Getting a stereo sound with one mic

[guitarman13]

First of all, here is the signal chain I use to record my Carvin Legacy half stack: Shure SM57> Behringer MIC200 Preamp> soundcard. Lately I've been creating two seperate tracks when I record and panning one to the left and one to the right. But, I'm still not getting a stereo sound because it sounds almost the same as one track that's panned to the center. Is there any way I can get more of a stereo sound with this setup?

[JESTER700]

You could slightly delay or chorus one side, or stereo chorus both sides. Musically, you could vary the parts slightly. Or use a different sound - different pickup setting, amp setting, mic position, etc. I like the subtle difference that your method gives, though. If it sounds like a centered mono track, you must be tight at doubling the part. Kudos to you.

[MF_Kitten]

maybe try what this guy said, with the chorus... or maybe use a different distortion/overdrive on the other side, or more of it... just make it sound different, simple as that...

how about using another guitar? maybe with other pickups or something like that...

still, i canīt imagine how you can make it sound mono with two guitar tracks panned left-right! are you sure your speakers are ok? :P

[Rip]

Originally Posted by guitarman13

First of all, here is the signal chain I use to record my Carvin Legacy half stack: Shure SM57> Behringer MIC200 Preamp> soundcard. Lately I've been creating two seperate tracks when I record and panning one to the left and one to the right. But, I'm still not getting a stereo sound because it sounds almost the same as one track that's panned to the center. Is there any way I can get more of a stereo sound with this setup?

Obviously the answer is no.

and putting a chorus on it isnt making it "stereo"

Recording 2 times and putting 1 in each speaker isnt stereo either
but you stating that it sounds like a mono track just doesnt make sense.

There is either an issue with your setup or you are officially deaf in one ear.


Simply put, using microphones..
2 mics can create a stereo image (or one stereo mic)

1 mic is always mono.

[Rob A]

Are you recording two seperate takes? Or just the same take, but doubled and panned left and right? How far are they panned? 100% or 20%? Try varying this.

Rip: So what is a stereo track then? I was under the impression that if you have one take coming out of one speaker, and another take out of the other, then it's in stereo...Or am I mistaken?

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Rob A

Are you recording two seperate takes? Or just the same take, but doubled and panned left and right? How far are they panned? 100% or 20%? Try varying this.

Rip: So what is a stereo track then? I was under the impression that if you have one take coming out of one speaker, and another take out of the other, then it's in stereo...Or am I mistaken?

Nope thats 2 mono tracks


Think of stereo with your ears.
if you are in a concert hall listening to an orchestra.. each ear will have different information in it.

Or if you are behind a set of drums...your ears will be picking up different information depending on what side of the kit you are playing.

2 mics act like 2 ears. (im being very general here)

a guitar with 2 cabinets might have stereo effects..
but the actual guitar is mono
for the same reasons your voice will always be mono.
If you mic each speaker that would be a stereo signal though because of the differences in sound through each cabinet.


when you mention 1 guitar track in each speaker...
thats setup as a stereo "sounding" track, but its not true stereo.

an acoustic guitar can be mic'ed with one microphone in mono.

that same guitar can be mic'ed with 2 microphones (in differerent mic positions) for a true stereo sound.
(one mic on the bridge area..one mic up in the fingerboard, making the guitar sound on speakers just like it would if you were sitting 2 ft away.
your left ear would hear the bridge sound..your right would hear the fingerboard sound)

[JESTER700]

Rip has specific ideas about what "stereo" means, but I think he's being restrictive.

IMO miking an acoustic in 2 places is no more "stereo" than using delay or chorusing techniques - both can give a more pleasing "spacious" sound, but neither is an accurate stereo soundfield like you'd actually hear in reality. What guitar has a bridge & fingerboard 10 ft apart like common stereo speakers?

"TRUE" stereo means using mics to simulate what your ears would hear, but that generally means two identical mics set up in a stereo configuration - XY, ORTF, etc. This is widely used in, say, classical music - and in pop & rock sometimes.

But if the idea is to make an interesting sound that spreads across stereo phones or speakers, there are many tricks - some acoustic, some electronic.

[Darin]

One track lead, pretty much in the middle.
http://chriswoodwardmusic.com/PRS%20...ike_Legacy.mp3
That same track pasted into another track and both tracks panned left and right. Big difference.
http://chriswoodwardmusic.com/PRS%20...gacy%20WET.mp3

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Darin

One track lead, pretty much in the middle.
http://chriswoodwardmusic.com/PRS%20...ike_Legacy.mp3
That same track pasted into another track and both tracks panned left and right. Big difference.
http://chriswoodwardmusic.com/PRS%20...gacy%20WET.mp3

if you took the same track and just made a duplicate of the "same exact track"
there would be no difference at ALL.

it would be the same as if you had one panned to the center, it would ONLY be louder.

the entire reason of doubling guitars..or vox..or whatever is
even if you are playing the same part there are going to be subtle differences ...from pitch..to sustain..to whatever that creates a fuller sound.

2 identical tracks is no different from 1.

[Darin]

Originally Posted by Rip

if you took the same track and just made a duplicate of the "same exact track"
there would be no difference at ALL.

it would be the same as if you had one panned to the center, it would ONLY be louder.

the entire reason of doubling guitars..or vox..or whatever is
even if you are playing the same part there are going to be subtle differences ...from pitch..to sustain..to whatever that creates a fuller sound.

2 identical tracks is no different from 1.

Gonna have to disagree. Duplicating a track, panning it hard left and right, then eq'ing them differently and adding effects differently does more than simply duplicating it. If you want to double up rhythm tracks by playing it twice, preferably with 2 different guitars, thats one thing. But you are not going to be able to do that with a lead track. And since alot of guys don't have 2 mics to place differently on the speaker, it's easy to just duplicate>pan>EQ>Effect>enjoy. It will sound better than just the one track by itself. Even if it's adding a tad of verb to one and delay to the other, that will make a big difference since you will hear something different from each side.

[alex10]

if a guitar is in mono your not going to a stereo sound

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Darin

Gonna have to disagree. Duplicating a track, panning it hard left and right, then eq'ing them differently and adding effects differently does more than simply duplicating it. If you want to double up rhythm tracks by playing it twice, preferably with 2 different guitars, thats one thing. But you are not going to be able to do that with a lead track. And since alot of guys don't have 2 mics to place differently on the speaker, it's easy to just duplicate>pan>EQ>Effect>enjoy. It will sound better than just the one track by itself. Even if it's adding a tad of verb to one and delay to the other, that will make a big difference since you will hear something different from each side.

dude of course if you change it EQ wise..or add effects to it..
those changes will be different.
But simply turning 1 track into 2..will ONLY add a bit of volume nothing else.

And of course you didnt state you altered one side in your original post. You simply said
you took 1 track, duplicated it, and panned it. I replied correctly to exactly what you said.
And i think anyone who would read that would agree.

In addition you do realize most fx can be panned correct? saving the time of making seperate tracks..
but thats neither here nor there.

I'll stick to what was discussed prior.

[Darin]

Originally Posted by Rip

dude of course if you change it EQ wise..or add effects to it..
those changes will be different.
But simply turning 1 track into 2..will ONLY add a bit of volume nothing else.

And of course you didnt state you altered one side in your original post. You simply said
you took 1 track, duplicated it, and panned it. I replied correctly to exactly what you said.
And i think anyone who would read that would agree.

In addition you do realize most fx can be panned correct? saving the time of making seperate tracks..
but thats neither here nor there.

I'll stick to what was discussed prior.

You're right, i just went back and reread my 1st post. I thought I mentioned that. My bad.
True you can use some effects stereo and get a nice wide sound. Personally I've had better success duplicating the track. Cubase does it with one click, so until I get an additional mic it's the best solution I've come up with yet.

[pawel]

Duplicating the track has a lot of potential - you could for instance shift the second track forward in time by some ms or, as mentioned above, use different EQ etc... on the two tracks.

[guitarman13]

Originally Posted by pawel

Duplicating the track has a lot of potential - you could for instance shift the second track forward in time by some ms or, as mentioned above, use different EQ etc... on the two tracks.

I was just going to say that, because I tried it the other day and it gives you a much wider sound. But it seemed to make one track sound louder and more noticeable than the other.