Is "Stereo" just "panning"?

[statecap]

Hope I chose the correct forum for this.
Here goes...
I have a friend at work that tells me the stereo effect is made simply by use of "panning".
I argue that it is in the way it is "recorded".
How can I explain this with some intelligence? But in layman terms enough where a person new to HR would understand.

Thank you in advance

Denver

[Track Rat]

Not at all. True stereo is capturing a sound source with two mics which are routed to the left and right channels of a playback system. Panning a mono source only puts it on the left or right which ain't stereo.

[Blue Bear Sound]

"Stereo" is not panning..........

You're quite correct - a sound source is recorded in stereo. A stereo signal is a 2-track signal represented by 2 components -- the common component L+R, which represents the signal that is equal to both channels; and the difference component L-R, which represents the difference signal between the 2 tracks. It is this difference signal that is responsible for the illusion of a phantom centre, and gives the impression of a soundscape spread between the boundaries of 2 speakers.

Contrast this to a mono signal which simply appears in the center of 2 speakers (assuming equal volume).

Pan a mono signal, and you have a panned mono signal. Pan a stereo signal, and you collpase the stereo field and it becomes, in effect, a mono signal - actually probably less than a mono signal since in collapsing a stereo signal like that, you likely will lose a portion of the signal as part of the L-R will cancel-out some frequencies in the L+R component.

[slabrock]

Originally posted by Track Rat
True stereo is capturing a sound source with two mics which are routed to the left and right channels

Yes. But we're approaching a tad more philosophical question here.

What makes a stereo record "stereo". The fact, that L and R channels are not identical. From that point of view panning may do a stereo.

But, if we say "stereo recording" it definitely means there's a two-channel recording that's meant to give us an image of space where the recording's contents take place.

So, if i decide to use only mono channels when recording, put nevertheless pan them to give the listener an idea of space where the music takes place - is that not stereo? I'd say it is. I'd say it became a stereo when i consciously started sculpting the image in L and R.

So, i'd say you're both right. But your friend is wrong, too, because a stereo has to transmit an idea of things happening on the scale of 'Left to Right'. Just randomly scattering audio inbetween shouldn't be that.

Or is it? When a tree falls in the woods, and there's no one to hear, does it make a sound?

Wow, deep and fun,

Slabrock

EDIT: Good definition of stereo, Bluebearsound. I have to keep that in mind.

[Blue Bear Sound]

That is true --- by panning a mono signal, you create a difference-component in the final mix, since that panned mono signal doesn't appear in both channels.

However, this is not the accepted definition of a stereo -- most engineers will refere to this as "big mono" or electronically-processed stereo, since the sound sources were not captured in stereo.

Incidently, many budegt effect units do something similar -- take a mono input, add delay, EQ, phase along with your chosen effect to output a "stereo" signal. Again though, this is NOT true stereo -- more like "faux stereo".

[fierojoe]

For all practical purposes, Stereo is not panning, but in essence it is in the fact that you are taking mono instruments (for the most part) and creating a stereo image of them. Take the drumset for example. You have toms panned left-center-right, your cymbals are panned left to right and what happens? You have stereo image. So, in essence stereo is just panning for a lot of things, but not all.





LET THE FLAMES BEGIN!

[Blue Bear Sound]

Drums aren't a good example -- you're typically using OHs which provide a true stereo image, which you then complement by adding in the close-mic'd sounds.

If the hi-hat in the OHs is slightly off-centre to the right (audience perspective) and you pan the close-mic'd HH over to the left, you're destroying the stereo image completely!

There are really two different aspects of the production process here.... 1) the original type of recorded signal (stereo/mono)... and 2) the placement of the any tracks within the soundscape of a mix.

If you plan on using any true-stereo tracks in a given production, I think you have to start thinking about the 2-track mix right at the start, anticipating where the true stereo tracks will blend appropriately with the mono tracks. Otherwise you end up with a mix having a very wide mono image! It comes down to trying to create a realistic impression of a soundfield in between your speakers. "Big mono" won't create as realistic an illusion as well-planned stereo tracks will create.

Bottom-line, it all comes down to what you want the end result to be.......!

[fierojoe]

Blue Bear, you just brought a tear to my eye... Very good explination.

[fierojoe]

Another thought is that we may be mixing 2 different lingo's here. On one hand, you have a single guitar that has stereo effects, and on the other hand, you have 2 guitar tracks panned left and right. Are they both Stereo? Yes, but they are both Stereo in 2 different ways. So we are thinking about the same thing in 2 different ways. Does this have any correlation between "Stereo" and "Stereo Image"?

