Multitrack Width And Ambience

[Jeff Henig]

In reading the discussions we've had over the years about different mic
methods, the idea has come up multiple times regarding having a stereo
image that transcends the two speakers, i.e., wider than speaker placement
would seem to allow.

The recording on which I'm currently working is an a cappella multitrack
recording which, while I'm not calling "avant garde" (I'm not The Beatles,
nor am I U2), is certainly out of the mainstream stylistically. It's coming
from a 1960's/1970's classic/psychedelic rock perspective, with some songs
being pretty much straight harmonies, and others heavily sampled and
effected.

My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Jeff Henig
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

IMHO - this effect is caused by the sound actually coming from directions
wider than the speaker separation, by means of reflection from the corners
and side walls. It can be encouraged by having extreme channel effects for
some sounds. I will leave it to the others to tell us if you can direct some
reverb to the extreme channels as well, which would help with the effect and
cause even greater spaciousness. In other words, if you have a sound that is
mixed into, say, half left, can you send most of its reverb to the extreme
left? I don't want to get into Sonic Holography effects, but that is also a
possibility.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Jeff Henig
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

IMHO - this effect is caused by the sound actually coming from directions
wider than the speaker separation, by means of reflection from the corners
and side walls.

No, this is not correct.

It is strictly the result of direct sound, as can be demonstrated in an
anechoic chamber or with headphones.

It is, however, a trick.
--scott

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Jeff Henig
In reading the discussions we've had over the years about different mic
methods, the idea has come up multiple times regarding having a stereo
image that transcends the two speakers, i.e., wider than speaker placement
would seem to allow.

Natural stereo is like that.

Post by Jeff Henig
The recording on which I'm currently working is an a cappella multitrack
recording which, while I'm not calling "avant garde" (I'm not The Beatles,
nor am I U2), is certainly out of the mainstream stylistically. It's coming
from a 1960's/1970's classic/psychedelic rock perspective, with some songs
being pretty much straight harmonies, and others heavily sampled and
effected.

You need a classical guy with an understanding of image to help you.

Post by Jeff Henig
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

The costly answer is probably Scott.

The short answer is stereo.

A somewhat longer answer is "record with a valid stereo pair".

Take a shortcut and make it a MS-pair and twiddle the S signal until you get
the effect you need. Additional tips: under-do. Record an extra pair of
tracks of the choir with the MS mic and twiddle only that and add it in
parallel, perhaps at -15 dB, quite possibly with a treble boost. I can't
promise that it will work - or that if it can work that you can get it to
work, but I'd start around there and twiddle some knobs and something might
happen. Or not.

Audition has some play around with channel phase options ... I am not
really sure that Adobe understands them, but somebody once did and they may
still be around in the current version.

Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I remember
having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

Post by Jeff Henig
---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Peter Larsen
The short answer is stereo.
A somewhat longer answer is "record with a valid stereo pair".
Take a shortcut and make it a MS-pair and twiddle the S signal until you
get the effect you need. Additional tips: under-do. Record an extra pair
of tracks of the choir with the MS mic and twiddle only that and add it in
parallel, perhaps at -15 dB, quite possibly with a treble boost. I can't
promise that it will work - or that if it can work that you can get it to
work, but I'd start around there and twiddle some knobs and something
might happen. Or not.
Audition has some play around with channel phase options ... I am not
really sure that Adobe understands them, but somebody once did and they
may still be around in the current version.
Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I
remember having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

There are a lot of programs that can manipulate stereo width, but the trick
is to keep from getting a hole in the middle - right?

I was messing with my Pioneer receiver yesterday and playing with the
ambience controls - you know, DPL, Sports, Games, Movies, Music, etc etc.
The widest one was something called "6- Stereo" and they don't tell you
what it is doing beyond messing with the stereo, but when I played a channel
check recording I did on scene it wrapped the entire stereo field about 270
degrees around me - left channel was in left surround, all the way to right
channel coming from right surround speaker. But center fill was still there.

Not everyone listens in surround, but that was just interesting to me.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Peter Larsen
The short answer is stereo.
A somewhat longer answer is "record with a valid stereo pair".
Take a shortcut and make it a MS-pair and twiddle the S signal until you
get the effect you need. Additional tips: under-do. Record an extra pair
of tracks of the choir with the MS mic and twiddle only that and add it in
parallel, perhaps at -15 dB, quite possibly with a treble boost. I can't
promise that it will work - or that if it can work that you can get it to
work, but I'd start around there and twiddle some knobs and something
might happen. Or not.
Audition has some play around with channel phase options ... I am not
really sure that Adobe understands them, but somebody once did and they
may still be around in the current version.
Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I
remember having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

There are a lot of programs that can manipulate stereo width, but the trick
is to keep from getting a hole in the middle - right?
I was messing with my Pioneer receiver yesterday and playing with the
ambience controls - you know, DPL, Sports, Games, Movies, Music, etc etc.
The widest one was something called "6- Stereo" and they don't tell you
what it is doing beyond messing with the stereo, but when I played a channel
check recording I did on scene it wrapped the entire stereo field about 270
degrees around me - left channel was in left surround, all the way to right
channel coming from right surround speaker. But center fill was still there.
Not everyone listens in surround, but that was just interesting to me.
Gary Eickmeier

Think about an X/Y coincident pair of cardoids at 90°. Strong in the
center where the patterns overlap, reaching out to 270° via two cardioid
mics at right angles to each other.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by hank alrich
Think about an X/Y coincident pair of cardoids at 90°. Strong in the
center where the patterns overlap, reaching out to 270° via two cardioid
mics at right angles to each other.

My mike configuration is wider than that - I am using 3 cardioids angled
North, East, and West w respect to the orchestra. This is, in effect, two
pairs of cardioids at 90° for a total angle of 180°. The imaging seems to be
sharp and consistent and the spaciousness very good. I do a channel check by
calling out and using a clapper at the soundstage extremes of L, half L, C,
half R, and R just to see how it is imaging the orchestra from known
positions in that particular setup.

In my normal playback mode of Dolby Pro Logic II I usually get a narrower
soundstage than I would like, so I was experimenting with the spatial
controls on the receiver. They work! But the problem is, the surround
channel will be mainly mono in most of the modes, which tends to mono up
your sound instead of increasing the space in it. So I reasoned that there
must be some surround modes that do not have mono surround signals. There
are some, but you can't use them for the surround channels only, you have to
use the whole mode acting on all speakers, which widens things out a little
too much for my taste. I want the orchestra up front and the ambience to the
sides and rear.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by hank alrich
Think about an X/Y coincident pair of cardoids at 90°. Strong in the
center where the patterns overlap, reaching out to 270° via two cardioid
mics at right angles to each other.

My mike configuration is wider than that - I am using 3 cardioids angled
North, East, and West w respect to the orchestra. This is, in effect, two
pairs of cardioids at 90° for a total angle of 180°.

If cardioids are one-eighty each, you only need two for 360°. You have
an omni with added cardioid center there.

Post by Gary Eickmeier
The imaging seems to be
sharp and consistent and the spaciousness very good. I do a channel check by
calling out and using a clapper at the soundstage extremes of L, half L, C,
half R, and R just to see how it is imaging the orchestra from known
positions in that particular setup.
In my normal playback mode of Dolby Pro Logic II I usually get a narrower
soundstage than I would like, so I was experimenting with the spatial
controls on the receiver. They work! But the problem is, the surround
channel will be mainly mono in most of the modes, which tends to mono up
your sound instead of increasing the space in it. So I reasoned that there
must be some surround modes that do not have mono surround signals. There
are some, but you can't use them for the surround channels only, you have to
use the whole mode acting on all speakers, which widens things out a little
too much for my taste. I want the orchestra up front and the ambience to the
sides and rear.
Gary Eickmeier

[Sean Conolly]

Post by hank alrich

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by hank alrich
Think about an X/Y coincident pair of cardoids at 90°. Strong in the
center where the patterns overlap, reaching out to 270° via two cardioid
mics at right angles to each other.

My mike configuration is wider than that - I am using 3 cardioids angled
North, East, and West w respect to the orchestra. This is, in effect, two
pairs of cardioids at 90° for a total angle of 180°.

If cardioids are one-eighty each, you only need two for 360°. You have
an omni with added cardioid center there.

May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.

Sean

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Sean Conolly
May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

The think is, I have two cardioids facing 180° plus the center one that can
be manipulated for center fill to taste. It is my poor man's MS, or MS
without the matrix. Add a rear facing mike and you've got surround sound
with perfect coverage.

Gary

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Sean Conolly
May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

The think is, I have two cardioids facing 180° plus the center one that can
be manipulated for center fill to taste. It is my poor man's MS, or MS
without the matrix. Add a rear facing mike and you've got surround sound
with perfect coverage.

We've been through this before, Sean. Gary is using unconventional playback
and as a result conventional miking techniques don't translate well for him.
--scott

[hank alrich]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Sean Conolly
May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

The think is, I have two cardioids facing 180° plus the center one that can
be manipulated for center fill to taste. It is my poor man's MS, or MS
without the matrix. Add a rear facing mike and you've got surround sound
with perfect coverage.

We've been through this before, Sean. Gary is using unconventional playback
and as a result conventional miking techniques don't translate well for him.
--scott

+1

[Gary Eickmeier]

+1

-1

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Sean Conolly
May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

The think is, I have two cardioids facing 180° plus the center one that can
be manipulated for center fill to taste. It is my poor man's MS, or MS
without the matrix. Add a rear facing mike and you've got surround sound
with perfect coverage.

We've been through this before, Sean. Gary is using unconventional playback
and as a result conventional miking techniques don't translate well for him.
--scott

That is factually untrue on both fronts. The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the DBX
Soundfield Ones. I can hear the differences among all of the miking
techniques discussed here and displayed on test discs such as the Delos and
the Bruce Bartlett demo disc.

Just as my speakers are the result of a lifelong study of radiation patterns
and room effects resulting in a design that incorporates the best of what
went before, my microphone technique is the result of the study of existing
techniques and may be considered a combination of the best of them. In fact,
there are so many miking techniques and theories from talented recording
engineers, you simply cannot say that any one of them is "non standard."

