Should I be doing anything differently in my DAW when rendered RTs are stereo rather than mono? Does it matter at all that some are stereo?

The stereo tracks may be panned (unless you set them to centred) this can make a difference in the DAW. Some DAWs handle panning a little differently for stereo tracks that can give a little more width to the track.

You can choose to export tracks as mono doing away with issues but then you could lose some of the niceties say of the stereo drum tracks.

From my perspective being aware of it is the main thing and then handle the tracks as you prefer. I tend to set all tracks to centred and flat when I export that way I have control of the tracks. The stereo tracks are then down the middle. It is usually simple enough to pan them and set a width. That can be DAW or plugin specific.

Just some thoughts

Tony

As an example, bass is very difficult to tell where it is in a stereo field and there is no benefit to panning it anywhere but centered. Mono files save space.

IMHO Teunis nailed it.

I use mono for everything except keys and drums. If any RT other than keys is stereo I convert it to mono for more precise panning. I typically center keys but sometimes shift a little left or right using Logic Pro’s Direction Mixer.

Bud

Some instruments can be stereo and others are mostly mono. Drums, keys, and some guitars can be, and are, stereo. Drums simply because the kit is wide and multiple sound sources. Keys... like B3 organ and guitars with stereo chorus effects and what not.

If the instrument is a sax, or a voice, for example it's normally mono.

All stereo tracks can be converted to mono.

They record the stereo tracks to give you the opportunity to use the width offered by the stereo. You can pan that if you wish, but if you don't convert it to mono, such as with a B3 where the left and right channel can be totally different, you will lose the channel on the weak side totally with a pan unless you convert it first.

Drums, even if stereo.... centered, bass centered, and lead vox centered. That's usually the starting point for the mix. Carve sonic space in the center for the bass and drums to occupy the center stage with EQ so you don't mash them together. Everything else can be placed where it needs to be in the mix. Generally not in the center but generally not 100% to one side or the other with some exceptions. I like to record acoustic guitars 2x and pan them 100% opposite for width. It's a huge sound stage.

But with anything artistic.... it's all up to you.

Okay, I didn't know I could choose how to export the RTs but I opened up BIAB and I see in the Render dialog box there is a 'channels' option with a dropdown menu for either auto, mono or stereo. Mine was set to auto (likely the default). That's good to know.

Thanks to all for responding.

OK, I'll point out how I may be different than some .. I know; people think I'm different already

When I get to the mixing stage, I'll move to a DAW so I can make the stereo tracks two separate mono tracks instead.
Then I can pick how far right/left each of them is, plus control how much right/left volume is added to help put the track(s) in a defined place in the stereo field.
It's extra work but allows some options.

Example: a stereo electric piano.
I may want the stereo sound of it to exist but be more to the right side of the stage .. panning would handle this.
But THEN (because of the mix) what if I need the most right side of the piano to be louder than the left (say the hihat is hiding some of the upper piano or something)
Using two mono tracks allows me to do this; not just pan it, but also control the balance of L/R side volume to my liking.

FWIW RB allows this, as do most DAWs
Guess my point is, maybe this is something people who use mono for 'more precise panning' may benefit from.
Don't have to give up stereo for more precise panning, there are ways to put a 'stereo set' of tracks exactly where you want in a mix, and sometimes even better. Just gotta work two tracks, so takes a little more effort, but if the result is better, why not?

To understand why we use stereo vs mono recordings of instruments, you have to visualize the instrument itself and the source of it's sound. Let's look at a few examples.