[TexRoadkill]

I think the best way to merge these two concepts (both are essentially correct) is:

Multiple mono or stereo tracks panned and mixed to a 2 track master = Stereo mixdown

2 mics arrayed symetrically to record a sound source = Stereo Image (generally a more realistic capture of the sound)

Multiple mics used to record a sound source = Stereo tracking (interesting but not neccessarily realistic)

[chessrock]

Technically, Statecap's co-worker's definition of stereo is correct.


What it all boils down to IS panning.

What makes stereo mic'ing stereo isn't so much that you're using two mics in a particular array or position. It's the fact that after they're recorded the tracks are panned to convey the illusion we know as stereo.

You could take the exact same track, copy it, and make it stereo just by panning it . . . so long as you do something to make one track different from the other in some way; ie -- you could EQ it differently, pitch-shift it, apply some sort of effect to it, etc.

[fierojoe]

You people are so much more eloquent than me.

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by chessrock
You could take the exact same track, copy it, and make it stereo just by panning it . . . so long as you do something to make one track different from the other in some way; ie -- you could EQ it differently, pitch-shift it, apply some sort of effect to it, etc.

That's NOT stereo.... that's called electronically-reprocessed stereo, "faux-stereo", or "wide mono"....

Doing this does not result in a spatially-correct representation of a sound source, which is what a true stereo recording is intended to capture.

Note that I'm not saying it isn't a perfectly valid technique in multitrack production, simply that it is not "stereo."

[fierojoe]

Originally posted by chessrock
You could take the exact same track, copy it, and make it stereo just by panning it . . . so long as you do something to make one track different from the other in some way; ie -- you could EQ it differently, pitch-shift it, apply some sort of effect to it, etc.

I have found that doing this is a recipe for instant mud...

[chessrock]

Calll it mud . . . call it "faux stereo" . . . whatever.

The original discussion wasn't what "gives something an accurate or good stereo representation?" When you really boil it all down, there is no such thing as a "spatially correct" stereo representation. It's all subjective and theoretical. Maybe recording with a binaural sphere comes close, but even that has serious flaws -- especially when listening to it in a typical monitoring setup.

This was a bare-bones "what makes something stereo?" kind of question.

So let's not overthink this and outsmart ourselves, here. When you boil it all down, stereo just means something different is coming out of one speaker than what's coming out of the other speaker.

[fierojoe]

And I agree with you, what you are saying is true. I was just saying that for any Newbies who might have thought that was a good idea then later wondered why their mixes sound like crap

[chessrock]

Any newbie who doesn't yet understand concepts like stereo micing, stereo monitoring/mixing and spacial representation probably has a lot more reasons why their mixes sound like crap.

[fierojoe]

LOL This is true...

[TexRoadkill]

BlueBear- Why do you always overly complicate the stereo issue? Sometimes you even jump in with the L-R, L+R...

Any audio professional would consider two channels of different material 'stereo'. Obviously that is not binaural stereo imaging but it is has been enough justification to label albums 'Stereo' for the last 50yrs.

[KingstonRock]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
Doing this does not result in a spatially-correct representation of a sound source

I think i'm going to make that my away message on AIM

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by TexRoadkill
BlueBear- Why do you always overly complicate the stereo issue? Sometimes you even jump in with the L-R, L+R...

Tex......... I didn't CREATE the definition of stereo, I merely repeat it!

[TexRoadkill]

Originally posted by Blue Bear Sound
Tex......... I didn't CREATE the definition of stereo, I merely repeat it!

I know. But I think for most applications the definition is pretty simple without delving into the physics of psychoacoustics, lol.

[Blue Bear Sound]

I disagree -- only because most people misunderstand even the basic concept!

[chessrock]

It depends on what you consider to be the basic concept. If the basic concept is to create the illusion of a 3-dimensional sound image, then yea, Bluebear's explanation is the better of the two.

But when you break it down to it's most basic element, is stereo merely the vehicle by which the 3-D effect is delivered and made possible? Stereo obviously has to exist in order for the 3-D effect to happen, but does the 3-D effect have to be present in order for there to be "stereo?"

Technically speaking, I'd have to say no, but it would totally depend on how you approach the question. Are some of the older Beatles recordings stereo, or are they merely hard-panned mono?

How is the term stereo used when refering to a "stereo compressor?" for instance. It's a tricky question.

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally posted by chessrock
Are some of the older Beatles recordings stereo

I think many engineers would consider them "big mono" -- the general public, OTOH, would think of them as stereo because they simply don't understand the true distinction.

Originally posted by chessrock
How is the term stereo used when refering to a "stereo compressor?" for instance. It's a tricky question.

Not tricky at all.... in the context of compressors, it merely refers the the linking of the 2 channels by a single set of controls (and applying the same settings to both channels). The compressor itself doesn't know what signal is being fed into it!