Sure... adding more speakers would work, but that means more weight, more setup time, more cables, more, more, more.[emoji1] I'm working toward less, less, less.[emoji1]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This was last nights event I attended.
- Thread starter MIXMASTERMACHOM
- Start date
Sure... adding more speakers would work, but that means more weight, more setup time, more cables, more, more, more.[emoji1] I'm working toward less, less, less.[emoji1]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am an entertainer who provides music and lighting to enhance an event
You are more than welcome to disagree. Even if you were to add in more tops, you still have L on one side and R on the other - unless you alternate L and R along both sides - which in some instances, is just not feasible - and for the level of effort, your customers really won't notice a difference vs sending the same signal to all cabinets.
Finding someone that wants to pay you more because you want to provide a stereo signal may be tough.
There are plenty of venues play, where "more tops" is simply not an option, due to space.
There are a few where stereo is simply not an option, due to the layout of the room. ("L" shaped, etc)
There are also venues that would simply not allow you to take that much time to setup and/or breakdown.
A combined mono signal is usually the best choice for what we do, so the entire room can hear the same thing
If space is tight, you don't need more tops anyway. L-shaped and totally odd configurations are rare, and I am not addressing them. In the typical rectangular space that we see 90% of the time, you should be configuring for stereo reception in the sitting area and dance floor. It sounds better. And is true to the recording. Music is recorded in stereo for a reason. Instruments, voices, and effects are placed in space by the engineer. Panning of sounds is common.
Of course, anyone can set up their rig any way they want. But I will always strive for stereo reproduction because it sounds best to me.
I disagree, it sounds bad and I consider it my responsibility to provide good sound, not mediocre sound that is uniform to all listeners.
Absolutely untrue. If you provide really good sound to a room filled with hundreds of people, you will get gigs on the basis of that quality of sound. They will pay more because they heard YOU and they want THAT. Same effect as good lighting.
How long have you been doing this as long as it sounds good no one will complain I will write you a check for every one you book because they liked your stereo sound
The part in red is why - not because you have stereo sound. Stereo / Mono doesn't play into this as much as you might think. Again, tracks from today, while they may be stereo - there is no noticeable difference to the ear. Go back to the 60's and you could easily hear it. Some bands did it in the 80's.
Think bigger. Quality encompasses the whole production, including good sound. Properly configured stereo sound outperforms mono sound. It just does. It includes information that places instruments and voices in a 3 dimensional sound field. If it didn't engineers wouldn't bother with it. They do bother with it. It sounds better.
While it is not always possible to achieve a good stereo effect in the wild due to weird acoustics or spaces, if it can be done, it should be done. You will be providing a better product. People won't know whether it's stereo or mono, they'll just pick up on the spatial and temporal cues and will subconsciously realize that the sound is amazingly good.
In 'common' designed rooms where the aim is the dance floor, most of us are doing stereo - but it's simply not feasible for all events.
I think you are talking about the hard panning for effect that used to be more common, but virtually every record, even in 2017, is recorded and mastered in stereo with level and phasing to create a 3 dimensional sound stage. When I can provide that information to my listeners, I am going to strive to do it.
Obviously outdoors and odd spaces are instances where mono is going to do the job better, but most of the time I want to hear a stereo image, and I will bring extra speakers to achieve it.
If you want to be the 'go to guy' for good sound, how exactly do you do that if you're not providing good sound to all listeners? In some instances, mono is the only way to achieve good sound without going overboard with equipment and setup. In some cases, more equipment is worse. You'll discover this as you move down the path and gain knowledge.
As I already stated, in typical configuration rooms, most of us are running stereo. Those that are running mono are usually doing it because of room / space configuration.
Agreed, and again, most of us are running stereo with 'common' speaker placement layouts. While everything today is mastered in stereo, take a look at the actual information in each channel - you will see that it's not very different.
I agree. There are times when stereo just won't work. If the audience isn't centered and getting equal levels from both sides, then mono will work better. Most of my gigs so far have been rectangular with centering possible. So in that case, I go for a stereo sound field. It makes ME happy, and if I'm happy, the clients get a better ME.
While this is true, there is a 'sweet spot' that this encompasses - and it's not everywhere.