G
Regarding the human voice ....what is stereo? What is panning? What's the difference?
mjbphotos
Moderator
Except stereo effects and amps (delays, reverbs, flanging, etc) that process the sound, hence delivering 2 different signals .... Typically into 2 amps or into a stereo guitar amp.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Stereo amp setup, therefore, this becomes a stereo source. Assume each head in the pic has it's own cab. That's how you would run this stereo amp setup. The source sound is in stereo! The sound you will want to record will be in stereo. It will be a stereo sound, from a stereo source! Oh fuck, mind blown!
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Right.
Stereo is about sound processing....not sound sources.
That's as simple as it gets.
Adding a stereo process to a sound source, is just that....and added process.
Stereo is basically a man-made effect.
You can apply that man-made process to any source, but there is no such thing as stereo sources in nature.
There are no instruments that are "stereo sources" without adding the stereo FX process to them.
When someone accepts and understands the fact that stereo is a process that can be applied to any sound source...they then realize that you can record anything/everything in stereo or in mono, and it opens up recording approaches.
There's dozens and doznes of audio/recording books from reputable audio/recording authorities that cover everything under the sun about sound, audio and recording from over the last 100 years, some derived from plenty of scientific study....and yet not a single one that I've ever read mentions "stereo sources", and I bet none of them do.
This thread is the first place I've ever seen that term.
People are free to do a little research, look up facts, check the science...or just continue to toss out personal views as facts.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
You know what's wrong with this argument? It's debating the definition of something that doesn't exist.
Stereo (or, more properly, stereophonic sound) is a method of REPRODUCING sound to try and create the feeling of space. There's no such thing as a "stereo source" (unless you consider a pair of speakers or set of headphones to be a source).
What you have instead are real world sources that vary between almost a point source (say a single drum being hit with a stick) through a fairly wide source (say a grand piano) to things like a symphony orchestra spread across as stage a hundred feet wide. None of these are "stereo" sources because stereo implies two points but, rather, have a varying width of the sound stage. As such, they call for different miking techniques.
Of course, even this is a bit academic since, right after the invention of stereo recording came the invention of artificially panning multiple mono recordings to create your own artificial sound stage. Or, how about recording things like acoustic guitar with two mics then artificially widening the spacing so the 15 inch gap between the mics becomes the width of a room when reproduced on a stereo system.
The thing that matters most is "how does it sound". The rest matters very little.
Stereo (or, more properly, stereophonic sound) is a method of REPRODUCING sound to try and create the feeling of space. There's no such thing as a "stereo source" (unless you consider a pair of speakers or set of headphones to be a source).
What you have instead are real world sources that vary between almost a point source (say a single drum being hit with a stick) through a fairly wide source (say a grand piano) to things like a symphony orchestra spread across as stage a hundred feet wide. None of these are "stereo" sources because stereo implies two points but, rather, have a varying width of the sound stage. As such, they call for different miking techniques.
Of course, even this is a bit academic since, right after the invention of stereo recording came the invention of artificially panning multiple mono recordings to create your own artificial sound stage. Or, how about recording things like acoustic guitar with two mics then artificially widening the spacing so the 15 inch gap between the mics becomes the width of a room when reproduced on a stereo system.
The thing that matters most is "how does it sound". The rest matters very little.
G
Greg_L
Banned
I do. I really do, and it's not what you said at all.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
What's wrong is that a few will continue to ignore facts (though nice try explaining it to them, again)....and so they'll just keep on talking about something that doesn't exist until it becomes an interwebs audio forum "fact".
Well, at least there are a bunch of people here who do get it.
The guy who first mentioned "stereo source" in this thread is the one who keeps coming back to defend it.
Talk about needing to feel "right"...even if real audio facts don't support it.
G
Greg_L
Banned
It's funny how real world examples and common sense are ignored by the phony and transparent "fact police".
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
So while I'm busy getting important things (to me) done, this is still ongoing? 
I love a battle of opinion that doesn't involve me.
I love a battle of opinion that doesn't involve me.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Me too!
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Stereo amp setup, therefore, this becomes a stereo source. Assume each head in the pic has it's own cab. That's how you would run this stereo amp setup. The source sound is in stereo! The sound you will want to record will be in stereo. It will be a stereo sound, from a stereo source! Oh fuck, mind blown!
Except the SOURCE is that lonely little single black line (i.e. mono) from the guitar and the rest is processing that source to give it a stereo effect--just like I was talking about above.
Look gang, believe what you want but the word stereo refers to a way of reproducing and listening to the sound, not anything to do with the source of the sound. Some things sound fine with a single mic, some things sound better using two or more mics because the sound is created across a wide field (but NOT a stereo field except maybe for Greg's example above where a guitar is artificially put into two speakers) and some things like a shitload of mics and lots of panning later. It's all part of the game--but stereo does NOT refer to any source, just to the way you record and listen to it.
G
Greg_L
Banned
The source of the sound is the two cabs which, thanks to that stereo effects unit, is kicking out a stereo sound. Flanger, delay, chorus, whatever. Stereo amp setup. Very common. Thats a stereo source. Youd wanna record that stereo source with stereo mics. Don't you go being intentionally thick headed too
G
Greg_L
Banned
Some of you are hiding behind semantics just to make your moot points.
I think you know exactly what I'm saying and you're arguing just to argue.
I think you know exactly what I'm saying and you're arguing just to argue.
MrWrenchey
Member
Exactly. I know Bobbsy meant well with that last post, but it's arguing semantics again. We're talking about recording here, and in a recording world, your "source" isn't the guitar itself (at least in this scenario). The SOURCE of the actual SOUND you're trying to capture is the cabinets, which is, as Greg said, outputting something different on the "left" and "right" cabinets, so it's considered stereo.
Look, we're talking about stereo sources as it relates to recording audio. The current standard for records and albums and singles (ie, music) released is two speakers. Stereo.
I mean, if you wanted to be nuts, if you're mixing in 5.1, you can have more than a "stereo" or "mono" source, but with the current state of things, you have things that could potentially benefit more by stereo micing (as I mentioned in my previous anechoic chamber example) that DOESN'T rely on processing, and you've got things like vocals that are really only viably reproduced in mono, save for if you've got a great room to record in and want to record it the way Michael Jackson did as someone mentioned in a previous comment.
This doesn't have to be as complicated as everyone is making it. I'm acknowledging that in the real world, there's no such thing as a "stereo source." Only sources that could benefit from stereo micing. That's essentially what defines a stereo source here is that it's able to be recorded in stereo because it's going to provide something more in stereo. That's it.
I know Miro took a jab awhile back comparing what we're saying now to what MusicWater was doing awhile ago with his garbage speak of audio, but the primary difference is right now, you should be able to agree we're using words that actually relate to audio to explain our jargon here. There are a ton of words that exist in audio that have no REAL definition, but we use them anyway (usually relating to how something sounds, eg, bright, dull).
Edit:
For shits, I looked up the definition of stereo:
ster·e·o
ˈsterē-ō,ˈsti(ə)r-/
noun
noun: stereo
1.
sound that is directed through two or more speakers so that it seems to surround the listener and to come from more than one source; stereophonic sound.
And to further explain myself, that's the point we're trying to make. In order for it to be stereo, it has to come from more than one source (as we've called them, a "point source.") in order to be stereo. Things like a singer will never ever ever be stereo, unless you're relying on spatial cues such as reverb or the person running across the room while recording to do that.
There are instruments that can do this, they are stereo sources.
And there are instruments that can not. Those are mono or "point" sources.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
No source is truly a point source. They're either small or large, and so if you call large sources stereo then small sources aren't mono, they're just not as stereo. What's worth recording in stereo is arbitrary - up to the engineer, not the source. Although I understand what people mean when they call a source stereo, that's not precisely correct.
Stereo mic technique, stereo recording and stereo playback all specify two or more discrete signals used to give the impression of spatial dimension. That's not arbitrary at all. Stereo is a marketing term for a human invention, not an inherent property of things that make sound.
Stereo mic technique, stereo recording and stereo playback all specify two or more discrete signals used to give the impression of spatial dimension. That's not arbitrary at all. Stereo is a marketing term for a human invention, not an inherent property of things that make sound.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
That definition is exactly what I'm saying. Stereo refers to sound reproduced through speakers to imitate a spatial relationship. It doesn't refer to the original sources of the sound.
If you want to be picky, yeah there are electronic instruments--keyboards or that guitar rig Greg described--that have stereo outputs but this is just the same thing as the definition above. They are using two speakers to SIMULATE the spread of sound across a room.
But the point holds--stereo is an electronic effect using two or more speakers (or headphones or whatever) to simulate spatial information. Real sound sources don't do this. The sound they generate is as wide as the instrument. How we record this is up to us. You can make a six foot wide piano into mono or an acoustic guitar can sound as wide as a whole room. That's the fun of recording and mixing.
But it's recording and mixing, not a "stereo source".
G
Greg_L
Banned
Ugh, I'll try again, fuck it. I'm not being picky at all. You guys are. I'm actually being very general, maybe too general for the wannabe professional know-it-alls in here. I'm not surprised that some of you are so hung up on being right, that's par for the course, I am a little surprised at the flat out refusal to be real. What I'm saying is very simple, anyone should be able to understand it, and I think you do. You guys are just hung up on the terminology because you have nothing else. I'm not talking about creating a false stereo image in a mix through recording techniques. I'm not talking about simulation. You're thinking about the amp thing as starting in mono and then being tricked into being stereo via the stereo effect unit and dual amps. Okay, I'll go with that, but then, so fucking what? You don't record an unplugged guitar. You record the sound coming from the speakers, and in a stereo amp setup, the sound you're recording, the source sound, is in stereo before it bounces off any walls or hit's any ears. A ping pong delay bounces from amp to amp. Is it "simulated stereo"? Sure, but again, so what? The sound you hear, and record, is in stereo before anything else happens to it. That's why these setups are called "stereo amps".
I'm talking about sound sources, the actual sound being made, the actual sound being recorded, before the room has any affect on it. It can be a group of speakers, a live band, an orchestra, or a single instrument that emits it's sounds from a spread out area. That is a stereo source. It's something that, most of the time, you'd want to record with a stereo mic setup to capture it's inherent, natural, coming-from-all-directions sonic image. Some things, like a voice, or acoustic guitar, or kazoo, or a fart are inherently mono but can be mic'd in a way in a room to portray a thicker, wider, fuller recorded image that's heard in stereo - provided the room allows this to happen. No argument there. Some things can do that though regardless of the room it's in. A drum kit or piano doesn't have to be in a room for it to beg to be recorded in stereo. A drum kit could be in an open field and it would still emit it's sound from different areas of the kit. That's why stereo overheads are so common. To capture it's inherent spread. That's why people mic both sides of a piano. That's why people stereo mic bands and orchestras. Can you record these naturally stereo sources in mono? Absolutely. But most people have gotten away from that because it sounds better to record these sources with a stereo mic spread. Why would anyone stereo mic a drum set? To capture it's inherent natural spread, duh. I know what you're thinking. You're saying, "But Greg, at the Grateful Dead concert I went to back in 1972, I couldn't hear any spread on the drums". Of course you didn't, you were drunk and/or stoned, and in a giant loud space everything just mashes together anyway. Most people don't record for a mashed together sound.
Separate yourselves from wikipedia definitions and think of it in real world scenarios. Real world applications. Things that really happen outside of a book. I know some of you get what I'm saying, and I know some of you will still lie to yourselves. Either way is fine.
mjbphotos
Moderator
Maybe the mods should close this thread, it seems to be bickering now.
BTW, I agree with Greg. If you are recording 2 amps that have a "simulated" (whatever that means) stereo sound, ie NOT the same sound coming out each one, with 2 mics, you can call it whatever you want, but you are in fact recording two separate 'stereoized' sound sources that originated as one (guitar). If you don't think it is 'a stereo source', than FU.
BTW, I agree with Greg. If you are recording 2 amps that have a "simulated" (whatever that means) stereo sound, ie NOT the same sound coming out each one, with 2 mics, you can call it whatever you want, but you are in fact recording two separate 'stereoized' sound sources that originated as one (guitar). If you don't think it is 'a stereo source', than FU.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Are you guys being deliberately obtuse or what?
Of course--in Greg's guitar scenario--I'd use two mics and record in stereo--but that is an artificial construct. The rig is taking an ordinary mono source and making it sound like it's coming from two sides of the room. It probably sounds good. But that guitar is a mono source being made to sound like stereo.
All we're saying is that to call anything a "stereo source" is just plain incorrect because stereophonics involves the reproduction of sound, not its creation.
Call me a "wannabe professional know-it-all" if you like. It doesn't make your generalised and inaccurate statements any more correct. Why do you think it's somehow more creative or musical to not know what you're talking about but still argue it blind.
You talk about "real world scenarios" and so do I. In fact I bet I use more actual stereo recording techniques (X-Y, ORTF, M-S, Spaced pairs) than you do simply because of the type of stuff I record. However, my decisions aren't based on somehow deciding some source is "stereo" and others are mono. It's down to what the performance sounds like and what I want the recording to sound like.
Yeah, go ahead and close this. Some people are more interested in showing their ignorance than learning something.
Of course--in Greg's guitar scenario--I'd use two mics and record in stereo--but that is an artificial construct. The rig is taking an ordinary mono source and making it sound like it's coming from two sides of the room. It probably sounds good. But that guitar is a mono source being made to sound like stereo.
All we're saying is that to call anything a "stereo source" is just plain incorrect because stereophonics involves the reproduction of sound, not its creation.
Call me a "wannabe professional know-it-all" if you like. It doesn't make your generalised and inaccurate statements any more correct. Why do you think it's somehow more creative or musical to not know what you're talking about but still argue it blind.
You talk about "real world scenarios" and so do I. In fact I bet I use more actual stereo recording techniques (X-Y, ORTF, M-S, Spaced pairs) than you do simply because of the type of stuff I record. However, my decisions aren't based on somehow deciding some source is "stereo" and others are mono. It's down to what the performance sounds like and what I want the recording to sound like.
Yeah, go ahead and close this. Some people are more interested in showing their ignorance than learning something.