[muzician21]

I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

So far what I've tried

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. This creates a distinct stereo field. Won't work
if you go to mono - i.e. they cancel each other out but that isn't a
consideration in this case.

-Cloning the track, pitch shifting one of them a few cents and panning
L & R. Creates a stereo field. Alternately, using a related technique,
playing the horn lines several times or simulating this by creating
clones of the track and creating small variations in pitch with an
envelope, and panning some of the clones L & R. It works but I find
this can create phasiness.

-Using a spatializer like the Clone Ensemble VST plugin. The problem I
find is it imparts a hollow, "tubby" character to the track.

What's the typical way this is done?

In this particular case I'm adding horns and support vocals to an
existing CD track. I want to leave as much space as possible in the
middle of the stereo field to avoid stepping on the vocal. To boost
the vocal to compensate for db's added by the extra tracks I'm using a
vocal isolator to create a track that's mostly vocal to add to the
original CD track.

Here's an example of some of the horns, vocals by themselves after
being treated with eq, compression and reverb, and a segment of the
whole thing put together. The harmony vocals are really more "support"
vocals than backing vocals, in that they're not necessarily there to
harmonize with the lead as much as be another layer in the sonic
canvas.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...c_segments.mp3

Any suggestions as to what might be done to improve the overall mix?
I'd like to do whatever possible to make the vocals and horns as clear
as possible in their own right. I feel like I've already got the added
parts eq'd pretty bright.

Thanks for all input.

[Les Cargill]

muzician21 wrote:
I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

snip

What's the typical way this is done?


It isn't.

You might be able to run a 10 or 20 msec delay on the
right channel, but that'll comb filter too.


Thanks for all input.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:53:17 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:

muzician21 wrote:
I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

snip

What's the typical way this is done?


It isn't.

You might be able to run a 10 or 20 msec delay on the
right channel, but that'll comb filter too.


Thanks for all input.

If the tracks are particularly dry, I would do it by adding just a
touch of stereo reverb to them. If necessary they could be panned
slightly to give them a place other than dead centre in the sound
stage.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

muzician21 wrote:

I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

Record them with a valid stereo pair.

So far what I've tried

Well, the phase diagram is kinda like random indicence on the example you
say is "mono" and all parts of the example audio sounds weird. Allow me -
please - to politely suggest a tactical withdrawal to step 1 and then doing
a lot less, such as restricting yourself to add somewhat less stereo
ambience-verb than the amount of verb you seem to favour, putting a mono
source in a stereo room is likely to be the best you can do.

Any suggestions as to what might be done to improve the overall mix?
I'd like to do whatever possible to make the vocals and horns as clear
as possible in their own right. I feel like I've already got the added
parts eq'd pretty bright.

Yes, a fine serving of veggies cooked in the british manner: the roast gets
4 hours in the oven and the veggies get 4 hours of boiling.

Thanks for all input.

When you have been through a lot of processing and it still isn't right then
back to scratch you go and do less and try to do just the right thing and
not all them wroing things, whatever they were, that has made it all sound
like plastic music, at least on this here laptops speakers, usually if stuff
is open and well sounding it sounds surprisingly good on it.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:48:53 -0700 (PDT), muzician21
wrote:

I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

So far what I've tried

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. This creates a distinct stereo field.

No it doesn't. It creates an effect, but it isn't a stereo field.

If you want a gimmicky sound, fine. Try anything and everything. If
you want stereo, record stereo.

[j]

On Jul 21, 10:48*pm, muzician21 wrote:
I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

So far what I've tried

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. *This creates a distinct stereo field. Won't work
if you go to mono - i.e. they cancel each other out but that isn't a
consideration in this case.

-Cloning the track, pitch shifting one of them a few cents and panning
L & R. Creates a stereo field. Alternately, using a related technique,
playing the horn lines several times or simulating this by creating
clones of the track and creating small variations in pitch with an
envelope, and panning some of the clones L & R. It works but I find
this can create phasiness.

-Using a spatializer like the Clone Ensemble VST plugin. The problem I
find is it imparts a hollow, "tubby" character to the track.

What's the typical way this is done?

In this particular case I'm adding horns and support vocals to an
existing CD track. I want to leave as much space as possible in the
middle of the stereo field to avoid stepping on the vocal. To boost
the vocal to compensate for db's added by the extra tracks I'm using a
vocal isolator to create a track that's mostly vocal to add to the
original CD track.

Here's an example of some of the horns, vocals by themselves after
being treated with eq, compression and reverb, and a segment of the
whole thing put together. The harmony vocals are really more "support"
vocals than backing vocals, in that they're not necessarily there to
harmonize with the lead as much as be another layer in the sonic
canvas.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...c_segments.mp3

Any suggestions as to what might be done to improve the overall mix?
I'd like to do whatever possible to make the vocals and horns as clear
as possible in their own right. I feel like I've already got the added
parts eq'd pretty bright.

Thanks for all input.
I agree

[muzician21]

On Jul 22, 4:55*am, Laurence Payne wrote:

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. *This creates a distinct stereo field.

No it doesn't. *It creates an effect, but it isn't a stereo field.


It creates a distinctly discernible L & R, which is what I'm calling
stereo.


If you want a gimmicky sound, fine. *Try anything and everything. *If
you want stereo, record stereo.


Are you saying that all sounds heard in stereo in commercial
recordings are recorded with discrete L & R mics/inputs?

[Anahata]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:46:19 -0700, muzician21 wrote:

[Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R]
creates a distinctly discernible L & R

Yes...

, which is what I'm calling stereo.

Please don't. That's not what stereo means, and in this case it isn't
even a useful illusion of stereo sound.

Are you saying that all sounds heard in stereo in commercial recordings
are recorded with discrete L & R mics/inputs?

If the parts are recorded with separate tracks and a mic each, the
illusion of stereo is created primarily by panning each track to its own
position in the sound stage between L and R. Occsionally extra effects
like delays are used too, and reverb adds the stereophonic effect of a
room, also reverb in different quantities will move tracks forward and
back on the sound stage.

I can't understand from your original question why you don't simnply add
the extra tracks panned L and R of centre. What's wrong with panning the
horn to 9 o'clock left and the backing vocal to 3 o'clock right as a
starting point, then tweaking level/pan/reverb for best sounding balance?

Turning a *single mono track* into a stereo reording is a different
matter and involves trickery, but you don't appear to need that.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

muzician21 wrote:

On Jul 22, 4:55 am, Laurence Payne wrote:

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. This creates a distinct stereo field.

No it doesn't. It creates an effect, but it isn't a stereo field.

It creates a distinctly discernible L & R, which is what I'm calling
stereo.

It is not stereo, it is dual mono.

If you want a gimmicky sound, fine. Try anything and everything. If
you want stereo, record stereo.

Are you saying that all sounds heard in stereo in commercial
recordings are recorded with discrete L & R mics/inputs?

What we are trying to convey to you is the concept that stereo is about a
sound source placed in a room. A multi mono recording is also not a stereo
recording. Stereo is recorded with a valid stereo pair. Just one difference
between multimono and stereo: if played back via a surround sound emulation
the multimono is likely to sound better and the real stereo will suffer a
collapse of the rear audio information and spatiality.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

No one will pay any attention to this, but I'm posting it anyway.

One way to create interchannel differences is with a comb filter. There are
presumably plug-ins that support this, with both delay and phase shift.

It's useful to understand what stereo is. It's not just interchannel
differences, it's lateral differences -- the sorts of sounds that tell us
what a hall sounds like.

I have several hall synthesizers, with speakers to the sides and to the
rear, and it's amazing what the synthesizers do for mono recordings (eg,
Walter/Mahler/DLvdE). There is no lateral spread of the recording itself,
but the synthetic space has dimensions, and the result is a strong sense of
"real" stereo.

So... the best way to convert "mono" to "stereo" is to add a discreet amount
of synthesized ambience.

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:
I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

You'll have to mike them as stereo. Sorry.

So far what I've tried

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. This creates a distinct stereo field. Won't work
if you go to mono - i.e. they cancel each other out but that isn't a
consideration in this case.

This makes the sound come from the individual speakers, rather than from
the center. It's not stereo.

-Cloning the track, pitch shifting one of them a few cents and panning
L & R. Creates a stereo field. Alternately, using a related technique,
playing the horn lines several times or simulating this by creating
clones of the track and creating small variations in pitch with an
envelope, and panning some of the clones L & R. It works but I find
this can create phasiness.

This is a different kind of panpotted stereo, where you are using delay
as well as intensity. But when you move the horn, you're also moving
the room sound too.

-Using a spatializer like the Clone Ensemble VST plugin. The problem I
find is it imparts a hollow, "tubby" character to the track.

I'm not sure what this is. The traditional way to "electronically
re-channel for stereo" is to use a comb filter.

What's the typical way this is done?

By proper stereo miking in the first place.

In this particular case I'm adding horns and support vocals to an
existing CD track. I want to leave as much space as possible in the
middle of the stereo field to avoid stepping on the vocal. To boost
the vocal to compensate for db's added by the extra tracks I'm using a
vocal isolator to create a track that's mostly vocal to add to the
original CD track.

Was the original CD recorded with panpotted stereo or was it recorded
with real stereo miking? Your goal now becomes to match the original
tracking and mixing procedures of the original recording so that your
tracks don't stand out too much.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:
On Jul 22, 4:55=A0am, Laurence Payne wrote:

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. =A0This creates a distinct stereo field.

No it doesn't. =A0It creates an effect, but it isn't a stereo field.

It creates a distinctly discernible L & R, which is what I'm calling
stereo.

That's not what stereo is.

In fact, the reversed-polarity sound is something you will never hear
in real life with a single sound source.

If you want a gimmicky sound, fine. =A0Try anything and everything. =A0If
you want stereo, record stereo.

Are you saying that all sounds heard in stereo in commercial
recordings are recorded with discrete L & R mics/inputs?

If they are actually in stereo. There's a lot of panpotted stereo in
commercial recordings, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

muzician21 wrote:
I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

What's the typical way this is done?

Typically, it isn't done.

In this particular case I'm adding horns and support vocals to an
existing CD track. I want to leave as much space as possible in the
middle of the stereo field to avoid stepping on the vocal.

So then pan your new horns and vocals away from the center. I didn't
listen to your example, but basic mixing principles apply. You might
experiment
a little with M-S (mid-side) techniques (many DAWs have a function to split
a stereo track into mid and side components), applying some EQ to the side
signal to make space for your new horn and vocal tracks before putting
it back together
into stereo prior to mixing in the horns and background vocals.

I'm sure a Google search of "M-S microphone" will turn up a few
tutorials on
how to create a mid and side track from a left and right track.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

muzician21 wrote:

It creates a distinctly discernible L & R, which is what I'm calling
stereo.

Actually, what it creates is a hole in the middle. "Stereo" is derived from
a Greek (I believe) word that means "solid" and something with a hole in
the middle isn't solid. I understand your use of a familiar term, but it
doesn't
mean what you think it means.

Are you saying that all sounds heard in stereo in commercial
recordings are recorded with discrete L & R mics/inputs?

No. In fact, most "stereo" recordings that we hear are artificial, created
from mono tracks panned to places between left and right that make
the left-to-right sound field sound sort of continuous. Most of the time
the panning is done with volume differences (if it's louder in the left
channel than in the right it will sound like it's positioned left of
center) but
sometimes with time differences, and sometimes a combination of both.

I think you've thrown a monkey wrench into this discussion by saying you
want to create stereo tracks, when really, what you want to do is mix
mono tracks with an existing stereo mix in a way that will complement the
mix rather than call attention to the new tracks. People have been doing
this for fifty years, sometimes all in mono.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Nono]

On 22 jul, 08:10, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:53:17 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:
..

If the tracks are particularly dry, I would do it by adding just a
touch of stereo reverb to them. If necessary they could be panned
slightly to give them a place other than dead centre in the sound
stage.

d- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

I agree, Maybe a little of the same reverb to the original cd track as
well, to blend it all together.
If necesary maybe tweaking the balance a little.
In certain parts ("I believe"......tá-ra) I feel that the second
trumpet should be a little louder to give the brass a little more body
in those attacks.
I have the impression though that, instead of the layering, just two
trumpets would sound better, providing you add some reverb to blend it
all.

Regards,
Norman.

[polymod]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
muzician21 wrote:

It creates a distinctly discernible L & R, which is what I'm calling
stereo.

Actually, what it creates is a hole in the middle. "Stereo" is derived
from
a Greek (I believe) word that means "solid" and something with a hole in
the middle isn't solid. I understand your use of a familiar term, but it
doesn't
mean what you think it means.

Are you saying that all sounds heard in stereo in commercial
recordings are recorded with discrete L & R mics/inputs?

No. In fact, most "stereo" recordings that we hear are artificial, created
from mono tracks panned to places between left and right that make
the left-to-right sound field sound sort of continuous. Most of the time
the panning is done with volume differences (if it's louder in the left
channel than in the right it will sound like it's positioned left of
center) but
sometimes with time differences, and sometimes a combination of both.

I think you've thrown a monkey wrench into this discussion by saying you
want to create stereo tracks, when really, what you want to do is mix
mono tracks with an existing stereo mix in a way that will complement the
mix rather than call attention to the new tracks. People have been doing
this for fifty years, sometimes all in mono.

I think you nailed it.

Poly

[muzician21]

On Jul 22, 9:57*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Are you saying that all sounds heard in stereo in commercial
recordings are recorded with discrete L & R mics/inputs?

If they are actually in stereo. *There's a lot of panpotted stereo in
commercial recordings, though.


I'll ask it a different way. I want to add as many as 4 trumpet parts
and a voice chorus made up of as many as 4 parts to a CD track. I'm
bolstering the lead voice on the CD track with a voice-isolated track
but I still want to be careful to not bury the lead voice with the
extra material.

Recording all the horns or voices at once isn't an option. They're
all going to be individually tracked. I want the horns and the
"chorus" in stereo with as much clarity as possible, and want them to
be placed in a musically pleasing way and have a good balance between
the original CD material and the parts I'm adding. The added voices
aren't necessarily there to harmonize to the lead voice as such but to
add a layer of sound. Adding fewer voices or horns isn't an option.

Given these criteria, how would you approach it?

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:

I'll ask it a different way. I want to add as many as 4 trumpet parts
and a voice chorus made up of as many as 4 parts to a CD track. I'm
bolstering the lead voice on the CD track with a voice-isolated track
but I still want to be careful to not bury the lead voice with the
extra material.

How were the original CD tracks made, and what was done to them before
you got them?

What you need to do to make it blend in is VERY different if it's a two-mike
stereo recording, a very dry and unprocessed mix, or a severely compressed
mix with a lot of reverb on it.

Recording all the horns or voices at once isn't an option. They're
all going to be individually tracked. I want the horns and the
"chorus" in stereo with as much clarity as possible, and want them to
be placed in a musically pleasing way and have a good balance between
the original CD material and the parts I'm adding. The added voices
aren't necessarily there to harmonize to the lead voice as such but to
add a layer of sound. Adding fewer voices or horns isn't an option.

Whether this is good or bad depends on what the original recording is
like. Your goal, if you want your tracks to blend in, is to make them
in as close as possible a way to the originals.
--scott

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

[Richard Crowley]

"muzician21" wrote ...
I'll ask it a different way. I want to add as many as 4 trumpet parts
and a voice chorus made up of as many as 4 parts to a CD track. I'm
bolstering the lead voice on the CD track with a voice-isolated track
but I still want to be careful to not bury the lead voice with the
extra material.

Recording all the horns or voices at once isn't an option. They're
all going to be individually tracked.

Record each trumpet or voice track in stereo. Leaving the mics in a
fixed position, have the horn or singer stand in a different place in the
room for each track.

I want the horns and the
"chorus" in stereo with as much clarity as possible, and want them to
be placed in a musically pleasing way and have a good balance between
the original CD material and the parts I'm adding. The added voices
aren't necessarily there to harmonize to the lead voice as such but to
add a layer of sound. Adding fewer voices or horns isn't an option.

Given these criteria, how would you approach it?

My approach to tracking (recording) is stated above.
My approach to mixing depends on way too many other
factors not in evidence here

[Mike Rivers]

muzician21 wrote:

I'll ask it a different way. I want to add as many as 4 trumpet parts
and a voice chorus made up of as many as 4 parts to a CD track.

Recording all the horns or voices at once isn't an option. They're
all going to be individually tracked. I want the horns and the
"chorus" in stereo with as much clarity as possible, and want them to
be placed in a musically pleasing way and have a good balance between
the original CD material and the parts I'm adding.

I'm
bolstering the lead voice on the CD track with a voice-isolated track

Given these criteria, how would you approach it?

Well, since we haven't heard what you'll be mixing on top of, it's really
hard to suggest an approach. However, I think the best way to do what
you want to do is to set up a stereo pair of mics, then for each trumpet
and vocal part, stand where you want the sound to be panned. Think about
close and distant as well as how many degrees off center. Then put those
tracks into the mix panned full left and right.

Of course then you'll probably want to re-record the original tracks.

This is something that doesn't really have a magic formula. You have to try
something, see how it works, and if you're not happy with the result, try
a different approach. Surely you have nothing to lose but time.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[muzician21]

On Jul 22, 6:54*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
muzician21 wrote:

I'll ask it a different way. I want to add as many as 4 trumpet parts
and a voice chorus made up of as many as 4 parts to a CD track. I'm
bolstering the lead voice on the CD track with a voice-isolated track
but I still want to be careful to not bury the lead voice with the
extra material.

How were the original CD tracks made, and what was done to them before
you got them?


While I can't say exactly what was done to it, it sounds like a
typical processed pop studio track. Eq, compression, reverb, likely
done on Pro Tools or similar. I'm sure the parts were individually
tracked.

Here's a brief sample of the original track. Oddly, sounds like they
panned the drum set largely to the R.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...inal_track.mp3

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

muzician21 wrote:

Here's a brief sample of the original track. Oddly, sounds like they
panned the drum set largely to the R.

First fix the balance error, that alleviates it partly even if only 3
quarters of a dB. The snare is smack dab center at offset 27 seconds and
there is some cymbal stuff from the left at offset 15 seconds, but it does
sound like toms and kick is some 15 percent to the right.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...inal_track.mp3

And you want the new stuff behind it all, right? - I'd try what Richard
said; a room, a stereo pair, position players where they are to be in the
panorama: two turmpets left, two right - say 6 feet from the pair - and
choir in a semi circle panned across the middle 10 feet from the mic pair.
However, if you need to track 1 horn at a time and one voice at a time you
probably should try to fake that room with suitable reverb to avoid too much
room noise build up and then fake the room via stereo reverb.

There is not in my opinion any issue with being able to separate the center
placed lead vox and a choir that is behind, mimicking stereo is not just
about panninng stuff left to right and in the midlle, it is very much also
about a perspective strategy and layering. Nowadays also about being aware
of what an AV receiver will do with the mix. Stereo is not about a string
between left and right loudspeaker, it is about replacing the wall with a
sonic panorama.

Kind reards

Peter Larsen

[muzician21]

On Jul 23, 12:46*am, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
muzician21 wrote:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...inal_track.mp3

And you want the new stuff behind it all, right?


Right.


I'd try what Richard
said; a room, a stereo pair, position players where they are to be in the
panorama: two turmpets left, two right - say 6 feet from the pair - and
choir in a semi circle panned across the middle 10 feet from the mic pair..
However, if you need to track 1 horn at a time and one voice at a time you
probably should try to fake that room with suitable reverb to avoid too much
room noise build up and then fake the room via stereo reverb.


Let me ask you - or anyone else who wants to answer - if the horn
lines are already recorded and re-doing them would present a
prohibitive expenditure of additional time, by what method can you
simulate stereo that will survive a mono mix?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:26:27 -0700 (PDT), muzician21
wrote:

Let me ask you - or anyone else who wants to answer - if the horn
lines are already recorded and re-doing them would present a
prohibitive expenditure of additional time, by what method can you
simulate stereo that will survive a mono mix?

By pan-potting each instrument (or group of instruments) to a position
between fully L and fully R. As long as you don't use any tricksy
phase effects it will come out OK in mono.

The result won't be "stereo" in the purist sense. But then very few
multitracked studio recordings are.

The example you posted sounds very heavily processed already - almost
as if you've made a final mix of the additional instruments. This
needs to be done in conjunction with the original track, not as a
separate item I think.

[Scott Dorsey]

muzician21 wrote:

While I can't say exactly what was done to it, it sounds like a
typical processed pop studio track. Eq, compression, reverb, likely
done on Pro Tools or similar. I'm sure the parts were individually
tracked.

You're going to need to compress the individual tracks and add fake
reverb more or less in the same way the original ones were done.

You can't change the arrangement of the original to fit your tracks
into a dense mix, you can only EQ the crap out of the replacement tracks
to make them fit into the existing recording.

Then you're going to have to use overall compression.

It's MUCH easier if you can get straight unmastered recordings for
this.

Here's a brief sample of the original track. Oddly, sounds like they
panned the drum set largely to the R.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...inal_track.mp3

Sorry, I'm on a VT220 this week.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

muzician21 wrote:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...inal_track.mp3

And you want the new stuff behind it all, right?

Let me ask you - or anyone else who wants to answer - if the horn
lines are already recorded and re-doing them would present a
prohibitive expenditure of additional time, by what method can you
simulate stereo that will survive a mono mix?

Here is what I would do: panpot-mix to positions L80 L60 R60 R80 in stereo.
THEN add too much stereo reverb, save as new track and mix the raw stereo
track with the verbtrack, delaying the verbtrack say 30 milliseconds, it
should probably go at -13 dB.

Your mileage may vary. Intentionally undefined: type of verb, a fake plate
perhaps, whether to EQ and whether and when/what to compress. DO start with
the cleanest sound possible.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[muzician21]

On Jul 23, 6:13*am, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:26:27 -0700 (PDT), muzician21

wrote:
Let me ask you - or anyone else who wants to answer - if the horn
lines are already recorded and re-doing them would present a
prohibitive expenditure of additional time, by what method can you
simulate stereo that will survive a mono mix?

By pan-potting each instrument (or group of instruments) to a position
between fully L and fully R. *As long as you don't use any tricksy
phase effects it will come out OK in mono.

The result won't be "stereo" in the purist sense. *But then very few
multitracked studio recordings are.


Thanks, I'll give it a try.

Also, I wonder why wouldn't it be possible to recreate the effect of
horns sitting in front of a stereo pair by somehow manipulating L & R
volume levels and modeled reverb trickery. Isn't the reason you hear
their relative positions because of the differing sound reflections
and minute time differences in the sound that reaches the mics?

[Anahata]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:05 -0700, muzician21 wrote:

Also, I wonder why wouldn't it be possible to recreate the effect of
horns sitting in front of a stereo pair by somehow manipulating L & R
volume levels

Yes, a pan pot does exactly that, i.e. it feeds equal level to L and R
when centred, and off centre it feeds more to one side and less to other
- at the extremes the whole tracks to goes to L or R only.

and modeled reverb trickery.
To fit in with the existing mix, you'll have to add to your new parts
some reverb that matches that on the original stereo track. The reverb
will be in stereo (i.e. the L and R signals won't be identical). In fact,
to put the added tracks "in the background" you might want to have
slightly more reverb to make them seem more distant. Exactly how much
only your ears can tell. You may need some high cut in the EQ to put them
in the background too. (this is all quite basic sound mixing stuff...)

Isn't the reason you hear
their relative positions because of the differing sound reflections and
minute time differences in the sound that reaches the mics?

More or less. Your ears respond to amplitude and time cues for position.
Pan potting gives you the amplitude difference only, but in practice
that's often enough. Adding a little delay to the side that's lower
amplitude will give a better illusion of position, and aguably one that
is more stable with respect to listening position, but few bother with it.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Rusty Wilson]

Muzician,
Notwithstanding all the other useful comments made in response to your
question, there's one other approach you might try: duplicate your track,
pan the two as far apart as sounds good to you, then try using variable EQs
to distinguish them. You might "bump" the lower end on one, and the upper
on the other. As has been said, that won't make it stereo, but it might
fatten the sound in a nice way.

Hope that helps,
Rusty


"muzician21" wrote in message
...
I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

So far what I've tried

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. This creates a distinct stereo field. Won't work
if you go to mono - i.e. they cancel each other out but that isn't a
consideration in this case.

-Cloning the track, pitch shifting one of them a few cents and panning
L & R. Creates a stereo field. Alternately, using a related technique,
playing the horn lines several times or simulating this by creating
clones of the track and creating small variations in pitch with an
envelope, and panning some of the clones L & R. It works but I find
this can create phasiness.

-Using a spatializer like the Clone Ensemble VST plugin. The problem I
find is it imparts a hollow, "tubby" character to the track.

What's the typical way this is done?

In this particular case I'm adding horns and support vocals to an
existing CD track. I want to leave as much space as possible in the
middle of the stereo field to avoid stepping on the vocal. To boost
the vocal to compensate for db's added by the extra tracks I'm using a
vocal isolator to create a track that's mostly vocal to add to the
original CD track.

Here's an example of some of the horns, vocals by themselves after
being treated with eq, compression and reverb, and a segment of the
whole thing put together. The harmony vocals are really more "support"
vocals than backing vocals, in that they're not necessarily there to
harmonize with the lead as much as be another layer in the sonic
canvas.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/...c_segments.mp3

Any suggestions as to what might be done to improve the overall mix?
I'd like to do whatever possible to make the vocals and horns as clear
as possible in their own right. I feel like I've already got the added
parts eq'd pretty bright.

Thanks for all input.

[syntheticwave]

On 22 Jul., 07:48, muzician21 wrote:
I've been working with some vocal and horn tracks and want to make
them into stereo tracks.

So far what I've tried

-Cloning the track, hitting the phase button on one of them and
panning hard L & R. *This creates a distinct stereo field. Won't work
if you go to mono - i.e. they cancel each other out but that isn't a
consideration in this case.

-Cloning the track, pitch shifting one of them a few cents and panning
L & R. Creates a stereo field. Alternately, using a related technique,
playing the horn lines several times or simulating this by creating
clones of the track and creating small variations in pitch with an
envelope, and panning some of the clones L & R. It works but I find
this can create phasiness.



…that’s a very interesting topic. By my view isn’t comprehensible, why
we transmit the same signal in two or 5.1 or 7.1 channels.
Each arbitrary sound source itself is a mono source. The spatial sound
field doesn’t cause by the source, but arise from reflections of the
source signal in the recording room. By current state of art in audio
technology we are able for synthesise those reflections without all
problems on the playback site, if known the recording room properties.
Of course you can use that principle during the studio production.

The chapter “combination of the data based and model based approach”
on my http://www.holophony.net site seems important for your
approach; as described you should handle reverberation and first
reflections in different manner. The excel sheet shows the calculation
of levels and delay times for direct wave and first reflections for
given positions of the source and listener in the recording room. Both
positions can change during playback, the sheet than calculates the
values for all 1296 loudspeakers of the holophony loudspeaker field,
simplify that to stereo or surround would be easily possible for my,
if you want.

Your way for change mono to stereo you can avoid many of the recording
problems because you need only very closely spaced records of the
source signal. You should pursuit that though! But at any rate you
cannot use some random reflections; you need a complete model,
including source and listener position in the recording room.

Best, H.