Why are some Reason devices mono? It's annoying me

[mark999]

Why are some Reason devices mono? I think most producers and listeners prefer a nice wide stereo mix, yet some Reason devices make it hard to accomplish this because they are mono.
For example, the Subtractor, DDL-1 Delay and DF-101 chorus/flanger are all mono. If you load up a Subtractor and add a chorus to it and then a DDL delay, instead of getting a beautiful wide sounding instrument, you get a muffled sound that is dead center in the mix. It doesn't sound modern or contemporary in any way.
It would be much nicer sound if Subtractor was stereo, DDL-1 was stereo and the chorus was stereo also.
What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

[Loque]

Subtractor does not have any controls to create a stereo output, so there is no need for a stereo output. If you want to have stereo signal, just duplicate it, connect the other channel, change the settings slightly and you have stereo.

DDL doesnt have any stereo like control too, it is a mono fx. Do the same as described for Subtractor.

Chrous/Flanger is also only mono, do the same as described with Subtractor, modulate each channel differently.

They are mono by design. Some would call it lack of feature, but others may recognize, you can handle each channel individually and you have more control.

Stereo comes from differncies in left/right signals, not from a fx or synth or oscilator per se.

[antic604]

Why are some Reason devices mono? I think most producers and listeners prefer a nice wide stereo mix, yet some Reason devices make it hard to accomplish this because they are mono.
For example, the Subtractor, DDL-1 Delay and DF-101 chorus/flanger are all mono. If you load up a Subtractor and add a chorus to it and then a DDL delay, instead of getting a beautiful wide sounding instrument, you get a muffled sound that is dead center in the mix. It doesn't sound modern or contemporary in any way.
It would be much nicer sound if Subtractor was stereo, DDL-1 was stereo and the chorus was stereo also.
What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

No benefits, just like many real life hardware devices - instruments & effects - are mono as well. Also, you're referring the most "legacy" Reason devices, which are indeed made to be simple, with very low CPU usage and meant to be used to construct bigger patches using Combinator and routing: pile up several copies of Subtractor with the same patch but slightly detuned / panned differently, routed to separate delays or phasers/flangers with also slightly different setup, etc. They're just building blocks.

[Rason]

Why are some Reason devices mono? I think most producers and listeners prefer a nice wide stereo mix, yet some Reason devices make it hard to accomplish this because they are mono.
For example, the Subtractor, DDL-1 Delay and DF-101 chorus/flanger are all mono. If you load up a Subtractor and add a chorus to it and then a DDL delay, instead of getting a beautiful wide sounding instrument, you get a muffled sound that is dead center in the mix. It doesn't sound modern or contemporary in any way.
It would be much nicer sound if Subtractor was stereo, DDL-1 was stereo and the chorus was stereo also.
What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

Hi. The modern lush devices have routing under the hood that can be accomplished by proper rouging and layering with old reason devices. Benefit is to understand the signal path and get educated. Later it becomes fun to build own instruments. But you are right it is hard to start composing with the old reason having the 'reason sound' and having to actually learn the stuff to compete with the modern vst presets.

Odesláno z mého D5503 pomocí Tapatalk

[deepndark]

It has never been a must, that something needs to be stereo. Subtractor can be stereo if you add two different subtractors with two different sounding sources by panning each to an opposite sides. You can do stereo-kind of stuff with in a combinator. Fake stereos included. I usually want my basses to be in mono, not stereo. If you have a busy mix with tens of stereo instruments simultaneously, it's just a mess and doesn't sound good. Create a Thor, route it via a M-class Stereo Imager, and notice how it's still mono. If you enable the Thor's Chorus, it will become a stereoish sound.

[TheNoog]

What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

Because you don't want your low end bass to be stereo.

[Zac]

For me it's not an issue. These instruments and fx makes panning straight forward. They are old. Sometimes a modern wide patch just soaks up too much space so i end up narrowing via the mix channel width option.

