charlyg
I read all 4 pages of the original article and some of it made sense . From what I read, it seems I will clone every track(not the lead vocal, kick or bass), so as to pan hard left and right? Then use a delay plugin on a buss to place it?

Referring to the 3rd page on the Haas effect, consider the Haa5 plugin from new guy on the block, Apex Audio Technologies:
 
https://www.apexaudio.org/products/haa5-haas-effect-vst-au/
 
It was originally listed as Free, with an optional donation. I paid US$5. The suggested donation is now $15, but you can change it.
 
Here's the description from the website, to save you a click:
 
Haa5 uses stereo delays to create what is known as the precedence effect, also known as the “Haas effect” after Helmut Haas who’s 1949 Ph.D. thesis first described this psycho-acoustic phenomenon.
 
This Haas Effect VST / AU plug-in creates a sense of direction by using the system our own ears use to locate sounds in the natural world. By creating a slight delay between the left and right signals the listener perceives a sense of direction depending on which ear hears the signal first. So, if the right signal is delayed, then the left ear will pick up the sound first, causing the sound to seem to come from the left; and vice versa.
 
We have taken this concept and put it together in the form of Haa5. Haa5 provides an intuitive 3-knob interface to control the pan, precedence, and output volume of the plug-in without needing to interrupt your workflow setting a massive assortment of variables and controls. We couldn’t make it any simpler!
 
Using the Haas effect, one can create a much more attuned and surgically precise stereo image. And, because the concept relies on psycho-acoustics the Haas effect lends itself to a much more natural panning effect than standard volume based panning, which merely adjusts the volumes of the left and right signals separately to create an artificial and less real sense of direction.

I strive to improve, although why I do that beats me. It's not like I'm trying to make a living out of music, it's just a hobby.
 
The song that the waveform I have posted above can be heard here:-
 
http://forum.recordingreview.com/f180/synkrotron-upper-hand-68311/
 
I recently did a mix of a song called Preach Right Here by  Canadian band called The Butterfly Effect. That can be heard here:-
 
https://soundcloud.com/synkrotron/preachrighthere
 
And my latest original POS can be found here:-
 
https://soundcloud.com/synkrotron/m81
 
There is a forum here where peeps put their songs, so I know I shouldn't be posting my stuff here. The reason that I am is because, although some of my stuff is listened to by a lot of people, I felt that I have to ask those who do not even bother to participate in the song forum, am I that far off?
 
And if I'm not doing that bad, I might as well stop asking questions and simply get on with what I'm doing.
 
cheers
 
andy

Rimshot
I agree with your example Jeff. I just find the different opinions from all the great guys here interesting to say the least.
Danny has great points and so do you. Ben and Beeps and bit and bat and many more chime in and give wonderful advice based on real life.
 
It's the absolute comments that get me. "Some people are" this and that. "Some people's ideas are irrelevant...".  
 
We all come from different backgrounds and experience. Everyone can chose to do something any old way they want and should not be criticized for it or made to believe they are inferior in some way.
 
 
Who knows, the guy just learning his way around engineering and production today might end up being a fabulous producer some day. Who's gonna tell them the right and wrong way of doing stuff? They need to practice, learn what works and what doesn't, study, read, listen, test, experiment, and IMO above all, not get talked into one person's POV. 
 
We all can offer opinions and I am not saying to hold back. I just wish some of the comments would allow for other points of view without as much critique at times. For the less experienced out there, some of us came from analog backgrounds that have learned the digital realm. Others have been born into the digital world. There are so many options these days that sometimes we can bog down into what path to use. You will not be confident in that choice unless you learn it for yourself. 

Hi Jimmy...I'm trying to not belittle peoples knowledge and or opinion...ADHD/ASD...I just struggle to shut my mouth sometimes ;) ...but as soon as I've worked out I'm in the wrong I put my hand up...like I said Danny said what I was trying to say much clearer...I tend to waffle and include history and other non-important things...well they're important but only if you want to understand things deeper.  The only thing that bothers me is some of the outdated stuff...I mean what is this conversation about recording real world synths?...I know Jeff still does this and I understand that it's a passion but who here uses real world synths any more and if you do...sorry Jeff I'm not sure of the point.  The virtual ones if mixed properly and understood properly sound as good.  And I'm a bit lost on this mono thing too...another of Jeff's hobbies (sorry Jeff not picking on you :)) I mean how many people listen to stuff in mono and who orders a mono mix any more either...these ideas seem to antiquated, obsolete and plain weird to me in this day and age.  Although Jeff was dead right about VU meters but telling someone with no electronic experience to go and buy the real thing and install them...gosh even I was like huh?? And I studied electronics at Audio School...albeit I was **** lol!
 
What I am starting to understand and slowly...I'm learning to communicate better is there are 3 or 4 types of mixing these days and whilst some of the techniques transfer across the different types of mixing...each requires a different mind set.  So for Andy and myself, we are in the box mixers, although I blend real world instruments with virtual ones but for the main everything is virtual.  This we will call mixing type 1-it requires a different mind set to say band mixing or classical mixing ect...Firstly and this was something not discussed in Audio School, gain staging inside the box, whilst I was taught gain staging in Audio School it was taught in the analogue way.  This was get the signal right either in the channel strip of a mixer or whatever preamp was being fed into the DAW.  There was no mention of gain staging once you were inside the box.  This has created a huge problem for me because rather than do that all these years...I've been sloppy with gain staging meaning some of my mixes were uneven.  This is the Pro Tools effect in Audio and Audio schools, Pro Tools is nothing more than a glorified digital mixing desk and or tape player.  So the gain staging outside of the box works...but only if you don't understand how emulator plugs are suppose to work.  Another misnomer was the idea that clipping is bad...meaning you have to turn everything down to fit the mix into certain parameters, again another reason why my mixes were uneven.  Here again Audio Schools and analogue audio engineers help propagate this myth.  So for in the box mixers without or with very few real world instruments...the key to getting a good mix is understanding not to listen to analogue engineers who don't differentiate tracking and mixing and gain staging.
 
But of course this leads to mixing type two, this is where everything is "real" but even here the engineer needs to differentiate tracking and mixing.  If you are using an 8 in/out box get the signal as Danny as suggested to -10 to -6...then re gain stage the mix once inside the box...mixing type one still applies.  If you are using a desk into Pro Tools, then old school analogue tracking and mixing techniques apply-or though I would hazard a guess that some gain staging once in the box will still apply.
 
So here is the crux of the situation...quite a few of the "pros" on this board are old school analogue audio engineers, they are perhaps great analogue audio engineers but there is also digital audio engineers too and digital audio engineering requires a different mind set to analogue.  And we are talking mix engineers...tracking engineers and mastering engineers are a totally different kettle of fish...and both have analogue and digital equivalents and both require different mindsets...the truly top notch engineer should be able to switch between digital and analogue quite easily though because they can differentiate the requirements of both-this is something I've just worked out ;)
 
Ben  

I did say in (brackets) software synths and yes there are some beauties in that area.  Many can have multiple stereo layers eg Wusikstation for example with 6 layers.  Each layer can have a multitude of programming going on so yes all can be pretty nice stereo imaging wise from many VST's. Alchemy, Synthmaster, OPX II with the panned oscillators, most of the NI stuff etc it goes on.
 
Who records with hardware synths. I could say if you think no one does you are simply wrong. There are tons of guys out there who have many hardware synths.  Many composers have filled their spaces with tons of retro gear as well.  I have mixed with a few top Melbourne composers and seen their setups and none of them have VST's alone. They have always got some serious hardware in the room.  (Kurzweil pops up often and I can understand it)
 
I have gone from a large hardware setup to a smaller more powerful one though.  They sound fabulous end of story. EMU samplers and Roland synths, Kurzweil workstations, analog modulars etc  Many VST's scramble to keep up with them.  Only a few really serious contenders in the VST area actually compete really well.  (That is when a VST is trying to emulate a hardware synth and they do it rather well might I add.)  What I love about virtual instruments is where they are going sound wise. Into some serious sonic territory.  They can leave the hardware in the dust in that department.  And guess what sounds amazing.  Both, hardware and virtual instruments together.  Wow.
 
