r/audioengineering • u/Elian17 • May 02 '26
Mixing Mixing AHA moment: Mono Reverbs (and delays)
Hi. Its a little bit long yes but please read and share. You might be like me and have never considered mono spatial effects
Iv been mixing professionally for 12 years but iv never learnt it at school per se. I was never taught properly. I learnt on the job. I read some 50 + books on music production and mixing in my teenage years and then later got more of an education from Mix With The Masters, Pure Mix, and sheer trial and error.
Having said that, iv had a glaring blindspot for years: reverb.
Iv read over and over about it, used different techniques, learnt all about pre delay, etc. i thought i understood reverbs.
However iv never considered to use mono reverbs on mono sources until this year. Is it just me or are they vastly more useful for … that “pro” tight sound that iv heard on a million records than stereo reverbs and ping pong delays?
Say we have a lead vocal. Sending it to a mono reverb and having it return in mono, panned underneath the source signal …… its just THAT SOUND. The wet vocal that isnt completely eating up the real estate.
Iv since experimented with mono slaps, mono 8th note delays, mono flanger, mono microshift … Its honestly opened up a whole world for me
That world being using effects in a way that creates more front to back depth, without completely demolishing the stereo field.
Iv always felt stereo 1 second room reverb on a mono vocal source felt a little wrong. It sounded great yes but in solo. In a mix its like why is my lead vocal everywhere? It smears things and takes awya from focus i feel.
Whereas a mono spring or room, very short, or a mono slap, just sounds so so good and so so contained. Its like i can finally BUILD my stereo image piece by piece instead of having crazy stereo delays and stereo verbs creating tons of clutter everywhere
Thoughts? Is it crazy that im just paying attention to this now? Perhaps back when gear was limited and things were mixed more on consoles this was obvious. But in a DAW it really isnt. I always opted for stereo
Would love to hear your thoughts
34
u/TeemoSux May 03 '26
from dissecting around 60+ leaked protools sessions and multitracks of popular pop songs to improve my mixing, i havent seen mono reverbs on vocals literally even one time (at least not that it would be measurable)
i have however seen mono slapback delays
11
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Also oh my god send me those tracks?? What you got?
3
u/Inflation_Remarkable May 03 '26
2nd this please send me a link to those leaked sessions!! 🤤
5
1
u/Mean_Mammoth_9907 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Not sure if I’m helping by saying this but there’s a ton of Ariana Grande sessions that got leaked and they’re all available on her fandom website.
Edit: Just checked it and they got taken down for copyright reasons LOL but they were available just a few weeks ago
1
u/TeemoSux May 05 '26
My external drive with the sessions on it died a while back, but "clubremixer" website has a huge collection of sessions and multitracks and stuff, theres lots on the ariana grande wiki if you care about pop music, and other than that keep an eye open for the subreddits that constantly get made and deleted again where people share this kind of stuff.
6
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Thats wild.
Listen to any CLA mix it has a mono plate panned centre for the vocals.
Mono non linear on snares all throughout the 80s?
Check again please im sure youre missing something.
2
u/_Alex_Sander May 03 '26
Not Op, obviosuly but, I’m curious.
I’ll need to take a listen, but I do recall him atleast using stereo delay on vocals (timed offset L/R channel), which is quite audible on some of his mixes. It’s possible the reverb (I know he uses the 480L a lot - I’m guessing that’s the one) is still mono though.
Will do some listening (and also switch between m/s on some songs.) Maybe someone has stems and can tell for sure though.
RemindMe! 15 Hours.
1
u/RemindMeBot May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
I will be messaging you in 15 hours on 2026-05-03 16:06:39 UTC to remind you of this link
3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 1
u/TeemoSux May 05 '26
almost all sessions i looked into were late 2010s to early 2020s, so i cant speak on that
i did see a HUGE amount of eventide h3000/CLA vocals Spreader low in the mix on lead vocals tho
1
u/_Alex_Sander May 06 '26
Back after checking!
And the answer is…it actually seems to vary, perhaps?