[jimmyklane]

Why are some Reason devices mono? I think most producers and listeners prefer a nice wide stereo mix, yet some Reason devices make it hard to accomplish this because they are mono.
For example, the Subtractor, DDL-1 Delay and DF-101 chorus/flanger are all mono. If you load up a Subtractor and add a chorus to it and then a DDL delay, instead of getting a beautiful wide sounding instrument, you get a muffled sound that is dead center in the mix. It doesn't sound modern or contemporary in any way.
It would be much nicer sound if Subtractor was stereo, DDL-1 was stereo and the chorus was stereo also.
What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

Dead center in the mix, yes. Boring or muffled? I’m going to be painfully blunt here: that is programming skill. I’m not AT ALL stating that you are an unskilled synthesis, however a mono instrument can most certainly be exciting and bold even dead center in the mix! Subtractor can sound extremely bright and modern if you program it to do so...I’ve never seen a phase rotator in any other reason device, nor the add/subtract/divide architecture. As others have alluded to, you can create a combinator with a line mixer and use the same patch but detune them against each other slightly. If you then hard pan the channels left/right you will have a very wide, but dry sound. You can add depth (behind the speakers) by adding a short reverb to the sound to give the instrument its own space. An excellent example of multiple spaces existing in a mix can be heard on songs such as “owner of a lonley heart” by Yes or “Thriller” by Michael Jackson.

Of course, we all make more modern music, many of us some form of electronic music, but the mixing examples still apply.

In addition, I’ve got an entire studio full of synths and samplers that have only mono outputs/inputs. It is not a limitation, but a challenge. Have a mid-harmony that is mono? Try automating the panning to fit different areas of the stereo panorama during the song. Have a big lead that you want to stand out? Well, if all your pads and drums and bass are super wide stereo then the mono track will stand out simply due to the very precise localization inherent in a mono point source in a stereo mix. In addition, if every single track in your music is stereo or “fake stereo” (Haas delays, unison, reverb tricks, multiple instruments detuned, and all the other tips mentioned here) you WILL end up with a flat and boring mix. The CONTRAST between stereo and mono elements, along with multiple “spaces” (you can also play the part back through your speakers and record your room in stereo like Bruce Swedien did for Thriller) and differing dynamics, or lack of them, will define your mix and how successful it is in conveying your message.

If you’d like some really solid and practical advice on this and many other subjects in mixing I strongly and heartily suggest the excellent book “The Mixing Engineer’s Handbook” by Bobby Owsinski. Excellent book that helped me along tremendously. If you can afford it, try some hardware...something like an Eventide H3000(1st choice) an Eventide H9 (2nd choice) or the Eventide Anthology bundle VSTs (3rd choice). These get cheaper in order and all three will provide you with a very smooth and convincing “spread” on a mono signal. I can also recommend the Strymon DECO for that purpose, or, slightly more obscure, the Ibanez SC10 super stereo chorus (which will make even a mono bass stereo but still sit properly in a mix...I think it must roll off the effect in the lowest octaves).

Putting real hardware into your mixing and recording chain can both inspire you as well as make for a sound that’s difficult or impossible to obtain in the box.


I hope some of these are of some assistance to you! If you want to, you can PM me and we can speak at length...I’ll even check out your music for you (I still mix records commercially, so it’s part of my living) if you want and make some specific comments based upon it instead of the generalized advice here. Up to you, and please take no offense at anything I’ve said....I’m here to help not to bash anybody nor make them feel like I’m “better” in some way.

All the Best,
-Jim

[esselfortium]

CF-101 is not mono.

If you need a delay with more customization, try The Echo.

