# Using mono sampled instruments, only to get a cool refreshing



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

Have you ever used only mono sampled instruments and then made a stereo mix? If not, then do the experiment and make all your used instruments first mono and then mix it with using all your plugs. You will be astonished!
Curtain open!


----------



## Sanlky (Oct 9, 2018)

Closed mics are generally mono panned


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

Sanlky said:


> Closed mics are generally mono panned


Not always, but if, do a mix only with this ... .


----------



## CT (Oct 9, 2018)

I've tried it before, because on paper it *should* make sense, but unless the recordings are originally in mono, I just end up thinking the collapsed stereo signals sound crappy.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

miket said:


> I've tried it before, because on paper it *should* make sense, but unless the recordings are originally in mono, I just end up thinking the collapsed stereo signals sound crappy.


Then you should only use the left or the right recorded signal... .


----------



## CT (Oct 9, 2018)

That's still just a "slice" of a larger recording though, and it never sounds right to me.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

miket said:


> That's still just a "slice" of a larger recording though, and it never sounds right to me.


Did you experiment with lots of instruments, played at the same time?


----------



## CT (Oct 9, 2018)

Yep. Believe me, I've been in and out of this rabbit hole many times, and I'm relieved to have finally switched over to libraries that are already recorded in position. Lots more music, and lots less tinkering!


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

I am experimenting now with this, and at least making the instruments stereo by using my reverbs and other stuff is very cool. They shine much more than the stereo samples sometimes. What a cool experiment!


----------



## CT (Oct 9, 2018)

I definitely felt that it created a more convincing sense of space and interaction between the instruments, if only because everything then had a consistent width (none at all).


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

We need audio examples about this ... . I do not have much time, as usual, but I will do it.


----------



## Henu (Oct 9, 2018)

Haven't you ever used a real instrument? Or did I understand something wrong?


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

Henu said:


> Haven't you ever used a real instrument? Or did I understand something wrong?


Any instrument is at first mono. The room makes the stereo sound. And you can fake this with any good room/reverb plugin. For example, listen to the Sample Modeling instruments. So, I do not understand your question ... . I am talking about the things you can do with your best plugs to let shine mono sampled instruments very well, and sometimes/often even better than using stereo-samples .... .
And, why do most mixers mix the bass sounds to "mono" sounds?


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau (Oct 9, 2018)

Reminds me of this interesting post by @Andrew Souter :



> If some library instruments already have positioning info baked-in (this one is not really positioned, it's center, but there is verb/room/er/ambience), such as the sample itself is already left positioned somehow (via actual real world mic technique or via some intentional post processing by the instrument developer) and you don't what that position info, it can be helpful to try to use just one of the stereo files from the source, as mono, and then reapply ER/ambience from Breeze 2 (or other tool). It won't remove all of the room sound from the source completely, but it will at least remove any positioning info, and it is usually better than collapsing to mono first bc that can cause comb filtering./QUOTE]


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 9, 2018)

Let me tell another example. Let's say u use a mono sampled snare drum, a bassoon and a flute from different libraries, but all mono, couldn't it better sound together when u fake the room for all this instruments with the same room/reverb plugs? Vienna instruments comes to my mind ... .


----------



## robgb (Oct 9, 2018)

Here's a tip for nice control.
1. Record your, say, violins midi in stereo.
2. Freeze the track to convert it to a wav file in stereo.
3. Now explode the two files to put each side of the stereo wav on a mono track.
4. On one mono side, add a bus to your room verb or IR of choice -- pre-fader.
5. On the second mono side, leave it as is, no bus. No verb. Dry.
6. Now mix and pan as you see fit, adding more dry or more verb and spacing them however you like.
LOTS of control that way.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Oct 9, 2018)

I never did do this. How do you split a stereo signal in two mono signals? Is there a function in the DAW for it or is it fiddling around with panning?


----------



## Henu (Oct 10, 2018)

@germancomponist 

Yep, I am fully aware of this as I am an audio engineer. :D And that's exactly why I was a bit puzzled when people are excited about using 1- channel mono signals as their audio source, as audio engineers have done it all the freaking time since the 50´s, haha!


----------



## re-peat (Oct 10, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Any instrument is at first mono. The room makes the stereo sound. And you can fake this with any good room/reverb plugin. For example, listen to the Sample Modeling instruments. So, I do not understand your question ... . I am talking about the things you can do with your best plugs to let shine mono sampled instruments very well, and sometimes/often even better than using stereo-samples .... .
> And, why do most mixers mix the bass sounds to "mono" sounds?




That’s not true, Gunther. No _acoustic_ instrument (or sound source) is ever mono. That’s physically impossible. And the room doesn’t "make it stereo" either. Pure apple sauce, that. Rooms simply add additional layers of complexity to what is already a very complex phenomenon at source. Soundwaves in air move omni-directionally. Put that multi-dimensional phenomenon in a room, and only very-very-very high numbers of intricately intertwining channels will permit us to more or less describe what’s happening. Certainly not the numbers 1 (mono) or 2 (stereo).

