Stereo spread for synths

[MikeMiller]

Hi, guys!

Still experiencing some difficulties with wise stereo imaging. I've heard on many recordings that the synths (pads, keys, whatever..) have a very wide stereofield, though they're good sounding in mono and they have some essential presence that doesn't give them to dump in the mix.

First, what are my problems: when recording a synth, I use reverb and "Direction mixer" tool in Logic 9. Stereo spread in Logic works another way so I don't use it. But I guess the problem is that I can't find the right balance of stereo imaging and reverb to make synths sounding wide and transparent. Or they're too far, or too close.

A good example of what I'm seeking for is Astley's "Don't say goodbye girl". especially in verse where the pad fills the whole stereo field and at the same time has a nice presence which doesn't give it to sound apart from the whole mix:

Rick Astley - Don't Say Goodbye - YouTube

So, what are few basic steps to make an easy fast and good stereo spread for synths? And so that the polarity/phase was right to fit in the mono mode. What plug-ins should I use and what settings?

I know that playing with stereo imaging is kind of a dangerous thing. So I just need a good advice how to make it right.

Thanks!

P.S. Also, as we started a "stereo" topic, I'd be very grateful for an advice which plug-in to use to make an effect of "flying toms" like in Astley's "Whenever you need somebody" intro. Some sort of an automatic stereo panner or something available for Logic 9. I didn't found such plug there. But I remember the one was in Adobe Audition and was called a "stereo panner".

[schmuck]

One technique would be to apply opposite EQ settings on each channel (easiest done with a graphic eq as you can see it). Full mono compatiblity but blurrs the field a bit (for pads not always a problem).

You could also do mid/side processing with either EQ and/or compression.

Another one is send each channel to a slightly different delay, which gives the "haas effect".

Thirdly you could send each channel to a slightly different pitch shifter. This gives the widest stereo field but you have to be careful with mono compatibility.

Plugs that come to mind: waves shuffler, SPL Vitalizer, waves center for M/S.

Good luck!

[MikeMiller]

Wow, thanks! Never tried this approach. Working with separate L and R channels might be the case. I usually worked with pads as an interleaved track. I'll try it.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by MikeMiller

So, what are few basic steps to make an easy fast and good stereo spread for synths? And so that the polarity/phase was right to fit in the mono mode. What plug-ins should I use and what settings?

Check this interview with Dylan '3D' Dresdow, he talks about what he uses on synths
Secrets Of The Mix Engineers: Dylan ‘3D’ Dresdow

[explorer]

Take a look at chorus, ensemble, flanger and phaser effects. Also try having two copies of the same synth panned left and right and detuned slightly.

[MikeMiller]

Thanks, guys! By the way chorus/phaser/flanger is great to add some life and richness. I use it widely but now I'll try to combine with the separate channel processing and detuning.

[schmuck]

These mix articles in SoS are great and that DrMS plugin seems very interesting, will download a demo today. Never heard of it. Nice discrete marketing Dr. DeltaM, by the way; maybe you Belgians should take up banking, too...;-)) (take that from a Swiss)

[bluegreengold]

Convert the reverb returns to M/S and adjust the width to taste. Eq the sides and the center differently.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by schmuck

These mix articles in SoS are great and that DrMS plugin seems very interesting, will download a demo today. Never heard of it. Nice discrete marketing Dr. DeltaM, by the way; maybe you Belgians should take up banking, too...;-)) (take that from a Swiss)

I wouldn't recommend Belgian bank however

[MikeMiller]

Sorry for a stupid question, but how do I convert my reverb signal to M+S? Using any imaging plug-in? (I've seen an option in Logic's direction mixer).

[Helmey]

If you want to widen your soundfield, you might want to check out the older Roland SRS-enabled effects. The 330-series (SDX, SDE and SRV) all have 3D presets that sound really good. The SDE-330 Dimensional Expander is the hardest to find because it features all of the classic Roland Chorus effects. When they first came out I think they cost about a grand each. Now you can easily find them for $300-$500 online.

[msl]

I'm liking Valhalla UberMod for this lately, it can do the Dimension D style effect pretty nicely, and a ton of other cool effects too. Well suited to synths.



.

[Teknobeam]

The original Alesis Quadraverb has a factory program called "stereo spread" Very nice on some things. I probably mainly delays one channel slightly which is really the best way to get that effect as Schmuk pointed out.

[MikeMiller]

Does it mean hardware processing does much better job? SDX and Quadraverb are hardware-based modules. Thanks a lot for the tip. I will consider purchasing them in the future. But in fact the easiest way for me now is to combine channel delay with chorus effect. I guess..

[MikeMiller]

Just listened to the SRV demo... I was impressed. But actually it is a very good reverberator.

[msl]

Originally Posted by MikeMiller

Does it mean hardware processing does much better job? SDX and Quadraverb are hardware-based modules. Thanks a lot for the tip. I will consider purchasing them in the future. But in fact the easiest way for me now is to combine channel delay with chorus effect. I guess..

I repeat check out UberMod if you can, you will not be disappointed as it combines all the effects your looking for, delay, chorus, phaser and reverb. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-p...x-windows.html


.

[Teknobeam]

Originally Posted by MikeMiller

Just listened to the SRV demo... I was impressed. But actually it is a very good reverberator.

I sold my SRV 2000 about three years ago. I regret it. Probably more features than anything else out there. Amazing gated facility and with some secret button pushes it could turn into a delay unit.

[Ericdestler]

Try Vengeance stereo bundle, very useful and good sounding plugins

[schmuck]

Originally Posted by schmuck

These mix articles in SoS are great and that DrMS plugin seems very interesting, will download a demo today

First tests are highly interesting. On the main bus it can add subtle changes that makes it sound somehow "livlier", but still very natural. On individual sources it can get very extreme. Great tool I have to say although I was only "preset-browsing" so far (it is rather complex plug). Will have to get it.

