Recording a track in mono or stereo...any general "rules?"

[WRGKMC]

"Since you believe that stereo binaural microphones are not recording in stereo"

 

I didnt say that and to suggest that I did is an incomplete summary.

 

Microphone only produce sound if you hook them up in reverse to act as a speaker. A Microphone is a receiveing device in most cases unless you're talking an intercom or something simular. Its only a source to an amplifying device. The human mind can see beyond the air movement and find its way to the source of air movement. That source isnt the mic diaphram. The instrument causes air movement, the mic diaphram is slave to the sound source. Ambiance too is slave to the source.

 

Throw a rock in a pond and the rock is the source of wave movement. The shore is the receptor of the waves, the waves that bounce off the far side and come back are reflected waves. The waves themselves are not the source of movement, the rock was. Throw two rocks in and you now have two sources of waves. Throw them in the same spot at the same time they just increase the wave size, throw them a distance from each other and you now have true stereo waves generated passing through each other to their destinations.

 

One last analogy. This analogy may be easier for someone doing PA sound work but I'll attemt it anyway.

 

Imagine your speakers are a closed circuit tv's and the mics are cameras. Weather its recording or not is irrelative.

 

Focus both cameras on that single performer on stage. Your sences will tell you theres a single performer on stage. Put two performers on stage and have a camera on each. You now have two separate unique images on two different monitor screens.

 

Fit both pictures to a single screen with one on the left and one on the right. You now have a single panorama that looks like a single stage with two performers doing two different things.

 

We do this mixing all the time, we hear the performers as though our mics are substitutes for our ears and leap through the speakers, microphones and space between us and the performers to hear the notes and make them sound like the speakers and mics arent even there coloring the sound to reproduce the most realistic soundscape possible. What we attempt to do is reposition the parts in the speaker field to match what we actually hear live with our ears to create a simular panorama or soundscape using speakers that is a convincing illusion for others to hear.

 

Ambiance which is usually below 50% adds depth between you and the performer. Remove all ambiance and you have 100% mono, Adjust the ambiance 100% and remove the source and you have a copy of the original, probibly with littel sence of direction of where that original sound came from.

Most mixes use use 50% or less ambiance. With a single performer that makes the sound more than 50% mono. So you dont have true stereo.

 

Weather that depth is three dimentional or not doesnt make the performer doubble himself, his echo may, but he doesnt. What you hear is a performer in a three dimentional space. Our minds seek out the source if the reverb by hearing the original sound source. If you consider that to be stereo fine. The originators of the term sterophonic didnt word the term it anywheres near that. All terms involving any kind of ambiance are called Psuedo Stereo, or Stereolike.

 

So what do you all call two performers in a three dimentional space separated by a convincing distance between them? I call it a true stereophonic reproductiion with ambiance added to create three dimentional depth.

 

I'm done guys, Thats all I have to say on the subject. if you get it fine, if you dont and want to keep your views fine. Theres room for us all, and lively discussion is fun so thanks for letting me recite some knowlege here and express a few opinions too.

[Lee Knight]

And really, when you get right down to it, a cello itself isn't a single source. The sound off the bow itself. The sound off the rear of the instrument. Off the front of sound board. The sound being absorbed by the player on one side but not on the other. Humans have great absorption coefficients. The only way to insure mono... is to use one channel.

 

 

WRGKMC, what do you think of my point above. Hey! I quoted myself! So, how do you feel about the concept that a single source really isn't a single source anyway? Those different sounds, the bow, the rear, the front soundboard... all come from different parts of the instrument... different locations. Wouldn't that constitute stereo? Taking ambiance out of the picture a minute for grins...

[WRGKMC]

Ah, great question. Distance and separation is the key. If you put a piezo contact on say two different strings, one on the bow and panned them into different channels, you can get stereophonic separation.

 

The two strings are independant sources of vibration and you can stick your head between the two with panning. The bow, well I'm sure how good it would sound attatching a mic to the bowhairs, It may just be a 180 degree out of phase sound of muffeled transconductance like a tin can telephone you made as a kid with some string. If it contains some unique digging and grabbing that isnt contained in the string mics, it could be a third channel. (I play violin so I dont think it would be usefull sound but worth investigating. Like I said, having two strings miced and panned would be like shrinking your head and sticking your head between the two sources of sound.

 

If, you Move those mics back though and narrow those separations to where the direct waves travel in a single line, (or the entire acoustic body overwhelms the two separate strings), you will get to a point where your ears can no longer hear separation between the direct sound of the two strings and the sound monoes out.

 

Two strings miced separately would create independant vibrations of their own constituting stereo by the definition when the separation between them is present. I'm avoiding any transconductance here fo sake of not complicating the matter.

 

This is where I said earlier using about close micing an acoustic instrument to where there is some kind of separation between the low and high strings can constitute a stereo sound. I would say that separation would need to be at least 50% or more to actually qualify as true stereo phonic.

 

I dont mean the neck and body either because they will both contain all the strings with only tonal differences of bass and trebble. This is a psueto stereo comb filtering scheme to get separation. It again can sound stereolike and extremely natureal from someone sitting directly in front of the instrument, but since all vibrations are present on both channels from the instrument its actually Psueto Stereo which shouldnt be confused with true stereophonic sound.

 

Since the body conducts sound so rapidly, using any kind of mics off the soundboard would be next to impossible

 

The other example of an instrument playing left to right with all direct in one speaker and all reverb in the other is also a stereo like crossection of "sound in motion" but because the revibrations are a duplicate of the original, its a stereolike "effect" of the same waves generated by the original.

[Lee Knight]

. Lets try this and keep it simple, and ask this question. At what point when panning two signals center does the signal become mono? My answer is when the listeners perception can no longer distinguish space between the two entities as having distance between them.

 

 

 

OK! So... Pablo Casals is sitting 20 feet from a Blumlien pair. Will you hear a difference between the pots panned center and panned wide? Of course. So using your very own logic, this implies that a solo Pablo is stereo. The listener can distinguish space between the two entities as having distance between them..." when panned wide. Stereo, by your own logic.

 

You can not take reflections out of the picture. There... you're confusing sending an aux to a Lexicon verb. But this is a real live event taking place in air. A 3D event that we try our best to capture realistically. And so far, current stereo micing techniques do it best.

 

One instrument maybe, but thousands and thousands of "sources". True stereo. The truest kind.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Definitions of stereophonic on the Web: "Designating sound transmission from two sources through two channels"

 

 

These are definitions of "two-channel" (as in stereo systems), an adjective, and do not describe anything about stereo micing techniques, which is what we keep discussing:

 

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/two-channel The adjective has one meaning: Meaning #1: (electronics) designating sound transmission from two sources through two channels

 

 

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/stereophonic-stereo-two-channel The adjective has one meaning: Meaning #1: (electronics) designating sound transmission from two sources through two channels

 

 

And on and on...all describing "two-channel" systems and are adjectives:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/two-channel?qsrc=2446

http://www.wordnik.com/words/two-channel

 

You're trying to define what a two-channel stereo system is, while we are discussing stereo mic techniques. This is why you say that mics are not sound sources. This is why you keep insisting that a stereo recording must result from two sources that two microphones pick up.

[UstadKhanAli]

STEREO RECORDING FROM ONE SOUND SOURCE:

An example of many that can be found...

The typical description for Mid-Side miking is something like, "Aim a cardioid mic at the sound source . Place a figure 8 mic in the same plane as the cardioid-as close to the cardioid as possible, with the lobes of the figure 8 perpendicular to the address of the cardioid. Then, run the signals of the mics into a sum-and-difference matrix to get stereo: Mid + Side = Left; Mid - Side = Right."

