It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:17 am


Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

Speakers, amplifiers, headphones, multi-channel audio, reverb units, mixers, wiring, ...
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

ludu

Member

  • Posts: 999
  • Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:52 am
  • Location: Tournai (Belgium)

Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

PostTue Jun 07, 2016 11:03 am

I own few dry sample-sets, recorded inside the box, very close to the pipes. I am wondering if the stereo brings an advantage in this context. If not, the number of channels could be doubled in mono and offer a better distribution. Should it be a correct plan?
Luc
Offline

jkinkennon

Member

  • Posts: 1208
  • Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 9:43 am
  • Location: Vancouver, WA

Re: Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

PostTue Jun 07, 2016 11:22 am

I think the easiest answer is to just observe that everyone, to my knowledge, is now recording and distributing stereo samples. If it didn't make an enormous difference then someone would be selling monophonic samples.

Do you have a switch in your current setup that allows you to switch to mono and back to stereo? That's another way to hear just how big a difference this makes. With my current 6 channel setup the change to mono just sucks the life out of the sound. By comparison, the difference between normal stereo and the various audio cycling algorithms (with all speakers in use for both cases) is subtle by comparison.

We did a demo with only three stereo pairs for a job which will presumably end up with double that number. I'm already wondering if it will be more important to get the extra channels or to double up speakers on channels. This is for one particular case where Behringer 3031A monitors are getting driven hard, and while they are still sounding wonderful we may need the extra power more than the channel diversity. Just my thoughts based on what I've listened to primarily with PA systems though with a couple of organ installs as well.

EDIT: Of course it's easy enough to try both approaches and see what sounds best. I'm convinced in this case, but if we all agreed about audio configurations we wouldn't have much to talk about.
Offline

Romanos

Member

  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:11 pm
  • Location: Indiana

Re: Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

PostWed Jun 08, 2016 11:09 am

jkinkennon wrote:I think the easiest answer is to just observe that everyone, to my knowledge, is now recording and distributing stereo samples. If it didn't make an enormous difference then someone would be selling monophonic samples.



I'm not so sure about that... There's a certain "necessity" to stereo since it is the standard in the audio world. Many sampleset producers are also used to recording stereo by default; why "fix" what isn't broken? If you have a simple setup and only have a stereo pair of speakers and one output group, imagine what would happen if the recording was only one channel (ie- right or left). That would really mess with you or the signal would then have to be doubled to get it to come out of both speakers (or headphones). (Now that does predicate that the sample is assigned to a L/R channel.) So, it does make sense to record in stereo. This has the added benefit of producing a "wider" sound. Audio people have studied the effect of doubling a mono signal vs a stereo recording even in a bone dry environment. Stereo is always more realistic since there are slight differences in perception between your ears in real life (just as the signals have slightly different sounds due to the distance between the mics). You yourself mention that switching to mono can "suck the life out of the sound". Indeed I've noticed the same thing before. Stereo recording avoids that. Now after all of that little diatribe, there are uses within the hauptwerk world for switching to mono.

As for running in stereo or mono, depends on what you want to do. I have the prib chamber organ and I have run it through six speakers in stereo (3 pairs) and mono (6 individual channels). The effect is indeed different. You will just have to experiment. Depending on the number of speakers you have, this could work to your advantage or against you (relative to each sampleset too). You'll just have to experiment. If I take all six speakers and stack them closely together 2 high and 3 wide, the effect is different (more mixing in the air) than if I have my usual line array of speakers into 3 stereo pairs. That said, one speaker is much more directional than two spaced a little apart so there are trade-offs. This is where analyzing your set and equipment will have to be done to determine if you stand to gain anything.

Random addition: I've read Martin post elsewhere on the forum that when stereo samples are switched into mono mode, HW simply pulls the louder of the two samples per note. It does not sum them to avoid phase cancellation effects. (take this tidbit for what it's worth)
Last edited by Romanos on Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Romanos

Member

  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:11 pm
  • Location: Indiana

Re: Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

PostWed Jun 08, 2016 11:13 am

jkinkennon wrote:I think the easiest answer is to just observe that everyone, to my knowledge, is now recording and distributing stereo samples. If it didn't make an enormous difference then someone would be selling monophonic samples.

