mono to stereo - DSPplug CCBY

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

here you are, mention Me if you use

DSPplug mono to stereo variant 1-8.fsm

(601.92 KiB) Downloaded 1179 times

I use this in My commercial product, VSTplug mono to stereo:
https://www.kvraudio.com/marketplace/vstplug-mono-to-stereo-by-king-oz-records

[lalalandsynth]

Crashes my Alpha FS .
Cannot open

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

Crashes my Alpha FS .
Cannot open

It works for output on 32 and will output to a working 64 bit vst; but don't turn on the direct sound out. Probably an alpha bug but I guess that could be superceded maybe by a different white noise employed maybe, I don't know.

I just avoid turning on the sound in flowstone 64 for this one, better to test in a daw anyways.

[lalalandsynth]

I meant it will not open , when I try and open it , it crashesþ

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

I meant it will not open , when I try and open it , it crashesþ

Yeah you'd have to edit it in 32, remove the direct audio out and then load in 64

[k brown]

There are several serious misconceptions going on here, concerning stereo vs mono (some things that PS Audio guy says in the video just made me laugh out loud):
https://vstplug.com/new-equalizer-named-silverhawk/

The biggest one is that the Beatles stereo albums were re-mixed from mono! They were not, nor is such a thing even possible, for there is nothing to 'mix'. Even in mono recordings that were 'reprocessed for stereo effect' there was no 'remixing', just 'processing'. Nor were the Beatles recordings done 'in mono'. They were multitrack recordings (as almost all were then, and since), and two different mixes were done from these - the mono and a stereo. The mono mixes sound better because George Martin didn't personally like stereo (probably because so many early stereo pop records were gimmicky ping-pong affairs) and personally oversaw the mono mixes. He left the stereo mix to others, and didn't care what they sounded like. Pretty sure I even read that they weren't done by EMI at Abbey Road, but in America at Capitol Records. The other reason they don't sound as good is that they were mixed from dubs, not the original multitracks. That and Capitol's pop engineers and equipment just weren't as advanced as EMI's. All this has nothing to do with an inherent superiority of mono over stereo, which is absurd. The only superiority of mono over stereo is the case of listening to a mono recording on stereo speakers; such recordings will always sound better on a single speaker of equivilent quality, for a variety of reasons I won't go into. With anything, there are great and lousy stereo recordings/mixes and the same for mono. But a well-done stereo mix will always sound better than any mono mix, again for a variety of reasons (just ask Alan Parsons which he prefers). And a true stereo recording done with an actual stereo array of microphones will always sound better than a pan-potted stereo one made from multiple mono tracks - but such recordings are only practical with acoustic/classical music groups, not a pop/rock music group. A notable exception is the Cowboy Junkies' 'Binaural' album, which was actually made with a single binaural dummy head microphone, and no mixing.

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

Hmm, these are interesting points. In the states you say? I'll remember that one.

It would seem that in this video they talk about remastering at abbey road stereos however:
https://youtu.be/xzS69ul92lA

But maybe initially, you're correct.

But yes, ultimately it comes down to phase variance. Mono sounds like a sound ultimately that is the closest and stereo something that is far away. So what it comes down to really is comfort level. Something to be said when twiddling with stereo width. IE: Celine Dion in mono or some Mad Rapper? lol.

I like both being used strategically for their use but with physics and standards in mind. I like to use a low pass rather than just volume to emulate a left to right orientation due to the limitation of treble and its ability to carry over a space of distance. I guess planning that comes down to the studio or space you emulate.

Once you emulate that, it comes down to using a method like this that creates a bit of discern-able phase and then treat each side accordingly with these standards in mind. I do however like haas, but it's really only maybe realistic if the individual or instrument is meant to be perceived as being very close. I think that is maybe the best usage for it.

I like, when all is said and done that this method is a bit closer to true stereo, and once I'm able to integrate this:
https://vstplug.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/new-range-finder.mp4?_=3

and here's a better example with angles:
https://vstplug.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/perfect-degrees-and-angles.mp4?_=6

Things will change undoubtedly.

[k brown]

That video is about a recent remastering, not the original stereo LPs mixed in the '60s.

[wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]

That video is about a recent remastering, not the original stereo LPs mixed in the '60s.

Yes, it was My father who'd explained it to Me, I guess I never bothered to research exactly how in any depth but will and will edit the older article.

[Halon]

There are several serious misconceptions going on here, concerning stereo vs mono (some things that PS Audio guy says in the video just made me laugh out loud):
https://vstplug.com/new-equalizer-named-silverhawk/

The biggest one is that the Beatles stereo albums were re-mixed from mono! They were not, nor is such a thing even possible, for there is nothing to 'mix'. Even in mono recordings that were 'reprocessed for stereo effect' there was no 'remixing', just 'processing'. Nor were the Beatles recordings done 'in mono'. They were multitrack recordings (as almost all were then, and since), and two different mixes were done from these - the mono and a stereo. The mono mixes sound better because George Martin didn't personally like stereo (probably because so many early stereo pop records were gimmicky ping-pong affairs) and personally oversaw the mono mixes. He left the stereo mix to others, and didn't care what they sounded like. Pretty sure I even read that they weren't done by EMI at Abbey Road, but in America at Capitol Records. The other reason they don't sound as good is that they were mixed from dubs, not the original multitracks. That and Capitol's pop engineers and equipment just weren't as advanced as EMI's. All this has nothing to do with an inherent superiority of mono over stereo, which is absurd. The only superiority of mono over stereo is the case of listening to a mono recording on stereo speakers; such recordings will always sound better on a single speaker of equivilent quality, for a variety of reasons I won't go into. With anything, there are great and lousy stereo recordings/mixes and the same for mono. But a well-done stereo mix will always sound better than any mono mix, again for a variety of reasons (just ask Alan Parsons which he prefers). And a true stereo recording done with an actual stereo array of microphones will always sound better than a pan-potted stereo one made from multiple mono tracks - but such recordings are only practical with acoustic/classical music groups, not a pop/rock music group. A notable exception is the Cowboy Junkies' 'Binaural' album, which was actually made with a single binaural dummy head microphone, and no mixing.

They were done at Abbey Road, not in the us.