Blue Bear Sound
New member
Tex......... I didn't CREATE the definition of stereo, I merely repeat it!TexRoadkill said:
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Blue Bear Sound said: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
New member
I disagree -- only because most people misunderstand even the basic concept!
C
chessrock
Banned
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.
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
New member
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.chessrock said:
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!chessrock said:
S
statecap
New member
So...
I'm just going to concede to this guy that we were both CORRECT and have a drink.
Thanks to all for their sincere input on this matter!!!
Denver
I'm just going to concede to this guy that we were both CORRECT and have a drink.
Thanks to all for their sincere input on this matter!!!
Denver
C
chessrock
Banned
Blue Bear Sound said:
Are you trying to tell me that these stupid-ass compressors don't even know that they're really just "big mono" compressors, and they've been lying to us all along!?
K
KingstonRock
PC load letter?
dictionary.com said:
D
ds21
New member
statecap said:
OK let me thow in my two cents, take one mono mic, one voice, one track, record it, play it back with no effects( remember "simply by use of "panning"") no matter where you pan this one single track it's still mono. Tell me otherwise.
A
acorec
Banned
fierojoe said: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!
A stereo image is like a stage. The guitarist is on one side, bass on the other, drums in the middle etc. A "Stereo Mix" is trying to create the sound of a band as if you were hearing them live. The complete mix would be considered stereo. A Stereo recording is recording the band with two mics all at the same time. There would be no difference with relation to the positioning of each sound source in either recording. However, the "tyrue" stereo recording woul introduce other nuances like bleeding together sound sources. The outcome in a true stereo recording might be better or worse.
C
chessrock
Banned
KingstonRock said:
Since when did dictionary.com start posting here ? ? ! !
(I know that dude!
)It would appear from dictionary.com's post that there are indeed two separate definitions; the first one having to do simply with sound transmission from two sources through two channels . . . and another having to do with stereo micing and the 3-D effect.
So it appears both sides of this issue are right, and now all we're arguing about is who is more right than the other.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
And as we all know, Mirriam-Webster was RENOWNED for his audio engineering knowledge.... 
Look up sample rate and word size in the dictionary, and I'm guessing there'll be an equally incomplete definition there as well!
Look up sample rate and word size in the dictionary, and I'm guessing there'll be an equally incomplete definition there as well!
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Blue Bear Sound said:And as we all know, Mirriam-Webster was RENOWNED for his audio engineering knowledge....
Look up sample rate and word size in the dictionary, and I'm guessing there'll be an equally incomplete definition there as well!
That's the whole point. What is the context of the question? For the purpose of industry classification of recordings "stereo" is just two tracks of non identical material.
Using your definition (which is really more about binaural recording and true stereo imaging) less than 5% of all recordings would be labelled as 'stereo'.
Apart from classical and nature recordings hardly anything is recorded for true stereo imaging.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Yes Tex... that's absolutely true...!
I guess my point is that "stereo" isn't as straight-forward as simple panning. There is an underlying principle beneath the process and it is useful for people to be aware of - especially in the context of trying to create the illusion of an audio soundstage in front of them....
It is sometimes good to know the WHY, in addition to the HOW!
I guess my point is that "stereo" isn't as straight-forward as simple panning. There is an underlying principle beneath the process and it is useful for people to be aware of - especially in the context of trying to create the illusion of an audio soundstage in front of them....
It is sometimes good to know the WHY, in addition to the HOW!
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
Blue Bear Sound said:Yes Tex... that's absolutely true...!
I guess my point is that "stereo" isn't as straight-forward as simple panning. There is an underlying principle beneath the process and it is useful for people to be aware of - especially in the context of trying to create the illusion of an audio soundstage in front of them....
It is sometimes good to know the WHY, in addition to the HOW!
And that will be the subject of next weeks lesson.
I remember the first time I tried doing ORTF binaural recording with just two 58's and a pillow in between. The first time I played the track (of me walking up to the mics and talking) I turned around to see who was walking up behind me, lol.
Stereo is definately one of the least understood concepts in home recording. I think it will be cool when engineers come up with a system to do true surround recording. I imagine you could do some cool stuff with multiple spaced pairs that were sent to the individual speakers or some type of dual M/S setup.
Right now surround sound understanding is about where stereo was 50yrs ago.
cordura21
New member
Stereo miking and panning the resulting tracks
So when you record using a stereo miking technique should you pan both resulting tracks to the center, or hard left and hard right? Maybe "should" is a strong world, but is there a correct form and how do you and most of the people do it?
Maybe when you say "pan a stereo signal" you're meaning "pan them to the middle" and I don't understand that. Thanks for the help. Andrés
So when you record using a stereo miking technique should you pan both resulting tracks to the center, or hard left and hard right? Maybe "should" is a strong world, but is there a correct form and how do you and most of the people do it?
Maybe when you say "pan a stereo signal" you're meaning "pan them to the middle" and I don't understand that. Thanks for the help. Andrés
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Re: Stereo miking and panning the resulting tracks
You can however, chose to narrow that image and place differently within the soundstage of a mix. For example, if you have a piano recorded in stereo, you can certainly pan it hard L/R, but in the mix this equates to a piano that is 20-30 ft wide! So you can narrow the stereo image and place the stereo track off to one side -- for example, panning hard left and panning the other channel in the centre. This gives the illusion of a piano being played left of the stage (audience perspective) and containing the piano's "width" to a realistic level in the context of the boundaries of your speaker's soundstage.
OTOH, sometimes a 30 ft wide piano is more appropriate in certain contexts!
Well... when you have a stereo track, it is by definition 2 separate tracks of information. Now only that, it also has a stereo image defined by the "distinction" of each track -- ie, you can't get a wider image of that signal than panning each channel hard left and right.cordura21 said:
You can however, chose to narrow that image and place differently within the soundstage of a mix. For example, if you have a piano recorded in stereo, you can certainly pan it hard L/R, but in the mix this equates to a piano that is 20-30 ft wide! So you can narrow the stereo image and place the stereo track off to one side -- for example, panning hard left and panning the other channel in the centre. This gives the illusion of a piano being played left of the stage (audience perspective) and containing the piano's "width" to a realistic level in the context of the boundaries of your speaker's soundstage.
OTOH, sometimes a 30 ft wide piano is more appropriate in certain contexts!
S
Speedy VonTrapp
New member
TexRoadkill said:And that will be the subject of next weeks lesson.
I remember the first time I tried doing ORTF binaural recording with just two 58's and a pillow in between. The first time I played the track (of me walking up to the mics and talking) I turned around to see who was walking up behind me, lol.
Stereo is definately one of the least understood concepts in home recording. I think it will be cool when engineers come up with a system to do true surround recording. I imagine you could do some cool stuff with multiple spaced pairs that were sent to the individual speakers or some type of dual M/S setup.
Right now surround sound understanding is about where stereo was 50yrs ago.
Tex....
Can you please explain this in a bit more detail? I'm very curious about what you're talking about above here with the 2 58's and a pillow. What exactly is it that you did with the mic placement and the pillow between them that helped make the effect you described?
I'm imagining that putting a pillow between the 2 helps to keep one mic from picking up sounds that the other mic should be handling by itself.. (i.e., the mic on the right, only hears what happens on the right, because it's blocked from the sound source on the left.)
In this instance, the sharing of the image would be almost nothing, (depending on the size of the seperation, i.e. pillow, and where the sound source was, etc.), is this something that's desireable? I guess that I assumed that sharing the sound image between microphones was part of what helped make stereo sound so real. If the microphones could have a theoretical hard line between them where it would stop ALL sound from the other side from coming through, wouldn't that sound unrealistic altogether?
I'm going to experiment with the pillow idea, and see (hear) what it sounds like, but I'd like some more info on what you were doing, and how it was applied, etc. I wonder if you liked the outcome, or you wished that you hadn't done it? Is it something that you employ often when recording, or just something that you played with, and once in a while, you find a unique use for the method?
Thanks,
-Speedy
S
statecap
New member
Speedy,
You close to Midland?
I'm re-locating there soon.
You close to Midland?
I'm re-locating there soon.
S
Speedy VonTrapp
New member
Actually, yes, I am. I lived in Midland about a year ago. Now, I live in Essexville, which is not far. Just the other side of Bay City. I've lived in the area my whole life, just about.
*sigh*
hehe
*sigh*
hehe