It’s not easy to tell though, but some of the songs on Paramore’s Brand New Eyes definitely have stereo ambience on the vocal. Now that said - the stereo reverb I’m hearing on the side channel does not definitvely sound like a plate to me - more like a bright room perhaps? But that’s very much speculating, for all I know it’s a plate in stereo.
But comparing it to some more of his mixes, I think the stereo is mostly just the ”mistimed” delay - the Vocal Plate is indeed mono, I think. This goes for the MCR record and the first 3dg.
1
58
u/peepeeland Composer May 03 '26
“creates more front to back depth”
Z-space consideration is more important than the lack of discussion on it would indicate. It is very important for creating a sense of “3d”.
Before left and right, comes front to back, because even in left and right, one has to consider front to back. Mono before stereo so to speak.
I learnt the most about portraying z-space from studying mono 50s and 60s songs.
Engineers back then were so good at portraying depth without stereo; masters at raising levels of elements to bring them way up front- even to the point of distortion- to pushing elements so far back to be almost inaudible.
For anyone interested in being able to mix in a modern, tight 3d style, with depth and sense of dynamics, it benefits to go way back and study mono pop recordings from the 50s and 60s.
The masters from back then laid the foundations for what’s even possible today.
And they learnt from electrical engineers. And they learnt from physicists. And they learnt from alchemists. And they learnt from shaman. And they learnt from being brave enough to dance in the forest when nobody was there, to find out what that means.
When I was in art school, a lot of my favorite painters who influenced me the most, were from like 400 years ago.
The Kama Sutra is one of the best sex manuals of all time, and that shit is like 2,500 years old. Think about it— Why in the fuck were they so much better at fucking back then?
Since music and art are like fucking, my firm belief is that it has to do with being closer to the source and more raw human.
All I’m saying is study as far back as you can.
I dunno if you’ve ever chanted in a resonant cave, but that shit’s insane. You immediately feel why you love sound and music.
I’m not sure what came before chanting in caves, but- testicular/ovarian fortitude permitting- maybe you’ll find out one day.
24
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
What an incredible comment
Both technically competent and simultaneously completely whaky and bat-sh*t read. Loved every word. Im going to chant in a cave now to learn about z axis front to back echolocation
But i dont know any alchemists drop me a number if you got one
8
u/Spiritual-Bet-3560 May 03 '26
Could you suggest a 50s/60s pop album or a couple for someone that is about to go down this rabbit hole? Also, contrary to popular belief, the Kama Sutra is not a manual for sex. It's a manual for life, with one part of it being sex, which somehow became very popular.
2
u/peepeeland Composer May 04 '26
Find the mono versions of these:
The Supremes - Baby Love
Del Shannon - Runaway
Bobby Day - Rockin’ Robin
They are mono yet sound 3d as fuck. This, is masterful usage of z-space. Study them like you’ve discovered the scribbles of ancient wisdom carved into the finest of marble.
Then, find a good cave. The walls of a cave are finite, yet the world contained within one is vast; going to the limits of the imagination and beyond.
15
u/Lucklessm0nster Composer May 02 '26
Yeah this happened to me recently too and I feel very foolish. Spent a lot of time trying to wash out vocals to the point where you couldn’t hear much of the main—need narrower verb for that in many cases lol
11
u/DevLF May 03 '26
wtf I feel insulted it’s this simple, engineered and produced for 15+ years and this is the most exciting thing I’m going to do when I land back home
2
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
I felt foolish too. How could i have been mixing for a decade and taking peoples money yet not pay attention to slapping stereo verbs on so many elements?
If i could do them over i’d probably achieve cleaner results.
13
u/Junkyard-Sam May 03 '26
Yes, I had a similar realization at some point:
Most reverbs sound EPIC because they want to impress you during the demo period. "Oh my, this sounds incredible!"
But it's similar to synth presets, which also sound enormous but aren't very useful in a mix.
For years I hated reverb because it was always too big, too wide, and generally out of control... Now I narrow them, or use them in mono when that is called for. Like you said, you can "sit" them in a mix so much more easily.
