Regarding the human voice ....what is stereo? What is panning? What's the difference?
- Thread starter Weissey
- Start date
Sure...Gecko was spot-on, though he basically just told the OP that if he couldn't hear a difference, he was doing something wrong.
Newbs often have a hard time with small details and subtleties of recording, and they can also be overwhelmed by them.....but that's usually where a lot of the answers are found. You have to get detailed to see the differences in some things....like why mic A works better than mix B on something. That's the point of the discussion, to flush out all those details so they can understand why/where the subtleties exist.
I would like to point this part out though. It was a lot of reading to get through all this but this part I think is really good. Quite often I ask a question here and get a great answer, although as most of you have seen by my "he told me this so now I apply it to EVERYTHING EVER" approach that doesn't mean I always understand the full reason behind WHY I was given that answer. I know that's on me to figure out and not on you guys who are helping to make sure I understand every detail but I did want to point out that getting things down to the fine details can sometimes give the understanding of WHY you decided to do this over that and maybe helping people improve on the long term.
I'm staying out of the stereo/mono source part as I have nothing to contribute. I do enjoy reading things like this though as even if all the information isn't correct I walk away with a better understanding of the subject.
Beerhunter
Barley Processing Unit
You know that "In space no-one can hear you scream" thing? Think about it...
---------- Update ----------
Whooops, miro got there first.
So then there would be no stereo source I'm guessing... at least that you can hear with your ears. What if a trigger (transducer) was attached to a snare drum in space? Would the trigger work? I'm thinking it would but I really don't know.
OK, bad example. The point i was trying to make is that when recording with a spaced pair it is the room sound you are recording and not the source directly. Close mic'ing would be different as the sound would reach the mic before the walls etc...
...anyways just my understanding so no need to get your panties in a knot
rob aylestone
Moderator
I'm going to simply change 'stereo source' to 'non-point source' and that should avoid the potholes.
Back in the seventies, I had a Hofner Verithin Stereo guitar - one pickup left, the other pickup right and the pickups adjusted to give emphasis to the low strings on one, with the higher ones progressively quieter - and vice-versa on the other. Sounded kind of weird.
Back in the seventies, I had a Hofner Verithin Stereo guitar - one pickup left, the other pickup right and the pickups adjusted to give emphasis to the low strings on one, with the higher ones progressively quieter - and vice-versa on the other. Sounded kind of weird.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
First off .... stereo is NOT something that's confined to stereo playback systems.
All animals with two ears hear in stereo which is the mechanism by which they tell where some sound is coming from.
So stereo is an inherent fact in how we listen and perceive sound.
As for instruments ... I go back to a grand piano as an excellent example of something that cannot be considered a point source and could be considered a stereo source.
You have approximately 240 strings, all of which are in different physical locations as much as around 4 feet apart at the extremes.
Then you have strings that are radiating sound all along the length of the string ........ up to maybe around 8 feet in a 9' grand at the bass end.
Then you have radiating sections of the soundboard which clearly radiate different freq's at different areas of the soundboard.
So you have all these sounds that are coming from different sections of a pretty large area ...... there's no way that can be considered a point source.
I suppose it could be argued that technically you should consider each string a separate sound source but even then you have strings that are radiating along their length and the different areas of the soundboard.
Absolutely no way a grand piano is a point source ....... which is also somewhat evident in the fact that a single mic on a grand piano does NOT do a good job of capturing it.
And some of those same principals exist on an acoustic guitar also.
While I have already said that I mostly record everything in mono and get good results ...... that still doesn't make these instruments point sources ...... they're very clearly not.
the same is true of an acoustic guitar although the area involved is MUCH smaller.
All animals with two ears hear in stereo which is the mechanism by which they tell where some sound is coming from.
So stereo is an inherent fact in how we listen and perceive sound.
As for instruments ... I go back to a grand piano as an excellent example of something that cannot be considered a point source and could be considered a stereo source.
You have approximately 240 strings, all of which are in different physical locations as much as around 4 feet apart at the extremes.
Then you have strings that are radiating sound all along the length of the string ........ up to maybe around 8 feet in a 9' grand at the bass end.
Then you have radiating sections of the soundboard which clearly radiate different freq's at different areas of the soundboard.
So you have all these sounds that are coming from different sections of a pretty large area ...... there's no way that can be considered a point source.
I suppose it could be argued that technically you should consider each string a separate sound source but even then you have strings that are radiating along their length and the different areas of the soundboard.
Absolutely no way a grand piano is a point source ....... which is also somewhat evident in the fact that a single mic on a grand piano does NOT do a good job of capturing it.
And some of those same principals exist on an acoustic guitar also.
