Difference Between Mono & Stereo

[soupking]

Okay, laugh.

Yes, I know a thing or two about mono and stereo, but I'd be lying to you if I could tell you the difference between mono and stereo channels on a mixer and their uses.

Can somebody enlighten me on this knowledge that's been missing from my cap for way too long?

[Chris Parsons]

Usually if a mixer has a stereo channel that means that there will be no mic pres on that channel, just line inputs. Otherwise, I don't think there's a difference.

-Chris

[joelpatterson]

And the cooler ones-- like I discovered with my Alesis USB 8-- if you just plug in the left channel, it IS mono. I mean, is that bitchen or what?

[Mike Brown]

Think of stereo as two seperate mono paths through the same processing.

Also - Pro tip! (jk)

A "Stereo" aux send can be made into two mono aux sends... just pan some stuff to the left and patch that somewhere... and pan other things to the right and pan that somewhere else!

Super cool!

-Cheers!

Mike B.

[soupking]

Originally Posted by Mayor999

Think of stereo as two seperate mono paths through the same processing.

Also - Pro tip! (jk)

A "Stereo" aux send can be made into two mono aux sends... just pan some stuff to the left and patch that somewhere... and pan other things to the right and pan that somewhere else!

Super cool!

-Cheers!

Mike B.

Okay, huh, so it can be used as a twin-sum. Cool, so when using stereo FX boxes for panning etc. I'd need to use a stereo channel right, and then run that to tape or whatever, right?

Oh wait, and if it's running through an AUX channel I could layer that stereo affect on whatever, right?!

[Kiwiburger]

Some random thoughts:

A stereo channel on a mixer is for economy and simplicity. Often you want to handle a stereo source as a single voice. It's handy to be able to control it with one fader, instead of two. But otherwise, nothing that can't be done with two mono channels.

Applying stereo effects to tape tracks (e.g. stereo reverb on a vocal) - here is a concept you may not have thought about. I learnt this stuff when using 4 track cassette, where obviously tracks can't be wasted:

With stereo effects, usually you input a mono source and get a stereo output. You could record this to two tracks of tape - but I would suggest not. Because you dry sound is the most important sound, and if you use your reverb as an Insert effect like this, you are degrading your dry sound with the reverb converters. Usually you need only a small percentage of reverb, so the integrity of your dry signal is very important. If you only want, say, 7% reverb - your reverb will be struggling with 16 bit resolution to not sound grainy.

You could keep your dry mono vocal on one track, and record just the 100% wet reverb onto two more tracks. Now you have the luxury of tracking the reverb using optimum headroom, and mixing the reverb at a low level. This gives you the best signal to noise, so any noise from your reverb becomes unimportant.

But this is a real waste of two tracks. Even better is to use the reverb as a Send effect. Use your consol send and return to send the mono vocal to your reverb, which you can run at optimum headroom/good digital resolution/good signal to noise. You mix in the returned stereo effect, which will sound great because you haven't needed to record it at all.

That's a big part of all the fuss about analog summing.

[RichTone]

Great advice Kiwiburger, I learned something from that response.

[soupking]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Some random thoughts:
You could keep your dry mono vocal on one track, and record just the 100% wet reverb onto two more tracks. Now you have the luxury of tracking the reverb using optimum headroom, and mixing the reverb at a low level. This gives you the best signal to noise, so any noise from your reverb becomes unimportant.

But this is a real waste of two tracks. Even better is to use the reverb as a Send effect. Use your consol send and return to send the mono vocal to your reverb, which you can run at optimum headroom/good digital resolution/good signal to noise. You mix in the returned stereo effect, which will sound great because you haven't needed to record it at all.

That's a big part of all the fuss about analog summing.

I'm a newbie (and probably will be for some time), hence the thread title, but I've been planning all my reverb and delay resources to go through aux sends/returns so I can keep my tracks dry. I think that's what you're trying to tell me to do if I'm understanding you properly.

I have a second 1/2" 8-track that I wanted to use for the second stage of 'wet' tracks. That or a JH-110 for a final dump if I'm confident with the mix alchemy I've got going. I haven't had a chance to mix OTB yet though because neither are currently functional (Gotta luv tape). The mixer sits in between the two decks and behind as a final master readout.

In all, my understanding is that the stereo tracks on a mix are for fading ease. Which would make sense there are for of them on my mixer because it's a Midas, a live mixer built for immediacy.

Thanks Kiwiburger!

[takman]

Noob question here...

Lets say i connect a mic to my DAW and record a singer. The singer is recorded in mono, but the main output buss is in stereo.

how did the mono recording become stereo?

I thought mono was Left only. Doesnt this mean that the singer should only be on the left channel of the stereo ouput? Yet both meters on the main stereo output are moving. And i can pan the singers voice left and right...

Does the DAW change the mono signal to stereo?

[JakeKalka]

Originally Posted by takman

Noob question here...

Lets say i connect a mic to my DAW and record a singer. The singer is recorded in mono, but the main output buss is in stereo.

how did the mono recording become stereo?

I thought mono was Left only. Doesnt this mean that the singer should only be on the left channel of the stereo ouput? Yet both meters on the main stereo output are moving. And i can pan the singers voice left and right...

Does the DAW change the mono signal to stereo?

No it's still mono, It's just showing you basically the signal that your hearing 50/50 from each speaker.. They are exactly the same creating a mono sound. If yo pan left or right,you will see the stereo bus pan as well and the signal level will rise.

[Gearowner]

Hm. If I'm recording a singer singing into a microphone (using cubase), i should create a mono track right? I mean, why would I want to track a singer in stereo?

[technocolour v2]

Originally Posted by Gearowner

Hm. If I'm recording a singer singing into a microphone (using cubase), i should create a mono track right? I mean, why would I want to track a singer in stereo?

If you're recording, yes, otherwise you're wasting diskspace. However, once it's in the DAW, using a stereo track gives you more flexibility.

[ObiK]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

And the cooler ones-- like I discovered with my Alesis USB 8-- if you just plug in the left channel, it IS mono. I mean, is that bitchen or what?

When I discovered that I that that was amazing! Ahh how much I have learned along the way... thumbsup

[Michael_Joly]

The difference between mono and stereo is the level of L-R relative to L+R.

[ObiK]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

The difference between mono and stereo is the level of L-R relative to L+R.

Your back!? :D

[Michael_Joly]

oh yeah. I was banned, ghosted and finally absolved - after performing the requisite genuflections, self flagellation and impure thought sublimation.

[Gearowner]

He, Joly. (Are you the one that makes oktava mods?)

Technocolor, you said 'If you're recording, yes, otherwise you're wasting diskspace. However, once it's in the DAW, using a stereo track gives you more flexibility.'.

When i record a singer singing into a single mic im recording it to a mono track in my daw. In reply to your quote, what can i do more with that signal if i'd recorded the performance in stereo?? Am i missing out on something, or something? I thought recording vocal as mono track was o.k. lol?

thank you

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

oh yeah. I was banned, ghosted and finally absolved - after performing the requisite genuflections, self flagellation and impure thought sublimation.

Eh... I'm not satisfied, for one. Where are the welts?

[ObiK]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Eh... I'm not satisfied, for one.

In which way?

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by ObiK

In which way?

Too many to catalog. Although... it would be an interesting parlor game to try. But I mean... some people are just a menace to society as a whole. Those impure thoughts are bound to desublimate themselves, I've seen it time and again.

[TurboJets]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Eh... I'm not satisfied, for one. Where are the welts?

they're right in front of your face, man - in stereo. If you had better converters you would see that.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

they're right in front of your face, man - in stereo. If you had better converters you would see that.

How can we tell if it was the mic or the preamp that caused the welts? I think that's the issue, here-- not the clarity with which the welts are rendered.

[Old Goat]

Those aren't welts, that's clock jitter and aliasing. Whataya deaf?

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by Old Goat

... Whataya deaf?...

I dunno, I never looked!

[Gearowner]

I think ill just repost my post.... maybe someone can say something about it? Thanks,y'all.


Technocolor, you said 'If you're recording, yes, otherwise you're wasting diskspace. However, once it's in the DAW, using a stereo track gives you more flexibility.'.

When i record a singer singing into a single mic im recording it to a mono track in my daw. In reply to your quote, what can i do more with that signal if i'd recorded the performance in stereo?? Am i missing out on something, or something? I thought recording vocal as mono track was o.k. and i could do everything with it that a vocal track would need??

thank you

[Old Goat]

Originally Posted by Gearowner

When i record a singer singing into a single mic im recording it to a mono track in my daw. In reply to your quote, what can i do more with that signal if i'd recorded the performance in stereo?? Am i missing out on something, or something? I thought recording vocal as mono track was o.k. and i could do everything with it that a vocal track would need??

thank you

Yup, it's just fine. Sometimes you might want a couple of mics going to mono tracks. I generally track my vocals with a LDC up close, and another room mic about ten feet out. I might go farther, but there's a rather inconvenient wall there. Gives me a little more flexibility and some thickness that a single mic doesn't.

Sorry about the hijack to abuse Joly. Kinda...

[joelpatterson]

Recording a vocal in true stereo, with two mics, can give you a more three-dimensional image... at least I was able to convince myself that I had the illusion of a more three dimensional image... obviously it was really in four dimensions, because vocals always have the added dimension of time as well.

But however cool it was, I just dropped it, because it was touchy, the singer would bob around and you had this queasy "wobbly" thing going on, and then anyway tailoring mixes to work in mono is really pretty important, so why burden the production with this "effecty" procedure that was trouble from the get go?

[Old Goat]

And then there's the whole welt thing...

[joelpatterson]

As well as the half welts.

[Gearowner]

Ok, thanks for the quick reply. I'll try the room mic out someday,.... interesting way to add depth into the vocal track. Just two ldc's, right? Np on the hijack mate, just having fun right