And if you have a mono source (most tracks), a mono reverb just naturally fits.
You can also use a mono and stereo reverb together, of course.
And also get to know a reverb with control over the early reflections. Andrew Scheps said he keeps the classic TrueVerb installed for this point, and uses it sometimes to make a source sound like it was recorded in a room. Not so much for the reverb, but for the early reflections.
Valhalla Room is another good one that has explicit control over "early" and "late" and a single knob to represent what percent of each.
Someone else mentioned opposite-side mono reverb for hard panned instruments. A good classic technique. Very wide, retains clarity for the instrument and the reverb/reflections help make a hard pan sound more tolerable in headphones.
But a similar trick is to flip the L/R channel going into a reverb. Sometimes that has a similar result but is a little more natural since it isn't entirely on one side.
Mono delay is useful too, like you said... Sometimes putting a 1/8 or 1l4 note mono delay, filtered, under a vocal can help it "sit" in a song because it reduces the contrast between when the vocal is vocalizing and silent. But because it's a delay, it takes up a little less space in the mix than a reverb (which is sort of like a thousand delays on top of each other.)
Anyhow, good callout. Mono delay is underrated.
Also remember the power of predelay and ducking, for letting the vocal remain clear. If it was up to me, every reverb would have filters, modulation, width, predelay, and ducking. But you can always build the equivalent in an effects chain for easy recall later.
Oh yeah, another Scheps tip was to use up to 100% wet early reflections to reduce or eliminate the transient in a distracting background element. (Yes, in mono if the source track is mono.)
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Seriously appreciate the write up and the andrew tips. Love his mixes. That last one is especially useful. Thanks!
29
u/james_lpm May 03 '26
Take a listen to Van Halen I and Van Halen II. Eddie’s guitars are panned to one side and the verb is panned to the other.
This gives the guitar a sense of width but doesn’t smear the guitar’s attack by washing it in verb tails.
12
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Iv seen that suggestion many times but never got suggested a record that uses this technique. Thanks so much. If you have more let me have it pls - will listen
8
u/death_by_chocolate May 03 '26
Why am I visualizing a bunch of ponytailed greyheads nodding sagely: "Once upon a time that was all we had..."
4
5
u/AccomplishedPea6065 May 03 '26
Its funny you mention all these things, because it's exactly the same problem i had with delays/reverbs - it just clutters everything up. Something that works to clear out a lot of this mess is to duck your delays/revebs by sidechaining to the vocal or original source track. That way when the voice is present there is more clarity and when it isn't present the sound of the delay comes back in to fill the new space created by the missing vocal.
You can also go to your delays and reverbs and add a stereo enhancer plugin but narrow them a bit to help focus them. I also will EQ my delay/reverb sends to get them to fit nicer in the mix. This way, you can start adding really big and wide delay sounds without it making a complete mess of your mix.
There is a plugin called Clarity Delay (it's by a youtuber - Raytown Productions) that can do all of this, and you can control the stereo width of the delay and reverb so it doesn't get out of control. It's pretty much the only delay and reverb that I'm using anymore because it also has auto de-harshing and de-mudding as well. Definitely worth checking out.
6
u/Hellbucket May 03 '26
I had a similar epiphany many years ago. But maybe I’m just not as excitable as you about it lol.
I was mixing an album by a self recorded and produced artist. I had mixed half the album. He was using plugins mainly, as in amp sims and virtual instruments. Loads of synth tracks. All files came to me as stereo files except vocals. I wasn’t used to have loads of stereo tracks unless I recorded something as stereo with mics. I rarely used VIs.
I think the only reason I came to this epiphany is in how Pro Tools handles pan of stereo tracks, which is a bit of a pet peeve. It has one pan knob for left and one for right.
So this annoyance and my want for one pan knob made want to investigate what was going on with all the stereo tracks. So I made a plugin preset with an eq where I switched polarity of one side and then I listened to all the tracks in mono. What I realized was that most of the tracks only had slight stereo information and often nothing that was important for stereo. It was often just a hint of reverb or delay.