[MikeMiller]

Thanks for listing software solutions! But I was so excited about these hardware "Rolands" that I considered purchasing one in the near future. So I'd like to hear some opinions on which's better!

As I discovered, there're few series: 330, 2000, 3000 etc. Also SDE, SDX, SRV. So what unit combines all essential features for stereo processing, delay, chorus and reverb and also gives that old-school breath?

Also SRV-2000 is somehow called "MIDI Digital Reverb". Why midi?

P.S. my conclusions - SRV must be a reverb, SDE must be a delay and SDX.... based on information above is a delay with chorus. Right?

[schmuck]

Mike, I cannot comment on the roland boxes (sure others will), but if you go for "old hw boxes", then you should look into the eventide h3000 d/se. It has fantastic effects and lots of "stereo wideners" (achieved by different techniques, like detuning each channel a bit, or different delays, etc). Search for it on GS you will find many posts and it is truly a great machine.

[Praxisaxis]

Another tip is to limit what you choose as stereo in the mix. It's easy to mask the stereo-ness of a track by having too much of it going on.

Pick out a crucial part and have making the track wide its particular job. It's amazing how "wide" you can get a tune with only 1 track in stereo and the rest in mono. Try it as an experiment. Then if you want to add interest try adding a layered channel to the snare (say, claps, or whatever), and have that in stereo. If you want to add lots, make sure you don't mask that original stereo effect.

Maybe your reverb is masking your synths. Instead of putting a reverb plugin on your instrument/audio track, try bussing to a reverb track, and using the dial on your reverb with "mix" (ie. wet/dry) set to "100%" or whatever equivalent such that on the reverb channel there is only wet and no dry. Then use the fader on that channel to gradually bring the reverb in. Don't crank the early reflections too much in case they are doing the masking. I find that reverb mixed on another channel has a cleaner sound than using the "mix" (ie wet/dry) dial of a plugin. I could be imagining it but give it a try.

Another tip. Remember that we're sensitive to stereo mostly in the mid-mid/high range. Both very low and very high ranges we aren't so sensitive to it, so you're using up amps by having it placed there. But there are hot spots for a stereo effect around mid/high ish, or so I've found. There are also combinations of different frequency areas which seem to be more effective, but this is all trial and error: Trial different sounds with a stereo effect, to test which ones are most effective - some work better than others.

[JimmiG]

Originally Posted by explorer

Take a look at chorus, ensemble, flanger and phaser effects. Also try having two copies of the same synth panned left and right and detuned slightly.

I used the latter technique all the time back when I was only using Reason and everyone else was making super-wide pads with ReFX Vanguard Create a nice Subtractor patch, copy it to two more Subtractor synths, put one in the center, one to the left and one to the right, then increase the pitch at one side, decrease by the same amount on the other, and leave the center one at the original setting.

[MikeMiller]

Praxisaxis, thanks for practical tips, especially for "early reflection" tip. I should take a closer look to what you call "masking wideness". Also, lately i used a "send" reverb as you described. It really sounds better. But usually I use the same reverb on let say a snare and a synth. Should I use different reverbs on these channels? Or it is a good practice when using the only reverb on few tracks?

JimmiG, anyway we're talking about mono signals or not? I mean should I just duplicate a stereo recorded track (which already may include some reverb, i.e. recorded from D-50) or I should record 2 channels independently and use them as a source? (I mean when you said "copy it" - to copy full stereo patch?)

[Praxisaxis]

Should I use different reverbs on these channels? Or it is a good practice when using the only reverb on few tracks?

There are no hard and fast rules. An advantage of bussing to a reverb track is that you can send various different tracks at different input levels... so you can put a dose on your snare but only a touch on your kick (for example... you might not actually do that).

So, the next logical step is to have 2 or 3 reverb channels, each a different flavour, and bussing to one of those depending on what you want. This is an economical way working when you are after different reverb sounds within the same tune. Or, you can have a reverb track which is fairly subtle, and augment that by placing an additional reverb plugin on select channels (as well as bus those to the more subtle reverb). Basically do whatever you like - no rules... The key is to be aware of how building up layer upon layer of sound, though adding to complexity, may cause masking.

Masking is a general label which has more to do with perception than the physical aspect of the sound. Sound can be physically masked, but it's more notable that we intrinsically either lose focus on a sound due to other sounds distracting us from it, or it is in fact more difficult for us hear a particular sound because of the way our ears work... so these are psychoacoustic and physiological considerations, respectively.

The theory doesn't really matter though, because you can train yourself to be aurally aware of masking when it occurs in mixing. The crucial thing is to use solo to make sure the "magic" that you hear in the track when soloed is translated to the whole mix. There's no point in having magic in a solo track if you can't hear it in the mix - this is what masking is, and it can certainly apply to the stereo wideness effect. The way to fix this problem is to remove elements in the mix (either bring them down with faders, or mute them altogether) until that magic that you want to hear is properly exhibited. This is an advanced mixing technique and it's why the pros always say "it's about what you get rid of" (or some variation of that).

One more thing I forgot: Extreme compression and limiting in the mastering phase of production can (and in home-baked stuff often does) reduce the wideness of the track. Even though it's always a compromise, remember that this factors in if you do your own mastering. Keeping the track not entirely squashed to smithereens will usually preserve some of its original wideness (and a good deal else besides).

[MikeMiller]

Totally agree! You're right. Many times i found that the soloed track which itself sounds wide and interesting loses its magic in the mix! But I've never thought it could be mixing or mastering problems. I thought this occured because of the bad reverb or imaging settings. But changing them actually didn't help much. A proper mixing and imaging of the whole instruments might really help as you said. I'll work on it.