Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Stereo from Mono

Nil wrote:

In this case, the recently appeared "true stereo" Love Me Do is the
work of a guy who has spent a lot of time separating the elements of
the only existing recording (mono) of the song using software tools.

https://youtu.be/9E-60pAAOro


The is fascinating! It's sort of blind source separation, but done by hand
by a human being rather than by a machine.

It seems like each one of the parts has been isolated along with the room
acoustics specific to that part, so the end result is kind of weird. You
can hear Paul along with the room reverb specific to Paul, panned to one
point. The effect is really very disconcerting and the individual room
sounds in mono coming from the individual parts is very unnatural.

But as an intellectual exercise this is very impressive and must have taken
forever.

I think it actually sounds pretty dang good, considering how it was
done. Certainly a lot better than those horrid Rock Band game
extractions from a few years ago. There are some audible phase-y and
gate-y artifacts which seem to be more obvious when listening with
headphones but I think it sounds better over speakers.


I bet adding just a touch of reverb would hide a lot of that stuff.

At this point I
look at it as more of a techno demonstration or parlor trick rather
than an artistic thing, but it shows that the technology is getting a
lot closer than it was even a couple of years ago.


The easy solution is the one I suspected at first: just hire a cover band
like 1964. They sound more like the Beatles than the Beatles did.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Stereo from Mono

In article ,
JackA wrote:
And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than
ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the
car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-)


Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to
listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound.


Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this?

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Stereo from Mono

On 9/4/2015 8:46 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Yes. Good mono beats average stereo every time. And excellent stereo may
not make for good mono. So why bother with stereo when 99.9% of your
audience is listening in mono?


It all depends on the material, of course, but I think that today a high
percentage of listening is done with earphones that are wired for two
channels, one for each ear. But with that kind of left-right separation,
you want to have a strong center in your mix. That's likely to result in
a mix that, when listened to on speakers in a less than ideal
environment, sounds mostly mono.

And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than
ideal environment, stereo wise.


Ideal, stereo-wise (earphones) but that's not ideal when listened to
properly recorded stereo. It's ideal for listening to properly recorded
binaural, however, the kind of thing you get with a dummy head with omni
mics in the "ears." Not much rock music is recorded that way.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:32:52 AM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than
ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the
car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-)


Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to
listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound.


Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this?


Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!!
If a song sounds foul/ill, it should remain the way regardless of speakers or headphones. Maybe you can provide a sample or just tell me what song(s)to purchase so I can judge this theory.

Jack



--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:06:35 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/4/2015 8:46 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Yes. Good mono beats average stereo every time. And excellent stereo may
not make for good mono. So why bother with stereo when 99.9% of your
audience is listening in mono?


It all depends on the material, of course, but I think that today a high
percentage of listening is done with earphones that are wired for two
channels, one for each ear. But with that kind of left-right separation,
you want to have a strong center in your mix. That's likely to result in
a mix that, when listened to on speakers in a less than ideal
environment, sounds mostly mono.

And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than
ideal environment, stereo wise.


Ideal, stereo-wise (earphones) but that's not ideal when listened to
properly recorded stereo. It's ideal for listening to properly recorded
binaural, however, the kind of thing you get with a dummy head with omni
mics in the "ears." Not much rock music is recorded that way.


Mike, I was told by a group member of Bubble Puppy, their HOT SMOKE & SASAFRASS hit song was mixed using car stereo speakers. Not sure it made a bit of difference, but maybe someone felt most music gets listened to in a car, so create the environment to mix.

During the '70's, less stereophonic sound was marketed. Even a participant here mentioned it was common to fix the centered and vary only one stereo channel. Some songs, though I enjoy wider stereo, when mixed wide (via RockBand multi-tracks) can't compete with a narrow stereo rendition. I blame that all on the recording engineer(s).

Jack

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com




  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Stereo from Mono

In article ,
JackA wrote:
Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this?


Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!!


You've not been around much, then.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:38:45 AM UTC-4, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this?


Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!!


You've not been around much, then.


Yeah, I'm just a novice!!!!

Jack

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nil[_2_] Nil[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Stereo from Mono

On 04 Sep 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

https://youtu.be/9E-60pAAOro

The is fascinating! It's sort of blind source separation, but
done by hand by a human being rather than by a machine.

It seems like each one of the parts has been isolated along with
the room acoustics specific to that part, so the end result is
kind of weird. You can hear Paul along with the room reverb
specific to Paul, panned to one point. The effect is really very
disconcerting and the individual room sounds in mono coming from
the individual parts is very unnatural.


That's what I meant by the "gate-y" artifacts - the ambiance kind of
clamps out when Paul isn't singing. Once you hear it, you can't un-hear
it, and the effect becomes irritating. You're right that a little
artificial reverb might help disguise that, but the guy who did it
mentioned that it was a self-imposed limitation - he didn't want to add
anything like that to the existing recording.

It ain't perfect, but it's an interesting intellectual-technical
exercise.

The easy solution is the one I suspected at first: just hire a
cover band like 1964. They sound more like the Beatles than the
Beatles did.


Aw, but what's the fun in that??
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 2:11:09 PM UTC-4, Nil wrote:
On 04 Sep 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

https://youtu.be/9E-60pAAOro

The is fascinating! It's sort of blind source separation, but
done by hand by a human being rather than by a machine.

It seems like each one of the parts has been isolated along with
the room acoustics specific to that part, so the end result is
kind of weird. You can hear Paul along with the room reverb
specific to Paul, panned to one point. The effect is really very
disconcerting and the individual room sounds in mono coming from
the individual parts is very unnatural.


That's what I meant by the "gate-y" artifacts - the ambiance kind of
clamps out when Paul isn't singing. Once you hear it, you can't un-hear
it, and the effect becomes irritating. You're right that a little
artificial reverb might help disguise that, but the guy who did it
mentioned that it was a self-imposed limitation - he didn't want to add
anything like that to the existing recording.

It ain't perfect, but it's an interesting intellectual-technical
exercise.


Excuse me gentlemen, but maybe you can tell me how it was created. I'd hate to think some novice has greater abilities thann you pros.

Thank you.

Jack

The easy solution is the one I suspected at first: just hire a
cover band like 1964. They sound more like the Beatles than the
Beatles did.


Aw, but what's the fun in that??


  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:29:07 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Nil wrote:

In this case, the recently appeared "true stereo" Love Me Do is the
work of a guy who has spent a lot of time separating the elements of
the only existing recording (mono) of the song using software tools.

https://youtu.be/9E-60pAAOro


The is fascinating!


Actually, the other two stereo mixes he created gained one comment each. The Beatles one, however, gained a lot of positive comments.
Who knows, maybe The Beatles mono mixes are superior to create stereo mixes from. Since he claims "extraction", he should have created a karaoke version, that would have been nice.

Jack



It's sort of blind source separation, but done by hand
by a human being rather than by a machine.

It seems like each one of the parts has been isolated along with the room
acoustics specific to that part, so the end result is kind of weird. You
can hear Paul along with the room reverb specific to Paul, panned to one
point. The effect is really very disconcerting and the individual room
sounds in mono coming from the individual parts is very unnatural.

But as an intellectual exercise this is very impressive and must have taken
forever.

I think it actually sounds pretty dang good, considering how it was
done. Certainly a lot better than those horrid Rock Band game
extractions from a few years ago. There are some audible phase-y and
gate-y artifacts which seem to be more obvious when listening with
headphones but I think it sounds better over speakers.


I bet adding just a touch of reverb would hide a lot of that stuff.

At this point I
look at it as more of a techno demonstration or parlor trick rather
than an artistic thing, but it shows that the technology is getting a
lot closer than it was even a couple of years ago.


The easy solution is the one I suspected at first: just hire a cover band
like 1964. They sound more like the Beatles than the Beatles did.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."




  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Stereo from Mono

JackA wrote:



Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this?


Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!!



** Nor have I, it is grossly exaggerated nonsense.

Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly.

Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image produced by loudspeakers.