Note that in the picture as well as the description, this how-to of a stereo recording technique called M-S indicates ONE sound source, not requiring two, to create a stereo recording.

http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2005/december/text/content4.html

[Lucky #9]

I joined Harmony Central today after reading the many posts in this thread. As you can see from the very long thread, people with a lots of experience have strong opinions about what the words "mono" and "stereo" actually mean. Here's my 2 cents on recording: Vocals - 1 mic per soloist; 1 or 2 for groups, ensembles, choirs Guitar - 1 or more mics Drums - 1 or more mics Here's my reasons: 1. A single mic on a a wide sound source (e.g. a choir) can capture a panoramic image when placed at a distance. The closer the mic gets to the singers, the more focused it will become on the singers in close proximity to the mic. 2. If your sound source is very narrow, a single mic could work very well. But, is your sound source narrow or not? An acoustic guitar produces a wide variety of frequencies from all over the instrument. A mic near the sound hole will pick up an abundance of low frequencies. A mic placed near the bridge will pick up higher frequencies and picking sounds. A mic placed near the fingerboard will pick up more fingering sounds. 3. Drums can be thought of like a choir, or like a number of soloists. A mic for each drum an cymbal will give you control in the mix over each source. One or two mics at a distance from your drum "choir" will give you a blend of the different sources in a drum set or ensemble. 4. Mics are often used specifically to pick up room ambiance, and blending of sound sources. This can help reduce a "sterile" sound that can occur with a single mic placed close to a sound source. 5. With the use of multiple mics on a narrow sound source, you may have to deal the wave form amplification and cancellation, such as phasing or comb filtering that can occur when you play your recordings through speakers. As you can see, there are many ways to record, each with advantages and disadvantages. Carefully consider the views of the pros, paying particular attention to "why" they record in a particular manner, and what "effect" they are trying to capture in their recordings. And, most of all, experiment. The wrong way of recording something might just be the perfect solution if it captures the sound the way you wanted.

 

 

Ahh...an actual answer to the original query before some of the participants here got anal and started bitch-slapping each other!

 

I am ordering all combatants to stand in the corner of their studios for an hour as their punishment, all the while listening to banal disco music turned up to maximum volume on their nearfields.

[WRGKMC]

"You can not take reflections out of the picture. There... you're confusing sending an aux to a Lexicon verb. But this is a real live event taking place in air. A 3D event that we try our best to capture realistically. And so far, current stereo micing techniques do it best.

 

I'm not trying to confuse anything just define the different "Types of Stereo" and their subcatagories. I'm not saying one doesnt sound better than annother or one isnt more usefull than annother, I'm just just defining the subcatagories of stereo as defined by those who came up with the terms.

If you have no reguard for the difference of the subcatagories and whant to lump them all together under the term Stereophonic, thats cool. You sure not going to make me think theyre all the same because I know better. What it shows me is some people trained themselves and were never given the subcatagory nbreakdowns properly. What you read on the net that fits into a single paragraph or two are often based on a complete chapter in a properly written book that does have distinctions between all the details so I completely know where all the blurring of terminology comes from. Short cutting.

 

Just keep in mind there are some of use who do know what constitutes the subcatagories and what constitutes the differences between them.

 

""One instrument maybe, but thousands and thousands of "sources". True stereo. The truest kind.""

 

True to you but a blurring of defined terminology to me. The definition of "Stereophonic" does not require revibration to define it. Just two unique sounds, coming from two speakers spread far enough away from eachother so you can percieve a spatial difference between the two. Thats it. Thats the definition.

 

Anything else is a subcatagory of stereophonic including any reverb added to create a stereolike sound. Are other forms of stereo bad or fake because thay happen to reside in their own subcatagory of the definition? Of course not. How many know there even are subcatagories and why they fit into those specific subcatagories. Guess not many by the responces I've heard here.

 

One source, thousands of reflections. There can only be one source for all those reflections. Trace all refractions back in time and there resides the source. A pictures worth a thousand words. The source is the direct sound in these graphs.

 

http://www.recordinginstitute.com/da154/ARP/chap3Sig/0308hist.html

 

If bending words to suit your understanding and works for you to get a great recorded sound, thats great.

 

Its miles ahead of most who dont even know what a reflection is.

 

To me this discussion shows how many read the same poorly written text and take it as gospel thats all there is to it. I know they dont even teach it properly anymore because it isnt something new that needs alot of detailed description. It did at one time. Original manyfactures or STEREOPHONIC equipment went into great detail explaining what it was and how it was so different from mono setups as a selling point back in the day. Today because many grew up on stereo setups the simple explanation for simple minds is the norm. It doesnt change the fact that the original engineers coined different terms for a reason. Most of them were based around patants by the original inventers.

 

Weather you want to know the history and foundations of those concepts or not is up to you. I only wanted to point out the infoamations out there and very useful in recording. For those who dont understand why I appear to be obstinant and a bit frustrated with my discussion, Keep this in mind if anything else. Over generalization and grouping of individual parts of a whole concept only hurts you. It complicates isolating those separate parts, and reduces the possibilities of using those separate parts as individual creative tools on their own.

[Lee Knight]

Ahh...an actual answer to the original query before some of the participants here got anal and started bitch-slapping each other! I am ordering all combatants to stand in the corner of their studios for an hour as their punishment, all the while listening to banal disco music turned up to maximum volume on their nearfields.

I hate when that happens. I hearby withdraw from bitch slapping. And in addition to listening to "banal disco music turned up to maximum volume on their nearfields", I'll go one further and make it one speaker mono! Avantone. Ouch.

[Synonym Music]

I'd probably think of how much space I'd want it to take up in the mix.

Notice that I didn't say mono takes up less space or a stereo representation takes up more.

[Geoff Grace]

I've only skimmed this thread, so I apologize if this point has already been made.

 

If the sound of the room isn't a source, then the sound of the cello's body isn't a source either. The cello's body and the room are analogous.

 

Furthermore, the cello itself isn't a single source because the sound of the strings is different than the sound of the body and the sound emanating from one part of the cello is different than the sound emanating from any other part of the cello. That's one reason why people take such care with mic placement.

 

The cello's creation of sound is similar to that of a piano -- an instrument that is often recorded in stereo -- in that the sound of the strings resonates and is amplified by the body of the instrument. The stereo sound of a piano is better defined because there are more strings and the body is larger; but if you get really close to a cello, you'll be able to hear its stereo sound too.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Lee Knight]

I've only skimmed this thread, so I apologize if this point has already been made. If the sound of the room isn't a source, then the sound of the cello's body isn't a source either. The cello's body and the room are analogous. Furthermore, the cello itself isn't a single source because the sound of the strings is different than the sound of the body and the sound emanating from one part of the cello is different than the sound emanating from any other part of the cello. That's one reason why people take such care with mic placement. The cello's creation of sound is similar to that of a piano -- an instrument that is often recorded in stereo -- in that the sound of the strings resonates and is amplified by the body of the instrument. The stereo sound of a piano is better defined because there are more strings and the body is larger; but if you get really close to a cello, you'll be able to hear its stereo sound too. Best, Geoff

 

 

The point was made by me but you did a better job. Thank you.

[UstadKhanAli]

Just a basic question that I haven't seen addressed (or missed it, if it was): How do you decide whether to record a track in mono or stereo? Vocals? Guitar? Drums? Yodeling? (err...nevermind) Many thanks!

 

 

It's so much about aesthetics, but anyway, if I want something to really have a strong sense of space or it's the main instrument, I'll usually go ahead and stereo mic it, using most commonly either a spaced pair or X-Y.

 

With drums, obviously, you're getting a stereo picture with the overheads most commonly, but in larger spaces, I've certainly used a stereo array for room mics, treating the drums as a single source and recording the overall sound with a strong sense of the room.

 

I frequently record a guitar amp or keyboard amp (yes, I record keyboards with mics!) with mics in X-Y to get a sense of the room and make it more spacious, although I also will record with one close mic and one distance mic, which is not stereo but still utilizes two microphones.

 

I usually don't record vocals with X-Y or a spaced pair unless I want a particular special effect.

 

I hope this helps!

[franknputer]

"Stereo" does not have anything to do with whether there are two live things being recorded. Just look at the first stereo system - you'll see that it was made of multiple telephonic elements connected to make a 2-channel reproduction system. They used this to transmit the opera, and later other theatrical performances - I seriously doubt that the productions were limited to two vocalists at a time, on either end of the stage.

