By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 09:07 pm: |
I just got my VHS copy of SITSOM, and I won't bore you with the rave review, but my old VCR is a mono machine, which gave the film a completely different and wonderful texture that is lacking in the soundtrack CD. My question is....
....back in the "old days", were the mixes different for mono recordings as opposed to stereo, or are the stereo tracks recorded together to create a monoral record?
I've noticed in some cases a mono recording sounds better and more alive than a stereo recording of the same song. A reason?
By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 09:19 pm: |
Doug,
Regarding mono versus stereo mixing: When mixing stereo we have the opportunity to spread the instruments out a lttle. Such as having a rhythm guitar coming from the left speaker and maybe the piano from the right etc. etc. A mono mix is basically everything coming from one place ( dead center ) so the mixing of the various sounds is layered in a little differently achieving depth in place of a spread. However because of this process it can give a mono mix a much more definite feel.
By back to mono (151.197.61.149) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 09:22 pm: |
That depends.
Usually the "mixes" were the same and they had a center channel monitor and a routing to a mono radio to determine the mono compatability.
At one time, stereo mixes were hastily done as an afterthought, so to speak.
Mono tends to sound better on the classic recordings because all of the music and vocals are being sent through on channel and the all the info in the center , ie the vocals, bass, kick and snare are more apparant.
By paulie3shoes (151.197.61.149) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:06 am: |
wen i went to seatle to take care of a little prolum dere i rode on dat monoraul t'ing an i got dizzy from dat t'ing bein up in da air an s**t ..i shuda taken amtrak@#$%^&*(
By M.McLeanTech (66.218.42.122) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:35 am: |
When you listen to an old record like "Honky Tonk" by Bill Doggett (1956) it has a tendency to make you desire mono. This is called infectious mono.
By Ritchie (62.254.0.9) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 03:00 am: |
"Monaural" is something of a misnomer, as mercifully - very few people are born with only one ear ;o)
By Uptight (24.55.6.144) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 05:18 am: |
Good one, Ritchie! I believe "monaural" refers to the sound source--not the listener.
By dvdmike (65.208.234.61) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 07:02 am: |
I personally prefer stereo, but if a song was recorded monaurally, I'd rather hear it that way. None of that "rechanelled stereo" crap that was infamous in the seventies.
By Livonia Ken (136.1.1.33) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 09:03 am: |
I look at the mono/stereo thing kind of like color vs. black and white photography. A good black and white photograph gets the job done with only light, shadow and composition, and can be a very effective and direct way of communicating visually. Color photography gives you another dimension that interacts with the other two. It will add to it if the photographer plans for it and uses it with skill, and it will detract from it otherwise.
A Mono recording/mix gets the job done with only tonality and dynamics. Stereo brings in a dimensional factor that can be either good or bad depending on how it is used.
Saying you prefer mono to stereo or vice versae is not really the point, since there are both good and bad mono and stereo mixes. A lot of my favorite 60s recordings sound better in their mono mixes not because mono is inherently better, but because the mixers did a better job and/or it was not recorded with stereo in mind. Remixes can be an interesting alternative, but since a mix is a performance by itself, it's sort of like re-recording all of the guitar parts 40 years later because someone invented better sounding amplifiers.
Regards,
Ken
By Livonia Ken (136.1.1.33) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 09:06 am: |
Oh, and I don't really want to re-tread too much of this ground, but the stereo mixes and mastering for the film and video release of SitSoM, are very different than the CD, which probably has more to do with what inspired Douglasm to post than stereo vs. mono.
Regards,
Ken
By Ralph Terrana (ralph) (209.240.198.62) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:15 am: |
Ken,
Good analogy with black and white versus color. I hated it when it became fashionable to colorize some of the great black and white movies. Good black and white photography depended on shading and shadows and such. Wonderful technique. So the comparison to sound is exactly the same. I have always felt that the good mono mixes should have been left alone instead of the cheesy treatment of some great songs to emulate stereo.
By Eli (141.151.14.207) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:32 am: |
If you notice, most of the great 50's and 60's recordings are "louder".
This is because of center channel buildup and the apparant level that it creates in doing so.
As previously stated, there was no forethought in panning a stereo mix so what you got was it.