Both mono and stereo — neither of which exist in unmodified nature — are artificial (and terribly blunt) 'reductions of necessity' of that very complex acoustic phenomenon. In 1804, a school teacher, one Emile De Bruyne, or Lebrun, as some documents have it, claimed to have spotted a free-ranging stereo signal in the woods near Mauquissart Saint-Vaast, yes, but he was quickly proven wrong, stopped being invited to social occasions, had to emigrate and was never heard from again.

That bass if often mixed mono has got nothing to do with any of this either. In the early days of stereo vinyl records, for example, bass often used to be mixed centre-mono for mainly technical reasons: the needle that read the grooves in those records was simply not very good at dealing with bass that isn’t nicely centered. Too much bass on one side of the grooves tended to derail those needles. Further reason as to why bass is often kept in the centre of a mix, apart from being aesthetically pleasing, is because it doesn’t matter much anyway where exactly you pan the bass — I mean the actual bass, not the lows and low mids —, as it’s much more difficult to pinpoint the position of bass accurately in a stereo image than that of high frequency sounds.

Your optimism regarding the power of artificial reverb — it being able, as you suggest, to fake what a room does — can’t be substantiated with fact either. Big difference between a properly recorded bassoon in a nice-sounding room, and a dry-ish mono recording of the same instrument to which reverb is added. No reverb can bridge the difference between those two, because rooms (or chambers, or halls) contribute much more to a sound than mere spatial definition. Some instruments more than others — percussion and brass probably the most —, but they all benefit from being recorded in a sympathetic room, in ways that no reverb can accomplish. (The only more-or-less affordable software that can claim some beginnings of success in this field is Ircam SPAT, but that's no reverb, that's a spatializer.)

Having said that, there are several good reasons to use mono signals in a mix, the three most obvious ones being: (1) mono-sounds don’t contribute to problems related to poor phase alignment (a very common flaw in sample-based productions, especially mock-orchestral ones), (2) the presence of mono signals may help to increase the perceived width of the stereo ingredients in a mix, and (3) if you’re going for a retro-vibe, mono tracks will often be the more convincing choice. But using mono because it "shines" more than stereo, is nonsense.

_


----------



## bryla (Oct 10, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> Not always, but if, do a mix only with this ... .


Probably not always but in all the recording sessions I've been at close mics have always been mono. Don't know about sample libraries though.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 10, 2018)

re-peat said:


> Having said that, there are several good reasons to use mono signals in a mix, the three most obvious ones being: (1) mono-sounds don’t contribute to problems related to poor phase alignment (a very common flaw in sample-based productions, especially mock-orchestral ones), (2) the presence of mono signals may help to increase the perceived width of the stereo ingredients in a mix, and (3) if you’re going for a retro-vibe, mono tracks will often be the more convincing choice. But using mono because it "shines" more than stereo, is nonsense.
> 
> _


Thanks for your good post, Sir!

I underline all what you said, especially the last part of your post, the things I care about and was talking about.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Oct 10, 2018)

Are we talking about mono miced instruments or instruments which are recorded mono in an anechoic room?I am no scientist when it comes to that, so I ask because most of the instruments on the market are even if close miced that they still contain enough information so that they are mono sounding but still containing some kind of room information in them. I actually don´t care that much about that, I go by _what sounds good to my ear in first place_. If a room miced sample sound good and cohesive I most of the time go by that as I go by the philosophy not to make me less work in my mockups as possible. The mockup and blend and relative dynamics are for me mostly important and of course the right expression. I think most mockups could sound better if the people would treat expression and dynamics and the right balance volume with more care to mimic a real orchestra.


----------



## Andrew Souter (Oct 11, 2018)

We have something interesting coming very shortly on these kind of topics...


----------



## pderbidge (Oct 11, 2018)

re-peat said:


> That’s not true, Gunther. No _acoustic_ instrument (or sound source) is ever mono. That’s physically impossible. And the room doesn’t "make it stereo" either. Pure apple sauce, that. Rooms simply add additional layers of complexity to what is already a very complex phenomenon at source. Soundwaves in air move omni-directionally. Put that multi-dimensional phenomenon in a room, and only very-very-very high numbers of intricately intertwining channels will permit us to more or less describe what’s happening. Certainly not the numbers 1 (mono) or 2 (stereo).
> 
> Both mono and stereo — neither of which exist in unmodified nature — are artificial (and terribly blunt) 'reductions of necessity' of that very complex acoustic phenomenon. In 1804, a school teacher, one Emile De Bruyne, or Lebrun, as some documents have it, claimed to have spotted a free-ranging stereo signal in the woods near Mauquissart Saint-Vaast, yes, but he was quickly proven wrong, stopped being invited to social occasions, had to emigrate and was never heard from again.
> 
> ...