 

In the 1930's, Alan Blumlein first patented stereo in this country - along with several stereo recording techniques, and surround sound. So the originators might take issue with the limited scope described herein...

 

Regarding the analogy of a stone thrown in the water being the source of waves: the actual source would be your arm, which energized the stone by throwing it. Back up a bit more, and it it the series of muscle movements initiating the throwing; further back, it is the electrical energy in your brain that drove the muscles; etc., etc., etc. In reality, it's just a series of energy transducers doing their thing that caused the waves in the water.

 

Back to the original 19th-century setup, a "stereo" system consisted of transducers connected to a 2-channel reproduction system; so, in terms of the stereo system itself, it is correct to refer to the microphones as the "sources" of the sound; the electrical signal that exists in the system begins with them. Yes, the electricity is initiated by outside forces, and the system relys on them to function; but they are outside the system. You can argue that the stereo system is part of a larger "system", but if you zoom out too far you cease talking about the stereo audio system.

 

Now - go record something.

[WRGKMC]

In terms of the stereo system itself, it is correct to refer to the microphones as the "sources" of the sound;

 

I turn on my radio, It plays a stereophonic song, Theres no mics involved playing back that image. And its the split image playback thats coined the term, Not how you got it.

 

"Stereo" does not have anything to do with whether there are two live things being recorded. They dont have to be live with multitracking.

 

"Regarding the analogy of a stone thrown in the water being the source of waves: the actual source would be your arm, which energized the stone by throwing it. Back up a bit more, and it it the series of muscle movements initiating the throwing; further back, it is the electrical energy in your brain that drove the muscles; etc., etc., etc. In reality, it's just a series of energy transducers doing their thing that caused the waves in the water".

 

You are taking a simple analogy of sound and complicating it for some reason. Its good to know you're thinking bout it though.

 

Wave movements have a BEGINNING and an END and the TIME between those events. There doesnt have to be reflections added to plural waves to make them stereo, in fact it seems to confuse everyone when you do. All stereo needs is the direct sound to exist.

 

The rock could have fallen off a cliff.

Were not talking about gravity nor someong conciously dropping stones here nor the enery it took to drop the stones. You want to go that route then yes, theres many forms of energy. Were are talking about a source of air movement. I used water instead of air because it frees the minds looking at the analogy of all the mics, wires and computer screens people have gotten hung up on. Solids transmit sound too. Plate reverbs and spring reverbs are just a few used in music.

 

Science takes smaller parts of an entire event and breaks them down to mathmatical terms that allow us to predict an outcome by varying a source. If you dont know the difference between a source and receptor sscience cant be used as a tool.

 

You could call ear drums as sources and the electric signal between the ears and mind the conductor, and the brain a reciever if you were a doctor, but you'd be neglecting the mind that is self aware.

 

Anyone can prevert what we base our science on and say yes means no and no mean yes or evil is good and good is evil, or positive is negative and negative is positive, or a reciever is a transmitter and a transmitter is a reciever, but you must be careful in doing so. You need to know when to properly black box something to prevent all the clutter from distracting scientific results. In Electronics you learn to black box inputs and outputs to boards for troubbleshooting purposes. You dont need to know what goes on in between. If sound goes in one ear and doesnt come out the other, then you can assume there is an obstruction between the two.

 

Many an engineer has lost their minds sitting on a fence between the balances of nature trying to hang on to a glimpse of genious so beware.

There are many jealous gods wanting to destroy that genious and will resort to many tactics including destroying it if their intent is not pure.

 

Enough with the phylosophical bs. Bact to acoustics.

 

Using liquids, solids and gasses are all used in sound. Our ears detect air compression. Sound is the compression and stretching of air molicules that forces other objects to vibrate at the same rate including our ears and in louder conditions our chest cavities.

 

All thats needed is a source of wave movement, The waves themselves, and the receptor of those waves. You can complicate things all you want with reflections.