..... Phil



  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Stereo from Mono

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
JackA wrote:




Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse. Perhaps I should be surprised you didn't know this?


Dave, personally, I never heard this claim - speakers vs headphones!!



** Nor have I, it is grossly exaggerated nonsense.


How do you exaggerate nonsense?

Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most
listeners accommodate to very quickly.


Yes - it's ideal having the drummer bashing your frontal lobes directly.


Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you
move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image
produced by loudspeakers.


Most tend to listen to live music from a stage or whatever in front of
them. Stereo via speakers in a decent listening room is sort of designed
to replicate this - which at best it does very well. But if you are happy
with headphones and think them so much better, your choice.


.... Phil


--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Stereo from Mono

On 9/5/2015 4:14 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something
most listeners accommodate to very quickly.

Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you
move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image
produced by loudspeakers.


I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back
that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It
changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for
technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about
it, but didn't try to keep up with it either.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Stereo from Mono

On 9/5/2015 6:14 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:

I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back
that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It
changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for
technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about
it, but didn't try to keep up with it either.


Oh, yeah. Here it is:

http://north-america.beyerdynamic.co...echnology.html

(URL courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department)

Apparently they're offering it for a home listener to get the
experience, when listening to a surround recording of, when turning his
head toward an apparent sound source, have the perspective change so the
sound he's "looking at" is in front of him.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Stereo from Mono

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:

Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly.


It's not really a stereo image, though. Partly because it is in one's head,
and there is a hole in the middle, but also because the sense of depth is
radically altered.

For pop music this might not be a problem, but for classical music that has
been very specifically miked to try and recreate the room sound, something
miked for headphones won't sound very good on speakers and vice-versa.
The "solid" sense of space that makes it "stereo" doesn't work.

Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual image produced by loudspeakers.


This is absolutely true, and this is the number one huge argument in favor
of using binaural methods instead of stereo. With more and more younger
listeners using headphones, I am surprised more of this isn't happening.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Stereo from Mono

Phil Allison wrote:
Also, the stereo image is rock solid, it does not move around if
you move your head or whole body as is the case with the virtual
image produced by loudspeakers.


On 9/5/2015 7:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
This is absolutely true, and this is the number one huge argument in
favor of using binaural methods instead of stereo. With more and
more younger listeners using headphones, I am surprised more of this
isn't happening.


Is there a converter between "conventional stereo" and "headphone
binaural?" Seems like there's a lot to do in order to change one to the
other. The Focusrite VRM Box (and their interfaces that have the
processor built in) emulates speakers when listening on headphones, but
that assumes that the source was mixed on speakers.

These days, everybody checks a mix on headphones, but it's usually to
make sure that all of the important sound elements can be heard rather
than how the space is expressed. And if you're mixing panpot stereo with
your primary monitoring being headphones, there's only so much you can
do with it space-wise that won't be flattering when heard on speakers.

Two mixes? There are usually a few alternate mixes of commercial music
releases because they have the need and the money, so for an extra 59
cents a download they could make a "headphone optimized" mix.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Stereo from Mono

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:

Is there a converter between "conventional stereo" and "headphone
binaural?" Seems like there's a lot to do in order to change one to the
other. The Focusrite VRM Box (and their interfaces that have the
processor built in) emulates speakers when listening on headphones, but
that assumes that the source was mixed on speakers.


Right. And I'd call that a converter.

There have long been shuffler gadgets that reduce the hole in the center
and contract the soundstage. Headwise seems to be the most popular
manufacturer making them today. But that can't actually give you a proper
simulation of the stereo image the way the Focusrite box can.

These days, everybody checks a mix on headphones, but it's usually to
make sure that all of the important sound elements can be heard rather
than how the space is expressed. And if you're mixing panpot stereo with
your primary monitoring being headphones, there's only so much you can
do with it space-wise that won't be flattering when heard on speakers.


For the most part, I check on headphones either because I don't trust my
monitoring in the field, or because I want to make sure nothing too untoward
happens to the mix when people are listening on headphones. Because, as
I pointed out earlier, the vast majority of younger listeners are listening
on headphones now.

