BxD
New member
That's why in Home Theatre setups, they really don't get fussy where the Sub "should" go -- because you can't tell where the low freqs are coming from anyhow... right?
panning mono tracks for stereo mixdown
- Thread starter smg
- Start date
That's why in Home Theatre setups, they really don't get fussy where the Sub "should" go -- because you can't tell where the low freqs are coming from anyhow... right?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Are you saying the same thing I was saying...or something else?
I mean...if you draw a center line, from drummer's face-forward position, off his kick drum knee....it just slices the point between snare and kick.
For them both to fall on the centerline...the line would have to come in from an angle...?
Hey BSG-thx again for all your help w/the other thread about the Samson S Curve,been using it for a couple weeks and getting some good results...
As far as the side/difference concept-this refers to the" mid " area as being made up of whatever is hard- panned L/R and this as the difference?Trying to get a good understanding of this now( re-earlier post where EQ concepts were explained so I could figure things out ...)
As far as the side/difference concept-this refers to the" mid " area as being made up of whatever is hard- panned L/R and this as the difference?Trying to get a good understanding of this now( re-earlier post where EQ concepts were explained so I could figure things out ...)
BEARFOOTSOUNDS
New member
Although not strictly related to panning, it might be useful to know that what makes a bass guitar "cut through" a mix is the instrument's mids, not the lows. If you want to bury the bass in the mix, EQ it like a smiley face. Sounds wonderful for solo practice, and gets lost in the band nearly every time.
This is why the Fender P-bass, or any decent clone thereof, remains the favorite of sound engineers. Many will not allow any other type of bass guitar in their recordings - because that P-bass split pickup has a rich midrange punch that just works, with minimal effort, most of the time.
It might also be helpful to look at LPF for a variety of instruments. You'd be amazed how much low frequency garbage is in a guitar signal, for instance. It all adds to the mud and clutters up the range you want your kick and bass guitar to reign over, in most cases.
This is why the Fender P-bass, or any decent clone thereof, remains the favorite of sound engineers. Many will not allow any other type of bass guitar in their recordings - because that P-bass split pickup has a rich midrange punch that just works, with minimal effort, most of the time.
It might also be helpful to look at LPF for a variety of instruments. You'd be amazed how much low frequency garbage is in a guitar signal, for instance. It all adds to the mud and clutters up the range you want your kick and bass guitar to reign over, in most cases.
You know the change I made in the bass sound(see earlier post,from yesterday on prev page) to make it fit in the mix involved this to some extent-instead of notching out @ 400 I just dipped it a little there ...the first EQ which I changed involved HP filter to 75Hz then a little dip from 80-200 Hz ...then 200-300 up a little before cutting up to 800 /boosting @1k where the string sound/overtones were ,up to 3k...I'm stiil going to use these settings for other mixes where I want this kind of sound.... The change which worked better in the mix used a lower HP @ 50,then a little boost around 65 Hz to get some of that bass area sound but cutting out above it up to 200....
The for the tip re-PB being the bass of choice...I'll do some YouTube research to hear that soloed as a reference....
Miroslav if you happen to see this,thx for all the info...esp re-using stereo tracks...my equipment right now is a bit limited in terms of doing this initially instead of recording mono tracks to stereo mix but I can get the same result once I copy the stereo master track back to 2 tracks as part of another submix process....then use the "tilt"concept which I already have been working with....
I want to get a wide stereo field effect too..and since I'm not using a lot of parts/tracks think I should be able to ....
The for the tip re-PB being the bass of choice...I'll do some YouTube research to hear that soloed as a reference....
Miroslav if you happen to see this,thx for all the info...esp re-using stereo tracks...my equipment right now is a bit limited in terms of doing this initially instead of recording mono tracks to stereo mix but I can get the same result once I copy the stereo master track back to 2 tracks as part of another submix process....then use the "tilt"concept which I already have been working with....
I want to get a wide stereo field effect too..and since I'm not using a lot of parts/tracks think I should be able to ....
Last edited:
spantini
COO of me, inc.
