The secret of STEREO!!!

[Joemamma]

Originally Posted by 3rd world order

the secret of stereo is...

ANALOG TAPE

How does analog tape differ in stereo perception compared to digital?
Why is it better?

[Blast9]

Great thread,

Mics set up to receive L & R signals in a nice room = great imaging and depth.

I agree with what advice is being given here, especially re different sounds panned, playing the same lines.

Don't forget to mess around with the ambient stereo stuff behind the main instruments, whether that's the room mics, or the synth/gtr stuff you've processed with delay/revb etc.

You can get a lot of mileage out of sticking those sounds through dual mono compressors with different ratios , threshold, attack release times. This can create minage shift and give a nice sense of movement.

Also automating the dry/wet balance at different parts can help.

Just my 0.0002 euro cents worth

[corn55]

Originally Posted by IJsman

quote:"Many years ago, (before all the cute tools every dick, clark, and harry now have at their amatuer disposal), engineers needed 4 things"


Stop the purism. this is 2006, and we have good mics, good processing and good mastering. The source has to be right, and I agree, the room, mic, talent, everything before tape has to be flawless. But to tell you the truth, I couldn't get my sound the way I get it without all the outboard gear and on-board processing I use, along with a lot of things I do in PT. Call that amateurish, I call it using all available tools to create the perfect sound.

Hey I was responding to mr. cutie, not to the original poster. I'm not a purist, I'm a realist. Here's what happens: A new guy getting into this business, whether it's for fun or for employment, and he dumps $10,000 into all the latest gadgets, processors, synths, mics, etc..., reads a few internet "How To's", and *then* wonders why his mixes sound so dull and lifeless.

You *have* to start at the basics. If you cannot create a beautiful stereo mix with the basics, being a couple good mics and a good room, then you haven't mastered the basic elements of mixing in stereo!

You want wide? Place the mics farther apart. You want deep? Move them farther away from the source. It is such a simple concept. I think the real culprit is that not enough time is spent moving the mics around the source to find that sweet spot. Years ago, before all the gadgets, engineers were forced to actually listen to each mic for good placement.

[Blast9]

Agreed!

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by Joemamma

How does analog tape differ in stereo perception compared to digital?
Why is it better?

In reality analog tape has crosstalk between tracks which will result in a slightly collapsed stereo image

[u b k]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

In reality analog tape has crosstalk between tracks which will result in a slightly collapsed stereo image

i'm going to respectfully label that a theory; because reality, for me, is that 90% of the time when i send a mix thru the studer it gets bigger in all directions, and when tape tracks are dumped to digital they lose a little width and oomph.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[yeloocproducer]

Crosstalk is sometimes perceived as depth instead of width, b/c there are very subtle (almost sub-audible) things getting blended together and glued in through other channel's processing. But consoles also start to run out of headroom differently on each side of a stereo pair, and can cause differences... thus resulting in a slightly more stereo sound (wider).

Ubk had mentioned mono drums... if the song has mono drums throughout, then when the chorus hits, things get wide by comparision. Width can sometimes be based on perception and sleight of hand.

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by u b i k

i'm going to respectfully label that a theory;.

Crosstalk is not a theory It's a spec on all tape machines
I have a/b ing my Studer 2 inch with digital a lot. The sound field in narrower and noise in higher thus masking detail.
Unless your running SR on your machine analog is going to have less dynamic range more noise and distortion.
Can't get around the laws of physics.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by corn55

I know you're being cute, but right back at ya brother. Many years ago, (before all the cute tools every dick, clark, and harry now have at their amatuer disposal), engineers needed 4 things:

Good instrument/voice
Good player/singer
Good room
Good mics

There was no lexicon, eventide, no width controls, no di inputs, no analog synths... sheesh how did they get along? Even when they only had mono capability, the depth was unreal. I could be really mean, but I won't. Your statement simply shows how far we've evolved backwards in the studio.

I wouldn't know why you would have to, or want to be "really mean".

It's not about me or you in any sort of a personal way. It's only about what you said in your reply that I questioned and I'm going to question.

I feel that good, solid mic technique is a critical tool in recording. I even feel that it's important in creating a good stereo effect. However, I don't feel that it's the be all and end all. I know it isn't. I've know that I can give something recorded direct a solid stereo position in a mix.

I know for a fact that some great stereo mixes used reverb rooms, plates, eventides and lexicons. I have heard some amazing stereo sounds coming off of tape loops and analog synths. Deeper than deep. I don't think that a 480L or and EMT 140 is "evolving backward" in the slightest sense.

I also think that eq and compression have an effect on the stereo field if you use them in pairs or as dual mono.

That was the reason for me questioning your reasoning for the microphone being the "secret of stereo"...

To me it's just as much about what you do with something once it's on tape as it is how you get it there.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

In reality analog tape has crosstalk between tracks which will result in a slightly collapsed stereo image

LP's have the least separation between right and left, but they seem to do better on making nice stereo to me. Maybe a connection?

LCR stereo worked well. Now we have surround. Deja vu.

[Blast9]

Originally Posted by danasti

I also think that eq and compression have an effect on the stereo field if you use them in pairs or as dual mono.

Agreed wholeheartedly on this point.

[Han]

Originally Posted by u b i k

i'm going to respectfully label that a theory; because reality, for me, is that 90% of the time when i send a mix thru the studer it gets bigger in all directions, and when tape tracks are dumped to digital they lose a little width and oomph.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

There's been a big thread at Craig Anderton's board a while ago about mixing in the box and out of the box.

Because of that discussion I bought a CD titled 'Little Sparrow' by Dolly Parton. It was said that this CD was recorded and mixed ITB, but it turned out it was recorded with Radar and mixed on an analog console.

And this CD has this edgy thing in the high freqs that I hear in most digital recordings. It's not my intention to start another analog/digital thing here, but in that thread we had quite a discussion and somebody recorded 16 tracks simultaniously in a DAW, a 400 hz sinus.

He says when he listened to only one track it sounds like a clean 400hz tone, but when listening to two or more tracks of that recorded tracks, there's something weird going on. It sounds like a kind of interferency, some harmonic distortion or such.

I record everything to 2" tape and mix with a big analog board. The mix goes to 24/96 and indeed something is lost there, some width and some depth, which is not getting lost when this mix goes to my 1/4"Studer.

My theory is this: a two inch tape at 30ips contains 20+ tracks of sound. These tracks have phase relationship with eachother and everytime this tape runs over the machines heads, everyting happens at the same time. Each track passes the head and nothing of the contence moves in distance to other tracks.

A DAW with 30+ tracks works it's ass off, calculates like crazy and imagine one track with only a hi hat and another track with a big sound like a phat synth.
Perhaps it takes just a little more time to calculate this sound and it causes just a tad of latency, so this track moves a very little piece in the time domain. You'll have a tiny phase issue. And this happens with 30+ tracks.

Another point: we had a test a couple of years ago in a pro magazine. A 15khz square wave was recorded to both an Ampex ATR102 and a DAW.

The playback was on a scope and the playback of the tape showed a near perfect square wave, the DAW showed a sloppy sine wave. Can it be that digital makes sine waves from all kind of wave forms in the very high freqs? I dunno, but when I record a ride cymbal with tape, it sound in playback like a shiny ride cymbal with that silky ping. In digital it sounds different from the original.

On topic now: I don't have any problems making a wide and deep sound when recording to tape and mixing through a nice analog board. In Nuendo, Cubase, AA, Logic, PT or whatever, this seems a lot more difficult.

I may be wrong.

[ofajen]

Originally Posted by Sput

HI there!
I've being experimenting a bit with stereo expanders lately. The reason is that I never seem to get that "depth and openness" in my mixes that other engineers master.
Appart from a bit of a phase mess, I'm really not succeding at all.
Any thoughts on the subject to enlighten me, please?
Where are you using these units?
Any plug-ins worth looking at?

Thanks very much in advance!

I'd recommend you read The New Stereo Soundbook (Third Edition) by Ron Streicher and F. Alton Everest. It's a very comprehensive review of the whole range of issues involved in the stereo illusion and very accessible with very little actual math. You will know much more of what you're doing and how to make pleasing choices for your purposes once you digest that book.

Cheers,

Otto

[deve]

interesting thread, enjoy this a lot.

[drBill]

Han - interesting theory and makes a lot of sense, but if I take your analogy, then playing back digital off of a digital multitrack TAPE machine, there should be no problems right? And yet, we still have the smaller stereo image.

[Han]

Originally Posted by drBill

Han - interesting theory and makes a lot of sense, but if I take your analogy, then playing back digital off of a digital multitrack TAPE machine, there should be no problems right? And yet, we still have the smaller stereo image.

No, the same happens, when you record to digital on tape or harddrive. The current is converted to bits, whether you use tape or disk, the same happens.

Recording to an analog tape machine is completely different though.

[3rd world order]

Originally Posted by Joemamma

How does analog tape differ in stereo perception compared to digital?
Why is it better?

tape does this time domain smear thing which seems to add to depth.. IMO, reverbs dont sound right till they come back off tape... call me crazy.

[PhilRanger]

Originally Posted by PhilRanger

If you use delays, pitch shifters, chorus, etc to widen ALWAYS LISTEN TO MONO AS WELL. I can't stress that enough.

Also, leave some things mono in the mix.

Originally Posted by T_R_S

why?

Because if you're not on the sweet spot, or you're far from the speakers, or it's on the tv or radio, etc, it will be mono or partly mono-like

Dry sound on one side and delay on the second side = wide. In mono=cumb filter (flanger-like sound). Pitch Shifter monoed sounds like a chorus. Both will usually make the sound muddier and less punchy. It's always weird to have fully new sounds in mono that you don't in stereo...

[bcgood]

I was looking for some stuff on Google and stumbled upon this article with Bruce accidentally. I think he has some cool stuff to say about this topic, he may have said this already when he was here on GS but here it is in a nicely organized article.

http://www.discmakers.com/music/pse/record.asp

bcgood

[Sammy]

Originally Posted by Han

And this CD has this edgy thing in the high freqs that I hear in most digital recordings.

How about that you just miss the high-end rolloff/saturation of tape in this case?

A DAW with 30+ tracks works it's ass off, calculates like crazy and imagine one track with only a hi hat and another track with a big sound like a phat synth.
Perhaps it takes just a little more time to calculate this sound and it causes just a tad of latency, so this track moves a very little piece in the time domain. You'll have a tiny phase issue. And this happens with 30+ tracks.
...snip...
I may be wrong.

You most certainly are in this case. The content of a digital audio file does not affect the processing time (as long as all files are of the sampling freq./bitdepth). Having different plugins on different tracks could affect relative timing with a constant offset, but most DAWs already compensate for this automatically.

[Han]

Originally Posted by Sammy

How about that you just miss the high-end rolloff/saturation of tape in this case?.

How about my Otari 2" having no problems with 32 khz at 30 ips?
Besides that, I can't hear much above 16khz, but I can hear the difference between a silky and a grainy hi end.

Originally Posted by Sammy

You most certainly are in this case. The content of a digital audio file does not affect the processing time (as long as all files are of the sampling freq./bitdepth). Having different plugins on different tracks could affect relative timing with a constant offset, but most DAWs already compensate for this automatically.

That's what I hear and read for a very long time now, but it still doesn't sound as wide and deep.

[Sput]

Thanks everybody for your thoughts.
I'm about to begin mixing OTB, so I'll see if that helps.
The New Stereo Soundbook looks very interesting and I'll buy it. I recently read the Bruce Swedien book in which he talks (not very organizedly) a lot about stereo recording. Interesting too.

I never mixed to half inch (I don't have one) so I'll have to try the rest of your suggetions. The concept of making both signal very different is nice. I mean, it's kind of obvious but I had never thought of it that way. I'll have that in mind from now on.

I'm aware I wasn't very explicit in my question. This thread came to my mind after mixing a in-location recording of an ancient music group. Clave, Viola da Gamba, vocals, perc, ... Interesting repertoire, nice players, church with nice acoustics. I recorded it with spot microphones and 2 general pairs (first 2-3 meter away, second at the other end of the church). I'm happy with the result, but when I compare it to some winter & winter recordings, they sound SO much wider. It's true though that they are studio recording, not in-loc, but still....

So anyway, thanks again for your help here. Much appreciated!!

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Han

No, the same happens, when you record to digital on tape or harddrive. The current is converted to bits, whether you use tape or disk, the same happens.

Recording to an analog tape machine is completely different though.

Han, you're contradicting yourself as far as I can tell. I can almost get the concept with HD based DAW's but not tape machines. You say the same thing happens with digital tape machines, yet:

Originally Posted by Han

My theory is this: a two inch tape at 30ips contains 20+ tracks of sound. These tracks have phase relationship with eachother and everytime this tape runs over the machines heads, everyting happens at the same time. Each track passes the head and nothing of the contence moves in distance to other tracks.

A DAW with 30+ tracks works it's ass off, calculates like crazy and imagine one track with only a hi hat and another track with a big sound like a phat synth.
Perhaps it takes just a little more time to calculate this sound and it causes just a tad of latency, so this track moves a very little piece in the time domain. You'll have a tiny phase issue. And this happens with 30+ tracks.

So what is it? Digital or phase smear due to tracks being "delivered" at slightly different timings? Digital tape should not have timing issues.

Bill

[Han]

Bill, the timing issues must take place in the digital domain, not on the tape of an ADAT of Dash machine.

An analog recording tape could be compaired with a cornfield when there are circles or other figures being made. They don't move, on an analog tape there are trillions of particles magnetised and everytime these micro magnets pass the head gap, they cause a very small amount of current, which doesn't take time because it happens in 2/3 of lightspeed.

