Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mac Kerr]

Well I ran sound yesterday at an outdoor event and ran stereo. IMO it sounded better than running mono.

That is consistently my experience as well.

Mac

[Stephen Kirby]

Well I ran sound yesterday at an outdoor event and ran stereo. IMO it sounded better than running mono. I panned drums slightly and this band had 5 vocals so I panned some backups slightly. They also had a conga player and I panned the 2 congas one left and right. I was really happy with the result. I didn't do any hard panning at all but with what I did I felt like it gave the instruments more seperation. Especially the drums and congas. Now whether that's the right way to do it I have no idea but I really liked how everything sounded. Band was happy, venue was happy and I got a check at the end so it was a success for me lol. Thanks for everybody's help and input.

Outdoors, from a mix position, fairly far back or centered with the stage this does sound better.  A great deal of mixing for recordings is placement of instruments.  But SR is not about the sweet spot listening position.  It's about getting the sound of the performers to every one in the audience.  Which includes anyone in front of or to the outside of either stack.  The the people who bother to try and come up close deserve at least as good a presentation as the people in the rear half of the listening area.  They're the ones who are into the music enough to come up there.  2/3rd's or 3/4's panning is going to give those folks a warped view of what the performers are doing.  As someone who is primarily a performer, I want everyone to hear what I am doing and how I am balancing my parts and arrangement with the rest of the band.  With a good band, good sound people know well enough to leave alone.  Let the band's arrangements come through.  The folks who try to "produce" the band like they were in a recording session (where they probably should focus their efforts) invariably screw things up when someone in the band turns up or down because that's how they've arranged and balanced the parts in the song.

[Mac Kerr]

Outdoors, from a mix position, fairly far back or centered with the stage this does sound better.  A great deal of mixing for recordings is placement of instruments.  But SR is not about the sweet spot listening position.  It's about getting the sound of the performers to every one in the audience.  Which includes anyone in front of or to the outside of either stack.  The the people who bother to try and come up close deserve at least as good a presentation as the people in the rear half of the listening area.  They're the ones who are into the music enough to come up there.  2/3rd's or 3/4's panning is going to give those folks a warped view of what the performers are doing.  As someone who is primarily a performer, I want everyone to hear what I am doing and how I am balancing my parts and arrangement with the rest of the band.  With a good band, good sound people know well enough to leave alone.  Let the band's arrangements come through.  The folks who try to "produce" the band like they were in a recording session (where they probably should focus their efforts) invariably screw things up when someone in the band turns up or down because that's how they've arranged and balanced the parts in the song.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that stereo sounds better to the audience most of the time. To me it is not about getting exactly the same sound to everyone in the audience, it's getting the best experience to everyone in the audience, and generally that includes stereo panning of some of the instruments. The open quality of a stereo mix is better everywhere in my opinion to the flat sound of a mono mix.

Mac

[Tim McCulloch]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that stereo sounds better to the audience most of the time. To me it is not about getting exactly the same sound to everyone in the audience, it's getting the best experience to everyone in the audience, and generally that includes stereo panning of some of the instruments. The open quality of a stereo mix is better everywhere in my opinion to the flat sound of a mono mix.

Mac

I will also add that there are 2 other factors - first the mix itself requires a different approach and a great deal more precision, IMHO and second that system alignment is more critical.  Both can bite you on the ass (and I have the pants to show for it).

[Scott Olewiler]

So you find no advantage to running stereo indoors?

Here's a very feel advantage to panning indoors:

 Guitar player on stage right has amp at a 45 degree angle pointing towards stage left. People in line with amp( 1/2 the audience) need just a little more of him in the main because his amp is loud on stage, but people on stage right can barely hear him. Very common in an indoor setting, even when you've already politely asked the guitar player more than once to turn his amp down.

Panning allows you to put more of him in the stage right speaker so that half of the audience can hear him as well.

I asked a question about running stereo and panning everything center vs just running mono a few weeks ago and the general consensus was that it produces the same end result, unless you run just a center cluster for "true" mono. I've done some experimenting and have found that even in mono when you're close enough to the speakers you can hear each one individually (a result of your ears being on opposite sides of your head, no doubt) but when you back away it becomes a centered image. Same is true when you just pan everything center. No difference in sound IMO.

I decided to keep my system set up in stereo, for the reasons stated above about the amp pointed to one side as well as the fact that if I have a cable failure between the mixer and the amps I only lose one side.

