Native Audio Too Wide?

[diaper@ky]

Just wanted to see if others who venture into live performance noticed how much more focused Native synths get when Summing to hardware or using something like Mono Maker from BX Digital.

I usually use 3.1 arrays, even 3.1 for Stage monitor rig.
Tried this with my sampled instruments and instead of using native FX use hardware and SHARC DSPs.
The sound was always behind the Analog hardware synths in the array, this really helped.
Almost as if it were in the back of the cabinet and not the cone.
Using 24 driver IEMs so I never noticed when mixing at home, but finally set up the array with the console and starting running Zebra2 and Diva through a Radial Tube Mixer and damn, they sound like real voltage runs through them.

Just thought I'd share my pleasure.
One happy camper with u-He synths.

[stardustmedia]

Just wanted to see if others who venture into live performance noticed how much more focused Native synths get when Summing to hardware or using something like Mono Maker from BX Digital.

Do you mean native synths like Diva, or synths from Native (Instruments)? I guess you talk about synth plugins.

Of course all wide stereo sounds will get more focused when mono-ing them (e.g. with Mono Maker). But a mono sound won't change at all when making it mono Some sounds should be mono, others can be stereo and wide.

I wouldn't say that my synths sound more focused when I sum them with my SSL Xdesk. A little different, maybe. There are a lot of threads around all forums around the world about that topic. But there is no difference in sound if you sum in the studio or during a live performance. Maybe you play better live, because of the stage fever and adrenalin

My experience: It's not worth it to just sum analog for the sake of it. But mixing analog is a real difference. Processing the channels with analog EQ, comp, etc. and using real hardware FX. But then I would never compare it 100% with an ITB mix anymore. Totally different work approach with totally different tools. Working with analog feels better. On the other hand, you don't have Total Recall of your session. And so on and on and on... a lot of cons and pros.

I usually use 3.1 arrays, even 3.1 for Stage monitor rig.
Tried this with my sampled instruments and instead of using native FX use hardware and SHARC DSPs.
The sound was always behind the Analog hardware synths in the array, this really helped.
Almost as if it were in the back of the cabinet and not the cone.
Using 24 driver IEMs so I never noticed when mixing at home, but finally set up the array with the console and starting running Zebra2 and Diva through a Radial Tube Mixer and damn, they sound like real voltage runs through them.

So you compared sampled instruments (from a different source instrument?) run thru plugins with a sound from Diva/Zebra running thru your Radial Tube mixer? Doesn't make much sense to compare apples and organic wild strawberries Or did you sample Diva and then compared the sample with Diva and found a difference?

[diaper@ky]

Nope, nothing so scientific or nullifying.

Just wanted to get sounds from my PC to have the presence and power of my hardware.
Rarely got a chance to confirm my suspicions until recently.
Worked out great, especially disabling Native FX which helped immensely.

It was our FOH who pointed out that sounds from the PCs 4 sends were lacking.
Which is why we decided on down time to run the Array in mono, with and without Subs.
Couldn't EQ Channels for a fix, which is why we used BX Digital and disabled all FX.

Just sharing what worked.

[Chris-S]

Indeed many hardware synths are mono and stereo FX have been added in the mixing stage, so that it sounds nice in the mix.

Presets of modern soft synth are often flooded in FX so that they sound great solo but maybe too washed in the mix.

So, there's nothing wrong to narrow the synth's output either by turing the internal FX off or by using stereo-to-mono tools.