While I have already said that I mostly record everything in mono and get good results ...... that still doesn't make these instruments point sources ...... they're very clearly not.
the same is true of an acoustic guitar although the area involved is MUCH smaller.
Beerhunter
Barley Processing Unit
Here's a sound source for ya
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I beleive that even the term "point source" is not 100% valid, since sound is not a "beam"...rather it's a wave, and so that "point source" is a moving thing, and based on frequency and amplitude, it is ever changing.
So...it really comes down to just usng the term "sound source"...and dropping all this "stereo source" or "point source" stuff....as SeaGTGruff was suggesting a few posts back.
The term "stereo" was/is purely a recording and playback system description, and it only provides L/R information....whereas human hearing is a three-dimensional process.
We can hear sounds all around us and can distinguish not just L/R direction, but also vertical and front to back....basically, we can localize sound spherically.
Stereo recording and playback can't do that....so no, we don't hear in stereo.
Surround sound recording and playback tries to more accurately mimic how we hear....but it too doesn't do a complete job.
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
A point source does not have to be a beam. The LED power indicator on your computer monitor is a point source of light. The monitor itself is the optical equivalent of a grand piano.
I didn't understand any of that.
Rod Norman
New member
It's easy to get confused. Each sound starts as monaural. That is a single sound source that sounds the same no matter where you are relative to the room. AS you move away from the sound source, the room's characteristics come into play. Few rooms are entirely and perfectly symmetrical so the sound is different the further you get away (up to a point where you are so far away the volume begins to drop.) So an acoustic guitar can benefit from stereo only if the room is affecting the signals that would reach your right ear at the same time another signal reaches your left ear. The instrument's size can affect the result as well. A piccolo versus a guitar vs an upright bass vs a grand piano vs a drum set. Each gets bigger. (I placed the drum set last because the sound source is both multiple and arranged far apart.) They are about the same. As the sound source gets bigger the effect on the room changes slightly causing the stereo effect to be slightly different. The simple explanation is the sound source + anything that affects the sound on its way to your left and right ear = stereo. Based on that, even a monaural signal piped to two speakers or headphones are actually stereo, they are just identical left/right mixes. To create a false sense of stereo, some devices alter the left/right signal to create a sense of depth and width. So, if you are recording a vocalist in a booth, use one mic. If a singer in a room who is not dead center, you can try stereo mics equidistant from the source and spread apart to create a footprint that is an equilateral triangle (See? You should have paid attention in school.) A band is a premixed single stereo sound source because it is more than one source, in a large room, and spread widely apart making it a single source, large and affected differently by the environment (room) I hope that isn't too confusing. Most everyone else is giving you the same information. Good luck,
Rod Norman
Engineer
Rod Norman
Engineer
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I didn't say it had to be a beam.
Almost anything can be viewed as "point source".
Step back 10 feet from your computer monitor, and it's not all that wide looking anymore.....it can be viewed as a point source, just like the LED. If you stand right up against a piano, the sound will feel wide.....but if you're sitting in the 20th row of a theater, it will not.
But that's not the real issue here.
The problem here, and why I say it's not 100% accurate in the way it's being used, is that some people are using the term to differentiate "point sources" from "stereo sources" (which don't exist)...as if some things emit sound as a point and others as stereo....which makes no sense.
Every sound wave starts from a point source as a spherical wave...and usually there are many different sound waves from most things that emit sound.
What some here see as "single" source (like a voice), actually has multiple point sources, and not just a single point because there are different internal body parts that come together, each one acting as a point source for a sound wave emission.
Also...as each sound wave starts out from its point source, it interacts with other waves, and anything/everything in it's path, and then those reflections (more point sources) are then combined with the originals....so what we hear is no longer just one sound, and it's almost never from any single point source....but a multitude of sounds from many point sources.
I think the term "point source" may be confusing for some, as it can lead them to think that sound comes from something as a linear wave...and maybe that's also due to the DAW revolution where sound has become a "visual" thing, and "seen" as a two-dimensional product.
Anyway...we're now going a bit off on a tangent (which is fine)....I was mainly looking to point out that AFA as sound emission is concerned, there is nothing that makes one source "stereo" and another "point"....that's what's not accurate here.
The answer to the original question - "What is Stereo?" - I think has been clearly diefined for some time now (long before this thread)....and it's simply a term used for recording and playback processes....aka mic and speaker configurations and mixing processes. "Stereo" has nothing to do with sound sources, though some folks want to believe it does.
MrWrenchey
New member
Just gonna drop this off right here real quick...
https://www.google.com/search?q=def...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=def...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
MrWrenchey
New member
Just got to page 5 and got sick of Miros explanations that are false from my understanding, so let me explain what stereo means in a different way that other people have tried to say.
I'll take the example someone else used of marimbas and harps in an anechoic chamber.
Marimbas and harps and pianos and drums have multiple sources. There are multiple (I don't know the correct term for this on marimbas) keys that you can hit on a Marimba . If you were to stand directly in front of a marimba, you'd hear the notes move from left to right. Same with a piano, same with a harp, same with a drum SET. Because they are composed of multiple sound sources, but are considered one instrument, it's stereo.
Now. Put yourself in front of a singer or a guitar cabinet in an anechoic chamber. Move yourself forwards or backwards in the room, that sound will still sound like it's coming from one place. There is no left to right, up or down, ANY movement.
What YOU are saying is a sound becomes a stereo sound source because it's got reverb as a spatial cue. That's not true. If you were to record a vocal in an anechoic chamber as I've stated, with a stereo mic technique, unless the person is running from side to side in the room while talking, the sound will stay center. It will be mono when panned hard left and right. Do you see what everyone is saying yet? If you were to add reverb with a plug-in or reverb box, that sound will now be stereo (unless you're using mono FX of course).
If you record drums without moving the sources around (same as the vocal), you WILL get different stereo cues, because the snare isn't in the same spot as the hi hat or the ride. They will move left to right because of it, regardless of any processing you add to it.
In other words, a vocal and an acoustic guitar are both technically mono sources. Greg and others are not saying you can't record those in stereo for spatial cues because of things like reverb existing in environments, but those are still mono sources. One sound source. The only way you could REALLY call an acoustic stereo is if you're close enough to differentiate strings positioning by being that friggin' close to the guitar, but you get my point now, yes?
Some things are stereo sources because they have more than one element emitting sound. Multiple strings across 8 feet for a piano, a harp has multiple strings, marimba multiple "keys." That is what a stereo source is.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
EDIT (as I'm reading the rest of the posts to give my views on them):
Farview's response on page 6 (#53) is essentially a more concise way of saying what I said, but I'm hoping by giving a longer explanation, it'll work to better the understanding.
That's how the internet works, right? xD
Jimmy's response on page 7 (#67) is also true, just a different way of stating what I'm saying. But in his example, things like keys and strings are the single mono source. But no one asks how to mic a single marimba key or a single piano string, they ask how to mic the instrument. Only kind of exception would be drums, where the overhead mics are stereo, but we often close mic the individual mono sources, but that's just to give them more presence in the recording if the stereo overheads didn't capture enough of any given element.
gecko zedd on page 8 (#74) kinda took it out of context when he said taking an instrument out into a field would still be stereo because birds are chirping and junk, when the guy's point was that an INSTRUMENT would be essentially "mono" at that point, and had nothing to do with outside influence. This is one of the silly semantics things that I see happening on here often, people aren't taking the spirit of the post into consideration, they are just literally interpreting every word meant as it's exact definition instead of trying to interpret what was said. Of course, then it was followed by people saying if you recorded in a literal vacuum there is no sound that will happen, when again, Beerhunter was just trying to make a point of if there are no spatial cues such as reverb or something, then a specific sound source could be mono.
Alright, all caught up on everyone's debating. Enjoy, I'm sure I'll be back to see how people try to tear apart my analysis.
I'll take the example someone else used of marimbas and harps in an anechoic chamber.
Marimbas and harps and pianos and drums have multiple sources. There are multiple (I don't know the correct term for this on marimbas) keys that you can hit on a Marimba . If you were to stand directly in front of a marimba, you'd hear the notes move from left to right. Same with a piano, same with a harp, same with a drum SET. Because they are composed of multiple sound sources, but are considered one instrument, it's stereo.
Now. Put yourself in front of a singer or a guitar cabinet in an anechoic chamber. Move yourself forwards or backwards in the room, that sound will still sound like it's coming from one place. There is no left to right, up or down, ANY movement.
What YOU are saying is a sound becomes a stereo sound source because it's got reverb as a spatial cue. That's not true. If you were to record a vocal in an anechoic chamber as I've stated, with a stereo mic technique, unless the person is running from side to side in the room while talking, the sound will stay center. It will be mono when panned hard left and right. Do you see what everyone is saying yet? If you were to add reverb with a plug-in or reverb box, that sound will now be stereo (unless you're using mono FX of course).
If you record drums without moving the sources around (same as the vocal), you WILL get different stereo cues, because the snare isn't in the same spot as the hi hat or the ride. They will move left to right because of it, regardless of any processing you add to it.
In other words, a vocal and an acoustic guitar are both technically mono sources. Greg and others are not saying you can't record those in stereo for spatial cues because of things like reverb existing in environments, but those are still mono sources. One sound source. The only way you could REALLY call an acoustic stereo is if you're close enough to differentiate strings positioning by being that friggin' close to the guitar, but you get my point now, yes?
Some things are stereo sources because they have more than one element emitting sound. Multiple strings across 8 feet for a piano, a harp has multiple strings, marimba multiple "keys." That is what a stereo source is.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
EDIT (as I'm reading the rest of the posts to give my views on them):
Farview's response on page 6 (#53) is essentially a more concise way of saying what I said, but I'm hoping by giving a longer explanation, it'll work to better the understanding.
That's how the internet works, right? xD
Jimmy's response on page 7 (#67) is also true, just a different way of stating what I'm saying. But in his example, things like keys and strings are the single mono source. But no one asks how to mic a single marimba key or a single piano string, they ask how to mic the instrument. Only kind of exception would be drums, where the overhead mics are stereo, but we often close mic the individual mono sources, but that's just to give them more presence in the recording if the stereo overheads didn't capture enough of any given element.
gecko zedd on page 8 (#74) kinda took it out of context when he said taking an instrument out into a field would still be stereo because birds are chirping and junk, when the guy's point was that an INSTRUMENT would be essentially "mono" at that point, and had nothing to do with outside influence. This is one of the silly semantics things that I see happening on here often, people aren't taking the spirit of the post into consideration, they are just literally interpreting every word meant as it's exact definition instead of trying to interpret what was said. Of course, then it was followed by people saying if you recorded in a literal vacuum there is no sound that will happen, when again, Beerhunter was just trying to make a point of if there are no spatial cues such as reverb or something, then a specific sound source could be mono.
Alright, all caught up on everyone's debating. Enjoy, I'm sure I'll be back to see how people try to tear apart my analysis.
Last edited:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah....you and many others have personal "understandings" that you then try to turn into fact/science, based purely on how you individually interpert what "stereo" means.
Tell you what, like I've said a few times to others...JUST LOOK IT UP...and don't take "Miro's explinations" as any fact.
If you guys spent as much time actually looking up the facts & science as you do just trying to counter my posts....this topic would have been agreed on 3 pages ago.
There is no such thing as a "stereo source"....please go find one definition anywhere that refers to any sound as a stereo source (other than a HI Fi system)
That's about as simple as it gets....
People are trying to define some sources as "stereo"....purley by how they choose to MIC those sources...but that doesn't make a source "stereo"...in only defines which recordingt technique you chose.
Beerhunter
Barley Processing Unit
Violin = mono source
Cello = mono source
Clarinet = mono source
Orchestra = stereo source
one note on a piano - mono source
chord on a piano - stereo source
I dont know! I'm just making shit up
Cello = mono source
Clarinet = mono source
Orchestra = stereo source
one note on a piano - mono source
chord on a piano - stereo source
I dont know! I'm just making shit up
It's shocking how some just don't understand this simple concept. More likely they refuse to understand because they just gotta be right.
MrWrenchey
New member
It's shocking how some just don't understand this simple concept. More likely they refuse to understand because they just gotta be right.
Seriously. Like I said, he's getting caught up on what the internet says about a stereo source claiming that since nowhere says "stereo source" for anything outside of recording, there's no such thing, but we are TALKING about recording, so I don't know what his hang up on that is.
I guess I'll clarify further. In a RECORDING sense, what I stated is not an opinion, it's fact. Feel better now? I do not understand what your deal is. We are trying to help a new guy out with recording, not with whether or not the internet has a specific definition for stereo source that encapsulates all of creation in every scenario possible.
Amen brutha. Well said.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I know what "stereo" means in RECORDING....and have said it in this thread multiple times.
There's no question or argument there...it's a mic technique used to create a stereo recording and/or a playback system.
That's not the debate.
The error for some here comes in attempting to define some sources specifically as "stereo sources"....and other sources as not "stereo sources".
There is NO difference in sound sources....look it up.
Why simply ignore that and insist that there are...?
There are no sources that emit sound in "stereo"...none, nada, zip...and that's an audio fact.
Look it up.
It's got nothing to do with just not seeing the term "stereo sources" on the internet.....it's simply that "stereo sources" DON'T exist.
"Stereo mic/recording techniques", and "stereo playback" are valid terms and processes that do exist.
It's a question of accuracy in audio terminology and definitions....which also provides understanding to newbs who may be looking for answers.
You guys want to "roll your own" terms and definitions because that's how YOU see it.
Fine...but don't sell it as audio fact.
But it's OK....I know the push back here for a few people is purely based on personal stuff, and I don't expect those folks to ever accept any of this coming from me...
...which is why I say LOOK IT UP.