I just don't go for conventional anything.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Sean Conolly
May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

The think is, I have two cardioids facing 180° plus the center one that can
be manipulated for center fill to taste. It is my poor man's MS, or MS
without the matrix. Add a rear facing mike and you've got surround sound
with perfect coverage.

We've been through this before, Sean. Gary is using unconventional playback
and as a result conventional miking techniques don't translate well for him.
--scott

That is factually untrue on both fronts. The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the DBX
Soundfield Ones. I can hear the differences among all of the miking
techniques discussed here and displayed on test discs such as the Delos and
the Bruce Bartlett demo disc.
Just as my speakers are the result of a lifelong study of radiation patterns
and room effects resulting in a design that incorporates the best of what
went before, my microphone technique is the result of the study of existing
techniques and may be considered a combination of the best of them. In fact,
there are so many miking techniques and theories from talented recording
engineers, you simply cannot say that any one of them is "non standard."
I just don't go for conventional anything.
Gary

The problem for some of us is that you seem not to grasp many
fundamentals, so it is difficult to consider seriously your
proclamations of advanced understanding of matters audio.

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Scott Dorsey
We've been through this before, Sean. Gary is using unconventional playback
and as a result conventional miking techniques don't translate well for him.

That is factually untrue on both fronts. The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the
DBX Soundfield Ones. I can hear the differences among all of the miking
techniques discussed here and displayed on test discs such as the Delos
and the Bruce Bartlett demo disc.

My level of information is that Scott happens to use Magneplanars as
monitors.

Post by Gary Eickmeier
Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Sean Conolly]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Sean Conolly
May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

The think is, I have two cardioids facing 180° plus the center one that can
be manipulated for center fill to taste. It is my poor man's MS, or MS
without the matrix. Add a rear facing mike and you've got surround sound
with perfect coverage.

We've been through this before, Sean. Gary is using unconventional playback
and as a result conventional miking techniques don't translate well for him.
--scott

That is factually untrue on both fronts. The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the
DBX Soundfield Ones. I can hear the differences among all of the miking
techniques discussed here and displayed on test discs such as the Delos
and the Bruce Bartlett demo disc.
Just as my speakers are the result of a lifelong study of radiation
patterns and room effects resulting in a design that incorporates the best
of what went before, my microphone technique is the result of the study of
existing techniques and may be considered a combination of the best of
them. In fact, there are so many miking techniques and theories from
talented recording engineers, you simply cannot say that any one of them
is "non standard."
I just don't go for conventional anything.

Well, I'll agree that using two cardoid mics at 180° is unconventioal, as
most of us would just use an omni and save a track.

Unless one is out of phase, in which case most of us would record it as one
track of a M/S pair, again saving a track.

If you believe your set up produces different results than either of the
above, that may take some explaining.

Sean

[Richard Kuschel]

Post by Sean Conolly

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Sean Conolly
May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

The think is, I have two cardioids facing 180° plus the center one that
can
be manipulated for center fill to taste. It is my poor man's MS, or MS
without the matrix. Add a rear facing mike and you've got surround sound
with perfect coverage.

We've been through this before, Sean. Gary is using unconventional
playback
and as a result conventional miking techniques don't translate well for
him.
--scott

That is factually untrue on both fronts. The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the
DBX Soundfield Ones. I can hear the differences among all of the miking
techniques discussed here and displayed on test discs such as the Delos
and the Bruce Bartlett demo disc.
Just as my speakers are the result of a lifelong study of radiation
patterns and room effects resulting in a design that incorporates the best
of what went before, my microphone technique is the result of the study of
existing techniques and may be considered a combination of the best of
them. In fact, there are so many miking techniques and theories from
talented recording engineers, you simply cannot say that any one of them
is "non standard."
I just don't go for conventional anything.

Well, I'll agree that using two cardoid mics at 180° is unconventioal, as
most of us would just use an omni and save a track.
Unless one is out of phase, in which case most of us would record it as one
track of a M/S pair, again saving a track.
If you believe your set up produces different results than either of the
above, that may take some explaining.
Sean

Actually using three cardioids to create a StereoMicrophone or M/S isn't unusual. Sony has done it for years as has Shure with their VP88 microphones. They didn't have a decent Figure 8 so two cardioids worked OK. The problem is that cardioids do not have an off axis response that is as smooth as a true figure 8 with a single diaphragm.
Neumann KM86 and AKG 414 also use two Cardioids to create a Figure 8.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Sean Conolly
Well, I'll agree that using two cardoid mics at 180° is unconventioal, as
most of us would just use an omni and save a track.

Curious statement. Did you think I was mixing them to mono?

Post by Sean Conolly
Unless one is out of phase, in which case most of us would record it as one
track of a M/S pair, again saving a track.

Saving a track but increasing the post production. The tracks are available
to me. I am thinking that the outside pair does the same job as a figure 8,
but I don't need to do the phase inversion and matrixing routine.

Post by Sean Conolly
If you believe your set up produces different results than either of the
above, that may take some explaining.
Sean
Actually using three cardioids to create a StereoMicrophone or M/S
isn't unusual. Sony has done it for years as has Shure with their
VP88 microphones. They didn't have a decent Figure 8 so two cardioids
worked OK. The problem is that cardioids do not have an off axis
response that is as smooth as a true figure 8 with a single
diaphragm.
Neumann KM86 and AKG 414 also use two Cardioids to create a Figure 8.

My setup is most similar to the Decca Tree, and the combination could be
considered two NOS pairs side by side. I look at it as the two back to back
cardioids providing maximum spaciousness, each mike sitting in the other's
null, and the center one fills in the center as desired.

But the most interesting comparison is with the OCT, or Optimized Cardioid
Trianlge, invented by Gunther Thiele. His center mike was positioned 8 cm
forward of the others, and the 180° pair are 40 to 90 cm apart. Mine aren't
quite that far apart, but I am limited to the brackets I have on hand, and I
didn't know about Thiele's arrangement when I invented mine.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Post by Sean Conolly

Post by hank alrich

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by hank alrich
Think about an X/Y coincident pair of cardoids at 90°. Strong in the
center where the patterns overlap, reaching out to 270° via two cardioid
mics at right angles to each other.

My mike configuration is wider than that - I am using 3 cardioids angled
North, East, and West w respect to the orchestra. This is, in effect, two
pairs of cardioids at 90° for a total angle of 180°.

If cardioids are one-eighty each, you only need two for 360°. You have
an omni with added cardioid center there.

May as well use an M/S pair and save a track.
Sean

√

[Tom McCreadie]

Post by hank alrich

Post by Gary Eickmeier
My mike configuration is wider than that - I am using 3 cardioids angled
North, East, and West w respect to the orchestra. This is, in effect, two
pairs of cardioids at 90° for a total angle of 180°.

If cardioids are one-eighty each, you only need two for 360°. You have
an omni with added cardioid center there.

Hank, I believe Gary is actually talking about a _spaced_ 3-mic array, as he had

Post by hank alrich

Post by Gary Eickmeier
So I placed two cardioids facing 180° from each other to the
two side walls. Then I placed a third cardioid facing forward. They
are positioned in a triangle with the front mike farthest forward,
the two side mikes about a foot apart and 10 inches behind, in an
equilateral triangle. So the left channel is formed by the center
and the left mike, and their center of gravity is about half way
between them or 45° left. .......

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Tom McCreadie

Post by hank alrich

Post by Gary Eickmeier
My mike configuration is wider than that - I am using 3 cardioids
angled North, East, and West w respect to the orchestra. This is,
in effect, two pairs of cardioids at 90° for a total angle of 180°.

If cardioids are one-eighty each, you only need two for 360°. You
have an omni with added cardioid center there.

Hank, I believe Gary is actually talking about a _spaced_ 3-mic
array, as he had described in an earlier "Three Card Monte" saga

Post by hank alrich

Post by Gary Eickmeier
So I placed two cardioids facing 180° from each other to the
two side walls. Then I placed a third cardioid facing forward. They
are positioned in a triangle with the front mike farthest forward,
the two side mikes about a foot apart and 10 inches behind, in an
equilateral triangle. So the left channel is formed by the center
and the left mike, and their center of gravity is about half way
between them or 45° left. .......

Yes, and I think a little spacing is good for spaciousness and bass
response. Maybe I could post a link to an MP3 sometime.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Jeff Henig
In reading the discussions we've had over the years about different mic
methods, the idea has come up multiple times regarding having a stereo
image that transcends the two speakers, i.e., wider than speaker placement
would seem to allow.

Natural stereo is like that.

Post by Jeff Henig
The recording on which I'm currently working is an a cappella multitrack
recording which, while I'm not calling "avant garde" (I'm not The Beatles,
nor am I U2), is certainly out of the mainstream stylistically. It's coming
from a 1960's/1970's classic/psychedelic rock perspective, with some songs
being pretty much straight harmonies, and others heavily sampled and
effected.

You need a classical guy with an understanding of image to help you.

Post by Jeff Henig
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

The costly answer is probably Scott.
The short answer is stereo.

Yes. If the voices are decently balanced at their source(s) a stereo
pair in a decent room would be my own preference.

If the voices are not well balanced a cappella doesn't work, pretty
much. If they feel they're ready to record and not kidding themselves, a
pair is all it shoud take. (Anybody got a pair? :-)

Beware of headphones (for the singers) for this kind of work. Hear each
other directly in the room.

Post by Peter Larsen
A somewhat longer answer is "record with a valid stereo pair".

I don't think you can get this convincingly from pan-potted mono tracks,
absent any stereo information, without significant fancy processing.

Post by Peter Larsen
Take a shortcut and make it a MS-pair and twiddle the S signal until you get
the effect you need. Additional tips: under-do. Record an extra pair of
tracks of the choir with the MS mic and twiddle only that and add it in
parallel, perhaps at -15 dB, quite possibly with a treble boost. I can't
promise that it will work - or that if it can work that you can get it to
work, but I'd start around there and twiddle some knobs and something might
happen. Or not.
Audition has some play around with channel phase options ... I am not
really sure that Adobe understands them, but somebody once did and they may
still be around in the current version.
Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I remember
having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

Post by Jeff Henig
---Jeff

Kind regards
Peter Larsen

[geoff]

Post by Peter Larsen
Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I remember
having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

I had a TV once with some trickery that had sounds coming from way
outside the stereo speaker width....

