Topic: what´s the proper way to matrix a mono source with a stereo source?

[justink]

^ Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatsoever? 

not trying to be rude, but I have no idea why mixing all SBD in one channel and all AUD in the other would work.  Especially if not time synced.  The sample sounds completely bizarre.  It would be much better to blend both together on both channels.  Sorry.

No Acidjack, you are not rude, it's your opinion, and maybe it have more sense than mine... I'm more or less new on this (with video mix about 3 years, but with audio work bout 6 months ago) in my ears it sounds much better than separated or both together on both channels... and for me is completely synced.

With opinions like your for sure I can get more knowledge about all this. More reviews are welcome, even bad reviews... that because I put those samples, I think comments by people on this forum are all important, and of course better than many "very good job!!!" if I'm doing shit. Here are Sony Vegas waves of both audios synced, with 3 different zoom in:

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh97/pepito300/WAVESSBD-AUD.jpg

My eyes and my ears say are synced... maybe sound bizarre?.. not to my taste. Is there more I must check? or must I visit the doctor?.. please, more opinions.

All my respects to you, AcidJack, .... I can still read "Sitte suporter" "Taperssection All-Star" "Posts: 1979".

they could be synced, but it makes no sense to me either.  one source in one ear and one source in another...  just strange and i think it would sound weird.  maybe for a comp to see which source you like though.

[Gutbucket]

one source in one ear and one source in another...  just strange and i think it would sound weird.

A guilty pleasure of mine is the old ping-pong stereo Beatles releases. People denegrate them, but I like it.  I'm glad everything doesn't sound that way, but on those it's just cool, man.

I can think of several arguments for leaving one source in each channel but cross-mixing each at lower levels to the opposite side.

[DSatz]

Gutbucket, understood, but just "for the record" (no pun unintended), the Beatles' producer/engineers didn't intend those early singles for stereo release at all. What EMI sent to Capitol Records in the States were dubs of their own internal two-track masters which were supposed to be mixed into mono at disc cutting time as EMI themselves had done. Arguably EMI should have done the mix themselves when dubbing the tapes, but the marketing of stereo records was further along in the States than it was in England at the time, so Capitol decided to release discs made from those tapes as if they were stereo mixes.

This seems to have been a case of Capitol's and EMI's business people selling out the producer/engineers and musicians, which they had the right to do as the contractual owners of the recorded material. I guess I identify more with the musicians and the producer/engineers, and feel their pain--I really don't want to hear their recordings presented in a way that they truly didn't want. All the memoirs by the relevant people are very clear on this point.

--Do you happen to know Juan García Esquivel's music? That's a horse of a different color: lounge music composed, arranged and recorded expressly for ping-pong stereo in the early hifi-stereo era. It's joyously artificial stuff that you can enjoy with a completely clear conscience, although some of your friends may look at you funny!

--best regards

[Gutbucket]

Thanks for the clarification.  Agreed wholeheartedly on the historical reality and identification with the desires of the musicians/producers/enginners.. that's the pang of concience that makes the pleasure guilty.  I enjoyed Geoff Emerick's book recently and he is quite clear on it. And yet I often find pleasure in accidental beauty and unintended artistry that and may go unrecognized by the creators.  I'd probably also project unintended artistic value on a few well selected marble chips scrounged from the corner of Mr. Michelangelo's studio.

Thanks for the Esquivel recommendation, I know more 'of him' and his music through a few live performances and re-interpretations, but I'll seek out his recoridngs for some guilt free listening.  Already imagining the album covers.. which I'm sure I've already seen just not associated with him.

[Gutbucket]

On the mixing thing-
I've made a few recordings that were intended to be 4-channel Left/Right/Center/Back surround recordings but the L/R pair was compromised and unsusable for various reasons, leaving just a good Center/Back pair- in this case omnis with a baffle between them, so I essentially had direct sound in one channel and indirect + room sound in the other. 

