Otitis Media wrote on Wed, 08 September 2010 11:49 |
I dig. Don't you love the amount of reverb you can get away with in mono? Things live in their own space pretty well here, though I'm missing the bass guitar a bit. I'd also delay the shaker coming in so that it lands on the downbeat of the next bar rather than sort of lazily fading up. You can push the guitar licks up more for some more contrast, as well. It's a good basic mix, from what I can hear, now the trick is to get it moving so that it's got some life in it. Your BVox can also come up a bit. I realize I just suggested turning a ton of stuff up, which may or may not totally fark all the balances up... -D |
breathe wrote on Wed, 08 September 2010 16:45 |
There is no bass guitar. Should we put one on there? Nick felt the piano was sufficient. |
Fletcher wrote on Wed, 08 September 2010 17:07 | ||
That is a decision that the "production team" needs to make... in other words, that is between you, and Nick, and who ever else has a voice on the project. The readers of this forum do not have a voice in your production, and [frankly] you shouldn't be asking them for a voice -- that's what "Gearslutz" is for - people who don't deserve a voice to feel like they're being heard]. Go for what feels right to the production team and you will never be wrong... go with a "consensus" and you will never be right!! Peace. |
breathe wrote on Wed, 08 September 2010 19:52 |
I think you opinion (however noble) presupposes that I know exactly what I'm doing, which isn't necessarily the case. |
Quote: |
Sometimes a mono mix is the way to go. |
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 |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Thu, 09 September 2010 14:08 | ||
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. |
Ryan Slowey wrote on Thu, 09 September 2010 10:06 | ||
Because when it works, as it does here, it sounds good. What other reason do you need? |
MagnetoSound wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 03:54 | ||||
To me, stereo is an effect, nothing more nothing less, and completely optional depending on source. Panning, likewise. |
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. |
Quote: |
And sometimes mono really does just sound better. |
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. |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 17:21 | ||
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. |
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. |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 17:21 | ||
You would need to test that against its stereo version and still, those results would be mainly 'subjective'. Hope this clarifies. Edward |
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. |
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 |
Sean Eldon Qualls wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 11:43 | ||
much different from actually MIXING the song in mono, innit? |
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. |
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? |
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... |
Quote: | ||||
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. |
Quote: |
By the way - for our practical purposes - how much musical energy is there at 1Hz? |
Quote: | ||||
|
Edward Vinatea wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 20:10 | ||||
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". |
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. |
MagnetoSound wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 16:19 | ||||||
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. |
Quote: |
"but with the advantage of being able to manipulate the M/S channels". |
mgod wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 16:30 | ||
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. |
Fletcher wrote on Sun, 02 January 2011 16:27 |
...but we're not working for the "lowest common denominator" -- we're supposed to be making the highest quality product possible. We need to consider "sub-standard" listening environments -- but only to make sure that our product works "everywhere" - not an effort to tailor the product for those "sub - standard" environments. Peace. |
Edward Vinatea wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 00:12 | ||
I said:
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 |
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... |
MagnetoSound wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 07:38 |
So I would like to offer some friendly advice to help you get along: instead of talking down to people here in the manner that you do, why don't you consider the opinion of some of the most learned and experienced professionals on this forum (I do not mean myself, even though your suggestion that I have no experience of the various techniques of stereo capture is incorrect and unnecessarily insulting) -..... |