Does Stereo ACTUALLY Matter In Live Sound?

►► Get my audio math survival spreadsheet found in my audio toolkit:
www.producedbymkc.com/audioto...
00:00 - Intro
01:26 - What is stereo in live sound?
02:14 - Assessing a sound system for stereo compatibility
03:21 - Subdivide and conquer!
04:19 - Is this rig actually stereo?
04:38 - Using FAR (forward aspect ratio) to assess needed speaker coverage
06:13 - Comparing center and house left mic locations
09:09 - What’s different between ONAX L and middle of audience?
09:46 - Understanding the precedence effect
10:21 - Listening to a simulated comparison between ONAX L and middle of audience
13:15 - What about immersive live audio experiences?
15:23 - Reworking our stereo rig to ACTUALLY be closer to stereo
16:45 - What is stereo good for in live audio?

[@HunterShawMusic]

I always deploy in stereo, but try to use all stereo sources and fx. When I say "stereo sources" I mean electric guitars into two different amps, synths with stereo choruses and reverbs, piano sounds recorded in stereo, etc. I then pan all of these things hard left and right. This way, if youre standing in a spot in the room that hears a left and right source in time enough to be stereo you have a super great experience, and the stereo information creates space for vocals, kick, snare, and bass down the middle. If you're standing in a spot that isn't getting a great image, you're not missing any critical information because every instrument is going to both left and right channels. This seems to be the predominant method used in large touring scenarios, especially in-the-round where you can have up to eight stereo zones.

[@samwheelock540]

Thank you for giving your time and skills to help elevate live sound. Well done.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

You're very welcome!

[@66fitton]

Love the way you demonstrate coverage! Easy to understand what's going on. Using two mics on as many different instruments/sources as you can is another way to reduce comb filters. Just the slightest difference at the right freq in each mic and fairly hard panning can work really well. Guitars, snares, hats and even kick if it's a clicky rock kick. Get two great but SLIGHTLY different sounds and pan. Small differences can make big differences when it comes to comb filtering.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Thanks, Steve! Yes, Dave Rat is a big fan of the technique you've mentioned.

[@mabrystudios5880]

Being a drummer musician and having a keyboardist demanding in stereo we quickly adapted to giving the keys stereo by using two monitors and then mono out to the mains. The complaint of hearing keys on both audience sides left the building & the keyboardist never knew it was mono out the pa.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Way to problem solve! I love it.

[@robint6234]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio 😂👌🏻

[@ToddWCorey1]

I generally route all channels thru subgroups and only pan those groups 50% L/R to house. That way I can pan significantly for the benefit of streaming/recording, etc, without doing anything drastic in the house. COVID has brought streaming to the forefront of so many things, it's important to present an event well virtually and in-person. I was glad to hear about your "center of center" approach, and to see that you use it for good stereo coverage when venue shape allows. I had always wondered about comb filtering and other potential issues, so it's nice to see others using that "X" pattern when appropriate.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

That's a great idea, Corey, on the subgroup panning. Given that workflow do you route your subgroups to your main LR mix, then through a pair of matrices out to your mains? Then your livestream feed is a standalone pair of busses, then you have both your house and livestream feed follow the same pans? And I'm glad you dig the "center of center" approach! Most folks are scared to death of comb filtering, which is understandable to some degree, but we often forget how much "decoding" our head does to any sort of audio spatial cues that doesn't result in the terrible looking transfer functions we can see from a single measurement microphone.

[@henrygrimmius8138]

