Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How do I make my mixes wider?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 8, 2004 6:32:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I
tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as
some of the CDs I use as references.

I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY
sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think
it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit.
Toms are panned slightly.

I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side.
They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally
left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide".

For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus.
Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally
all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo
effect. Such as delay or chorus.

I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it
plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good.

Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me
get some of my sounds wider?

Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown?

Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger?

Any help appreciated.

More about : make mixes wider

Anonymous
September 9, 2004 12:53:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger?
>


For a wider drum sound I have had success with ORTF or DIN or NOS-like
configurations for overheads. MUCH wider image than XY.

It would seem that you are doing TOO MUCH to try to get a wide image.
Stereo processing all those mono tracks is a bad idea. In my opinion,
in a pop/rock type mix, adding a bunch of stereo tracks just gives you
a wide mono sounding mix.

It depends on what you are recording, but I would do stereo OH on
drums, and no stereo micing on anything else. Chorus and other
manipulating when overused can hurt more than help. Keep most tracks
mono, give them their own place in the stereo image (i.e. not
EVERYWEHERE in the image). Use ambience to get some space around the
instruments. Roomy reverbs (i.e. fair amound of early reflections) and
delays can help here. The other poster recommendation for some light
verb on the whole mix can also help, though this is a kind of
mastering trick in my mind.

Have fun
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 2:30:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Try a tiny tiny bit of room or short reverb on the intire mix.
Shiloh
"Jacob Hansen" <jhansen@esenet.dk> wrote in message
news:271157c0.0409081332.358c07d5@posting.google.com...
>I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I
> tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as
> some of the CDs I use as references.
>
> I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY
> sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think
> it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit.
> Toms are panned slightly.
>
> I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side.
> They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally
> left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide".
>
> For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus.
> Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally
> all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo
> effect. Such as delay or chorus.
>
> I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it
> plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good.
>
> Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me
> get some of my sounds wider?
>
> Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown?
>
> Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger?
>
> Any help appreciated.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 4:01:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jacob Hansen wrote:

> I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but
> sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not
> as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references.

Practice recording natural sound sources with two microphones only so as
to learn how to deploy a stereo pair.

Additives do not make multimono become stereo, think stereo pairs and
stereo images that will combine well when you make the recording.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 8:29:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< jhansen@esenet.dk (Jacob Hansen) >>

<< I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I
tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as
some of the CDs I use as references.

I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY
sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think
it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit.
Toms are panned slightly.

I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side.
They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally
left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide".

For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus.
Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally
all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo
effect. Such as delay or chorus.

I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it
plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good.

Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me
get some of my sounds wider?

Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown?

Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger?

Any help appreciated. >>


First, buy this Chesky Records CD -
"Chesky Records Jazz Sampler & Audiophile Test Compact Disc, Vol. 1 ~ Jazz
Sampler"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000003GF...
3/103-3384776-6937410?v=glance&s=music

There are a number of stereo tests on the CD that will demonstrate if you
can even hear all the locational information possible with your monitor chain
in your room. For example, you should be able to hear in a blumlein stereo
recording an "at the speaker" position and an "outside the speaker" position.
They also have an interesting test where you shoud hear a sound move in a clear
arc up from one speaker and over to the other - vertical, up and down
information. If you can't hear the effects, your space and speakers need
tweaking.

Next you can experiment in your studio space with how to get the biggest
stereo spread possible. With a Blumlein Pair out on the floor, you can mark
where each position in the room left and right shows up on your monitors,
center, left mid, left speaker, outside left speaker, close, further back, way
back etc. You can also experiment with an MS pair, by playing with the level
of the sides you can control how wide the stereo spread appears to be
artificially.

For drums, if you are micing cymbals you might try a spaced pair of omnis,
an MS pair, or a spaced pair of omnis AND an X/Y pair for a kit (on the same
plane). I like the XY plus spaced omni effect a lot, sometimes you can hear
the diffuse field stereo from the omnis at one distance from your monitors and
when you move closer between them hear yourself moving into the free field. I
like it on piano a lot, you get a lot of stereo localization of musical lines
depending on the dynamics of the player.

You can also use the stereo width control some consoles have on their
stereo modules, sending your reverb returns into them and throwing them as far
spread out in the stereo field as possible. This gives you more room for other
stuff in between, you can do the same thing with a plug in. And if you use
multiple stereo mics on a source you can adjust the spread of each pair as you
wish with stereo effect plug ins, some plug ins like the Waves S1 let's you
will let you play with vertical positioning virtually - I love the shuffler
control too.

Also if you give some of your mono stuff more weight - limiting or adding
compressed and uncompressed busses of a snare or something together, that can
make the stereo stuff sound more interesting by contrast.

Have fun.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 9:22:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <271157c0.0409081332.358c07d5@posting.google.com>,
jhansen@esenet.dk (Jacob Hansen) wrote:

> I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I
> tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as
> some of the CDs I use as references.
>
> I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY
> sounds more nice, I think.

Well, XY is going to make your drums sound pretty narrow compared to any
non coincident technique. Perhaps you like the sound of your drums
soloed but not in the context of a full mix? The two situations are not
the same, and I think this is the root of your problem. But, let's
continue with particulars.

> Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think
> it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit.

This is a step in the 'wider' direction...

> Toms are panned slightly.

This contributes to narrowness.

> I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side.
> They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally
> left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide".

Let me clarify: you have a guitar cabinet miked with two mikes, each
panned hard. You do two of those overdubs. Yes, this is nearly mono if
the two mikes have nearly the same tone.

If you'd use only one mike per guitar, you could hard pan it and the
guitars would be ridiculously wide. Or, pan the extra mike close to the
primary mike and you could get something between the two extremes.

> For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus.
> Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally
> all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo
> effect. Such as delay or chorus.

A good attempt, but your poor vocals are struggling to poke out of all
that stuff panned center.

A big, wide, smeary, phasy drum sound would leave a huge hole up the
middle for your vocals. You wouldn't need as much effects on your
vocals to hear them in that case either.

> I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it
> plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good.

Yes, that's normal.

> Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me
> get some of my sounds wider?

The Waves S1 will widen a mix in theory, but in practice, it rarely
seems to help; in a narrow mix, the little bit of stereo information
present is usually not too carefully crafted, and emphasising that
usually leads to other problems. Basically, the issue is all in your
ears, your miking and how you mix. Plugins are irrelevant - I bet your
mixes sound the same on analog too.

My main suggestion is to try to re-educate yourself about how a track
should sound in isolation so that to makes a mix that sounds good.
You'll have to take a more phasy, less coherent drum sound to get this
center buildup to go away, and the trick there is re-educating your ears
so that you don't automatically drift back into polite, coherent
mono-land.

Try panning the toms wider. Try using ORTF or spaced mikes over the
kit, Try the three mike drum miking, and if you're worried it won't
work, do it in addition to your normal miking (it's only three more
tracks). Try to think about the arrangement of a song and the panning
of each part and how that flows over time. Not answering that question
just sticks everything up the middle when parts could have lived more
happily somewhere else.


Best of luck,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 4:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Fewer elements in the mix will allow each element to be heard more clearly.
Try recording a simple arrangement and play with the panning. For imaging,
less can be way more.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 5:29:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"EganMedia" <eganmedia@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040909082753.07779.00000247@mb-m25.aol.com...
> Fewer elements in the mix will allow each element to be heard more
clearly.
> Try recording a simple arrangement and play with the panning. For
imaging,
> less can be way more.

Hmmm... missed the beginning of this thread, too - that's happened a few
times recently. Anyway, what he said (re: less is more). Another thing is I
noticed is that you (addressing the O.P. here) mentioned you've got your
room mics 8 meters away from the kit... unless you need that much space &
time between the original signal & the source of the ambience, IMO this can
take away from the width you're looking for - IOW, you're getting a lot of
room, but where's the point of reference with regard to the "center" of the
kit? It's lost by the time the room mics are picking it up. Try moving
those room mics in a bit, maybe halfway from where they're at now, and see
what happens. If you've got a room that big you'll still pick up plenty of
ambience,but you'll have a more defined stereo field.

Finally, if you want to create a more defined perception of width on the
whole mix, I would forsake the chorus/pitch shifting on the vocals (except
for background vox maybe, if you want to thicken them up a bit) if your
lead vocals are more centered, then that in itself gives you a sort of
"anchor" or point of reference by which everything else that's being given
a wider treatment can be perceived. If you need those EFX on the vocals to
get a certain sound that you're going for (apart from the width thing) then
try panning those EFX only very slightly - maybe start out no wider than
11:00 & 1:00 & see what happens).
--


Neil Henderson
Saqqara Records
http://www.saqqararecords.com
Anonymous
September 9, 2004 5:29:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
collapsed the stereo image when summing.
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 1:42:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Caffrey" <mike@monsterisland.com> wrote in message news:9b30ebb8.0409091134.67d7e27a@posting.google.com...
> Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
> collapsed the stereo image when summing.

Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some
clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session.

I plan to mix through an analogue desk to a separate stereo editor,
but I'm sure the time will come soon when I get stuck mixing in PT
and would love to know of any such drawbacks.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 1:42:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <W640d.8032$Q44.3937@trnddc09> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:

> "Mike Caffrey" <mike@monsterisland.com> wrote in message
> > Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
> > collapsed the stereo image when summing.
>
> Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some
> clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session.