Two mixes? There are usually a few alternate mixes of commercial music
releases because they have the need and the money, so for an extra 59
cents a download they could make a "headphone optimized" mix.


For classical music, I certainly think this sort of thing could have a
future, if it could be marketed right.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Stereo from Mono

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Using headphones, the stereo image is inside one's head -
something most listeners accommodate to very quickly.



It's not really a stereo image, though. Partly because it is in one's head,
and there is a hole in the middle,



** Only times I hear a "hole in the middle" is when L & R are reverse phase or the ground connection is missing - otherwise mono signals appear smack in the middle.


but also because the sense of depth is radically altered.



** But the fact the sound from headphones is NOT contaminated with masses of room reverberation ( which also destroys any depth illusion) more than makes up for it in most cases.

The biggest drawbacks with headphone listening is how low bass seems wrong and ear discomfort after extended periods.



.... Phil




  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Stereo from Mono

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

In article , Phil Allison

wrote: Using headphones, the stereo image is inside
one's head - something most listeners accommodate to very quickly.

It's not really a stereo image, though. Partly because it is in one's head,
and there is a hole in the middle, but also because the sense of depth is
radically altered.


We've had parts of this discussion before, and it's still a bit odd, imo.

Here's why. For me, headphones do /not/ present a "hole in the middle". In fact, the
left-to-right imaging is excellent -- far better than an average room and maybe even
just ever so slightly better than my mix room.

(All those flat panel displays have degraded imaging a touch. It's not bad, but not
quite as perfect without them. It's the old "console bounce" issue, but recast with
diffraction over the tops of the flat panels instead of a bounce off a nearly
horizontal console surface. I'm glad I don't have both!)

And, so too some front-to-back imaging is apparent in the phones, depending on the
quality of the recording.

I don't mix on headphones because things start feeling claustrophobic and there are
some spectral issues. But, because of their highly accurate imaging, I always use
phones to check panning.

I guess we'll have to leave it at YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Stereo from Mono

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
but also because the sense of depth is radically altered.



** But the fact the sound from headphones is NOT contaminated with
masses of room reverberation ( which also destroys any depth illusion)
more than makes up for it in most cases.


If you have a poor listening room, then obviously headphones may be better.

But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of
'being there' than ever with headphones.

I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the
number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono mixes
for them. ;-)

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Stereo from Mono

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of
'being there' than ever with headphones.


-WITH- a conventional recording that is tracked and mixed to be listened
to on headphones.

If you were listening to a binaural recording, for instance, you'd get a
far greater sense of being there on headphones, and you'd find the playback
on speakers to be distant and lifeless.

I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the
number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono mixes
for them. ;-)


I think there is a market for binaural recordings for these people, if you
can first figure out how to sell them.

On the other hand, there is a long history of gadgetry intended to create a
true stereo image for pop music... varying from things like Q-sound used in
the mix process to practices like building a mix up from binaural track pairs
(as used in Lou Reed's _Streetnoise_), all of which have been total failures
in the market. Presumably because people didn't want a real stereo image and
weren't willing to sacrifice anything for it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default Stereo from Mono

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

We've had parts of this discussion before, and it's still a bit odd, imo.

Here's why. For me, headphones do /not/ present a "hole in the middle". In fact, the
left-to-right imaging is excellent -- far better than an average room and maybe even
just ever so slightly better than my mix room.


It _is_ excellent... it's exaggeratedly excellent. That's what's wrong with
it.

Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like
Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit,
it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated.

I guess this is not really a hole in the middle but two holes on either side
of the middle, if you want to get technical. But people call it "the hole in
the middle" so we're kind of stuck with that.

If you add slight delays to get phase imaging instead of amplitude imaging,
the effect is even more pronounced. Stuff moves very quickly to the side
as the delay increases, much more quickly than on speakers.

And, so too some front-to-back imaging is apparent in the phones, depending on the
quality of the recording.


Yes, but the front-to-back imaging is different than on speakers. If you
mix on speakers and then try to mix to sound similar on headphones, you wind
up adding a lot of reverb to the headphone mix to compensate for the room
that isn't there. (Or maybe you remove reverb from the speaker mix to
compensate for the room that is there, if you'd rather think about it that
way.)

I don't mix on headphones because things start feeling claustrophobic and there are
some spectral issues. But, because of their highly accurate imaging, I always use
phones to check panning.


Doing field recording work, I sometimes have to work only with headphones and
it takes some practice to judge ambient/direct ratios with headphones, because
if it sounds good in the phones, it'll be way too distant on speakers.

I guess we'll have to leave it at YMMV.


Sure. But I think we can agree that if you want a mix to sound good on
speakers or headphones, or whatever, you should mix it to sound good on
whatever you want it to sound good on.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Stereo from Mono

On 9/5/2015 2:52 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like
Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit,
it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated.


This is why I don't feel comfortable mixing live on headphones. If I set
the pan pots visually to about where they'd end up when monitoring on
speakers, I'm always tempted to move them back toward the center unless
there's something I really want hard panned. So I just go by instinct
and imagination.

I guess this is not really a hole in the middle but two holes on either side
of the middle, if you want to get technical. But people call it "the hole in
the middle" so we're kind of stuck with that.


Two holes in the head where the sound goes in? And directly in without
any diffusion when the source is headphones.

Yes, but the front-to-back imaging is different than on speakers. If you
mix on speakers and then try to mix to sound similar on headphones, you wind
up adding a lot of reverb to the headphone mix to compensate for the room
that isn't there.


I find that on headphones, a little reverb goes a long way. If I add
what seems like the right amount of reverb, I can barely hear that it's
there when listening on speakers.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Stereo from Mono

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

We've had parts of this discussion before, and it's still a bit odd, imo.

Here's why. For me, headphones do /not/ present a "hole in the middle". In fact, the
left-to-right imaging is excellent -- far better than an average room and maybe even
just ever so slightly better than my mix room.


It _is_ excellent... it's exaggeratedly excellent. That's what's wrong with
it.


See, this is a little weird to me, because I've not experienced it. My old room had
such good imaging that it was just like headphones. With intensity potting in, say,
Protools, you have around 200 "set points" from far left to far right -- and you
could darn near hear every one of them with the old room or with cans.

And, the pan positions were *evenly* spaced. I never got the sense from either the
room or the cans that the position moved quickly out to hard L or R in a non-linear
fashion.

But I hasten to add that in a good performance space, seeing a totally acoustic
event, such as a chamber orchestra and choir, I've had a similar sense of highly
refined and exact imaging of every instrument and nearly every voice. (This is from
a distance back that would be approximately the same as the width of the ensemble,
perhaps a touch more.)

I've experienced this many times; it's one of the delights in seeing something live
that hasn't been polluted by amplification -- you can typically locate everything on
stage that produces sound, even with your eyes closed (by far my preferred way to
listen live in any case).


Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like
Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit,
it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated.


This is what has not happened for me. The movement is very linear -- very even -- as
I pan something out left or right. Now, I have had that "zoom pan" happen on
speakers in some rooms, but never in the phones. That's why I like to use cans to
verify how I think I've panned things.

If a listener has a good room, they might then enjoy my lovely left-right fill of
the pan spectrum (I do sweat this aspect when I mix, and often wonder why so many
mixes seem to be a simple L-C-R and not much more).

If they're not in a great room, things still should work passably well if the
underlying mix is reasonably good. The panorama presented is just a nice little bit
of icing on the sonic cake (just like those live events that can be so much fun).


I guess this is not really a hole in the middle but two holes on either side
of the middle, if you want to get technical. But people call it "the hole in
the middle" so we're kind of stuck with that.


Okay. I'll certainly take your word for it; I've just not experienced it.

If you add slight delays to get phase imaging instead of amplitude imaging,
the effect is even more pronounced. Stuff moves very quickly to the side
as the delay increases, much more quickly than on speakers.