If you listen to the stereo version of Give me just t little more time by Chairmen of the board, the middle break is in mono and then it goes back to stereo.
Phil Spector refused to do stereo versions although there some that exist.
His engineer, Larry Levine probably "snuck some in"
By Ritchie (62.254.0.9) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:57 am: |
Brian Wilson also used to mix in mono - which apparently drove Capitol Records up the wall. They routinely reprocessed Brian's mono masters into "Duophonic". (Check out an original stereo copy of the 'Pet Sounds' album as an example - the "stereo" is simply a fast delay between the two channels.) Of course, Brian had good reason for preferring to mix in mono. He could only hear with one ear :o(
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:57 am: |
Eli:
Phil did release stereo versions of his hits on albums only to satisfy the marketplace. He did prefer mono as did Brian Wilson & Terry Melcher (producer of the Byrds & Paul Revere and the Raiders).
I agree with Ken regarding the whole argument of preference. For example, I feel that Motown did an excellent job mixing for both stereo & mono because the engineers did an excellent job mixing for both mediums. Same with certain records released on Atlantic, Capitol & RCA. These labels among others employed high standards for engineering & mixing. For example, the Rascals' recordings to me sound great in both mono & stereo because Tom Dowd & company did a fine job mixing for both mediums.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:03 am: |
Ritchie:
Have you heard the authentic stereo mix of the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" when Capitol reissued the CD in 1997. IMO the stereo mix they did sounds rich, dynamic & full from start to finish. The CD has both mono & stereo versions of the album. Classic stuff.
You're right about Brian's mixing technique. Capitol used to complain about his only mixing to mono but years later he said in an interview that it wasn't because of his handicap - he mixed to mono a lot because he preferred that medium over stereo.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By Livonia Ken (136.1.1.33) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:07 am: |
I think the Motown mono mixes were usually better than the stereo mixes, especially the early 8-track mixes in the mid-60s. From what I read here and in other places, that's not too surprising given the amount of "sweat equity" that went into the mono single mixes.
One artist whose 60s recordings almost invariably sound better in stereo is Elvis. Engineer Bill Porter "got" stereo right before most others in popular music did (and better than a lot of folks today). Almost any post-Army Elvis will sound better in stereo, as I believe a lot of the mono releases were simply stereo fold-downs.
Regards,
Ken
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:16 am: |
Ken, Ralph, Russ and Company:
Ken brings up the term "fold-down", which is when a stereo mix is "folded down" into mono (correct me if I'm wrong).
I did a stereo mix from a 16 track tape of a New Orleans funk band for a compilation reissue. Unbeknown to me, the mastering engineer took it upon himself to take my stereo mix and "fold it" into mono, which to my ears sounded muddy & bottom heavy (instruments were bass-drums-organ-piano-horns-vocals). He said that he turned it into mono because the rest of the CD used mono sources. Unfortunately I discovered this when the CD was released and not when quality control was reviewing the disc.
Bottom line - I felt that the mastering engineer was wrong for doing this and that if a mono mix was warranted, I would have been more than happy to do a mono mix. What do you folks think?
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By Livonia Ken (136.1.1.33) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:35 am: |
Kevin -
Just extend my analogy. Which would look better, a photo shot and lit for black and white, or a photo shot and lit for color printed in black and white. Of course a dedicated mono mix would be better for a mono release.
If financial realities meant that there was not time for two mixes, you could have at least conformed your stereo mix a bit so it would fold better, but then you would have two compromised mixes instead of one, I guess. Ah well.
Regards,
Ken
By Ritchie (62.254.0.9) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:38 am: |
Kevin -
No, I've never heard the true stereo mix of Pet Sounds. I've only ever seen it on the box set... Incidentally, in the seventies I tracked down and bought an original mono pressing of the album. Was I sick when I played it - the album was simply the "duophonic" master folded to mono!!
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:54 am: |
Ritchie:
I have a true mono LP of "Pet Sounds" - I purchased it from a used record shop when I was in college. It sounds marvelous.
Right on about the "Duophonic" mix - sounds like bad tape delay!
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.150) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:57 am: |
Kevgo,
In my opinion, that mixer who "folded down" your stereo mix to match the other mono material on the album without your knowledge was utterly unprofessional.
At the very least he should have informed you that he was making the change.
Having done that, he also should have pressed you to make a new mix in mono, in the interest of sound quality.
His brushing aside of these two duties clearly puts him in the "cone head" class.
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:59 am: |
Ken:
The stereo mix job I did was completed weeks before the full album went to the mastering engineer. If I was aware that the rest of the CD was going to bein mono - which I wasn't - I would've done a mono mix right from the 16 track tape.
My label president was furious with the mastering engineer for doing the "fold-down" without consent. As a result, I started doing both stereo & mono mixes so that they could go either way depending on the remainder of the project.
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.150) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:28 pm: |
KevGo,
I am Mike McLean, not Ken.
You poor fellow. You have been working too hard. It breaks my heart to see such a wonderful fellow having this sort of problem.
(Said with a smile.) I tried to look up that yellow smile face that you like to use in "GET FANCY" but I couldn't find it.
By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.150) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:34 pm: |
Gee! Maybe you were speaking to Ken after all: His above post on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:35 am.
Now I have egg on MY face.
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:44 pm: |
Mike:
You & I posted our comments at the same time so I missed what you said. I was speaking to Ken at first. No harm done!
Thank you for the comments - what you said was exactly what my label president relayed to the mastering engineer a/k/a "conehead" . Now my bosses want me to learn mastering so they can cut down the amount of work this other guy would get. So, I've been sitting in with the folks at Master Cutting Room here in NYC (they are in the same building my job is in) and they're teaching me the mastering ropes. Any suggestions you may offer would be greatly appreciated.
Now, where's my gin & Squirt....
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By Livonia Ken (136.1.1.33) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 01:32 pm: |
Mike said:
"I am Mike McLean, not Ken."
I say:
...and you are much the better for it!
Regards,
Ken
By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.150) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 01:47 pm: |
Gee Ken, that's a very nice thing to say!
I'm sorry that I didn't have time to look you up when I was in Detroit. I am planning another trip in a few months, and this time I will be traveling alone. I intend to spend a lot of time in the Detroit area looking up folks like you and Kim, among many others.
Sincerely,
Mike McLean
By M.McLeanTech (66.218.59.150) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 01:55 pm: |
Kevgo,
If you want to learn about mastering, you should get in touch with Bob Olhsson in Nashville. I visited him on my trip, and I was very impressed by what I saw. We spent an entire day and I had a great time. Bob makes his living by taking the digital master tape for a new album about to be released and "fine-tuning" it to further improve the best that the mixing engineers could do.
He has vast experience in phonograph record mixing, and is very intelligent. Further, he is the type of person who would enjoy teaching an eager student. He might be willing to tutor you for a very reasonable fee.
Mike McLean
By M.McLeanTech (66.218.40.77) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 02:18 pm: |
Livonia Ken,
Refering to your post above Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 09:03 am:
Your analogy to black and white vs. color is very good. In the same spirit, may I offer the following "Mikie" analogy:
Mono recording is like making love while following all the directives taught by the various old time churchs.
Stereo recording is like making love while following all the possibilities suggested by the Penthouse magazine "Forum."
This analogy holds up in the sense that in mixing, and in love: The more things that you try to monkey around with, the less is your chance of success!
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 02:27 pm: |
Mike:
Thanks so much for the advice. I have Bob's email address so I will be in touch with him.
Best regards,
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By Livonia Ken (136.1.1.33) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 02:55 pm: |
Kevin,
Check out the Steve Hoffman site and forum over at http://www.stevehoffman.tv. He's pretty open about sharing his mastering philosophy, short of telling you his exact eq settings on a track or the formula for Coca-Cola.
Regards,
Ken
By dvdmike (68.72.173.25) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 04:37 pm: |
From my understanding, Brian Wilson was partial to mono because he had a hearing defect in one ear.
By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 04:44 pm: |
Ken:
Thanks for the URL on Steve Hoffman. I recall his work for MCA when he oversaw the "Vintage Music" compilations (which are sadly out of print).
Kevin Goins - KevGo
By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 08:49 pm: |
All...
....thank you for your input and your explinations.
Ken....
....I realise the CD and tape are different, and that may have accidently prompted my question, but the tape sounded so "alive" that I don't know if I'd like to hear it in stereo. Sounded even better when I turned off the home theatre and just listened to it from the television speakers.
Thanks again.