Phase and width advice

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
Post Reply
User avatar
deeplink
Competition Winner
Posts: 1073
Joined: 08 Jul 2020
Location: Dubai / Cape Town
Contact:

10 Sep 2021

Hi RT

I ask the team to revie the below, and let me know if there are any red flags that pop out.

The goal:
To achieve width, and to maintain integrity in the mono signal.

The setup:
Dry signal runs through
Another signal is tapped from the dry, run into a delay (say 10 - 24ms).
The delayed signal is then is then split into L and R, with the R channel inverted.

The outcome;
To me, it appears I have a achieved the haas effect, with no change to a strong mid channel when in mono.

Is this correct?
I haven't before, or seen elsewhere, people simply flipping the polarity of the L or R channel to achieve width. So I'm just wondering if this a no go.
Get more Combinators at the deeplink website

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11175
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

10 Sep 2021

Per definition, you didnt made a Haas fx AFAIU.

What you created is a different L and R chanel, which makes the sound wide. This can, but also can not work in mono. Always depends on the timing and source material.

I am noob, so i might be wrong here...
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
deeplink
Competition Winner
Posts: 1073
Joined: 08 Jul 2020
Location: Dubai / Cape Town
Contact:

10 Sep 2021

Loque wrote:
10 Sep 2021
Per definition, you didnt made a Haas fx AFAIU.

What you created is a different L and R chanel, which makes the sound wide. This can, but also can not work in mono. Always depends on the timing and source material.

I am noob, so i might be wrong here...
Yes correct, it's not actually Haas. As the left and right are not delayed from each another.

Maybe it's psuedo stereo? As in my mind, the left and right differ from each other slightly - because of the polarity flip.

After some remuneration, I've realised that I'm simply just creating a delayed side/difference channel.

It ends up sounding like a Haas effect, but maybe my ears are stupid.
Get more Combinators at the deeplink website

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11175
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

10 Sep 2021

deeplink wrote:
10 Sep 2021
Loque wrote:
10 Sep 2021
Per definition, you didnt made a Haas fx AFAIU.

What you created is a different L and R chanel, which makes the sound wide. This can, but also can not work in mono. Always depends on the timing and source material.

I am noob, so i might be wrong here...
Yes correct, it's not actually Haas. As the left and right are not delayed from each another.

Maybe it's psuedo stereo? As in my mind, the left and right differ from each other slightly - because of the polarity flip.

After some remuneration, I've realised that I'm simply just creating a delayed side/difference channel.

It ends up sounding like a Haas effect, but maybe my ears are stupid.
IF it is "nearly" a Haas, you should see this in a gonio meter or you could let the sound "move" exactly in the stereo field with the delay.
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

10 Sep 2021

deeplink wrote:
10 Sep 2021
Hi RT

I ask the team to revie the below, and let me know if there are any red flags that pop out.

The goal:
To achieve width, and to maintain integrity in the mono signal.

The setup:
Dry signal runs through
Another signal is tapped from the dry, run into a delay (say 10 - 24ms).
The delayed signal is then is then split into L and R, with the R channel inverted.

The outcome;
To me, it appears I have a achieved the haas effect, with no change to a strong mid channel when in mono.

Is this correct?
I haven't before, or seen elsewhere, people simply flipping the polarity of the L or R channel to achieve width. So I'm just wondering if this a no go.
With your setup, the mono channel will be strong/audible but there will still be phase cancellation.

User avatar
Benedict
Competition Winner
Posts: 2747
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Contact:

08 Oct 2021

I know this is an older thread but I would advise against such things on a master. There can be situations that you may do this on an instrument but on the masters, it is unwise in the extreme and there are way better ways to get a good stereo image than messing with phase or widening tricks.

Often I hear mixes that are over-stereo which makes them less rich, less wide in feeling. Even if you can sit there and hear things out past the perimeter.

Contrast is a great place to start. If everything is stereo, nothing stands out. If most of the mix is mono (or reasonably narrow) and a few instruments are naturally wide, the contrast makes them feel very wide. The mix overall feels very wide as a result.

A mono mix sounds more muscular than everything splashed out. Once you have that sorted, you can move a few things out a bit and the overall feel will be both solid & wide.

Another thing to consider is space for reverb. Reverb sets the whole feel of the scene the song happens in. If the sounds push hard at the sides, there is no space for the reverb to come around the outside. This means that the element that is designed to make something feel big is unable to feel like it is wrapping around. therefore the mix can be hard-panned but feel lacking in width and depth.

:-)
Benedict Roff-Marsh
Completely burned and gone

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1776
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

19 Oct 2021

Benedict wrote:
08 Oct 2021
I know this is an older thread but I would advise against such things on a master. There can be situations that you may do this on an instrument but on the masters, it is unwise in the extreme and there are way better ways to get a good stereo image than messing with phase or widening tricks.

Often I hear mixes that are over-stereo which makes them less rich, less wide in feeling. Even if you can sit there and hear things out past the perimeter.

Contrast is a great place to start. If everything is stereo, nothing stands out. If most of the mix is mono (or reasonably narrow) and a few instruments are naturally wide, the contrast makes them feel very wide. The mix overall feels very wide as a result.

A mono mix sounds more muscular than everything splashed out. Once you have that sorted, you can move a few things out a bit and the overall feel will be both solid & wide.

Another thing to consider is space for reverb. Reverb sets the whole feel of the scene the song happens in. If the sounds push hard at the sides, there is no space for the reverb to come around the outside. This means that the element that is designed to make something feel big is unable to feel like it is wrapping around. therefore the mix can be hard-panned but feel lacking in width and depth.

:-)
Great advice Benedict!

User avatar
Kalm
Posts: 554
Joined: 03 Jun 2016
Location: Austin
Contact:

19 Oct 2021

deeplink wrote:
10 Sep 2021
Hi RT

I ask the team to revie the below, and let me know if there are any red flags that pop out.

The goal:
To achieve width, and to maintain integrity in the mono signal.

The setup:
Dry signal runs through
Another signal is tapped from the dry, run into a delay (say 10 - 24ms).
The delayed signal is then is then split into L and R, with the R channel inverted.

The outcome;
To me, it appears I have a achieved the haas effect, with no change to a strong mid channel when in mono.

Is this correct?
I haven't before, or seen elsewhere, people simply flipping the polarity of the L or R channel to achieve width. So I'm just wondering if this a no go.
Well to be clear, the Haas effect is a perception of indistinguishable sound location. The delay has to be under ~40 ms for the brain to be dumb enough to not locate the source. So technically speaking you are probably making the effect but with diminishing returns.

If you want to achieve width, there is no other and better way than to pan. The whole idea of width is literally the placement of sources in a manner where the brain must localize sound. Whether this is object based or frequency based is up to you. The less its object based (individual sounds panned) the greater the risk. Think about it like stretching the universe :lol: The sheer ripples it could cause would be astronomical. When trying to combine multiple sources that have been stretched in such a manner the use of stereo imaging or wideners, you will have to deal with phase correlation issues because you're blending frequencies in a space that wasn't "intended" to be there in the first place. And the only way to achieve this is to falsely create a difference between the L/R channels.

Which brings me to my last point. Anytime you have a difference in the left and right channel, your brain can automatically localize the positioning of the object. It's like anything else that pervades our senses. If two things contrast, we can perceive it, and the bigger the contrast, the easier it is. Now if we take your example and use the exact SAME SOUND that plays about the exact SAME TIME in which the temporal difference is due to a phase shift, then your differences are miniscule. When you collapse it to mono, there wasn't much of a difference between the two sources so you'll hear it collapsed in mono. But as Benedict said IIRC you will hear the phase issues cause both sources have to play out the same speaker. Any if you stand far away enough from the speaker, you'll probably get the same sensation if your brain localizes your speakers in the same 'place.' IOW, imagine a set of twins that split from each other and everything was the same but their personalities. That's what this situation makes :lol:
Courtesy of The Brew | Watch My Tutorials | Mac Mini Intel i7 Quad-Core | 16 GB RAM | Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB | Reason 11 Suite | Studio One 5 Professional | Presonus Quantum | Komplete Kontrol 49 MK2 | Event Opals | Follow me on Instagram

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests