# Giving up on phasing



## PeterN (Apr 15, 2021)

Any opinion out there? Plan is to start to widen stuff and not care about phase issues so much. If its good in stereo, thats it, if someone wants to listen to it in mono, and there phasing, then who cares. 

Does this sound reasonable?


----------



## TrojakEW (Apr 15, 2021)

I will copy description that I write for tool that I released for free about phasing.

*Mono compatibility. Should I care?*

It is not important only for situations when you music is played on mono system but it is also important for stereo speakers. Perfect stereo field for loudspeakers doesn't exists. There is a zone that lies at a certain distance and angle to the speakers that are kind of ideal but speakers are not headphones where the sound goes directly to your ears. With speakers there is always some audio summing and you're basically hearing it in collapsed mono. Add you head movement and rotation to it and effect is even bigger. We also should not forget systems with subwoofer where signal for it is always in mono.

Any element in your mix that have left and right channels significantly out of phase will be played on significant lover volume level or in worst scenario when the channels are completely out of phase, that element may completely vanish when summed in mono. Out of phase audio also introduce phasing/combing effect that doesn't sound very nice.

Here is quick overview that I did some tests regarding this tool that may give you some more info




and here is the link for tool itself if you want to test it yourself
https://www.kvraudio.com/product/arx-one-by-zone-sk


----------



## Markrs (Apr 15, 2021)

TrojakEW said:


> I will copy description that I write for tool that I released for free about phasing.
> 
> *Mono compatibility. Should I care?*
> 
> ...



I really appreciate your comment, very informative and also making me aware of your free software.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Apr 15, 2021)

Markrs said:


> I really appreciate your comment, very informative and also making me aware of your free software.


Yeah... I'm curious about this, as well.


----------



## tcollins (Apr 15, 2021)

I recorded a guitar player from the outputs of his own effects rig, mixed and delivered it to the CD manufacturer. Only when I and the client heard it through a live mono sound system did we realize that the guitar track disappeared completely. I learned my lesson.


----------



## fakemaxwell (Apr 15, 2021)

Dan Worrall has a 3 part series on this, check it out.


----------



## twincities (Apr 15, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Does this sound reasonable?


honestly, no. if you don't have the time/will/motivation to deal with the side effects of the processing you're applying, the answer is probably to skip those things causing the problems in the first place. you don't *need* the stereo widener. you do probably need your ethereal choir pad to not completely disappear on certain playback systems. and really, if you're responsible for delivering final mixes, there's no excuse. imagine saying you weren't going to check levels/loudness anymore?


----------



## cet34f (Apr 15, 2021)

So you are talking about mono compatibility, not all phasing.

My stand is that I disagree.

There are too namy ways to make music sound good in both stereo and mono, so it lacks moral legitimacy to ignore certain audience.


----------



## Tralen (Apr 15, 2021)

I think the majority of people may actually listen in mono, without even realizing. If they listen from the cellphone speakers or from a distance from the source, the channels won't reach them separately.


----------



## PeterN (Apr 15, 2021)

Im going for the wide as hell on youtube mix. If someone listens to the youtube from old commodore64, theres one mono speakr connected to it, and theres phasing, not much to do. Maybe add a warning sign.

im suspecting the function of the correlation meter is to hinder you to make a great sound, so that big commercial labels can stay a few steps ahead. The correlation meter conspiracy.


----------



## Markrs (Apr 15, 2021)

Tralen said:


> I think the majority of people may actually listen in mono, without even realizing. If they listen from the cellphone speakers or from a distance from the source, the channels won't reach them separately.


I think lots of Bluetooth speakers are Omni directional mono. Even if they are stereo by the time it gets to you I think you would hear phasing if it exists I the recording as the internal speakers are very close together.


----------



## Tralen (Apr 15, 2021)

Markrs said:


> I think lots of Bluetooth speakers are Omni directional mono. Even if they are stereo by the time it gets to you I think you would hear phasing if it exists I the recording as the internal speakers are very close together.


Yes, the closer the speakers are, more the mono sum becomes important.

Distance is also relative, if you are far enough, the distance between the speakers becomes meaningless, and you won't hear in stereo. You could be just in the next room.


----------



## dgburns (Apr 15, 2021)

non serious response-
Yes, sure widen it out until you are happy hearing it sound like you’re head is being flushed down a toilet bowl- go ahead. For the rest of the planet, make a mono compatible version.

serious response-
If you widen things out too far, the sound dis-associates from the center, and that tends to be challenging to listen to. There really is no ‘gain’ in my book from this. Sure, you can push some things out a bit more left or right, so what???? Why don’t you instead learn how to manipulate tracks using Haas panning ? It collapses better into mono. And while we’re at it, if the goal is more exciting mixes/orchestration, then....make more interesting music. Widening it out is a fool’s game. No one else will think it’s a superior mix.

But I digresss... what do I know anyway


----------



## Nicholas (Apr 15, 2021)

One problem might be, that you don’t know / understand what mono and stereo truly means and what the difference is. I suggest looking that stuff up on YouTube. Then, get yourself an analyzer (helped me in the beginning) and mix. you will realize that, most of the time, you’re misusing stereo wideners, pitch shifters (for widening), etc. 
you need to be mono compatible, otherwise you might run into some big trouble down the line. 
my 2


----------



## PeterN (Apr 16, 2021)

Im waiting for some big name say, ahh, fu-k the mono capability, just make sure its ok in various stereo systems, lets roll it guys - lets break the Berlin correlation meter wall.


----------



## Nicholas (Apr 16, 2021)

Also, and I'd be interested if some of you feel the same way... I find it VERY unpleasant and uncomfortable to listen to phase incoherent mixes on headphones, especially on earbuds. It always feels like someone's trying to suck my eardrums out with a vacuum cleaner...

I feel like the point you're trying to make is that you either get an ultra-wide OR a mono-compatible mix. Truth is, I think in a great mix, you have both.


----------



## PeterN (Apr 16, 2021)

Well, Im throwing out some phrases here and there, some, more or less provoking. Truth is though, my 7th sense smells something here (got 9 senses btw) . It smells some kind of dogma. Something orthodox, some chains, maybe waiting to be broken. I just checked that Sonokinetics vid on the Grosso sale, I dont think you can flip that through a correlation meter, it must be flashing red and warning signs through whole trailer. Someone maybe got an orgasm from it - going for that instead of mono capability. Mono capability is for losers (just joking).


----------



## PeterN (Apr 17, 2021)

So I made an MP3 file of the Grosso trailer, put it as audio file in Logic, took its correlation meter and checked it. It was - more or less - 80% of the time on wrong side of correlation meter. Hovering around zero, orange and red, occasionally going plus. Didnt check like this before, and not sure if this is functional way, but maybe it provides some perspective.


----------



## Henu (Apr 17, 2021)

Interested, I checked out the Grosso trailer. Whoever made the last pass on that should be dragged to a course on mastering. The whole audio is so _horribly out of phase_ it sounds like absolute horror and makes my brain get a syntax error. You don't need a phase correlation meter to hear instantly that it's completely fu**ed up phase- wise.

Seriously, this is not the way to do it and this is _definitely_ not sounding good. It feels for me that you might be thinking that "wide is good" just like people thought earlier that "loud is good", despite of the horrible pumping and distorting the overlimiting did to the sound. Just like loud is good when done right, wide is good.... when done right. And this Grosso- trailer is done horribly wrong.

The wide sound is firstly dependant of your source material, then the usage of clever panning, doubling, right reverbs and possible delays and then finally, if you REALLY need to, you can adjust the sides to be a bit louder than the center if you really have to in the mastering phase. All this takes a lot of learning and good mixing skills, and taking cheap shortcuts is only degrading your final product's quality in the end.

For the love of all that's good and decent- now when I've heard that Grosso trailer, please don't ruin your mixes like this. You'll thank yourself later.


----------



## PeterN (Apr 17, 2021)

Henu said:


> Interested, I checked out the Grosso trailer. Whoever made the last pass on that should be dragged to a course on mastering. The whole audio is so _horribly out of phase_ it sounds like absolute horror and makes my brain get a syntax error. You don't need a phase correlation meter to hear instantly that it's completely fu**ed up phase- wise.
> 
> Seriously, this is not the way to do it and this is _definitely_ not sounding good. It feels for me that you might be thinking that "wide is good" just like people thought earlier that "loud is good", despite of the horrible pumping and distorting the overlimiting did to the sound. Just like loud is good when done right, wide is good.... when done right. And this Grosso- trailer is done horribly wrong.
> 
> ...