I did quite a bit of this in the blues ablum I just mixed -- I spread the lead
guitar somewhat across the panorama using delay; it added something of a live flavor
to the mixes. Might not be exactly what you mean, but the delay was an effective
"add" to the mix. Coupled with the reverb fields, this also increased the
front-to-back to something that felt fairly live.


And, so too some front-to-back imaging is apparent in the phones, depending on the
quality of the recording.


Yes, but the front-to-back imaging is different than on speakers. If you
mix on speakers and then try to mix to sound similar on headphones, you wind
up adding a lot of reverb to the headphone mix to compensate for the room
that isn't there. (Or maybe you remove reverb from the speaker mix to
compensate for the room that is there, if you'd rather think about it that
way.)


Here too I've not had the sense that I should change the reverb fields for cans vs.
speakers. For me, if the mix seems appropriate and balanced on one, generally it
works for the other.

I don't mix on headphones because things start feeling claustrophobic and there are
some spectral issues. But, because of their highly accurate imaging, I always use
phones to check panning.


Doing field recording work, I sometimes have to work only with headphones and
it takes some practice to judge ambient/direct ratios with headphones, because
if it sounds good in the phones, it'll be way too distant on speakers.


Fortunately, I've not had to live-mix something critical with cans in the field. The
huge problem there is when you're in (or near) the performance space. Any acoustic
leakage from the actual stage sound mucking with what the cans are putting into your
head can be quite misleading.

I guess we'll have to leave it at YMMV.


Sure. But I think we can agree that if you want a mix to sound good on
speakers or headphones, or whatever, you should mix it to sound good on
whatever you want it to sound good on.


Well, see my comment above -- in my cases generally one should work acceptably on
the other.

This is an interesting discussion, though. Perhaps I've been lucky based on the type
of material I record and mix?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Stereo from Mono

On 6/09/2015 3:09 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
but also because the sense of depth is radically altered.



** But the fact the sound from headphones is NOT contaminated with
masses of room reverberation ( which also destroys any depth illusion)
more than makes up for it in most cases.


If you have a poor listening room, then obviously headphones may be better.

But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of
'being there' than ever with headphones.

I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the
number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono mixes
for them. ;-)



Or two people sharing one set of ear-buds. Must be a laugh on ancient
ping-pong 'stereo'.

Q. "Did you like the bass on that song ?"

A " There was bass on that song ?"

geoff


  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Phil Allison[_4_] Phil Allison[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 499
Default Stereo from Mono

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Take a mono signal in headphones and it is right dead center, just like
Phil Allison says. But as soon as you turn the panpot just a little bit,
it very quickly moves to the side, so the stereo image is very exaggerated.



** As you well know, turning a pan pot simultaneously cuts the level on one side while boosting the other. The idea being to keep the volume of the sound steady while panning. At a setting of 45 degrees from centre, the level difference is about 6dB, enough to push the apparent source well over to one side even with loudspeakers. At 90 degrees it becomes 12 to 14dB and the job is done, far as ears can tell.



.... Phil
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Stereo from Mono

On 4/09/2015 10:46 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than
ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the car,
etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-)


But a *LOT* of listening is now done on headphones/earbuds. Stereo
definitely beats mono, where everything is centered inside your head,
even if neither are ideal. However like you, I have always said good
mono beats bad stereo any day!

Trevor.


  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Stereo from Mono

On 4/09/2015 11:30 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than
ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the
car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-)


Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to
listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound.


Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse.


Right, but mono sounds even worse on headphones/earbuds. Millions of
people "happily" listen on their earbuds every day, even if the
soundstage is less than ideal. In fact it's better than many hear in
their house anyway, real HiFi not being as common as it once was.

Trevor.


  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Stereo from Mono

On 5/09/2015 8:25 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/5/2015 6:14 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:
I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back
that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It
changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for
technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about
it, but didn't try to keep up with it either.


Oh, yeah. Here it is:

http://north-america.beyerdynamic.co...echnology.html

(URL courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department)

Apparently they're offering it for a home listener to get the
experience, when listening to a surround recording of, when turning his
head toward an apparent sound source, have the perspective change so the
sound he's "looking at" is in front of him.


I can't imagine who the hell thought there would be a large market for that!

Trevor.




  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Stereo from Mono

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

But in a decent room with decent speakers I get far more of a sense of
'being there' than ever with headphones.


-WITH- a conventional recording that is tracked and mixed to be listened
to on headphones.


Of course.

If you were listening to a binaural recording, for instance, you'd get a
far greater sense of being there on headphones, and you'd find the
playback on speakers to be distant and lifeless.


Quite. However, is true binaural much used for recording the sort of music
discussed here? It's certainly very effective for drama - the only real
use I've come across in practice.

I don't listen to music on public transport - but am surprised at the
number who do. And many use just one ear piece. Perhaps we need mono
mixes for them. ;-)


I think there is a market for binaural recordings for these people, if
you can first figure out how to sell them.


Given the gimmicks used to re-sell old libraries, you should patent this.
;-)

On the other hand, there is a long history of gadgetry intended to
create a true stereo image for pop music... varying from things like
Q-sound used in the mix process to practices like building a mix up from
binaural track pairs (as used in Lou Reed's _Streetnoise_), all of which
have been total failures in the market. Presumably because people
didn't want a real stereo image and weren't willing to sacrifice
anything for it. --scott


The vast majority simply don't give a stuff about true stereo. Could well
be because they've never experienced it at its best.

--
*Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dave Plowman (News) Dave Plowman (News) is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 767
Default Stereo from Mono

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
On 4/09/2015 11:30 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JackA wrote:
And, of course, even today, the majority listen to pop in a less than
ideal environment, stereo wise. On the radio in the kitchen. In the
car, etc. Not in the sweet spot between two high quality speakers. ;-)


Excuse me, but unlike yesteryear, many more are using stereo earbuds to
listen to music, so it makes sense to elaborate on stereophonic sound.


Stereo recorded for speakers sounds terrible on headphones. As is the
reverse.


Right, but mono sounds even worse on headphones/earbuds. Millions of
people "happily" listen on their earbuds every day, even if the
soundstage is less than ideal. In fact it's better than many hear in
their house anyway, real HiFi not being as common as it once was.


Well, as I said, a lot of people using London Transport and listening to
their music seem to only use one ear piece. Perhaps to hear announcements
- or simply to stay in touch with reality. I've never asked why.

--
*Caution: I drive like you do.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default Stereo from Mono

On 6/09/2015 10:28 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Well, as I said, a lot of people using London Transport and listening to
their music seem to only use one ear piece. Perhaps to hear announcements
- or simply to stay in touch with reality. I've never asked why.


They are worried that they may miss the announcement and fall down the gap.

geoff
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default Stereo from Mono

On 06/09/2015 11:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor wrote:


Right, but mono sounds even worse on headphones/earbuds. Millions of
people "happily" listen on their earbuds every day, even if the
soundstage is less than ideal. In fact it's better than many hear in
their house anyway, real HiFi not being as common as it once was.


Well, as I said, a lot of people using London Transport and listening to
their music seem to only use one ear piece. Perhaps to hear announcements
- or simply to stay in touch with reality. I've never asked why.

In at least some cases, the headset has a tiny lump in the wires where
they join which holds the phone microphone. They can't be bothered
taking the earpiece out when it's not in use.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default Stereo from Mono

On 9/6/2015 6:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Quite. However, is true binaural much used for recording the sort of music
discussed here? It's certainly very effective for drama - the only real
use I've come across in practice.


I recall a couple of field collections of Eastern European folk dance
music that was recorded in binaural using ones of those headset rigs
(with a real head instead of a dummy) but I don't think anyone's used a
setup like that for recording pop music. Maybe some of the Grateful Dead
tapers did.

The vast majority simply don't give a stuff about true stereo. Could well
be because they've never experienced it at its best.