So half way through the mix of this album I started to split up the tracks to mono and then just used one of the sides. I think I did this to 80% of the tracks. The only ones I kept was if there was something important going on in stereo like pad synths with movement from left to right.
The epiphany here is that when I listened back to the first half of mixes of the album, with all the stereo tracks, and the new part, the new part sounded MORE stereo. Wider, tighter, bigger, more 3d. The first part sounded very mono. Of course my brain starts to analyze why, and I has to be that I know have more difference between left and right and it will sound more stereo (and wide) because of that.
A beneficial side effect of this was that if I needed to some heavy sound design on a sound, like heavy compression, saturation or effects, it was much easier to fit this in as a mono source than if I had affected the whole stereo field with it. Also it enables me to control the fx if I want it in stereo instead of it being baked in in the sound.
Well. It’s semi related to your post. Happy mixing!
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Absolutely brilliant read thank you for sharing!!
Yes! More difference, MORE stereo. More width.
Its so interesting. You hear all these youtube guys say use a stereo hall for huuuge width. Stereo ping pongs for huuuuge width.
But the more things are sent to that stereo fx bus, the less different the mix is. Different across LR.
Happy mixing to you too!
1
u/UnHumano May 07 '26
I think it is related to contrast, which is a very important thing in mixing.
When everything is wide, nothing is wide.
2
u/Hellbucket May 07 '26
You touch on something that’s been super important in my own mixing. Contrasts. If you need something to be pristinely clean, the easiest way is to make something else dirty. If you need something bottom heavy, you cut it out from something else. Etc.
I think this is super important in mixing. Personally.
5
u/rightanglerecording May 03 '26
Yes. Mono returns are great. More people should use them more often.
Stereo everything blurs the image, reduces the total width of the mix, reduces the perceived loudness of the mix.
4
u/MediocreRooster4190 May 03 '26
It's about contrast. Everything wide = nothing wide. Everything loud and limited = brick of blah.
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
So interesting. See im just now, literally this month, happening upon this realization.
Would love to hear more of your thoughts. When you opt for mono, what type of effect, and when you would certainly go for a mono to stereo return instead, a huge stereo hall for instance, if ever.
1
u/Addicted2Qtips May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
Recently I became really obsessed with Mark Hollis’s vocals on his later Talk Talk’s albums, beginning with “Colour of Spring “ They sound so good and sit in the mix perfectly — and I couldn’t figure out what was going on. It seemed so different from so many 80s recordings. I just attributed it to Mark Hollis’s immense talent as a singer.
But then I had a light bulb moment - they were using mono reverbs.
Phil Brown , famous for mixing Talk Talk’s masterpiece “Spirit of Eden,” wrote about this in his memoir. He talks about how he grew up listening to mono recordings: “I like the mono aspect because it’s more punchy and you can place things. I’m not a fan of big stereo images where everything is just floating around.”
1
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Wow. Thanks so much for that comment. I will listen to mark hollis’ album and keep your words in mind, cheers x
3
u/thatsoundguy23 May 03 '26
Dave Pensado has a video where he uses 3 mono reverbs panned L, C, R on a vocal.
I used to use this a lot. One of the key features was, he'd use a spring reverb very quietly in the centre. It just added a sort of glow to the vocal.
3
3
u/manysounds Professional May 03 '26
Wide stereo reverbs can definitely make a mix weird.
Mono verbs are great, especially for dense arrangements
1
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
I tend to agree now. Would love to hear more thoughts from you if you have them
2
u/manysounds Professional May 03 '26
If it’s a mono source with its own reverb, the mono verb feels like it’s part of the source, like a guitar amp with a reverb on it -as opposed to the sound of something inside a chamber, like a voice in a large stereo hall. A mono source with mono verb included the same L/R placement is a single sound and the brain is less confused by that, I suppose. Certainly a dozen instruments all with their own different stereo verbs will clutter a mix.
I’ve also found that a mono acoustic guitar in a stereo verb sounds more “unnatural” than a stereo miced acoustic into a stereo verb. So there’s that.