I get it Henu. But we are now a step further than "wide is good - no its not". To criticise wide stuff is something that was popular around the years 2016-2020. Chronology here is roughly like this.

1. Wide is good 
2. No its not, this is a misconception. 
3. Wide is actually quite okay. Just check that its ok in most stereo systems


We are now in that phase 3. In the year 2021.


----------



## Henu (Apr 17, 2021)

I think you misunderstood completely what I tried to say. But as said, your mix, your decision!


----------



## PeterN (Apr 17, 2021)

Henu said:


> I think you misunderstood completely what I tried to say. But as said, your mix, your decision!


Its cool Henu, not looking for an argument, Thanks for opinion!


----------



## TrojakEW (Apr 17, 2021)

Henu said:


> Interested, I checked out the Grosso trailer. Whoever made the last pass on that should be dragged to a course on mastering. The whole audio is so _horribly out of phase_ it sounds like absolute horror and makes my brain get a syntax error. You don't need a phase correlation meter to hear instantly that it's completely fu**ed up phase- wise.
> 
> Seriously, this is not the way to do it and this is _definitely_ not sounding good. It feels for me that you might be thinking that "wide is good" just like people thought earlier that "loud is good", despite of the horrible pumping and distorting the overlimiting did to the sound. Just like loud is good when done right, wide is good.... when done right. And this Grosso- trailer is done horribly wrong.
> 
> ...


Yes this track has lots of problems not just phasing. Strings and brass almost disappear when played in mono and it loose a lot of power and loudness. Even with lots of phasing stage doesn't sound very wide at all. You can achieve same width as in this track without any problems. Also it feels like something missing in mid channel because of those problems. Even playback in stereo is sounding weird. It feels like there is a hole or something. But what is worse is that distortion everywhere. Very hard to listen no matter the volume.

I agree this is very bad mix.


----------



## MartinH. (Apr 20, 2021)

dgburns said:


> non serious response-
> Yes, sure widen it out until you are happy hearing it sound like you’re head is being flushed down a toilet bowl- go ahead. For the rest of the planet, make a mono compatible version.


I hate that feeling too, but a bit of subtle widening with panagement or ozone imager (both just for simple widening without using any kind of delays etc.) on orchestral samples never gives me that feel. I used those all the time to make different libraries blend together better.



dgburns said:


> Why don’t you instead learn how to manipulate tracks using Haas panning ? It collapses better into mono. And while we’re at it, if the goal is more exciting mixes/orchestration, then....make more interesting music. Widening it out is a fool’s game. No one else will think it’s a superior mix.
> 
> But I digresss... what do I know anyway


Maybe I misunderstood something along the way, but I always thought that haas panning by definition messes with the phase correlation and is less mono compatible than a bit of simple widening. I just tried this: 
-add a track with a finished track from an orchestral soundtrack to your daw
-duplicat the track
-add one instance of izotope relay on each, set both to mono, one to also phase invert
-both tracks now phase cancel to silence
-add panagement before relay on one of the tracks
-tweak widening knob to extreme values from 0 to 200%
-sound stays silent, meaning mono signal doesn't change _at all _from simple widening with panagement
-removed panagement and added another relay instance instead
-tweak right channel delay with relay, which to my understand _is _haas effect panning (correct me if I'm wrong)
-the signal instantly no longer cancels out, meaning the mono signal does change (as expected)


On a signal that has low phase correlation to begin with, like hard panned double tracked guitars, I wouldn't add even a bit of widening, as it pulls the average phase correlation almost instantly into the negative, which sounds bad. But on a signal that already has pretty good phase correlation internally, like e.g. a viola section, I see no problem whatsoever with adding a tiny bit of widening as long as the average phase correlation stays "positive enough". 

Sidenote: on the double tracked guitars the haas panning does basically not change the impression you get from the stereo signal, except mess up the timing. I think the more mono your signal is, the worse the problems of using haas panning will be, but there's a time and place for everything.




