Remastering mono to stereo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dafduc
  • Start date Start date
dafduc

dafduc

New member
Thanks everyone for the help with the choir miking.

Unfortunately, one of the mic chains misfired (I suspect the cable between my AudioBuddy and the VS-840), and I only got a mono recording. I get another shot today, but the organ isn't nearly as good, and our performance Friday was surprisingly non-crappy - can't count on that again...

So, if this is the only recording I can work with, how do I remaster to stereo? I have Sound Forge 6.0 w/ noise reduction. Plus a bunch of other stuff, but I expect SF will be where I'd want to do this work, rather than Cubase or on the 840.

Tips? Tricks? Traps? Tweaks?

Thanks,

Jay
 
I don't know about choir, but on a single instrument/voice I sometimes duplicate a track, pan the two tracks opposite each other, then add a 1 to 30ms delay to one of the tracks to simulate a stereo effect. It actually works quite well. Sometimes I'll also eq the two tracks differently ( a little goes a long way) to add to the effect. I first read about this "fattening" technique in "The Art of Mixing," by David Gibson.

According to Gibson, with a less than 30ms delay "...our brain and ears are not quick enough to hear two sounds; we only hear one fatter sound." He further states, "...fattening is the primary effect to make a sound stereo, which has a certain magic to it. When you put the original 'dry' instrument sound in one speaker and put a delay less than 30ms in the other speaker, it 'stretches' the sound in stereo between the speakers."

A different technique--for producing a bigger sound--is "doubling" (30 to 60ms delay).

Gibson: "Although doubling makes a sound seem like it has been played twice, it is a different sound than if you actually doubletrack a sound. In fact, doubling often sounds so precise that it sounds somewhat electronic. This is especially true on (single) vocals and simple sounds. However, if a sound is complex, especially if a sound is a combination of sounds (like a bunch of background vocals or a guitar sound with multiple mics), then you don't notice the precision of the delay. Therefore, when you put doubling on 20 vocals, it sounds like 40 vocals, and it sounds incredibly natural."

Hope this gets you started.
 
I noticed the WinAmp player yhat came with my windows XP came with 'SRS' which does stereo enhancement effects. Maybe you could send the mono-centered wav file through it and recapture it.
Wayne
 
Thanks.

It sounds like everything would still appear to be front and center, though. I'm guessing I'd have to EQ each side differently, to bring out different voice ranges and pipe ranks, but I'm not sure where to start.

Is EQ my only other tool for introducing separation? If so do I do Graphic? Parametric? Paragraphic? What would my centr points and Q be?
 
dafduc said:
Thanks.

It sounds like everything would still appear to be front and center, though. I'm guessing I'd have to EQ each side differently, to bring out different voice ranges and pipe ranks, but I'm not sure where to start.

Is EQ my only other tool for introducing separation? If so do I do Graphic? Parametric? Paragraphic? What would my centr points and Q be?
Click to expand...

Are all the voices and organ fairly well represented and balanced in the mono track? If so, get it sound as you would like (if it needs a bit of eq or shaping) and start with that, centered, as your foundation.
From there, there are some of the options already mentioned that you might try to bring up as stereo effect(s) behind it. But you're still just getting the allusions of stereo. Watch that it doesn't kill what's good about the true track as you add it in.
I'd play with it in one of the two programs. The primary center track, and a pair of 'effect' tracks.
If the source were dry enough, you might be able to taylor some stereo reverb, perhaps in the vein of a fairly short, medium-small room or hall reverb with a pre-delay to set it back behind them. Some verbs also have wider-than-normal setting/options. If this works at all, you can also try eq on the verb to minimize the highs and lows- trying to get the depth and spread effect with out it being noticed to much being the goal.. If it's already a diffused image, this might not go well though.
Somethings to start with.
Cheers
Wayne
 
Your not going to create a realistic stereo image with any tricks. The best you can do is the delay trick or add a touch of stereo reverb. Doing a bunch of EQ tricks would be counter productive to the sound as a whole.

Stereo is overrated. A great mono recording beats a phasey sounding stereo one anyday. But a slight delay can do wonders for making a track sound 'stereo'. Just be carefull of it sounding like a 'chorus' effect.
 
tdukex said:

Gibson: "Although doubling makes a sound seem like it has been played twice, it is a different sound than if you actually doubletrack a sound. In fact, doubling often sounds so precise that it sounds somewhat electronic. This is especially true on (single) vocals and simple sounds. However, if a sound is complex, especially if a sound is a combination of sounds (like a bunch of background vocals or a guitar sound with multiple mics), then you don't notice the precision of the delay. Therefore, when you put doubling on 20 vocals, it sounds like 40 vocals, and it sounds incredibly natural."
Click to expand...
Ah. The diffusion at the source helps make up for the simple echo.
Cool.
 
Thanks, people.

I'll get crackin'! Lots of good ideas.

The second night's recording went well, but, as I feared, the performance wasn't as good. Weak organ, plus the distance-induced delay spooked the organist, and sections missed some cues. But it was a more reverberent space (a good thing for choir + organ venues), and we had some issues with proximity to a PA mic the first night that we avoided the second night.

Final product will probably be a combination of the two nights. Vanity pressing only - can't see selling these outside the "family". I'll probably post some of the public domain stuff so y'all can tell me what I hosed up. <g>

Thx again.

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top