Mono Equalization Method
Mono Equalization Method
I was wondering if anyone had ever heard of a method of finding the right equalization for various tracks by not panning anything(pretty much mono) and then sort of messing with different frequencies to find what sounds best? Then when you get to the point where it sounds as good as it can you pan all the tracks to taste. I think you can get a lot of space between all instruments this way. I have not tried it yet myself because i just moved so my recording equipment is packed away.
Does anyone do this out there?
Also, I have this book of the recording notes for all of The Beatles recording sessions. In the book it says that they keep mixing down to mono(not just early stuff, they even did this for abbey road). I guess they did this for their own reference but i dont know. Or it was the mixes for the mono releases(probably). I think it must be very hard to get a mono mix to not sound busy or cluttered or muddy. It must have been tough before stereo.
Before stereo how was a great sounding mono mix achieved?
Does anyone do this out there?
Also, I have this book of the recording notes for all of The Beatles recording sessions. In the book it says that they keep mixing down to mono(not just early stuff, they even did this for abbey road). I guess they did this for their own reference but i dont know. Or it was the mixes for the mono releases(probably). I think it must be very hard to get a mono mix to not sound busy or cluttered or muddy. It must have been tough before stereo.
Before stereo how was a great sounding mono mix achieved?
- Disasteradio
- pushin' record
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 8:39 pm
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Mono Equalization Method
I do all the time - but mostly in terms of getting my volumes sorted out. (I only really bring in an EQ here & there to solve a problem). it's such a good way to get a mix that's not fighting against itself & super handy when you're diddling with dynamics as well.jach wrote:Does anyone do this out there?
Even after I'm done getting a mix in mono I barely move much out, probably 10-2 o'clock maximum (unless I'm going for special gimmicky pan cheese)
Re: Mono Equalization Method
'I think it must be very hard to get a mono mix to not sound busy or cluttered or muddy.'
man - it really helps to mix like this in mono...well, it helps me. a couple nights ago was the first time i actually set up only one speaker on a tracking date...i had decent headphones too...but lordy stereo can be like a crutch and a hindrance at the same time.
kind of like singing in the shower. singing in a closet - no verb - not so easy to sound good.
Mike
man - it really helps to mix like this in mono...well, it helps me. a couple nights ago was the first time i actually set up only one speaker on a tracking date...i had decent headphones too...but lordy stereo can be like a crutch and a hindrance at the same time.
kind of like singing in the shower. singing in a closet - no verb - not so easy to sound good.
Mike
Re: Mono Equalization Method
This brings up a question that I've been pondering... I usually keep a single speaker running in mono that I can reference at any time. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to having a PAIR of speakers running your mono sum to reference? Kinda wierd, maybe dumb - just something I was thinking about as my desk setup changed and now I have space for an extra set of two...
Re: Mono Equalization Method
i would think it would probally create more problems than solutions... right? i mean, there is no point to having the same thing come out of two different speakers. you could just pan everything centered to create the same effect. i guess its a good question though. ive never thought about it... if it didnt have a purpose, it would at least look really cool.This brings up a question that I've been pondering... I usually keep a single speaker running in mono that I can reference at any time. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to having a PAIR of speakers running your mono sum to reference? Kinda wierd, maybe dumb - just something I was thinking about as my desk setup changed and now I have space for an extra set of two...
Re: Mono Equalization Method
Thanks for the feedback.
Does anyone know how they did it before stereo? Historically, what did Phil Spector(or any body else for that matter) have at his disposal as far as types of equipment? I think he was dealing with mono for a long time. I am just trying to get a feel for this method conceptually.
Does anyone know how they did it before stereo? Historically, what did Phil Spector(or any body else for that matter) have at his disposal as far as types of equipment? I think he was dealing with mono for a long time. I am just trying to get a feel for this method conceptually.
I know what you mean about the hindrance of panning. I would always be going hard right/left with things that did not fit right and it would still seem crowded. After that I would feel kind of lost. It was too arbitrary. Doing the mix this way seems more intuitive. It seems like each track would fall into place naturally where it belongs.bigtoe wrote:"...but lordy stereo can be like a crutch and a hindrance at the same time."
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 8876
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:10 pm
- Location: NYC/Brooklyn
- Contact:
Re: Mono Equalization Method
Sounds tracked properly (read: PHASE COHERENT) do actually fall into place naturally, the same way they do when you are hearing them in the room!jach wrote:Thanks for the feedback.
Does anyone know how they did it before stereo? Historically, what did Phil Spector(or any body else for that matter) have at his disposal as far as types of equipment? I think he was dealing with mono for a long time. I am just trying to get a feel for this method conceptually.
I know what you mean about the hindrance of panning. I would always be going hard right/left with things that did not fit right and it would still seem crowded. After that I would feel kind of lost. It was too arbitrary. Doing the mix this way seems more intuitive. It seems like each track would fall into place naturally where it belongs.bigtoe wrote:"...but lordy stereo can be like a crutch and a hindrance at the same time."
No amount of "eq sculpting" BS will ever make phase problems any better. The phrase "Phase relationships" doesnt just mean 180 degrees, or any really obvious cancelling. Phase relationships are everything. Get that right and you dont really need to "DO" anything. Just use the faders to balance the stuff you captured.
Once you get all your phase relationships right, mono or stereo or 5.1 or anything... frikkin quad, anything... all of it just works. You can crank the crap out of the bass and it just gets louder, but "magically" it doesnt bury the kick, or seem muddy, or whatever other adjective describes "shittiness" in this context for you.
When everything starts to sum at your head like it does when you are in your practice space, or out in the live room listening to the whole band: it sounds like them.
Now make it sound BETTER than them with all the fun weird shit we have at our disposal to make things "HUGE."
Getting low end to work is especially critcal. The "size" of you tracks and mixes is fully 100% dependent on the phase relationships ( i am sick of typing that) on the way in, and how you handle them with your gain structure on the way in as well as during the mix.
NONE of this has anything to do with EQ.
Mono sounds really, really good when you get all this right. You can make any decent microphone sound like a million dollars with these facts.
If the drums sound like shit even with decent microphones on them, it is the engineers fault. If the part the drummer played sucks, that is his fault, but you should still hear it the way it happened in the live room, ya know?
Re: Mono Equalization Method
Hey Joel
Some of this is new to me. I am novice to recording so I dont know all the terms. So, I am not sure what you mean by "PHASE COHERENT" and the methods of "properly tracking sounds". Is it about mic placement? Is it about each track's volume? Or is it about something being in or out of phase? I have a vague understanding of this phase stuff.
Some of this is new to me. I am novice to recording so I dont know all the terms. So, I am not sure what you mean by "PHASE COHERENT" and the methods of "properly tracking sounds". Is it about mic placement? Is it about each track's volume? Or is it about something being in or out of phase? I have a vague understanding of this phase stuff.
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 8876
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:10 pm
- Location: NYC/Brooklyn
- Contact:
Re: Mono Equalization Method
It is about all of what you wrote and more. Eventually this stuff comes as second nature, and you stop walking into the live room 38 times to adjust the snare mic 3 millimeters to hear what happens...jach wrote:Hey Joel
Some of this is new to me. I am novice to recording so I dont know all the terms. So, I am not sure what you mean by "PHASE COHERENT" and the methods of "properly tracking sounds". Is it about mic placement? Is it about each track's volume? Or is it about something being in or out of phase? I have a vague understanding of this phase stuff.
It is about "staying out of the way" and letting the band come through the speakers loud and proud. Phase coherency means this: If you can make it sound like it does in "real life" you can record anything. You can always incur a bunch of weirdness along the way if you want, but it should be an informed, deliberate decision.
Regardless of the words i can write to try and help out, you should just record a LOT. If you want to record for a living: record A LOT. Every time you learn something.
I hope the Professor chimes in on this for you, as he will give you more than a teaspoon of textbook and practical learnins'.
He can also type faster than me...
Back my session...
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: Bloomington IL
- Contact:
Re: Mono Equalization Method
I often start mixes in mono. I always set up sounds for tracking dates in mono. I usually use only one speaker for my initial set-up. When I mix I hit the mono button. There's an NYC guy over at Gearslutz who does his panning with the mono button in. It does work, I do it sometimes. You can hear the way things relate differently as you pan them around, even though you are monitoring in mono. Try it.
Re: Mono Equalization Method
'You can hear the way things relate differently as you pan them around, even though you are monitoring in mono. Try it.'
funky!
Mike
funky!
Mike
Re: Mono Equalization Method
It wasn't the equipment, it was a bunch of able musicians rehearsing a track and refining the arrangement (the best way to 'EQ' if you really think about it..), while the engineers rode faders and made slight adjustments to keep from overloading. That's it. Spector (and Brian Wison) were a bit unusual in that they'd only track one tune a session, whereas I know for a fact that The Everly Brothers often did 3 in a 3-5 hour block. And these are mixed already to the mono (and stereo, when applicable) master 2 tracks. In stores within 3 weeks of recording.jach wrote:... Historically, what did Phil Spector(or any body else for that matter) have at his disposal as far as types of equipment? I think he was dealing with mono for a long time...
beware bee wear
Re: Mono Equalization Method
So does he and yourself get any weird panning configurations? Like, that kick sounds great hard left and the snare is awesome at 2 o'clock. It sounds like a great way to get a unique mix. Which is what I am after.drumsound wrote:There's an NYC guy over at Gearslutz who does his panning with the mono button in. It does work, I do it sometimes. You can hear the way things relate differently as you pan them around, even though you are monitoring in mono. Try it.
-
- zen recordist
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: Bloomington IL
- Contact:
Re: Mono Equalization Method
Honestly I rarely even try to move the BD, SD, Vox or Bass off of center. When I do it's usually for a "radical" reason. I mixed a song recently where the drums were on one side and the bass on the other. When there were breaks they switched...jach wrote:So does he and yourself get any weird panning configurations? Like, that kick sounds great hard left and the snare is awesome at 2 o'clock. It sounds like a great way to get a unique mix. Which is what I am after.drumsound wrote:There's an NYC guy over at Gearslutz who does his panning with the mono button in. It does work, I do it sometimes. You can hear the way things relate differently as you pan them around, even though you are monitoring in mono. Try it.
- Brett Siler
- moves faders with mind
- Posts: 2518
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:16 pm
- Location: Evansville, IN
- Contact:
Re: Mono Equalization Method
I have been recording seriously now for about 3 years and I am just now getting a pretty good understanding of phasing. It takes awhile, man. You have to train your ears to listen to the subtle things. Listening has helped a lot. Reading on this forum has helped out a lot. Being able to look at the wave forms through a DAW helped me understand some aswell.jach wrote:Hey Joel
Some of this is new to me. I am novice to recording so I dont know all the terms. So, I am not sure what you mean by "PHASE COHERENT" and the methods of "properly tracking sounds". Is it about mic placement? Is it about each track's volume? Or is it about something being in or out of phase? I have a vague understanding of this phase stuff.
Phasing is all about mic placement and the time in which sound hits on mic compared to another.
My musical endeavors!
My Music: http://www.brettsiler.bandcamp.com/
StudioMother Brain Sound Infrastructure
My Music: http://www.brettsiler.bandcamp.com/
StudioMother Brain Sound Infrastructure
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests