Regarding the human voice ....what is stereo? What is panning? What's the difference?

[Steenamaroo]

You can make a stereo recording of anything.
Two spaced pair mics a distance away from a live band will capture a stereo image of that band in that room.

Take away all instruments except the guitar amp and you have a stereo representation of that amp in that room.
If that amp happens to be on stage left, you'll be able to tell from the recording.

Move the mics close to the grill of the amp and you have two mics on the grill of an amp. There's no stereo image there.

 

[Greg_L]

A stereo recording of one sound is still just one sound. You can put the mics ten miles apart and ten miles away and it's still just one mono sound.

I've visited a few musicians sites where they tell people to record their live vocal/guitar in stereo, in order to get that spacious stereo sound. And they give lots of info about using 2 mics at once, in certain positions, in order to achieve stereo. I've tried it, but for some reason I get results that are no more stereo sounding than mono. But I'm told here on this site that stereo for a voice (and presumably acoustic guitar) is no good.

I'm confused.

My comments are in regards to this ^^^^^

 

[miroslav]

You can make a stereo recording of anything.
Two spaced pair mics a distance away from a live band will capture a stereo image of that band in that room.

Take away all instruments except the guitar amp and you have a stereo representation of that amp in that room.
If that amp happens to be on stage left, you'll be able to tell from the recording.

Move the mics close to the grill of the amp and you have two mics on the grill of an amp. There's no stereo image there.

Thanks...that's what I've been saying.

With close miking, the stereo image effectively disappears, only because the direct sound is so much louder than anything coming from reflections in the room....though "stereo" is technically derived from ANY live source where multiple mics are used to capture its differences in reverberation and distance and then reproduced through multiple speakers.
Of course, stereo miking has been refined so that certain combinations yield the most realism of the original live signal, so just any two mics won't always do that.

So even a single note in a room captured by a stereo mic pair or array will yield stereophonic information to some degree, depending on the mic position.

And no amount of changes that.

Again, I get the feeling that some folks think "stereo" must have this obvious L/R image to be called "stereo"....but that's not really the case.

 

[miroslav]

A stereo recording of one sound is still just one sound.

Yes, but the "stereo" part comes from the sound's reverberation/ambience and the distance differences to a pair/array of mics...not just from the source.
Which means any single live source can be caputered as a stereo signal with a stereo mic pair/array.

Look...I agree that for some sources and for some recording situaitons....mono miking is the way to go...but anything can be recorded in stereo, and it will sound different than mono.

 

[Greg_L]

The is because you don't understand my point, I'm not making it clear enough for you, you didn't read the guy's actual concerns, and/or you argue just to argue. Whatever the case, whatever.

---------- Update ----------

Yes, but the "stereo" part comes from the sound's reverberation/ambience and the distance differences to a pair/array of mics...not just from the source.
Which means any single live source can be caputered as a stereo signal with a stereo mic pair/array.

Look...I agree that for some sources and for some recording situaitons....mono miking is the way to go...but anything can be recorded in stereo, and it will sound different than mono.

You still don't get it. I must be not explaining myself properly. That's cool. Don't worry about it.

 

[miroslav]

I understand everything you said.
You made some comments about how some things are "stereo sources", but that vocals or single cabs are always mono.
That's not it.

I wasn't arguing...I was just giving definitions of what makes stereo.
I think a lot of the newbs and maybe the OP are confused....hence the discussion.

 

[Greg_L]

Vocals and single cabs are always mono. They can't be anything else. One sound from one source is mono. The rest is a different conversation. If you wanna fudge it into "stereo" you can, but that's not what I was originally trying to say. I'm letting it go now.

 

[miroslav]

Vocals and single cabs are always mono. They can't be anything else.

Great...now we are in agreement....and what I sad a few posts back

Everything is basically a mono source, there's no such thing as a "stereo source" AFIK.....it's just picked up in stereo by our ears or a pair of mics.

The problem is when you start talking about something being a "stereo sources" VS a "mono source".
Sure....you can CHOOSE to mic ANY source in mono or stereo (including a vocal or a guitar cab or an entire drum kit)....but it's in the miking, and not a "stereo source" VS a "mono source".
If you want to say that a drum kit will give you a bigger stereo image than a single voice when both are recorded with a stereo mic setup....sure, that's true, but size of L/R image is a different discussion, and I really think that's how you are looking at "stereo VS mono"...but the width of L/R image is only part of it.

<EDIT>
Honestly....this isn't about any argument with you.

I think people just become accustomed to using the same mic approaches for certain things....so like dual rhythm guitars end up being two passes/tracks and then split them L/R, drum OH mics almost always in some stereo configuration, and vocals usually with a single mic in mono.
And that's cool....some things just work most of the time, so we stick with them.
I'm only saying g that ANY source can be recorded with a stereo mic configuration and yield more info than it would using a single/mono mic.

I think it maybe comes down to hearing is believing, and if I get a chance tonight or tomorrow, I'll pull up the stereo lead guitar track I did awhile back with a single cab, and put up the natural stereo tracks I recorded, and then I'll put up the same as a mono track. I think it will be easy to hear the "stereo info" in the stereo tracks of that lead, and it is different than a mono track.
If something like a single cab is "always mono" as you say....then there should not be any differences between the stereo tracks and the mono version.
You can judge for yourself

So I'll let it go for now too.....and of course, you can always look up stereophonic sound if you don't want take my word for it.

 

[Greg_L]

Great...now we are in agreement....and what I sad a few posts back

And what I said to begin with.

The problem is when you start talking about something being a "stereo sources" VS a "mono source".
Sure....you can CHOOSE to mic ANY source in mono or stereo (including a vocal or a guitar cab or an entire drum kit)....but it's in the miking, and not a "stereo source" VS a "mono source".
If you want to say that a drum kit will give you a bigger stereo image than a single voice when both are recorded with a stereo mic setup....sure, that's true, but size of L/R image is a different discussion, and I really think that's how you are looking at "stereo VS mono"...but the width of L/R image is only part of it.

<EDIT>
Honestly....this isn't about any argument with you.

I think people just become accustomed to using the same mic approaches for certain things....so like dual rhythm guitars end up being two passes/tracks and then split them L/R, drum OH mics almost always in some stereo configuration, and vocals usually with a single mic in mono.
And that's cool....some things just work most of the time, so we stick with them.
I'm only saying g that ANY source can be recorded with a stereo mic configuration and yield more info than it would using a single/mono mic.

I think it maybe comes down to hearing is believing, and if I get a chance tonight or tomorrow, I'll pull up the stereo lead guitar track I did awhile back with a single cab, and put up the natural stereo tracks I recorded, and then I'll put up the same as a mono track. I think it will be easy to hear the "stereo info" in the stereo tracks of that lead, and it is different than a mono track.
If something like a single cab is "always mono" as you say....then there should not be any differences between the stereo tracks and the mono version.
You can judge for yourself

So I'll let it go for now too.....and of course, you can always look up stereophonic sound if you don't want take my word for it.

I'm not debating the merits and flaws of stereo recording a mono source. That was NEVER my my line of thinking here. You don't need to post clips for my benefit because I know what a mono cab recorded "in stereo" sounds like. I know what a mono source with a shit ton of pseudo-stereo room influence sounds like. The thinly veiled implication that I don't know what I'm talking about is unnecessary. I know exactly what I'm saying. The thinly veiled implication that I'm stuck in my ways is unnecessary as well.

The point you're missing is that the OP, the guy that asked the question about this, has tried "stereo miking" his small little mono voice and guitar and he didn't get the results he was hoping for. His own words. Internet wisdom told him to stereo mic. It didn't work for him. Why? I don't know, but I have to assume it's because he's not in a cavern big enough for stereo miking to give him the size, depth, and/or spread that, I can only assume, he's looking for. But reading back, I can see how my wording has sent you into miro-mode. I didn't make myself very clear before, probably still isn't, but fuck it. I really have no desire to go further. I only responded because you tried to imply that I'm retarded or something. I'm not. I can make good recordings - both stereo and mono..

 

[Lt. Bob]

..................

 

[heatmiser]

Interesting...

I have to say that I've recorded myself singing and playing guitar live in my little den/studio (that I don't consider large or very lively in terms of reflections) using a pair of SDCs and it actually did sound pretty spacious and quite different than recording each separately with one mic. I'm not saying it sounded great or anything, but it was noticeably different and I kind of liked it.

OP, if you're really not hearing any difference between recording yourself singing and playing an acoustic with two mics vs. one, then as someone mentioned earlier, I think something else is going on. While you probably shouldn't expect to get some super spread out, wide image captured, I think it should sound quite different than the same thing captured with one mic.

 

[Greg_L]

Interesting...

I have to say that I've recorded myself singing and playing guitar live in my little den/studio (that I don't consider large or very lively in terms of reflections) using a pair of SDCs and it actually did sound pretty spacious and quite different than recording each separately with one mic. I'm not saying it sounded great or anything, but it was noticeably different and I kind of liked it.

OP, if you're really not hearing any difference between recording yourself singing and playing an acoustic with two mics vs. one, then as someone mentioned earlier, I think something else is going on. While you probably shouldn't expect to get some super spread out, wide image captured, I think it should sound quite different than the same thing captured with one mic.

That's true. He might have just screwed something up. It *should* sound different. Good, bad, huge, deep, wide, etc is up to how he did it and his room.

 

[polarity]

I usually hear a HUGE difference between one mic and two on my guitar. I am guessing the OP either didn't do something correctly or he was looking for a sound that this didn't give. OP I would highly suggest checking out the "acoustic guitar 101" sticky thread up there as it walks you through the process, but then also gives you clips of exactly how the sound changes as you do each step and why you might want to (or not want to) do that step.

 

[Beerhunter]

Same mics pointing in the same direction will likely sound the same. The mics would need to be in x/y



or

 

[miroslav]

The thinly veiled implication that I don't know what I'm talking about is unnecessary. I know exactly what I'm saying. The thinly veiled implication that I'm stuck in my ways is unnecessary as well.

I only responded because you tried to imply that I'm retarded or something. I'm not. I can make good recordings - both stereo and mono..

I didn't imply you are retarded.
Don't now go making this into some personal thing.....like you do every time we don't agree.
There was also nothing "thinly veiled". The discussion was very clear on my part.
You (not the OP) talked about "stereo sources", and insisted that there were mono sources and stereo sources.
There is no such thing as "stereo sources".....unless you go and mic a Hi Fi stereo system.

ANY live source can be miked in mono, or in stereo, but actual sound sources are mono, and that includes drums.
The source is mono, but the stereo comes from the mono sources interacting in a live environment.
Now....if you're saying that you meant something esle....OK, fine, tell me what you meant, but you did say that more than once, so I don't see how I misunderstood you.

AFA the troubles the OP had with miking in stereo....that doesn't prove you can't mic a vocal in stereo, or that you need "cavernous" space do get a stereo sound. That only proves that he didn't do it right or that he was expecting some huge L/R effect. Stereo miking a vocal or a single guitar is not going to have a huge L/R image.

 

[Lt. Bob]

look ..... originally the point of stereo was to try and capture 'spaces' and locational differences of the different instruments. The idea was to get something similar to the way your ears work and thus, give you something approximating what you'd hear if you were actually sitting there.
That's why the blurbs about stereo records back then were all about the 'realistic' sound.
Hell .... Radio Shack even named their electronics line Realistic and the enthusiast magazines were all about getting the most realism. There were even a lot of records that were just things like trains passing by and people would buy and listen to them because it was 'like being there".

As recording has evolved we've used stereo as a special effect but in the context of capturing what you'd hear if you were sitting in a room listening to whatever you're recording, then you want stereo .... unless you're deaf in one ear.

But there's a lot of exceptions ..... I don't see the point of going stereo with electric gits ..... sax ...... hell, even singing .......... . unless you have a good sounding room ( you might, I don't ) then I find recording things in mono and adding the space later electronically gives me a better result.

 

[Farview]

What I'm basically saying is that when I record in stereo using 2 spaced mics, it sounds no different than when I record in mono using 1 mic, whether or not I listen through headphones or speakers.

When I record my acoustic guitar with 2 spaced mics, the same thing happens ...... it sounds no different to mono with 1 mic, regardless of mic placement.

What are you doing with the two tracks? Are you panning them wide?

In order to get an acoustic guitar to sound wide, you have to get the mics close to the guitar. One pointed at the 12th fret and the other pointed at the body behind the bridge. (or any one of 110 different combinations of stereo mic placements) But you have to take the two mic signals and pan one hard left and the other hard right to get the stereo effect.

 

[miroslav]

look ..... originally the point of stereo was to try and capture 'spaces' and locational differences of the different instruments. The idea was to get something similar to the way your ears work and thus, give you something approximating what you'd hear if you were actually sitting there.

.........

But there's a lot of exceptions ..... I don't see the point of going stereo with electric gits ..... sax ...... hell, even singing .......... . unless you have a good sounding room ( you might, I don't ) then I find recording things in mono and adding the space later electronically gives me a better result.

I don't disagree with the first part, and I don't even really disagree overall with the second part, other than to say the point of sometimes recording with a stereo setup IS so that you get a more realistic sound (what you said in the first part)....as in how a guitar or voice or sax would sound if you were standing there and hearing it with your two ears.
It's not always necessary to have a world class room in order to get a decent stereo recording....I think as long as it's not a horrid sounding room, and it has basic treatment and no extreme anomalies, you can pull it off, and of course, source and mic placement need to be balanced accordingly, and yeah, it takes a bit more trial & error than it would when just slapping a single mic up against a cab and hitting REC.

This isn't about promoting stereo recording for all tracks, or anything like that....it's about the possibility of choosing which mic approach will work best for a given situation, and that there is nothing wrong with using a stereo mic technique.....on anything.
The stereo "effect" will of course vary from what you get with a single voice VS a choir or a drum kit...etc...but the stereo mic techniques is valid for anything, and anything CAN be recorded in stereo, or mono.
I'll sometimes record my upright piano with a single mic....sometimes with a stereo mic array (I use a spaced pair below, at the open sound board, and one above in the middle with the front cover off the piano) all depends on the sound I'm after and how I want it to sit in the mix.

IOW....there is nothing that dictates which is best other than your production goals. So while I still do track the majority of guitars and other things with a single/mono mic approach, there certainly IS a point to sometimes using a stereo mic setup IF the stereo "effect" will translate well enough in your production.

As I mentioned...for me, this interest in stereo recording a bunch of individual elements came from reading about what Bruce Swedien was doing. I was curious how he managed with so many "stereo tracks" later on in the mix....???
Initially I thought I would end up with a bunch of bigger-than-life, wide-spaced stereo tracks, and the mix would be all over the place.....but surprisingly enough, it didn't go like that. While there is some pre-production thought about it, because you can actually "pre-pan" elements during stereo mic tracking (if you so desire), of course, during the mix, you always have the option of narrowing the image, and re-panning or going mono with those stereo tracks.

I'll cut up some clips tonight of the stereo lead guitar, and show that stereo tracking can be another way of adding something different to a production.

 

[rob aylestone]

Back to basics. Sound sources come in two main types. Point source - where the sound is produced from a specific location that is placed in a 3 dimensional world. For our example, a voice, and trumpet are point sources, and to all intents and purposes, in an anechoic room, with no reverberation, or perhaps even outside in the middle of a field, it is a monophonic source. The size of the mouth, or the size of the trumpet bell in practice do make the source slightly wider than a true point source, but not by much. However, we consider bigger sound sources, such as harps, pianos, marimbas, drum kits etc to NOT be a point source, and therefore stereo. The test is that if you are in the room with the instrument (or even in the anechoic space) some sounds come from one location, others appear from somewhere different. You have two ears and can hear this, so if you record it and replay through two channels of audio, the intention is to capture it in stereo, so you can close your eyes and hopefully point at things you hear in a 3D space.

So a singer is considered mono - a point source, and the guitar has width - so many people would treat it as a stereo instrument. The sound from the sound hole is different from the noises your hand makes on the frets.

For a recording, where the singer plays at the same time, then that for me would be three mics - vocal, one favouring the sound hole and another higher up on the neck.

In the mix, I would separate the two guitar mics one a little left, the other a little right - mainly because if you overdo it, you end up with a guitar that is as wide as your loudspeakers - which sounds odd!

If your singing style is very strange, with you singing one line left, and one line right at say 45 degrees to front - then two mics would work (although in the studio I'd still use one and recreate the left right with the pan). If it was a live performance with an audience, then I'd have to use two mics, because your point source is moving.

Does this help?

 

[miroslav]

However, we consider bigger sound sources, such as harps, pianos, marimbas, drum kits etc to NOT be a point source, and therefore stereo.

Wrong.
Sigh......
There is no such thing as a "stereo source". It's all in the recording process, NOT THE SOURCE.
You can stick a single mic in front of a drum kit, piano, harp and make it a "point source".
You can also do a stereo recording of any "point" source.

"Considering" something a "stereo source" has no basis in any fact.....it's just another one of those morphed definitions that has come about with the home rec explosion. It's the same way people track something with a single mic, but it ends up as a stereo pair in their DAW....and they refer to it as a "stereo recording".
It's NOT.
You need to use a pair/array of mics in one of the typical stereo miking configurations to make a stereo recording of something...anything.
Find one legit audio place that accurately defines anything as a "stereo source"....besides a stereo Hi Fi system.

Here...from Wikipedia, but feel free to look up stereophonic sound anywhere you like...you won't find any references to "stereo sources":

Stereo sound systems can be divided into two forms: The first is "true" or "natural" stereo in which a live sound is captured, with any natural reverberation or ambience present, by an array of microphones. The signal is then reproduced over multiple loudspeakers to recreate, as closely as possible, the live sound.

Secondly "artificial" or "pan-pot" stereo, in which a single-channel (mono) sound is reproduced over multiple loudspeakers. By varying the relative amplitude of the signal sent to each speaker an artificial direction (relative to the listener) can be suggested. The control which is used to vary this relative amplitude of the signal is known as a "pan-pot" (panoramic potentiometer). By combining multiple "pan-potted" mono signals together, a complete, yet entirely artificial, sound field can be created.

In technical usage, true stereo means sound recording and sound reproduction that uses stereographic projection to encode the relative positions of objects and events recorded.

During two-channel stereo recording, two microphones are placed in strategically chosen locations relative to the sound source, with both recording simultaneously. The two recorded channels will be similar, but each will have distinct time-of-arrival and sound-pressure-level information. During playback, the listener's brain uses those subtle differences in timing and sound level to triangulate the positions of the recorded objects. Stereo recordings often cannot be played on monaural systems without a significant loss of fidelity. Since each microphone records each wavefront at a slightly different time, the wavefronts are out of phase; as a result, constructive and destructive interference can occur if both tracks are played back on the same speaker. This phenomenon is known as phase cancellation.

If you Google "stereo source"....all you will end up with is links to a bunch of places where you can buy a Hi Fi.