Michael, I've had to deal with both types of systems. It's much harder nowadays with the budget spent on large line arrays, to expect nothing other than zone coverage. Before line arrays (or should I say, the second generation of line arrays, since those existed in column speaker in the way back days), large format boxes were used to create more coverage from a given cluster. I worked at a place with an LCR system that each cluster covered about 85% of the room. We used a cross matrix to send delayed feeds to the other clusters in order to make that happen. It worked quite well, but not something you would typically do in a one-and-done event. In regards to level differences and whatnot, if you listen to an un-amplified event, say an orchestra or a choir, if you are towards the right side of the audience, you are going to have a level and tonal shift naturally. you don't have much in the way of phase shift because it's coming from a specific location. That said, you will have some from sound bouncing off the stage and any nearby reflective surfaces. If you attend any of the "residency" shows in Las Vegas, they've had designs where clusters are covering most of the room. Celine Dion was on I recall for sure. In that way, it's way more expensive to do right since it was a fan-shaped room. All that said, it IS doable, but takes just a bit more work and boxes. When dealing with zoned coverage, which you are talking about, I'll pan just a smidge for inputs but will hard pan effects, if for nothing other than benefitting the people that show up first (or buy the expensive seats) and get the middle seats. LOL Enjoying your channel and keep up the good work.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Thanks for your generous input here, Henry! What you're describing as far as clusters covering the majority of the room is very close to where things are going with "front field immersive" (d&b Soundscape, Meyer Spacemap Go, L-Acoustics L-ISA, etc.). I'm sure you're aware of these, and like you said, if the room shape and trim height allows all speaker zones to cover most of the audience within a reasonable tolerance, that makes for a quite spatially "immersive" experience. Much like your orchestra example, it's ok to feel a little "off balance" if you're sitting on the right since you're closer to that cluster, but since that's the only speaker in the array where a specific sound source is emitting from, there's no comb filtering or phase shift. Like you mentioned, it's very hard and expensive to pull off, but I'm excited to see more possibilities in this vane open up. Until then, subdivide and conquer will remain my bread and butter! And giving a little extra with SOME spatiality for folks who do end up sitting in the middle : )

[@JJ-fc2ho]

I see a lot of bonuses to having stereo as a tool in the kit. It can carve out space. I love mixing bar bands but usually hate their gear. Some slight panning can give me that little bit of headroom I need. You can use it to keep the focus on the source. With the righy delay and panning, you can have your audience naturally look where the action is happening. It's funny that you said you max out around 30% width because that's usually where I end up. Anything more is for interesting effects. This is great work you're doing!

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Thanks a ton, JJ! Yes, stereo is very useful when the PA deployment and audience shape permits leveraging that tool.

[@LaminarSound]

Great video as always. This is something a lot of non audio engineers dont consider. Having mixed both mono cluster and stereo rigs i always prefer stereo. You absolutely are NOT getting a great stereo image in all seats, likely not even most seats, but imho its still easier to separate things in a stereo mix versus mono.our current mono cluster at church is hard to get clarity out of a dense band mix. But ive never had issues mixing the same stuff in similar venues with a stereo rig. You have to be honest with yourself on both sides of this coin. No youre not getting a great stereo image, but it does afford more clarity IF the system is tuned well and the PA is installed well.

[@ottokladensky]

Hey, @MichaelCurtisAudio Saludos desde Costa Rica. First of all, thank you soooo much for this channel and the great content. It shows that your heart is in the right place and that you really mean it when you say that all you want is to help us make sure every listener has the best experience. So, I haven't found a video of yours about LCR system design (sorry if I searched like "a typical man"). I've read that they are the best for venues constantly used for music and speech (conferences, camps, churches, etc). Wondering what you think of them (Pros & Cons) and if it´s really worth the expense of the extra speakers. Pura Vida.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

So glad my channel has been helpful to you! I appreciate the kind words. My wife and I had our honeymoon in Costa Rica and very much enjoyed it. We've got a "Pura Vida" magnet on our fridge : ) You're right, I don't have a video on a LCR system (yet). I'm holding off on making one until I actually encounter one that's deployed well in the wild!

[@markq23]

Another great video! Thanks!😊👍really learning a lot! We have a room that is very wide. Similar to the one in your example except the other way around. So speakers on the longest side of the room. I have really struggled with getting a good Stereo mix. We have 4 point source speakers spread out across the front of the stage. Would it be better to run it in mono? And how would you get any seperation between instruments if everything is coming out of the one speaker? We have a full band with often two el guitars, bass, drums, keys etc

[@lovefirst6157]

@Michael Curtis if you could answer this question that would help me out also

[@psmail007]

As a muso - I'm that keyboard player running stereo - I find this fascinating. I would not argue with your science or your method and I'm going to take some time to digest this, but two things stood out to me. The first is that I have always been worried that summing stereo keys signals can result in some pretty serious phase cancellation issues - I have experienced this from pianos that lose bass to synth patches that sum almost literally to zero. And because this is really determined on a patch by patch basis it is not possible to just flip a polarity switch at FoH and be done with it. My policy is that if I am mono out FoH then I'd rather use the mono output of my keys because, as I understand it, they have voodoo (that I have tested) that prevents phase cancellation. Or at a stretch I could use the phones out of the keys monitoring and use the mono line outs for FoH if I really felt strongly about hearing stereo ... but I don't. Second, your stance is, best I can tell, fairly contrary to the vids Rat (from RHCP) posts where he talks about the dangers of phase cancellation of mono signals and the importance of some sort of differentiation between left and right channels to alleviate that. He also has a stance of trying to imitate nature and that "mono does not occur in the natural environment". I'm still getting my head around that. Anyway ... I'm learning and thanks for helping with that! Much appreciated.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

You're welcome! If you're worried that summing down the keys will get you issues with your patches, you can always send just one channel to each speaker. Alternating Left/Right/Left Right. It doesn't "have" to be summed. Even if I'm running a LR rig with little overlap I still run it LR and not dual mono. It just depends on the context, coverage areas, and overlap. That being said, I would design and test your patches in stereo and mono. Professional mix engineers do this all the time because they can't control if their mix is going to played through a mono bluetooth speaker or a nice stereo PA. There's a way to make sure your sounds translate to both environments. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm contrary to Dave Rat on those issues, I just think double mic'ing every source isn't practical for most folks and there other ways around making sure you have phase coherency in your mix.

[@psmail007]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Just a quick add - I have factory keys patches that phase cancel - the first patch on the Yam CP4 comes to mind - which in no way diminishes any of your counsel, I'm just saying that I think this is more prevalent than people might think. Anyhoo, I'm off to mono-test my patches. Thanks again.

[@bradmodd7856]

@@psmail007 Are you sure there is a difference between L and R patches themselves? I assumed that the only difference was the stereo reverbs and delays that the patches use.

[@psmail007]

@@bradmodd7856 maybe. I see the logic you're applying and I can see why it might be that. Except to say that keyboards genuinely use stereo sources and your statement must only hold 100% of the time if the stereo samples are of their own are tweaked for mono compatibility and my experience is they are not. Keyboards will use trickery in their mono out to merge the two signals but I don't think mixers do the same thing ... Hence phase cancellation.

[@tortugacastro]

@@psmail007 Exactly, try to play some stereo sampled pianos, "stereo brass synth" or stereo sampled brass instrument or ensemble in MONO and you will notice the difference, they loose all life and realism (if it have some!) and all kind of phase cancellation appears. For us, as keyboard players, to use a mono mix is the same to ask a guitar player: just plug your pedals direct to the mixer, you don't need amplifier or amp simulator! And YES, keyboards use some black magic to mix the outputs before the output jacks, but i´ts not the solution here. Just my 2 cents.

[@marcokleiner8795]

so cool! I've had my share of discussions with musicians and other techs that have stereo on a pedestal. I usually tell them that I don't want it to only sound good for the 10% of the audience standing in the middle. this is a great resource for people who really want to understand when and why to (not) use stereo. also liked your point in the end about musician confidence, and still running the inputs in stereo for post..

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Thanks a ton! Glad it was helpful to you.

[@jacobwetherby]

That's the biggest problem

[@jacobwetherby]

in my opinion and experience, the more simple the better, but props to the guys that try, some will succeed.

[@jacobwetherby]

but also look at this... if one amp goes out, you're fucked, only half the instruments will be coming out of the system...

[@timjballin]

I was recently at a venue listening to an orchestra play. I was seated to the far left which put me closest to the horn section, specifically the tubas. Naturally, this section seemed louder to me, especially the tubas. Conversely, due to pink-shift, propagation delay etc., the strings section, located on the opposite side, did not have the tonal quality or the perceived loudness I would have preferred. I then asked the conductor to finish out the concert using only one instrument placed center stage so as to avoid these annoyances. Sure it wasn’t as immersive or interesting as it had been before, but all the numbers were right on target.

