Mono or Stereo?

Look at this recent thread:
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Interleave-Mono-or-Stereo-educate-me-m2956296.aspx
 
Hope that helps, 
 
Bob Bone
 

rontarrantAlmost every book, article or what-have-you that I've read says tracks should be mono.

 
I understand why it makes sense to use a mono source in mono, but why switch a stereo source to Mono?
 
You can use an effect like Channel Tools to change the stereo width of a stereo track if you feel the width is wider than you want. I guess I just don't understand why you want to take stereo to mono...
 
Thanks.

Thanks Bristol Jonesey, gswitz and Robert E. Bone for replying.
 
So, the upshot of all these replies seems to be: it doesn't matter. If it's stereo, leave it as stereo unless you've got a really good reason to convert it to mono, such as using mono FX on the track.
 
Or am I misreading between the lines here?

Hmmm... Okay. I think I'm going to start over from the beginning; I think I asked the question wrong to begin with.
 
First, my assumptions and a bit of preamble:
 
Whenever I use the context menu in the Track view to add a new track in Sonar, whether MIDI or audio, Sonar always adds a stereo track.
But shouldn't these tracks be mono by default?
 
In books such as "Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio" Mike Senior and others talk as if the default track type created by a DAW is mono. At least, that's the impression I got.
 
Well, most of the time when I record (for instance) one of my acoustic guitars, it's only being recorded with one mike through a single channel on my Mackie board, but by the time it gets to Sonar, it's stereo because the default track type is stereo.
 
And now the big question:
If these tracks are stereo by default for no (IMO) apparent reason, should I be converting them to mono? (Please note I'm not talking about recording stereo instruments, I'm talking about the same situation I cited at the beginning of this message, recording a single acoustic instrument with a single mike on a single channel, but it ends up being stereo because of Sonar's default track type.)
 
Please forgive me if I seem to be beating a dead horse here, but sometimes I simply don't express myself well and this seems to be one of those times, so I'm trying very hard to make sure I'm saying exactly what I mean.

Although sometimes....
http://forum.cakewalk.com/Possible-MonoStereo-bug-for-test-Direct-X-only-m2956642.aspx
 
 

 
Doesn't it also depend on whether the interface makes mono inputs available ?
 
I believe if it doesn't, you'll only get stereo tracks.

bitflipperI'd say it's just the opposite: use a stereo track only if you have a good reason to do so.

 
Thanks. I guess that clears up that point.
 
One thing, though... I just had a look and I don't see any way to set a track to mono or stereo BEFORE recording. I'm assuming, then, that conversion can only take place AFTER the recording is done.
 

bitflipperYou just have to get into the habit of verifying that the interleave is correct for the source,

 
I've read other posts where the term 'interleave' was bandied about, and I know how interleaving relates to a video/audio stream, but what exactly do you mean by 'interleave' in this context?
 

bitflipperthat you know your plugins well and take care to choose mono versions for mono tracks and stereo for stereo.

 
Ah-ha. Good point. I guess I'd better do some digging on this subject as well. Thanks.

Paul P
Doesn't it also depend on whether the interface makes mono inputs available ?
 
I believe if it doesn't, you'll only get stereo tracks.

Maybe this is my problem. I'm using an EMU 0404 and perhaps I don't have PatchMix set up properly. Could that be why I only get to record in stereo?

scook
SONAR will create a mono track from the left or right channel of any stereo pair, if the track input is set up accordingly in the DAW.

Thank you, scook. Okay, now I see how to record in mono. Just set the input to either left or right. (d'oh!)
 

It's important to realize that many hardware synths output a lot of "fake stereo". Like if you record some brass patch out of a synthesizer, 99 percent chance that they didn't actually sample the trumpet in stereo (why would they) but just slapped on some chorus and output it as a stereo signal. Same goes for most analog synths and their VST versions - often it's the effects that make them stereo. There's nothing inherently stereo about a sawtooth wave and apart from the MiniMoog Voyager (stereo filter section only) I don't know of any analog synth that has a stereo signal path (meaning separate oscillators, amps, filters for the left and right sides), though you could pan the oscillators on an OBX I believe.

In these cases, adding those as a stereo signal to your mix will usually only make it harder to mix properly (especially with the fake chorus stereo of ROMpler synths) and it can be helpful to record them in mono. So I agree - think about your source, is it really stereo, in effect does it make sense to have a different left and right side for that sound, and then go stereo. Otherwise stick to mono where possible. You can always reintroduce fake chorus stereo through a VST effect if you feel a particular sound needs to be bigger/wider.

Sanderxpander
It's important to realize that many hardware synths output a lot of "fake stereo". Like if you record some brass patch out of a synthesizer, 99 percent chance that they didn't actually sample the trumpet in stereo (why would they) but just slapped on some chorus and output it as a stereo signal. Same goes for most analog synths and their VST versions - often it's the effects that make them stereo. There's nothing inherently stereo about a sawtooth wave and apart from the MiniMoog Voyager (stereo filter section only) I don't know of any analog synth that has a stereo signal path (meaning separate oscillators, amps, filters for the left and right sides), though you could pan the oscillators on an OBX I believe.

In these cases, adding those as a stereo signal to your mix will usually only make it harder to mix properly (especially with the fake chorus stereo of ROMpler synths) and it can be helpful to record them in mono. So I agree - think about your source, is it really stereo, in effect does it make sense to have a different left and right side for that sound, and then go stereo. Otherwise stick to mono where possible. You can always reintroduce fake chorus stereo through a VST effect if you feel a particular sound needs to be bigger/wider.

Yes and No. Some synths such as my Kurzweil sample heaps of stuff in stereo and the stereo effects are breathtaking and can do stuff no external effects can as well. (VAST) Especially organ Leslie effects and stuff. It is all integrated and very stereo.
 
This is bad advice. Simply record everything from any hardware synth in stereo (as long as it has two outputs that is!) and use Channel Tools to bring it down to mono if you need to. Also sometimes even the chorus inside something like the Juno 106 is very unique and you will simply never create it anywhere else.
 
Also some analog synths (VST's) have got amazing stereo effects. My Oberheim OPX Pro Mk II which is a copy of the fabulous OBX has panning for every oscillator. Try doing that outside in your DAW. Cannot be done. You have to hear this to believe it.  Also EMU Emulators have the amazing ability to modulate the panning of every single sample within a patch. Yes every voice, its own LFO speed, centre position, depth of panning etc you name it. You also have to hear that to believe it too.  (dense complex ambient texture for example) It is quite something and something you could NEVER create in any DAW after the fact. You would be silly to record all that in mono and just miss out on the effect.
 
Korg Wavestation is also ridiculous in stereo and you could never create the effects that are going on inside that machine as well. I keep thinking of others too. JD990 comes to mind. All stereo samples, 4 tones per note running through stereo filters and effects. Stuff that is just so complex stereo wise it is incredible.
 
The thing is that yes some synths are like what Sander has described and others are well and truly not. So unless you are a full synth expert and know the internal architecture incredibly well of every synth and I imagine most would not then best to record in stereo and deal with it after the fact.
 
I teach sound engineering as well and my students are always forgetting to record hardware synths in stereo. Then during the mix we have this total bland boring mono sound. And then they try to recreate the stereo effects and it just never works. I am always telling them  "hey I know that instrument and it sounds killer in stereo and you should have used two DI's on that instead of just the one".
 
There are some techniques for blending a whole lot of very wide stereo synths though and having them all feed hard L and hard R is not the way to go but that is a different thing. You still have to have the stereo tracks to start with.

Jeff Evans

Sanderxpander
It's important to realize that many hardware synths output a lot of "fake stereo". Like if you record some brass patch out of a synthesizer, 99 percent chance that they didn't actually sample the trumpet in stereo (why would they) but just slapped on some chorus and output it as a stereo signal. Same goes for most analog synths and their VST versions - often it's the effects that make them stereo. There's nothing inherently stereo about a sawtooth wave and apart from the MiniMoog Voyager (stereo filter section only) I don't know of any analog synth that has a stereo signal path (meaning separate oscillators, amps, filters for the left and right sides), though you could pan the oscillators on an OBX I believe.

In these cases, adding those as a stereo signal to your mix will usually only make it harder to mix properly (especially with the fake chorus stereo of ROMpler synths) and it can be helpful to record them in mono. So I agree - think about your source, is it really stereo, in effect does it make sense to have a different left and right side for that sound, and then go stereo. Otherwise stick to mono where possible. You can always reintroduce fake chorus stereo through a VST effect if you feel a particular sound needs to be bigger/wider.

Yes and No. Some synths such as my Kurzweil sample heaps of stuff in stereo and the stereo effects are breathtaking and can do stuff no external effects can as well. (VAST) Especially organ Leslie effects and stuff. It is all integrated and very stereo.
 
This is bad advice. Simply record everything from any hardware synth in stereo (as long as it has two outputs that is!) and use Channel Tools to bring it down to mono if you need to. Also sometimes even the chorus inside something like the Juno 106 is very unique and you will simply never create it anywhere else.
 
Also some analog synths (VST's) have got amazing stereo effects. My Oberheim OPX Pro Mk II which is a copy of the fabulous OBX has panning for every oscillator. Try doing that outside in your DAW. Cannot be done. You have to hear this to believe it.  Also EMU Emulators have the amazing ability to modulate the panning of every single sample within a patch. Yes every voice, its own LFO speed, centre position, depth of panning etc you name it. You also have to hear that to believe it too.  (dense complex ambient texture for example) It is quite something and something you could NEVER create in any DAW after the fact. You would be silly to record all that in mono and just miss out on the effect.
 
Korg Wavestation is also ridiculous in stereo and you could never create the effects that are going on inside that machine as well. I keep thinking of others too. JD990 comes to mind. All stereo samples, 4 tones per note running through stereo filters and effects. Stuff that is just so complex stereo wise it is incredible.
 
The thing is that yes some synths are like what Sander has described and others are well and truly not. So unless you are a full synth expert and know the internal architecture incredibly well of every synth and I imagine most would not then best to record in stereo and deal with it after the fact.
 
I teach sound engineering as well and my students are always forgetting to record hardware synths in stereo. Then during the mix we have this total bland boring mono sound. And then they try to recreate the stereo effects and it just never works. I am always telling them  "hey I know that instrument and it sounds killer in stereo and you should have used two DI's on that instead of just the one".
 
There are some techniques for blending a whole lot of very wide stereo synths though and having them all feed hard L and hard R is not the way to go but that is a different thing. You still have to have the stereo tracks to start with.

I actually do consider myself a synth expert, though there's always more to learn. That's where my advice comes from. I specifically mentioned the OBX stereo voice mode and the fx on some synths making them stereo (e.g. the chorus on my JX10 and Alpha Juno 2). I actually own OPX Pro II and Emulator X3 as well. While they CAN do stereo specific stuff, much of the time, they don't. I've never used the stereo filter on my Moog Voyager usefully so far. Mainly the filter spread knob is where I expect the Resonance/Emphasis to be and I grab the wrong one when in a hurry.
Obviously, if there is anything interesting going on with the stereo image, you'll probably want to capture it. But a whole bunch of layered fake stereo sounds just muddle your mix. The fact that a some trumpet sample may sound nice in stereo out of the synth because it has some chorus on it doesn't mean that it will sit well in your mix.
 
I will stick with knowing my source, but perhaps you're right and this doesn't work as general advice because many people don't realize what makes a sound stereo, especially in some random hardware synth. Sorry if I come off a little defensive. My ego felt a little stepped upon because I feel I know what I'm doing.

In my opinion that goes for most digital synths. Certainly I'd never record reverbs or EQs from a synth like a Kurz K2600/PC3K, Korg Triton/M3/Kronos, Roland Fantom/JP80, Yamaha Motif etc.
While it's true the fx have gotten better over the years, and I'm actually for the first time happy with my live reverb (O-Verb from the Kronos) they're are definitely still worse than what the VST world has to offer. So unless an effect is an integral part of the sound (like for instance the Polysix chorus on the Kronos or a wah on the Motif), turn it off and be happy with the improvement you can make in the DAW.

As a sidenote, does an SY77 actually do anything stereo on the oscillator or filter level? Maybe a stereo sampled piano or some panning effect? For many synths, turning off the fx makes them effectively dual mono for the largest portion of sounds.

I'm sorry but I've owned and play many modern current synths and I simply disagree about the fx quality. While I agree that you can sometimes need or want the specific sound of a synth's effect, they simply don't stack up against the cream of the crop VSTs. If you can find me a single piece of hardware that has a reverb as good as AltiVerb, an equalizer like Equilibrium, or a bunch of expertly modeled vintage compressors like Waves Classic Compressors I'll take it all back.
I don't hate all fx from hardware synths and agree that they can add a flavor. Certainly the E4XT fx expansion is pretty famous. But if you know what you're doing, it's usually a better idea to take them out when you have clearly superior options.

That doesn't include replacing fx on a 1 on 1 basis by the way. That way you'd end up using a whole bunch of different reverbs. Use a buss instead unless you need some extra room effect. Use EQ when needed. But don't leave the Korg EQ with it's 12dB of high boost on in the synth. Etcetera, etcetera. Yes, this requires a lot of knowledge about the synths. But I don't think that's unreasonable when you buy a piece of hardware like that and are proficient and technically savvy enough to do your own recording in a program like Sonar.