Urple.Eeple
New member
Hi guys, made a short video that dispells the myth that you HAVE to always mono your lowend. If you are looking for more in depth on this topic, check out the video I link at the end of this short PSA 
PSA: Stereo Does NOT Equal Out of Phase!
- Thread starter Urple.Eeple
- Start date
rhythmgj
Character in Spades...
There are other reasons going back to the dawn of stereo audio that low end (bass and kick) has been in mono (largely, but not solely due to the limitations of vinyl). But it's also unrealistic (if that is a goal in your music-making; realizing that it isn't for everybody), and almost all club and concert sound is mono anyway, either by design or by default (yes, some people run their PA in stereo, but it is irrelevant; no one will really be hearing it properly). Your thesis is correct, but your conclusion (make bass stereo) is not, IMHO.
Of course, "no rules" and all of that, everyone should produce the way they feel best. Just realize some industry standards actually have reasons and sound rationale behind them, not always misinformation or marketing hype.
Of course, "no rules" and all of that, everyone should produce the way they feel best. Just realize some industry standards actually have reasons and sound rationale behind them, not always misinformation or marketing hype.
Urple.Eeple
New member
Actually, most established clubs use stereo sub configurations. It's very hard to spec a system for mono sub, think about the complexity of the crossover network here.
In the case of a club system being in mono, all you have to check is that your lowend collapses to mono fine. And in fact, if you SUM your lowend to mono and there are phase problems, you will only be committing those phase problems to dual-mono, ensuring they can't be repaired by a competent mastering engineer.
Just think about it, let's say you have stereo phase problems in your lowend. As you sum to mono you mix these channels into the middle where they conflict and commit their comb filtering permanently.
As I said in the video, fixing lowend phase problems is essential, but as long as you don't have stereo phase problems in your lowend, then there's no need to over-aggressively sum to mono. It doesn't actually fix anything!
In the case of a club system being in mono, all you have to check is that your lowend collapses to mono fine. And in fact, if you SUM your lowend to mono and there are phase problems, you will only be committing those phase problems to dual-mono, ensuring they can't be repaired by a competent mastering engineer.
Just think about it, let's say you have stereo phase problems in your lowend. As you sum to mono you mix these channels into the middle where they conflict and commit their comb filtering permanently.
As I said in the video, fixing lowend phase problems is essential, but as long as you don't have stereo phase problems in your lowend, then there's no need to over-aggressively sum to mono. It doesn't actually fix anything!
mitchiemasha
Member
That's not the issue...
Last edited:
mitchiemasha
Member
Agreed...
Urple.Eeple
New member
If your point is that there is a use still to do it for cutting vinyl? That's true to an extent, but this is handled by the cutting clerk with an elliptical EQ. Do you have another reason for mono'ing bass, other than it being a stylistic choice?
mitchiemasha
Member
Urple.. in one of your videos you mention the sub location thing is a myth and has been disproven many times. Can you link me up to these please. Ones where the location isn't the result of upperharmonics, distortion, port noise etc created by the subwoofer. Or even feeling the air pressure as you're stood right next to the thing.
In your example, all you would be achieving in the room is, the sub frequencies of the kick drum would be lower in volume. People stood next to the left stack would experience more intense pressure than those stood next to the right.
What you initially say is correct but to my understanding the example you use is irrelevant and complete ignorant to other issues, not to mention real life. The other video you made is better.
In your example, all you would be achieving in the room is, the sub frequencies of the kick drum would be lower in volume. People stood next to the left stack would experience more intense pressure than those stood next to the right.
What you initially say is correct but to my understanding the example you use is irrelevant and complete ignorant to other issues, not to mention real life. The other video you made is better.
Urple.Eeple
New member
Sure, this video is meant to be watched in conjunction with my other stereo lowend video. In the stereo lowend video I made the statement that stereo does not equal out of phase, but never proceeded to prove that fact. This video was meant as a simple short proof and hopefully encourage people to watch the longer video.
I'm not advocating panning your kick drums, or bass. Merely making a point, as I think from what I've seen stereo and out of phase are often misconstrued within production circles. I've heard time and time again that something is stereo BECAUSE it's out of phase, which simply isn't true, and yes, I had some bullet points at the end of this video that more related to my previous longer video (this video is a follow-up, not a stand alone)
mitchiemasha
Member
I agree with this 100%. It is something that seems to be getting over looked. Collapsing your bass to mono doesn't fix anything, it's what lets you know there is a problem. Unless one actually wants that effect and why they should collapse and not leave it to the environment.
mitchiemasha
Member
i'd still like some links for this disproven myth as i was on the understanding it hadn't been. My information may be old and outdated. I've tried to google it but my word choice is failing me.
mitchiemasha
Member
And. I will add... the problem is when you add the contrasting right signal that creates the phase problems. Not the mono panned signal (Which for low frequencies only achieves lower volume in the room).
Those phase problems can achieve interesting movements with in the bass frequencies but it would be better to commit them to mono, to be dual mono, rather than leave them free to the unknowingness of the room/system.
Those phase problems can achieve interesting movements with in the bass frequencies but it would be better to commit them to mono, to be dual mono, rather than leave them free to the unknowingness of the room/system.
Last edited:
Urple.Eeple
New member
Here's one:
http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.4877938
"In a room-environment study of the duplex theory of sound localization, listeners reported the azimuthal locations of low-frequency sine tones in free field and in three very different rooms."
