Tried some new stereo widening techniques today

[RainbowStorm]

and it didn't work at all...

During the evening I spent some time both reading about different stereo widening techniques as well as drawing my own conclusions. In a way I succeeded, I really got the instrument located where I wanted them, but the result was not at all what I had expected! My first conclusion was that by adding reverb, delay and compressor on the drums I am able to create a stereo depth that makes the stereo picture deeper and by adding chorus on the snare I am able to let the tone shimmer through the musicians at front. Well, it did work, I actually got the drums far away in the back, but it was rather unpleasant too... Maybe I would have succeded better by setting the hi hat at the front, but it was also a little strange to have the kick drum in tha rear. It was not the kind of depth I wanted. Then I tried adding a little chorus,compression,high lows eq and reverb on the bass and the background digital piano and pad sounds, fully panned to left and right. This would yield the effect that the band would be playing in a large room, hence widen the sound. This didn't work that good... Because of the effects I lost the effect of the panpot. I tried a few other techniques too before I finally noticed that this is not gonna work. I got a pretty wide stereo image, but it was not a beautiful stereo image. There was no resonance at all, only wideness and the drums in the back were really irritating! I then tried to put a stereo effect on it on the mastering process and the result was rather unpleasant I can tell... I once again noticed that messing with a lot of effects requires good signal management and good effects too. I learned that I still haven't got the knowledge of how to get a good balance between effect wetness and signal level. (So far I'm not that impressed with digital plug-in effects.)

To sum it all up: Confusing

[nandi]

SO maybe try to keep things natural, healthy tone sounding, first in mono and later try to pan things a little bit 'till it sounds wider than mono. Then go take a few minutes break. When you come back listen to some well recorded reference mixes. After that play your mix. Avoid compression or eq on main bus untill your mix sounds balance and pleasing. Balance is the key word. Focus on emotional aspects of the mix also...IMHO...
Alex

[djui5]

kick always goes up front bro Unless your doing certain types of music, like Reba Mcentire, or Celine Dion, etc. I think Reba's engineers just slap a pair of plates on the stereo buss....haha

[CorkyTart]

Mr Reba Mcentire (sp) has some messed up eyeballs

[robot gigante]

Chorus on the snare? Whoa!

Not suprised you didn't have much success there!

None of your other experiences seem too suprising. And yes, kick up in zee front please.

I think that keeping things as dry and natural sounding as you can is best, use delays, and then a titch of verb when you need it here and there- that should give you all the space in the mix that you'd need.

Also, try automating your delay and verb sends so that the listener's ear can pick up things that give the mix a sense of space at times, but the delays and verbs aren't always up front and potentially muddying up everything else all the time if that makes sense.

I mean, listen closely to your favorite reference mixes, do you hear chorus on anything? No? Do you hear reverb and compression used as you've described?

[Gregg Sartiano]

Can you upload an example of what you're working on -- maybe a rough levels-only (or minimal FX) mix and you current in-progress mix?

It would really help for us to hear what you're up against -- also, I'd be interested to know what style you're working in, although fundamental concerns and techniques/approaches/philosophies will remain the same.

IMO the lack of distractions is what allows you to create width in a mix. Potential distractions are numerous -- rumbly low end that muddies up the mix, tuning/groove problems (if there are ANY issues in this dep't I'd address them first!), wide bandwidth/spaciousness on instruments which don't deserve it in the mix perspective. Hi-Pass filters are very useful. Sometimes a given sound needs to be made "smaller" so the rest of the mix can spread out.

In short, tracking is painting, mixing is sculpting. Add when tracking, subtract when mixing. This isn't 100% (obviously we ADD ambience), but I always think in terms of frequencies/FX/levels I can turn down/deemphasize to create space for whatever's meant to stand out at a given moment. Once that space is there, you'll be able to use "width" tricks in a relevant way -- otherwise, they just make the mix MORE cloudy.

I know some people are gonna say, "what does a groove problem have to do with setting levels & FX?" Shouldn't a song with a questionable drum track have the potential to sound like a great mix with mediocre timing on the drums?