Back to stereo recording. Something I missed before too.  EMU samplers have patches which consist of many voices or samples.  Every voice in an EMU patch can be modulated by an LFO stereo wise in terms of its pan position so we can move all the voices around in a liquid motion.  You can set the centre, the pan sweep depth and the rate.  Not bad.  Some serious imaging goes down when you start playing extended voicings for example.  You would never want to miss out on how that sounds.
 
Old school audio engineering can translate so well into digital recording.  Yes there are some things to watch out for but you can actually apply the same quality approach across all mediums.  Listening to stereo mixes in mono on a small Auratone type speaker is an excellent thing to do.  There is just so much you get from this.  Your mixes will improve many times from just doing that alone.  I am matsering a real nice album right now for a guy and the mono check showed up a few things too.
 
We now have all manner of different and exciting things that we can do digitally that could have never been done before so that is where the smart engineer learns and uses all that too.  It is not one or the other but just one thing overall that grows in size, approach and knowledge.

Ditto, Jeff!

I regret starting this topic...

Good point Andy.  Lets get right back to the original question and it is a good one.  I think it is a bit like Chinese whispers.  One should read the actual OP rather than the last post in the thread.  The subject gets too carried away by then.  For example we are going on about stereo recording and you asked about that waveform provided to you in the competition.
 
When I get a wave that is way too low and it is, I simply add again to the whole thing at this point.  I do it in an editor such as Adobe Audition.  I open every track and run a VU meter over everything and realign all levels so they have the same rms levels.  VU meter won’t show you much for a sound like this so you don't need to worry about what it may be showing at this point.  Use peak metering now.
 
I would add as much gain as needed to get the top most peak say 6 db away from 0dB FS.  You now have a waveform that you can actually see in your DAW.  Also you can now hear it and it might even be a bit loud so you can start dropping the channel fader on that to put it in to a balance perspective.  You are doing nothing to it or harming it in any way by adding gain.  If there is noise in the track then it gets louder too but by the same amount.  But it was there to start with.
 
Have such a strong signal now after the gain addition also means when you run it through things like a HPF set all the way up and well into the sound you will still have some level left over.  Any plug-ins a decent level wave is going through will be less likely to add noise (if they do that is).
 
When you make rms levels consistent on your tracks though before a mix the crest factor involved for each track is still set.  A tracks peaks are where they are in relation to rms levels, and at track level before any processing they are where they are.  I have trimmed some silly peaks down though on tracks in the editor before a mix.  It is a great place to even many things up.  eg a snare hit that is just louder than all the others around it and it had no musical significance but it was the drummer hitting a hit too hard! 
 
Sorting out rms levels all the way through a track though (on a sound especially that is high in rms compared to peak)  all makes less work for all compressors that follow then afterward.  It is the nicest sound of all.  Better than a compressor clamping down hard on some things and not on others.
 
Check out all the tracks they have supplied you.  Often they are in terrible shape and random level wise as well.  I don't know if it just slackness or they do it on purpose to make you go the extra mile and check all your individual tracks very carefully before you even start a mix.  Which you are doing of course!
 
So I even out rms levels where there is enough rms enegery there to read.  And very short peaky transient tracks I just bring up to -3 to -6 dB FS.  There is still no harm even being very close like that.  Normalise to a max level is another good option for very transient tracks. eg -4 dB. Some sounds are just so short you need them that high in order to even hear them in dense complex mix.
 
If too many tracks/stems are heavily effected then I don't do the mix.  Sometimes they do dumb things like that.  In one comp I went into they distorted the vocal stem.  But what if you wanted a clean vocal sound. It was not there.  Midi tracks would be fun though.  Sky the limit there in terms of what sound you are going to put on the midi track.
 

what does 'protracted' mean, actually?
 

Well, a rather protracted answer would be "long and drawn out", so why do you ask? LOL

batsbrew
what does 'protracted' mean, actually?

It means that you used a little plastic gizmo to draw an angle.