My Kingdom for a Proper Stereo Field

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenignVanilla
  • Start date Start date
B

BenignVanilla

New member
Placement of instruments in the stereo field is a technique that is quickly becoming my nemesis. I'd love to see a discussion on this topic. I've been listening to some tunes lately and trying to "see how they did it", take a song like ColdPlay's Yellow. I listen and there are distinct stereo placements for some of the parts, but when you pan it up and back, the bulk of it seems to be in both channels equally, yet it doesn't sound mono...it sound beautifully stereophonic.

What am I missing?
 
BenignVanilla said:
Placement of instruments in the stereo field is a technique that is quickly becoming my nemesis. I'd love to see a discussion on this topic. I've been listening to some tunes lately and trying to "see how they did it", take a song like ColdPlay's Yellow. I listen and there are distinct stereo placements for some of the parts, but when you pan it up and back, the bulk of it seems to be in both channels equally, yet it doesn't sound mono...it sound beautifully stereophonic.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Forget ColdPlay. What instruments are you trying to mix?
 
ColdPlay was just on my mind because I heard it in the car the other day. I constantly find myself spending more time analyzing mixes now then I spend listening to the music. Kind of frustrating but that is another thread.

The base configuration I am working with is drums, bass, two guitars, and vocals. We tend to do layering of guitars and vocals, but for this discussion, let's say two guitars, bass, drums, lead vocals and backing vocals.

I've gotten some OK mixes...I just have trouble getting that "big sound", that stereo field that seems to have every instrument in both channels.
 
Stereo widening is achieved by using a delay between the left and right side. Some more sophisticated stereo wideners can seperate L-R using defined frequency ranges, others by using the original panning to enhance the seperation using a larger dealy on sounds panned farther out.

Some of the widest (and strangest) mixing effects were developed in the 60's Beatles stereo mixes.

For modern day examples of impeccable stereo mixes I prefer either of the latest Steely Dan CD's. Nothing too spectacular, just an immensely satisfying full sound.
 
michaelst said:
For modern day examples of impeccable stereo mixes I prefer either of the latest Steely Dan CD's. Nothing too spectacular, just an immensely satisfying full sound.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel about Porcupine Tree, especially the Deadwing album. So well done.
 
BenignVanilla said:
ColdPlay was just on my mind because I heard it in the car the other day. I constantly find myself spending more time analyzing mixes now then I spend listening to the music. Kind of frustrating but that is another thread.

The base configuration I am working with is drums, bass, two guitars, and vocals. We tend to do layering of guitars and vocals, but for this discussion, let's say two guitars, bass, drums, lead vocals and backing vocals.

I've gotten some OK mixes...I just have trouble getting that "big sound", that stereo field that seems to have every instrument in both channels.
Click to expand...

Every instrument in both channels = mono.
Personally, I don't automatically aim for bigger than a tune/artist deems appropriate.

How do you spread your drums? If you have the means, record every element of the kit on it's own track and pan them across the field. Some typical arrays:

Drums: Kick & Snr - Ctr; cymbals and toms - left to right; hi-hats - a bit to the side. whether you pan from the drummer's or listener's perspective is a matter of taste. How wide you spread things is too.

Bass - Ctr

Guitars could go left/right; 1 ctr & the other delayed w/dry going to one side and delayed to the other; both at or near the ctr and then delayed w/delayed signals gong left/right.

Lead Voc up the ctr

Background vocals - Record each voice on a separate track and pan across to taste; record all vocs to one track, double on another or others and pan to taste.

Reverb - use different reverb on some elements and pan the return on the opposite side of the dry signal. Example: 2 guitars panned left right. Give each it's own reverb and "cross" the echo returns of each to the opposite side.

I'm sure there are other things to try but this should give you some stuff to play around with.
 
Nothing gives you a sense of space and depth as space and depth will.

Adding verb to a a signal recorded 2 inches from the source isn't the same as recording 6 feet from the source.
 
A reverb with control over the density of early reflections can be key here, they are the cues or brains use to help identify a type of space, i.e a bathroom or, the other end, a church. I sometimes equate early reflections to depth, and reverberant sound to space, but very generally.

Cheers!
 