To salvage the recording I considered ways to place that mono Center channel in the middle of a stereo mix and try to spread the mono Back channel out diffusely to either edge of the stereo image to give it depth and width, and I still think that would be the best answer if done right.  But the simplest and best sounding thing I came up with quickly was simply routing the Center channel right, the Back channel left, EQing them a bit to match, and panning both slightly towards center. Not too much, but enough so the direct sound wasn't identifiably all the way over one side and each channel bleed into the opposite side enough to slightly blend.  It was big, lush and ambient in an A-B omni sort of way. Timbrally & reverberantly right.  Unconventional imagewise, but suprisingly acceptable.

I think that was partly because the two sources were already similar and well-related to start with and they were not mixed together too much to form what might be described in dancing about architecture terms as a mostly mono combfiltered beige slurry.

[drivingwheel]

Gutbucket, understood, but just "for the record" (no pun unintended), the Beatles' producer/engineers didn't intend those early singles for stereo release at all. What EMI sent to Capitol Records in the States were dubs of their own internal two-track masters which were supposed to be mixed into mono at disc cutting time as EMI themselves had done. Arguably EMI should have done the mix themselves when dubbing the tapes, but the marketing of stereo records was further along in the States than it was in England at the time, so Capitol decided to release discs made from those tapes as if they were stereo mixes.

This seems to have been a case of Capitol's and EMI's business people selling out the producer/engineers and musicians, which they had the right to do as the contractual owners of the recorded material. I guess I identify more with the musicians and the producer/engineers, and feel their pain--I really don't want to hear their recordings presented in a way that they truly didn't want. All the memoirs by the relevant people are very clear on this point.

--

actually, wrong on this - George Martin and Geoff Emerick would make selerate mixes for stereo release - it's just that the band didn't  are about them and had no input on stereo mixes by choice; once the mono mix (THE master, as far as the Fabs were concerned) then the record was done. Sir George and Geoff would do a stereo mix specifically for Capitol.

[Frequincy]

Gutbucket, understood, but just "for the record" (no pun unintended), the Beatles' producer/engineers didn't intend those early singles for stereo release at all. What EMI sent to Capitol Records in the States were dubs of their own internal two-track masters which were supposed to be mixed into mono at disc cutting time as EMI themselves had done. Arguably EMI should have done the mix themselves when dubbing the tapes, but the marketing of stereo records was further along in the States than it was in England at the time, so Capitol decided to release discs made from those tapes as if they were stereo mixes.

This seems to have been a case of Capitol's and EMI's business people selling out the producer/engineers and musicians, which they had the right to do as the contractual owners of the recorded material. I guess I identify more with the musicians and the producer/engineers, and feel their pain--I really don't want to hear their recordings presented in a way that they truly didn't want. All the memoirs by the relevant people are very clear on this point.

--

actually, wrong on this - George Martin and Geoff Emerick would make selerate mixes for stereo release - it's just that the band didn't  are about them and had no input on stereo mixes by choice; once the mono mix (THE master, as far as the Fabs were concerned) then the record was done. Sir George and Geoff would do a stereo mix specifically for Capitol.

They are cumbersome to listen to in headphones, but pretty interesting on a big system with some distance from the speakers.

[Gutbucket]

A formative audio experience for me as a freshman in high school was figuring out that I could patch the little stereo in my room so as to remix those early stereo LP releases to mono and use the balance control to crossfade between channels.  I carefully planned and noted times for the x-fades to make interesting cassette dubs of versions with all instrumental sections, sparse vocal versions sections missing key instrumental tracks, and other oddities.  It was great fun, a learning experinece, and the resulting cassettes impressed my parents and amused my friends at least. 

My appologies to the original artistic intent of J,P,G,R, & GM, but the entire novelty and interest in doing so was entirely based off the fact that all of those Beatle songs are so completely and unalterably seared into everyones memory in their original form, and the concept of sampling and remixing was still a few years off and had not entered the public consiousness at large.