• Solo wind/brass instrument - produces sound primarily from the bell of the instrument. Sound does not change whether the mic is on the left or right of the bell. Does not benefit from stereo micing.
• Vocals - produces sound primarily from the mouth. Sound does not change whether the mic is on the left or right of the mouth. Does not benefit from stereo micing.
• Guitar and other handheld string instruments - produces sound primarily from the sound hole, but some sound from the neck. May benefit from stereo micing, but effect is subtle.
• Electric guitar - produces sound from the amplifier's speaker. Often there is only one speaker. Sometimes there are two or more speakers, but the same signal is fed to all speakers simultaneously - this does not benefit from stereo micing. Sometimes there are two speakers which are fed separate signals, or the guitarist uses more than one amplifier - this can benefit from stereo micing.
• Piano and other acoustic keyboard instruments - produces sound from each string (or course of strings), where strings are laid out in a left-to-right fashion. Significantly benefits from stereo micing. Electric pianos typically have a mono output, but may have stereo effects added to them, so they may or may not benefit from stereo recording.
• Drums and percussion - produces sound from the skin of each drum or surface of each cymbal. Each drum or cymbal produces monophonic sound, but usually drums/cymbals are laid out in a left-to-right fashion, which significantly benefits from stereo micing.
• Other instrument types not listed - take a look and listen to the instrument. Do you think the sound would be any different if you were to stand on the left of the instrument vs the right?

Basically, most instruments do not benefit from having two microphones put in front of them, unless they are either very large sound sources or they are actually collections of multiple smaller instruments. Typically this means that most instruments are best recorded in mono.



That depends on how much space in the mix you want that instrument to use - space being from left to right. Lets use a stereo piano for example - if you want that instrument to take up a large space, you would want to keep the track in stereo to keep it as wide as possible. If you only want the piano in the background, you may want to make it mono and pan it some amount left or right. Let your ears be the guide - don't worry about what you see on your screen, because ultimately the listener is not going to be looking at that when they listen to your song.

So true !

Doesn't it matter, though, if the listener is using headphones or not? A stereo mix of a singer on phones can sound very different from a mono recording even if the mics are only inches apart (and I'm not even thinking of "binaural" or "spatial" audio.)

I can see, though, why it might be preferable to "stereoify" such recordings during post-production rather than actually using two microphones (which I believe a tool like Logic's Direction Mixer does, as opposed to simple panning.)

I think the real thing one would need to consider is the spread of an instrument (Or a group of instruments) the the final stereo mix. A first violins section for example could consist of 16 violins and typically spread on the left sixth of the stereo field. A solo violin obviously is one violin that has a definite place in the stereo field. Using stereo and mono tracks makes this scenario very possible. It is then possible to place the soloist in the middle or to the edge of the first violins. This provides a greater level of realism. It is also possible to create a divisi say two smaller sections of first violins playing different parts into different areas (usually close) of the stereo field. Similar can be done with all string sections delivering a much fuller strings section.

Using both stereo and mono tracks gives far more flexibility.

Drums for example are usually placed somewhere close to the centre of the mix. If the drums were mono all drums including toms and cymbals would be coming from the same place. However if they are stereo it is possible to give the drums width then different toms and cymbals would be coming from subtly different areas (depending on the width given). You can get some really nice Tom rolls by spreading the stereo field of the drums.

These are just a couple of examples but the difference can be mind blowing.

Tony

And it also depends on personal preferences and the soundstage you hope to achieve. FWIW, we try to create a mix that presents a 4-5 piece band playing live with one listening from the center a few rows back This results for us a more open mix for which each “band member” has his/her space. It also results in relatively few tracks - typically 5-6 excluding vocals and drums/percussion . For our Americana/Blues Rock productions this seems to work. I try to envision that stage throughout the mix. I assuredly understand that for many, many genres this is not the approach to take. I’m making zero value judgements re other genres just attempting to give an example of how contextual it is … at least for us.

I deeply admire those who create more dense mixes with many tracks that sound great. And those who create airy mixes using many tracks but still sounding excellent. Those mixes are well above my pay grade.

And in the spirit of full disclosure I’m biased by playing bass in bluegrass bands for decades standing in the center staring at the backsides of the rest of the band!

