Set a left input as the a right input too

[bdenton]

One thing that might or might not be relevant...

Unlike most of these small interfaces, the Tascam US-100 actually does have a stereo input.

It has two RCA jacks (and appropriate equalization) to allow the connection of a turntable so you can rip your vinyl to whatever format.

Wonder if this might have factored into the "Dazed and Confused" thing going on here...

 

[legionserial]

 

[miroslav]

Here's a real one for you:

 

[Chili]

Before I started reading rest of this thread this morning, I had hair.

Sorry about that....

I don't think stickying this thread is good idea, there's too much nonsense to sift through. I do think a sticky of some kind of thread explaining the difference between mono and stereo would be a very good idea though, as it seems to be one of the most common misunderstandings these days.

I agree, we won't sticky this one, but a good explanation would get stickied. Care to write one up??

One thing that might or might not be relevant...

Unlike most of these small interfaces, the Tascam US-100 actually does have a stereo input.

It has two RCA jacks (and appropriate equalization) to allow the connection of a turntable so you can rip your vinyl to whatever format.

Wonder if this might have factored into the "Dazed and Confused" thing going on here...

No no no no no No no noooooooooo

Here's a real one for you:

Yup, that covers it.

 

[moresound]

I like a good old fasion butt palm myself.
May I have a female volunteer from the audience.

 

[haymedic]

Well i understand how it all works now.

this is the best line of the whole thread.

 

[x3rmlygood]

this is the best line of the whole thread.

lmaoo took me a while but i figured it all out.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Just do as everyone has been telling you and record your mic to a mono track. If you want it stereo, then record you mic a second time to another mono track. Give teh same EXACT performance. The small differences and minute nuances will give a stereo effect. It's 2 different signals so that would make it stereo. But two different tracks.

Oh boy. Shit just got worse.

No, that is just two panned mono tracks. Calling that a stereo recording is just as inaccurate as calling a duplicated mono track stereo. Yes, in the case where it is two separate recordings there is actually different sound coming out of each speaker so you're not pissing in the wind. Still not anything more than two mono tracks.

Stereo recording HAS to come from multiple mics captured simultaneously. By definition, stereo is the result of phase relationships interacting to give the listener directional cues. Recording, panning, recording again, and panning again gives no phase relationship between the two tracks to decode into a stereo image.

Note that simultaneous recording of two mics is not the only requirement for stereo. Most two-mic techniques for an acoustic guitar are not stereo. Close micing two different guitar cabs wouldn't be stereo either.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Oh boy. Shit just got worse.

No, that is just two panned mono tracks. Calling that stereo is just as inaccurate as calling a duplicated mono track stereo. Yes, in the case where it is two separate recordings there is actually different sound coming out of each speaker so you're not pissing in the wind. Still not anything more than two mono tracks.

Stereo HAS to come from multiple mics captured simultaneously. By definition, stereo is the result of phase relationships interacting to give the listener directional cues. Recording, panning, recording, and panning again give no phase relationship between the two tracks to decode into a stereo image.

I think a better term for what you describe is "binaural", since phase cues come through better in headphones than on speakers. Requiring there to be phase information in the recording would eliminate coincident pairs from your definition. Simple panning is sufficient for a recording to qualify as stereo.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I think a better term for what you describe is "binaural", since phase cues come through better in headphones than on speakers. Requiring there to be phase information in the recording would eliminate coincident pairs from your definition. Simple panning is sufficient for a recording to qualify as stereo.

Binaural is something else entirely that encodes 3 dimensional up/down front/back information in addition to left/right information. Stereo only encodes two dimensional left/right information.

I don't know why you would think the stereo phase relationship wouldn't come across on speakers. It certainly does. It is binaural that doesn't work without headphones.

I also don't know why you would think that coincident pairs would not produce a phase relationship between the two mics. Coincident pairs lack the danger of running into phase problems. Maybe that is what you were thinking of?

This isn't just picky semantics either. Dual panned mono recordings simulate stereo much like digital reverb simulates the decay of a room. Panned mono is not actual stereo, and digital reverb isn't an actual room decay.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Binaural is something else entirely that encodes 3 dimensional up/down front/back information in addition to left/right information. Stereo only encodes two dimensional left/right information.

There are different degrees of binaural, all of which produce the effect in the lateral dimension. The vertical and longitudinal effects vary with method, and I would call them secondary.

I don't know why you would think the stereo phase relationship wouldn't come across on speakers. It certainly does. It is binaural that doesn't work without headphones.

I just said those effects are stronger in headphones. In speakers the listening environment obscures much of the phase information that might be there. Having such phase information may be more accurate is some sense, but it doesn't automatically make for better art, in the same way that Picasso's distortion of perspective is not accurate but is great art.

I also don't know why you would think that coincident pairs would not produce a phase relationship between the two mics. Coincident pairs lack the danger of running into phase problems. Maybe that is what you were thinking of?

I would think that because there has to be physical separation to have the direct path arrival time differences that lead to phase information. Coincident pairs are, by definition, not physically separated, therefore there is no phase information. There is only an amplitude difference between the two mics. If the definition of stereo requires phase differences it would exclude coincident pairs.

This isn't just picky semantics either. Dual panned mono recordings simulate stereo much like digital reverb simulates the decay of a room. Panned mono is not actual stereo, and digital reverb isn't an actual room decay.

Stereo is a marketing and popular term, not a scientific one, and it includes any sound recording or reproduction technique with dimension, whether simulating a real space or creating a synthetic one. Binaural is a scientific term for anything having to do with two-eared hearing, including such things as arrival time (phase), occlusion and pinnae effect. So, yes you are just being semantically picky. There is not much utility to your narrow idea of stereo.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I would think that because there has to be physical separation to have the direct path arrival time differences that lead to phase information. Coincident pairs are, by definition, not physically separated, therefore there is no phase information. There is only an amplitude difference between the two mics. If the definition of stereo requires phase differences it would exclude coincident pairs.

Ah. I looked it up. I was semi-wrong. Stereo encoding can use phase, arrival time, or amplitude differences.

Still doesn't change the fact that panned mono is panned mono.

Stereo is a marketing and popular term, not a scientific one, and it includes any sound recording or reproduction technique with dimension, whether simulating a real space or creating a synthetic one.

Stereo has a popular usage as well as a technical usage. The popular usage has no meaning in a technical discussion.

So, yes you are just being semantically picky. There is not much utility to your narrow idea of stereo.

What does utility have to do with it? It is what it is.

There is a basic fundamental difference between putting two guitar players with two cabs on opposite sides of the room and a stereo pair of mics in the middle Vs record, pan, record again, pan again.
Why wouldn't such different procedures have different names?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Ah. I looked it up. I was semi-wrong. Stereo encoding can use phase, arrival time, or amplitude differences.

Still doesn't change the fact that panned mono is panned mono.

Except that panning is nothing more than an amplitude difference. Mono signals can be combined into a stereo mix as long as there are at least two of them panned differentially. Artificial phase information will be imparted by a stereo playback system. It may not be "accurate" but it can be good art.

Stereo has a popular usage as well as a technical usage. The popular usage has no meaning in a technical discussion. What does utility have to do with it? It is what it is.

There is a basic fundamental difference between putting two guitar players with two cabs on opposite sides of the room and a stereo pair of mics in the middle Vs record, pan, record again, pan again.
Why wouldn't such different procedures have different names?

I agree that a "stereo recording" and a "stereo mix" are different things, but both legitimately use "stereo". It's common to use the same term for different things, which leads to communication errors. It really helps to be very specific about things, but sometimes we revert to shorthand when we think the context will fill in the blanks.

I assume we're focused on the goal of making art, and so I judge utility by that standard. The technical details can be useful but are not always necessary knowledge. Many great artists who make "inaccurate" art have backgrounds in formal techniques and many don't. Ultimately it doesn't matter what is "true" stereo and what isn't if the result is pleasing to the ear. If it sounds good it is good.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I agree that a "stereo recording" and a "stereo mix" are different things, but both legitimately use "stereo".

Well there's the confusion.

Yes. I agree that panned mono sources can combine to be a stereo mix.
I was talking about stereo recording.

So can we agree:
*A stereo recording is a separate thing from a stereo mix.
*Two individual mono recordings are not a stereo recording.
*Panned individual mono recordings can make up a stereo mix.

I assume we're focused on the goal of making art, and so I judge utility by that standard. The technical details can be useful but are not always necessary knowledge. Many great artists who make "inaccurate" art have backgrounds in formal techniques and many don't. Ultimately it doesn't matter what is "true" stereo and what isn't if the result is pleasing to the ear. If it sounds good it is good

For the record I'd never use a stereo recording where panned dual mono would be more appropriate. "Real stereo" has no sway on my production choices. I use what I need to get where I need to be.

 

[Chili]

No, that is just two panned mono tracks. Calling that a stereo recording is just as inaccurate as calling a duplicated mono track stereo.

Yeah, I understood this already. I was trying to keep it relative to the thread and offer up suggestions to the OP so he can get closer to what he thought he was trying to achieve. Without over complicating things. However, the ensuing discussion is a good read. Cheers for that.

peace,