Recording mono/stereo?

A

Astralfeedbackm

New member
I have a focusrite sap 6. When recording it only does mono, but in my daw When I change from recording left/right to stereo. So it records in stereo. My qyestion is does this not sound as good as doing two mono, one recording on the right, then again on the left?
 
With one mic...it's always mono (unless it's a stereo mic).

What you see in the DAW as a "stereo" track, only means that the same thing got recorded to both the left and right...a.k.a. "dual mono".
Don't waste your time with that...record as mono tracks.
I
f you have a pair of mics and you are doing a real stereo recording setup, or like if you were to pipe a stereo patch from a synth...then you would record as stereo tracks into your DAW.

Most DAWs for some utterly stupid reason want to default to a "stereo" recording (mine does it also), and you have to tell it Mono...though in most cases when it does record in "stereio"...it's not really a stereo pair. :D

Get it?
 
You can have sound coming out of left and right without it being *stereo*...and mono isn't just about putting it either on the left or the right.
If the same sound is coming out of both speakers...it's mono.
 
If you're making an audio CD, it's going to end up as stereo anyway. The software just jumps the gun.

If recording in mono, Left is generally considered channel 1. On headphones, the Left channel is normally the one that the cable goes into. So if you're choosing Right, it might be assuming that Left is a given. Not that I'd know, I didn't write that software. The same if you do any left and right panning, which is probably enabled by default, even on mono tracks. In order to do the pan, it automagically converts it to stereo. Since software wise it needs to mix it twice at different levels. Once for each channel, Left/1 and Right/2.

I prefer stereo, but I use two mics. Mono samples are just so one dimensional to me. No depth, which makes any noise floor more obvious.
 
I guess I just don't get. If I used two mono mics and they are position almost identical V shaped, then one goes into the right and the other to the left. This creates stereo, yet its from the same source at almost the same position and this is stereo? Too, if I want anything in stero I have to use two tracks, which makes a lot of tracks?
 
I've made this point before, but almost all recordings that dudes like us do are comprised of mulitple mono sources which we combine and mix into a stereo track.

I rarely use the word "stereo" to describe something I'm tracking. "Stereo" implies a left and right channel, whilst you may have multiple channels for a particular instrument - ie. guitar, keyboard etc. - you're not always going to deploy them in stereo.

There are exceptions of course when you're attempting stereo recordings of sources - drum overheads, stereo mics, stereo pairs on ensembles etc.

Record in mono, with as many sources as you need to get your desired end result.
 
Astralfeedbackm said:
This creates stereo, yet its from the same source at almost the same position and this is stereo?
Click to expand...

You hear things in stereo. You can distinguish audio on your left from audio on the right, yet your ears are at 'almost the same position'.

you do get it. what you said is correct except for the 'lot of tracks' part.
If you wana record in stereo, use a stereo track in your daw :) It takes up the same space as a mono track
 
Lets say I want to record a m3 keyboard. If I record stereo in my daw, but use one xlr connected to the keyboard-interface, it wont ruin the sound/quality?
 
a stereo track in a daw is simply two mono tracks bundled together. It has two inputs instead of one and one fader to control the volume.


say you set up a stereo track with the inputs as 1+2, then you use one xlr cable between the keyboard and interface, where are you gona plug it in?

Either 1 or 2 right?
so you can't provide both of the channels that make up your stereo track.

if you wana record a stereo output from your keyboard, you'll need a left output and a right output, and a cable from each going to separate inputs on your interface.
 
I like the stereo tracking because when you add effects you can add stereo effects and widen the sound. But now that I think about it, I don't think I ever tried adding a stereo effect to a mono track to see if it mixed the effect stereo... I guess I will try that. I just record my guitar stereo because I'm going through a multi-effects box that has stereo out and actually sends distinct audio to the L/R tracks. All my mics are mono...
 
arcadeko said:
I just record my guitar stereo because I'm going through a multi-effects box that has stereo out and actually sends distinct audio to the L/R tracks. All my mics are mono...
Click to expand...

But that's still not really ster.........