I'm working on that problem now. Strumming the Strat sounds terrific, but open chords like E or Em drone the open E and muddle up the bass - so I'm damping it slightly with my thumb curled over. That cleans it up quite a bit. I was going to pan the Strat a touch but decided to try damping instead. It's a work in progress.
There's some great stuff posted here about panning. Keep it up..!
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
That would be HPF.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
If you hard pan something it comes out in the difference (side) channel and sum (mid) channel equally. To get something purely in the difference channel you need to put in left and right equally but invert the polarity on one side. Anything that's centered will appear in the sum/mid channel.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Most people say phase when they are referring to polarity. It's not strictly wrong since in some cases phase and polarity are indistinguishable, but it's useful to use different words. Basically, you're flipping the waveform upside down. There's likely a "phase" switch on each channel in your DAW.
What's the difference between M-S and what, X-Y?
In terms of using mid/side and standard pannng where you just adjust the pan position and are listening to the end result of a multiple mono track set-up panned to produce a stereo field effect before mixdown to a stereo track made from them(or how the stereo track sounds after mixdown)...in other words how does flipping the polarity on one channel affect things ...?Appreciate you taking the time to go over this man,I was reading over this online explanation the other day but didn't really understand it past the concept of one channel w/L/R and the other channel the difference....new to this ...thx...
Farview
Well-known member
I draw a line that intersects bother the kick and snare. I don't care where the drummers face is, I care about having the kick and snare in the center.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Is that "intersects between the kick and snare"...?
It's not about the drummer's face...
...it's just that the center-forward of the kit is usually in the same direction that the drummer is facing. 
To draw a line so the snare & kick are dead center on it...it would have to come in from on an angle.
I'm just putting straight out...in-between the snare and kick...meaning, the snare is just a tad to the left and the Kick just a tad to the right of that center line
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I use the line that goes straight out as my center point...and it splits the Snare and Kick...so they each sit slightly Left/Right of the line.
To have them both be dead-center on the line...it would come in on an angle, which skews the kit to the right.
Of course...a lot depends on how the drum is set up and the position of the OH mics...so how/where one draws the center line isn't as critical as how the mics are picking up the kit.
I'm just saying that I like to set the Snare and Kick a couple of tick off-center, rather than both dead-center. Just enough to open up the center a tiny bit for the lead stuff and the bass guitar (which you would want dead-center with it's LF content.
Hey Miroslav-don't know if you saw the earlier post I did thanking you for the info you posted esp in terms of using stereo tracks(it's probably a page back..after the post about Fender Precision bass)-
In terms of this,here's a question for you(or anybody else interested in replying)that gets into some things relating to an earlier thread about stereo/mono track recording and a new thread I posted over in the Tascam users forum about the difference between a stereo bounce to 2 mono tracks from mono tracks and the stereo.master track made from mono tracks copied back onto 2 tracks(this all is on the Tascam DP008ex....)
Since the unit only records to mono tracks (but you can record 2 together getting a dual mono effect which w/panning creates a wider stereo field effect and contributes to this when mixing the mono tracks down to stereo)I can only get a stereo track by doing this then copying it back to 2 mono tracks made up of the stereo mix,each has a difference mix in terms of levels/panning....
Hopefully that will translate .....if not let me know...
Just curious what you think the effect would be like if instead of producing a stereo track simulation in the multi track mode by doing this I used the stereo track bounce process(2 mono tracks w/other mono tracks panned L/R on the corresponding track....would I be able to simulate the "stereo master track copied to 2 tracks" effect by setting the pan positions/levels for each of the bounce source tracks as well as the pan position of the bounce destination track ?
Thinking about messing around w/this kind of thing and would appreciate any feedback....
One thing is that although the manual uses the term"stereo bounce" to refer to the L/R 2 track result,in terms of the responses I got to the earlier thread re-above,this is technically a dual mono situation (unlike the actual stereo master track.) and even though once it's copied to 2 tracks the mix/levels on each(which I''m thinking will reflect a simulated stereo field more than the individual stereo bounce tracks I will)are different,again dual mono rather than stereo is the true definition of the result...
