What is the proper term for the width/thickness of sound in digital audio?

[Joey222]

Hi, my name is Joey and I'm new to digital audio. I am currently researching digital audio and how it works to finish a project someone has giving me. With your assistance hopefully I will be able to achieve it.

I am having trouble with certain terms in digital audio. I know there is velocity, amplitude, frequency, of sound but I cannot determine the correct term for the width of a sound. For instance how wide and narrow the sound can be. I know there is a term for how wide and narrow sound can be, but I just cant seem to pull it out. I know its at the tip of my tongue, but somehow I just do not know the proper way to articulate the width/thickness of sound in general.

Any help?

[DocAtlas]

Hi, my name is Joey and I'm new to digital audio. I am currently researching digital audio and how it works to finish a project someone has giving me. With your assistance hopefully I will be able to achieve it.

I am having trouble with certain terms in digital audio. I know there is velocity, amplitude, frequency, of sound but I cannot determine the correct term for the width of a sound. For instance how wide and narrow the sound can be. I know there is a term for how wide and narrow sound can be, but I just cant seem to pull it out. I know its at the tip of my tongue, but somehow I just do not know the proper way to articulate the width/thickness of sound in general.

Any help?

Width is usually used to refer to how far apart the percieved left and right channels of a stereo signal are. A mono signal would have no width, by contrast. There are processors that can make the width seem wider than the speakers' positions, this shouldn't be confused with terms like pan or balance.

Thickness is usually used to describe a sound made up of layered, detuned synth voices, with more voices being considered thicker, fatter, or more lush.

I've never heard the terms width & thickness used interchangeably; perhaps you're thinking of something other than what I've described? Many synths that allow you to stack voices have separate controls for detuning the voices (thickness), and how far apart they are spread in the stereo field (width). I'm not really aware of any other terms that are synonomous with these two.

[Joey222]

Yeah I was thinking something along the lines with field. Like stereo field, but even with mono wouldn't there still be a width field? For instance if a brass instrument is naturally wide/thick and you were to add a brass instrument to a vocal track(vocal normally being in the center) wouldn't there still be some type of field for both brass and vocal?

Hi, my name is Joey and I'm new to digital audio. I am currently researching digital audio and how it works to finish a project someone has giving me. With your assistance hopefully I will be able to achieve it.

I am having trouble with certain terms in digital audio. I know there is velocity, amplitude, frequency, of sound but I cannot determine the correct term for the width of a sound. For instance how wide and narrow the sound can be. I know there is a term for how wide and narrow sound can be, but I just cant seem to pull it out. I know its at the tip of my tongue, but somehow I just do not know the proper way to articulate the width/thickness of sound in general.

Any help?

Width is usually used to refer to how far apart the percieved left and right channels of a stereo signal are. A mono signal would have no width, by contrast. There are processors that can make the width seem wider than the speakers' positions, this shouldn't be confused with terms like pan or balance.

Thickness is usually used to describe a sound made up of layered, detuned synth voices, with more voices being considered thicker, fatter, or more lush.

I've never heard the terms width & thickness used interchangeably; perhaps you're thinking of something other than what I've described? Many synths that allow you to stack voices have separate controls for detuning the voices (thickness), and how far apart they are spread in the stereo field (width). I'm not really aware of any other terms that are synonomous with these two.

[Joey222]

Would any recommend me perhaps another forum where professional digital audio researchers connect and network? Looking for a online forum where I can post and find answers about digital audio and signal processing. Someone had recommended me this forum for answers but didn't quite find what I was looking for.

[Shabdahbriah]

Yeah I was thinking something along the lines with field. Like stereo field, but even with mono wouldn't there still be a width field? For instance if a brass instrument is naturally wide/thick and you were to add a brass instrument to a vocal track(vocal normally being in the center) wouldn't there still be some type of field for both brass and vocal?

Yes. The "field" is generally (IMHO) the entire 3D *stage* of a "mix". e.g. width of the (stereo) 'spread', 'depth' (near/far) and height.

How you 'place' sounds (instruments/effects) within/throughout and/or the movement of sound throughout that 'field' constitutes your "mix". Obviously this becomes more complex with true surround (multi-speaker) audio.

