why is mono prefered over stereo?

[HerzogisGod]

I understand that mono tracks are eventually split both left and right in post? correct?

why not record stereo from the start?

keep in mind...I know nothing

 

[Rippie]

what kind of tracks are you refering to?

Dialog? ambience? walla?

 

[Alex H.]

Dialog and many effects are recorded in mono. Dialog, in the mix, is centered anyway in both stereo and surround, so recording in stereo on location/in-studio would just be a pain in post. For lots of sources, it comes down to mono compatibility and control in the mix.

If stereo recordings are not carefully done, they can become garbled when the image is narrowed down to monaural due to issues like phase cancellation. This is problematic for folks who watch/listen on a system that does not have stereo... and yes, there are still some old, side-firing TV speakers out there. And for a source that needs to have its movement altered, it would have to be converted to mono before it was moved... so mono-incompatible sources would be challenging for the engineer.

The sound editor and mixing engineer have control over where in the stereo (or surround) image these sources fall because they don't have to worry about a stereo-recorded source that wasn't done right, or placed the sound in a weird position that doesn't jive with the viewers' POV.

But when it comes to sound beds (ambient sounds, walla, etc.), many of those are recorded for their intended outputs (stereo or surround) as they are in the background of the mix. The lively imaging of these recordings adds depth to the overall sound image.

 

[David Jimerson]

If you're recording dialog or a single sound, there's really no benefit to recording in stereo.

Stereo is about directionality -- the ability to make the sound(s) seem as though they're coming from a particular direction. This is good in, say, music, when you want to separate different instruments or replicate a concert hall sound where the sound seems to be coming from all directions instead of just one.

But for a single sound, like a single voice, there's no need for that, and in fact, as C2V points out, it's worse for you later on because you'll want to "place" that sound in the sound field yourself, and if you recorded in stereo, it might not where you want it to be. You'll convert it to mono anyway, and then you can run into (also as C2V said) phasing cancellation issues where your sound just disappears -- or worse, only particular frequencies disappear, leaving you with ugliness.

And, it's more expensive and more difficult to record in stereo.

So, it doesn't really do anything for you, and in some ways, it works against you.

 

[SMuir]

I understand that mono tracks are eventually split both left and right in post? correct?

That's not entirely accurate. During audio post, mono tracks are generally kept mono and panned into the appropriate location. In stereo mixes, dialogue is almost always panned to the "phantom center", while music and effects are panned as appropriate throughout the stereo image. In surround mixes (and theatrical L-C-R mixes) dialogue is typically panned to the center channel, with music and effects going to the other channels.

 

[HerzogisGod]

thanks

makes sense to me now

So the mono recording of a voice is kept mono, but panned to the center during a mix...not always, of course, but generally speaking

having a mono voice track gives me control over where i want it to fall within a scene, ie. left, far left, right, far right, center, or wherever...

Phasing is the main issue with stereo, it seems. And lack of full control in regards to placement within the "sound field"

just making sure I understand

thanks

 

[Alex H.]

So the mono recording of a voice is kept mono, but panned to the center during a mix...not always, of course, but generally speaking

Well, sort of. Here's the technical breakdown.

Mono vs. stereo isn't as much about one vs. two channels... it's how the channels interact. The old school terms are monaural and binaural. Are you hearing the entire image from one direction only, or do the two channels have slightly different mixes that play off each other to give a feeling of live space?

You can have monaural audio from a "stereo" playback image. It just means that everything is panned center, which means that both speakers are playing every sound at equal amplitude. "Panning" for a stereo image, in its simplest form, boils down to adjusting how "loud" any given source is in each speaker. Play it louder in the left speaker than the right and it effectively "pans" to the left.

In the recording phase, you have two channels of audio on your camera, but this isn't "stereo" by definition. If you have two actors, each on a wireless lav system, and each lav recording to a separate channel, you are now dealing with dual mono. And now, you have control over each mic in post and can mix their levels as needed. Also, you can pan them accordingly (if at all, since most dialog is center).

Even in the recording studio for major albums, where they may have 48 tracks or more... still multiple mono. Each voice, each instrument is recorded to its own track (some things are recorded in stereo... two tracks that interact to form an image... like drum overheads). In the mix phase, all of those monaural tracks are panned to create the final stereo image.

having a mono voice track gives me control over where i want it to fall within a scene, ie. left, far left, right, far right, center, or wherever...