Beyond that, try these two freebies from Kilohearts:
https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... khs-delay/
https://shop.propellerheads.se/rack-ext ... hs-chorus/

[aeox]

Why are some Reason devices mono? I think most producers and listeners prefer a nice wide stereo mix, yet some Reason devices make it hard to accomplish this because they are mono.
For example, the Subtractor, DDL-1 Delay and DF-101 chorus/flanger are all mono. If you load up a Subtractor and add a chorus to it and then a DDL delay, instead of getting a beautiful wide sounding instrument, you get a muffled sound that is dead center in the mix. It doesn't sound modern or contemporary in any way.
It would be much nicer sound if Subtractor was stereo, DDL-1 was stereo and the chorus was stereo also.
What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

What are the benefits of "boring mono" ?

Without mono sounds, your brain/ears can't appreciate the wide sounds. It's all about contrast.

[kuhliloach]

It's worth mentioning that to a new user the behavior of Reason regarding mono / stereo might be confusing. Don't worry. An unsuspecting user can start with a mono source, apply a stereo effect, then find themselves with a stereo signal, but might not understand why. Well, when the stereo effect was added Reason decided to make the mono information stereo. Flipping the rack shows what happened.

I, myself, enjoy using mono signals and often flip the rack to yank the right cable out of an effect or device, forcing a given chain that started in stereo to be mono. I also sometimes use the width dial on the SSL to force a stereo track into mono temporarily or permanently.

In this case I feel Reason is performing the proper behavior even if the situation is confusing to new users. Perhaps upgrades to the user interface could make this easier to understand and visualize.

[PortendingHonor]

Gotta have sounds that "anchor" the mix. It's great to have wide far flung stereo sounds and fill out the sonic pallet, but the widest mixes usually have at least one mono sound somewhere that help "anchor" the rest for your ears.

[jimmyklane]

Gotta have sounds that "anchor" the mix. It's great to have wide far flung stereo sounds and fill out the sonic pallet, but the widest mixes usually have at least one mono sound somewhere that help "anchor" the rest for your ears.

100% agreed.

If everything is stereo then in truth nothing is wide....it’s just dual mono since there is no context for “what is wide”

[PortendingHonor]

in truth nothing is wide....it’s just dual mono

That's not necessarily true either. Most stereo synths are modulated a little different with the sound in each channel, or panning between them. It's only dual mono if it's the same thing in both sides. Either way, if all you have is wide synths, then they're stomping on each other and competing in the mix, too.

[cgijoe]

in truth nothing is wide....it’s just dual mono

That's not necessarily true either. Most stereo synths are modulated a little different with the sound in each channel, or panning between them. It's only dual mono if it's the same thing in both sides. Either way, if all you have is wide synths, then they're stomping on each other and competing in the mix, too.

You can have dual mono with different sounds in each channel. Just take a listen to Stereolab's Margarine Eclipse

[jimmyklane]

in truth nothing is wide....it’s just dual mono

That's not necessarily true either. Most stereo synths are modulated a little different with the sound in each channel, or panning between them. It's only dual mono if it's the same thing in both sides. Either way, if all you have is wide synths, then they're stomping on each other and competing in the mix, too.

That was exactly my point...I should have wrote “about as much good as dual mono”...

[selig]

in truth nothing is wide....it’s just dual mono

That's not necessarily true either. Most stereo synths are modulated a little different with the sound in each channel, or panning between them. It's only dual mono if it's the same thing in both sides. Either way, if all you have is wide synths, then they're stomping on each other and competing in the mix, too.

The point I believe jimmy was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is based on an old saying I learned in the 80s: if everything is stereo, then nothing is "stereo". Meaning that the result of everything being wide "stereo" is a wash of sound where there are no elements you can "point to". This is fantastic for ambient drone music (like I'm known to make), but maybe not so much for tracks that need to kick a little butt. As with everything in music, it's "horses for courses", which is to say it's contextual - sometimes you want an ambient wash, other times you want a more realistic stereo field for a "you are there" soundstage, but more likely it's going to be a mix of the two in my experience.

BTW, some synths like Antidote pan the individual voices when using stacked oscillator patches, producing a wide and totally "natural" stereo effect (in as much as a "natural" effect it possible with a synthetic instrument!).

