|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Nov 22, 2021 9:18:12 GMT -6
Hey guys... I was doing some reading last night and came across an old M Brauer interview in TapeOp. Somehow it escaped my attention that he's using dual-mono instead of stereo on his bus compressors. This makes sense to me for tracks where you don't have hard panned stereo sources (super mono as some call it). But I was curious what others are doing? (In the spirit of something mrholmes said, this is the first of a couple of posts on HOW we use our gear, not just what gear we use) |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 22, 2021 9:22:32 GMT -6
I've never understood what dual-mono offers instead of stereo.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Nov 22, 2021 9:25:16 GMT -6
I've never understood what dual-mono offers instead of stereo. I think the idea is that you get more movement left to right. I could see this being a bad thing in some cases but in other cases it makes sense. For example, I often have piano on the left of a bus with organ on the right. I might not want one ducking the other in which case dual mono could make more sense. But this is why I'm asking, because it seems like that's not the most common way to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by enlav on Nov 22, 2021 9:54:53 GMT -6
This is an interesting discussion, and one I haven't re-analyzed for a long time. I've always held steadfast to the rule that any stereo image (fake or true), I would use stereo/linked compressors, but for certain DPL's and plug-ins that have variable link control (the ability to shift the "link" behavior from 0 to 100%), I've used that for subtle results... I would agree that there could definitely be times that dual mono would serve good results, like that example of piano/organ, or even something like hard-panned guitars on a guitar buss... especially with two drastically different guitar parts/dynamics. Probably prudent to point out that the less compression being applied by your un-linked or linked compressor, the more subtle the difference would be. (And in these discussions, when we're doing music that is not classical/traditional, I always wonder if a listener on their walkman/ipod/phone/JBL Water bottle-shaped bluetooth speaker is going to notice one way or another.)
I'm not sure how much of a difference I'd notice further down the mix chain; by the time I'm hitting buss and submaster compression, I'm trying not to control much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 9:55:24 GMT -6
I've never understood what dual-mono offers instead of stereo. I think the idea is that you get more movement left to right. I could see this being a bad thing in some cases but in other cases it makes sense. For example, I often have piano on the left of a bus with organ on the right. I might not want one ducking the other in which case dual mono could make more sense. But this is why I'm asking, because it seems like that's not the most common way to do it. In terms of equipment dual mono is usually an independent pair (for example a dual mono pre running bass / guitar) and stereo is two channels related / connected. However some units are mono with a stereo "link".. In terms of anything actually useful dual mono implies the effect on either an L/R or mid / side channel(s), so let's say you have a stereo track that's too sharp on one side, instead of affecting both L/R you can use a plugin for example as dual mono which will only affect one side. Same theory applies to HW.. |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Nov 22, 2021 9:59:27 GMT -6
Dual mono sounds wider usually. But can also introduce some shifting of the stereo image depending on the variance in the material on the left and right side. I like dual mono for lots of things, but for critical stereo sources and mix Buss I generally prefer things to be stereo linked
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Nov 22, 2021 9:59:47 GMT -6
I think the idea is that you get more movement left to right. I could see this being a bad thing in some cases but in other cases it makes sense. For example, I often have piano on the left of a bus with organ on the right. I might not want one ducking the other in which case dual mono could make more sense. But this is why I'm asking, because it seems like that's not the most common way to do it. In terms of equipment dual mono is usually an independent pair (for example a dual mono pre running bass / guitar) and stereo is two channels related / connected. However some units are mono with a stereo "link".. In terms of anything actually useful dual mono implies the effect on either an L/R or mid / side channel(s), so let's say you have a stereo track that's too sharp on one side, instead of affecting both L/R you can use a plugin for example as dual mono which will only affect one side. Same theory applies to HW.. Mid-side would be a great example for sure. Is there a plugin that can link two hardware compressors? Like something that can do the RMS summing and direct the one compressor to follow the other? That would be pretty cool. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 10:10:47 GMT -6