Correct.

Phasing is the main issue with stereo, it seems. And lack of full control in regards to placement within the "sound field"

Both are the main issues, but yes.

 

[Noiz2]

Not picking on you since I disagree with some of what has been said but you sumed up a lot of it.

Stereo VS Mono has a lot to with what your starting with and what you want to end up with.
Feature films intended for the big screen always put the dialog and most Foley in the center speaker. The reason is that anywhere else is wrong for someone in the audience. If the character is on the far left and you put his dialog in the left it is too low for people on the right and seems like it's TOO far left. If it's OK for the folks on the right it's too loud and too close for folks on the left. The only place it sounds right to everybody is in the center. People keep trying it out and it just never works, I was one of those people. So for solid technical reasons and audience expectations dialog is always in the center. If your strictly small screen then you could record in stereo.

It is not any more expensive to record in stereo, at least not significantly at all. Most films are recording multiple tracks anyway, they are just multiple mono tracks. There are reasons to record everything else in stereo, though Foley and small FX are almost always done in mono for convenience. Phase is generally not a problem because post doesn't crash down stereo to mono. Well nobody who is worth hiring is going to do that. Post by tradition takes the left channel if going to mono, though it's not hard and fast you could go with the right. You don't just crash them to mono because there will always be some issue even the best stereo recording is not 100% mono compatible.

If your always going to be playing in stereo then stereo is fine to record. It is not a big deal to change orientation in post and in fact almost all backgrounds are recorded in stereo, and most FX. Foley generally isn't but it is also mostly going to come out of the center speaker with the dialog.

Stereo is about space, not directionality. Your going to do directionality with the mix. One exception would be dolper FX where you are recording L<>R movement, but you are going to orient that also in post so again it's about capturing the space not about putting something in a particular place in that space.

If your talking dialog, yes stereo doesn't usually get you much. Everything else is up for grabs. I record pretty much all FX in stereo. The only thing "difficult" about stereo recording is more weight on the end of the boom.

Cheers
SK

If you're recording dialog or a single sound, there's really no benefit to recording in stereo.

Stereo is about directionality -- the ability to make the sound(s) seem as though they're coming from a particular direction. This is good in, say, music, when you want to separate different instruments or replicate a concert hall sound where the sound seems to be coming from all directions instead of just one.

But for a single sound, like a single voice, there's no need for that, and in fact, as C2V points out, it's worse for you later on because you'll want to "place" that sound in the sound field yourself, and if you recorded in stereo, it might not where you want it to be. You'll convert it to mono anyway, and then you can run into (also as C2V said) phasing cancellation issues where your sound just disappears -- or worse, only particular frequencies disappear, leaving you with ugliness.

And, it's more expensive and more difficult to record in stereo.

So, it doesn't really do anything for you, and in some ways, it works against you.

 

[Capt Quirk]

I had Mono in 10th grade, and I would have rather had a stereo...

 

[Alex H.]

I had Mono in 10th grade, and I would have rather had a stereo...

I have a quadrophonic 8-track deck... needs new belts, but works otherwise.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Stereo recording can be just fine if the source is stereo, like a piano recorded with two (or more) mics, or a stereo ambient source like crowd "walla". Having it stereo can, among other things, save on screen real estate in apps like Pro Tools that (normally) have same-sized tracks regardless of their channel content. When mixing I'll often combine a pair of .L and .R split stereo tracks to one stereo track for that reason. But for my money, recording a mono source as stereo is first and foremost wasteful of resources (disk space primarily). You're using two tracks to do what only one is needed for, doubling your storage (and backup) space (and time) for no benefit.

Regarding phase issues, all else being equal, there's none inherent in a 2-channel mono recording unless someone messed up in making it. It will sum to mono just fine. If it doesn't then it's either not actually a mono recording, or like I said, it was made wrong. It is true though, that it's not possible for a mono recording to be out of phase with itself : )

So for me a typical multitrack mix would be a combination of mostly mono tracks, and where appropriate, some stereo ones as well.

 

[David Jimerson]

Not picking on you since I disagree with some of what has been said but you sumed up a lot of it.

Stereo VS Mono has a lot to with what your starting with and what you want to end up with.
Feature films intended for the big screen always put the dialog and most Foley in the center speaker. The reason is that anywhere else is wrong for someone in the audience. If the character is on the far left and you put his dialog in the left it is too low for people on the right and seems like it's TOO far left. If it's OK for the folks on the right it's too loud and too close for folks on the left. The only place it sounds right to everybody is in the center. People keep trying it out and it just never works, I was one of those people. So for solid technical reasons and audience expectations dialog is always in the center. If your strictly small screen then you could record in stereo.

It is not any more expensive to record in stereo, at least not significantly at all. Most films are recording multiple tracks anyway, they are just multiple mono tracks. There are reasons to record everything else in stereo, though Foley and small FX are almost always done in mono for convenience. Phase is generally not a problem because post doesn't crash down stereo to mono. Well nobody who is worth hiring is going to do that. Post by tradition takes the left channel if going to mono, though it's not hard and fast you could go with the right. You don't just crash them to mono because there will always be some issue even the best stereo recording is not 100% mono compatible.

If your always going to be playing in stereo then stereo is fine to record. It is not a big deal to change orientation in post and in fact almost all backgrounds are recorded in stereo, and most FX. Foley generally isn't but it is also mostly going to come out of the center speaker with the dialog.

Stereo is about space, not directionality. Your going to do directionality with the mix. One exception would be dolper FX where you are recording L<>R movement, but you are going to orient that also in post so again it's about capturing the space not about putting something in a particular place in that space.

If your talking dialog, yes stereo doesn't usually get you much. Everything else is up for grabs. I record pretty much all FX in stereo. The only thing "difficult" about stereo recording is more weight on the end of the boom.

Cheers
SK

No, I think we pretty much said the same thing, though I think you're right about "space" being a better way of explaining it than "directionality." :beer: I'm only talking about dialogue and foley.

The only reason I say it's more expensive is because you either need two mono mics and cables, or you need a more expensive stereo mic (though with the wide range of microphone prices, it's kinda murky. )

 

[Noiz2]

No, I think we pretty much said the same thing, though I think you're right about "space" being a better way of explaining it than "directionality." :beer: I'm only talking about dialogue and foley.

The only reason I say it's more expensive is because you either need two mono mics and cables, or you need a more expensive stereo mic (though with the wide range of microphone prices, it's kinda murky. )

Well then I wasn't picking on you;~). We agree on the expense also. Stereo is slightly more expensive as an investment, but proportional to the rest of the $$$ already spent it's pretty insignificant.


RE: mono sources. I agree but any mono source recorded in the wild is a stereo source, unless your right on top of it. One of the chief complaints about the Sound Ideas FX series is that they are TOO sterile. Especially the 6000 series. A lot of FX are recorded in stereo partially to capture the space the FX is in. That in theory makes it less "flexible" but in reality you don't loose much flexibility unless the BG is very dominant and you save a LOT of time in editing because in most cases you can drop them in and they blend. Of course a cardioid mic and some distance will also give you some space. A lot depends on what your after. The above is in regards to FX, I would not record dialog in anything but mono.

A somewhat silly but kind of useful rule of thumb I was told by a noted designer is that "if it's wider than your head it should be stereo". The logic being both ears would be getting a separate image if it's wider than your head.

 

[MattinSTL]

I kind of skimmed the thread, but I think the simplest answer (as it relates to dialog) is because it's most likely to yield a decent result in the widest range of playback systems.

The audio paired with the visuals we see rarely correlate with reality... not the reality at the point of capture... or at least not in most cases... or else the sound would be boring. Location audio is always a compromise of circumstances, and clean dialog is the primary goal.

An attempt to realistically capture dialog through a stereo recording causes all sorts of issues with the room signature and revelations about the location that we'd rather not share with the audience, unless the space is acoustically excellent.

I think it's just a lot easier to treat all dialog like a master shot... and recreate all the [acoustic] reverses and other audio FX in post through some really simple tools... pan, volume, etc.

EDIT: I also forgot to add that it's a "free" extra channel. If you have one speaker and split the channels, you can set each channel to a different level and have a built-in safety... or if you have two actors and you give each actor their own channel... you can adjust the balance for each person's delivery, to balance the result later... if you simply record each situation in stereo you have what you have and there's 50% worse odds of getting an acceptable final result.