Do you have a switch in your current setup that allows you to switch to mono and back to stereo? That's another way to hear just how big a difference this makes. With my current 6 channel setup the change to mono just sucks the life out of the sound. By comparison, the difference between normal stereo and the various audio cycling algorithms (with all speakers in use for both cases) is subtle by comparison.

We did a demo with only three stereo pairs for a job which will presumably end up with double that number. I'm already wondering if it will be more important to get the extra channels or to double up speakers on channels. This is for one particular case where Behringer 3031A monitors are getting driven hard, and while they are still sounding wonderful we may need the extra power more than the channel diversity. Just my thoughts based on what I've listened to primarily with PA systems though with a couple of organ installs as well.

EDIT: Of course it's easy enough to try both approaches and see what sounds best. I'm convinced in this case, but if we all agreed about audio configurations we wouldn't have much to talk about.



You might benefit with the 6 pair, with each pair stacked vertically side by side (ie- 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2) and point the bottom speaker a little to the left and the top speaker a little to the right. Then you'll have the extra uumph of two speakers, the livelier sound of the stereo imagine, and the even wider dispersion due to the varied angles of the two monitors sharing each signal. I would also experiment (if you go this route) tipping the top monitor upside down to have the tweeters closer together to create a more coherent point source.
Offline

1961TC4ME

Member

  • Posts: 3144
  • Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:45 pm
  • Location: Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota

Re: Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

PostWed Jun 08, 2016 1:17 pm

I would say it all largely depends on the listening environment. If it's a personal set-up where you are close enough to the speakers to hear the 'stereo' then I'd go stereo. Can't make too many assumptions here, but it seems most here are using HW in a home / personal use environment which usually involves a room of a smaller scale where one can hear the benefits of the stereo signal because of their proximity to the speakers. In my smallish 12'x12' space I too have tried both stereo and mono and I much prefer stereo, even if the set is dry, it's a much fuller and satisfying sound.

Now, on the other hand let's say it's a large installation for a church as an example where 99.9% of the listeners are not going to be anywhere near the speakers, nobody is really going to hear the stereo separation / image, so I could see mono as being the benefit in this case, especially so if you are limited to the number of audio channels available. In this case, running mono would give you twice as many speakers (in singles vs. pairs) to route individual ranks to which in the end should be of benefit.

Just my 2-1/2 cents worth. :wink:

Marc
Last edited by 1961TC4ME on Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Romanos

Member

  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:11 pm
  • Location: Indiana

Re: Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

PostWed Jun 08, 2016 1:27 pm

I bet Marc is right on the money. (Although that does predicate that a single speaker is large enough / powerful enough to create the signal by itself and wouldn't struggle without a complementing speaker.)
Offline

1961TC4ME

Member

  • Posts: 3144
  • Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:45 pm
  • Location: Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota

Re: Stereo or Mono for dry sample-sets?

PostWed Jun 08, 2016 3:03 pm

One example of a set I have (St. Eucaire) with it's perspective slider can be set rather dry if I like. As I've mentioned in other posts, I use a stacked speaker arrangement and like sounding stops routing scheme to each speaker pair which I've found is superior sounding, and in stereo even if the set is dialed to nearly bone dry has a very rich and pleasing sound where you can definitely hear the much fuller room filling stereo image, mono doesn't compare.

Although we're going outside of the original question here, I have done a little tinkering with larger venues, but if I were to do a full system, along with going mono, I'd be looking at identical speakers that are of either a two or three way design capable of covering a full range, coupled with a sub or two and wouldn't be afraid to send whatever I send to a full range speaker to the sub as well, pretty much what I'm also doing now as I've found subs are not just for the very lowest notes.

Marc

Return to Amplification

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest