R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.  (Read 8508 times)

breathe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2010, 10:08:33 am »

BTW, my mix was put together on a Speck X.Sum, which is what I'm using until my MCI gets repaired.  I think this mix will sound considerably better if my artist can wait for me to remix it on my repaired MCI.

Nicholas

p.s. This record was the one I had to seriously debuzz with the Cube-Tec software.



Logged

MagnetoSound

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2589
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2010, 03:54:33 am »

Edward Vinatea wrote on Thu, 09 September 2010 14:08

Quote:

Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.


Very seldom a 'way to go' for me here. I mix an average of 48 tracks per mix sometimes over 60, and I need to use the frequency bands' real state to the fullest.




To me, stereo is an effect, nothing more nothing less, and completely optional depending on source. Panning, likewise.

If you find that you need to be panning tracks apart to make them fit in the 'frequency band', I would suggest you look for the overlapping parts in your arrangement and fix them, or perhaps deal with the mush with a tad of EQ. IMHO, stereo panning should not be seen as a mandatory workaround for a cluttered mix. A good mix will work in mono at least as well as it does in stereo.


And sometimes mono really does just sound better.  Smile


Logged

Music can make me get right up out of my chair and start dancing or it can get me so pumped up I have to walk around the block.
It can also knock me back and make me sit there and cry like a little baby. This shit is as powerful as any drug!!!
- Larry DeVivo

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2011, 11:26:27 am »

I realize this is now an old thread. However, it has to be said that when one extracts only one sentence from a paragraph, it's easier to be read in the wrong context and this should also be considered a form of 'trolling'.  

Ryan Slowey wrote on Thu, 09 September 2010 10:06

Edward Vinatea wrote on Thu, 09 September 2010 09:08

why would anybody want not to record in stereo or regress to ancient mixing methods?

Regards,

Edward


Because when it works, as it does here, it sounds good. What other reason do you need?




My initial statement was meant for very complex mixes.

Having said so, in response to Ryan's question and assuming his good faith, I can only answer it with another question: how do you know a stereo version of the same tune wouldn't sound just as good if not better?

If you like to hear things monoish, you can always pan parts or elements only a few degrees from the center and still appear to sound mono. Naturally this wouldn't make a lot of sense for some applications, but you get my point.

If one finds people to hire you to mix mono mixes, great. Any work should be welcome, but I haven't been asked that in 20 years or so.

Maybe other engineers on this board would like to share some of their work doing mono mixes? That would be interesting to hear, I think.

FWIW.

Regards,

Edward




Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2011, 12:21:57 pm »

MagnetoSound wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 03:54

Edward Vinatea wrote on Thu, 09 September 2010 14:08

Quote:

Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.


Very seldom a 'way to go' for me here. I mix an average of 48 tracks per mix sometimes over 60, and I need to use the frequency bands' real state to the fullest.




To me, stereo is an effect, nothing more nothing less, and completely optional depending on source. Panning, likewise.


To me it's not an effect but a necessity. One that my clients demand it.

Quote:

If you find that you need to be panning tracks apart to make them fit in the 'frequency band', I would suggest you look for the overlapping parts in your arrangement and fix them, or perhaps deal with the mush with a tad of EQ. IMHO, stereo panning should not be seen as a mandatory workaround for a cluttered mix. A good mix will work in mono at least as well as it does in stereo.


Agreed. But, in case you missed my point: think of "frequency bands' real state" as the spectrum you have to deal with and can fill up; the right and the left channels are both spanning for our practical purposes from 1 Hz to 20kHz.

Now, you can have same or similar elements filtered differently on both left/right channels, but with the advantage of being able to manipulate the M/S channels.

In a convoluted arrangement, this can mean the option of having a part, i.e., another voice or element, more clearly separated and defined than any mono version can.

Quote:


And sometimes mono really does just sound better.  Smile


You would need to test that against its stereo version and still, those results would be mainly 'subjective'.

Hope this clarifies.

Edward

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2011, 12:25:42 pm »

Mono is often more compatible with how people actually use music. You make a nice stereo mix, one speaker or earbud is out, a car's left door panel is blown or rotted, someone's stuck their speakers behind a couch and out of phase. Things are getting better this way, but there's still no way to control for it. Mono, everybody hears everything.
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2011, 12:34:26 pm »

mgod wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 12:25

You make a nice stereo mix, one speaker or earbud is out, a car's left door panel is blown or rotted, someone's stuck their speakers behind a couch and out of phase. Things are getting better this way, but there's still no way to control for it. Mono, everybody hears everything.


In my opinion, that shouldn't be the defining reason as to why mono is better. You can still drive a car with a flat tire, but nobody likes to do that.

Regards,

Edward

MagnetoSound

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2589
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2011, 01:58:30 pm »



Wow Ed, you are really on it today. I can hardly stumble across a thread where you are not engaged in combat.

The premise of this thread is, Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go. Can you not comprehend this idea at all? Does your mindset allow no room for this concept?



Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 17:21

Quote:

If you find that you need to be panning tracks apart to make them fit in the 'frequency band', I would suggest you look for the overlapping parts in your arrangement and fix them, or perhaps deal with the mush with a tad of EQ. IMHO, stereo panning should not be seen as a mandatory workaround for a cluttered mix. A good mix will work in mono at least as well as it does in stereo.


Agreed. But, in case you missed my point: think of "frequency bands' real state" as the spectrum you have to deal with and can fill up; the right and the left channels are both spanning for our practical purposes from 1 Hz to 20kHz.




I do not know what a "frequency bands' real state" is, but since you've used the term twice, I will eliminate the possibility of a typo in your previous post and guess that you mean "real estate", and that you are referring to some idea of capacity - that a stereo mix is two discrete volumes of frequency range which should be 'filled up' with as much material as you can possibly squeeze in there!

Forgive me if I feel a little queasy.  Smile


By the way - for our practical purposes - how much musical energy is there at 1Hz?



Quote:

Now, you can have same or similar elements filtered differently on both left/right channels, but with the advantage of being able to manipulate the M/S channels.




Do what? ... middle and side? Or mono/stereo? Either way, I can make no sense of this statement whatsoever.



Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 17:21

Quote:

And sometimes mono really does just sound better.  Smile



You would need to test that against its stereo version and still, those results would be mainly 'subjective'.

Hope this clarifies.

Edward




Try and remember the word 'sometimes' - how much more subjective could it be?


You've not clarified anything, I'm afraid.


Logged

Music can make me get right up out of my chair and start dancing or it can get me so pumped up I have to walk around the block.
It can also knock me back and make me sit there and cry like a little baby. This shit is as powerful as any drug!!!
- Larry DeVivo

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2011, 02:02:55 pm »

mgod wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 09:25

Mono is often more compatible with how people actually use music. You make a nice stereo mix, one speaker or earbud is out, a car's left door panel is blown or rotted, someone's stuck their speakers behind a couch and out of phase. Things are getting better this way, but there's still no way to control for it. Mono, everybody hears everything.
I'm not defining my mixes for people with compromised systems:  they wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

Having grown up with mono, the introduction of stereo was like opening a new vista.  I spent long nights with headphones listening to the creative ways to use the second dimension in music mixes.  Mono-ing stereo mixes to check polarity issues invariably makes the mix seem lifeless to me now.  I only do mono mixes if there isn't enough source material to warrant stereo.

Sean Eldon Qualls

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2011, 02:43:03 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 14:02

Mono-ing stereo mixes to check polarity issues invariably makes the mix seem lifeless to me now


much different from actually MIXING the song in mono, innit?
Logged
Sean Eldon
Gainfully unemployed / Back to freelancing

"Gearslutz -- Where the uneducated go to fight it out with the misinformed" - Dave Hecht

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2011, 02:48:11 pm »

Sean Eldon Qualls wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 11:43

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 14:02

Mono-ing stereo mixes to check polarity issues invariably makes the mix seem lifeless to me now


much different from actually MIXING the song in mono, innit?
There's a difference of course, but I still miss the lateral spread even in mixes intended for mono.

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2011, 03:10:00 pm »

MagnetoSound wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 13:58



Wow Ed, you are really on it today. I can hardly stumble across a thread where you are not engaged in combat.


Combat? And you are taking things I'm saying very nicely out of context as the smart troll you think you are, aren't you?

Quote:

The premise of this thread is, Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go. Can you not comprehend this idea at all? Does your mindset allow no room for this concept?


And I did say 'sometimes', yes:
Quote:

Edward said:
Working with a mono mix is alright for speech, guitar/vocal performances and things that aren't too complex in both production and arrangement...


I can't help it if you don't "comprehend" my comments in your own native language.

Quote:


Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 17:21

Quote:

If you find that you need to be panning tracks apart to make them fit in the 'frequency band', I would suggest you look for the overlapping parts in your arrangement and fix them, or perhaps deal with the mush with a tad of EQ. IMHO, stereo panning should not be seen as a mandatory workaround for a cluttered mix. A good mix will work in mono at least as well as it does in stereo.


Agreed. But, in case you missed my point: think of "frequency bands' real state" as the spectrum you have to deal with and can fill up; the right and the left channels are both spanning for our practical purposes from 1 Hz to 20kHz.



I do not know what a "frequency bands' real state" is, but since you've used the term twice, I will eliminate the possibility of a typo in your previous post and guess that you mean "real estate", and that you are referring to some idea of capacity - that a stereo mix is two discrete volumes of frequency range which should be 'filled up' with as much material as you can possibly squeeze in there!