Or that they just don't spend enough time listening to worry about how
true the stereo is. There's a minority who do, and for that we have
audiophile recordings and playback systems.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 6:25:07 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/5/2015 6:14 AM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:

I remember a system that Beyer showed at an AES show a few years back
that had a target on the headphone band and a sensor in front of you. It
changed the stereo perspective as you moved. I think it was intended for
technical applications rather than music. I never heard any more about
it, but didn't try to keep up with it either.


Oh, yeah. Here it is:

http://north-america.beyerdynamic.co...echnology.html

(URL courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department)

Apparently they're offering it for a home listener to get the
experience, when listening to a surround recording of, when turning his
head toward an apparent sound source, have the perspective change so the
sound he's "looking at" is in front of him.


Should have proximity sensors for surround sound, you alter the actual mixing as you change locations! Recently changed minutely a Peter & Gordon hit, due to vocals off stereo center. Advanced Right channel to Left. Worked!! Nothing scientific.

Tailored Headphones vs Speaker mixes? Spare me.

No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so.

Jack



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com


  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default Stereo from Mono



No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so.

Jack


Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,,

So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question..

What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this?

Mark




  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:46:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:

No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so.

Jack


Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,,

So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question..

What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this?


Mark, a fine question, probably best handled by lawyers involved in music.

Sorry to deviate: It's more or less when people acquire copyrights and you wish to licensed songs from them to publish, what exactly are you allowed to publish. Say a session tape was discovered and when you license the song(s) can you legally publish whatever?

As I know, some, like BMG/RCA instructs/provides you with what (even if only Mono) to publish (courtesy Ace Records (UK)). But, gray area labels, like Jasmine Records (also UK) just rips near mint Stereo albums. I'm guessing most wish to hear what will be published beforehand.

All I know is, if someone had this talent, I do not think they'd waste it away on YouTube for FREE. My name would be plastered all over this. I'd stick it under George Martin's nose.

Mark


  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:46:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:

No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so.

Jack


Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,,

So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question..

What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this?


p.s. Outside of US, copyrights on US based music expire after 50 years. Why I see many imported issues popping up. Some take advantage, some feel guilty.
(ex: Bear Family probably has no furture use/need for ABKCO, some they issued Herman's Hermits Stereo set).

Things I know or question, RCA/BMG was BIG on specifying copyrights on music prior to 1971 or about. This tells me some copyright law changed about then, not sure what though.

Also, it became mandatory about 1977-78 to specify who the Producer is. Probably too many legal battles over copyrights. I know something happened, maybe inside a court of law with the Cameo-Parkway label. One Philly producer (part CONTROLLER C-P) accused me or attacked since he felt I made a liable statement. One decent radio host said Allen Klein had to make deal with wife and BUY her half ownership out, maybe before divorce (why it took so long for C-P on CD). The word "Producer" can be as simple as who "Mixed" the song, (courtesy the UK group, Pilot, with Alan Parson = Producer).

Jack


Mark


  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
JackA JackA is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,052
Default Stereo from Mono

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:46:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:

No word from Love Me Do stereo mixer. Figured so.

Jack


Ok So we had a big discussion about stereo vs mono and IMHO it boils down to a matter of taste,,

So I want to veer a bit off topic and ask a related question..

What are the copyright legal issues of publishing a re-mix of copyrighted material like this?

Mark


Even though off topic, I care to share what I discover. Everyone tells me the artist MUST approve of recording and mixes, spreads like wildfire. Fine. Then I hear Paul Simon refuses to release S&G single "hit" versions, since he doesn't like them. Same with a soon to be published Buckinghams compilation, and Carl G. of the group does not like the stereo mixes. So, who's telling me fibs?


Jack

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stereo or Mono audio track when digitizing a mono record in PT? Julie Abel Pro Audio 3 December 19th 09 01:14 PM
Two Mono into One Stereo Polar Pro Audio 4 November 8th 05 12:08 AM
stereo vs mono piano [email protected] Pro Audio 15 March 24th 05 07:32 AM
mono/stereo/dif.... Bob Pro Audio 4 October 9th 04 03:22 AM
mono/stereo/dif.... Bob Pro Audio 0 October 5th 04 08:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"