Gearslutz.com - View Single Post - Spatial Imaging
thread: Spatial Imaging
View Single Post
Old 25th June 2008   #2
Adam Dempsey
Mastering Engineer
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne - Australia's music capital.
Posts: 1,720

Verified Member
Hey David,

In my experience the strongest sounding mixes which feature great separation are quite tight and centered, but with contrasts (which help make separation possible) in the arrangement in both stereo elements and front/back depth. It's all in the mix.. meaning a strong mono image to carry the focal point, often balanced with more incidental elements for emphasis (and hey, if you want a mix element loud, make it come out of both speakers rather than just one). This is also why double tracking, if done well, can kind of give you the best of both worlds. Whatever works to create balance and contrasts, but it's far less of a mastering thing.

I've not needed to add width to a mix at all in years, other than to help match one track's imaging with others for continuity in a project. I have had projects come in whereby the drum overheads, for example, were recorded in M-S, and their width was varied in mixing with the verses/chorus - worked really well, but it's always along the grain of the music, in this case for "size" and spatial dynamic, not purely "width".

Of course headphones (without crosstalk) will easily tend "widen" the image. And commercial radio often does, too. So leave it to those processes. However, yes: a width enhancement process, if properly implemented, should not affect mono compatibility.
__________________
Adam
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
facebook | twitter | myspace
Is adding presence the same as subtracting absence?
Adam Dempsey is offline   Reply With Quote