I’ve read a lot of
articles about the benefits of mixing in mono. So is pressing the mono
button on your DAW’s stereo output and turning off one of your stereo
monitors the way to go? I’ve had a quick go from one speaker and mono
switch, but it was a bit of a mess, to be honest! I’ve also read a lot
on panning in mono, but I didn’t think this would work.
Is
it better to record in mono, pan, add effects, and mix to a single
stereo master? The reason I ask is that when we recorded everything in
mono it seemed to sit better than many stereo files fighting in the mix.
Via SOS web site
SOS
Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies:
There certainly are some
advantages to mixing in mono. The main reason for checking the derived
mono from a stereo mix is to make sure it still works for mono
listeners, and there can be a lot of them. For example, a lot of
portable radios are mono and all car FM radios automatically switch to
mono whenever the signal suffers multi‑path problems or receives weak
signals, which is surprisingly often in most places. Many clubs also
play music in mono, and sometimes Internet files are converted to mono
to reduce data bandwidth, or become near‑mono just because of the chosen
codec.
So checking that the mix works in mono
is a very sensible thing to do, and if you’re going to do that, it is
infinitely better to check mono on a single speaker, rather than as a
phantom image across a stereo pair of speakers, because the latter
over‑emphasises the bass end and stimulates more room reflections, which
can be distracting and affect the perceived mix.
But
what about mixing in mono? Well, it’s generally much harder than mixing
in stereo, but you’ll get much better results for your effort. The fact
is that when you mix in mono you can really only separate different
instruments by using differences in their relative levels and spectral
content. So achieving the right balance and applying the right EQ to
separate sources, becomes a lot more critical: that’s why it feels
harder to do. But when it’s right, it is very obviously right.
Even
now that we have hi‑tech digital radio, a lot of listeners are still
hearing a mono mix, as is the case for users of the Pure Evoke radio,
currently one of the best‑selling DAB radios.
Conversely, when mixing in stereo you have the
same level and tonal differences to help make the mix work, but you also
have spatial position (panning). By panning sounds across the stereo
image, you can make the mix sound great very easily, even if you have
several near‑identical‑sounding sources. Yet, when that great‑sounding
stereo mix is collapsed to mono, you will often find it no longer works,
because those sources occupy the same spectrum and end up trampling all
over one another.
However, if you can get the
mix to sound good in mono first, it will definitely sound great in
stereo too. I find it a lot easier and more satisfying to work in that
way, although that’s possibly partly to do with my formative BBC days
working in mono. If you create the stereo mix first, it can be very
frustrating afterwards to have to make it work in mono too.
Of
course, the only problem with mixing in mono is what happens when you
come to pan sources to create the stereo image. Panning a source will
inevitably change its relative level in the two output channels. Depending on the panning law in use, this may also, therefore, affect
the mono mix balance slightly. Since the mono balance is inherently more
critical than the stereo balance, the result is that you end up having
to work around the loop a few times. For example, you set up the initial
mix in mono by adjusting the fader levels and, possibly, also using EQ
to ensure each source occupies its own spectrum and doesn’t trample over
anything else. You then switch to stereo and pan the instruments to
create a pleasing stereo image. This will usually modify the balance
slightly, although you are unlikely to notice anything significant while
listening to the stereo mix; it will still sound great. You then switch
back to mono and, if you notice the mix has gone ‘off’ slightly, you
can fine‑tune the fader positions to get the mix balance perfect once
more.
Finally, check once again in stereo and
print to master tape (or whatever!). In some descriptions of mono
mixing, you’ll come across the idea of finding the spatial ‘sweet spot’
for a source by adjusting the pan pot, while listening in mono. However,
this is, quite obviously, completely bonkers! What you’re doing in this
case is fine‑tuning the mono mix balance by using the pan pot as an
ultra‑fine fader, trimming the signal level by very small amounts. Sure,
it may well make it easier to fine‑tune the mono mix, but there
probably won’t be much sense in the stereo image positioning when you
finally do come to check the stereo mix. It’s obviously far better to
pan the sources while listening in stereo, so you can position them
precisely where you want them, then revert to mono and fine‑tune the
fader positions, if necessary, to make the mono mix work as well as it
can.
Reverbs and some stereo effects can be
tricky when you’re trying to find a perfect balance in both mono and
stereo. Almost all reverbs will sound much drier in mono compared to
stereo, and so, usually, some compromise will be needed. If you adjust
the reverb for a good sense of space or perspective in mono, it will
often end up sounding a little bit too wet in stereo (although some
people like it that way), and if you get the reverb sounding right in
stereo, it will often end up a little too dry in mono. There’s nothing
you can really do about this; it’s a fundamental issue with the way most
reverbs are created and the way stereo works.
Narrowing
the reverb width can make the differences less obvious — and some
reverbs have a parameter to enable you to do this — but it also makes
the reverb less spacious‑sounding in stereo. Some mix engineers like to
pan mono reverbs with each individual instrument to try to maintain a
better stereo‑mono balance, but it’s a lot of extra work and I’m not
convinced it sounds that much better anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment