The secret benefits of mixing in mono

[solacerodgers]

Must be confusing mono with something else is all I can assume as well as pan and time based effects should not really be a issuse here? Have to wait for the explaniation on this one.

[Marx]

I use 30 - 40 tracks in my compositions, and a lot of them have pan modulations.. How would you "mono mix" that ?!

Mono mixing might sound great for some genres, but it would be near impossible for my music! I even pan-modulate percussion.

30 - 40 tracks in one song....? Yikes. How do you keep your songs from being a swamp?

[leedsquietman]

30 - 40 is normal for me too.

Heck, I've mixed rock bands who have presented 60 plus tracks. lots of doubled guitar tracks, 12 drum tracks with various room and closed micing, multi tracked vocals and BVs, various keys tracks etc.

I've been at a Protools HD session where an RNB singer had a 118 track project.

With virtually unlimited tracks, people don't have to put different sounds on the same track anymore - you might have one filter sweep on on track, instead of a 'synth fx track' which has the sweep, and other noises, volume and pan automated. Now you can put every little one shot sound on it's own track and people often do. I remember the days of 4 track tape recording on a Tascam portastudio, bouncing multiple tracks down to one and hoping the quality wouldn't go to crap and that wasn't too long ago ....

[ThrowAway]

thanks to the op

[Marx]

30 - 40 is normal for me too.

Heck, I've mixed rock bands who have presented 60 plus tracks. lots of doubled guitar tracks, 12 drum tracks with various room and closed micing, multi tracked vocals and BVs, various keys tracks etc.

I've been at a Protools HD session where an RNB singer had a 118 track project.

With virtually unlimited tracks, people don't have to put different sounds on the same track anymore - you might have one filter sweep on on track, instead of a 'synth fx track' which has the sweep, and other noises, volume and pan automated. Now you can put every little one shot sound on it's own track and people often do. I remember the days of 4 track tape recording on a Tascam portastudio, bouncing multiple tracks down to one and hoping the quality wouldn't go to crap and that wasn't too long ago ....

Wow. I don't believe an R&B song had 118 tracks (I'd buy it if you said that a Symphony Orchestra had that many).
How many parts did the song have? Was every drum hit on a different track? I understand that, to a certain extent, having unlimited tracks helps you work quickly...

But 118 tracks!? That just seems unorganized and amateurish to me...

[assessingaccess]

...But 118 tracks!? That just seems unorganized and amateurish to me...

In what way does a "large" number of tracks indicate an unorganized project?

[TekMonki]

Ok, so I'll ask the dumb question . . .

Now when I say mono, let's be very clear. I'm not just talking about using a mono plugin and running it through both of your speakers. I'm talking about turning off one of your speakers and running your mono signal to just one speaker. Preferably you would have this single speaker front and center, but as long as the speaker is directly facing you, this should work just fine.

So how do you achieve this in Live? I assume just turning off one monitor/speaker won't suffice, and the Utility/Mono plugin is no good? Sorry, not following completely.

[angryman]

Ok, so I'll ask the dumb question . . .

Now when I say mono, let's be very clear. I'm not just talking about using a mono plugin and running it through both of your speakers. I'm talking about turning off one of your speakers and running your mono signal to just one speaker. Preferably you would have this single speaker front and center, but as long as the speaker is directly facing you, this should work just fine.

So how do you achieve this in Live? I assume just turning off one monitor/speaker won't suffice, and the Utility/Mono plugin is no good? Sorry, not following completely.

Not dumb...The exact question that should be asked, and the same answer I want to know as well

[solacerodgers]

this is kinda tricky in the way its posted as a mono signal is just the sum of the l+r stereo and i dont know how checking it on 1 speaker works either as i have never heard of this. i use 2 speakers and as long as they are positioned correctly it should be no diffrence as its a mono signal regardless of 1 or 2 speakers. i cant see the use of checking this with 1 speaker in front of you as this is by no means a "real" listining enviroment? confused as to this as well.

[Marx]

...But 118 tracks!? That just seems unorganized and amateurish to me...

In what way does a "large" number of tracks indicate an unorganized project?

First of all, I'm not talking like 30 to 60 tracks. With different Mic set ups for the drums, doubling guitars, etc. I can understand 60. But I would call it "large" because in the conventional Rock band there are 4 parts (Drum, Bass, Lead guitar, and Vocals). Surely, 60 tracks would be excessive for a band like this, right? Let's say this song also has a standard 3 piece horn section, 3 back up singers and a keyboard and we'll give them each 2 tracks. I'm still not getting all the way to 60 (and when I'm trying to add this up in my head I'm giving the drum section alone 15 - 20 tracks).

So when you tell me that an R&B song, which may have the same number of separate instruments, has 118 tracks, it strikes me as completely excessive. It seems like the producer/engineer is hitting cmnd+T every time he has an idea instead of thinking about how that new idea would fit into the framework of the tracks already there. It seems lazy to just be constantly piling on.

When I'm adding new parts to my tunes I need to be able to see, or at least, know what is going on in every track. Or else how would new parts be cohesive to the overall idea of the song? There is no possible way that that producer knew what was going on in his song at all times. It's just impossible that as he was adding a new piano part on Track 115 that he was thinking about how it worked with the congos on track 27 and the Sax on track 82. In fact, I'm REALLY interested in hearing said R&B song now.

[4ace]

...But 118 tracks!? That just seems unorganized and amateurish to me...

In what way does a "large" number of tracks indicate an unorganized project?

First of all, I'm not talking like 30 to 60 tracks. With different Mic set ups for the drums, doubling guitars, etc. I can understand 60. But I would call it "large" because in the conventional Rock band there are 4 parts (Drum, Bass, Lead guitar, and Vocals). Surely, 60 tracks would be excessive for a band like this, right? Let's say this song also has a standard 3 piece horn section, 3 back up singers and a keyboard and we'll give them each 2 tracks. I'm still not getting all the way to 60 (and when I'm trying to add this up in my head I'm giving the drum section alone 15 - 20 tracks).

So when you tell me that an R&B song, which may have the same number of separate instruments, has 118 tracks, it strikes me as completely excessive. It seems like the producer/engineer is hitting cmnd+T every time he has an idea instead of thinking about how that new idea would fit into the framework of the tracks already there. It seems lazy to just be constantly piling on.

When I'm adding new parts to my tunes I need to be able to see, or at least, know what is going on in every track. Or else how would new parts be cohesive to the overall idea of the song? There is no possible way that that producer knew what was going on in his song at all times. It's just impossible that as he was adding a new piano part on Track 115 that he was thinking about how it worked with the congos on track 27 and the Sax on track 82. In fact, I'm REALLY interested in hearing said R&B song now.

Different Strokes for Different Folks ehh?

It seems no matter what someone is either upset about track limits i.e (other seq.) or questions why someone uses so many tracks.

I've personally used 75 tracks and 10-15 returns in a Live session for one song (hip hop at that). I wasn't being lazy nor was i trying purposely to do that.

I simply built up the song to what i felt it needed and thats where i wound up at.

Now granted i REALLY Like to layer things and if everything can have it's own dedicated track ....WHY NOT?

The Song is called "This Little Story Of Mine".. I did production and a buddy did the vox.

Listen to it here---------->http://www.myspace.com/scorndbros

Did someone say something about Mono Mixes? Oh yeah i've never tried that, will try soon

[TekMonki]

what if you panned one channel hard left or right in your mixer, software or otherwise, with a mono plugin on? isn't that somewhat similar to a center channel then? the mono plugin blends left + right and then it would just be sending two mono channels to two speakers when centered . . . right?

[Emissary]

Having just been trying this for the last few hours i can say it actually works. I was mixing in mono at low volumes and for one it seemed much easier on the ears and quicker to set levels. also for some reason the whole panning thing works too. And when you switch back to stereo the whole thing sounds awesome (but then that might be all in my head)

[TekMonki]

you have a center channel or you're just using a mono plugin on the master track and carrying on as-is with both monitors? please do tell.

[innerstatejt]

wow,
I'm really happy to see the reaction to this post. It appears that a few people have some questions that I'll try to clear up.

First and foremost, in regards to panning in mono...
It's first important to get some basic settings in stereo so you have an idea how you want things in your stereo spectrum. After that is completed you shift to mono. From here you also have to make a mental shift from listen to location of a sound to listening for the clarity of the sound. If you want each instrument to come across clearly in a mix, this is going to be your secret weapon.

In regards to the response about the "sweet spot" in mono, i'd say that is a fair point. However when you are discussing from a perspective of stereo vs mono, you have no stereo "illusion" to protect by your listening position when you are in mono.

There was a comment that using Ableton's utility to get mono was a bad idea. I disagree. The utility instument is going to superimpose the left and right channel just like you want. Same sounds are going to jump out ans some sounds may even disappear because of phase cancellation. You WANT that! This is going to show you all the problem spots in your mix. Fix the issues in mono and watch how much better things sound when you switch back to stereo!

In response to 2 speakers vs 1, many engineers prefer a center channel speaker to mix mono instead of the main stereo speakers. It's taking something big and making it bitesize in your perception. I'd try it both ways if you aren't sure and stick with what works better (not out of convenience, but results). It really comes doing to what works for you. I prefer the 1 speaker approach.

I was discussing this with "nick the zombie" and we got pretty deep into the whole discussion. I may have to write up another blog to share some of the other ideas we came up with.

Hope this clears a few things up..

cheers,
JAson