Always test your mix in mono...

[AndyR]

I learnt this recently from the "why do your recordings sound like ass" thread.

Apparently, you find all sorts of horrid things that you can't spot when monitoring in stereo.

And it's true!!!

That gorgeous stereo submix of two acoustic guitars sounded a complete horror in mono... so I fixed it in mono, and it sounded FAB in stereo. This was in headphones the other day.

Just done the same thing on the studio monitors to check something else out...

...and

The right-hand speaker has been a fair bit quieter than the left for months!!!!!!

Moral of the story-
* Test your mix in mono
* Don't clean your studio, knobs get knocked, all kinds of shit happens...

[Flash Harry]

* Don't clean your studio...

My Mantra

[henwrench]

The old mixing desks of yesteryear had mono switches on 'em, to check your mix. They were great, as any 'true' out of phase sounds (as opposed to effects), would 'disappear' entirely. Vital if you'd recorded anything with a stereo pair of mics. Of course it was as equally useful if you intentionally wanted something to vanish in the mix. Just to really fuck with peoples heads, do it to the lead vocal. There in stereo, gone in mono!! Wonderful....

                                                               henwrench

[bazz-t-bass]

Don't clean your Studio?

What studio

Bazz

[AndyR]

Yep, for me, it was "effects" that had ended up messing with a sound.

I had two acoustic guitars, recorded and "mixed" over a year ago. The project had stalled when trying to get the rest of the band on it (I'm still working on it now).

It looks as if the acoustics were both recorded with a single mic - they're both on single, mono tracks, anyway. The "sub-mix" that I did a over a year ago, which I thought was the only "finished" bit of the song, is on a stereo pair. Creating it probably involved separate EQ and compression on the mono tracks, then some chorus and reverb over them during play-back. The two guitars were panned hard left and right. On a BR1600, you have "sends" on each track for Chorus/Delay and for Reverb. The same effect settings are used on all the tracks you send to it during the play-back, but the amount you send varies the amount of effected part ending up in the master playback. So we've got two instruments, panned hard left and right, feeding into effects that generate a stereo result.

This stereo sub-mix sounded/sounds fabulous in stereo.

I had terrible trouble fitting the electric guitar parts around it, though. The song used to be a live set-opener, it should have a "rolling crunch" to it. It's basically a melodic AOR thing, but it used to sound very solid and "we are a melodic rock band". It was easy to play and set the scene (and get used to the acoustics of a venue) for a gig. If the gig had an out-front desk and sound-engineer, but no time for a sound-check, it was a song that gave the sound-engineer a better chance to mix the band on the fly during the first song.

But my version of it was sounding like some horrendous easy-listening thing. So I gave up on it and started other stuff... (this is 13 completed and posted recordings ago!!)

Anyway, I picked it up again a few weeks back. I wiped all the electrics and bass, studied the rhythm a bit, and decided the acoustic guitars could stay. I started working up better drums, and fixed on an approach to a bass-part. Suddenly the song started feeling like it ought to... But the guide vocal still sounded like he was doing a wimpy-crooner version.

I then started experimenting with the rock guitars. It's obvious that the part I played live sounds like shit on a recording, so I can't use that (it was fine in a gig but, really, it shouldn't be played on a blues-rock guitar - hence the acoustic parts). I was trying out all sorts of stuff, including various "hook" things we couldn't have done live.

It was sounding loads better than a year ago. But I could tell that when it came to final mixing that it was going to lack the "vibe". I nearly gave up again...

And then I read about the "always test your mixes in mono". I'd heard of this before, and knew about the phasing thing - but I'd never really thought about it carefully or tried anything out.

I just happened to be sat in front of this song, so I tried listening to it mono. (On a BR1600, or an MBR, and I assume the other models, you can do this easily - go into Bounce mode, and arm a single mono track for the results of the bounce. This throws the entire master play-back, what you're listening to, into mono).

It was a complete REVELATION!!

The uneasy "this is going to sound a bit lacking when I've finished " feeling while listening in stereo turned into "this sounds like complete ARSE!!!". It was SO obvious.