....oh...nevermind. *sigh* :)
 
arcadeko said:
I... But now that I think about it, I don't think I ever tried adding a stereo effect to a mono track to see if it mixed the effect stereo... I guess I will try that. I just record my guitar stereo because I'm going through a multi-effects box that has stereo out and actually sends distinct audio to the L/R tracks. All my mics are mono...
Click to expand...

miroslav said:
But that's still not really ster.........

....oh...nevermind. *sigh* :)
Click to expand...
Here you go hand over the ores I'll row for awhile.


If you use one mic (or one direct connect) for your amp or whatever, you've started mono.
There's no need to record this other than a mono track.

To record this to a stereo track- you've only told the recorder (DAW) to record the same thing to a pair of connected tracks.

Now, the DAW doesn't know the same info is on both sides (L&R) and that you just used and wasted twice the file size.

But, it also doesn't care whether you picked a mono track or not because-
Once it's in the DAW—ALL of the track paths are DUAL paths.

There's a real good reason for this. Even if it is just a mono' (single file), it has to allow for you to
a) pan it anywhere in the 'stereo' mix and
b).. It also has to allow that you might want to slap a nice 'stereo reverb' onto that mono track.

Now- the distinction. ...We all need this. Content vs. the paths.

The same thing on both sides is-- Mono.
Period.
..On a 'Stereo Track'?

The difference is the content is (or can be) mono, but the paths are dual.

You can call the mix, the mixer output, your CD whatever, 'stereo' because of their two sides or cables or it's a file with 'L & R'- But it isn't stereo sound (content) until there is a difference coming out of L & R.

I guess I will try that. I just record my guitar stereo because I'm going through a multi-effects box that has stereo out and actually sends distinct audio to the L/R tracks.
Click to expand...
This..

is different sounds on left and right, therefore record into a 'stereo' track ..Or, a pair of mono tracks. (Ask why. Win a prize. :)
You want dual paths for capturing dual content.

If I used two mono mics and they are position almost identical V shaped, then one goes into the right and the other to the left. This creates stereo, yet its from the same source at almost the same position and this is stereo?
Click to expand...
This sounds like you're describing XY stereo mic placement. Two directional mic diaphragms in the same spot but angled gives you time coherent pick up (solid accurate image and phase) with only level differences from L/R due to the mic's patterns making it stereo sound.
To make it wider (more difference between L/R) increase the angle (more 'side difference, less 'center the same') or, separate the mics some (now you are introducing time and phase differences.
See ORTF- a little bit of (intentional) high frequency phase error (candy..), or 'Spaced Pair- lots of space, less 'accurate' center and image.


Hey man.. These Aussies..
They make some frikin great Shiraz. ;)
 
There's various techniques for stereo mic-ing. But basically mics ARE directional, even OMNI mics. There are some differences in sound that is picked up depending on it's orientation (angle) to the mic. We are preceptive of this difference. There's extra information there that helps us tell direction (left or right), and distance to the source. This helps our brains pick out certain sounds in an otherwise noisy environment. Even when the difference is so small we can't really tell if it's left or right, close or far. But there's a physical dimension to it, almost 3D like effect. More so when you have a temporal dimension (space between mics). XY is more common because it mixes to mono quite well. Which is a broadcast standard (AM Radio).

That and a number of effects (majority?) are designed to work with (and sometimes only with) CD audio. Which is stereo.
 
Yeah...but even the "stereo FX" is still technically not a stereo guitar signal...it's an artificial "stereo" derived from a mono signal.

I know it sounds like a lot of hair-splitting, and most people will call any L/R source stereo, or if they have two speakers, one on the left side and the other on the right...but it's good to know the correct terminology and the practical application...otherwise when they DO get to real stereo recordings, using true stereo miking techniques, it will be even more confusing.

So where you been Bob...haven't seen you post that much lately?
 
miroslav said:
Yeah...but even the "stereo FX" is still technically not a stereo guitar signal...it's an artificial "stereo" derived from a mono signal.

I know it sounds like a lot of hair-splitting, and most people will call any L/R source stereo, or if they have two speakers, one on the left side and the other on the right...but it's good to know the correct terminology and the practical application...otherwise when they DO get to real stereo recordings, using true stereo miking techniques, it will be even more confusing.

So where you been Bob...haven't seen you post that much lately?
Click to expand...
I have to disagree ..... yes, it is artificially derived from an original mono source ...... but regardless of its' origins ..... a stereo FX signal has to be run to 2 channels to be right which makes it stereo. Yes, the original git part is still mono .... but the final signal is indeed stereo as it contains different audio for each channel.

But yes, it's true that people think that merely having sound from each speaker is stereo and it's not. As mixsit pointed out ..... the key factor is are the two sides the exact same audio info or are they different? Mono is mono no matter how many tracks you put it on. But processing something from a mono track is such a way as to have the final result contain stereo info is still stereo in the end.

As for posting ...... I dunno. I'm kinda bored with the BBS thing right now. The current absurdity of HR's admins battling against their 'subjects' without bothering to tell them why irritates me plus I really don't seem to have much in common with anyone at the three boards I go to. I'm primarily a 'live' player rather than a recordist for one thing. I do record and have had a home studio since 1968 and I enjoy it but, for me, the real fun is playing. I catch a fair amount of shit about what lame gigs I must do or how I'm not a real player because I play covers as if that means I can't or don't write.
I'm just a bit tired of all the crap and have been finding better things to do with my time.

I imagine that'll pass ........
 
Lt. Bob said:
I have to disagree ..... yes, it is artificially derived from an original mono source ...... but regardless of its' origins ..... a stereo FX signal has to be run to 2 channels to be right which makes it stereo. Yes, the original git part is still mono .... but the final signal is indeed stereo as it contains different audio for each channel.
Click to expand...

Right...if you want to look at just the "stereo FX" and call that stereo. I'm looking at the original guitar signal...which is mono, and stays mono even if you apply a "stereo FX" to the signal, which in reality is no different than taking a mono guitar track, doubling it, applying some sort of "FX" or processing to each of the two tracks, and then panning them L/R.
That's not stereo...that's dual mono...and all those "stereo FX" presets in most pedals/boxes are just that...dual-mono, impersonating stereo. ;)

Again, it can be viewed as hair-splitting...I can accept it..and I do call it "stereo" too, just for the sake of continuity in a given discussion...but technically, it ain't real stereo as defined by studio recording techniques.
I know most live gig guys will call a guitar split to two amps "stereo"...and I know what they mean, and yeah, it's become common to say that...but.......

So...speaking of live gigs...I'm currently running down a couple of possible band situations to hook up with...not sure if they will be a good fit for me, as I've yet to meet with the guys, but if one of them works out, I'll be doing the live thing too, so you won't be so alone. :D
And I'm even going to "yield" to a degree, and do covers too...though I hope to at least give them some original "spin", rather than "just like the record". At least that's how the preliminary conversation went with one of the possible band situations.
 
miroslav said:
And I'm even going to "yield" to a degree, and do covers too...though I hope to at least give them some original "spin", rather than "just like the record". At least that's how the preliminary conversation went with one of the possible band situations.
Click to expand...
I never worry about doing things like the record other than to sing the words the audience wants to hear.
As for the rest ...... I play as well or better than whoever made most of these records and I certainly put my own spin on things. In particular I never worry about playing a solo like the record. As soon as you start doing that you're on the road to hating it.
I have to do this at least 4 or 5 nights a week and I don't want to be one of those guys that hates it so keeping it fresh for me is job #1.
The audience doesn't know or care as long as you play good and sing the words they want to hear. They'll even compliment you on your original take of a song.
There certainly can be some iconic ride that you need to be a lot like the record. Reelin' In The Years requires that intro lead for example ..... and if you're doing prog stuff, that stuff's very scripted so improvising is out of the question.
But for the vast majority of just every day covers ...... you can go pretty far afield.
 
Lt. Bob said:
As for the rest ...... I play as well or better than whoever made most of these records and I certainly put my own spin on things. In particular I never worry about playing a solo like the record. As soon as you start doing that you're on the road to hating it.
Click to expand...

YEah...isn't it funny how some guys will get all hung up on doing solos note for note...or the entire song for that matter. :D

I can respect a band that can nail something juts like the record, especially if it's a more complicated song/sound...but usually appreciate the bands that can put an original spin on a cover, and do it more justice than just sounding like the record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top