In terms of equipment dual mono is usually an independent pair (for example a dual mono pre running bass / guitar) and stereo is two channels related / connected. However some units are mono with a stereo "link".. In terms of anything actually useful dual mono implies the effect on either an L/R or mid / side channel(s), so let's say you have a stereo track that's too sharp on one side, instead of affecting both L/R you can use a plugin for example as dual mono which will only affect one side. Same theory applies to HW.. Mid-side would be a great example for sure. Is there a plugin that can link two hardware compressors? Like something that can do the RMS summing and direct the one compressor to follow the other? That would be pretty cool. The HW would have to be controlled by a plugin for that to work, I guess it's not impossible but y'know it's not that hard to push a switch either  .. As Dr. Sax says unlinking a stereo pair (dual mono) can shift the tonal balance of your stereo spectrum to decent effect (doesn't always work to one's favour but it's worth trying at least).. Pro Tools Expert / CLA did an article on it.. www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/why-should-you-stereo-link-compressors |
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Nov 22, 2021 10:25:24 GMT -6
drawmer 1978 comp set to dual-mono once f@*ked up the balance volumewise of one of my mixes. since than, mixbus comps are always stereolinked for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Nov 22, 2021 10:35:28 GMT -6
Mid-side would be a great example for sure. Is there a plugin that can link two hardware compressors? Like something that can do the RMS summing and direct the one compressor to follow the other? That would be pretty cool. The HW would have to be controlled by a plugin for that to work, I guess it's not impossible but y'know it's not that hard to push a switch either .. As Dr. Sax says unlinking a stereo pair (dual mono) can shift the tonal balance of your stereo spectrum to decent effect (doesn't always work to one's favour but it's worth trying at least).. Pro Tools Expert / CLA did an article on it.. www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/why-should-you-stereo-link-compressorsYeah, it would be a pretty complicated plugin now that I think about it. I supposed I'm thinking of stuff that can't be linked. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Nov 22, 2021 10:39:16 GMT -6
Depends how hard you’re hitting the compressor. I almost always use dual mono if the option is available. Most of the big stuff is down the middle anyway (bass, kick, snare, vocals), never had a problem with hard panned elements shifting the stereo field. But I find the stereo image stays wider, longer in dual mono.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 22, 2021 12:12:40 GMT -6
Dual mono is a lot more control but a lot more work. Not necessarily a lot more results, or results you might prefer as drsax noted. Some things to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Nov 22, 2021 12:19:04 GMT -6
Hey guys... I was doing some reading last night and came across an old M Brauer interview in TapeOp. Somehow it escaped my attention that he's using dual-mono instead of stereo on his bus compressors. This makes sense to me for tracks where you don't have hard panned stereo sources (super mono as some call it). But I was curious what others are doing? (In the spirit of something mrholmes said, this is the first of a couple of posts on HOW we use our gear, not just what gear we use)
I just can speak for the way I use MB compression. I love to use the SPL Iron in MS mode because it gives some extra harmonics to the sides. This reminds me a lot, mixing into one of my EX-tube-compressors.
Some other Ideas:
I am also pretty much convinced that real gear does create more harmonics in the side signal, which makes the impression of dimension. I have found only two plug ins helping in a good way with this.
1. Elysia Karacter...
2. Tone Projects Kelvin (very good for this because it does this also on mono signals).
Furthermore, since Goodherts CanOpener I find it extremely helpful to mix the low end on my AKG K 701 and to check back on my ME906 and NS10s. I have no idea why, but it works best for me this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Nov 22, 2021 14:41:04 GMT -6
I've ended up using both linked and unlinked many times on many things.
Generally, 2buss is linked but sometimes not. Sub-groups, who knows what'll work.
Basically, if the option's there, try it. You might be surprised either way so don't overthink it.