The calculation of sound in the digital domain out of plusses and zeros is extremely more complicated from what happens when an analog passes the head.

This is how I see it and that calculating takes time, which isn't the problem in my humble opinion, but the problem might be that track XX takes more time than track YY so that one track moves a tad in the time domain compared to the other track(s).

An analog 24 track two inch tape machine works in basic exactly the same as a cassette deck, only a whole lot better and accurately.

A digital tape machine like ADAT, DAT, Dash or whatever just stores kind of a barcode on tape.

Peace, han

[wallace]

A good arrangement will help. You should think about how you can mix all the instruments when you're tracking. It's always nice to have a complimentary sound on the other side if you're doing hard panning.

[IJsman]

Originally Posted by corn55

Hey I was responding to mr. cutie, not to the original poster. I'm not a purist, I'm a realist. Here's what happens: A new guy getting into this business, whether it's for fun or for employment, and he dumps $10,000 into all the latest gadgets, processors, synths, mics, etc..., reads a few internet "How To's", and *then* wonders why his mixes sound so dull and lifeless.

You *have* to start at the basics. If you cannot create a beautiful stereo mix with the basics, being a couple good mics and a good room, then you haven't mastered the basic elements of mixing in stereo!

You want wide? Place the mics farther apart. You want deep? Move them farther away from the source. It is such a simple concept. I think the real culprit is that not enough time is spent moving the mics around the source to find that sweet spot. Years ago, before all the gadgets, engineers were forced to actually listen to each mic for good placement.

I'm sure that does happen. I'm also sure those types of engineers don't get far, so I don't even consider them. The whole - mics placement is the miracle tool - debate is very, very true. If you record classical, jazz or other "natural" styles of music. If you want to make modern day metal or rap records, you're gonna need more then mics and faders.

[thenoodle]

I'm going to mention an actual recording that seems to help a lot of people visualize what can be done with stereo in one single song. But first, since stereo can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, there are an infinite number of ways to approach things......

You can have plain ole, early 60's stereo-mic-3d stereo within a horizontal plain. You can have stereo with a wide panorama, you can have stereo with certain instruments and vocals pinpointed in specific up-down-left-right places....and even have those sources appear in those locations as "bigger' rather than pinpoint.....seeming distant...or seeming close. While other elements of the mix hog up their own space in the panorama.

Any of the mentioned techniques so far can get a person somewhat into the neighborhood of all these different places in the stereo panorama. Every treatment...used judiciously ...can lead to a different effect.

Anyway....for an example of a lot of different stereo "technique" in one single recording, go find the Eurythmic's "It's Alright, Baby's Coming Back". The mix will show you a bunch of mic-eq-pan techniques (maybe almost too much for one mix) that yank the instruments/vocals into very distinct areas of the sound space.

Notice how some instruments are actual stereo..creating a wide panorama..sometimes placed further away, sometimes closer to your face...other instruments/vocals on the track are mono with a ddl hard panned opposite...placing them in a limited spot in the spread. Eq off the top and they fall further away from you.

Some comp vocals on that track have had eq treatment ...no reverb, in order to place them left-right-up-and down. I especially like the up-down locating.

Technique...Mono Mic-stereo mic-pan-eq-judicious use of effects. That'll get you some great stereo, if not downright 3d. I always try this route first before reaching for a plug-in

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by Han

No, the same happens, when you record to digital on tape or harddrive. The current is converted to bits, whether you use tape or disk, the same happens.

Recording to an analog tape machine is completely different though.

sorry, I humbly disagree Han, based onwhat you said originally (which sounds quite possible), the problems with daw recording are time (and therefore phase) differences between the different tracks, even if very minute, and the problems are caused by an inherent lack of relationship between the different tracks being played and/or recorded in a daw (they're separate files, unrelated processing, whatever the reason) whereas in a tape deck the tracks are physically perfectly aligned with one another and there is no way for that to get out of sync because the different tracks are on the same tape at the same location along the tape path, just in a different lateral location.

Therefore, if recording digitally to a tape deck (which is of course analog recording of digital code with values translated into a pitched signal), the signal is perfectly time aligned on the tape with no possible way for it to become misaligned.

However, if what you're saying is that the problem is with the digital conversion, not with the tape head, then your first post becomes null and void, since it deals with physical tape head tracking versus daw tracking and does bring up a possibly valid point.

If I'm trying to be helpful, are you maybe saying that the culprit could be two different issues with digital recording, both digital conversion being possibly out of wack and introducing time alignment problems, and also the lack of a physical perfectly aligned tracking system being another problem, and either problem produces these audible side effects, and it's even worse if both problems exist (ie, daw based recording without tape)?

Cheers,
don