Theory on artificial BANDWIDTH achievement

[Abomination]

Theory: achieving a wide mix by copied tracks with different pan/volume/effects.
Setup: 2 original tracks panned CNT.
2 more tracks copied from the original but panned 50% L and R, 98Bpm delay applied, volume slightly higher than the original tracks. 2 more tracks copied, this time panned hard L/R with 128bpm delay applied, as well as some slight reverb, volume much much higher than the original tracks. Has anyone tryed this? Equipment used: Cakewalk ProAudio 9 & Sound Forge 7. Digital direct-in recordings from a MIDI synth unit.

 

[bennychico11]

have YOU tried it? on more than one project?
what are your results?


i assume it might be a cool effect, but perhaps not really do much except just increase the volume and phasing problems you will have. first off...delay is not measured in BPM but rather ms. So those numbers don't mean anything in this theory. second, the two original tracks panned center would have the same effect as taking one track and just increasing it 3dB. third, i also think you'd be battling too many phasing issues with that many tracks with different delays. might give a person a headache.

but who knows, i'm just speculating

 

[ecktronic]

Interesting idea. Might try it but also might not.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Band-Width <> Bandwidth

The term "bandwidth" referrs to frequency spread and/or information throughput capacity. It sounds like what you're trying to achieve is a "wall of sound"* type of effect where a sound from one source appears to be eminating from a wide area instead of a point location. While that may possbily be humorously slanged as "band width" (the physical width of the band's sound in the stereo sound field), it really has nothing to do with the technical term "bandwidth."

Interesting theory you have there, but there are a lot of questions/potential problems involved. First is, of you're talking about doing this with one instrument/original track, you're not leaving much room in the soundscape for everything else. Second is, if you're talking about mixing the whole mix down to a mono track and then applying all these delays and pans, you could still going to wind up with a centered mono sound that won't necessarily sound all that wide because of the Haas effect.

I'm with Benny, your bpm numbers mean nothing to me when talking about delay times. Without knowing your actual delay times, I can't say just what will actually happen, but if the delays are fairly "typical", you'll come across the Haas effect, sometimes known as the proximity effect. This is a psychoacoustic effect where then there are two panned signals with a slight delay between them, the first signal will be perceived as being louder than it actually is, regardless of the volume of the second signal. In theory this effect, when applied to your hypothetical setup, would tend to reinforce the perceived volume of the centered track(s), thus pushing the perceived emphasis back to the middle and reinforcing the centered mono sound.

Now perhaps this might be a trick that can be used to boost the perceived volume in the center without using up headroom and bypassing the RMS problem that everybody seems to be so concerned about this week, but the cost in stereo soundspace usage is extremely high.

But, Abomination, I'm just theorizing here as well. I have not tried it any more than you have. Again, I'm with Benny when he asks "Have you tried it?" It's not like it would be that hard to try, why not just try it and see what happens? That will be worth more than a million specualtive posts from us boneheads.

G.


*Not to be confued with the Phil Spector "Wall Of Sound" effect, which is completly different and was usually actullay done in mono.

 

[Abomination]

have YOU tried it? on more than one project?
what are your results?


i assume it might be a cool effect, but perhaps not really do much except just increase the volume and phasing problems you will have. first off...delay is not measured in BPM but rather ms. So those numbers don't mean anything in this theory. second, the two original tracks panned center would have the same effect as taking one track and just increasing it 3dB. third, i also think you'd be battling too many phasing issues with that many tracks with different delays. might give a person a headache.

but who knows, i'm just speculating

Actually, that delay in Cakewalk to my amusement also, states what I stated: bpm (those are two presets, I swear I'm not blind), 98 one is slightly shorter than 128, respectably. Also, it does make a difference to have two tracks than one CNT, because it is easier to copy (since you need 2 tracks later after all, 2 times) and you won't have to max out the volume, trying to sqeeze all you can out of one track. As for "Phrasing problems", I'm not quiet sure what you mean by that. My music is a mesh of electonic sequences to the most people, labelled as "Baroque in it's arrangement" very often by dipshits who run labels, webzines (read: NOT MUSICIANS), so I can see that more chaos and spontaneous delays created in the long run would be beneficial, in my case. Thanks for the input!