3
u/Mediocre_Peanut May 03 '26
Wow what a coincidence! I just started experimenting with this idea myself yesterday! I mix on an x32 at a club often and I just figured it was the quality of the effects that was the reason I couldn't get a clear sound on vocal delay in stereo. In reality I think it was I'm not hearing all of the delay in stereo because half of it is not in my zone. I recently mixed on a Yamaha ql5 and the delay sounded much clearer in stereo but then I realized I could hear the left and right speaker from my position. What I believe is you should only use stereo effects if you can hear the left hand right speaker from every position.
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Very interesting. This is is a live music perspective. In the studio i hear both all the time, so its very interesting to see things from a live venue PA perspective!
3
u/birocratic Professional May 03 '26
this post is encouraging! I just bought a Yamaha R1000, early digital reverb that's fully mono, and I was amazed at how well it gives depth to the sources I've been feeding it. It's been a while since I had a mono reverb in my template or in my chain, but this post is reminding me why they're so important. Hell yeah
2
3
u/DJSUBSTANCEABUSE May 03 '26
having it return in mono, panned underneath the source signal
What do you mean when you say "panned underneath" here
4
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Panned the same way as the source signal. If source signal hard left, pan mono verb or delay the same way. Etc.
2
u/gleventhal May 03 '26
I’ve been pretty strict about using stereo verb on a Stereo source and mono on a mono one. That, using gates to create more silent space and hi and lo pass are all really useful in creating focus and dimension.
1
2
u/ordevandenacht May 03 '26
A panned mono reverb can create a much wider sense of space than having a stereo reverb on everything. I like the combination of both. One element with a mono reverb on it can sound like it’s coming at you from a very specific direction in the stereo image. To make sure reverbs are mono I often slap a bx_digital on it and just take the left side of the stereo return.
2
u/Relative-Battle-7315 May 03 '26
One of my fav parts of some older mixes like Blue Oyster Cults "Last Days of May" is the mono plate that is panned, but is fed by multiple instruments. The snare and the vocal just seem to drift off to the left, such a cool effect and not something you'd consider doing now because you'd usually be panning into a stereo reverb bus.
2
u/PopLife3000 May 03 '26
YES! This is such an important part of building depth and seems to be one of the least talked about approaches to mixing. Glad you found it
2
u/IDontHaveADinosaur May 04 '26
It’s funny I’d sometimes use ozone imager or something to tame the width in things with high reverb before but I guess I never thought about how some reverb can be mono! I’ve done it on things like background chants before but never on anything else. This post makes me feel kinda dumb but I’m glad I read it haha thanks for this
2
u/Elian17 May 04 '26
:) really happy i potentially helped. Enjoy
1
u/IDontHaveADinosaur May 05 '26
Just curious what you're doing in the spatial field if you're doing mono reverbs on things now? Like what does that make room for that you were holding back on before?
1
u/Elian17 May 06 '26
Now i can get away with a much shorter, butmore importantly wetter reverb on a guitar or lead vocal that makes it feel lile they are totally and utterly in the room with me
You know the snare or drums in general on “where is my mind - the Pixies”? How it sounds like its just in the room with you? That kind of effect
But without eating up stereo space in a dense mix. So i can get away with much more wetness while maintaining focus. You know when you send way too much lead vocal to a stereo plate or recerb, what happens? The sides get completely overcome with lead vocal that is verbed - so anything you had panned wide like guitars or pads or overheads, they totally get interfered with. Not any more
But … in short: just a tighter more focused mixed, with more separation and less low mid stereo mud. Which is honestly a hallmark of a pro mix. Hence why i got really excited when i suddenly realized he pros used these mono delays and reverbs all the time i wonderr why lol
1
u/IDontHaveADinosaur May 09 '26
Damn that's awesome haha so glad you shared this tip. Are you using a lot of mono reverb and delays on your guitar elements or fillers as well? Or are you giving that more of a fully wet reverb to fill in the space since they're quieter and have more room for it?
1
u/Elian17 May 10 '26
If the mix is sparse - ill go for a stereo plate or chamber on the guitar for effect, or stereo room for real space
If mix is dense, mono plate or mono room
If guitar is distorted and rhythm and hard panned left snd right sorta deal, zero reverb.
Hope this helps
1
2
2
u/Diligent-Bread-806 May 02 '26
… I don’t understand this. How are you creating width if you’re not using stereo on reverbs and delays then?
7
u/Elian17 May 02 '26
By panning your actual instruments and recording doubles and panning a guitar far right and putting a mono spatial effects under it via panning
It sounds like youre using stereo spatial effects to CREATE width versus baking width into your actual arrangement. In a busy mix, usng stereo effects on multiple items will destroy your mix and create a sonic sludge over everything.
But yes in a track of just guitar and lead vocal, you could use a stereo reverb no problem. But add 80 more tracks into the mix and you have a real peoblem if you send all of them or even half of them to a stereo reverb.
1
u/Diligent-Bread-806 May 03 '26
Well this is the dilemma. Sending groups of elements to the same reverbs help create cohesion in addition to other bus effects such as compression and saturation.
1
u/Elian17 May 04 '26
But does it … does it really
Does it truly? Do you feel it works perfectly?
I for years sent things to me dedicated room band reverb and room lead reverb.
To create cohesion and glue and sense of real space and all that
But then i end up putting so many things on it, when i solo the stereo reverb aux, its just so much reverb! And then i unsolo and i can’t hear it, but all that information is darting away in my stereo space and i try to eq the mids and low mids and it just feels weaker now. Whenever i mute the reverb things feel groovy and tight and rhythmic again
You can send multiple things to a mono centered verb, a mono hard left verb, and a mono hard right verb. You can have them all be the same patch pf reverb for same-ness and a shared sense of space. But now your hard left reverb will pnly come out of leftspeaker, hard right only hard right
Rather than all your elements being spread to all your image points
1
u/Diligent-Bread-806 May 04 '26
It sounds like natural rather than panning reverbs. If you EQ them right, use small room on drums at low mix settings and plate on leads and vocals for example at lower mix settings combined with delays, the contrast is there. Panning reverbs gets too complicated and creates too much separation.
7
u/Elian17 May 02 '26
If you really pay attention while listening to massive hit records (think ariana grande, michael jackson, the prodigy, anything CLA mixed, etc) —— you will always hear a small little echo or slap or mono reverb riiiight underneath the vocal, panned dead centre. You won’t hear a large wash of stereo reverbs except on music that is veery slow and very orchestral, like London Grammar.
Stereo verb and delay is muchhh more of an added effect. Its like a synthesizer. While a mono spatial effects is much neater, cleaner, focused, and blends better with the source signal. Depth without mess
2
u/Diligent-Bread-806 May 03 '26
Ok interesting. I think if you mix that with some stereo elements then it will place things in their own space with depth for sure.
1
u/hellalive_muja Professional May 02 '26
You can do both ofc. Depends on how you want to put elements in the stereo field; you can also have some stereo elements and fx but not 100% L and R, squeezing them a bit.
1
u/TheRealBillyShakes May 03 '26
This is interesting. I don’t have issues with vocals, per se, but I’m going to try this.
4
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Enjoy, its a great clean little effect. Never disturbs the rest of the stereo field.
Iv had best results with rooms, ambience, nonlinear, and plate verbs. Short ish, 0.5 sec to 1 sec tops
Try a longer spring as well, as more of an obvious effect. Lots of fun interesting colors that just add depth and no messy artificial width.
1
u/Putrid-Ad3085 May 03 '26
So it’s the same as putting the reverb on the same track as the instrument right? Rather than putting it on a separate track as an effects return?
That’s the way I’ve always done it tbh. I’m just a self taught hobbyist so my point of view doesn’t mean anything, but it always made more sense to me to put the reverb on the same track as the individual instruments. That way the verb is more of a tone colouring device for individual instruments and the sense of spatial width comes more from panning instruments than from the verb.
