What should you do if your mix collapses in mono?

Daftendirekt

I'm working on a track at the moment that has a 4 rhythm guitar tracks, two left and two right. I've been trying to recreate that widening effect where the guitars open up for the choruses or heavier parts of the song (can't think of an example offhand, but if nobody knows what I'm talking about, I'll try and find one).

So far, I've been playing around with automating the guitars' pan positions between verse and chorus, and it's working perfectly. In stereo, anyway.

(You probably see where this is going by now :pac:)

When I sum the mix to mono, it sounds fine for the verse, but when the chorus kicks in the guitars vanish. I know why this is happening (I'm using the pan pots to give the song a lift when I should probably be relying more on the faders), but my question is more "philosophical" than practical:

What do the pros do in that situation? If you're doing something that sounds good in stereo and not so good in mono, should you compromise your stereo mix to make it sound better in mono?

krd

I think this is what you're getting




If you have the guitars really wide in the stereo mix they don't interfere with each other. As they come together in the mono mix, the waves cancel out, giving them less power. I don't know. There are probably few different techniques. You could try pitching one channel slightly off from the other. In mono that should sound like a fatter, chorused type effect. In stereo it's also an interesting sound.

if6was9

Lots of rock music collapses in mono. Check any Randy Staub, Colin Richardson or Andy Sneap mix and the guitars will disappear in mono.

Not really anything you can do about it and I woudn't really worry about it.

krd

The vast majority of the time people hear music, it's played in stereo.

But, if you pass something through a stereo exciter, then flatten the output into mono, it will probably sound like gunk. Though your rhythm might sound a lot stronger.

CrimsonSounds

Hey ! It sounds like there could be some phasing going on, but if I get you correctly, you're double tracking 2 sets of guitar. I'm assuming that you've actually recorded 4 seperate takes here, as opposed to recording 2 takes, copying them, and panning them. If you've only recorded 2, you should have phasing problems. If it's 4 individual takes (2X2), they shouldn't break up that much in mono if they are panned - though the balance of where they sit in the mix forward/back coudl well be different. I also constantly check mixes in mono as I'm working on them - having some sort of quick method of doing that is a great advantage. How much does it matter ? Ultimately it depends on where the music is most likely to be listened to which should decide that though there's not a lot of mono music players about these days.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

i think this is incorrect

if you are talking speakers only
most people hear music in mono - except in cars , but even then its a skewed stereo

mono in clubs , mono in pubs , = whether by design or speaker situation
mono walking aorund the kitchen , etc
mono in the street

i think you do have to take care to work in mono alot of the time for balance
and if everything is clear in mono, the stero mix an only be better for it .

that said ,
music is actually listened to on head phones more than speakers these days
so problem is not so much an issue.

SonasRec

Try inverting the phase of the guitars on the right side. If you're using pro tools, you can do this with the trim plug-in.

shayleon

On a very specific commercial mix myself and the client decided to take the chance and ignore the issues with mono and nobody cared about it. If you have to compromise the mono in order to get the effect you want, I will.

madtheory

CrimsonSounds wrote: »

...recording 2 takes, copying them, and panning them.

Which gives you mono...

wonski

madtheory wrote: »

Which gives you mono...

I am lost here. 2 different tracks, one of them panned left, another right, results in mono sound? Taking into account that you are proffesional, you must be right, what have i missed then?

wonski

shayleon wrote: »

On a very specific commercial mix myself and the client decided to take the chance and ignore the issues with mono and nobody cared about it. If you have to compromise the mono in order to get the effect you want, I will.

I think this depends on what the mix is going to be used for. For TV/ radio advert the issue should not be ignored, that is what i was told some time ago...
Even if most, if not all receivers now supports stereo, if the reception is poor it switches back to mono, this includes tv's and, what happens to me regularly - radio stations.

Daftendirekt

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

I think wires are getting crossed...CrimsonSounds was assuming that copying and panning isn't how it was recorded. I'm sure he realises panning two identical signals results in a mono output.

Yeah, CrimsonSounds is correct. Four separate recordings. Done with a single amp, but with different mics, mic positions, effects and amp settings.

wonski

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Yeah, CrimsonSounds is correct. Four separate recordings. Done with a single amp, but with different mics, mic positions, effects and amp settings.

I think I answered your original questions before. If, at any stage, this track is going to be broadcasted in mono, then you just can't leave it like that...
Someone mentioned a pub before - well, where i worked it wouldn't be an issue, as there was still stereo output at the end, it just the way the speakers were placed that affected stereo effect of the music played.
But when there is actual mono output, and, as you said, some part are vanished, then they are vanished, and that is what will be listened to.

Going back to the problem, my only guess would be phasing, and this should be sorted at recording stage...
I am only an enthusiast, so don't take it too seriously, as you might get some help from other users, who have more experience than i do.

Daftendirekt

Cheers for all the replies, sorry if it seems like I posted and then vanished.

Think I'll have a shot at improving the mono mix, but if it involves too much of a compromise, I'll just leave it and hope for the best. Whatever will be will be, etc.

PaulBrewer

Another thread I've not read in full but ....

A 'collapse' is a pretty serious term - if that is the case and it's not a definite 'artistic' decision - then there are clear technical deficiencies in the recording.

A complete mono 'collapse' is caused by having 1 or more elements in opposite polarities (180 degrees) oft referred to as 'out of phase'.

There can also be partial collapsing by stuff being 'out of phase', but not exactly 180 degrees.

Most pros wouldn't accept that their stereo mix wasn't well represented in mono.

Daftendirekt

In case anyone's interested, I've found a few solutions.

1. Simply turning up the guitar, though it has to be turned up quite a bit.

2. Less extreme panning.

3. Two guitar tracks closer to the centre, two at the sides.

4. Put all your guitars fairly close to the centre and send them to a hard panned stereo aux track. This seems to do the trick.

PaulBrewer

1. That, I would suggest, is favouring one guitar 'phase' against it's 'anti-phase' brother.

2. That, perhaps, is allowing the phase difference to still cancel a bit, but allowing for it in the mix - instead of black and white you now have a grey.

3. Bolstering the mono 'centre' signal common to both L and R.

4. Why send to a Stereo Aux ?

Daftendirekt

PaulBrewer wrote: »

1. That, I would suggest, is favouring one guitar 'phase' against it's 'anti-phase' brother.

2. That, perhaps, is allowing the phase difference to still cancel a bit, but allowing for it in the mix - instead of black and white you now have a grey.

3. Bolstering the mono 'centre' signal common to both L and R.

4. Why send to a Stereo Aux ?

Not sure I'm with you on number 1?

Well, I guess I could have just duplicated the tracks, but I initially wanted to try spacing them out with a delay (Haas effect, right?). That wasn't pretty. :pac: Took the delay off and it sounded good, so I left it at that. Helps keep me under LE 8's audio track limit, too. No real need to do it that way though, I suppose.

PaulBrewer

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Not sure I'm with you on number 1?

Well, I guess I could have just duplicated the tracks, but I initially wanted to try spacing them out with a delay (Haas effect, right?). That wasn't pretty. :pac: Took the delay off and it sounded good, so I left it at that. Helps keep me under LE 8's audio track limit, too. No real need to do it that way though, I suppose.

If you have 2 things 'out of phase'/opposite polarity, at the same volume they cancel out - if that volume balance is changed (one louder than the other) then so too the phase cancelation is reduced.

Daftendirekt

I see. Though I actually meant turning both up equally (so even if there is some cancellation, it's less severe).

Hayte

Its normal for things in a stereo mix to sound different when you go mono. So you shouldn't get worried about that too much. You should get worried if your tunes are destined for mono playback and you are losing instruments. When that happens theres lots of things you can do but the easiest one is to A/B and pick out the sounds that are really just disappearing. Go to the appropriate channel, stick Voxengo AudioDelay on it and insert a small time delay. As you increase the time delay, the sound will "shift" around which also moves the destructive phasing around.

In this way you can preserve certain sounds at the expense of others so the mono mix keeps its basic integrity. But no matter what, if you mix stereo, you are going to lose something when going mono. Especially with alot of stacked layers and time shift based effects.