Does anyone have a preference or know of a sonic differnce between
bouncing a stereo track to disk vs a dual mono track?

I usually mix back into ProTools and then take thos files to mastering,
but I bounce to disk for CD-Rs. I did a single test and bouncing two
mono tracks sounded significanly better to me. In fact, I'm wondering
if I somehow made a mistake when I was bouncing and didn't do the
comparison right.
Is there a reason that there would be any difference?

That' not quite what I meant. Is there a reason that the stereo
interleaved file resulting from a dual mono bounce would sound
different from the stereo interleaved file made from a bounced stereo
track?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:30:12 -0500, wrote
(in article .com):


Does anyone have a preference or know of a sonic differnce between
bouncing a stereo track to disk vs a dual mono track?

I usually mix back into ProTools and then take thos files to mastering,
but I bounce to disk for CD-Rs. I did a single test and bouncing two
mono tracks sounded significanly better to me. In fact, I'm wondering
if I somehow made a mistake when I was bouncing and didn't do the
comparison right.
Is there a reason that there would be any difference?


When you "mix back to pro tools", how are you doing it? Opening up two more
tracks within a production and porting the multitrack mix to them? Then
exporting those tracks?

Are you using a master fader in Pro tools?

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In article .com writes:

That' not quite what I meant. Is there a reason that the stereo
interleaved file resulting from a dual mono bounce would sound
different from the stereo interleaved file made from a bounced stereo
track?

One thing you need to accept about digital audio is that there things
that happen for no good reason. This appears to be one.

I'm sure there is an underlying reason having to do with the
deconstruction and reconstruction of the stereo channels
mathematically - a rounding error or just a plain mistake. Or maybe
it's just your imagination or there's a difference in volume that's
throwing you off. Subtle differences in volume can make subtle
differences in perception of "sound quality."

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article .com,
Mike Caffrey wrote:
That' not quite what I meant. Is there a reason that the stereo
interleaved file resulting from a dual mono bounce would sound
different from the stereo interleaved file made from a bounced stereo
track?

Not if the software is implemented properly.

Sadly this is not always the case.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Yes. The mixes are happening in the analog domain, so I've got to go
back in to make digital files.

No master fader.

I usually bounce to disk becuase I like to add just a little peak
limiting. I gues I could audio suite the files and then export, but I'm
still curious if I'm better off working with a stereo track or two mono
tracks which I've always though was basically the smae thing in
ProTools.

Well I'm not sure if my first test was accurate and I spaced on a
little detail last night, so I didn't end up with two files to compare.

I'm certain there's no differnece in volume, or if there is, it's a
differnce created by the difference in bouncing. All I did was take the
two mono track, bounce them and then drag them to a stereo track and
bounce them. The difference seemed to be in the center information. I'm
not saying that one had a wider image, but one clearly sounded better.
The was in the context of bouncing a lot of files, so there's chance
that I labled something wrong, but I figured that lots of people had
probably tried this before and maybe there was a standard answer.

That' not quite what I meant. Is there a reason that the stereo
interleaved file resulting from a dual mono bounce would sound
different from the stereo interleaved file made from a bounced stereo
track?

In Protools the files used in a mix are all mono, even if they're arranged
as a stereo track in the editor.

The difference between a dual mono file and a stereo file is the in one
case, the samples are arranged in two files, and in the other the samples
are in one file alternating left and right, hence the term "interleaved".
If there were any problems with the conversion of one format to the other,
it would be a hell of a lot more apparent than a moderate lack of center
information. It has absolutely nothing to do with what it was produced
from, if a program can't accomplish that simple task with absolute accuracy
then it sure can't be trusted with anything else.