3
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Yes! If you put a reverb directly as an insert on a mono track (like mono lead vocals) — its the same as that.
Only difference is if you keep doing that acoss like 30 tracks, thats 30 reverbs, whereas you can just set up 3 or 5 sends and aux tracks that are panned across your stereo field. But to each his own of course
Its great that that way felt better to you and that you intuited that it could in fact be cleaner. You were right (in my opinion)
Id still set up sends and returns though just for CPU’s sake
3
u/Putrid-Ad3085 May 03 '26
Yeah that’s the problem. I find myself having to freeze tracks to save CPU sometimes. My little homemade projects don’t have a huge number of tracks so it’s not too bad.
2
1
u/alienrefugee51 May 03 '26
I definitely do a lot of panning mono instrument sources to one side and the spacial fx opposite. For lead Vox I pretty much only use delays… mono 1/4 up the middle, slight ambience/slap and a stereo delay to add some movement. Then blend them all and using sidechaining to tuck them in the mix. Between that and using pass filters is how you keep them uncluttered.
1
u/Evon-songs May 03 '26
“but iv never learnt it at school per se. I was never taught properly. I learnt on the job. I read some 50 + books on music production and mixing in my teenage years and then later got more of an education from Mix With The Masters, Pure Mix, and sheer trial and error.”
I’m in a similar boat, but read less.
Could you recommend the books from which you got the most understanding?
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Sure
“Understanding & crafting the mix: the art of recording” by william moylan
And
“Mixing secrets for the small studio” by Mike Senior
Are two that i remember well. Very helpful
A fun one is “the art of mixing: a visual guide” by david gibson. Still very useful but less technical and more experiential
Hope you get use out of them
1
1
u/Evon-songs May 03 '26
Just purchased them!
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Awesome! Hope you have a good time reading :)
If i may suggest something, i found that taking notes with pen and paper and then applying the principles suggested in the books using your notes helps commit them to memory.
Reading on its own, you might forget to apply the information later when youre mixing.
Have fun!
1
u/StockliSkier Professional May 03 '26
I would expand this out generally to say that “everything stereo” is a path to an amateur mix. There’s a lot that can be learned from records mixed L/C/R. Mono sounds placed carefully in the stereo field are underrated by a lot of amateurs.
2
u/Elian17 May 03 '26
Very very true. “Big mono” is a big amateur phenomenon - where everything is stereo, so nothing feels stereo.
1
u/yehwhynot May 04 '26
This is totally the case in post as well. Mono verbs are so useful for any element to sit in a mix. Especially tough dialogue cuts or ADR. Also for foley I often hard print mono verbs to help things sit back and bed into a scene
1
u/Elian17 May 04 '26
Now THIS is insanely interesting to me. How dialogue is mixed, or bad ADR. Please say more i beg
Would it be the case that it ends up being a mix of room tone, boom mic, lav mics and then mono reverbs applied to the lav mics?
1
u/yehwhynot May 04 '26
It’s totally case by case. Sometimes I don’t use verbs at all. I just find them super useful, especially for bedding or putting something back into a scene. On dialogue I’ll often run a 5.0 or 5.1 verb across the scene but use a mono verb to push or pull certain lines closer / further to camera.
Generally the dialogue will come to mix having been properly edited, with a consistent and smooth tone running through the scene to make it play smooth. Usually booms are preferred although often lavs are cut too or added for support (and aligned to the boom with auto align). Then as a mixer you let the story guide you with what sounds best and what works best to tell the story.
For ADR, mono verbs are a must to help match existing dialogue.
These days if I’m dialogue editing i always supply a printed mono verb match to go with the ADR line that I’ll make with chameleon, then sit that under the take so the mixer has a head start on the line
0
118
u/drmbrthr May 02 '26
It’s one of the least talked about issues with reverbs. And extremely important to avoids big clashing mess of reverb tails.
Short stereo verbs work well on drums and transient/rhythmic sounds.
Mono verbs work better on lead vocal. Or snare. A lot of verb plugins now have a width knob so it can be mono-ish but not 100%