BenignVanilla said:
ColdPlay was just on my mind because I heard it in the car the other day.
Click to expand...
Honestly, one of the last places one can judge the stereo soundstage of recording is on a car stereo. The typical multi-speaker setup is enough alone to distort the stereo image. Add in the often-included directional design of some of the side or rear speakers to purposefully bounce off of first-reflection surfaces and the multiple reflection paths that will happen in an interior space the size of a typical clothes closet with things like bucket seats, head rests and glass walls to bounce the sound all over the place, and you're lucky if you have any coherent image at all.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Honestly, one of the last places one can judge the stereo soundstage of recording is on a car stereo. The typical multi-speaker setup is enough alone to distort the stereo image. Add in the often-included directional design of some of the side or rear speakers to purposefully bounce off of first-reflection surfaces and the multiple reflection paths that will happen in an interior space the size of a typical clothes closet with things like bucket seats, head rests and glass walls to bounce the sound all over the place, and you're lucky if you have any coherent image at all.

G.
Click to expand...

Its funny we spend all this time trying to get a great image when most end listeners are in there car, listening on a laptop, or $8 earbuds. ;)
 
Slowjett said:
Its funny we spend all this time trying to get a great image when most end listeners are in there car, listening on a laptop, or $8 earbuds. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah... I agree with the car and laptop, but you still get a reasonable amound of spacial imaging on earbuds... even the cheap ones!
 
Slowjett said:
Its funny we spend all this time trying to get a great image when most end listeners are in there car, listening on a laptop, or $8 earbuds. ;)
Click to expand...
True, however I think about it this way. Did Rembrandt make any less of his paintings just because all they had for room lighting back then were dim, dirty, smoky candles? Does Annie Leibewitz (sp?) cut corners on her photography just because most Vanity Fair covers are displayed under florescent light? ;)

There is value in pride in workmanship. There's no point in pleasing others if we can't be proud of how we do it.

G,
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Honestly, one of the last places one can judge the stereo soundstage of recording is on a car stereo.
Click to expand...

I know mathematically you are correct, but I find that sitting the car listening to tracks makes it a lot easier for me to discern overall quality. It seems when I am mixing in the studio, I sometimes over-bass...over-EQ...over-Reverb...in the car the mistakes seem to jump out. I've also found that in the car, errors in stereo field placement (as you suggest) are made MUCH worse, again helping me to realize where I've made some errors.

I find my car to be an invaluable tool. :)
 
I've been experimenting with using delay and a simple stereo simulator (a fancy interface for a basic delay) to spread some of my tracks spatially. It is making a world of difference. IMHO, the quality of the overall recordings are now beginning to pop, their getting that ______ that to my ears makes the recording sound pro.

Thanks as always. These forums have been invaluable to me over the past year or so. I am very appreciative of the thoughtful, and laid back responses...even to for us noobs.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
True, however I think about it this way. Did Rembrandt make any less of his paintings just because all they had for room lighting back then were dim, dirty, smoky candles? Does Annie Leibewitz (sp?) cut corners on her photography just because most Vanity Fair covers are displayed under florescent light? ;)

There is value in pride in workmanship. There's no point in pleasing others if we can't be proud of how we do it.

G,
Click to expand...

Touche!!!!
 
I think I first saw this in Olshanski's "mix engineers handbook ".

Avoid getting trapped in the "Big Mono" syndrom. Lots of spacial plugs will do there best to fill every nook and cranny between the speakers . Old keyboards would generate stereo by taking the mono and generating thousands of discrete echos , and then panning them Everywhere.

With too many tracks like that you get "Big Mono"

when you pan stuff , a small delay or mono reverb return panned to a strategic spot can make it stay in one spot instead of it's position being fuzzy or a little obtuse or being to wide .

The stuff you hear on great albums (stereo ) goes a lot deeper (lot's of work went into it!) than meets the ear!!


P.S. Might have been Charles Dye who talked about this .


Cheers
 
sometimes when I mix,in sonar 5 that is, if I have an instrument that does not stand out as I'd like or sounds to 'singular', I'll clone the track and just slight advance the time on one track,clip properties in sonar, just to give it a bigger sound and depth.
 
Mabey in the Coldplay example they used a magnetic pickup in a mono field.
 
Stereo field

One technique I like to use is double track certain parts (like acoustic rhythm guitar) then pan them hard left/hard right. The slight variations between the two takes gives a nice open stereo feel. Take it further by EQing each track a little differently to accentuate the differences between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top