This may be the case for earlier versions, but not true with current
versions. I believe this is what caused the run on analog fixed-gain
summing boxes, which hit the market about the time ProTools came out
with a better mixer that even Monte likes.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 5:25:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <9b30ebb8.0409091134.67d7e27a@posting.google.com>,
mike@monsterisland.com (Mike Caffrey) wrote:

> Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
> collapsed the stereo image when summing.

FWIW, I haven't noticed this ever, and I've mixed with some pretty fussy
people using some pretty fussy monitors. I also use one DAC and a
switcher for the whole room, so I'm not prone to making the mistake of
comparing the same bits done analog through different boxes.

I know I've heard about this before, but I've never been there
personally to see how the conclusion was arrived at. In other words, I
think something else is going on, as I've never seen it over the past 10
years through any version of PT, some of which were decidedly bad
sounding on their own. In all cases, the same goodness or badness
happened during the bounce as when we built the mix.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 5:31:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1094767795k@trad>, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article <W640d.8032$Q44.3937@trnddc09> mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com writes:
>
> > "Mike Caffrey" <mike@monsterisland.com> wrote in message
> > > Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
> > > collapsed the stereo image when summing.
> >
> > Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some
> > clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session.
>
> This may be the case for earlier versions, but not true with current
> versions. I believe this is what caused the run on analog fixed-gain
> summing boxes, which hit the market about the time ProTools came out
> with a better mixer that even Monte likes.

Even on the old versions that sounded bad, I never experienced any
_difference_ between what the mix sounded like when I was building it
and when it was finally run using the bounce to disk command. There are
some people who feel that different things happen in the two situations,
but i have been unable to detect that in the past 10 years.

I honestly suspect it's a monitoring / clocking issue, and in that
context, it's quite usual for the same bits to sound significantly
different when played back through different DACs or even the same DAC
but a different clock. You don't need ProTools to have those sorts of
problems either.

Today, that's a less common situation with DACs like the Benchmark
DAC-1, but there are a lot of folks out there using Mix hardware and
888/24, which are most certainly sensitive to the clock source.

As for the modern PT mixer, yes, I think the TDM mixer on HD systems
actually sounds good, better than the Beta dithered mixer available for
Mix systems. So do a handful of plugins, which is a few more than
before. It is possible to mix inside of PT and have no sonic problems
IMHO...


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 5:55:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Soak them in water and they may expand a little bit.


"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 6:58:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I think it´s nonsense, digital myth.
I tested it once, and the bounce sounded exactly like the recording of a new
stereo track through two internal busses.
I took out all random based FX and the two mixes phase-cancelled absolutely.

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Mike Caffrey" <mike@monsterisland.com> wrote in message
> news:9b30ebb8.0409091134.67d7e27a@posting.google.com...
>> Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
>> collapsed the stereo image when summing.
>
> Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have
> some clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session.
>
> I plan to mix through an analogue desk to a separate stereo editor,
> but I'm sure the time will come soon when I get stuck mixing in PT
> and would love to know of any such drawbacks.

--
Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 2:46:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <monte.mcguire-E0BA81.21315209092004@news.verizon.net> monte.mcguire@verizon.net writes:

> Even on the old versions that sounded bad, I never experienced any
> _difference_ between what the mix sounded like when I was building it
> and when it was finally run using the bounce to disk command.

> I honestly suspect it's a monitoring / clocking issue, and in that
> context, it's quite usual for the same bits to sound significantly
> different when played back through different DACs or even the same DAC
> but a different clock. You don't need ProTools to have those sorts of
> problems either.

It's nearly impossible to get the whole story when someone reports
a problem like this. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for the
discrepancy is that the bounced file is immediately moved to a CD
(probably losing 8 bits of data in the process) and then played in the
car or the living room (or the mastering room) through a different D/A
converter and on different speakers.

But I know there will always be someone who said "No, I tested it
under the same conditions and it's true." So go figure.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 7:29:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic
digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably
operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your choice,
I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT.

I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File pan
it to the left about half way, listen to it. I bounce to disk Interleaved
Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain level.
I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the
bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original
file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going to
affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not asking
about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been altered,
no?
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:12:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20040910112931.11452.00003212@mb-m23.aol.com>,
mondoslug1@aol.comwaht (Mondoslug1) wrote:

> Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic
> digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably
> operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your
> choice,
> I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT.
>
> I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File

This is a mono file... right?

> pan it to the left about half way, listen to it.

....which has been panned through a panpot to a new stereo bus into a new
file...