 

It doesnt change the fact that one source of the waves is a mono source and the best that you can do with that source is to get it to sound stereo like by tricking the ears with reflections or filtering, digitization or some other duplication of the original source. I must have said it twenty times but its still true.

 

Stereophonic requires two independant sound sources and enough space between them so we can percieve separation from the direct sources of the direct waves.

 

If you copy a recorded track and channel each to separate speakers, both speakers vibrate at the exact same rate. Adjusting the levels of each pans the sound between the speakers the same way as a pan pot does on a mono track.

 

Any tricks used including reflections to create a sence of space between those two identical channels is considered to be just plain old "STEREO" which is an extremely broad term that lumps all the other catagories including stereophonic under it.

 

The subcatagory "Stereophonic" is unique from all the others because it truely uses two sources.

 

If this still doesnt make sence maybe the libray can help with some text books on the subject. Most of it will be pure physics. I can assure you, you wont find a very good breakdown of the defined terms on the net. Even between authors trying to describe the differences theres alot of loose terms thrown around because you are using words to describe something others proove with math. If you were to deal with other waveforms, that are beyond human hearing this wouldnt be such a big deal.

 

Light has refractions all over the place. Its a waveform just like sound is.

(Unless you're into particle theory of one atom pushing another and in that case what pushed the first atom in the chain of events?)

 

We dont say theres multiple images moving in front of us on a stage in a spotlight because theres shaddows and light reflections eminating from a single image in front of us. Its because they happen at the speed of light which is too fast to blur our sight. Those reflections do take time though, they do exist.

 

We dont consider a mirror reflection to be a source of anything unless we choose to be ignorant of the science in back of what the mirror is and does. Those tricks of light including the use of mirrors are considered to be magic or illusions done by an illusionist who tricks our perceptions.

 

Same goes for those who work with sound creating auditory illusions.

 

Question comes down to weather it matteres if a good illusionist picks up all the pieces of knowlegabe about the elements that create the illusion or not. Having the pieces surely wont make you a better audio tech but it sure shows some intelegent experience if you understand and can explain the individual elements.

[offramp]

This thread has been amazingly helpful in helping me achieve restful sleep.

[BASSicGuy]

How Complicated can this subject be made?

I know nothing of subcategories of the definition of stereo.
Stereo, as I understand it, was created to give a person a "YOU ARE THERE" experience. I remember the View Master (stereoscopic picture viewer). Two pictures are taken of one scene from two slightly different perspectives. If one puts the left image in front of the left eye and the right likewise, the brain puts the two together to form one 3-D "stereo" image. It makes no difference how many objects are in the picture it is still stereo. It is the same with sound.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

How Complicated can this subject be made? I know nothing of subcategories of the definition of stereo. Stereo, as I understand it, was created to give a person a "YOU ARE THERE" experience. I remember the View Master (stereoscopic picture viewer). Two pictures are taken of one scene from two slightly different perspectives. If one puts the left image in front of the left eye and the right likewise, the brain puts the two together to form one 3-D "stereo" image. It makes no difference how many objects are in the picture it is still stereo. It is the same with sound.

 

 

That, my friend, is what we've been saying. Stereo micing is simply an attempt to recreate the sound field, and it doesn't matter how many sources they are in the room.

 

Look, either we answer this poor OP's original question or someone write "Hitler" and we kill this.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Just a basic question that I haven't seen addressed (or missed it, if it was): How do you decide whether to record a track in mono or stereo? Vocals? Guitar? Drums? Yodeling? (err...nevermind) Many thanks!

 

 

It's so much about aesthetics, but anyway, if I want something to really have a strong sense of space or it's the main instrument, I'll usually go ahead and stereo mic it, using most commonly either a spaced pair or X-Y.

 

With drums, obviously, you're getting a stereo picture with the overheads most commonly, but in larger spaces, I've certainly used a stereo array for room mics, treating the drums as a single source and recording the overall sound with a strong sense of the room.

 

I frequently record a guitar amp or keyboard amp (yes, I record keyboards with mics!) with mics in X-Y to get a sense of the room and make it more spacious, although I also will record with one close mic and one distance mic, which is not stereo but still utilizes two microphones.

 

I usually don't record vocals with X-Y or a spaced pair unless I want a particular special effect.

 

I hope this helps!

[UstadKhanAli]

This thread has been amazingly helpful in helping me achieve restful sleep.

 

 

And if you snore, would it be more effective to record you in mono or stereo?

[scarecrowbob]

"And if you snore, would it be more effective to record you in mono or stereo?"

 

With any source, there are a number of ways to go about this.

 

The first quesiton is the arrangement: will the snore be by itself or in a dense mix.

 

If it is by itself, would the stereo ambiance of the room help the recording sound natural and vibrant? In that case a stereo recording would be useful. If the stereo ambiance of the room doesn't sound especially good, perhaps a mono recording technique would be better suited, in conjunction with some sort of reverb or delay added in the mixdown.

 

If the snore will be part of a larger arrangement, perhaps a mono recording would be easier to treat in the mix, as it will have less information to compete with all the other aspects of the arrangement. Would it be best to ensure that all the mix elements share a common acoustic space by sending them to a shared reverberation process? In that case, a stereo technique might be problematic, as the reverb could possible skew information in some stereo techniques.

 

Conversely, even if that snore is part of the larger mix, perhaps is shares a good sounding acoustic space with other elements of the mix. In that case, you might consider assembling a stereo recording of that snore along side other tracks of the other elements with the same stereo mics in the same stereo space, with the overall effect that a single performance has taken place.

 

These are all the considerations about when stereo recording techniques are appropriate, but that is typically how I go about thinking up an appropriate thing to do in that situation.

[UstadKhanAli]

Scarecrowbob, you freakin' rule!

 

I would agree with your points, and would like to add that even if the snoring is not the only part, but is still the featured part of the arrangement, it might still be beneficial to record in stereo. These are all aesthetic considerations, of course.

 

If the snoring occurs in a bedroom that has poor acoustic, one may still be able to compensate for this by placing acoustic treatment around the stereo mic array while still getting an accurate depiction of the sound field while still being mindful of localization cues. OTOH, if the snoring occurs during this thread, I'm not convinced that acoustic treatment would aid in getting rid of unwanted reflections while still having the computer monitor remain visible. These are all considerations in your attempt to accurately recreate the stereo sound field.

 

Please also be mindful of your stereo recording being able to collapse to mono. Sum to mono and see if the snoring thins and loses some of its bottom frequencies. I've had good luck keeping mono compatibility with X-Y, but others have reported excellent results with M-S or ORTF. As always, YMMV.

[UstadKhanAli]

Alternate methods of recording snoring using two microphones:

 

Although technically not "true stereo" in the sense that one is trying to recreate the stereo sound field, many recording engineers will close-mic the nasal passages with one mic and close-mic the mouth with a second mic. I usually use two SDCs in cardioid. If extraordinarily loud, I will record either the nose or the mouth or both slightly off-axis. Lately,, I've been reaching for Avenson STO-2 omnis if I am getting too much proximity.

 

Although not necessarily realistic, some engineers will wide-pan these two the nose mic and the mouth mic to extremes, creating an extremely wide field, with some of the nasal whistling coming mostly from one channel and the lower-end "sawing wood" sound coming from primarily from the other channel. As always, pan to suit your own aesthetic needs and the needs of the recording.

 

Click on the link for an pioneering example of recording snoring:

 

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/50518695.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=4996399091E831863F9D029C9E8BC4744A5CA3D98B00E0B3

[WRGKMC]

And thats all there is to it. Life is good. Dont let anyone convince you otherwise.

 

Hey Phil. Got anything to add before this thread fades away into the distance?

[Synonym Music]

Okay, you really want to know. Fine.

I already hear if it's stereo or not. It's determined by the mind's eye. Has nothing to do with image or width really. You hear the end result and do everything possible to achieve it in reality.

Perhaps it's a precognitive resonance. Perhaps it's just a tired path of remembered cliches repeated ad nauseum. Who cares?