Stereo

   Stereo width as well as 100s of other topics such
as compression EQ etc have been and I'm sure always
will be subjects of discussion. I can only speculate
but it appears to me that often times these topics
are approached from a technological perspective.

  In other words the focus is on technology. The
talk about the "ear" by comparison is almost
non existent. Can the ear be trained to be
(using the term) great ears? The answer of
course is yes and depends on the amount
of training, ability and desire etc.

  I think that the stereo and panning subject
may be getting to be the focus (to much
emphasis of it). I love good stereo imaging but
many times it is done in a way that sounds
synthetic.

  This is where the "ear" subject comes to mind
for me. I've been sitting the boom box outside
and listen to it from varying distances and angles.
It has a poor low end response and is pretty
old too.

  However the music sounds good and is even
enjoyable to listen to. As anyone might know
the farther away from the source and/or the more
the angle the less the term stereo (affect)
has.

  I'm only speaking of how I'm perceiving or
might I say what I'm thinking about but
it looks as though what is (in the center)
(is) the most important factor of what makes
a good mix.

  If the width image and the low and high end
spectrum is limited or gone altogether and the
song/mix still sounds good that is something.
I haven't done this boom box test on my own
mixes in a very long time but every time I did
(this was years ago) they (always) sounded
bad.

  I think one of the major reason was my mixes
lacked good quality mids. This makes me
think that a good lush (tone) would outshine
any fancy stereo imaging any day.

  The concept is similar to a great song
done by a great performer. If it can be
performed with say just voc and guitar
and still sound great then the proper
production/mix is icing on the cake.

 
  

bitflipper


Dave Moulton has some interesting ideas on stereo imaging and psychoacoustics. (Sorry, jimmyman, I am always going to take the analytical approach, it's in my DNA.)

Moulton's a proponent of LRC mixing, an approach I've taken to more and more over the years. It's true that tone trumps everything else, and sometimes mono serves the mix best. After all, if you're listening to speakers anywhere other than your mixing chair, you're essentially hearing mono anyway. But like so many people, I tend to listen for pleasure with headphones and really enjoy the immersion of a good stereo spread.

   Thanks for the post and the link Bit. Your post
actually puts into perspective what I was getting
at (the LRC subject). I too am often times very
analytical so I can relate to that aspect of the
subject of it and sound. The (why) the great
mixes are what they are to me requires some
analytical listening.

  What sparked my post was me thinking about
how I went through a what I'd call a somewhat
dependency on stereo width and finally realized
that the "middle" is very important too.

  A few years ago I heard several songs by great
artist where the vocs sounded "so sweet". They
sounded stereo yet they did not. As I kept trying
to figure out what I was hearing I noticed that
(seemingly) the higher the frequency the more
the stereo spread which makes since because
that's the way the ears hear anyway.

  This affect that I mention was enhanced though.
I split a voc into low, mids and highs. (three
tracks). No stereo effect on the lows, a little
bit on the mids and more on the highs. The
outcome was very interesting. The S's sounded
wider, the mids sounded spacious but not too
much so and the lows sounded full.

   That's when I started thinking of the 3
dimensional aspects of mixing. Anyway thanks
for the mention of dave moulten and the link.
I scanned through the reading and could tell
that he puts into words many things I've been
trying to (call something).

  When time allows I'll go through the whole
reading. Thanks


  

You can take my stereo ear candy when you pry it from my cold, dead hands !!