And what was even better, it was obvious exactly which bit was wrong - the glorious acoustic guitar mix.

Played in mono, the acoustic guitars sounded muffled, under-water. They lacked any definition and seemed to be coming-and-going. Rather than adding anything or, more importantly, supplying the harmonic base and much of the rhythm of this track, they were completely messing the whole thing up. Take these guitars out of the mix and, although half the song was gone, what was left sounded pretty good, potentially where I was trying to get to.

But I needed those acoustics, or I had to re-arrange the whole thing.

So I muted the acoustic sub-mix and refound the original mono tracks (I'm still listening in mono, remember). I panned them hard left and right as before, but I switched off all EQ, compression, and effects sends on those two tracks... and... suddenly it sounded like I'd intended.

I went back to stereo, with the same "mix"... and it sounded even better. I did A-B testing (in stereo) between the raw acoustic tracks and their stereo sub-mix, and yes, that was the problem I'd been fighting against. With the acoustics "fixed" like this, the rough electric guitar parts on there started sounding OK... and, amazingly, the guide vocal sounded like he "meant it" now.

But, if I hadn't listened in mono, there is NO WAY I'd have figured it out. The acoustic sub-mix had sounded excellent in stereo - the wide stereo spread had hidden the evil destructive vibes... but they were still there, doing the listener's head in, and making it impossible to fit everything else together.

Another Use For Mono During Arranging
I've since discovered another use for this "mono check" - particularly useful to someone like me. Other "arrangement fiddlers" might find it useful too.

I seem to be able to use it now as a tool that helps me figure out when "enough is enough" on writing/rehearsing  instrument parts.

I use several guitar parts to create the appearance of one or two guitarists. Maybe I can't play the whole part, or maybe I need different sounds throughout the part. But usually, on the finished product I'm aiming at the listener perceiving one or two "GUITAR" parts with the odd "lead" overdub sprinkle. A guitarist might be able to hear the bits they're made of, but I want the over-all impression to be bass/drums/guitar, not bass/drums/guitar-orchestra.

The problem with this approach is you don't know when to stop. Something seems to be lacking, so you add some more...

With the wide stereo space, you can hear "gaps" that seem to need filling, so you write some more. Listen to it in mono instead... the gaps disappear and you can hear whether the parts are enough or too much.

Then go back to stereo, and you feel confident about those gaps that you were trying to fill two minutes ago. And the "oh shit, I don't know what the part is - I can't find anything good that fits" that has been slowing you down for a week suddenly disappears.

Well... that's what happened to me yesterday, anyway . I've now got four separate simple guitar parts to learn and track properly, and the guitars are done!

[AndyR]

Oh, and this...

Don't clean your Studio?

What studio

Bazz

What it means Bazz, really, is don't ever do any cleaning... it messes stuff up. Women don't really seem to understand this concept...

[steelguitar]

 

Oh, and this...

Don't clean your Studio?

What studio

Bazz

What it means Bazz, really, is don't ever do any cleaning... it messes stuff up. Women don't really seem to understand this concept...

Jean-Sébastien

[phantasm777]

while it might not be exactly what the point was here, I now use mono tracks instead of all of them being stereo. it seems less cluttered, and I only let my vox and drums be in stereo tracks. I've been doing this for my last 3 songs and I have noticed a difference and will continue on this path. so while it might not be exactly what andyr was talking about it did give me an idea not to do every single track I record in stereo, cause it occurred to me that in stereo and say you push it off to the left channel at 50, some of it is still on the right side, and to me that is needless clutter on that side. after reading this, this thought came to me and that is how I am going to be recording from now on. thanks for the idea or at least inspiring the idea!

[T.C. Elliott]

I'll agree with using mono tracks more often than not. Well most of the time, really. It can make the mix sound better even if sometimes a particular track by itself doesn't sound better in mono.

[Greeny (No longer active)]

Unless I specifically want to record a guitar part that has a panning fx patch on it, it's mono all the way for me. It makes the final mixing and panning much easier IMO, and all the stereo comes from where you place your separate tracks.

I can see that drums might sound better in stereo though.