[O1B]

Who says?
All these RULES. Made up in 1982.

What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

Because you don't want your low end bass to be stereo.

[TheNoog]

Because you don't want your low end bass to be stereo.

Yeah, you can also invent your non-conventional arhythmic drumpatters. But I doubt anyone but you wants to listen to it.

[normen]

Who says?
All these RULES. Made up in 1982.

"Authority" looks more like a compliment in this context ^^ Remember Selig comes in and gives his experience and point of view on a thread where the title is a question. Sometimes it looks like people need to get their mental butt off their school bench and stop dividing people into teachers and pupils. How in the world can somebody feel "regulated" in this context? You can do whatever the fuck you want in Reason on your computer, just don't come crying when you put on your favorite record and it hurts a little when coming from your own mix The moment I personally achieved that in a satisfying amount of cases was the moment where I stopped worrying about what you would call "rules" as well

[selig]

Who says?
All these RULES. Made up in 1982.

Since I didn’t mention any rules, I’m assuming you’re not talking about me? I’m the “horses for course” guy, who uses whatever works for the song I’m working on at the moment. I don’t often use templates (though I’ve kept a side-chain filter in the Master Compressor for some time now), I change my overall workflow fairly regularly, and as someone who struggles to focus I love that making music basically means not repeating yourself. What worked for me yesterday is unlikely to work today.

I have even used stereo bass before, and liked it!

But I DO recognize trends when I see them, and those CAN guide my starting points (though I often end up at very different destinations).

So I too support you in questioning authority, especially one’s own authority.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Reasonable man]

Why are some Reason devices mono? I think most producers and listeners prefer a nice wide stereo mix, yet some Reason devices make it hard to accomplish this because they are mono.
For example, the Subtractor, DDL-1 Delay and DF-101 chorus/flanger are all mono. If you load up a Subtractor and add a chorus to it and then a DDL delay, instead of getting a beautiful wide sounding instrument, you get a muffled sound that is dead center in the mix. It doesn't sound modern or contemporary in any way.
It would be much nicer sound if Subtractor was stereo, DDL-1 was stereo and the chorus was stereo also.
What are the benefits of having a boring mono devices instead of lush wide stereo devices?

Dead center in the mix, yes. Boring or muffled? I’m going to be painfully blunt here: that is programming skill. I’m not AT ALL stating that you are an unskilled synthesis, however a mono instrument can most certainly be exciting and bold even dead center in the mix! Subtractor can sound extremely bright and modern if you program it to do so...I’ve never seen a phase rotator in any other reason device, nor the add/subtract/divide architecture. As others have alluded to, you can create a combinator with a line mixer and use the same patch but detune them against each other slightly. If you then hard pan the channels left/right you will have a very wide, but dry sound. You can add depth (behind the speakers) by adding a short reverb to the sound to give the instrument its own space. An excellent example of multiple spaces existing in a mix can be heard on songs such as “owner of a lonley heart” by Yes or “Thriller” by Michael Jackson.

Of course, we all make more modern music, many of us some form of electronic music, but the mixing examples still apply.

In addition, I’ve got an entire studio full of synths and samplers that have only mono outputs/inputs. It is not a limitation, but a challenge. Have a mid-harmony that is mono? Try automating the panning to fit different areas of the stereo panorama during the song. Have a big lead that you want to stand out? Well, if all your pads and drums and bass are super wide stereo then the mono track will stand out simply due to the very precise localization inherent in a mono point source in a stereo mix. In addition, if every single track in your music is stereo or “fake stereo” (Haas delays, unison, reverb tricks, multiple instruments detuned, and all the other tips mentioned here) you WILL end up with a flat and boring mix. The CONTRAST between stereo and mono elements, along with multiple “spaces” (you can also play the part back through your speakers and record your room in stereo like Bruce Swedien did for Thriller) and differing dynamics, or lack of them, will define your mix and how successful it is in conveying your message.

