More Stereo & Mono questions

[Alanfc]

Basic Question-

If have a complete stereo drum machine track and copy/split it into two separate Mono tracks, am I only getting part of the strength/color of each part of the stereo signal? When they're now living on their own tracks?

OR,

What if I made the original drum track Mono and then copied it on to another track and have a duplicate of it, thus having 2 Monos? Will I be able to to have more freedom to play around with it later on mixing it?


Same question for the main guitar part. I am looking for a dominant guitar sound; (but I can't draw any comparisons to current bands for your reference.) Style= hard rock.

I think my point is:

Is splitting a Stereo into 2 monos, weaker that having two copies of a Mono??


Thanks Alot

[Blue Bear Sound]

You ONLY get a "stereo recording" by recording a sound source with 2 mics......... anything else is simply panned-mono or "widened" mono using either effects or EQ/filtering.........

[Alanfc]

I think I understand Mr. Blue Bear -

I know for certain that I haven't been using two mics, so I must be getting panned/widened mono.
Bascically sounds like I need to try different things and tweak to my own taste.

Thanks

[maestro_dmc]

Originally posted by Alanfc
Basic Question-

If have a complete stereo drum machine track and copy/split it into two separate Mono tracks, am I only getting part of the strength/color of each part of the stereo signal? When they're now living on their own tracks?

OR,

What if I made the original drum track Mono and then copied it on to another track and have a duplicate of it, thus having 2 Monos? Will I be able to to have more freedom to play around with it later on mixing it?


Same question for the main guitar part. I am looking for a dominant guitar sound; (but I can't draw any comparisons to current bands for your reference.) Style= hard rock.

I think my point is:

Is splitting a Stereo into 2 monos, weaker that having two copies of a Mono??


Thanks Alot

AAARRRGGGHHH!!
A stereo track is the same thing as two monos!!

As Inigo Montoya once said:" go back to the beggining"

And " I think this word does not mean what you think it mean"

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by maestro_dmc
AAARRRGGGHHH!!
A stereo track is the same thing as two monos!!

No sir... it isn't....

A stereo track is made of 2 components - a L+R (containing the signal common to both channels) and a L-R (containing the signal that is different between the 2 channels)..........

A mono track consists of a single audio component.... 2 mono tracks (of the same signal) panned left/right results in a L+R component only (which is equivalent to a mono track panned center)........

Got it?!?!

[Alanfc]

I found a big post from Sonusman from back in yr. 2000, that included some comments on mono/stereo.

I can't quote exactly, but I think he said that if you can make a good overall mix in Mono you're better off because it will sound good on any kind of system. I assume he means car, radio, home, etc.

Would that be a guiding principle I can use to simplify this whole mono/stereo issue?

I know that I can't expect this whole process to be simple, but if I could nail this one thing down I can quit doubting myself and really start making music. And then learn to enjoy the complexities of all the other parts of the process.

Thanks to all

[dafduc]

Of all the things to convert from stereo to mono (I do it to save tracks in Cubase), the one thing you should never convert is your drum track!

Other instruments really just exist in a single spot, more or less, though there are gray areas (pianos, for example) - but a drum kit has cymbals spread as far as 6 or 8 feet apart. That's a some serious two-dimensional spread...

...and converting to mono loses all that for you. It will take every one of your drumkit components and make them all sound like they're in exactly the same place. If you've got a stereo drum track or loop, do everything you can to keep the stereo character - as soon as you bounce drums to a single track it's all gone.

Jay (sadder but wiser)

[esactun]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alanfc
If have a complete stereo drum machine track and copy/split it into two separate Mono tracks, am I only getting part of the strength/color of each part of the stereo signal? When they're now living on their own tracks?

Putting aside for the moment Blue Bear's correct technical definition of true stereo ....

Your stereo drum machine track is, essentially, two mono tracks-- a left track with all the panned left stuff, half of the center panned stuff and little bits of right-panned stuff (whatever isn't hard-paned right, that is), and a right track with all the same corresponding properties. It should sound the same whether you listen to it as a stereo track or if you listen to it in your multitracker as two perfectly aligned, oppositely hard-panned tracks set at equal gain. A "stereo" track is essentially the computer keeping the two aforementioned mono tracks together for you.

(Some say that "interleaving" will cause sound differences between the two, the stereo file sounding better, but that stuff is way over my head.)

But no, there shouldn't be any loss of "strength" if you split it to mono tracks. But I would only split the tracks into left and right if you needed to pan it wider (in which case I'd re-output from the drum machine with better panning) or need them to add effects (such as running a signal through an effect and then running it back in on another track, to mix with the dry signal to taste-- but even then I'd so that all in stereo unless I wanted some out-of-phase effect).

Why do you want to split them? What are you trying to accomplish?

OR,
What if I made the original drum track Mono and then copied it on to another track and have a duplicate of it, thus having 2 Monos? Will I be able to to have more freedom to play around with it later on mixing it?

You DON'T want to do that. Then your drums will be mono, all the time, regardless. Those panned hihats and the ride cymbals from the other side of the "kit" will now be dead center with the snare and kick (just quieter). You'll lose spaciousness. You'll lose freedom, actually.

Combining two identical signals, as this idea would have you do, will only reproduce the exact same sound, just 3dB louder. Easier to just raise the fader on the stereo track-- less processing and sounds better!

For guitars, record the parts two or three times, and mix them together to create one big-ass guitar sound! You need to play tight for that. I do at least two tracks for each channel for loud distorted guitar-- done right it sounds like two big-ass guitars, one in each channel. (Done mediocre it sounds a little muddy and flabby. Done lousy and it sounds like four bad guitarists wailing away at once. )

Only rarely will one single guitar track have the thickness and punch you want.

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
No sir... it isn't....

A stereo track is made of 2 components - a L+R (containing the signal common to both channels) and a L-R (containing the signal that is different between the 2 channels)..........

A mono track consists of a single audio component.... 2 mono tracks (of the same signal) panned left/right results in a L+R component only (which is equivalent to a mono track panned center)........

Got it?!?!

I've seen you say that more than once now, and I can't understand why you want to make it so complicated for people (especially for newbies). That is just a complex way of saying what everyone knows. Having one L+R component and one L-R component is exactly the same thing as having one L component and one R component. It's exactly the same thing. The only time this not is stereo is if both L and R components are exactly the same, then it's mono. In your overly complicated way, it's if the L-R component is nothing. I'm sure you have read about this in that book you always mention, but does that help this newbie? Hardly... A stereo track is recorded as two hard panned L and R mono tracks, just as you have two ears to hear with. Or does blue bears have one ear for the L+R component and one for the L-R component?

[Alanfc]

Thanks Esactun
My original purpose for messing with the stereo-drums-splitting-whatever was to have more options later. But I see now, that stereo for drums makes sense and probably shouldn't be fiddled with.

I'm really looking forward to experimenting with big guitars !!
Already I've done some tests with full instrumentation, dry, and put a simple little Cakewalk reverb on the single mono guitar afterwards and nearly keeled over it sounded so awesome. This shows me that I, (knowing myself) must be careful not to be too carried away/intoxicated by effects..

(plus I'll have to make something I can reproduce live with a 3-piece !)

Thanks again

[James Argo]

Originally posted by Boray
Hardly... A stereo track is recorded as two hard panned L and R mono tracks, just as you have two ears to hear with.

...Have you tried M-S stereo recodring ?. How would you decode M-S signal to XY ?

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by Boray
I've seen you say that more than once now, and I can't understand why you want to make it so complicated for people (especially for newbies). That is just a complex way of saying what everyone knows. Having one L+R component and one L-R component is exactly the same thing as having one L component and one R component. It's exactly the same thing. The only time this not is stereo is if both L and R components are exactly the same, then it's mono. In your overly complicated way, it's if the L-R component is nothing. I'm sure you have read about this in that book you always mention, but does that help this newbie? Hardly... A stereo track is recorded as two hard panned L and R mono tracks, just as you have two ears to hear with. Or does blue bears have one ear for the L+R component and one for the L-R component?

The fact that you don't understand the concept of stereo signal components doesn't surprise one bit, clueless....

A stereo track IS NOT "2 mono tracks"... period. To say it is is completely wrong........... The important concept about stereo recording IS the fact that the signal is made up of L+R and L-R.......... sorry if you feel it's complicated -- but this isn;t surprising, since, as we've all seen, you can't grasp even the most basic concepts of audio engineering.........

If you don't know what you're talking about moron, then shut the bloody fuck up................

[Toki987]

I got a question though I been wondering about that hasnt been touched on yet that I`ve seen.
If I record my bass, or any other instrument for that matter without any effects, into left and right on my sound card from the mixer, and its reflected in a stereo track in Sonar, would I be saving bandwidth or processor load to just record left or right mono into the Sonar track from the soundcard outputs?

[Boray]

Originally posted by James Argo
...Have you tried M-S stereo recodring ?. How would you decode M-S signal to XY ?

What does M-S stereo recording mean?

[Boray]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
The fact that you don't understand the concept of stereo signal components doesn't surprise one bit, clueless....

