrap your around some pretty clear analogies. (eg. Walk 200 feet away from your speakers and you can't hear any stereo separation, which makes it mono, etc....) I'm getting the impression you don't WANT to understand it, because I know you totally understand much more complicated stuff.
S
sixer2007
New member
Either way man, I'm getting to figure out if i really know wtf i'm saying! It always helps to put thoughts into words. If ya don't really know what you know, you'll never get it out right.
R
RAMI
Guest
Your examples were fine. That's what I was saying.
S
sixer2007
New member
I know, I understood.
R
RAMI
Guest
I hope that didn't come off rude or condescending. I was saying it in the same way I'd punch a buddy in the shoulder and tell him that.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
That might work if you are tracking an entire band...then yeah, you can get the levels balanced during tracking.
When you are recording one track at a time...you really can't guess what is the correct level of say...your bass and rhythm guitar...if you have yet to record three more guitar tracks, organ, piano vocals..etc..etc.
Also...when tracking analog to tape, as I do...my goal is getting optimum signals down on tape...which is not the same thing as balancing levels during the mix, and not the same as tracking to digital where level changes become nothing more than a numbers game.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Someone here said most people listen to music in mono....huh?
I would actually say that these days most listen in stereo. Look at all them iPods...they got plugs for both ears.
Yes, I agree that 200 feet away, a typical stereo system spread will turn into a mono sound...but that's a bit extreme.
I always get a kick out of the guitar players who talk about playing in stereo from a 212 cab with the speakers wired for L/R seperation...yet they are so close to each other that you would have to have your head down in front of them to hear the L/R separation.
That said...I disagree that you can't hear stereo unless you sit dead center between the speakers.
You are ALWAYS hearing it in stereo...it's just that the stereo image will shift/move if you move...but it doesn't get "smaller" toward mono or turn into mono if you are listening in a typical size room (again, not 200 feet away).
Also, the way a stereo mix interacts with the room is differerent from how a mono mix would...so the room helps to enhance the stereo sound, which is why you can still here stereo elements when you move...it's just thay they move/change too....but I agree, the optimum position is the proverbial "sweet spot".
How you setup/spred your speakers is key too. I see guys with their monitors sometimes only 2 feet appart. Mine are like 6 feet appart.
Mono is OK for quick phase checks...but I never found it of much use for mixing in my SOP...IF the goal was to have a stereo mix. They are two different things, and I disagree that a perfect mono mix can become a perfect stereo mix, just by changing the panning.
Yes, there is masking and interaction...but it's not going to be the same when everything is stacked in mono VS stereo.
I also feel that stereo offers you greater options to use the masking, or lack of, and the interaction.
Mono mixes are great...I love all the stuff from the early '60s...but I think you get way more bang for your buck with stereo.
For anyone concerned that some people may hear your stereo mix in mono...you can do some trade-offs between a mono setup and stereo in order to find a point where both sound pretty good, but if you mix specifically for either, the end result will never be as perfect when switched to the opposite format....so you have to make some choices, and some concessions if you try to cover both.
Personally...and I don't say this as a snub to those who do mix or work in mono as their SOP....I don't pay a heck of a lot of attention to the mono sound of my mixes. I just mix it the way I want to hear it....in stereo.
I would actually say that these days most listen in stereo. Look at all them iPods...they got plugs for both ears.
Yes, I agree that 200 feet away, a typical stereo system spread will turn into a mono sound...but that's a bit extreme.
I always get a kick out of the guitar players who talk about playing in stereo from a 212 cab with the speakers wired for L/R seperation...yet they are so close to each other that you would have to have your head down in front of them to hear the L/R separation.
That said...I disagree that you can't hear stereo unless you sit dead center between the speakers.
You are ALWAYS hearing it in stereo...it's just that the stereo image will shift/move if you move...but it doesn't get "smaller" toward mono or turn into mono if you are listening in a typical size room (again, not 200 feet away).
Also, the way a stereo mix interacts with the room is differerent from how a mono mix would...so the room helps to enhance the stereo sound, which is why you can still here stereo elements when you move...it's just thay they move/change too....but I agree, the optimum position is the proverbial "sweet spot".
How you setup/spred your speakers is key too. I see guys with their monitors sometimes only 2 feet appart. Mine are like 6 feet appart.
Mono is OK for quick phase checks...but I never found it of much use for mixing in my SOP...IF the goal was to have a stereo mix. They are two different things, and I disagree that a perfect mono mix can become a perfect stereo mix, just by changing the panning.
Yes, there is masking and interaction...but it's not going to be the same when everything is stacked in mono VS stereo.
I also feel that stereo offers you greater options to use the masking, or lack of, and the interaction.
Mono mixes are great...I love all the stuff from the early '60s...but I think you get way more bang for your buck with stereo.
For anyone concerned that some people may hear your stereo mix in mono...you can do some trade-offs between a mono setup and stereo in order to find a point where both sound pretty good, but if you mix specifically for either, the end result will never be as perfect when switched to the opposite format....so you have to make some choices, and some concessions if you try to cover both.
Personally...and I don't say this as a snub to those who do mix or work in mono as their SOP....I don't pay a heck of a lot of attention to the mono sound of my mixes. I just mix it the way I want to hear it....in stereo.
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
I understood sixer2007's analogies, but what I have had a real problem with getting my head around is how getting something to sound good in mono then translates to stereo, given that all the mono positions change. I'll freely admit, that one foxes me. I know that many engineers down the decades and here at HR {I count anyone that mixes as an engineer} have done it, do it and swear by it and for that reason alone, I'd never dismiss it. But as yet, I don't understand it. I'm a bit like that but to a much lesser degree with compression.
I brought up the point about listening to music as I load the van in the mornings because at distance on certain songs, I could make out some basic stereo separation. OK, not 200 feet but not close by. Back in August, I remember listening to "I am the walrus" and being struck by how the orchestral parts seemed "over there" while other parts seemed in the nearer speaker and I've been struck over the last couple of days by the same thing while listening to "Hard day's night", "Beatles for sale", "Help !" and "Rubber Soul" because they were mixed in that way of the voices primarilly in one speaker and the instruments in the other. Partly based on that, I was disagreeing that any time one is not in the middle of two speakers, it's mono. Also partly based on Massive Master's definition of stereo as the difference between the information contained in both speakers.
What you said didn't come over to me as condescending at all. It's not that I don't want to understand though, because I did grasp the analogies. It's funny though, some things I grasp pretty much straight away, other things it may take an eternity !
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
The thing that Mono helps with is getting a balance with frequencies and levels....because everything is stacked, so if you can get good clarity and hear separation in the mix....it will sound good in stereo too.
However...I don't think once you spread it out into stereo that your stereo mix is done.
IMO...the mono step is just that, a step...but you then need to make some more adjustments in the stereo step if you want the best possible stereo mix.
When you open it up to stereo, you CAN push things more, where as in mono, the balance has to be real tight.
It's all good.
Lots of people just mix in stereo without doing the mono step.
You find your SOP and then refine it as you like best.
However...I don't think once you spread it out into stereo that your stereo mix is done.
IMO...the mono step is just that, a step...but you then need to make some more adjustments in the stereo step if you want the best possible stereo mix.
When you open it up to stereo, you CAN push things more, where as in mono, the balance has to be real tight.
It's all good.
Lots of people just mix in stereo without doing the mono step.
You find your SOP and then refine it as you like best.
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
Respectfully, I disagree. Since I hardly ever track a whole band together and I've been doing it this way for years, you can most definitely accomplish this, through my experience.
For example. You're tracking drums. Those tracks can be balanced in relation to one another on input via either the gain knob or via a fader if you're tracking off of a console. Then, when you track bass, you can balance the bass level in relation to the drums, once again just by choosing an appropriate gain setting. Once the guitars are added, you can do the same. All you have to do is listen objectively. And so on...
So, once again, the mix balance starts to form from the beginning of tracking. You can still have fader control ITB during mixing, but if you get it right, your balances are pretty much there before you even begin. See what I'm saying?
Well, there you have a point. Tape levels are more critical than digital, no doubt. The signal to noise ratios are an issue so I can see how your philosophy is different to mine on this.
Cheers
Last edited:
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Actually, I may add a point here; There is only confidence in what a mix 'may' become when tracking. It always changes when you record one instrument at once. I would never say that I get a mix perfect from the tracking stage.
I have not yet been so inside of a bands eye, to be able to recreate a perfect mix from the input stage-when tracking individually. Yes, a more competent first mix can be quickly achieved by having a band play live, but that does not necessarily represent the optimum input levels for each instrument. I suppose it depends on what the hell we are recording to begin with.
Nevermind, I am picking hairs. My own hairs.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
I agree with this. When progressively adding tracks, I add to a rough mix of what's already there, and track so that the new forms part of this mix. That way I get a good impression of how the new is contributing to the old and whether or not it is going to work. It starts with an idea, and ends with the achievement of either that idea, or another that has taken over.
When this is all done, I save it as a version.
The I do a bottom up mix (as I described earlier).
ollie99
New member
Someone here said most people listen to music in mono....huh?
I would actually say that these days most listen in stereo. Look at all them iPods...they got plugs for both ears.
me and someone else said that, sixer I think. But if you think about it, along with all the tv music channels, there is also music being played through adverts and shows, and these usually all come through mono from the tv. And for us on here, not many people downloads our music and put it onto their ipods if they want to listen to it, they would probably first listen somewhere else, and probably about 50% of the time that is in mono. See what I'm saying?