True, the sound waves produced by an instrument aren't mono or stereo and each listener will even hear the sound differently due to their biology and even psychological impact that sound may have on the listener, but now we're getting into the weeds. I think the "spirit" of what germancomposers post is all about is a good one, which to me is, "if you have tried monoizing your samples to create your own sense of "width" - try it. I find that more often than not I do like to work with mono samples or at least make them mono first and then mix from there as it gives me a lot more control over how much width and space I want to give that sample in my mix. Of course it is convenient to have instruments that are pre-positioned as with a lot of orchestral samples but if you're not doing traditional mockups then the freedom to put those instrument in any space you want and to give them as much or as little width that you want is something I tend to prefer. Plus, with mono samples you have less chance of having to deal with phasing issues. I'm surprised at how many guitar sample libs have phasing issues and therefore I almost always monoize and then simulate a double tracking of my own making. Becoming a good mix engineer is a lot like composing where experimentation is key, so if anyone hasn't tried mono samples or Monoizing your samples and mix from there then it's a worthy experiment and you will learn a lot. At first the sound will definitely sound dull compared to that extra wide sample you are used to hearing but as you give it space and depth and width of your own making you may find that your mix is more cohesive and you have much more control over its sound. Having said that, on the current mix I'm working on I chose to keep most everything as presented (stereo) and that seems to be working just fine, so it depends. Just always watch for phasing issues. I'm also a big believer in making sure your mix is mono compatible but that comes from my years as a live engineer setting up portable audio rigs for local events where keeping the music mono ensures that everyone, no matter where they are located, can hear the same thing. But then again, how many people are even paying attention as they walk around the county fair.


----------



## Ashermusic (Oct 11, 2018)

re-peat said:


> That’s not true, Gunther. No _acoustic_ instrument (or sound source) is ever mono. That’s physically impossible. And the room doesn’t "make it stereo" either. Pure apple sauce, that. Rooms simply add additional layers of complexity to what is already a very complex phenomenon at source. Soundwaves in air move omni-directionally. Put that multi-dimensional phenomenon in a room, and only very-very-very high numbers of intricately intertwining channels will permit us to more or less describe what’s happening. Certainly not the numbers 1 (mono) or 2 (stereo).
> 
> Both mono and stereo — neither of which exist in unmodified nature — are artificial (and terribly blunt) 'reductions of necessity' of that very complex acoustic phenomenon. In 1804, a school teacher, one Emile De Bruyne, or Lebrun, as some documents have it, claimed to have spotted a free-ranging stereo signal in the woods near Mauquissart Saint-Vaast, yes, but he was quickly proven wrong, stopped being invited to social occasions, had to emigrate and was never heard from again.
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with all of this, Piet.


----------



## robgb (Oct 12, 2018)

Markus Kohlprath said:


> I never did do this. How do you split a stereo signal in two mono signals? Is there a function in the DAW for it or is it fiddling around with panning?


I'm pretty sure most DAWs will allow you to do this. In Reaper you select the take, right click and select *Item Processing > Explode multichannel audio or MIDI items to one channel items*.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Oct 12, 2018)

robgb said:


> I'm pretty sure most DAWs will allow you to do this. In Reaper you select the take, right click and select *Item Processing > Explode multichannel audio or MIDI items to one channel items*.


Thank you rob. For sure no big thing in cubase. I just didn’t think of doing this and I always thought, that one channel of a stereo signal sounds inferior alone. But this might only be true for big stereo mixes. For a single instrument it might be a solution I’ve been looking for more than one time. I always collapse the stereo field. Often in spat which is good in controlling the width.


----------



## jonnybutter (Oct 12, 2018)

pderbidge said:


> I think the "spirit" of what germancomposers post is all about is a good one, which to me is, "if you have tried monoizing your samples to create your own sense of "width" - try it.



this. The mix tends to sound bigger - more stereo - w/a lot of mono tracks in it that you position. This is a great tip!


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 12, 2018)

If I had time now I would post examples, but later I will gladly do it. The first reflections are the most important thing, and these can be wonderfully faken. Best by hand and not with plugins. You have to understand the physics and think deep inside, in everything you do here. But at last, it is easy!


----------



## Sanlky (Oct 12, 2018)

germancomponist said:


> If I had time now I would post examples, but later I will gladly do it. The first reflections are the most important thing, and these can be wonderfully faken. Best by hand and not with plugins. You have to understand the physics and think deep inside, in everything you do here. But at last, it is easy!


You can use simple EQed delays for ERs, chain of Delays feeding each other, and anything you may wanna try... but room accoustics cannot be beaten, they will always be better than you can fake them. Problem is if its not right for the sound you are looking to. If you have a busy mix, you may choose to use some instruments without accoustic information and some instruments you might choose to use to use only stereo or far mics. Its not a rule, its creativity but also going for a track that sound awesome, there is no rule for that.
When i mix an orchestra track, i prefer to have a dry mix first, all balanced out, and later work on sections reverbs, ERs... music style might demand more or less reverb, short or longer rooms, natural or artificial you can work a lot on that, but also, if a room from a sample is bothering making it mono(summing both channels) and pan them again is a good option, it may need some gate(or expander) to take out some of reverbs a bit dBs.
But if i have some huge really nice sounding orchestra sample, i wont modify at all, just build from it.


----------



## Divico (Oct 13, 2018)

In my experience having a mono track with verb gives you a more easy to locate panorama. I like to colapse stuff in mono for autopanning stuff f.e.
When mixing rock tracks I often narrowed tracks or collapsed them for better positioning in a busy mix


----------