[@silentsound9272]

Love your channel Michael! I have a few question 😊 when you listen to your reference music in the PA. Do you use the same ”no more than 33% panning” approach on the left and right input of that reference track? If you have walk in music or a DJ in your PA. Do you hard pan left and right or is it still panned no more than 33%? Reverb? Hard panned, 33% or do you use mono reverb?

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Great questions. If a source is coming in stereo and my PA has at least "some" overlap, I'll leave it full width. It's only mono sources that I don't pan wider than 33% or so. Reverb returns are always coming back in full width. If my PA has zero overlap between zones, they're fed from mono matrices that sum down my LR mix anyway, so I don't worry about panning at all, except just for my program/record feeds.

[@amdenis]

I love and find your videos and everything you do so amazingly well done and professional. Keep up the great work. Two little things. Headphones are actually not stereo, as they are missing the ability to play-direct some of the left coming to the right and vise versa- unless they are specifically (specially) designed to function as such, which most are not. Also, related to doing mono, what about for wet-dry-wet, where ideally you need at least a mono center and two or more differential sides? How can you do that all in mono or super-mono? No, and actually the phase info will mess up the experience in many ways.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Hey, Andrew. Thank you for the kind words and fact check. Yes, I did indeed misspoke on how headphones are stereo - they are not and crossfeed is required for "true" stereo. If you're summing any set of signals down to mono by definition that means all signals are correlated. So yes, a 100% decorrelated left vs right signal will completely cancel out.

[@baileylukens]

Thoughts on towing the array in a little bit, for example, to cover the center front row where front fills may not be an option?

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Yup, if you don't have a center fill I'm all for toeing things in.

[@drmfactory726]

Hi Micheal thanks for all the valuable info you provide, I’m a learning engineer of 1 year and have picked so much good stuff up from your videos. After watching this and browsing the comments I was wondering a couple of things actually. It seems your preferred method to setup the system in mono is to send LR to a matrix and sum to mono there? If I am correct in thinking this, how come you opt for doing it this way as opposed to leaving all pans on LR mix central? Also to clarify what you’ve mentioned in some comments, am I right in thinking you keep a stereo effects return even when the room doesn’t permit general stereo and rest of the system is running in mono? Lastly, some events I do the sound for are fairly wide conference rooms where the front speakers don’t reach all the way to the back so we’ll have two wide filler speakers on either side. The FOH usually have plenty of overlap for people at the front and this space often becomes the dancefloor later on in the event. I’m wondering whether it’s a plausible option to run FOH in stereo, but the wide fills in mono?

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Great question! I still do run my systems with a LR feed, then am careful how I pan elements (if at all), but still have stereo sources feed their respective PA zones. I only sum the mix to mono at the matrix for any front fills or isolated delay speakers, like you mentioned in the last part of your comment.

[@drmfactory726]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio Ok perfect, thanks for clarifying, that's a big help. For the LR feed would you still run things that have similar information on either side such as overheads and effect returns in full stereo in a room more suited for mono?

[@christhorney]

i would love to know your opinion for outdoor open enviroment

[@bcampagnolo6759]

This is great. So if we are at a location with an installed PA, no time to tune the PA, just patch and go… and we hear comb or phase, would the approach be to send out L and R as mono? So on the x32, send the mono/C to the XLR patch point where L and R are? Or borrowing your show file approach, change the LR matrix to mono? Then keep a matrix for usb recording, etc? I’m looking for how to send that summed mono to the PA if stereo is not sounding good.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

You will actually get more comb filtering problems out of your PA if there's high overlap between the speakers in the system you're dealt than if you ran stereo. Comb filtering happens when two correlated (same) signals arrive at the same point in space at different times. The only way to eliminate that would be to re-aim the speakers. If you want to send a mono matrix feed to both speakers just so everything is the same, that's totally fine.

[@CarlosCarty]

What is the process for broadcasting a live stereo audio stream on TikTok using the iRig Pro Duo interface?

[@The-Butler]

I really enjoyed your in-depth explanation of the issues here. I am the Media Director in a pretty good size church with an 1800-seat auditorium that is pretty wide. During a recent renovation, professionals added a third array (center) to our existing D&B arrays to fill a couple of holes. We have never considered a stereo setup, but would it be crazy to do a R, L, R? My more pressing question is, what happens to stereo tracks and or video content run through the system? We currently run those through individual channels, but they are obviously summed in a mono system. I would love to know your thoughts.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Hey, Larry. I'm glad the explanation was helpful for you! I just finished optimizing a D&B system at a church in Ohio that's about 1800 seat and super wide auditorium. So I'm somewhat familiar with your predicament : ) The big question here is this: how much OVERLAP is there between any of your speaker zones? You can only get "stereo" if you're hearing sound coming from two different points in space with different audio content and arriving at a singular point. Although the R, L, R approach is tempting to create some imaging, you would need EVERY listener to be covered by both a R speaker (the sides) AND a L speaker (the middle hang) for the effect to be pulled off. If you ended up panning your lead guitar out hard right, then your rhythm electric out hard left, if someone is on the very edge of your seating they're still only hearing the right panned guitar and missing a critical part of the mix. It's like putting on in-ears, but only using one side. This is all to say I'd likely default to doing a mono sum of the LR mix and sending that equally to your three main hangs. Yes, that destroys any stereo perception from any video content or stereo tracks, etc., but it creates the most uniform experience for your congregation as a whole. I would still definitely advise you to still capture everything in stereo so that any record, broadcast, or IEM mixes can stay stereo.

[@The-Butler]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thanks so much for your reply. That is pretty much how we are set up. Although, we have a duplicate board to FOH for Live Stream and recording. Thanks again.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@The-Butler You're very welcome! Happy to help.

[@pedrodyck95]

I like very much live stereo mixing, what I do is create a doubler bus with L paned to R and R paned to L, I put a micro tone shifter and also a very small delay in the bus. So if I pan the Acoustic Guitar 50% to L y send it to the Doubler bus and it will appear in the R side because of the bus Pan inversion, I raise the volume until the the R side hears it with the same loudness, that way I can make a ton of space and wide mixes but L and R sides are hearing the instruments at the same levels, but I don't do it with Toms (doesn't sound good) but OH a little bit can work, also Electric Guitars and Harmony vocals, and if I go more extreme with panning I raise more the send to the Doubler bus.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

I'll have to try that next time!

[@ILoveTelecasters]

Thank you for the video ❤ I’m responsible for handling backing tracks in band. We also play everything through an audio interface and have been it in stereo. Now I’m thinking of making more stuff mono. I’ve been using the haas effect tho, which means that if an audience member is in a spot to hear stereo image they otherwise they’ll just hear it in mono

[@Bubbleuprubberdown]

Totally agree with you. I have had discussions with younger engineers and they tend to get emotional about the fact that “stereo” doesn’t work 100% in the real live world. I never tell the artist or talent that the mid is mono. On another note, outfills…. I’ve flown PA that had main Left and Main Right hangs also with left and right outfill hangs that are receiving the opposite sides content (per visiting engineer request). Imagine the people at the sides of the stage in an arena that are getting this pinched reversal of a stereo image! Bananas I say.

[@lovefirst6157]

that a interesting idea. Trying to build a stereo pa system for my church which has a wide audience 90 feet in length(facing the stage;walking side to side like a penguin) and 50 feet in width(walking towards the stage), no balcony. Been thinking left&right for the middle then mono for the sides, left Right left Right, don't really know what to go for.

[@rolandtiiroja]

I like to mix in stereo as much as possible to reduce comb filtering.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

But then also have half you audience not get an instrument?

[@burg3372]

Personally, I am thinking towards a solution that I would call Dual Mono Mix Stereo. Basically two different live mixes but sonically balanced. (Using time based stereo, and possibly dynamics differences between left and right). Probably sounds complicated, but I think there are possibilities for elegant solutions.

[@WilliamOgden]

Thoughts on D&B Soundscape. I get the impression that it works differently in that all signals are played from all speakers at the same level. But delay panning is used to change the perceived origin of the source. I listened to a demo in a room with 5 boxes across the front and 3 on either side. I found that the mix had the same sonic field no matter where I was In the room. According to D&B, As long as you are in the coverage pattern of two or more speakers, they can provide you an immersive experience.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Very interesting! I've never heard Soundscape, but would love to attend a demo or show with it soon.

[@corbinwhite4415]

Soundscape's main tool is delay, but they do also employ amplitude panning. This is what gives you the ability to control object width, and one of the huge benefits of most of these immersive platforms: increased headroom, and decreased distortion. I think Soundscape's major selling point is their convolution reverb, En-Space

[@ericchang7759]

Thanks for the video. Can you follow this up with a video on a dual purpose mono-stereo flexible setup? (like if I have speakers for stereo, but don't have the channels/mixer but will likely upgrade in the future. Also, a setup that will work for spoken voice in mono and music in stereo)

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

For your second question, are you asking about having a rig that would support a show with both a spoken voice section AND a music section?

[@ericchang7759]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio one setup that can do both. Thinking more install, but portable is probably more challenging?

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@ericchang7759 I work mostly in the show/portable environment, but there are usually other factors higher up on the totem pole that influence speaker placement than is this voice or music. That decision definitely helps determine how I voice the PA system (more or less low end). To be clear, I don't come on a show and ask, "Should I make this a dialog PA or a band PA?" Coverage is coverage.

[@ericchang7759]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio thanks for the perspective. Precisely what I need.

[@ericchang7759]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio thanks for the clarification. Work with mobile right now but looking to learn more about install. Your vid’s are a great combo of knowledge, analysis, and practical wisdom. Also, thanks for the reminder about coverage.

[@mauricerogerson5825]

In the years I grew up (1960 - 1975) having my head "messed with" at a concert was the primary objective.

[@johnmcquay82]

Great Video. My priorities are intelligibility, coverage and stereo...in that order, though I do aim to have all three. I do a lot of really small bar gigs and in some cases there's no need to mic up drums for instance; all I'm really doing is reinforcing the vocals and maybe an acoustic guitar so stereo goes to the bottom of the list. If someone has a synth with a stereo out, I'll take it though. I nearly always run FOH in stereo, so I can be flexible in what I do. For me, a big gig is 300-400 people, so my priorities are likely different for those with 18-wheelers doing big shows and festivals for thousands.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Thanks for the insight here! Yup, totally agree with you on your order of operations. Do you end up having to do a broadcast/stream from FOH as well as mixing the room? Or are you mainly mixing in-person-only gigs?

[@johnmcquay82]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio For nearly all of the gig's I've been doing, I've been mixing in-person-only events. I did assist with mixing a Pantomime in January where we had to do a live stream as well as the in-person show. We didn't get a lot of notice unfortunately, so we weren't able to prepare as we would have liked. The board of house rig we were working on is an Allen & Heath GL2200; all the sub-masters are in use, all the aux sends were in use, so the only feed we had spare from the console was the Summed Mono out. We fed that through a compressor and into the laptop that was running the stream. It sounded pretty good; but it wasn't perfect. For my own shows, I have made provisions for a stereo broadcast feed from the desk. It's an ageing PreSonus 16.4.2, so there's only so much I can do within the desk itself to give a broadcast mix. I am going to be upgrading my board, but sadly I'm probably not going to see my new board until May (I'm getting an SQ5).

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@johnmcquay82 Supply chain has put a damper on so many gear upgrades! Sad to hear it's going to take awhile, but A&H is great stuff. I've worked o the QU and dLive series, but not SQ.

[@johnmcquay82]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio I used to work for them many years ago; I did some of the first surface mount production runs for the first generation iLive. The StudioLive Series III from PreSonus is very appealing, well thought out and an available solution, but I'm wanting to go back to A&H after having such a long hiatus. There are of course other options that are more rider friendly but given the kind of clients I have, I've never had a band stipulate the mixing system on their rider. As I'm a single-op and it's my own money, I'm getting the SQ5 + stage boxes. If I start getting riders that specify a mix system (which I suspect will be M32 or X32), I'll make the investment into one of those ecosystems. If a rider doesn't specify a mix system; the A&H is what I'll use.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@johnmcquay82 Totally makes sense! They've got a great ecosystem that's incredibly easy to scale. Let me know when it comes in and how you're able to put it to work.