Bud

You're talking about the mixing stage now, forget about that for a second. Grab a microphone and sing into it and record that - no effects, no mixing, nothing. Now grab two microphones and sing into them and record it. The two-mic recording will not sound "stereo" because the origin of your voice is one single point (your mouth). Any difference between the two mics will simply be due to proximity from each mic, or slight differences in the reverb in the room due to that mic's placement, or simply the fact that you have two microphones and therefore double the signal, which will make it louder (and we all know that louder sounds better).

Once you're in the mixing stage and you're adding stereo reverbs or stereo chorus or effects like that, then certainly it'll sound different if you flip it to mono.

Simon has laid it out nicely.

Reverb, however, in a room of nearly any size, is where should me of the space is created, after first choosing panning of the individual mono tracks. This is why you apply room reverb post fader, but plate and spring reverbs pre fader.

Drum kit panning is a matter of style and choice. Example, Rick Rubin’a mixes are often mono drum kit panned straight up the middle. If I’m not mistaken he did Tom Petty’s Wildflowers album mixed this way. (Quick stroll through 6 tracks confirms this), whereas hard panning is found on many of the other instruments on this album and it sounds absolutely fantastic.

Right, you were talking about whether to use one or two microphones, and I sort of free-associated it into a question about mono vs. stereo in general, sorry about that.

And I get that when talking RTs, the mono/stereo question really comes down to the same thing, since a mono RT, like a mic, is a single-point sound source that can be "upgraded" to stereo later.

I will say this:

If you have a singer onstage performing in a soundproof booth, and an audience is watching while listening to the audio feed through headphones, and you don't get to add any artificial stereo effects... it will sound better with two mics! =8^)

A mono signal panned left or right and with signal still in both never sounds quite right. I'm pretty sure that's because the ears/brain expects the signal phases also to match the intended direction, but they don't.

I think there's no easy solution to that unless the mixer can also shift the phase, but I'm not sure any mixer does that.

If I want a good stereo image, then I'd try to record the source, in stereo, in the orientation I want, probably using small-diaphragm microphones with the diaphragms coincident, i.e., crossed with the diaphragms one above the other.

Whether any particular artiste of mixing engineer does that probably depends upon the target audience. Most would not. It's too esoteric and few listeners would care that much anyway.

This is actually not true. There are many reasons for this fact, not the least that this is a completely artificial situation that does not exist in nature.

As someone who has worked extensively in anechoic chambers, it is highly disturbing to be in one for any length of time. Many describe it as an oppressive and heavy feeling. Because you receive back zero reflections of your own voice. It makes one feel like it is difficult to breathe.

One of the key factors here is how the singer works the mic in studio and live. This would sound very strange recorded in stereo and played back over phones with the voice moving all over the stereo field. A highly unnatural experience.

Think of any 70’s recording where everything is pretty dang dry. Steely Dan Aja comes to mind. Those recordings are about as close to the scenario you presented above. Listen all you like and you will not hear stereo field motion in any of the singing. Because they were recorded mono, as probably 99.9999% of any singer recorded in a studio or vocal booth has been recorded in the history of recording. Now the BGVs are spread over the stereo field, but the solo sections are absolutely mono and then effected.

Bottom line: be very thankful most solo instrument RTs were recorded with single microphones in mono as they are typically done in studio. This lets the user mix them just as they would be mixed by a professional mixing engineer into a stereo mix.

Of course, it was intended as an absurdly artificial example, and it would be difficult to test my "hypothesis". My point was that stereo sound, especially on headphones, can do more than just provide gross spatial location cues (i.e., low piano notes on the left, high notes on the right). Human hearing does not like a mono signal fed into both ears, this is not a natural experience. But record anything in stereo and the mics are effectively reproducing the binaural arrangement of your ears, so you will get that "open" experience even of a single point source.

Well since you mention it, human hearing also does not prefer dry stereo recordings played back over headphones because it sounds like the sound travels through the head rather outside of the head. To eliminate that, one needs to record binaurally in a non anechoic situation.

I used binaural head recording for 20+ years, first with Brüel & Kjær binaural heads and then with the “Aachen Head” devices from Head acoustics and now and then with my own home made Jecklin discs. I tried making some recordings of my acoustic guitar with the Aachen Head and I can tell you it is significantly more problematic getting mix worthy recordings than the typical mono and double mic recordings.

This is why even on Aja, you hear quite a bit of reverb added to the vocals even when most of the drums and other instruments are still very dry.

My only such experience was at the 1965 World's Fair, where Bell Telephone had an anechoic tunnel you could walk into. It probably wasn't very good but it was good enough. Quite a few years later and I still remember that it was indeed a strange experience.

By the way, this is a problem I have sometimes with phone conversations over headphones. If my own voice is significantly muffled, it can be really hard to keep talking. At which times I miss the old desktop handset days, when the earpiece would have your own voice in it, too.

Oh yes... "Any length of time" could be as short as minutes. It's a very uncomfortable environment.


As an aside...
I've just remembered a track I was listening to some time back, I became distracted trying to work out why it somehow just sounded "wrong". Eventually I realised what it was ... I could hear the piano with bass notes to the left and treble notes to the right, but I could also hear the player, and the player was clearly further away than the piano ... but wouldn't be, of course. Unless someone had swapped around the L/R channels. I guess the producer wanted it that way and thought nobody would notice.

There is a recording of Nils Frahm on a piano that is an ‘upright’ super grand piano that spans a couple of stories that I have which has no covers on any of the key mechanisms. You can hear all of the shuffling sounds of the force transfers from his fingers to the strings. In that regard it is a bit noisy and disconcerting. But on another hand it is quite beautiful sounding as the piano seems to have an almost ‘living and breathing’ sound. Years ago it was a free download. It’s two parts. The first is called “solo” and the second part is called “solo remains”. They are glorious recordings. I hope you can still get them somewhere. Supposedly they are fully improvised.

https://www.nilsfrahm.com/works/solo-remains/

Free download still

Yesss!!!

Interesting...

"Panned mono" should not be confused with true stereo.

Nothing wrong with recording a voice in true stereo — I do it all the time — but you need to understand what you are doing so that the result sounds natural. Start with a good sounding room…

Brian Wilson was publicised as being the first engineer to create artificial stereo with pan pots. He didn't invent the technique, of course, but you wouldn't know that from the buzz in the 1960s. That Capital board spent many years in a San Jose studio and I did many recordings on it over the years. BTW, Brian's deaf in one ear

Harv, I experimented with drums once where I split stereo to mono and then cloned each side so I had 2 of each. The 2 lefts I panned one to the wall and one half way, and then did the same for the right. It was noticeable but not so much as it was worth the trouble. I played with adding different reverb to the 2 "outside" channels and that created the illusion of more space somewhat.

I laid out this analogy once to explain panning and it may or may not fit this situation, but I'll do it anyway.

Imagine you are on a baseball diamond standing on home plate, and all the players are directly behind the pitcher. You can only see 1 player. That is center channel.

Now have the shortstop and 2nd baseman go to their position. Now you can see 3 players.
Then do the same for the 1st and 3rd basemen. Now you see 5 players.
Then have the left and right fielders go to position. Now you can see 7.

Looking at it now, you have 2 players panned hard left and right, 2 slightly toward center, 2 slightly more toward center, and there are 3 in a row. The catcher, pitcher and center fielder are vocals, bass and drums, right down the middle. The instruments are then 3 each left and right at different positions on the field, or degrees of panning.

So to the OP, since drum kits are many instruments at different degrees of placement from the listener's ears, they should be stereo. So things like tom tom sweeps can pan from side to side.

I tried to write a cricket analogy for we Brits, but I think it may be impossible

As a fellow Brit this gave me a giggle

Cricket is merely baseball with no panning

Or perhaps a Rick Rubin drum track

After a number of weeks couch bound, watching Ashes tests (Australia vs England) I’m not sure a cricket analogy would be a good thing.

Stick to music or baseball I’d say.;-0

Tony

Nice response. More clear than my reply a couple pages back.