Mono to Stereo.

Posted on

Member Since: Aug 31, 2007

I did a little searching and saw this has been discussed before. I'm still a little unclear.

Is it possible to take a song and turn it from mono to stereo? I want to try a karaoke filter on a few songs, but they have to be in stereo for it to work.

Can it be done?

[ Back to Top ]


*sticado: short and LOUD!*
Member
Since: Feb 25, 2005


Sep 03, 2007 10:36 pm

theres no possible way to turn a track that was recorded as mono and turn it into stereo, however, u can make a copy of the track, set it on the left side and pan the original track to the right and mess with one of them... i hope that makes sense

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 03, 2007 10:40 pm

You can duplicate the track, as stated above, and make it a right and left track, but the exact same thing will be in each track. If you want to get around that, and make it sound more "stereo" you could EQ each side a little differently, or give a little bit of reverb to each side a little differently, or, apply a stereo imager to the single track...

*sticado: short and LOUD!*
Member
Since: Feb 25, 2005


Sep 03, 2007 10:46 pm

thats wut i ment by mess with one of them... ill be a lil clearer next time

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004


Sep 04, 2007 03:10 am

who the F releases a song in mono?

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004


Sep 04, 2007 03:24 am

by the way, those 'vocal remover' type effects are basically a mid-side (M/S) decoder. all they do is remove whatever is mono (often kick, vocals, and most of the snare) if you feed it a mono track it will only output silence.

edit0r
Member
Since: Aug 17, 2004


Sep 06, 2007 03:30 am

Quote:
who the F releases a song in mono?


The Chilli's mate! Cailfornication was pretty much all mono. Love the sound as well.

$.02

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004


Sep 06, 2007 08:57 am

bah! i'm sorry, mono is the "least common detonator" of audio....

here's the weird part, i'm not all that big on surround sound (except for video applications)....but as for music, i really don't care for 5.1, then again, i haven't been in a setting to truly appreciate it.

but stereo ROCKS!

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Sep 06, 2007 08:07 pm

WYD, you have not lived till you've had some old school jazz recordings played at loud levels. They were all mono for the early ones, and the aural picture they paint is splendid. The depth of these type recordings is awe inspiring.

In my early years learning the way a studio works I was forced to listen to hours of mono recordings to learn exactly why it is so important to listen in mono and be able to place all your instruments that way. If you can paint a clear aural picture in mono it will be ten times that good once it is in stereo. Having every instrument in its place and clearly audible. You learn how to use EQ and reverb to make everything have its own little spot in there.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004


Sep 07, 2007 04:13 am

bah, welcome to the twenty-first! YES there have some GREAT mono recordings *i'm a jazz guy for the record* BUT 5.1 or anything above is (to me) overkill......i can get my point across just fine and dandy......video is where that **** comes into play.

Ne'er ate 'er
Member
Since: Apr 05, 2006


Sep 07, 2007 08:16 pm

I just finished listening to Buddy Rich's CD "This One's for Basie", recorded in 1956, in mono, and I can tell you this:

It's not how many discrete channels you have in your final product, it's how good you make the end product sound.

Mix it in mono first, then assign panning.

Remember, "stereo" means more than one channel, not just two.

If you can't make it happen in mono, two channels won't be any better.

Hold 'Em Czar
Member
Since: Dec 30, 2004


Sep 08, 2007 03:18 am

yeah but by panning from mono will alter the mix (stereo to mono sums are usually around 3db's louder)....paning the tracks out is the first thing i do after editing...

my 2 scents.

i've heard floyd and the eagles have some good multi-channel stuff out...never had the opportunity to hear it.

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Sep 08, 2007 09:15 pm

WYD, what I'm getting at is that if it sounds good with all the EQ and reverb done to separate things in the mix in mono. Then once it is panned and placed in stereo you know everything is still going to be in its proper place in the sonic realm. It does not matter were it sits side to side other then to add to the depth you have already accomplished in mono.

I have to say I don't always mix in mono. But once I get past the 4 or 6 track mark, I will always listen in mono as I do EQ and such to check that I have everything sitting pretty well. Panning is just and added bonus for me. Although in the electronic music I use it much more then doing most everything else.

pSyChOTTic-da caps spell me name
Member
Since: Aug 07, 2004


Oct 14, 2007 01:34 am

Sorry db. I know you're king around here, but EQing both channels differently won't do anything for the stereo image. If you want to give the illusion of stereo, you need time based effects such as delay, chorus, flanger etc. applied differently to each channel. Applying different EQ settings would be about as stereo as Andy Griffith.

Besides, with 2 different EQ's, one side will inevitably be louder and/or sound better than the other side based on the frequency range of the speakers.


Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Oct 14, 2007 01:30 pm

Reverb, which he mentioned is also a time based effect. I do conversion's of mono samples frequently and simply use EQ and reverb to give the image a little more width so to speak. Slightly different reverb pre delay in each channel will do the same as an other delay. so in essence he is pretty well spot on.

Although I will agree there are a few different ways to do it, this is the most subtle way of creating a bit wider image.

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.