Forgive me if I feel a little queasy.  Smile


Can someone make the same spelling mistake twice? What difference does it make if even when you know what I meant to say, you just don't "comprehend" it? Real Estate is correct, though.

Quote:


By the way - for our practical purposes - how much musical energy is there at 1Hz?


On a "professional" forum where things like increasing the nyquist filter so as to avoid 'ripple effects' in the pass-band and which are discussed ad nauseam, you have the nerve to throw in that silly question? It's not about how much you can squeeze to 1 Hz or 38Hz for that matter, but balance. Just because one can fill it up, it doesn't have to be necessarily to the rim.

Quote:



Quote:

Now, you can have same or similar elements filtered differently on both left/right channels, but with the advantage of being able to manipulate the M/S channels.



Quote:


Do what? ... middle and side? Or mono/stereo? Either way, I can make no sense of this statement whatsoever.



Right, you don't comprehend or have any idea of what I am talking about, and thus, you feel intimidated to the extent that you need to ask me in the most impolite way to explain it to you on a public forum.

Maybe you've never captured and mixed stereo tracks in your life. Maybe I'll explain this approach another day when you don't feel so "queasy".

Until then, have a nice Sunday.

Edward,

PS: M/S channels always mean 'mid and side channels' not "mono/stereo".

Bubba#$%Kron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2011, 03:24:30 pm »

index.php/fa/16102/0/
Logged
"When we make music we don't do it in order to reach a certain point, such as the end of the composition. If that were the purpose of music then obviously the fastest players would be the best. Also, when we are dancing we are not aiming to arrive at a particular place on the floor as in a journey. When we dance, the journey itself is the point, as when we play music the playing itself is the point."  -Alan Watts

MagnetoSound

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2589
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2011, 04:19:32 pm »

Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 20:10


Dan wrote:

Ed wrote:

Now, you can have same or similar elements filtered differently on both left/right channels, but with the advantage of being able to manipulate the M/S channels.



Do what? ... middle and side? Or mono/stereo? Either way, I can make no sense of this statement whatsoever.



Right, you don't comprehend or have any idea of what I am talking about, and thus, you feel intimidated to the extent that you need to ask me in the most impolite way to explain it to you on a public forum.

Maybe you've never captured and mixed stereo tracks in your life. Maybe I'll explain this approach another day when you don't feel so "queasy".




No, I think you need to explain it more coherently. I'm feeling fine. Please, explain how you can manipulate M/S signals after they have been blended with discrete stereo (or mono) material in a stereo mix.



Logged

Music can make me get right up out of my chair and start dancing or it can get me so pumped up I have to walk around the block.
It can also knock me back and make me sit there and cry like a little baby. This shit is as powerful as any drug!!!
- Larry DeVivo

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2011, 04:30:04 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 11:02

I'm not defining my mixes for people with compromised systems:  they wouldn't notice the difference anyway.

Yeah, sure - why not? But a lot of people aren't going to hear a goodly chunk of your work. Just the way it happens, unfortunately. Like watching Kubrick in pan and scan.
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Edward Vinatea

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
Re: Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go.
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2011, 07:12:56 pm »

MagnetoSound wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 16:19

Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 20:10


Dan wrote:

Ed wrote:

Now, you can have same or similar elements filtered differently on both left/right channels, but with the advantage of being able to manipulate the M/S channels.



Do what? ... middle and side? Or mono/stereo? Either way, I can make no sense of this statement whatsoever.



Right, you don't comprehend or have any idea of what I am talking about, and thus, you feel intimidated to the extent that you need to ask me in the most impolite way to explain it to you on a public forum.

Maybe you've never captured and mixed stereo tracks in your life. Maybe I'll explain this approach another day when you don't feel so "queasy".




No, I think you need to explain it more coherently. I'm feeling fine. Please, explain how you can manipulate M/S signals after they have been blended with discrete stereo (or mono) material in a stereo mix.







I beg your pardon? Now that I've called upon your manipulative and berating comments, you expect me to "explain" things? FYI, I don't need to explain anything to you. Especially when your question has nothing to do with what I've even said.

I said:
Quote:

"but with the advantage of being able to manipulate the M/S channels".


My statement assumes that you know how to create a sum-and-difference matrix and that your mix is still a work in progress, i.e., maybe you are even mixing with stems. But that's another subject for another day in another thread.

Here is a clue: the mid and side channels can be adjusted and reconfigured to more accurately represent the conventional left and right stereo image, thus useful for corrective phase cancellation issues, controlling frequency content, and while you can go overboard with m-s foolishness, it isn't really anything that a well balanced, well distributed {frequency wise} "discrete" stereo mix can't achieve. But for some situations, very useful indeed.

Edward
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All   Go Up