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by geoff

Post by Peter Larsen
Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I remember
having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

I had a TV once with some trickery that had sounds coming from way
outside the stereo speaker width....

That would have been the Hughes SRS system. Reading the patent material
for this can be very enlightening.

An FM station in Atlanta briefly used a Hughes processor in their airchain.
It sounded great on boom boxes but caused some weird effects in the car,
and in the end the added L-R material meant they lost some loudness.
--scott

[geoff]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by geoff

Post by Peter Larsen
Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I remember
having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

I had a TV once with some trickery that had sounds coming from way
outside the stereo speaker width....

That would have been the Hughes SRS system. Reading the patent material
for this can be very enlightening.
An FM station in Atlanta briefly used a Hughes processor in their airchain.
It sounded great on boom boxes but caused some weird effects in the car,
and in the end the added L-R material meant they lost some loudness.
--scott

Yes, "SRS" rings a bell. The "outside" sounds certainly weren't high in
musical fidelity !

geoff

[Luxey]

Post by geoff

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by geoff

Post by Peter Larsen
Oh, and there is something called Q-sound, some encoder that allows "from
the side" perception from stereo, just something stray something I remember
having seen mentioned, I think it was for use in computer games.

I had a TV once with some trickery that had sounds coming from way
outside the stereo speaker width....

That would have been the Hughes SRS system. Reading the patent material
for this can be very enlightening.
An FM station in Atlanta briefly used a Hughes processor in their airchain.
It sounded great on boom boxes but caused some weird effects in the car,
and in the end the added L-R material meant they lost some loudness.
--scott

Yes, "SRS" rings a bell. The "outside" sounds certainly weren't high in
musical fidelity !
geoff

Is it the same SRS as in Windows media player?

[William Sommerwerck]

Surround encoding can produce "outside the speakers" effects. SQ does this for
rear sounds (when the undecoded signal is played in stereo) -- I've heard it.
It might also occur with UHJ.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Jeff Henig
The recording on which I'm currently working is an a cappella multitrack
recording which, while I'm not calling "avant garde" (I'm not The Beatles,
nor am I U2), is certainly out of the mainstream stylistically. It's coming
from a 1960's/1970's classic/psychedelic rock perspective, with some songs
being pretty much straight harmonies, and others heavily sampled and
effected.
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

It is possible to do it, using delays. That is the whole purpose of Q-Sound.
However, you have to give up on the notion of mono compatibility.
--scott

[Frank Stearns]

Post by Jeff Henig
In reading the discussions we've had over the years about different mic
methods, the idea has come up multiple times regarding having a stereo
image that transcends the two speakers, i.e., wider than speaker placement
would seem to allow.
The recording on which I'm currently working is an a cappella multitrack
recording which, while I'm not calling "avant garde" (I'm not The Beatles,
nor am I U2), is certainly out of the mainstream stylistically. It's coming
from a 1960's/1970's classic/psychedelic rock perspective, with some songs
being pretty much straight harmonies, and others heavily sampled and
effected.
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

I'll tell you in a moment... okay, time's up. The secret is delay. You can do all
sorts of wild and wonderful things. Find youself a delay plug-in that lets you
single-step delay 1 sample at a time.

For educational purposes, you can even start with your fave track off a CD. Dump it
into your DAW, start applying increasing single-sample delays to one channel (but
not both), listen to what happens.

Next, take something that was stereo-mic'd, say a guitar or piano. Again, start
single-stepping samples on one of the two channels, notice how the instrument swings
around and does all sorts of interesting spatial things.

We're essentially doing what our ears do to get sound location, and by messing with
those delays before the sound even gets to the ears, we can have grand fun
fooling those ears.

Have fun with it, report back. :)

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Frank Stearns
I'll tell you in a moment... okay, time's up. The secret is delay. You can do all
sorts of wild and wonderful things. Find youself a delay plug-in that lets you
single-step delay 1 sample at a time.
For educational purposes, you can even start with your fave track off a CD. Dump it
into your DAW, start applying increasing single-sample delays to one channel (but
not both), listen to what happens.
Next, take something that was stereo-mic'd, say a guitar or piano. Again, start
single-stepping samples on one of the two channels, notice how the instrument swings
around and does all sorts of interesting spatial things.
We're essentially doing what our ears do to get sound location, and by messing with
those delays before the sound even gets to the ears, we can have grand fun
fooling those ears.
Have fun with it, report back. :)
Frank
Mobile Audio

Frank -

Where is this delayed signal coming from in your explanation? If it is from
the same L and R speakers as the main signals, I don't see how that could
make the ambience any wider than before. But place some extra speakers out
wider than the main ones, or do the same thing by reflection, and I can see
it happening.

Not denying what you are saying, just asking the question.

