Well, it's not so much a "trick" as it is a general approach or technique...
I was reading Bobby Owsinski's Mixing Engineer's Handbook again, and in one of the interviews, Dave indicated that he often tosses aside one of the stereo channels of a synth take.
Synths are great for a lot of things, but I often find they take up too much space in a mix. Before I start messing with an EQ, I'll listen to half the stereo sound by soloing or muting one of the channels. I work primarily "in the box", so instead of rendering a virtual instrument as a stereo interleaved track, I'll render it as a split R/L pair. Then I can use both channels, or simply one or the other. And sometimes I'll drop a channel and then double the part (and drop a channel on the doubled part as well) just to give the synth some subtle animation.
The other day I was working with a simple Moog-style bass line from the Minimogue VA, and while it was a great sound in isolation, it took over the mix entirely. The solution? I tweaked the sound a bit (filter settings, etc.), then I rendered the part as a split R/L pair. Instead of dropping the right channel altogether, I ran it through an 1176 plug-in, squashed the hell out of it (about 15 to 20 dB of compression), then boosted 100 Hz and 10 KHz by about 10 dB. Then I lowered the level of the squashed/boosted track to just above the noise floor, to give the bass just the slightest amount of bite. I believe this is referred to as the "New York" compression trick in Bobby's book. The result? It now fits great.
Anyways, give it a shot the next time you're struggling to get a synth to fit in a mix. For what I do, it's working out quite well.
"A good mix is like a cocktail party... There is some action over here, some discussion over there, and plenty of room to move around."
Hardware: Korg Wavestation EX / Roland XV-3080 / Roland D-20
DAW: Rok Box MC 7xs / RME Multiface II / UAD-2 Duo / Cubase 6.5 / Wavelab 7.x / HALion 4.5
IMO stereo tracks off of one instrument, in either recorded or live settings, are a waste of effort. Unless there's a desired specific effect that only works with a stereo instrument (such as the ping-pong tremolo of old electric pianos), it's better to run 'em mono. Audiences rarely perceive an instrument as anything other than a single point source.
Your own limitations render you incapable of realizing that not everyone is as limited as yourself.
Originally Posted by BluesMan60
@ right wing extremist jealously of poor people in between apologizing for white collar criminals.
Originally Posted by U2BM
Fine, it's a community service, and everybody should chip in. That doesn't mean it requires taxation.
Originally Posted by U2BM
You sig'd my comment about shared expense not requiring taxation? You are a moron! And, as you no doubt know, I think you are a creep for sigging like that, as well.
It depends. I think the idea of dropping the pseudo stereomofied 2nd channel makes perfect sense. It's too often overlooked and assumed it is integral to the sound. But...
...sometimes you want just that. A silly, fake stereo sound up front and in your face. I just took a mono lead sound and ran it through chorus and detuning and further under 50ms stereo widening into a gated verb. It serves as a perfectly stupid yet delicious pop hook in a bubblegum electro track I'm working on.
So, more importantly, it pays to be aware of what your synth sound is actually comprised of, and to not blindly assume everything some programmer put in a preset is in your track's best interest.
____________________ It ain't fair to say that these tracks are the same. So god if you can hear me crash this train