Doesn't mean it'll work the next time but the solution is likely a switch away.
|
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Nov 23, 2021 4:12:57 GMT -6
I'm a fan of dual Mono, but using a few compressors in dual mono in a row - rather than attempting to do lots of compression in one go. I usually have a pair of tube mono comps first in the chain - then an API 2500 unlinked / or a Buzz BDC-20 unlinked. But I'm also not attempting to do too much compression on any mix or sub mix bus, and allowing a further linked compression stage for mastering.
Like a big floortom hit not squashing the stereo drum bus when hit - or guitar busses L&R not squashing the other side.
I too like the width and movement of dual mono, keeping all busses unlinked right up until the final mastering compression. (which is usually 50-100% linked - with DMG Limitless). |
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Nov 26, 2021 10:56:36 GMT -6
I use both.
Stereo when I need to keep a shape: drum bus, vocal bus, instrumental bus. Typically the loudest things.
Dual mono when I don't mind the "centered-ness" shifting, the shifting is negligible, or the shifting could be even helpful. Stereo instruments, rhythm guitar bus, stereo vocal doubles, ambience effects, horns bus, aux percussion, parallel drums,
Mix bus? Depends on if I'm compressing the instrumental bus. If so, then the mix bus will be dual mono because I'm only compressing the slightest bit anyway. The potential stereo shift is so small because the amount of compression is so small and the loudest things are all in the center...but that little difference does give me a wider feel. If I'm not compressing the instrumental bus then the mix bus compressor is linked stereo to keep a moment or a creative choice from pushing something else around in the stereo field.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Nov 26, 2021 12:27:34 GMT -6
I use both. Stereo when I need to keep a shape: drum bus, vocal bus, instrumental bus. Typically the loudest things. Dual mono when I don't mind the "centered-ness" shifting, the shifting is negligible, or the shifting could be even helpful. Stereo instruments, rhythm guitar bus, stereo vocal doubles, ambience effects, horns bus, aux percussion, parallel drums, Mix bus? Depends on if I'm compressing the instrumental bus. If so, then the mix bus will be dual mono because I'm only compressing the slightest bit anyway. The potential stereo shift is so small because the amount of compression is so small and the loudest things are all in the center...but that little difference does give me a wider feel. If I'm not compressing the instrumental bus then the mix bus compressor is linked stereo to keep a moment or a creative choice from pushing something else around in the stereo field. Well said. Linked when you want to "keep the shape", unlinked when a bit of shifting is ok. In fact, that's often what I like about unlinked - the movement. Often it's not a ton of GR so it's a subtle effect and most welcome since I'm going for movement anyway. I'm more careful when dealing with the mix bus but I'll still often check unlinked to see if it's better. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 26, 2021 14:38:40 GMT -6
I've never understood what dual-mono offers instead of stereo. Just to answer this for you since no one really did. The difference is in the side chain/detector circuit for the compressor. So a stereo linked compressor takes the signal from the L and R channels and usually combines them down to mono and this is then used to detect when the compressor should compressor as set by the threshold. A dual mono means each channel is totally independent not use in terms of level, attack times, release times, threshold, but also sidechain/detecor. Each channel listens to its own side chain so they compress completely independently from one another. Some compressors take this up a notch(API 2500 for instance) and has a blend control so you can actually either be 100% fully unlinked or you can mix it down all the way to unlinked. Kind of cool that way. As others have stated if it's a stereo link this can feel like it collapes the imaging a bit as if somehting really loud is on the left its going to compressor both L/R signals. A dual mono would just clamp down on the L which can make the stereo image shift. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 26, 2021 15:01:06 GMT -6
Thanks Blackdawg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 27, 2021 17:59:57 GMT -6
Anyone else occasionally amazed that we're still mixing everything in stereo and not 5.1?