Gary Eickmeier

[Frank Stearns]

snips

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Frank Stearns
We're essentially doing what our ears do to get sound location, and by messing with
those delays before the sound even gets to the ears, we can have grand fun
fooling those ears.
Have fun with it, report back. :)
Frank
Mobile Audio

Frank -
Where is this delayed signal coming from in your explanation? If it is from
the same L and R speakers as the main signals, I don't see how that could
make the ambience any wider than before. But place some extra speakers out
wider than the main ones, or do the same thing by reflection, and I can see
it happening.
Not denying what you are saying, just asking the question.

Well, we've gone through this before in some different forms. With these tiny delays
you can do some interesting things to fool the ear, including making sounds appear
to come from outside the speakers. It's how I can get such "outside" imaging
illusions occurring in the dead (speaker) end of a LEDE room. In fact, due to the
much lower ambiguity of imaging provided by a properly set-up LEDE room, such
spatial effects are more apparent.

Try it and see, though in your more reflective environment you might not experience
quite the same thing.

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by Frank Stearns
Well, we've gone through this before in some different forms. With
these tiny delays you can do some interesting things to fool the ear,
including making sounds appear to come from outside the speakers.
It's how I can get such "outside" imaging illusions occurring in the
dead (speaker) end of a LEDE room. In fact, due to the much lower
ambiguity of imaging provided by a properly set-up LEDE room, such
spatial effects are more apparent.
Try it and see, though in your more reflective environment you might
not experience quite the same thing.

Do you have a clip or a link to some of your recordings that I could buy to
listen for the effect?

Gary

[Frank Stearns]

Post by Gary Eickmeier

Post by Frank Stearns
Well, we've gone through this before in some different forms. With
these tiny delays you can do some interesting things to fool the ear,
including making sounds appear to come from outside the speakers.
It's how I can get such "outside" imaging illusions occurring in the
dead (speaker) end of a LEDE room. In fact, due to the much lower
ambiguity of imaging provided by a properly set-up LEDE room, such
spatial effects are more apparent.
Try it and see, though in your more reflective environment you might
not experience quite the same thing.

Do you have a clip or a link to some of your recordings that I could buy to
listen for the effect?

Given that I do mostly classical and acoustic music, I don't use the effect on a
regular basis other than what might be captured naturally. Used it intentionally
once to enhance a guitar, but it was subtle; you only noticed when the effect was
disabled. You'd need that A-B comparison to really hear what had been done. I could
cobble something together but don't have time now.

But even if I did, you really wouldn't learn anything if you just sat back
passively. This is one of those "lab" moments where you'd benefit far more by
investigating these small delays yourself.

And if you don't have a DAW with sample-level delays, you might have already played
with the effect and not known it. Some computer audio subsystems have a cutsie
"spatializer" or "surround" app where you can make the sound seem to come from well
outside the crappy computer speakers, and in some cases even from above and below.
Some receivers (and even cheap stereos from 1990s) have "surround" or "space"
controls. Again, up to a point the illusion is quite good that stuff is happening
outside the speakers.

But, as someone pointed out, mono compatibility goes to hell, and it's really easy
to dial in too much effect such that the basic tonality suffers. (There's a whole
lotta comb filtering going on in these systems.)

Ideally, play with a delay plug-in within your DAW. As a fallback, look for one of
the systems noted just above. Experiment. Experiment. Experiment.

Frank
Mobile Audio

[Tom McCreadie]

Post by Jeff Henig
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

One can get extreme stereo even with a minimal array with an XY coincident pair
of supercardioids, hypercardioids or Fig8's, or with an MS system with certain M
patterns. Such arrays always result in there being so-called ambiophonic regions
to the L and R of the main array. So sounds from the wider L and R sides of the
performers that happen to fall in this 'Bermuda triangle' area will generate
signals of contradicting polarity: a +ve voltage at one mic but a -ve voltage at
the other (i.e. one loudspeaker speaker cone is pumping while the other channel
speaker's cone is sucking).

Sounds located in this ambiophonic region are generally perceived as imaging
outside of the playback speakers - but that imaging is generally smeared and
ill-defined...some folks finding it as exciting and 'spacious'; others finding
it woozy and mildly nauseous...and it can even collapse back into the centre.

So with appropriate multitrack phase trickery it is indeed possible to extend
the width,...but the result isn't always satisfying.

[hank alrich]

Post by Tom McCreadie

Post by Jeff Henig
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from
a multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if
so, how?

One can get extreme stereo even with a minimal array with an XY coincident
pair of supercardioids, hypercardioids or Fig8's, or with an MS system
with certain M patterns. Such arrays always result in there being
so-called ambiophonic regions to the L and R of the main array. So sounds
from the wider L and R sides of the performers that happen to fall in this
'Bermuda triangle' area will generate signals of contradicting polarity: a
+ve voltage at one mic but a -ve voltage at the other (i.e. one
loudspeaker speaker cone is pumping while the other channel speaker's cone
is sucking).
Sounds located in this ambiophonic region are generally perceived as
imaging outside of the playback speakers - but that imaging is generally
smeared and ill-defined...some folks finding it as exciting and
'spacious'; others finding it woozy and mildly nauseous...and it can even
collapse back into the centre.
So with appropriate multitrack phase trickery it is indeed possible to
extend the width,...but the result isn't always satisfying.

At this point I will posit that this effect is unnecessary for
convincing presentation of good a capella, and may actually be
detrimental.

[Les Cargill]

Post by Jeff Henig
In reading the discussions we've had over the years about different mic
methods, the idea has come up multiple times regarding having a stereo
image that transcends the two speakers, i.e., wider than speaker placement
would seem to allow.
The recording on which I'm currently working is an a cappella multitrack
recording which, while I'm not calling "avant garde" (I'm not The Beatles,
nor am I U2), is certainly out of the mainstream stylistically. It's coming
from a 1960's/1970's classic/psychedelic rock perspective, with some songs
being pretty much straight harmonies, and others heavily sampled and
effected.
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?

I'd say "with delays". Maybe with a plate sim and delays. Maybe throw in
some 90 degree phase shift if you've got it. The magic Google
words for "90 degree phase shift" are "Hilbert transform".

This gets fiddly fast.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Les Cargill
I'd say "with delays". Maybe with a plate sim and delays. Maybe throw in
some 90 degree phase shift if you've got it. The magic Google
words for "90 degree phase shift" are "Hilbert transform".

No, you don't want constant phase, you want constant time.

Post by Les Cargill
This gets fiddly fast.

The digital world makes it much easier.
--scott

[Les Cargill]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Les Cargill
I'd say "with delays". Maybe with a plate sim and delays. Maybe throw in
some 90 degree phase shift if you've got it. The magic Google
words for "90 degree phase shift" are "Hilbert transform".

No, you don't want constant phase, you want constant time.

Just to be clear, I'm using the phase effect after the delayed signal
in series. To my ear, it sounds wider, more like two things rather
than one thing and its echo.

You also get more "hole in the middle". It'll probably be terrible
summed to mono.

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Les Cargill
This gets fiddly fast.

The digital world makes it much easier.

True.

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott

[Jeff Henig]

Post by Les Cargill

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Les Cargill
I'd say "with delays". Maybe with a plate sim and delays. Maybe throw in
some 90 degree phase shift if you've got it. The magic Google
words for "90 degree phase shift" are "Hilbert transform".

No, you don't want constant phase, you want constant time.

Just to be clear, I'm using the phase effect after the delayed signal
in series. To my ear, it sounds wider, more like two things rather
than one thing and its echo.
You also get more "hole in the middle". It'll probably be terrible summed to mono.

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Les Cargill
This gets fiddly fast.

The digital world makes it much easier.

True.

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott

Any reason that this couldn't be used on several tracks without using it on
the entire mix--say to widen a single part for effect, while the rest stays
somewhat normal?

The song on which I'm working right now has a part in which I'm kind of
simulating an electric piano with a Leslie unit. Two part harmony, quad
tracking each voice. Of the quad track, I've two panned extreme R-L, and
two roughly 11:00/1:00.

What would prevent me from using this on the outer two voices for the
spread and using the inner two to help keep the center filled, as well as
keeping a good mix in mono?

[Les Cargill]

Post by Jeff Henig

Post by Les Cargill

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Les Cargill
I'd say "with delays". Maybe with a plate sim and delays. Maybe throw in
some 90 degree phase shift if you've got it. The magic Google
words for "90 degree phase shift" are "Hilbert transform".

No, you don't want constant phase, you want constant time.

Just to be clear, I'm using the phase effect after the delayed signal
in series. To my ear, it sounds wider, more like two things rather
than one thing and its echo.
You also get more "hole in the middle". It'll probably be terrible summed to mono.

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Les Cargill
This gets fiddly fast.

The digital world makes it much easier.

True.

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott

Any reason that this couldn't be used on several tracks without using it on
the entire mix--say to widen a single part for effect, while the rest stays
somewhat normal?

Sure. I mean, it's going to be an experimental thing, right?

Post by Jeff Henig
The song on which I'm working right now has a part in which I'm kind of
simulating an electric piano with a Leslie unit. Two part harmony, quad
tracking each voice. Of the quad track, I've two panned extreme R-L, and
two roughly 11:00/1:00.
What would prevent me from using this on the outer two voices for the
spread and using the inner two to help keep the center filled, as well as
keeping a good mix in mono?

Dunno. Try it. Really, the main thing to try to get spread
is the delay. If you hear an asymmetrical delay or two against
something panned, your ear might catch it as wider.

Stuff like this though, there are no hard and fast rules. It can add
up badly or it can work.

[Sean Conolly]

Post by Les Cargill
Sure. I mean, it's going to be an experimental thing, right?

Post by Jeff Henig
The song on which I'm working right now has a part in which I'm kind of
simulating an electric piano with a Leslie unit. Two part harmony, quad
tracking each voice. Of the quad track, I've two panned extreme R-L, and
two roughly 11:00/1:00.
What would prevent me from using this on the outer two voices for the
spread and using the inner two to help keep the center filled, as well as
keeping a good mix in mono?

Dunno. Try it. Really, the main thing to try to get spread
is the delay. If you hear an asymmetrical delay or two against
something panned, your ear might catch it as wider.
Stuff like this though, there are no hard and fast rules. It can add
up badly or it can work.

