reverb and antiphase

[noisewreck]

When I view modern mastered mixes, specially american rock releases, their stereo field is rather narrow, usually sitting between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock.

Now, whenever I add reverb, stereo flanging/chorusing to anything, I invariably get some antiphase stuff happening.

My question is, does this stereo field get controlled at the mix stage or the mastering stage? If so, how? I've read Katz talking about phase alignment and such, but I am a bit confused. If you have a stereo mix, and you try phase align, I am assuming this means moving one side of the stereo track forward or backward in relation to the other one, most likely at the sample level. However, wouldn't this negatively impact what's in the center? Or is this just a simple matter of not having the reverb returns panned hard left/right?

Is this something one should worry about at the mixing stage? Ideally I wouldn't want to have the same narrow field as rock recordings, but I'd like to learn how control the antiphase stuff.

Please note this is all electronic music, no mics involved. The antiphase stuff I am referring to is strictly induced by reverb and the like.

--------EDIT: and this is my 666th post!----------
Whatever that means

 

[noisewreck]

So, 54 views and no one has any insight? Or is everyone scared of answering my 666th post? On a not so unrelated note, yesterday I went to the 7 Eleven, bought a bottle of Frappucino and a pack of Winstons, and the total came to exactly $6.66! WTF is going on with this number following me all over the place lately?

 

[blueroommusic]

When I view modern mastered mixes, especially american rock releases, their stereo field is rather narrow, usually sitting between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock.

how are you hearing that? most modern rock releases have a fairly wide stereo image...especially bands with two guitars...I usually pan my guitars fairly wide anywhere from 50-80% left or right, depending on the band and what the mix calls for.

If you have a stereo mix, and you try phase align, I am assuming this means moving one side of the stereo track forward or backward in relation to the other one, most likely at the sample level.

he might be talking about phase alignment as it relates to individual tracks...i've never seen anyone move the alignment of a stereo mix...that would fuck up a mix pretty badly.

Is this something one should worry about at the mixing stage?

you should set your stereo image during mixing...the Mastering Engineer will generally tweak any stereo widening effects...

hope this helps...

 

[XLR]

Not sure what you're asking. By "antiphase" do you mean comb filtering? Usually I've heard "antiphase" used as meaning specifically 180 degree phase reversal, in which case parts dissappear when summed.

I've noticed with some stereo verbs that they tend to dissappear when not panned hard left and right.

Tim

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I didn't answer, not because I took 666 to be an Omen, but because I too was not sure just what you were asking.

I can answer one of your questions; in my view 99.98% of the stereo imaging should be handled in mixing. In mastering, the ME may do some tweaking that helps sharpen the focus of the image (yay!), or may even apply some phasing tricks of his own to induce some false phsychoacoustic enhancement of the stereo image (boo!), but the setting of the L/R soundstage itself is a fundamental function of the mix engineer.

As far as the narrow image, that depends entirely upon the genre. "Rock" can mean almost anything these days. But you're riight in that most mainstream productions these days do not play around with the soundstage all that much. For the large majority of viewers in this forum for whom the different alloys of metal are the definition of "rock" and the maistream of their listening world, though, they are right in that the pan stage is treated in a much wider style.

The sound design stype of stuff you do, noisewreck, is a whole 'nother ball game in the the key is in using electronic synthesis and signal prcessing to create a soundscape that's interesting, but much more dynamically abstract than more conventional genres of music. All sorts of weird things can start happening when you start combining all sorts of multiple warping processes which are, at their base, mathematical in nature. You start winding up with "solutions" that divide by zero or multiply off to infinity or do other weird non-Eucledian things.

It just comes down to the fact that you are pushing the boudaries of the soundstage with the kind of stuff you do (a good thing, BTW), and I think you're just learning where some of those boundaries - or at least obsticles will not budge in the direction you're trying to go. It's like having an unlimited pallate of colors thhat your trying to Pollack onto a canvas, and you're discovering that some color combinations just don't work well together, or that if you add to many colors, no matter which ones, you'll just wind up with a muddy brown no matter what.

All I can give is the conventional advice: Understand that there are limits to what sounds work together and which ones don't, work within those limits to create a pleasing stereo image, and then check that image in mono to see if it still works there.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Well, I guess I'll have to provide some screenshots then

Glen, as much as I'd love to attribute this to some strange sound design/processing phenomena, it's not that. It's just simple addition of reverb. It doesn't sound "bad" and checks out fine in mono, as sounds don't disappear and I don't hear weird unintentional swishy phasey stuff.

 

[littledog]

I don't understand your question either. Could you define "antiphase"?

A lot of engineers pan certain elements hard left and right, at least on occasion. Are you saying that they don't, or that something happens somewhere in the process so that the whole stereo field gets narrowed?

If so, that hasn't happened on CD's that I've mixed.

But if you are saying that the vast majority of audio information is heard mostly between 10 and 2, that's not surprising nor unnatural. After all, if the kick, snare, bass, and lead vocals are more or less centered, that's a lot of energy right down the middle.

 

[Farview]

Stop looking at your phase meter. If it sounds good it is good.

 

[flatfinger]

I always wonder about mono compatibilty. I mean in this day and age, how many people are really listening in mono?? I like to make things as stereo as possible and will push the correlation and phase a little out than most because I just dig it and say to hell with mono. Suits me

 

[masteringhouse]

I'm thinking that antiphase is just a term for "out of phase"?

In mastering you do not have control of the individual tracks, just the relationship of the whole. Things like M/S processing during mastering can help, but not at the level of fixing it during the mixing stage where you have control over the relationship of a set of tracks being out of phase with one or more other tracks/effects.

 

[littledog]

By the way, the Dave Pensado (Black Eyed Peas, Christina Aguilera, Mary J. Blige, Pink, and a list a mile long) interview in the July 2006 Electronic Musician magazine has very interesting take on a number of issues.

Here is an excerpt relevant to this discussion:

"Recently I have become more aware of the effect of panning. Five years ago you had these big wide massive backgrounds that you used to hear on Babyface songs, but now they sound old and tired to us. I realized I liked my panning to be a little more compact now. As I brought stuff in [towards the center - littledog adds] the mixes started sounding leaner, more aggressive, more relevant.

If you listen to the Mary mix, you'll notice that it is basically a tight, compact mix that also has very selective things that are big and wide..."

It goes on from there, but the jist of it is that compact centrality in a mix implies a tougher hip-hop street aesthetic, while wide panning hints more at a high class elegance you might tend to use on a ballad by Celine or Mariah.

 

[Farview]

I always wonder about mono compatibilty. I mean in this day and age, how many people are really listening in mono?? I like to make things as stereo as possible and will push the correlation and phase a little out than most because I just dig it and say to hell with mono. Suits me

If you music is in danger of being played on the radio, it will sound like crap if it isn't mono compatable. With AM radio, the reason is obvious. With FM, the way the signal is processed and encoded, it is still necessary to have solid mono information.

My daughter has a Ford Escort, the way the cabin is shaped and the speakers are placed, the back speakers are sound mono in the drivers seat. If you are listening to a stereo in another room, you aren't hearing the music in stereo (at least not as intended) you are hearing how it is mixed together in the room and bouncing down the hall. The less mono compatable your mix is, the weaker it will sound in these types of circumstances.

 

[masteringhouse]

By the way, the Dave Pensado (Black Eyed Peas, Christina Aguilera, Mary J. Blige, Pink, and a list a mile long) interview in the July 2006 Electronic Musician magazine has very interesting take on a number of issues.

Yeah, I liked his quote "It is better to sound new than sound good".

Though IMHO it's even better to have both qualities.

 

[flatfinger]

I was only refering to "pushing" the M compatability; not throwing it out the window!


But assuming any of my stuff is ever in "danger" ( )concerning the broadcast environment, it will be the ME who gives in to the producer or the monkey at the controls of the MBC at the station who'll be responsible fo giving it the 50db or so dynamic range!!!!

 

[Farview]

I was only refering to "pushing" the M compatability; not throwing it out the window!


But assuming any of my stuff is ever in "danger" ( )concerning the broadcast environment, it will be the ME who gives in to the producer or the monkey at the controls of the MBC at the station who'll be responsible fo giving it the 50db or so dynamic range!!!!

The ME won't be able to do anything to help the mono compatability. The monkey at the radio station isn't going to reset the optimod just to play your song correctly. In fact, he probably hasn't touched the thing in a couple years.

 

[flatfinger]

The ME won't be able to do anything to help the mono compatability. The monkey at the radio station isn't going to reset the optimod just to play your song correctly. In fact, he probably hasn't touched the thing in a couple years.

Ok, OK, I'm sorry! I'll never even think of "dissi'n" or endangering the sacred mono compatibility again! I'll set up a small shrine in my abode and face whatever direction of the compass is appropriate and contemplate the holy mono compatibility for hours on end! Try not to be so pedantic about it

The fact is , after mixing, the most Lovely stereo panorama is going to be at the mercy of the ME and the broadcasters. One of the surest ways to destroy stereo image and depth is to over compress it.