Learning to stop mix checking in the car was a big one for me! Once I realized that a perfectly balanced Bruno Mars track still has resonant peaks that rattle the plastic parts of a car, I also realized that cars are a terrible listening environment lol
I think the "car test" needs to be replaced with the "familiarity test." The reason people liked the car test is because that's where a lot of people did most of their casual music listening back in the day. If that's still the place where you listen to music the most, then it still makes sense to do the car test. But any system you've put thousands of hours of listening into will work.
for me personally, mixing in mono is really useful to have a more accurate sense of level, especially when referencing another track. big stereo sounds and/or pairs of double tracked instruments tend to be more tricky when I’m assessing their loudness compared to the main elements such as vocals, kicks and snares
kind of a long response, but I love the quality back and forth :) being an artist/producer first, in my specific case I think it has a lot to do with psychoacoustics: a big stereo wall of distorted guitars in a chorus really excites me, so I wrongfully think it’s louder than it actually is when I switch to mono. Another example is with stereo reese bass on something like a spaced-out verse or bridge. I’ve spent a lot of time (and money 🥲) to get good stereo image in my monitoring with stands and positioning. But since I spent the last few years working in a less-than-ideal room I may be got used to that! and now it almost feels “too much” of a good stereo image to istinctively assess the levels hope that makes sense and I’m not just crazy haha!
Man! Thanks for bringing up the raw files thing. I can't stand when a client's multitracks sound NOTHING like their roughmix! I always tell them whatever fx and processing that they're already happy with from their rough to please print them to the multitracks. I don't want to have to first re-do and match their rough mix before I can even get started on my own mix! I would much rather continue where they left off and make improvements from there, veres starting from scratch and now having to compete with the rough. During mixing, If I need something completely raw, I'll let them know later.
I've been freelancing as an audio engineer to some degree since high school, and largely for local bands on tight budgets. That generally means I'm doing the recording, mixing and mastering and at least some degree of producing and I always tell clients I'd love it if they hired a mastering engineer that would get a better result than I could, but it'd suck to find get a crappy master on a good mix, and I offer to help them look. The reality of the D.I.Y. music world is you'll usually be the only 3rd party working on the project and in that context it helps to be a jack of all trades. When it comes to the car check I'm still big on checking a mix on a variety of sound sources but I save it for when I'm feeling close to done with a mix. A less often talked about benefit is the chance to try listening like a fan and just hear the song without being able to start tweaking. Great vid btw!
I often add eq and comp during tracking, and I think the premix IS the raw tracks and is just part of production, considering most of us don't have several racks of hardware.
The idea that production, mixing, and mastering should be treated as separate processes feels increasingly outdated. Many people now write, record, arrange, produce, mix, and master their own songs. The boundaries between these stages tend to blur a lot. I spend a lot of time selecting and sculpting sounds while tracking. I do this because it makes it easier for me to tell if the arrangement is working and the performances are good enough. How can I tell if that guitar part works if it should have delay but I've left it as a dry DI? How do I know if the bass is stepping on the vocal if it's 10 db too quiet? The same is true of mastering. I put my master bus plugins on as early as possible. Since I'm the one mastering, why wouldn't I want to hear what the limiter is going to do with my snare drum? If I know that early, I can save time by making my snare drum extra punchy to compensate, rather than slapping a limiter on at the end and being disappointed when the snare transient disappears. I know I'm not alone in "building" my productions as I go in this way. I've talked to several friends who take roughly the same approach. And yet, almost no UA-cam channels seem to reflect my way of working. They all treat mixing as a distinct process. And they say crazy stuff about having "no plugins on your tracks" when you start mixing. It just strikes me as advice built on a reality that doesn't exist anymore. I question whether it ever existed. Even Bob Clearmountain received wet tracks that had been run through tons of outboard gear. And of course, before he came around, there was no such thing as a distinct "mix engineer." The people who tracked and produced the songs did the mix. So of course, they were incentivized to make as many choices as possible during tracking. I think because our choices no longer HAVE to be baked into the production, we now assume they shouldn't be.
Well I'm the song writer, musician, producer, recording engineer, video editor, mix engineer and mastering engineer. Probably should outsource something (?)
Mono mixing is still relevant because stereo speakers only work when the distance between the speakers is the same distance they are from your ears. Anything different than that and you're listening to mono. Phone speakers are too close together for stereo and they're arranged differently on some models, which essentially means you're trying to hear a stereo mix from two different speakers. Bluetooth speakers and most smart devices also have a single speaker, which makes stereo impossible.
i am sorry but this stuff just isn't true. not being an equal distance from each speaker doesn't whatsoever make anything remotely mono, or sound as such. all it does is change the stereo image. unless you're so far away that it doesn't matter. i can tell my phone is playing audio in stereo from two speakers L and R rather than one speaker easily, even without my phone oriented horizontally and up close to me. the stereo image and separation is still heard and effective. the example of "trying to hear a stereo mix from two different speakers" doesn't make sense because each speaker is assigned to a different channel with different audio information (unless the audio is in mono) and so it is heard as such. you don't need perfect symmetrical conditions to hear a stereo image.
For me, it's less about the fact that some sources still only have one speaker or driver, and more of the fact that if you're listening on a source like that, you won't give a shit about the mix. I want my mix to hit for people in headphones, cars, home stereo setups, etc. I don't really care what the mix sounds like on an iphone speaker or an overhead speaker in target, because 90% of mixes on those sound virtually the same. Loud drums, loud vocals, super mid heavy, etc. I just think that mixing in mono too much can pigeonhole creative choices that can make a stereo mix MUCH more interesting, and may only help a mono mix really marginally.
If there is more than one speaker and they can play different signals (panning) then it’s stereo. Doesn’t matter how far apart they are! Even lots of Bluetooth speakers have stereo output now.
Learning to stop mix checking in the car was a big one for me! Once I realized that a perfectly balanced Bruno Mars track still has resonant peaks that rattle the plastic parts of a car, I also realized that cars are a terrible listening environment lol
I think the "car test" needs to be replaced with the "familiarity test." The reason people liked the car test is because that's where a lot of people did most of their casual music listening back in the day. If that's still the place where you listen to music the most, then it still makes sense to do the car test. But any system you've put thousands of hours of listening into will work.
Shirt goes hard, screenshotting for later
for me personally, mixing in mono is really useful to have a more accurate sense of level, especially when referencing another track.
big stereo sounds and/or pairs of double tracked instruments tend to be more tricky when I’m assessing their loudness compared to the main elements such as vocals, kicks and snares
I wonder if that may be an issue with your room acoustics? I was having stereo image issues before I calibrated my room
+ 1 for checking room acoustics
kind of a long response, but I love the quality back and forth :)
being an artist/producer first, in my specific case I think it has a lot to do with psychoacoustics: a big stereo wall of distorted guitars in a chorus really excites me, so I wrongfully think it’s louder than it actually is when I switch to mono.
Another example is with stereo reese bass on something like a spaced-out verse or bridge.
I’ve spent a lot of time (and money 🥲) to get good stereo image in my monitoring with stands and positioning. But since I spent the last few years working in a less-than-ideal room I may be got used to that! and now it almost feels “too much” of a good stereo image to istinctively assess the levels
hope that makes sense and I’m not just crazy haha!
Man! Thanks for bringing up the raw files thing. I can't stand when a client's multitracks sound NOTHING like their roughmix! I always tell them whatever fx and processing that they're already happy with from their rough to please print them to the multitracks. I don't want to have to first re-do and match their rough mix before I can even get started on my own mix! I would much rather continue where they left off and make improvements from there, veres starting from scratch and now having to compete with the rough. During mixing, If I need something completely raw, I'll let them know later.
Facts for sure!!
I've been freelancing as an audio engineer to some degree since high school, and largely for local bands on tight budgets. That generally means I'm doing the recording, mixing and mastering and at least some degree of producing and I always tell clients I'd love it if they hired a mastering engineer that would get a better result than I could, but it'd suck to find get a crappy master on a good mix, and I offer to help them look. The reality of the D.I.Y. music world is you'll usually be the only 3rd party working on the project and in that context it helps to be a jack of all trades.
When it comes to the car check I'm still big on checking a mix on a variety of sound sources but I save it for when I'm feeling close to done with a mix. A less often talked about benefit is the chance to try listening like a fan and just hear the song without being able to start tweaking.
Great vid btw!
I think you’re on point here!! Thanks btw!
I often add eq and comp during tracking, and I think the premix IS the raw tracks and is just part of production, considering most of us don't have several racks of hardware.
Love the ironic t-shirt 😁😁
@@bartoliblue Maroon 5 reminding us they’re still hard
The idea that production, mixing, and mastering should be treated as separate processes feels increasingly outdated. Many people now write, record, arrange, produce, mix, and master their own songs. The boundaries between these stages tend to blur a lot. I spend a lot of time selecting and sculpting sounds while tracking. I do this because it makes it easier for me to tell if the arrangement is working and the performances are good enough. How can I tell if that guitar part works if it should have delay but I've left it as a dry DI? How do I know if the bass is stepping on the vocal if it's 10 db too quiet?
The same is true of mastering. I put my master bus plugins on as early as possible. Since I'm the one mastering, why wouldn't I want to hear what the limiter is going to do with my snare drum? If I know that early, I can save time by making my snare drum extra punchy to compensate, rather than slapping a limiter on at the end and being disappointed when the snare transient disappears.
I know I'm not alone in "building" my productions as I go in this way. I've talked to several friends who take roughly the same approach. And yet, almost no UA-cam channels seem to reflect my way of working. They all treat mixing as a distinct process. And they say crazy stuff about having "no plugins on your tracks" when you start mixing. It just strikes me as advice built on a reality that doesn't exist anymore. I question whether it ever existed. Even Bob Clearmountain received wet tracks that had been run through tons of outboard gear. And of course, before he came around, there was no such thing as a distinct "mix engineer." The people who tracked and produced the songs did the mix. So of course, they were incentivized to make as many choices as possible during tracking.
I think because our choices no longer HAVE to be baked into the production, we now assume they shouldn't be.
Yeah I think when it became possible to turn off the processing, some mixers enjoyed having complete control, but it just seems exhausting lol
Well I'm the song writer, musician, producer, recording engineer, video editor, mix engineer and mastering engineer. Probably should outsource something (?)
@@AnthonyRochester same. Plus a full time job on top of that
Outsource marketing lol
Mono mixing is still relevant because stereo speakers only work when the distance between the speakers is the same distance they are from your ears. Anything different than that and you're listening to mono. Phone speakers are too close together for stereo and they're arranged differently on some models, which essentially means you're trying to hear a stereo mix from two different speakers. Bluetooth speakers and most smart devices also have a single speaker, which makes stereo impossible.
i am sorry but this stuff just isn't true. not being an equal distance from each speaker doesn't whatsoever make anything remotely mono, or sound as such. all it does is change the stereo image. unless you're so far away that it doesn't matter. i can tell my phone is playing audio in stereo from two speakers L and R rather than one speaker easily, even without my phone oriented horizontally and up close to me. the stereo image and separation is still heard and effective. the example of "trying to hear a stereo mix from two different speakers" doesn't make sense because each speaker is assigned to a different channel with different audio information (unless the audio is in mono) and so it is heard as such. you don't need perfect symmetrical conditions to hear a stereo image.
@@Fire-Toolz There's also another thing: just because your phone has 2 speakers, doesn't necessarily mean they are a stereo setup.
For me, it's less about the fact that some sources still only have one speaker or driver, and more of the fact that if you're listening on a source like that, you won't give a shit about the mix.
I want my mix to hit for people in headphones, cars, home stereo setups, etc. I don't really care what the mix sounds like on an iphone speaker or an overhead speaker in target, because 90% of mixes on those sound virtually the same. Loud drums, loud vocals, super mid heavy, etc.
I just think that mixing in mono too much can pigeonhole creative choices that can make a stereo mix MUCH more interesting, and may only help a mono mix really marginally.
If there is more than one speaker and they can play different signals (panning) then it’s stereo. Doesn’t matter how far apart they are! Even lots of Bluetooth speakers have stereo output now.
Not true. It may not be as EFFECTIVE with close speaker placement, but it is still a stereo signal.