Is "Stereo" just "panning"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter statecap
  • Start date Start date
Blue Bear is right on.
But, I was under the impression that the reason for stereo was back when the big bands were playing, the live mono recording didnt recreate the illusion of the soundscape one heard sitting in a seat in front of the band, it was only mono. With two mics, a short distance apart recording the band, at the same level, each mic was picking up different levels, nuances, and ambience much the same as our ears. The 3d effect came into play here and the soundscape heard by the ears was the same one thats played thru the speakers and its respective channel and amp. It sounded as if one was sitting in front of the band and hearing each instrument at the proper place in the sounscape exactly as if "live". I think manufactured stereo imaging by panning and effects came a little later.
 
TexRoadkill said:


2 mics arrayed symetrically to record a sound source = Stereo Image (generally a more realistic capture of the sound)
Click to expand...

I think Tex actually nailed it in extreme simplicity here too. I may be wrong, but I think it`s likely that the engineers on the first sessions where 2 discreet tracks were availible, didnt have the the option of panning across busses at the very beginning. The only control they had initially was level.
I`m not an expert like yall in any form, but from listening to a bit of early recordings and big band lp`s that were recorded around the time stereo was premiered, it seems logical and they sound just that way .
 
ON some early boards, panning was a choice between hard left, centre, hard right........
 
So how do you usually record as far as this topic is concerned.

Say you have a mic on the left of a piano (Mic 1) and one of the right (Mic 2). Do you record these two mics as one stereo wave (so the the L Channel is the Mic 1 source and the R Ch. the Mic 2 source), do you record each mic as their own mono channel (so you end up with 2 mono waves), or do you do each channel as its own stereo (so you have 2 waves which each have the same L&R)?
Or are these all the same? I am still trying to figure out this whole spacing issue as well as dealing with all the L/R junk that comes along with the Delta1010 (and most multichannel soundcards).
When I use the pan control on the M12, I dont notice any difference when Im listening thru headphones while mixing (even with After Fade listening)...I finally got some Yorkie monitors but havent used them as Im in the middle of moving..

Thanks a bunch
 
Scinx said:
So how do you usually record as far as this topic is concerned.

Say you have a mic on the left of a piano (Mic 1) and one of the right (Mic 2). Do you record these two mics as one stereo wave (so the the L Channel is the Mic 1 source and the R Ch. the Mic 2 source), do you record each mic as their own mono channel (so you end up with 2 mono waves), or do you do each channel as its own stereo (so you have 2 waves which each have the same L&R)?
Or are these all the same?
Click to expand...
Recording a "stereo WAV" is identical to recording the 2 single channels but keeping them hard-panned apart. How the pan control works on a 2-channel WAV is somewhat software-dependent. In Cubase SX I believe panning does nothing on a stereo track.

With a stereo signal across 2 mono tracks, you have flexibility over the width of the stereo image. Or you can collapse the stereo field together and pan both channels together off to one side or anywhere in between.

In an analog console, there's no such thing as a stereo track... it's always 2 mono channels and you deal with stereo as 2 mono tracks, panning them as you like.
 
Speedy VonTrapp said:
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
Click to expand...

That technique is known as 'Binaural' recording. The idea is to get as true to real life of a stereo image as possible. Your ears have your head in between so if you put up an absorbing barrier between the mics like a pillow or sound foam you can get an amazingly realistic stereo image. For the full effect the listener has to wear headphones and the results are pretty amazing.

I don't know if it has all the much value for rock recording because you end up with a very omni/room sound type of recording that would only be suitable for a few types of tracks. It might be a cool way to do classical or acoustic music where you want the listener to be 'in the room' with the musicians.

It's very easy to try. Just put up two mics and something in between them. I think that setup is actually called a Jacklin Disc. Then walk around the mics and talk or play an instrument. Listen back in headphones and it's like 3D audio.
 
Cool, thanks, Tex.

I agree after hearing your explaination that it might not be ideal for many rock applications, but I'll probalby mess with it anyway, just so that I can learn how to do it well, and have another trick up my sleeve if I ever needed it for something. Ya never know, I guess. Just like those mics that you never really use at all, once in a while, it might just come in handy.

Thanks again,

-Speedy
 
This gets a little deeper but there is a bonus article from an interview "Wonderfull Recordings with Mr Rupert Neve" at Tape OP (http://tapeop.com/).

Go to the bonus article section and you will find it. It pretty much agrees with Blue Bear.

I can see the use for "Pseudo Stereo" from mono input "Stereo" output effects in home recording but understanding the distinction is also important.

As surround sound mixing becomes more explored the difference between true stereo recording and "pseudo Stereo" or the illusion of stereo may become much more important.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Recording a "stereo WAV" is identical to recording the 2 single channels but keeping them hard-panned apart. How the pan control works on a 2-channel WAV is somewhat software-dependent. In Cubase SX I believe panning does nothing on a stereo track.

With a stereo signal across 2 mono tracks, you have flexibility over the width of the stereo image. Or you can collapse the stereo field together and pan both channels together off to one side or anywhere in between.

In an analog console, there's no such thing as a stereo track... it's always 2 mono channels and you deal with stereo as 2 mono tracks, panning them as you like.
Click to expand...

This thread could not have come at a better time....

Blue Bear...I was just thinking about this issue last night as I was sketching out this new bass oriented rock instrumental project. I think I have too many stereo tracks in my recording.

I'm using Cubase SX and I panned a stereo piano track to the right a bit and you can hear it move, so I believe that panning of a stereo track is possible in SX. But you have brought up some great points that have left me with a few questions about my tracking.

One is tracking a stereo source to one stereo track in SX. After reading your comments it would almost seem smarter to track the stereo source to two mono tracks, because while I can pan the track, I don't have panning control over each signal seperately...just one pan and I can't control the width. As I see it I could have a bit more control by tracking to two mono's. Does that sound right and is that how you do it?

Also, I am finding that since I am using a digital piano for drums and effects, as well as piano and other sounds, and using an amp simulator for guitars and the like, that I have all these "stereo" tracks and almost no mono tracks. I'm guessing that the amp sim just gives me the "pseudo" stereo you were talking about where they add some effects and send it out stereo, but now I am wondering if panning the stereo tracks could make the source sound worse because of the loss of part of the sound when I pan a track to one side. If it's pseudo stereo I guess this wouldn't be as big of a deal but how about true stereo tracks?

Would I be correct in thinking that unless I have a reason to have something recorded in stereo (like background synth sounds and the like that use the whole panarama) that it's better to just have mono signals for stuff?

Thanks for any insight you can give me.
 
Actually, regarding panning stereo tracks in SX... I just checked - when you pan a stereo track you get less of one side than the other -- but in the center position, it's the equivalent of 2 hard-panned mono tracks.

You're right -- if you need more control over placement, you're better off recording a stereo source to 2 mono tracks. Since I only use SX for editing, the issue doesn't come up often for me - but the times that I've done it, I'll use 2 mono tracks.

For digital pianos and synths, unless I know they're stereo sampels, I'd turn off all ambient effects and take a mono feed. Simulated stereo on top of more simulated stereo really muddies things up in the mix very quickly!

AS to the when (something should be recorded in stereo) -- it's a good idea to think about it in advance and have some idea of where the track will fit in the mix, so you can make an appropriate choice. If you fully in tend to pan an acoustic guitar off to one side, there's less likely a need for it to be a stereo track. The rule I follow is - If you're not going to take advantage of a stereo source (by using it directly in the mix), make it mono....
 
Re: Re: Is "Stereo" just "panning"?

ds21 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.
Click to expand...

Some of this thread I have to agree with, and some of it I have to completely disagree with.


Because there is a stereo field (unless you are only listening on a Mono block amplifier with 1 speaker directly in front of your face.) you are perceiving it as stereo.

If you pan the source hard, either left or right and you are listening on a pair of speakers powered by a two channel amplifier, which is connected to the left and right outputs of your mixer or computer, you are listening to a mono source played back in stereo.

The ability to hear a perceived motion and /or difference between two speakers is defined by society as "stereo", not dual mono, and not bidirectional. (I built a Bidirectional mic out of a pair of PZM's screwed back to back with a sheet of plexiglas between them, and there were some incredible things you could do with it, but it was kind of useless for recording amplified music.)

The meanings of words change, and the meaning of the word stereo has simply evolved, no matter what the dictionary says.
( a faggot used to be a bundle ot sticks. not anymore. I know, that's not "pc"-but I never claimed to be politically correct anyway....that's for people who can't think for themselves.)


For true stereo, every instrument would have to be mic'd with 2 microphones, and those would have to panned left and right, how hard to pan them is up for debate. I would say "3'o clock" and "9'o clock", but I think most people would pan them completely.

For example, a stereo pair of a drum set tracks....you would leave the mic's alone, and simply record each drum individually, through that stereo pair.
That has been done before. The Producer/Engineer's name is Dieter Dirks, and he did most of the Scorpions records in the 80's in that fashion. So if you want to hear what it sounds like, listen to the Scorpions. I read an interview with Herman Rarebell discussing the fact that they built the records by recording 1 drum at a time, and 1 cymbal at a time through a pair of mic's. Disgusting, huh? where's the actual talent in that? No wonder Pro Tools has become so popular.


Drums:
I generally record in Mono - Each instrument gets 1 mic, except for the overheads of my drumkit, which I mic 6 feet away from the center of my snare, and 6 feet from the ground. I pan these hard left and right, because I'm not individually mic'ing the toms, and I want to give them the most "space" without adding reverb to them. Kicks I'll put off center just a hair, and the snare I place in the center.Some people wouldn't like this kind of mix, but I do... there's the stability of the kicks and snare in the middle, and there's the movement as I play across the drumkit from the left to the right.

Guitars & Bass :
2 mic's each dedicated to 2 tracks each

and so on.

THAT would be true stereo, according to the dictionary's definition.



Tim
 
Blue bear I agree with some of what you said. But to me stereo recording must "ALWAYS" have something to do with panning. You say that two apropriatly placed drum overheads will give you a stereo recording. Maybe so but unless you pan them to some degree then theres no stereo effect. So theres more to getting a stereo recording than just simply recording in stereo. So, unless you actually do pan the two mics some degree to the left and right then you wont hear the stereo effect of the two mics. Just the sound of a stereo recording in mono. Which is not stereo.

No matter what you do, panning IS neccessary in order to actually hear the stereo effect. Unless you want to hear the stereo recorded overheads in mono.

You will never have a stereo mix if you don't pan.

And I totally disagree that true stereo needs to be recorded in stereo.

To me a stereo mix is the result of different things paned and or recorded in stereo and panned.

Brian May's live guitar sound is stereo out front because he splits his signal into two or more and delays from left to right and this is done with panning. If panning was not used his sound would simply be just delayed mono. And not neccessarily on centre either.
 
Scott Tansley said:
Blue bear I agree with some of what you said. But to me stereo recording must "ALWAYS" have something to do with panning. You say that two apropriatly placed drum overheads will give you a stereo recording. Maybe so but unless you pan them to some degree then theres no stereo effect. So theres more to getting a stereo recording than just simply recording in stereo. So, unless you actually do pan the two mics some degree to the left and right then you wont hear the stereo effect of the two mics. Just the sound of a stereo recording in mono. Which is not stereo.

No matter what you do, panning IS neccessary in order to actually hear the stereo effect. Unless you want to hear the stereo recorded overheads in mono.

You will never have a stereo mix if you don't pan.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with you on these points?!?! Panning a stereo source affects the width of the stereo image - pan hard and you get the full width, pan to center and you get a collapsed stereo image (collapsed completely means having NO stereo image)

You're saying exactly what I did, only differently!
 
Plus you'll never hear true stereo unless you wear headphones.
Without headphones your stereo sound will be different depending on where you head is positioned in relation to the two speakers. If you stand 50 feet away from two speakers that are two feet apart it will sound very mono. With headphones there's no spill. Pure stereo.

Just like a stereo mix has everthing to do with panning it also has everything to do with how you lsten to it.
 
Scott Tansley said:
Plus you'll never hear true stereo unless you wear headphones.
Without headphones your stereo sound will be different depending on where you head is positioned in relation to the two speakers. If you stand 50 feet away from two speakers that are two feet apart it will sound very mono. With headphones there's no spill. Pure stereo.

Just like a stereo mix has everthing to do with panning it also has everything to do with how you lsten to it.
Click to expand...

Those are valid points but of course you can get a good stereo image without headphones. You just have to be in the sweet spot.

The reason you want to always have good mono compatability is because of listeners who aren't in the middle of the speakers.
 
Also higer frequencies respond better to stereo separation than lower frequencies. Hence the overheads for cymbols and mono for the kick.


Blue bear, Im quite amused at your "big mono" phrase. Never heard that term before but I totally see what you mean by that.
 
Speedy VonTrapp said:
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.
Click to expand...

Holy shit. Essexville is my freakin' home town! !

I am a Garber alumnus -- graduated in '89.

And I also graduated from Northwood University sometime later.

Small world. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top