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
Well, I would make a couple of distinctions here between balancing and mixing. Obviously mixing also encompasses other things not really possible during tracking such as automation and special effects. However, a mix starts with a general balance and tonal considerations, which can be controlled during the recording phase. It just makes sense, not very least from an economy of workflow point of view, to get as close as you can to the desired finished result as you can and that, to me, includes getting a good relative balance between the elements. Does this require a bit of foresight? Yes. You need to know how to make your vision reality through the tools at your disposal and that comes with time and experience. Tonal decisions are also part of this philosophy. It's actually really liberating to EQ something on input with a hardware EQ because there are no visual distractions and you are forced to listen to the results. Need a brighter snare? Lift the top end a bit. Need to suck the mids out of the kick? Do it. It's really just that simple.
Cheers
S
sixer2007
New member
Dave Pensado (do you guys watch his show? If not, I highly recommend it!) had a guest not too long ago who was talking about just that; the idea of mixing and tracking being the same to him, and how he actual never "mixes" anything. It all goes to tape exactly how he wants it on the record.
For many of us who work ITB only, and also have limited experience with music production, that idea seems a bit out of reach. However, I cannot agree more that the sounds you get in tracking are everything.
You can watch the interview here: Episode 78: Producer and Mix Engineer Kevin Augunas - Pensado's Place
For many of us who work ITB only, and also have limited experience with music production, that idea seems a bit out of reach. However, I cannot agree more that the sounds you get in tracking are everything.
You can watch the interview here: Episode 78: Producer and Mix Engineer Kevin Augunas - Pensado's Place
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
It can work that way...but not always.
A mix isn't just about referencing each new track level to the previous tracks...IMO.
I agree, you can get in the ball park where you don't have to make drastic level changes later on...but I think there is more subtlety to the mix that isn't always apparent when recording individual tracks and building a session track-by-track.
I don't see much reason to feel one needs to be locked into a final level at the tracking stage or why that would be of any significant importance to the final mix...?
I'm not saying that you should let your tracking levels be all over the place...but there's nothing special about ending up with faders at "0" come mix time.
That said, I think most people ARE mixing as they track, almost subconsiouly...so it's nothing outstanding.
You have an idea, you hear the tracks, you make decisions about your next thracks...etc.
Also...I've come to the final mix many times and decided that I didn't want something the way I originally thought...so then one fader move, and everything changes.
I am always hearing the mix build as I track...but I mainly focus on getting the right signal down at tracking for each track...and then if I have to nudge the fader up/down a few dB come mix time, I don't see that as any weakness or inferior SOP of the tracking stage.
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
Like I said, there's a difference between getting a tonal and level balance and the actual "mix".
Cheers
Cheers
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
That would depend on the kind of telly you have. Maybe it's just the people I know and the way the digital revolution here has moreorless pushed soooooo many people into getting digital TVs of one description or another but all the tellys I see have two speakers and various settings {stereo, mono, analog mono, stereo enlarged} and I'm seeing more and surround systems.
I don't.
But I am curious. What mono devices do people download music onto ? I'm probably well out of touch here ! I have albums and singles from the 60s that are in mono and obviously they play that way on a stereo, but I haven't listened with mono devices to music {obviously not counting guitar or bass amps} since 1981. And even then, any chance I got to use my Dad's stereo, I did.
You see, this part I fully understand. I've never had the problem with that. I remember very early on in my mixing life when my mixes were awful, I hit upon that by accident. In the midst of a song, I brought all the instruments centre panned and I thought they sounded good then as the song went back to the verse I went back to the way it had been panned. Nice effect. I was surprized at the time. It was one of those "Aaaahhh....." moments. The bit I'm still struggling with {I'm trying, I'm trying !} is the "your stereo mix needs to sound good in mono too" bit. I can see it the other way round because in a sense it doesn't matter ~ a mono mix can't help but sound good on a stereo system because it doesn't essentially change. You could, theoretically, play it out of just one speaker. Mixing engineers used to do that in the control room, certainly at EMI. But that's why I was having problems with the concept of checking a mix in mono, I couldn't see the point if it was going to end up in stereo.
Perhaps I'm inadvertently morphing two separate ideas into the same point but that's how they're generally presented.
Which would confuse the issue again ! It's kind of circular, why go through the mono step if you're just going to make more adjustments in the stereo step that possibly undo the adjustments made in the mono step...........
That's an intriguing statement. Human beings are paradoxically creatures of habit and routine while simultaneously being capable of spontaneity and improvisation and taking in new directions. Having read scores of interviews from engineers down the years, they tend to fall into a routine. When they're mixing in different and unfamiliar studios, so many of them will try to bring in or rent in the equipment they're used to because their routines are important to them.
But that doesn't conflict or shouldn't necesarilly conflict with
because songs and their requirements are usually different.