Here's a paper that discusses how low frequency stereo information actually takes precedence over high frequency stereo information in how we locate a sound source
http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.402445
"In the experiments reported here, the interaural phase relations in the processing algorithms are manipulated in order to produce stimuli in which the interaural time difference cues signal one direction and interaural intensity and pinna cues signal another direction. The apparent directions of these conflicting cue stimuli almost always follow the interaural time cue, as long as the wideband stimuli include low frequencies. With low frequencies removed from the stimuli, the dominance of interaural time difference disappears, and apparent direction is determined primarily by interaural intensity difference and pinna cues."
Both studies discuss how we use ITD cues to locate low frequencies, whereas ILD takes over at higher frequencies.
Also, most mastering rooms are setup to use stereo subs (we use full range loudspeaker stacks). I run a mastering studio and can absolutely locate low frequency sounds. If I pan a sub tone around it's obvious which speaker the sub is originating from.
Last edited:
rhythmgj
Character in Spades...
Vinyl is/was a big reason not to; it doesn't matter who or what does the cutting with what EQ; it is based on physical limitations of the medium (and I'm not knocking vinyl-- I love it!). Now, a lot of younger producers and newer label folks weren't around to deal with vinyl the first time around, so they don't do much in the way of mix optimization or mastering for vinyl; they figure the same mix they use for iTunes should be fine for the vinyl pressing. But don't confuse that for the way things should be done.
It's also just not practical to make every track stereo, there is no reason for it and it contributes to a muddied-up mix as fast as any contributing factor I can think of (other than insisting on having 10 different flavor of reverb on each track) all in the pursuit of having everything "wide," because "wide is good." It is even less practical to make bass and kick drum so... Yes, you can do it (as in, you have the ability to) as I mentioned earlier. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to do it. In a seemingly contradictory way, I'll state up front that I for one don't generally keep my bass drum and bass dead center; that space is usually reserved for lead vocal or lead instrument. I only rarely pan bass/bass guitar more than a few clicks left or right though, although I've played with that a bit as well (I think everybody has). But it often makes more sense from a balance perspective to have your foundational instruments close to center-mono (kick, snare, bass).
I must admit that while I have played in bands for over 30 years, have run live sound for 15-20+ years or more, and I also DJ myself, I am not up on the most trendy EDM dance club installations. But my experience tells me to challenge your assertion that a large number of clubs (and certainly not large concert sound set-ups) run their rigs in stereo (see mitchiemasha's comments above). It doesn't make much sense, and the benefits do not outweigh the risks, as it were. So again, having the rhythm/low end tracks near center brings some sense of unity to the mix, even if the stadium sound is in stereo
.
You should create mixes that sound good to you as an artist, but be aware that conventions are not always there because people couldn't think of anything else to do!
It's also just not practical to make every track stereo, there is no reason for it and it contributes to a muddied-up mix as fast as any contributing factor I can think of (other than insisting on having 10 different flavor of reverb on each track) all in the pursuit of having everything "wide," because "wide is good." It is even less practical to make bass and kick drum so... Yes, you can do it (as in, you have the ability to) as I mentioned earlier. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to do it. In a seemingly contradictory way, I'll state up front that I for one don't generally keep my bass drum and bass dead center; that space is usually reserved for lead vocal or lead instrument. I only rarely pan bass/bass guitar more than a few clicks left or right though, although I've played with that a bit as well (I think everybody has). But it often makes more sense from a balance perspective to have your foundational instruments close to center-mono (kick, snare, bass).
I must admit that while I have played in bands for over 30 years, have run live sound for 15-20+ years or more, and I also DJ myself, I am not up on the most trendy EDM dance club installations. But my experience tells me to challenge your assertion that a large number of clubs (and certainly not large concert sound set-ups) run their rigs in stereo (see mitchiemasha's comments above). It doesn't make much sense, and the benefits do not outweigh the risks, as it were. So again, having the rhythm/low end tracks near center brings some sense of unity to the mix, even if the stadium sound is in stereo
.You should create mixes that sound good to you as an artist, but be aware that conventions are not always there because people couldn't think of anything else to do!
rhythmgj
Character in Spades...
PS-- Just saw your links to studies; no time to read them now, but I'll certainly look forward to it. But if there are contradictory studies that state that localization of bass freqs are harder for people than localization of other content, what is a blossoming mix engineer to do?
mitchiemasha
Member
Wow! That's great. In my studio, some times it's hard to tell which set of speakers are actually on. also, a treated room like you should have would make localisation easier as reflections at low frequencies cause more confusion.
did you miss? "where the location isn't the result of upperharmonics, distortion, port noise etc created by the subwoofer." and of course you can, it's you who is panning it, that's not a blind test. The brain is very clever like that, especially with sound location.
The 2nd article is headphones and free field, removing reflections from the issue.
The 1st article "as frequencies increased from 250 to 1000 hz" no mention of lower. 250hz isn't a subwoofer frequency. We're taking 60hz region.
But again, as in your video, unless you are creating phase issues in the lower frequencies, you aren't achieving anything in the room, other than lower volume, at that frequency. Obviously the upper harmonics of the kick drum will have a huge effect. When thinking about the subbass only, those stood next to the left stack would experience greater pressure subbass than those at the right. And even more so because their would be less of the subbass reaching them later in time from the other stack, which they would be totally unaware of.
edit: I'd like to thank you for your time and the links, we are hear to learn. Only through these debates do i achieve a deeper understanding.
Last edited:
mitchiemasha
Member
I've just realised that this... "Both studies discuss how we use ITD cues to locate low frequencies, where as ILD takes over at higher frequencies" supports what I am saying. Think about it. I'd still like to know how low they go before location drops off.
In your video there is only a difference in level. Which is why i said, what you say is initially correct but your example is irrelevant.
In your video there is only a difference in level. Which is why i said, what you say is initially correct but your example is irrelevant.