[Luke Geis]

Cross panning is another cool trick that works for confined listening areas where directional instruments are not pointed at the majority.

When it comes full circle, the only true argument for mono mixing on any iteration of a stereo deployed system is that the mix is closer to the same for everyone.

SR is always the fallback reasoning. The job at hand is to make it so everything can be heard. I contend that as professionals, we owe more to SR than it's basic function. We are supposed to enhance the listening experience and fix a deficiency, not over compensate for that deficiency and create another one. The wrong tool for the right job, is still the wrong tool. You can use a 1/2" socket to remove a 12mm bolt, but it is still not right. If the basic function is to increase level without causing other destructive artifacts, then running a stereo deployed system in mono is a crime. Now obviously we can't always get what we want and a client may not pay to have an LCR system or deploy a mono center hung cluster all the time, but we certainly should not defend running a system in an inferior manor, just because it's status quo. Compromise is still just that.

Stereo mixing is not the end all be all, but it does sound better and it does help improve the issues that purely mono mixing creates on a stereo deployed system. However it only truly works if the system was set up and deployed properly to begin with.

[Stephen Kirby]

This has been an interesting discussion.  When I was active in this forum 5-6 years ago the accepted practice was to mix a stereo system but in mono.  The exception being time based effects like reverb which were done in stereo to add some space when needed.

I wonder what has changed.  Self powered speakers in smaller systems with improved DSP should make for better articulation and less desire to separate out instruments by panning.

Probably the major change has been the widescale adoption of digital mixing systems.  And I see two edges to that sword.  More sophisticated DSP eq's should further improve the ability to separate sonic spaces for instruments. 

On the other hand, there is now a plethora of dynamics processing available that used to be cost prohibitive to put on that many inputs in a small system.  Since I also have a project studio at home with PT10/11 I recognize the seductiveness of compressors.  Everyone talks about them.  They are the magic sauce Steve Albini and Dave Pensado put on the mixes.  So many software emulations of 1176s, Telefunkens, Fairchilds and so on.  What this does in mixing down recordings, particularly in the box digital recordings, is provide what is called "glue".  It welds together disparate instruments recorded at separate times, often in separate spaces, into something more cohesive.  More like a live presentation.  And it's supposed to give more punch to things.  I track my kick drum through a DBX 160X normally, but when I want it to really slam, I either bypass it or turn the threshold and ratio way down.  I actually get a heavier kick drum without it.  Conventional wisdom says to smash it, my ears say to leave the natural dynamics alone if I want to hear the kick as a distinct voice.  Live, I use the compressor on the bass to tame the tops off the slaps and pops and use a BSS frequency selective gate on the kick to tame the overhang (since most rooms will add back in more than is needed) thus creating a tighter more articulate kick sound.  The opposite of what a compressor does which is attenuate the attack transient and extend the sustain.

I wonder if the gluing together of live mixes with so much dynamics processing (not to mention having bunches of time based FX available to put on different channels) homogenizes the mix to the point that people listening from FOH feel the desire to "enhance" things by creating a stereo spread.

I do understand the loud thing on one side of the stage bit.  Depending on how well dispersed it was on that one side (and guitar amps typically have horrible dispersion, more often they're "laser beams" that you just have to let hit a narrow range of people if you can't get the stage volume down or convince someone to use beam blockers or shields) there may be some merit to adding some to the other side in a stereo rig.  I kind of have a different approach.  Unless someone has a specific request like a horn section I allocate my 4 monitor sends to a frontline row, stereo sidefills and one for the drums.  This way I can balance out the stage sound, running stuff from the opposite side into the sidefill.  This also separates the instruments from vocals in the front line wedges and makes it easier for folks to pick up on whatever they want to listen to.  Now that the sound on and right in front of the stage is more or less balanced (there is still some right/left differences from the acoustic output of the different instruments), the main system is trying to spread an even presentation of that around the room.  Maybe when I get a digital board with more sends I can get trickier with more individual monitor mixes.  But I still believe in separating vocals from instruments in foldback.  If people aren't on ears, it's much easier to separate things by location (cocktail party effect) than by level.  I remember Dave Rat advocating separate monitors at the varsity level for much the same reason.

There are bands that need help.  Where everyone is sawing away at the same level regardless of what part of the song they're playing.  But when I'm playing with other folks who know how to manage their parts in an arrangement, anyone who tries to "enhance" our performance is going to get an earful.  Not to mention that they're going to go crazy trying to keep up with arrangements that they don't know.  I've been down this road at corporate events where some sound provider is hired in.  Before downbeat we'll try to explain that we have specific arrangements and not every instrument is going to be at a constant level or even constant throughout a song.  Set the levels so that the solos are appropriately dominant in the mix and then leave it alone.  We will control transmission.  If we hear some part that was punched up on purpose by the musician as part of the arrangement pound the audience because someone turned them up in a previous part they were playing quietly on purpose, then we let our 350lb singer have a heart to heart talk with them.   ;-)

[Scott Olewiler]

  I kind of have a different approach.  Unless someone has a specific request like a horn section I allocate my 4 monitor sends to a frontline row, stereo sidefills and one for the drums. 

I think most of us in the lounge are giving every individual on stage a separate mix, so it's easy to put a guitar, for example, to the opposite side for the performers, but that doesn't help the audience as far as stage wash much. 

I'm not sure how many people in the lounge are using side fills indoors to begin with, as most of us are about time and footprint management for set-up and we're trying to keep the stage volume down to begin with, but I find your approach very interesting. I may add side fills on a few indoor shows, where room allows just to try that out.

FWIW, in my band I stand center stage and play guitar, but the drummer wants the bass amp next to him, not my guitar amp and I am not a fan of putting a guitar amp directly in front of the drum kit, especially on a small stage where it ends up being underfoot a lot  so we position my little amp in the wings, so to speak, next to and slightly in front of the bass player to my left and literally point in straight across the front of the stage. Our sound person loves this set up and says there is virtually no stage sound from my amp reaching the audience.

[Luke Geis]

Stephen,

    You bring up an interesting insight to the progression of mixing behaviors. In the 15 years I have been doing this, I could never say that I desired to mix in mono for a band situation. I believe it stems from my childhood, where every recording I heard and enjoyed had some form of panning going on. Jimi Hendrix had guitar only on one side, bass on the other and even sometimes drums were entirely panned to one side. Led Zeppelin was probably the first ah-ha I had. I could close my eyes and point to the spot where the phantom image came from. It was like they were sitting in my living room. And again in several of the songs there is guitar on one side and bass on the other. These two examples are of recordings where multi tracked guitars, bass and other such things hadn't really been done yet. It's not uncommon these days to have upwards of 8 or more tracks of guitars just for the rhythms. It may seem like there is only one vocal, but you can bet there is probably at least three if not four primary tracks and a half dozen other harmonies and background vocals. Probably around the mid to late 60's the recordings started to change. Heavier, denser, more stuff going on and the need to make space. There were rules that had to be adhered to. The fight for sonic space was even more important as years and channel counts increased.

What does this have to do with us? The recording studio's that Rupert Neve was outfitting with the best of the best in pre amp and channel strip designs were not common to live audio. Woodstock was done on a few Shure 4 channel mixers linked together. The recording of Woodstock was done on two 8 track Scully tape recorders ( which the tape was taken to a studio and mixed on a superior system ). Fast forward into the 80's and 90's and a TAC Scorpion mixer was considered a good mixer for the average guy to own. Some mixers even in the 80's still had echo written on the FX send and return. Right around the mid lo late 80's Yamaha and Midas changed the game. Midas introduced the XL series monitor mixers shortly after their PRO40 series ( which incidentally bankrupted them and they were bought out by Klark Teknik ). Yamaha had the PM4000 introduced in the late 80's shortly after their first digital mixing console the DMP7 which was released in 1987! Basically full 4 band parametric EQ, VCA's and enough auxiliaries to do anything you could possibly imagine were not really noticed until the mid to late 80's. It wasn't until the late 90's before you have the Midas H3000 and at this time the Yamaha PM4000 was still pretty standard. In 2001 Yamaha released the PM1D which pretty much marks the beginning of digital mixing in live audio as a standard. Midas released the XL8, it's first true digital mixer in 2006. The average Joe was happy to be playing on their TAC's, Tascams, Soundcraft K1's and Allen & Heath GL series mixers during the 90's and into the early 2000's. Finally at the turn of the century, the advanced boards similar in scope to the H3000 and PM4k's ( only as examples ) were starting to trickle down into the MI and Pro-sumer market. As the 2000's started to click by, boards that once cost $125k were having their technology seen in boards that cost 1% of that price. So in other words 15 years ago, there was no longer any reason why mixers and system design would impact the operators option to mix as he pleased.  Compression, EQ, panning and true dual engine stereo effects have all been readily available in the past 30 years to some degree.  In the past 15 years we have gone from nearly pure analog, to digital being a common expectation to see when walking into an established venue. The major limitation to live audio up until the last 20 years was your pocket book. This does not negate the fact that a good engineer will acquire work easily and would be able to afford what he needed anyway. That is no longer an excuse. You can now get all the processing in the world for pennies, but if you don't know how to utilize it, how much good is it. So why has the attitude on how to mix a live show shown a lack of progression?