If you’d like some really solid and practical advice on this and many other subjects in mixing I strongly and heartily suggest the excellent book “The Mixing Engineer’s Handbook” by Bobby Owsinski. Excellent book that helped me along tremendously. If you can afford it, try some hardware...something like an Eventide H3000(1st choice) an Eventide H9 (2nd choice) or the Eventide Anthology bundle VSTs (3rd choice). These get cheaper in order and all three will provide you with a very smooth and convincing “spread” on a mono signal. I can also recommend the Strymon DECO for that purpose, or, slightly more obscure, the Ibanez SC10 super stereo chorus (which will make even a mono bass stereo but still sit properly in a mix...I think it must roll off the effect in the lowest octaves).

Putting real hardware into your mixing and recording chain can both inspire you as well as make for a sound that’s difficult or impossible to obtain in the box.


I hope some of these are of some assistance to you! If you want to, you can PM me and we can speak at length...I’ll even check out your music for you (I still mix records commercially, so it’s part of my living) if you want and make some specific comments based upon it instead of the generalized advice here. Up to you, and please take no offense at anything I’ve said....I’m here to help not to bash anybody nor make them feel like I’m “better” in some way.

All the Best,
-Jim

Damm this is a great answer to the question, I remember subscribing to Lynda.com about 2 years ago and there was alot of bobby Owsinski mixing videos there that they're just wasn't time to get through before my yearly subscription ran out. I wish i'd have watched them first now.

[O1B]

Thanks for the Coloring EQ reminder .
May Purchase for sure, I forgot to grab a couple others as well.

And, no way was i talking about you. I wouldn't be so disrespectful.
If I was joking, Id mention 'WHY NO Eurorack SUBFORUM.... but, i would only be joking.

I have much respect for your ideas, methodologies, experiences, and accomplishments, Selig. Please, dont ever think otherwise.

Differences of opinions between us is just that.

And, yes! to Stereo Bass!

Quad Panner. My next Dream Purchase:

Who says?
All these RULES. Made up in 1982.

Since I didn’t mention any rules, I’m assuming you’re not talking about me? I’m the “horses for course” guy, who uses whatever works for the song I’m working on at the moment. I don’t often use templates (though I’ve kept a side-chain filter in the Master Compressor for some time now), I change my overall workflow fairly regularly, and as someone who struggles to focus I love that making music basically means not repeating yourself. What worked for me yesterday is unlikely to work today.

I have even used stereo bass before, and liked it!

But I DO recognize trends when I see them, and those CAN guide my starting points (though I often end up at very different destinations).

So I too support you in questioning authority, especially one’s own authority.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[O1B]

Big up, Normen! And, yes! The pic means 'I concur!'


About the teacher/student thing.. what else can we be, essentially?
we are born to learn? ... knowing when we should switch chairs is the rub.

I welcome Authority. Sometimes Authority is my responsibility.
. But, when necessary, I'll question It.

Who says?
All these RULES. Made up in 1982.

"Authority" looks more like a compliment in this context ^^ Remember Selig comes in and gives his experience and point of view on a thread where the title is a question. Sometimes it looks like people need to get their mental butt off their school bench and stop dividing people into teachers and pupils. How in the world can somebody feel "regulated" in this context? You can do whatever the fuck you want in Reason on your computer, just don't come crying when you put on your favorite record and it hurts a little when coming from your own mix The moment I personally achieved that in a satisfying amount of cases was the moment where I stopped worrying about what you would call "rules" as well

[O1B]

" invent your non-conventional arhythmic drumpatters."

But I doubt anyone but you wants to listen to it.

DONT BE SO HARD ON YOUR MUSIC.
AND, if you post it - SURE! I'LL GIVE A LISTEN. Im sure its not that bad.

Buck up!

Because you don't want your low end bass to be stereo.

Yeah, you can also invent your non-conventional arhythmic drumpatters. But I doubt anyone but you wants to listen to it.