> I bounce to disk Interleaved
> Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain
> level.

Which part is different: the original files and the two new ones, or are
the two new ones different from each other? If the latter, then what
app are you using to determine 'peak level'. If that app treats
interleaved stereo files differently than a collection of mono files,
then you'll have a discrepancy even if the audio is the same for both
stereo files.

How about importing both files into a session, inverting one pair of
channels and summing the result. If it's not zero, then you have a real
problem. If it's the same, then the app that reports 'peak levels'
treats interleaved files differently than multiple mono files.

> I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the
> bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original
> file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going
> to
> affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not
> asking
> about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been
> altered,
> no?

Sure, the original file is mono and both new files are stereo, created
via the panpot. The only issue would be if the split stereo and
interleaved file had different bits (that are not attributable to
dither). This is the part that I claim should not happen. If it does,
then we need to document and report this ASAP, since it's highly broken
behavior!!

However, having created lots of almost full scale peak limited files
both using stereo interleaved and split stereo output destinations and
having never seen any overload problems, I know the possible 'gain
error' is less than .2dB. In fact, I'd suspect zero gain error, but I
know for a fact that red lights never went off, so there could have been
no more than .2dB of gain applied to a mix or else I'd see the peak
lights go off on downstream gear.

Come to think of it, I've never seen a negative gain either - peak
levels from files usually end up staying at -.2dBFS in my world (because
I set L1/L2 to use that output headroom) and none of the resulting files
I produce have anything but that output headroom. So, the possible gain
error is much less than .1dB, if it exists at all.

All the evidence I've seen points to zero problems that are so gross as
to manifest themselves as a channel gain error. Most of what I have
found to be legitimate complaints are resolution problems that affect
signal quality in a way that would not be easily detectable with a
standard level meter, issues such as how dither is handled internal to a
mixer or plugin, something that has very little error power.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:28:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Monte McGuire wrote:

>> Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic
>> digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably
>> operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your
>> choice,
>> I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT.
>>
>> I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File
>
>This is a mono file... right?
>

Correct.

>> pan it to the left about half way, listen to it.
>
>...which has been panned through a panpot to a new stereo bus into a new
>file...
>

I dunno, okay. I'm just listening to it in a PT Session with no master fader or
any of that stuff. I import to Track 1 & leave it there just move it to the
left about half.


>> I bounce to disk Interleaved
>> Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain
>> level.
>
>Which part is different: the original files and the two new ones, or are
>the two new ones different from each other?


The 2 new ones are the same but different from the original.


If the latter, then what
>app are you using to determine 'peak level'.

The Audiosuite Gain Plug which has Check Peak on it but...I've done this before
using Nuendo & Sound Forge to Check. This time I just kept it in PT.


If that app treats
>interleaved stereo files differently than a collection of mono files,
>then you'll have a discrepancy even if the audio is the same for both
>stereo files.
>
>How about importing both files into a session, inverting one pair of
>channels and summing the result. If it's not zero, then you have a real
>problem. If it's the same, then the app that reports 'peak levels'
>treats interleaved files differently than multiple mono files.
>
>> I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the
>> bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original
>> file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going
>
>> to
>> affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not
>> asking
>> about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been
>> altered,
>> no?
>
>Sure, the original file is mono and both new files are stereo, created
>via the panpot. The only issue would be if the split stereo and
>interleaved file had different bits (that are not attributable to
>dither). This is the part that I claim should not happen. If it does,
>then we need to document and report this ASAP, since it's highly broken
>behavior!!
>
>However, having created lots of almost full scale peak limited files
>both using stereo interleaved and split stereo output destinations and
>having never seen any overload problems, I know the possible 'gain
>error' is less than .2dB. In fact, I'd suspect zero gain error, but I
>know for a fact that red lights never went off, so there could have been
>no more than .2dB of gain applied to a mix or else I'd see the peak
>lights go off on downstream gear.
>
>Come to think of it, I've never seen a negative gain either - peak
>levels from files usually end up staying at -.2dBFS in my world (because
>I set L1/L2 to use that output headroom) and none of the resulting files
>I produce have anything but that output headroom. So, the possible gain
>error is much less than .1dB, if it exists at all.
>
>All the evidence I've seen points to zero problems that are so gross as
>to manifest themselves as a channel gain error. Most of what I have
>found to be legitimate complaints are resolution problems that affect
>signal quality in a way that would not be easily detectable with a
>standard level meter, issues such as how dither is handled internal to a
>mixer or plugin, something that has very little error power.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Monte McGuire
>monte.mcguire@verizon.net

I guess. I'm just curious why this happens.
To my feeble mind it seems when you do sum in there ....something happens.
!