I think it has to do with the ever increasing gap from system designer, builder and engineer type, to the more common guy who simply buys what they want and turns it on. More and more " engineers " are simply a person with an interest that buys equipment and learns more or less as they go. It is one thing to make things sound good, it's a whole other thing to be able to do it from scratch. The cream always rises to the top and there are a few standouts in the industry that are doing things that continue to change the way we think of and run audio. Mick Hughes and Dave Rat are a couple examples. I am not one such individual yet, but I have no desire to stay at ground zero........

So why are we so disposed to running in mono? Lack of education is one possibility? The monkey see, monkey do, copy cat approach many have is another possibility? The human nature to second guess or ASSume what another would desire is also a possibility? There will always be someone that would prefer it another way. This is evident when even the janitor for a porta-potty company ( who probably makes more money than most of us ) makes a suggestion to change the mix to " his " liking........... He probably doesn't even know what an XLR connector is, but he can tell us how to make things sound better.......... A monkey could come in, twist knobs and make it sound good, but does he actually know what and why he is doing it? Mixing in stereo adds depth, dimension and a sense of space to the mix. It makes a 3D space maintain it's reality even though it emanates from a 2D plane. Walking into an a venue and simply twisting knobs, be it in stereo or not, will still leave the better engineer in the limelight. This is what makes some very employable. They can actually mix their way out of a toilet bowl. Just because you know the science does not make you a better engineer, there is still an art to it. And that to me, is the largest difference between mono and stereo. Mono stems form the SR background of make it so it can be heard. Mixing in stereo is the progression from SR to SE ( Sound Enhancement ). There is an art to each way of doing it, but one adds another dimension. It can accomplish the standards of SR theory while adding a touch more. The cool thing is that if done well with a system setup to take advantage of it, no one will be left out and you decrease the odds of combing.  The answer is more easily seen in prediction software. Fear not the stereo mix. If you have done your job right, there will be no worry.

For this sample I set the octave to 1/3rd and the frequency was set at 1khz. I started with no difference in level between sources and went down in -3db steps to -9db.  So you will see 0db, -3db, -6db and -9db difference. The speakers are set as 90 deg. boxes with a 45 deg. splay to get coverage across the front of the stage that is roughly 20' wide.. This is in a free field, so take it with a grain of salt. The idea is to show the concept.

0db:


-3db:


-6db:


-9db:


What can be seen clearly is that when at equal power, there is a bit of combing up the middle and fingering that spreads throughout. As you progress you can see that combing starts to smooth out and what I have been saying about coverage comes into play. If the speaker covers the immediate listening area, a person on the far side of the stage will still hear the opposite side PA at a reasonable level and with lower combing. Out to about 10 meters or roughly 30' the SPL stays about the same, but as can be seen, more level is maintained in the near field. What I think is even more unique is that the model shows consistent level of the far side PA going across the stage. A person sitting on stage left in this case would be hearing more of the stage right PA at this frequency. A 9db difference would not be hard to accomplish as it has been figured it takes at least 6db for the phantom image to shift reasonably ( at least according to that article I posted earlier ). So the question is what about broad band noise from multiple instruments that are panned then? Timbre of instruments is the key. Yes two guitars will sound similar, but will the exact frequencies be presented at the exact same time and at the exact same SPL? Not likely to the degree where destructive interference will effect the timbre and character of the instrument. Same for combining piano with guitar. They are so different that although combing is possible, they maintain their distinction and they are now given a different arrival time that further separates them. You can see however that even in the near field combing is reduced. Doing this same model at even higher frequencies shows pretty much the same results.

Here is an example of the same scenario with -9db and no splay ( speakers pointing straight out ).