Henu said:


> Interested, I checked out the Grosso trailer. Whoever made the last pass on that should be dragged to a course on mastering. The whole audio is so _horribly out of phase_ it sounds like absolute horror and makes my brain get a syntax error. You don't need a phase correlation meter to hear instantly that it's completely fu**ed up phase- wise.
> 
> Seriously, this is not the way to do it and this is _definitely_ not sounding good. It feels for me that you might be thinking that "wide is good" just like people thought earlier that "loud is good", despite of the horrible pumping and distorting the overlimiting did to the sound. Just like loud is good when done right, wide is good.... when done right. And this Grosso- trailer is done horribly wrong.
> 
> ...


Is that the one? 






Regarding hard and fast "rules" in general, it was quite eye opening to do some detailed analysis on some of the Doom soundtrack tracks by Mick Gordon. He quite regularly dips his toes into the forbidden zones of negative phase correlation, but he uses it as a very deliberate effect, like another color on the palette to set accents and contrasts. It was super interesting to listen to soloed mid and side channels with ozone's mid-side eq and wonder about things like "why the hell are the drums mono on this track???" or "why are the kick drums louder on the sides than the mid?" (it was haas panning iirc). 

I recently heard some smart advice from a professional concept artist regarding rules in drawing and learning from teachers. It was something along these lines: "Whenever your teacher says 'never do that', you say 'ok', then you go home, and do exactly that forbidden thing and find out how you can make it work, and under what circumstances it can work. There is almost nothing that deserves to 'never' be done and I've learned a lot from this and found techniques that work for me personally that otherwise I never would have found. Then go back to your drawing course, but don't tell your teacher what you did. Most aren't willing to accept that some of these 'rules' are really nonsense and drawing is way too deep of a topic to be condensed down into this purely scientific way of thinking."

YMMV of course


----------



## Soundbed (Apr 20, 2021)

PeterN said:


> Any opinion out there? Plan is to start to widen stuff and not care about phase issues so much. If its good in stereo, thats it, if someone wants to listen to it in mono, and there phasing, then who cares.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable?


Not long term, no.

Think of all your favorite music. Was it mixed with “bad” phasing issues where instruments disappeared? No, chances are you like it (in part) because it was mixed “well” and sounded good wherever you played it.

*What sounds reasonable* is that you currently enjoy the sound of over-wide phasey mixes today, and we’ve all fallen in love with that sound... 

...until we fall out of love with it ...

...because we hear it on a different system or in a different context, think “hey that’s not MY mix is it?” and we eventually realize it’s worth figuring out how to make mixes translate to a variety of listening conditions (without dropouts and other issues associated with phasing).


----------



## Joël Dollié (Apr 20, 2021)

It all depends on the sound you're widening imo. I don't care if my pads are ''out of phase'' I want them to be in many situations. I just check that the haas effect isn't causing weird tones in mono, or if it's a rhythmic source, how bad the double transient is.

For strings and brass, having them too wide can ruin the focus, depth and clarity of the mix so the precedence settings become very important for example. All depends on the library as well. A library that is wetter will not ''care'' as much about timing differences. Same thing for recordings in small vs big spaces.

Widening mono sources is a lot trickier than widening stereo sources as well.

Putting the haas effect on a small close mic'd library will most likely sound a** and the violins will sound like they're coming from all directions at once but using precedence to add slight timing differences to a wet library will be just fine.


----------



## dgburns (Apr 21, 2021)

If it sounds good in mono:

-it just might sound better in stereo ( done right ) 

-and it might even sound glorious in surround ( again if done right )

Funny thing about surround is we end up having to think mono due to the increased speakers and space. Phasing stuff to ‘widen it’ has little benefit because we have at our disposal other ways of making the sound have more dimension.
But here’s the thing, even in surround, stereo / mono compatibility still is very important, especially if you are in media. Why? Well that has to do with how media is consumed downstream.

I still remember that fateful day in New York, at Tribecca Film fest where a film I scored was showcased. Due to a bad dolby print, the audio playback was messed up. I won’t go into the gory details, but anything mono survived the carnage, and it was a lesson, a hard lesson to learn.

So you will excuse me for the indulgence, but I smell an accident waiting to happen with those disciples of ‘Wider is Better’ religion.

But again, what the hell do I know....


----------



## Trash Panda (Apr 21, 2021)




----------