Seems like every time I do an in-depth timing edit/beat detective, I (and others -- even non-musicians) notice a tangible difference in the perceived "sound" of the drums...even with NO MIX CHANGES. In fact, I've had people say things (not knowing the drums were edited to grid) like, "yeaaah, THAT'S how they sound liiiiive!!!" No, it's not...Don't underestimate the importance of a tight groove, assuming you're doing groove-oriented music.

[tmcconnell]

I totally agree with Greg esp on distractions. Nicely said. I'd add that almost all perceptions of width are either directional (like, panning), or phase related. That's why phasy stuff like chorusing gives the impression of width. The downside is with phasyness also comes distance - so you lose intimacy - and absence of soundstage - so you lose that vision of people playing.

I gotta say I'm over this knee jerk stuff many people do, for example, of stereo micing acoustic gtr, and hard panning the mics LR. OK so it sounds huge - but is that what the music needs? What should sound huge? Everything?

I'm also over phase perfected XY micing. Sure it sounds better in mono - but most mono applications are not hifi anyway.

For drums, I keep fatness and some width by using zone mics. You have to be careful of low end phase etc here, but the phase differences in the high/mids seem way less chaotic than say, a reverb, yet you get a feeling of big space without losing the guts. I don't think that's rocket science, but, it is a way to get width without giving up too much punch. ted.

[u b k]

it's good that you're experimenting, trying crazy stuff out. you never know what you'll learn, even if it's just 'what not to do.'

regarding the effects wet/dry, if you're like most guys you gotta do that with the mix loud, like 85db. do you have a db meter? use it. here's a heresy: solo the instrument and the effect (don't forget: nice and loud) and slowly turn the effect up until the element sounds wet but not drowned, swimmy but not murky. the articulation is still there, but the depth is enhanced.

now drop out of solo. see how much effect goes away instantly? resist the urge to turn up the effect. instead, mute it. now you can hear how much was actually there because when it's not, you miss it. unmute it. ahhh, better. learn to hear effects like that: subtle to non-existant when in, very obviously absent when out. there will be times when you want an effect to be obvious, and if so, do it. but most times, you don't want that, you just want, well, you want the effect of the effect, not the effect itself.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[El Fatso]

Originally Posted by u b i k

you want the effect of the effect, not the effect itself.

woah. i like thatthumbsup

[danasti]

How have you set up you speakers and what happened when you performed LEDR? How do your mixes sound in relation to reference mixes using this principle of sound? At least it lets you know if you have a major issue with positioning your monitors.

Is your room treated? Reflections? Standing waves? This might help the "imaging". Although I've been listening to my mixes instead of watching them lately.

It's seriously so foreign to me that "widening" sounds like you should try feeding it some heavy calories. In my mind that would be panned hard with some reverb but it could change when I put on the next record.

For depth you should take a cd and tie it to a brick and dump it off the nearest bridge. However deep the water goes is how you measure depth, ok?. It totally works better than the new "stereo deep machine" by "company x".

It's really impossible to know what you consider "wide" because it could change the next time you hear something. Someone could hear something in mono and consider it "wide", wide bandwidth. Same goes for "deep" and "soundstage" - nobody really knows what you mean when you ask about it, they guess using their own ever changing definition.

It's asking people to read into and link up with your ever changing mind. Does something have amazing "imaging" that you are listening to when your wife tells you she's cheating on you? Or your boss just demoted you? Maybe when you are on vacation and relaxed? Our ears/minds interpret sound differently under different conditions and it is completely different person to person when we discuss something we can't measure.

It's like asking a bunch of dudes "why isn't [insert chick] hot like [insert chick] is hot?"

"Well she is hot!" &next dude "but not as hot" &next dude "actually she's even hotter" & "no way!"

[Lagerfeldt]

The best trick for a wide stereo image is to keep most stuff around the center and not desperately panning stuff all over the place and adding chorus, etc.

Then a few of the true stereo recordings will be hard panned and do their stuff.

You could fool around a bit with the cross panned/delay/reverb trick but rarely is faking it very successful.

During mastering you could apply a touch of M/S technique or vari mu tube gain for enhancement of the stereo perception.

[Umlaaat]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

The best trick for a wide stereo image is to keep most stuff around the center and not desperately panning stuff all over the place and adding chorus, etc.

Then a few of the true stereo recordings will be hard panned and do their stuff.

You could fool around a bit with the cross panned/delay/reverb trick but rarely is faking it very successful.

During mastering you could apply a touch of M/S technique or vari mu tube gain for enhancement of the stereo perception.

So how would you approach this for an urban-pop-rnb song?
What is m/s tech. and cross panned/delay/verb trick?
thumbsup

[Tom Sigmond]

Are there also some do's and don'ts with this?

I've experimented a lot myself with those widening tricks but find most of the time problems when checking in mono... .

Can anyone name some tricks that defenately stands up against the mono check?


gr. Tom

[Andreas G]

Originally Posted by Tom Sigmond

Can anyone name some tricks that defenately stands up against the mono check?

- Boosting the side signal on M/S coded stereofiles.

- Slightly different left/right eqings on stereofiles.

- Unlinked sterocompressing

- Compress only one side of a stereofile, but match the levels for both channels subjective.

- Use different stereo-FX panned off center or hard left/right, again match the levels subjective.

- it's all about the subtile difference betwin left and right that retains also in mono.

Andreas

[Cojo]

I really don't get this widening thing need... Why not put the sound where you want it in the first place? I don't get it?

/Cojo

[quincyg]

Originally Posted by Cojo

I really don't get this widening thing need... Why not put the sound where you want it in the first place? I don't get it?

/Cojo

i think the poster is trying to figure out where to put it in the first place and also how to make it sound good when placed there.

the non stereo linked compression just came up in the c1/c2 compressor thread. looking forward to trying that.

does anyone use the stereo widening plug-ins? i recently played with the one in logic on a mix, and it definitely colors the sound in the process. not really clear what the plug in does...seems like it splits each frequency range to one side or the other.

i very much agree with the post about hi pass or notching out frequencies. it really helps sometimes throw out all the unnecessary parts of a sound. in a dense mix, do you really need to hear the lower part of a piano or guitar part for example.

i personally really like the hard pan double guitar trick. it sounds hella wide, but leave all that space in the middle.

one thing i don't think has been mentioned are automated pans of items. it can really add depth to have a sound move across the field.

also... read the book "behind the glass" ridiculously good interviews with legendary engineers and producers talking about process, including mixing.

[Tom Sigmond]

Thanks Andreas,


Those are practical tips that get you somewhere.

The one I don't understand though is the first with the M/S coded stereofiles; in fact, I don't even know what those kind of stereofiles are.
Can you explain this a little bit more?


Thanks.


greetings, Tom

Originally Posted by Andreas G

- Boosting the side signal on M/S coded stereofiles.

- Slightly different left/right eqings on stereofiles.

- Unlinked sterocompressing

- Compress only one side of a stereofile, but match the levels for both channels subjective.

- Use different stereo-FX panned off center or hard left/right, again match the levels subjective.

- it's all about the subtile difference betwin left and right that retains also in mono.

Andreas

[gwailoh]

Originally Posted by Tom Sigmond

The one I don't understand though is the first with the M/S coded stereofiles; in fact, I don't even know what those kind of stereofiles are.
Can you explain this a little bit more?

"M/S" means "mid-side", a stereo technique which can be used to mic individual instruments in stereo and can also be applied to entire mixes to manipulate stereo width. Advantages over other stereo techniques are: 1) the ability to change stereo width as desired; and 2) perfect mono compatibility. Some people say the disadvantage is that the stereo image lacks a definite center, although I'm just learning the technique and I don't understand, so far, what that means.

Here's how to do it in PT:

Use two mics, angled at 90 degrees. The first mic points at your sound source. This mic can be any pattern, but it's traditional to use cardiod. This is the "mid" mic. The second mic must be figure-8, and you point its null side at the sound source, so that it picks up sound from left and right. This is the "side" mic. The two mics must be as close to each other as possible, almost touching.

Record the mics to three tracks in PT. Mid mic to track one, side mic to tracks two and three.

On all three tracks, instantiate the Trim plugin. On track three, use the Trim plugin to throw the track out of phase with the others.

Group tracks two and three, the side mic tracks.