 

[Abomination]

But, Abomination, I'm just theorizing here as well. I have not tried it any more than you have. Again, I'm with Benny when he asks "Have you tried it?" It's not like it would be that hard to try, why not just try it and see what happens? That will be worth more than a million specualtive posts from us boneheads.

I have tryed it, it works for me!
I'm in a middle of mixing my whole next album like-wise!
it will eventually make it there:
http://www.audiostreet.net/cyberneticerosion

 

[ecktronic]

I have tryed it, it works for me!
I'm in a middle of mixing my whole next album like-wise!
it will eventually make it there:
http://www.audiostreet.net/cyberneticerosion

I think your mix might need a bit more work on the level control. Try using compression or volume automation. The tracks dont seem as one more like seperate tracks. Could be EQ issues though.

 

[bennychico11]

Actually, that delay in Cakewalk to my amusement also, states what I stated: bpm (those are two presets, I swear I'm not blind), 98 one is slightly shorter than 128, respectably. Also, it does make a difference to have two tracks than one CNT, because it is easier to copy (since you need 2 tracks later after all, 2 times) and you won't have to max out the volume, trying to sqeeze all you can out of one track. As for "Phrasing problems", I'm not quiet sure what you mean by that. My music is a mesh of electonic sequences to the most people, labelled as "Baroque in it's arrangement" very often by dipshits who run labels, webzines (read: NOT MUSICIANS), so I can see that more chaos and spontaneous delays created in the long run would be beneficial, in my case. Thanks for the input!

not phrasing...phasing. it's like a flanging effect with two different tracks. it has to do with how the two wave forms interact with eachother. similar frequencies and amplitudes can create this effect that can sometimes be cool and other times sound like crap. if you want to experiment with it, create two 1kHZ tones at the same amplitude. move one slightly forward in time and you will hear the sound change and even eventually cancel out.

The delay preset you see in cakewalk is probably just a general preset. the BPM you select probably is supposed to correspond with the tempo of your song and then will give you a quarter note, eighth not, etc. delay. It's just a preset, but because the tempo of songs vary all the time this won't work for everything you do. that's why it's better to figure out the milli-second delay based off of the tempo of the song you're working with. BPM isn't a reference of time but rather a counting system to figure out how many beats are in a minute. And this can change from song to song. MS (or milliseconds) is based on time because there are ALWAYS the exact same number of milliseconds in a second. that number never changes. what changes is just how much of that second you decide to use for a delay.

this probably made no sense to you whatsoever, because i'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to explain it. maybe someone else can help me.

 

[Abomination]

I think your mix might need a bit more work on the level control. Try using compression or volume automation. The tracks dont seem as one more like seperate tracks. Could be EQ issues though.

Those are not the examples of this particular attempt, that link is here just to show what I do. "Sincerety Vomit" had 4 tracks panned all crazy with different effects on them, but that is in the past, I just know that something worked out very nice and therefore I used it.
To everyone else: new revised artificial bandwidth (whatever you want to call it) recepie is :
2 tracks panned hard L/R
2 of the same tracks panned hard L/R, with delay/reverb added depending on your personal need and taste. Volumes are then adjusted to where the 1st group of no-effects tracks is merely a background of the mix. I hope this helps. I think it creates some kind of 3-D "tunnel" in the mix which is nice.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Those are not the examples of this particular attempt, that link is here just to show what I do. "Sincerety Vomit" had 4 tracks panned all crazy with different effects on them, but that is in the past, I just know that something worked out very nice and therefore I used it.
To everyone else: new revised artificial bandwidth (whatever you want to call it) recepie is :
2 tracks panned hard L/R
2 of the same tracks panned hard L/R, with delay/reverb added depending on your personal need and taste. Volumes are then adjusted to where the 1st group of no-effects tracks is merely a background of the mix. I hope this helps. I think it creates some kind of 3-D "tunnel" in the mix which is nice.

I'd ask you to call it something else altogether - how about "tunnel effect"? - because to reiterate, it has absolutely nothing to do with bandwidth.

I'm glad you cleared up that bit about your posted music not actually containing the effect, because I sat through an entire listen of "Vomit" and couldn't hear what you were talking about. I thought I was nuts.

Your new recipe is almost directly opposite of your first one. Before you had stuff going on at 0, 50% and 100% pan L/R, with your primary dry signal being at center. Now you have everything panned hard L/R only with the dry signal relegated to minor status. This is a completly different situation.

Also worth mentioning in your recipe is that you must be using stereo reverb/delay in this process, right? Because if you were sending mono signals to hard L/R, you'd just be using the "false center" effect (sometimes called "wide mono".) As it is, your dry signal panned hard L/R will still sum to center in false mono.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

Gave it a try on a stereo MASTER track. I added reverb and delay and a stereo widener. I mixed the original untouched track with the effected track making sure the effected track was quite a bit louder than the original track. Here is the result.

Track: "TEST"
Click on link below.

 

[bennychico11]

Gave it a try on a stereo MASTER track. I added reverb and delay and a stereo widener. I mixed the original untouched track with the effected track making sure the effected track was quite a bit louder than the original track. Here is the result.

Track: "TEST"
Click on link below.

hmmm, well i don't know how the original sounds so I don't know what parts of it are affect and what isn't...but I can't say I particularly like it. The delay is pretty distracting...cool effect maybe but not something I'd probably put on an entire mix.

 

[ecktronic]

Yeah I aint too into it either. Since the song was recorded without a click track the delay might seem a bit out at times, plus there is a delay on my guitar from the original mix and quite a bit of reverb already to make it sound quite atmospheric.
All it really is is adding delay and reverb and stereo widener. Not sure is thats what i was mean to do.
Thanks for the listen.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Gave it a try on a stereo MASTER track. I added reverb and delay and a stereo widener. I mixed the original untouched track with the effected track making sure the effected track was quite a bit louder than the original track. Here is the result.

I'd also wonder what it sounds like without the stereo phasing applied. Maybe my ears just aren't there (a distinct possibility ), but I can't tell for sure where the original "tunnel effect" ends and the stereo phasing begins.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

I'd also wonder what it sounds like without the stereo phasing applied. Maybe my ears just aren't there (a distinct possibility ), but I can't tell for sure where the original "tunnel effect" ends and the stereo phasing begins.
G.

By stereo phasing do you mean from adding a stereo widener? I cant hear any phasing. Only when in mono i can hear some phasing.

 

[bennychico11]

delay can be fun to mess around with.
something i like to do when doing commercial work is to add bit of delay on the L/R channels on the music track. set about a 6ms delay on L channel and 6.25ms on the R channel and adjust from there. making the mix 100% wet on the channel. sometimes it doesn't always work perfect, but many times it cuts a whole in the center of the field leaving room for the voice over to do his stuff while pushing the music back. of course, you have to check for mono compatibility.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

By stereo phasing do you mean from adding a stereo widener? I cant hear any phasing. Only when in mono i can hear some phasing.

Yeah, I meant widener. Most stereo enhancers/wideners acheive their desired effect by playing with phase between the left and right channels. This is a purposely induced phase modification, not a "phasing problem" like we are all used to talking about in this forum. Sorry if I was confusing there.

G.

 

[ecktronic]

Cool man.

 

[ecktronic]

delay can be fun to mess around with.
something i like to do when doing commercial work is to add bit of delay on the L/R channels on the music track. set about a 6ms delay on L channel and 6.25ms on the R channel and adjust from there. making the mix 100% wet on the channel. sometimes it doesn't always work perfect, but many times it cuts a whole in the center of the field leaving room for the voice over to do his stuff while pushing the music back. of course, you have to check for mono compatibility.

Woah MAJOR flange when trying this out. I used left delay at 6ms and right delay at 7ms. Couldnt get rid of any middle or vocals but. Just got very very thick flange which would be cool as a guitar effect.

 

[xfinsterx]

If i want a mix to sound wide, i combine near and far mics , double tracking, phase correction(nudging), creative compression, and of course the occasional extreme panning scheme.

-Finster