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Nov 27, 2021 18:08:00 GMT -6
Anyone else occasionally amazed that we're still mixing everything in stereo and not 5.1? 5.1 is such a PITA to set up unless you have a professionally built listening room. That's my take. I already agonize enough over the placement of two speakers in my living room, last think I need is three more. That said, all live concerts should be mixed 5.1, that's a listening experience worth the effort. Ok, now I'm talking myself into it... |
|
|
|
Post by ab101 on Nov 27, 2021 18:31:03 GMT -6
Anyone else occasionally amazed that we're still mixing everything in stereo and not 5.1? Great observation. Quadraphonic records anyone? Perhaps something has finally not become more complicated. I think that is a good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by peterhess on Nov 27, 2021 18:44:47 GMT -6
If I remember correctly, in the Gear Club interview with Geoff Daking, he has strong opinions against stereo linking?
I’m a big fan of dual mono on a sub-bus: a recent example, I have a saxophone quartet close(ish) mic’d in stereo at something like 70/30/30/70. No compression on the close mics individually but the close mics buss hitting JLMs at 3:1 in dual mono for up to, say, 3db of compression at it’s loudest… the R/L “pairs” of saxophones often acting/moving together, and frequently at different dynamic levels (ie baritone and tenor left side on an ostinato or something, soprano and alto right playing more lyrically)… I gain both a little unity in the dynamic movement of the pairs, and a little overall temperament of the total picture, without crushing any life out, and revealing a little more detail in the quieter passages, which might well pass without any compression at all. The perceived loudness of those kind of acoustic sources is very much in the attack and timbre of the tone. Then I bring in stereo room to taste and hit a gentle diode bridge, linked, for overall glue. Dual mono is ideal for that kind of detail, where I want to be really light with the reins, and just nudge a sleepy horse or keep another from bucking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Nov 27, 2021 19:44:16 GMT -6
Anyone else occasionally amazed that we're still mixing everything in stereo and not 5.1? No. I have a 5.1.4 setup at work and I never mix anything anymore in that format. Purely because it was too annoying and confusing for consumers to figure out. So it never caught on. But that's where something like Atmos is really filling that gap. Since you mix it in 7.1.4 or 7.1.2. then the Atmos engine gets to see what the consumer playback device is. Stereo, 3.1 2.1 5.1.2, whatever. And it decodes it to fit as needed to sound the "best" as possible. That's why immersive is actually making a move in the industry. That and video games. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 10:17:54 GMT -6
I've never understood what dual-mono offers instead of stereo. Just to answer this for you since no one really did. The difference is in the side chain/detector circuit for the compressor. So a stereo linked compressor takes the signal from the L and R channels and usually combines them down to mono and this is then used to detect when the compressor should compressor as set by the threshold. A dual mono means each channel is totally independent not use in terms of level, attack times, release times, threshold, but also sidechain/detecor. Each channel listens to its own side chain so they compress completely independently from one another. Some compressors take this up a notch(API 2500 for instance) and has a blend control so you can actually either be 100% fully unlinked or you can mix it down all the way to unlinked. Kind of cool that way. As others have stated if it's a stereo link this can feel like it collapes the imaging a bit as if somehting really loud is on the left its going to compressor both L/R signals. A dual mono would just clamp down on the L which can make the stereo image shift. That’s incorrect about how the stereo linking on most dedicated stereo compressors works. summing sidechains to mono causes major m/s issues like original gssl clones. non-linked detectors cause changing and blurring of the stereo image. On most units like SSL bus and better plugs like Presswerk and Kotelnikov, there are separate L and R detectors and the compressor chooses the higher one. Of course this lets the channels modulate each other, which you may or may not want. I don’t know how the Daking FET III stereo knob works with summing the sidechains but Kotelnikov never unlinks the detectors docs.tokyodawn.net/kotelnikov-ge-manual/#Stereo_Sensitivity |
|
.. As Dr. Sax says unlinking a stereo pair (dual mono) can shift the tonal balance of your stereo spectrum to decent effect (doesn't always work to one's favour but it's worth trying at least).. Pro Tools Expert / CLA did an article on it.. 