As can be seen with no splay, the combing is even worse! and even with -9db's of attenuation, there is significant combing and no real coverage across the front of the stage. Although we do increase coverage in front of the stage out to around 65' or more. The point to consider is that we are not eliminating combing all together, but ideally reducing it. It is true that while running in mono there is equal opportunity, at the cost of combing. At least with panning, you can reduce combing and still hear things from the opposite side of the stage. Keep in mind the models above show what would in essence be one instruments representation and not the effect of having two different or even similar instruments panned in the same system. The arguments as to which way of mixing can go in either direction, but it is hard to dispute that panning an instrument will reduce combing and there is still a good chance you will hear it. If you must have more distance to back of house to cover, you will have to make the compromise of pointing the speakers forward and using front fills to get the immediate front part of the stage. Most everything is dependent upon the area in which you must cover. For the general operator, that is usually the immediate area surrounding the stage ( where the dance floor is ). It's not typical to need coverage hundreds of feet in either direction, and once that far, mono vs stereo is not even a factor. As we know, if your going to run a system in mono and you want the best you can get, a center clustered array of speakers that covers the desired area will win in both volume and clarity. It will sound 1 dimensional and not as interesting, but it will sound good and clear. Another note I should point out, is that this model does not represent the effects the backline will have on the perceived sound. If you keep the PA SPL reasonable, chances are good that a person on stage right will hear both guitars equally well since one is closer and now the other sides PA is pointing the sound that direction too. The listener off the side of the stage will then hear the direct sound of one amp, the drums, or even perhaps the keyboards ( if they brought an amp ) and the addition of the PA with the direct sound of the opposite sides instruments.

Coverage and proper deployment is, as can be seen, is a big deal. A system setup in stereo ( with the intention of having stereo ) requires each half of the PA to cover the entire desired listening area. In the above model we could expect to cover an area about 50' X 50' in front of the stage. If desired, narrow coverage speakers could be used as side fills to get the hole filled directly off side stage. This only works to a degree though. You probably will not get 180 deg. of coverage from each side of the PA and have it work well together. There is going to be a compromise at some point. For the general operator who is doing SOS and even full size stages where the general listening area is mostly in front of the stage, this model works well. When you have to start covering areas like Woodstock and Glastonbury, things of course change and you will have to compromise. Beyond 50' from the stage things don't change much. The next 6db gain reduction won't be realized until about 100' and by then, the angle of incident between the left and right PA speakers will be acute in relation. In other words stereo effect will not be realized anyway and the two sides will sound melded into one. You would have to move a pretty significant distance to realize comb filtering and even then it will be hard to tell. Stereo is only truly realized in the near field, but even when located off axis, you can still catch the effect of it. The ideal location is in the center with 60 deg. angles to the speakers ( an equilateral triangle should be created where you are as far from each speaker as they are from themselves ). 

As to magic glue that ties a mix together, reverb in small amounts works well. I tend to use reverb on select instruments instead of the whole mix, but if done in very tasteful amounts, you can add reverb to the master buss and get good results. Something else to consider is that most reverbs don't keep the same panning as the instrument. A stereo reverb takes a mono input and spits out a stereo verb. So panning the guitar to one side will still leave the reverb tail audible in the other side. This can really add to the space and feel of the mix. One reason why less is more for reverb is because it can start to sound washed out real quickly. It is also best to use different reverbs for each instrument if possible. This again helps with clarity and distinction and reduces the washed out effect that can happen if copious amounts of verb is used.

Another trick that can really tie a mix together is master buss compression. It will reduce dynamics making things seem closer to 11 at all times. This closes the distinction up and makes the mix more in your face. While this seems bad, in a stereo mix it will help balance out the two sides and bring things that were in the back of the mix, closer to the front. I guess you could say that is takes what was up front and pushes it back into the mix. If given good attack and release times, you can make the mix breath a little and will help transients pop. It is a taste thing though, too much and it gets tiring, while too little simply does nothing.

All this and we haven't even addressed what effects stage monitoring and the backline have on FOH, or the creative process to making live sound be an interesting and immersive experience. I will probably get flamed for this long post, but I think it's important to consider all angles and really understand what the job is and how we can be better at it. I kinda thought it would be shorter and to the point too, turns out I was wrong.

[Tim McCulloch]

That's a lovely long post with visual aids that says pretty much what I posted up thread:  system design and alignment are much more critical, and it takes a different approach to building your mix.

[ProSoundWeb Community]