One time I tried playing with using the Haas effect for panning by leaving
the tracks centered but delaying the L or R send by a number of
milliseconds. Yes it worked, especially with headphones, and I thought this
might be a good way to make the mix more consistant in places where the
listener is a lot closer to one speaker in a stereo pair - like for a band
demo played in a typical bar for example.

And then I pushed the mono button, shut off one speaker and - oh dear. Never
mind. But it was fun to play with.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Sean Conolly
One time I tried playing with using the Haas effect for panning by leaving
the tracks centered but delaying the L or R send by a number of
milliseconds. Yes it worked, especially with headphones, and I thought this
might be a good way to make the mix more consistant in places where the
listener is a lot closer to one speaker in a stereo pair - like for a band
demo played in a typical bar for example.
And then I pushed the mono button, shut off one speaker and - oh dear. Never
mind. But it was fun to play with.

1. Use both amplitude and delay panning at the same time.
2. Don't go crazy with the delays.
3. Add some reverb in after fixing.

These three things can help keep you from totally destroying mono
compatibility, although it's never going to be all that great.
--scott

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Jeff Henig
Any reason that this couldn't be used on several tracks without using it on
the entire mix--say to widen a single part for effect, while the rest stays
somewhat normal?

That's the only way it can be. It's not widening anything, it's just
positioning it. But it's being positioned by means of both time and
amplitude differences between channels.

Post by Jeff Henig
The song on which I'm working right now has a part in which I'm kind of
simulating an electric piano with a Leslie unit. Two part harmony, quad
tracking each voice. Of the quad track, I've two panned extreme R-L, and
two roughly 11:00/1:00.
What would prevent me from using this on the outer two voices for the
spread and using the inner two to help keep the center filled, as well as
keeping a good mix in mono?

If you're not very careful it can make things pop out excessively if you
mix panpotted tracks in with delay-potted tracks, but you can try it.
Start just adding 1 or 2 ms of delay in one channel.
--scott

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Les Cargill

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Les Cargill
I'd say "with delays". Maybe with a plate sim and delays. Maybe throw in
some 90 degree phase shift if you've got it. The magic Google
words for "90 degree phase shift" are "Hilbert transform".

No, you don't want constant phase, you want constant time.

Just to be clear, I'm using the phase effect after the delayed signal
in series. To my ear, it sounds wider, more like two things rather
than one thing and its echo.

This is different than just phase panning, though.
--scott

[Luxey]

Post by Jeff Henig
In reading the discussions we've had over the years about different mic
methods, the idea has come up multiple times regarding having a stereo
image that transcends the two speakers, i.e., wider than speaker placement
would seem to allow.
The recording on which I'm currently working is an a cappella multitrack
recording which, while I'm not calling "avant garde" (I'm not The Beatles,
nor am I U2), is certainly out of the mainstream stylistically. It's coming
from a 1960's/1970's classic/psychedelic rock perspective, with some songs
being pretty much straight harmonies, and others heavily sampled and
effected.
My question is this: is it possible to get that extreme stereo width from a
multitracked recording, as opposed to a live/no overdub setup? And if so,
how?
--
---Jeff

In 20th century it would involve repatching same sources to multiple channels, inverting phase on some and mixing until they pop out of speakers. Now you'd duplicate 8or not) tracks in a daw and apply some plug in, like MS stereo widener, or alike.

[PStamler]

Gary wrote:

"The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the DBX
Soundfield Ones"

And a character in Doonesbury described his music as sounding like "Mozart, Van Halen, Woody Guthrie -- stuff like that."

Peace,
Paul

[Jeff Henig]

Post by PStamler
"The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the DBX
Soundfield Ones"
And a character in Doonesbury described his music as sounding like
"Mozart, Van Halen, Woody Guthrie -- stuff like that."
Peace,
Paul

You owe me a cup of coffee and one keyboard. I'd add a monitor, but that
cleaned up rather easily.

[hank alrich]

Post by PStamler

"The spatial qualities of my > speakers is roughly the same as the
Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the DBX Soundfield Ones"

And a character in Doonesbury described his music as sounding like
"Mozart, Van Halen, Woody Guthrie -- stuff like that."
Peace,
Paul

Okay, kids, the Internet is over for today. Paul has won it. Tune in
again tomorrow.

[Jeff Henig]

Post by hank alrich

Post by PStamler

"The spatial qualities of my > speakers is roughly the same as the
Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the DBX Soundfield Ones"

And a character in Doonesbury described his music as sounding like
"Mozart, Van Halen, Woody Guthrie -- stuff like that."
Peace,
Paul

Okay, kids, the Internet is over for today. Paul has won it. Tune in
again tomorrow.

+1

[Gary Eickmeier]

Post by PStamler
"The spatial qualities of my
speakers is roughly the same as the Beolab 5, the Magneplanars, and the DBX
Soundfield Ones"
And a character in Doonesbury described his music as sounding like
"Mozart, Van Halen, Woody Guthrie -- stuff like that."

They are multidirectional, meaning they HAVE some spatial qualities, as
differentiated from most others that have all of the drivers on one side.

Gary