Taking your above example, and replacing the "brass" with a smallish tinker-'bell' sound, you would have little or no "thickness", but would place it where-so-ever within your field, so it will not be washed-out/overwhelmed by other sounds, and thus have a desired 'impact'.

Were you to deliberately 'pan' this very well defined 'bell' sound, all over the mix, it would not (necessarily) change its "width", just its "placement" in/on the 'time-line', where-as adding a LOT of 'reverb' to that sound, could increase its (perceived) "thinkness". [2c]

[manducator]

Would any recommend me perhaps another forum where professional digital audio researchers connect and network? Looking for a online forum where I can post and find answers about digital audio and signal processing. Someone had recommended me this forum for answers but didn't quite find what I was looking for.

idmforums.com?

[Joey222]

Yeah I was thinking something along the lines with field. Like stereo field, but even with mono wouldn't there still be a width field? For instance if a brass instrument is naturally wide/thick and you were to add a brass instrument to a vocal track(vocal normally being in the center) wouldn't there still be some type of field for both brass and vocal?

Yes. The "field" is generally (IMHO) the entire 3D *stage* of a "mix". e.g. width of the (stereo) 'spread', 'depth' (near/far) and height.

How you 'place' sounds (instruments/effects) within/throughout and/or the movement of sound throughout that 'field' constitutes your "mix". Obviously this becomes more complex with true surround (multi-speaker) audio.

Taking your above example, and replacing the "brass" with a smallish tinker-'bell' sound, you would have little or no "thickness", but would place it where-so-ever within your field, so it will not be washed-out/overwhelmed by other sounds, and thus have the 'impact' you desire. [2c]

hmm! I hear what your saying but there are major problems here, There is something not right with the answers I am getting. Not even sure if there are people here who have any type of knowledge in this field what-so-ever. As I scroll through this forum I noticed that this forum is more geared to instruments, so I am now coming to the realization why someone else recommended me this forum.

The problem with your answer it conflicts with mono wave recordings. Since mono wave recording don't have a stereo field(For example: Like surround sound, near field and right field) it wouldn't make sense to say that the spatial width of sound is measured in field. Yes I am looking at it from a 3d perspective but I need to know the proper term in measuring the width and narrow aspect of sound. I feel there is a special term for it, and I as a programmer myself I feel I should know this alread but I am not a musician.

Not trying to be rude or anything but does anybody know the proper term for spatial field? I need to know this

[Joey222]

Would any recommend me perhaps another forum where professional digital audio researchers connect and network? Looking for a online forum where I can post and find answers about digital audio and signal processing. Someone had recommended me this forum for answers but didn't quite find what I was looking for.

idmforums.com?

Okay I will check this out

[jam92189]

Yeah I was thinking something along the lines with field. Like stereo field, but even with mono wouldn't there still be a width field? For instance if a brass instrument is naturally wide/thick and you were to add a brass instrument to a vocal track(vocal normally being in the center) wouldn't there still be some type of field for both brass and vocal?

Yes. The "field" is generally (IMHO) the entire 3D *stage* of a "mix". e.g. width of the (stereo) 'spread', 'depth' (near/far) and height.

How you 'place' sounds (instruments/effects) within/throughout and/or the movement of sound throughout that 'field' constitutes your "mix". Obviously this becomes more complex with true surround (multi-speaker) audio.

Taking your above example, and replacing the "brass" with a smallish tinker-'bell' sound, you would have little or no "thickness", but would place it where-so-ever within your field, so it will not be washed-out/overwhelmed by other sounds, and thus have the 'impact' you desire. [2c]

hmm! I hear what your saying but there are major problems here, There is something not right with the answers I am getting. Not even sure if there are people here who have any type of knowledge in this field what-so-ever. As I scroll through this forum I noticed that this forum is more geared to instruments, so I am now coming to the realization why someone else recommended me this forum.

