I didn't wanna be the one to say anything..
What do commercial production studios do on stereo imaging?
-
- Banned
- 6127 posts since 1 Apr, 2004 from Et in Arcadia Ego
I didn't wanna be the one to say anything..
-
- KVRAF
- 6596 posts since 21 Jun, 2004 from Secret Underground Hideout
Well, stereofyin the guitar in Tire Swing drowned out the wimpy vocals, so I've been fixin that.
I'll sure look at Stardust later. I thought it was a watered down Final Mix.
Why would anyone want to play songs in mono? I know there's AM, but that's talk radio. I guess there's the times when the FM stereo craps out. I don't get listening to music on the radio anyway.
I'll sure look at Stardust later. I thought it was a watered down Final Mix.
Why would anyone want to play songs in mono? I know there's AM, but that's talk radio. I guess there's the times when the FM stereo craps out. I don't get listening to music on the radio anyway.
-
- KVRist
- 138 posts since 1 Oct, 2004 from Atlanta, GA
Using plugins one can get great results for sound but no way can this approach compete with the hardware equipment most major commercial studios use. You cant even find some of the hardware that the bigger studios use and if you can find it it is so extremely expensive. Thank god for plugins though because they provide great results for most of us that do not have record deals or can afford studio time.
-
- KVRian
- 1219 posts since 12 Aug, 2002
Two things...
When I first started exploring digital systems for audio, my first reaction to a digital mix when compared to good desk mixes was, "Huh...what's up with the stereo???" They sounded so closed, despite the fact that my engineering approach was basically the same. I *loved* the editing, and the relative ease with which you could assemble alternate mixes...but I had real issues with soundstage presentation and stereo correlation...and though I hate to say it, the summing always sounded better through the desk. I am still firmly of the opinion that nothing beats a good analog desk for sweet soundstaging and mix summing.
Second thing...
Early digital clocking sounded...well...like ass. It is much better today *but*, if you were to drop the dosh for a really good digital clock master, you should *immediately* notice better stereo correlation and sharper imaging, and a more open, defined mix presentation with an improved sense of separation and depth of space.
I am always hesitant to drop brand names too freely in case some poor sod goes right off and purchases something without actually taking the time to listen to the thing first...but in this case I believe sooo much in what I'm saying here I'm going to drop my guard.
If you can not aquire a decent analog desk to buss your edited digital tracks out to for mix summing, or it is simply too impractical due to space limitations, then work some overtime so you can pick up Apogee Electronic's Big Ben master clock generator, and slave clock every single piece of digital gear you have to it. Folks, a good digital clock will totally open up your DAW experience...you will get your bleeding stereo back and mixes will go more smoothly and quickly because of it. If you have to do without new VST plugins for a year it will have been worth it.
I totally shelved digital summing until the fine folks at Aardvark came up with their low jitter clock, then it was like, "Oh...maybe I'll give this digital thing another bit of a go..."
The Apogee clock is absolutely breathtaking. Hands down *the* best piece of digital gear in the studio.
When I first started exploring digital systems for audio, my first reaction to a digital mix when compared to good desk mixes was, "Huh...what's up with the stereo???" They sounded so closed, despite the fact that my engineering approach was basically the same. I *loved* the editing, and the relative ease with which you could assemble alternate mixes...but I had real issues with soundstage presentation and stereo correlation...and though I hate to say it, the summing always sounded better through the desk. I am still firmly of the opinion that nothing beats a good analog desk for sweet soundstaging and mix summing.
Second thing...
Early digital clocking sounded...well...like ass. It is much better today *but*, if you were to drop the dosh for a really good digital clock master, you should *immediately* notice better stereo correlation and sharper imaging, and a more open, defined mix presentation with an improved sense of separation and depth of space.
I am always hesitant to drop brand names too freely in case some poor sod goes right off and purchases something without actually taking the time to listen to the thing first...but in this case I believe sooo much in what I'm saying here I'm going to drop my guard.
If you can not aquire a decent analog desk to buss your edited digital tracks out to for mix summing, or it is simply too impractical due to space limitations, then work some overtime so you can pick up Apogee Electronic's Big Ben master clock generator, and slave clock every single piece of digital gear you have to it. Folks, a good digital clock will totally open up your DAW experience...you will get your bleeding stereo back and mixes will go more smoothly and quickly because of it. If you have to do without new VST plugins for a year it will have been worth it.
I totally shelved digital summing until the fine folks at Aardvark came up with their low jitter clock, then it was like, "Oh...maybe I'll give this digital thing another bit of a go..."
The Apogee clock is absolutely breathtaking. Hands down *the* best piece of digital gear in the studio.
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders - Lao Tzu
-
- KVRer
- 7 posts since 3 Mar, 2005
I am very much interested in this Apogee clock you mentioned. I had a look around the specs on the Apogee sight, but I can't figure out how you would slave your computer to such a device. Is there a pci card for yours?kilroy wrote: \snip\
If you can not aquire a decent analog desk to buss your edited digital tracks out to for mix summing, or it is simply too impractical due to space limitations, then work some overtime so you can pick up Apogee Electronic's Big Ben master clock generator, and slave clock every single piece of digital gear you have to it. Folks, a good digital clock will totally open up your DAW experience...you will get your bleeding stereo back and mixes will go more smoothly and quickly because of it. If you have to do without new VST plugins for a year it will have been worth it.
I totally shelved digital summing until the fine folks at Aardvark came up with their low jitter clock, then it was like, "Oh...maybe I'll give this digital thing another bit of a go..."
The Apogee clock is absolutely breathtaking. Hands down *the* best piece of digital gear in the studio.
-MCOst
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Clock doesn't do anything for audio tracks, though, does it?
-
- KVRAF
- 3345 posts since 8 Nov, 2003 from Amsterdam
It probably does for the effects you're applying. modulation, delay, etc. are all clock-based...Lunch Money wrote:Clock doesn't do anything for audio tracks, though, does it?
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
A master clock is completely (and I mean it: completely!) useless in case you're only running one piece of digital hardware - which for most people on KVR should be the case. It'd be nothing but a waste of money.
Also, I can't exactly agree on the summing bits kilroy wrote about.
If you want results to truly sound "better" (while even that term would remain to be a questionable one - let alone it'll never be proveable) you'd need to spend quite some dosh on the summing console. A console along the quality lines of Mackie (which I don't find to sound bad at all) wouldn't do it.
A rather good friend of mine (who's doing amazingly sounding mixes) just stopped external bussing entirely. He's been using a rather good sounding small Amek Angela which is now sorta degraded to an input console only. He made some thorough A/B tests and said the added bussing quality (which apparently wasn't present too much noticeably either) wasn't justifying the additional DA/AD processing at all.
What you need to do is:
- Have very good sounding source signals. The best stereo imaging tricks won't help an acoustic guitar to sound wide if it isn't recorded with pristine quality. The same goes for about anything.
I was amazed how a good compressor in the recording signal chain could even help with that. Properly recorded signals with more "density" seem to be capable to deal with a lot more of stereo imaging tricks.
- Learn to mix. 3*s has posted some rather simple, yet immensely useful tips on how to deal with stereo widening.
When you're done with that you may think about further things again. No need to think about external summing and the likes before you haven't gotten your sources and mixes spot on.
Also, I can't exactly agree on the summing bits kilroy wrote about.
If you want results to truly sound "better" (while even that term would remain to be a questionable one - let alone it'll never be proveable) you'd need to spend quite some dosh on the summing console. A console along the quality lines of Mackie (which I don't find to sound bad at all) wouldn't do it.
A rather good friend of mine (who's doing amazingly sounding mixes) just stopped external bussing entirely. He's been using a rather good sounding small Amek Angela which is now sorta degraded to an input console only. He made some thorough A/B tests and said the added bussing quality (which apparently wasn't present too much noticeably either) wasn't justifying the additional DA/AD processing at all.
What you need to do is:
- Have very good sounding source signals. The best stereo imaging tricks won't help an acoustic guitar to sound wide if it isn't recorded with pristine quality. The same goes for about anything.
I was amazed how a good compressor in the recording signal chain could even help with that. Properly recorded signals with more "density" seem to be capable to deal with a lot more of stereo imaging tricks.
- Learn to mix. 3*s has posted some rather simple, yet immensely useful tips on how to deal with stereo widening.
When you're done with that you may think about further things again. No need to think about external summing and the likes before you haven't gotten your sources and mixes spot on.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRist
- 204 posts since 10 Mar, 2005
i heard smpte was good for stereo imaging but only if you stripe the first track in your sequencer. is this true also?
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
orangesuite wrote:i heard smpte was good for stereo imaging but only if you stripe the first track in your sequencer. is this true also?
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRer
- 18 posts since 6 Mar, 2005
For what it's worth,
I work as a film sound editor in 5.1 all the time.
5.1 is a discreet format which means that you can get away with widening the stereo image with phase related tricks, however before doing that there are some things to consider with 5.1;
•The width of the cinema can make the image seem wider.
•You have a discrete centre channel to fill in additional information between the left and right channels meaning that you experience L,C(centre) & R (and of course Sub) from the front of the cinema potentially giving you a wider experience.
•If you do you use phase related tricks (including MS recordings) then you won't get a reliable compatible image with the 4 track analog version of the film mix (the Lt/Rt) which is on every 5.1 film print and which is played in older cinemas and when there are technical problems (eg. dropouts) with the 5.1 track.
This desire to keep the 5.1 and Lt/Rt mixes as similar as possble to give everyone an enjoyable and consistent experience regardless of playback limitations (and other reasons) means that phase manipulation is kept to a minimum while mixing films (eg. phase common information in the 5.1 left and right tracks will become mono in the analog 4 track version reducing the stereo image).
The re-recording mixer will often check mono and Lt/Rt compatibility during the final sound dub.
I would suggest that if the stereo image was very wide at the cinema it may just mean that the left and right speakers were just wide enough for an optimal stereo image without a perceived "hole" between the left and right or that the sound dubbers and editors were talented enough to create a wide "stereo" image across the LCR speakers.
I work as a film sound editor in 5.1 all the time.
5.1 is a discreet format which means that you can get away with widening the stereo image with phase related tricks, however before doing that there are some things to consider with 5.1;
•The width of the cinema can make the image seem wider.
•You have a discrete centre channel to fill in additional information between the left and right channels meaning that you experience L,C(centre) & R (and of course Sub) from the front of the cinema potentially giving you a wider experience.
•If you do you use phase related tricks (including MS recordings) then you won't get a reliable compatible image with the 4 track analog version of the film mix (the Lt/Rt) which is on every 5.1 film print and which is played in older cinemas and when there are technical problems (eg. dropouts) with the 5.1 track.
This desire to keep the 5.1 and Lt/Rt mixes as similar as possble to give everyone an enjoyable and consistent experience regardless of playback limitations (and other reasons) means that phase manipulation is kept to a minimum while mixing films (eg. phase common information in the 5.1 left and right tracks will become mono in the analog 4 track version reducing the stereo image).
The re-recording mixer will often check mono and Lt/Rt compatibility during the final sound dub.
I would suggest that if the stereo image was very wide at the cinema it may just mean that the left and right speakers were just wide enough for an optimal stereo image without a perceived "hole" between the left and right or that the sound dubbers and editors were talented enough to create a wide "stereo" image across the LCR speakers.
-
- KVRist
- 141 posts since 13 Mar, 2004 from USA
most people now don't but consider this: if you're playing something and walk out of the room so you're only hearing it through the door, it's now mono... if you have sounds that conflict in mono (or drop because of phase for instance) you may find that what sounds fine when listening in stereo (or surround) may suddenly lose something when you're no longer within the stereo sound field...androidlove wrote:Why would anyone want to play songs in mono?
it's always a good idea to check mixes in mono to see if you have things dropping out or overly loud... sometimes listening in mono while you pan or eq can help find a spot for some instrument you couldn't get quite right... then when you revert back to stereo mode you may find your mix better for it...
Glenn
-
- KVRist
- 317 posts since 20 Feb, 2005
many clubs are essentially wired in mono.androidlove wrote: Why would anyone want to play songs in mono?
and TV broadcasts (and the TVs themselves).
and if you press to vinyl you'll want to make sure at least everything below 100Hz is mono, but that's a different story.
panning while listening in mono... that makes absolutely no sense to me.gullfo wrote:sometimes listening in mono while you pan or eq can help find a spot for some instrument you couldn't get quite right...
-
- KVRian
- 692 posts since 10 Apr, 2004
Oh, ok, now i know what you are talking about.. That shit could cause an accident..rpc9943 wrote:Well Ive heard things like this in the car as well so its not 5.1 im hearing. It's GOT to be this stereo widening effect, and its applied across the board on a mastering bus. I am familiar with those techniques... But I'm wondering if it would be wise or unwise to apply such an effect on an old recording to spice it up a bit... I mean I applied it and it sounds pretty freaking good... Far better than without it. Any suggestions?
RoNC
Here it is..
http://www.3dsoundstore.com/www-3dsound ... reator.asp
http://www.3dsoundstore.com/www-3dsound ... qtools.asp
-
- KVRian
- 1219 posts since 12 Aug, 2002
All you need is in the box and the appropriate cabling, mate....plus something to sync it to. Here's a blow by blow of my routing.MCOst wrote:I am very much interested in this Apogee clock you mentioned. I had a look around the specs on the Apogee sight, but I can't figure out how you would slave your computer to such a device. Is there a pci card for yours?kilroy wrote: \snip\
If you can not aquire a decent analog desk to buss your edited digital tracks out to for mix summing, or it is simply too impractical due to space limitations, then work some overtime so you can pick up Apogee Electronic's Big Ben master clock generator, and slave clock every single piece of digital gear you have to it. Folks, a good digital clock will totally open up your DAW experience...you will get your bleeding stereo back and mixes will go more smoothly and quickly because of it. If you have to do without new VST plugins for a year it will have been worth it.
I totally shelved digital summing until the fine folks at Aardvark came up with their low jitter clock, then it was like, "Oh...maybe I'll give this digital thing another bit of a go..."
The Apogee clock is absolutely breathtaking. Hands down *the* best piece of digital gear in the studio.
-MCOst
- Creamware Scope system synced via AES/EBU. This is my particular pci based "sound card", though I do not normally record directly through it. If I have to sum in the digital realm I use the Scope platform because it allows me to access external hardware processing etc. from within the Scope architecture and integrate it with Scope, and/or native host based plugin FX, in a fluid and intiative manner. A very powerful platform.
- Radar 24 synced via BNC Word Clock. Lovely sounding convertors.
- 24 channels ADAT synced via BNC Word Clock to BRC remote controller (the original internal clock is poor). ADATs are very responsive to high quality sync.
- Additional channels of auxiliary outboard DAC/ADCs synced via BNC Word Clock.
Everything synced and locked to one superb master...the right way to listen to digital. It's not free...but it sure is a beautiful thing.
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders - Lao Tzu