Now, when you increase the level of tracks two-three -- the side mic -- the stereo image widens. Lower the level of two and three, the stereo image shrinks.

When you check in mono, you'll find that only track one -- the mid mic -- is heard. Since two and three are the same signal out of phase, they cancel in mono.

This technique is easy to do and it gives you a measure of control over stereo width of your instrument tracks during mixdown, while preserving mono compatibility.

Hope this helps!

[Lagerfeldt]

The Waves S1 doesn't color, it simply changes the M/S parts proportionately.

I rarely find it necessary with any kind of trick to get a good stereo image though. Use the right sounds generally speaking, and the right pad or right rhodes combined with judicial use of panning and spacial effects on the other parts will provide ample stereo image. Well made vocal dubbing or hard panned guitars will add a lot too.

But be very careful of "big mono" caused by fake stereo effects or hard panning when it's not necessary. It will collapse a mix and cause desorientation which will make the mix sound narrower instead.

Oh, and use a nice reverb.

One thing not mentioned is distorting the S channel (as opposed to using different EQ on each side). Distortion doesn't have to be the nasty kind of overdrive, but could be harmonic distortion. Again, a mastering thing.

[nandi]

ANother trick to keep the voice/lead part(s) present in a sea of verbs is to put an compressor on the fx return after the reverb and feed the sidechain with the voice/lead part(s) signal. You,ll get that pumping...
Hope it helps.
Alex

[thethrillfactor]

It can work.

You need better effect processors though.


Also you need to balance the perspective.


You don't listen to a band with everyone playing in your face.


And you don't listen to the band playing from another room.


You have to balance both and work from there.

[Tom Sigmond]

Thanks for your explanation about M/S gwailoh.

Am I right by saying with that trick in mono the M/S threated sound has less volume l becausse the left and right channel are canceling each other out?
In that case there's still a problem with it when listen to the song in mono or you have to do it very sparcingly so you don't lose that much volume when played in mono... .



gr. Tom

[sedohr]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

It can work.


Also you need to balance the perspective.


You don't listen to a band with everyone playing in your face.


And you don't listen to the band playing from another room.


You have to balance both and work from there.

Thrill, that reminds me..

sometimes the studio is used as an instrument and the reality isn´t the big thing, like Peter Gabriels Digging in the Dirt, a very strange perspective but a masterpiece.
You can´t really place the band before you, the soundscape is so bizzare.

But of course that would be an exception and what you said would be a ground rule.
(just got home after a long gig and a longer day..just my thoughts without the editor of my mind.)

Kalli

[gwailoh]

To my ear it has less everything -- volume, "air", character, interest, excitement. I think this is not the fault of the technique. Rather, that sources recorded in stereo are so much more real-sounding than mono. Also that the second mic adds its own tone which is lost in mono. So, there's still work to be done to ensure that the mono sound will make you happy. I find that good mono with M/S is easier than X/Y or spaced pairs, which for me seem to always suffer from ugly phase problems in mono. Probably because I'm not competent and M/S is harder to mess up. Anyway, M/S lets you adjust stereo width to your taste, which could be one way to address the original poster's issues.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by RainbowStorm

and it didn't work at all...

During the evening I spent some time both reading about different stereo widening techniques as well as drawing my own conclusions. In a way I succeeded, I really got the instrument located where I wanted them, but the result was not at all what I had expected! My first conclusion was that by adding reverb, delay and compressor on the drums I am able to create a stereo depth that makes the stereo picture deeper and by adding chorus on the snare I am able to let the tone shimmer through the musicians at front. Well, it did work, I actually got the drums far away in the back, but it was rather unpleasant too... Maybe I would have succeded better by setting the hi hat at the front, but it was also a little strange to have the kick drum in tha rear. It was not the kind of depth I wanted. Then I tried adding a little chorus,compression,high lows eq and reverb on the bass and the background digital piano and pad sounds, fully panned to left and right. This would yield the effect that the band would be playing in a large room, hence widen the sound. This didn't work that good... Because of the effects I lost the effect of the panpot. I tried a few other techniques too before I finally noticed that this is not gonna work. I got a pretty wide stereo image, but it was not a beautiful stereo image. There was no resonance at all, only wideness and the drums in the back were really irritating! I then tried to put a stereo effect on it on the mastering process and the result was rather unpleasant I can tell... I once again noticed that messing with a lot of effects requires good signal management and good effects too. I learned that I still haven't got the knowledge of how to get a good balance between effect wetness and signal level. (So far I'm not that impressed with digital plug-in effects.)

To sum it all up: Confusing

Sounds like you went beyond the concept of diminishing returns to inverted returns.

Keep those ideas in mind and next time, try using just one, or maybe two in the context of what you'd do normally.

[tmcconnell]

I've used the ones from waves, samplitude, and some oddball (but interesting) hardware at a studio I used to work at - I forget (forgive me, I'm old) the name but it was 80's vintage - and its all just channel sum/difference and or phase shifting ranges of spectrum in different ways, and summing it back to LR with different panning. It can create holographic imaging which is interesting, like "hypersound".

If that class of stuff has any use, IMO, its for groups of instruments that function as a pad. (ie string pad). For example, a string section is more or less supposed to have phase chaos - they are all slightly out of tune, thus "chorusy". Same with an actual vocal chorus. It creates a nice wash, or texture as a backdrop. Horn sections do this and so on. Well sometimes, you want more. (aside: Stevie Ray Vaughan is quoted as saying his ideal amp only had one knob, labeled "more"). Chorusy stuff, including all that widening stuff, is good for this job. Flanges and Chorus's move but if you want that pad effect without movement, that's where the phase-phuckers come in handy. ted

[nandi]

Keep things simple and focus on the orchestration and on the playing, try to have few good played tracks rather than lots of poorly muddy boring tracks.
I had to mix a project with 24full tracks of doubled pads and synth basses and God knows what was there and the things started to sound when i started to mute tracks
Good luck you all
Alex

[audiomichael]

I found that the best way to get a wider stereo field is to get my center tight and punchy. Width is all relation, since you've only got 2 speakers.

Or you can always just move your speakers out a foot wider.

[RainbowStorm]

I just noticed this thread has been reactivated. I have not been too active here lately since I just relocated my whole studio, now to a much better acoustic environment. I'm really excited about that, I DID have some really serious acoustic problems in the control room in my small studio where I was mixing earlier. At the same time I have simplified my whole setup, the Tyros is a thing in the past, the Mackie HR-824 studio monitors didn't work either so they are a thing in the past as well, I'm using only a pair of monitoring systems and now I'm recording software and real instruments, no hardware synths anymore, just the Roland A-90 Ex with 88-weighted keys for good MIDI keyboard action...!

I posted this thread a year ago, I was still pretty new in my shoes back then. Since then I've gone through hundreds and hundreds of experiment projects, read books, analyzed etc and I'm now able to deal with stereo imaging in a completely different way. Currently I am using simple techniques for making the stereo image what I want. I use the PSP stereo analyser + Waves PAS analyser as aiding tools for setting the correct stereo width ratio in combination with track panning and effect processing, instead of using M/S processing as the primary stereo calibration technique. I CAN use my ears now though. I'm using 5ch stereo as an aiding monitoring tool when I setup the stereo image and I'm careful with how loud I mix as I'm setting up the stereo image. I'm extremely selective with reverb and compression effects, they seriously damaged my mixes in the past.

My biggest problems with stereo imaging in the past was my control room acoustics+monitor combination. I simply couldn't setup the stereo image in my earlier control room by using my ears, there were all kinds of strange comb filtering effects in the room that prevented me from setting up a very good stereo image. You can't pan tracks efficiently when the input volume faders are not set correctly due to false perception of the actual sound, so it becomes a stereo imaging problem. I now have a control room that is 3 times bigger and with much less reflective surfaces due to less stuff in the room (higher degree of symmetry), I think that makes quite an important difference. I currently have a big soft leather couch in the room that seems to absorb the sound rather well and right now I'm in the process of starting to add full acoustic treatment in the room. When I tested the room dry I noticed a huge improvement in sound, the low-mid-high balance is now naturally much more balanced, so now I can setup the monitoring systems/amplifiers much more close to their sweet spots without getting problems with the volume being too loud for the ears, which was a big problem in my earlier room due to all the extra mids I got.