The problem with your answer it conflicts with mono wave recordings. Since mono wave recording don't have a stereo field(For example: Like surround sound, near field and right field) it wouldn't make sense to say that the spatial width of sound is measured in field. Yes I am looking at it from a 3d perspective but I need to know the proper term in measuring the width and narrow aspect of sound. I feel there is a special term for it, and I as a programmer myself I feel I should know this alread but I am not a musician.

Not trying to be rude or anything but does anybody know the proper term for spatial field? I need to know this

sorry to say this but it seems like you don't know what your talking about and yet you tell everyone they are wrong just pointing that out. look maybe your talking about the spectral properties of a sound I don't know.
But you know how a electric guitar recorded wrong can sound this shrill, thin and crappy but when done right is sound full rich and thick even wide. alot of that is in the way it was recorded. but its also in the way its mixed. you can give something width by maybe panning it one direction and sending it to a delay that is panned opposite of it. then setting the depth of how close or far it is with a room or plate reverb to add a sense of space. compression and level control can help give you your height or volume. and eq can help give everything seporation by letting it sit right with everything else. to be honest alot of people here do this pretty well and I know a good amount that went to school or are pros in there field. there are way to many syth people around now adays but thats the world now
I do alot of mixing work for small local bands and went to a school years ago but what your asking basically has been summed up multiple ways already.

[jam92189]

plus alot of the big wide sounding songs that alot of big name mixers do are all done with simple tools eq compression reverb sends delays and panning alot of em do LCR panning Like CLA. but not Dave Pensado and he is a great mixer to.
but alot of it is in the recording if its a good recording try to just let the song work use effects to help place them and help them fit not magic width but still in the same place

[Joey222]

Yeah I was thinking something along the lines with field. Like stereo field, but even with mono wouldn't there still be a width field? For instance if a brass instrument is naturally wide/thick and you were to add a brass instrument to a vocal track(vocal normally being in the center) wouldn't there still be some type of field for both brass and vocal?

Yes. The "field" is generally (IMHO) the entire 3D *stage* of a "mix". e.g. width of the (stereo) 'spread', 'depth' (near/far) and height.

How you 'place' sounds (instruments/effects) within/throughout and/or the movement of sound throughout that 'field' constitutes your "mix". Obviously this becomes more complex with true surround (multi-speaker) audio.

Taking your above example, and replacing the "brass" with a smallish tinker-'bell' sound, you would have little or no "thickness", but would place it where-so-ever within your field, so it will not be washed-out/overwhelmed by other sounds, and thus have the 'impact' you desire. [2c]

hmm! I hear what your saying but there are major problems here, There is something not right with the answers I am getting. Not even sure if there are people here who have any type of knowledge in this field what-so-ever. As I scroll through this forum I noticed that this forum is more geared to instruments, so I am now coming to the realization why someone else recommended me this forum.

The problem with your answer it conflicts with mono wave recordings. Since mono wave recording don't have a stereo field(For example: Like surround sound, near field and right field) it wouldn't make sense to say that the spatial width of sound is measured in field. Yes I am looking at it from a 3d perspective but I need to know the proper term in measuring the width and narrow aspect of sound. I feel there is a special term for it, and I as a programmer myself I feel I should know this alread but I am not a musician.

Not trying to be rude or anything but does anybody know the proper term for spatial field? I need to know this

sorry to say this but it seems like you don't know what your talking about and yet you tell everyone they are wrong just pointing that out. look maybe your talking about the spectral properties of a sound I don't know.
But you know how a electric guitar recorded wrong can sound this shrill, thin and crappy but when done right is sound full rich and thick even wide. alot of that is in the way it was recorded. but its also in the way its mixed. you can give something width by maybe panning it one direction and sending it to a delay that is panned opposite of it. then setting the depth of how close or far it is with a room or plate reverb to add a sense of space. compression and level control can help give you your height or volume. and eq can help give everything seporation by letting it sit right with everything else. to be honest alot of people here do this pretty well and I know a good amount that went to school or are pros in there field. there are way to many syth people around now adays but thats the world now
I do alot of mixing work for small local bands and went to a school years ago but what your asking basically has been summed up multiple ways already.

Fantastic! Best reply I got. Funny how you say I don't know what I'm talking about but yet you cant even spell. Yes I do know what I am talking about I'm just not a musician and I don't produce or mix music. I didn't say "everyone was wrong" what the hell is wrong with you?? I just said I'm not getting the answers I should be getting. And for your information YES it was something along the line of spectral properties, which is why I said in the first place the answer that I got before wasn't right because mono wave recordings doesn't apply to stereo field. IS THAT STATEMENT NOT RIGHT? Now you tell me who is the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I came here to look for answers and got none. I'll try some other forum where people know real answers

[experimental.crow]

Yeah I was thinking something along the lines with field. Like stereo field, but even with mono wouldn't there still be a width field? For instance if a brass instrument is naturally wide/thick and you were to add a brass instrument to a vocal track(vocal normally being in the center) wouldn't there still be some type of field for both brass and vocal?

Yes. The "field" is generally (IMHO) the entire 3D *stage* of a "mix". e.g. width of the (stereo) 'spread', 'depth' (near/far) and height.

How you 'place' sounds (instruments/effects) within/throughout and/or the movement of sound throughout that 'field' constitutes your "mix". Obviously this becomes more complex with true surround (multi-speaker) audio.

Taking your above example, and replacing the "brass" with a smallish tinker-'bell' sound, you would have little or no "thickness", but would place it where-so-ever within your field, so it will not be washed-out/overwhelmed by other sounds, and thus have the 'impact' you desire. [2c]

hmm! I hear what your saying but there are major problems here, There is something not right with the answers I am getting. Not even sure if there are people here who have any type of knowledge in this field what-so-ever. As I scroll through this forum I noticed that this forum is more geared to instruments, so I am now coming to the realization why someone else recommended me this forum.

The problem with your answer it conflicts with mono wave recordings. Since mono wave recording don't have a stereo field(For example: Like surround sound, near field and right field) it wouldn't make sense to say that the spatial width of sound is measured in field. Yes I am looking at it from a 3d perspective but I need to know the proper term in measuring the width and narrow aspect of sound. I feel there is a special term for it, and I as a programmer myself I feel I should know this alread but I am not a musician.

Not trying to be rude or anything but does anybody know the proper term for spatial field? I need to know this

sorry to say this but it seems like you don't know what your talking about and yet you tell everyone they are wrong just pointing that out. look maybe your talking about the spectral properties of a sound I don't know.
But you know how a electric guitar recorded wrong can sound this shrill, thin and crappy but when done right is sound full rich and thick even wide. alot of that is in the way it was recorded. but its also in the way its mixed. you can give something width by maybe panning it one direction and sending it to a delay that is panned opposite of it. then setting the depth of how close or far it is with a room or plate reverb to add a sense of space. compression and level control can help give you your height or volume. and eq can help give everything seporation by letting it sit right with everything else. to be honest alot of people here do this pretty well and I know a good amount that went to school or are pros in there field. there are way to many syth people around now adays but thats the world now
I do alot of mixing work for small local bands and went to a school years ago but what your asking basically has been summed up multiple ways already.

Fantastic! Best reply I got. Funny how you say I don't know what I'm talking about but yet you cant even spell. Yes I do know what I am talking about I'm just not a musician and I don't produce or mix music. I didn't say "everyone was wrong" what the hell is wrong with you?? I just said I'm not getting the answers I should be getting. And for your information YES it was something along the line of spectral properties, which is why I said in the first place the answer that I got before wasn't right because mono wave recordings doesn't apply to stereo field. IS THAT STATEMENT NOT RIGHT? Now you tell me who is the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I came here to look for answers and got none. I'll try some other forum where people know real answers

frankly Joey , sometimes i doubt your commitment to sparkle motion ...

[geroyannis]

I'll try some other forum where people know real answers

Well, why don't you just do it and stop threatening about doing it?

[ftech]

If you are not 'getting the answers I should be getting' that would lead me to believe you already know the answer to your own question.
But then you say that mono recordings don't apply to a stereo field (????) which leads me to believe you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Therefore you, Sir, are very funny

[Shabdahbriah]

frankly Joey , sometimes i doubt your commitment to sparkle motion ...