In terms of this,here's a question for you(or anybody else interested in replying)that gets into some things relating to an earlier thread about stereo/mono track recording and a new thread I posted over in the Tascam users forum about the difference between a stereo bounce to 2 mono tracks from mono tracks and the stereo.master track made from mono tracks copied back onto 2 tracks(this all is on the Tascam DP008ex....)
Since the unit only records to mono tracks (but you can record 2 together getting a dual mono effect which w/panning creates a wider stereo field effect and contributes to this when mixing the mono tracks down to stereo)I can only get a stereo track by doing this then copying it back to 2 mono tracks made up of the stereo mix,each has a difference mix in terms of levels/panning....
Hopefully that will translate .....if not let me know...
Just curious what you think the effect would be like if instead of producing a stereo track simulation in the multi track mode by doing this I used the stereo track bounce process(2 mono tracks w/other mono tracks panned L/R on the corresponding track....would I be able to simulate the "stereo master track copied to 2 tracks" effect by setting the pan positions/levels for each of the bounce source tracks as well as the pan position of the bounce destination track ?
Thinking about messing around w/this kind of thing and would appreciate any feedback....
One thing is that although the manual uses the term"stereo bounce" to refer to the L/R 2 track result,in terms of the responses I got to the earlier thread re-above,this is technically a dual mono situation (unlike the actual stereo master track.) and even though once it's copied to 2 tracks the mix/levels on each(which I''m thinking will reflect a simulated stereo field more than the individual stereo bounce tracks I will)are different,again dual mono rather than stereo is the true definition of the result...
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
These pictures are kind of old but represent what I'm doing now pretty well. Normally I wouldn't have drums right up against a wall, but it's treated, and we use this as a performance space as well as a recording and rehearsal space so it's set up like a stage. One thing that has changed is that the kick mic is moved into the shell, about 8" off the beater head. It's a much better sound.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I've read you post and the previous one...and TBH, I'm not fully understanding what you mean and what you are doing when you talk about the "stereo master track" and about copying and then adding that back in and all that.
Maybe you can clarify it better.
Bottom line...any kind of copying, doubling, moving, shifting, blending...may give you some interesting effects, and it may even sound really good to you, and do what you want...but for the broader conversation, it's not really stereo.
IOW...mixing a bunch of mono tracks by copying, panning, etc...and arranging them in the mix to create L/R spreads, may create a final stereo mix...but it's not the same as recording stereo tracks and then mixing them together.
There's no right/wrong to any of it, as long as you meet your production goals...I was just saying that recording stereo tracks and building a mix with them ( solely or in combination with mono tracks) is where you'll get some very natural 3D mixes, that don't sound "FX-like" creations.
The way the unit works it has mutitrack/mixing/and mastering modes....in the first mode you can
record one or two mono tracks at a time/bounce...
To get the stereo mixdown from these mono tracks you go into the other 2 modes where a stereo master track is produced...but it exists only in the storage; you can EQ/compress and limit it but then it just gets saved till you export it as a wav.file..
However the unit allows for copying this stereo master track back to two tracks in the multi track mode where you can use it as a submix element in creating a new stereo master track w/new recordings overwriting the other 6 tracks....
Do you understand what I'm talking about in the previous post better now?
The process you're describing-using a true stereo track that splits the signal into adjustable L/R positions within the track itself combined w/mono tracks and then the resulting mix transferred to a stereo mix track made up of these components... and the methodology I'm talking about using should produce the same results (although it'll require more tracks to achieve) if I'm not mistaken...
record one or two mono tracks at a time/bounce...
To get the stereo mixdown from these mono tracks you go into the other 2 modes where a stereo master track is produced...but it exists only in the storage; you can EQ/compress and limit it but then it just gets saved till you export it as a wav.file..
However the unit allows for copying this stereo master track back to two tracks in the multi track mode where you can use it as a submix element in creating a new stereo master track w/new recordings overwriting the other 6 tracks....
Do you understand what I'm talking about in the previous post better now?
The process you're describing-using a true stereo track that splits the signal into adjustable L/R positions within the track itself combined w/mono tracks and then the resulting mix transferred to a stereo mix track made up of these components... and the methodology I'm talking about using should produce the same results (although it'll require more tracks to achieve) if I'm not mistaken...
Last edited: