STEREO: OK, Im stupid...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barometer
  • Start date Start date
Barometer - I want to 2nd what Tex said about recording the rhythym guitar twice. In addition to the panning placement you are looking for, it will also give you a fullness you won't believe. You can get decent effects by copying the track and using delays, but having the track played and recorded twice is the way to go!
 
"You would get one mono track, effectively, only 6 dB louder. If you then panned those tracks hard Left and Right, you would hear one track coming from the center, and, assuming your gear is set to reduce tracks panned center by -3 dB, the same loudness as just one track panned center. "

how do you know if you softwear does this?

Im using Logic Audio Platinum 5.0.
If i pan a track 100 L or R, it should reduce the volume by -3dba?
i somehow recall myself havin to reduce the volume manually, but maybe i was just tricking myself into thinking it was louder, just becuase it sounded different and i wasn't used to the sound.
 
Thanks again everyone, this is great stuff.

So does the same apply to backup and lead vocals if I want to do the same as the guitar example. I should mono record the backups twice and pan those out? What about the EQ on the backup or rhythm tracks? I'm sure I have more to ask, but I'm getting tired. I'll post again tomorrow :D
 
Last edited:
Phyl said:
Great explanation Mike.

One follow up question - when recording in stereo (two mikes), would you record each mike to a separate track or would you use a single stereo track (SONAR allows this). Any advantage to either method?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Phyl, while i don't know Sonar, in general it doesn't matter - it's usually a question of convenience.

With a stereo track, it's easier to use plug-ins like EQ or compression to treat both sides equally. Same is true for volume automation. With two mono tracks, you'd have to use two instantiations of the plug in, and duplicate the settings. Or else send the outputs of both to a stereo aux return and use the plug-ins on that. Which brings us to the other main advantage - economy of screen real-estate on your virtual mixer.

If for some reason you need to deal with the tracks seperately, (like if one side only had some noise you were trying to reduce) almost all systems allow you to split the stereo track into two mono tracks at any time. Worse case, you could simply do a digital bounce and record the stereo tracks to two new mono tracks. But it shouldn't be necessary.
 
Barometer said:
So does the same apply to backup and lead vocals if I want to do the same as the guitar example. I should mono record the backups twice and pan those out? What about the EQ on the backup or rhythm tracks? I'm sure I have more to ask, but I'm getting tired. I'll post again tomorrow :D
Click to expand...

I like doubling backup vocals that way but it can be bit much on lead vocals. Sometimes it's cool on a chorus or bridge to help that part stand out but it can be a little overwhelming if used on all the lead vocals. The new Sheryl Crow song "Soak up the Sun" does that on the entire lead vocal and I personally find it a little annoying.

For EQ, whatever works.

You can use the effects of diffusion on panning to your advantage in cases where you want to leave the middle open but you don't want it to sound too obviously double tracked or panned. Thats where hard panning backup vocals and adding a bit of reverb can really help them sit nicely in the mix.

Ambi- I'm not sure I understand your question.
 
High !

Just one more thing that I (being a real compression addict :D)find rather helpful: if you wanna use the double tracking technique, make sure that the stuff is properly compressed. Otherwise you'll have a rather improper stereo image, as everything swaps from left to right and vice versa. If you are VERY exact in playing/singing, it may work, but I had the impression, that it works much better with rather hard compression of the two independent tracks (DON't compress as stereo as thenyou'll not change the stereo image). You probably should use a rather low threshold as you don't wanna take of peaks but reduce the overall dynamics of each track.

Why may it help: the volume changes (that are never exactly in time) in every track get smoothed out, so there will be a far more consistent volume on each side and this leads to a more precise stereo image. BUT: by coompressing, you'll get up the room ambience a lot, so you might loose some of the placement you want... A lot of the effect is just the feeling that you are 'in' the instrument and that won't work so nice with too much ambience (IMHO).

And maybe this is the reason why Tex doesn't like the Cheryl Crow song (that I have to admit not to know :() : probably it is quite heavvily compressed and many guys find that boring to the ear... (Just an assumption)

Ciao,

aXel
 
:D Double posting is quite a cool way of improving ones post count, isn't it :D
 
Ambi, TRK - "Ambi- I'm not sure I understand your question." -

This is probably because after re-reading my comment on panning vs. volume, I've come to the conclusion that I'm going completely bug-fucked.

Normal pan-pots on analog mixers do change the level based on pan position, but I definitely was in the middle of a massive brain-fart when I tried to explain it. What they REALLY do, is to lower the level by typically 3dB when you pan something CENTER, so the added volume caused by the sound coming from two sources doesn't appear to get any louder. So, in the preceding post I was pretty much farting in the wind at that point. What I SHOULD have said, was that panning those two identical tracks hard left and right would give you an effective MONO track coming from the center of the sound field, but since the pan pots DECREASE levels when panned center, they would INCREASE the level of each panned mono track by the same 3dB, giving you a LOUDER center image than a single, center-panned track would have. Other than that, there would be no difference in sound since both tracks in this hypothetical case are identical.

this is why you use your ears to mix - knowledge helps to accomplish this, but the bottom line is to just make it sound good.

As far as your software is concerned, most SW does this. If your help files can't shed some light on it (rebuild your search index and choose maximum search capabilities) then search on "pan", "level", or any other key word you think might bring up info on panning compensation. If you get nothing, you could input a steady state tone and record it mono, then place your Radio Shack Sound Pressure Level Meter (you do HAVE one of those, right?) on the desk in front of the mix position. Disconnect the right speaker, and pan the signal back and forth. If your virtual mixer is set up correctly, you should see a 3 dB drop in level when the signal is panned center. This experiment won't work if you leave both speakers connected, since the object of the level change vs panning is to maintain apparent level at any pan position.

Man, I gotta stop posting after drying my hair in the microwave on high... Steve
 
That's a cool idea with the microwave - or should I say a hot one ...
 
Thanks mucho guys, this is getting better and better.
The compression post is very helpful volltreffer. I think I'm going to abasorb some of this and play with it before I ask for more. Thanks again, great information everyone :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top