A stereo track IS NOT "2 mono tracks"... period. To say it is is completely wrong........... The important concept about stereo recording IS the fact that the signal is made up of L+R and L-R.......... sorry if you feel it's complicated -- but this isn;t surprising, since, as we've all seen, you can't grasp even the most basic concepts of audio engineering.........

If you don't know what you're talking about moron, then shut the bloody fuck up................

When you record a stereo track, it's stored on the hard drive as two components, one L component and one R component, not as on L+R component and one L-R component. It's just an akward way of saying the same thing. Saying that the both not are the same is like saying 3-6+8-3 isn't the same as 8+3-3-6.

When you design a mixer how to pan a stereo sound, it could be easier to think of it as a L+R component and a L-R component, but who cares? Maybe mixer designers, but not ordinary users...

Is the point that a stereo sound MUST have a L-R component and a L+R component? Like a defenition of stereo? If that is what you mean, then having a bass panned at -63 and a guitar at +63 wouldn't be stereo as they don't have a common component. But just panning the bass to -62 would suddenly turn it into stereo as they now have a common component. Nobody will hear the difference! Nice defenition!

/Anders

[Blue Bear Sound]

Look clueless -- there is no "L component" and "R component" -- those terms are meaningless.

There IS a "L+R component" - which defines the signal that is common to both L/R channels, and the "L-R component" which defines the difference signal (what is NOT common to both channels). The distinction is important because it describes the existence of the phantom image for a given stereo signal. As I said earlier, it IS the definition of "stereo".

As usual, the majority of the rest of your post was your typical nonsense and I'm not going to bother trying to educate you further when you can't even grasp the basics..........

[Boray]

Originally posted by James Argo
...Have you tried M-S stereo recodring ?. How would you decode M-S signal to XY ?

I guess you mean sorround sound? Right? Well, if you have a stereo source panned somewhere in front of you and then pan it somewhere behind you, then both the L+R and L-R components that you will hear from this "object" will change. With the other notation, both the L and R components that you hear from this object will change. Not realizing that both notations describes exactly the same thing is really stupid. In the end, you only have two ears!

/Anders

[Blue Bear Sound]

...just because I know Boray-known-as-clueless will create a crackpot theory on it........

The phantom stereo image has NOTHING TO DO WITH "phantom power."

[Wil Davis]

For those readers who might still be confused, "The New Stereo Soundbook" (Ron Streicher & F. Alton Everest) (ISBN 0-9665162-0-6), could well provide most of the answers to this seemingly endless argument. It makes fascinating reading, and even has Blumlein's Patent as the appendix (!!)

- Wil

[TexRoadkill]

Originally posted by Toki987
I got a question though I been wondering about that hasnt been touched on yet that I`ve seen.
If I record my bass, or any other instrument for that matter without any effects, into left and right on my sound card from the mixer, and its reflected in a stereo track in Sonar, would I be saving bandwidth or processor load to just record left or right mono into the Sonar track from the soundcard outputs?

Yup, do it in mono.

[maestro_dmc]

There IS a "L+R component" - which defines the signal that is common to both L/R channels, and the "L-R component" which defines the difference signal (what is NOT common to both channels). The distinction is important because it describes the existence of the phantom image for a given stereo signal. As I said earlier, it IS the definition of "stereo".


Okay, okay Blue! I have the white flag out now, I surrender, no sarcasm, no attitude. I wasn't aware of that definition of stereo and now that I've heard it, it makes a lot of sense. I wasn't trying to start such a big discussion, I was trying to get to the point that Alanfc started with:

If have a complete stereo drum machine track and copy/split it into two separate Mono tracks, am I only getting part of the strength/color of each part of the stereo signal? When they're now living on their own tracks?

I was reading between the lines and saw that he didn't have a grasp of the basic concept that he could record the output of his drum machine ( left and right output ) each to their own track, and then play back the result, panning the tracks hard left & hard right and get the truest representation of the drum machine's sound possible.

If those of us with knowledge (hey I admit I'm no rocket surgeon) are going to peruse the "Newbie" forums, and give input to them, then shouldn't we try to help people out at their level of understanding? Of course if I read someones advice who is way off base, I will try to correct them as well. I don't want to lead someone astray, and I don't want to be led astray either.

I am new to this BBS myself, so I will simply say that it seems to me that it exists to be both informative and fun. Alanfc is almost giddy at the prospect of hearing his music sound good!:

I'm really looking forward to experimenting with big guitars !!
Already I've done some tests with full instrumentation, dry, and put a simple little Cakewalk reverb on the single mono guitar afterwards and nearly keeled over it sounded so awesome.


Can you remember back when recording used to be this much fun? I still can, and it still is for me sometimes, and I better go now before I make myself cry.

. . . sniff