[@Dr_Ahmed_AlMaghrabi]

Please I play electronic drums at big live concerts, is it better stereo or mono in terms of sound quality?

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

I would say go stereo on your inputs so you at least have them in stereo for your recordings, livestreams, and in-ears. Then you can make a decision based on the room and PA if you need to go mono or stereo.

[@davidalcaraz7213]

Hi Michael! thanks a lot for the video. In my church we have 3 tops and 2 subs. The place is around 39 ft width and 62 ft height. The tops have 100 horizontal coverage and 40 vertical. How do you think it's the best way to configure the system? the initial idea was L R (stereo) as main speakers and the center speaker was intended for vocal and multitracks reinforcement, but it will cause comb filtering? it would be pretty helpful if you can share your thoughts

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Hey, David. Thanks for the question. A LCR requires that every listener be in coverage of all three speakers, usually within at least -3dB of each speaker zone. I'm not sure what type of trim height you have, but as long as each of your three speakers can cover your entire audience you can go for LCR. 100° is a fairly wide box. If you feel good about horizontal coverage, my only other caveat would be vertical coverage. 40° doesn't give you much wiggle room. Again, without knowing your trim height it's hard to weigh in here!

[@davidalcaraz7213]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio I appreciate your answer. The speakers are placed around 11.5 ft height and have about 15 degrees of vertical inclination. First seats are 10 ft apart from the stage. The seating is completely flat, there is no any kind of levels or theater style, is just flat. Thanks again for your help!

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@davidalcaraz7213 I made a quick model and it's borderline, but I think you could pull it off. You would aim your Left and Right speakers to the opposite corners in the back and have them out wide. The horizontal coverage is fine, it's mainly the front to back level difference. If you can squeeze any more trim height out of the rig that would definitely help! Keep lead vocal, kick, snare, bass, and your pastor's mic in the center channel. Fly a center sub array behind the center main if you're able.

[@davidalcaraz7213]

​@@MichaelCurtisAudio I'm really thankful for your answers, really nice to know a professional advice. I'm gonna work on this project next week, I'll been sharing with you how does it works at the end. Thanks a lot Michael! Best regards from Mexico

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@davidalcaraz7213 You're very welcome! Good luck on the project.

[@russellkinder5130]

I only pan enough to make it sound like the musicians are where they are on the stage. Only the audience in the center section will benefit from this. It only takes a small amount of panning to achieve this. Nothing gets panned more than 30% left or right--not stereo keyboards, tracks, nothing. People in the left or right sides of the audience still need to be able to hear the whole band, so pan less than the geometry would suggest.

[@teyobs2021]

Hey Michael! How do you correct precedence effect in a live sound environment?

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

You can't really "correct" it. The human brain is going to give priority to whatever sound is sooner and louder. That's why I choose to subdivide and conquer vs trying to have a bunch of overlapping speaker zones. Not only will the overlap require more resources, but there will be more comb filtering (on mono sources) and less intelligibility overall.

[@teyobs2021]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio thank you for the ensight. I've learned a lot through you're channel. keep it up!

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@teyobs2021 You're welcome!

[@lucabertolaso2167]

Please help me 😝 I'm a dj I've to play latin music in a big arena, coverage area FAR is 1.5. My speaker system is composed by 2 x column array speaker from db technologies es1203. It's a dual 12" semi horn loaded and 8 x4" fullrange driver. Because it's a 120° horizontal coverage, maybe the best solution is to place the 2 subs stacked very close in the centre and place the tops in a single long vertical array over one of the 2 subs. Or separate in 2 columns at the side of the stage? I'm afraid to have a lot of cancellation because the 120 degrees and I'm not sure if set the output dual mono or stereo. Please have any advice? Thanks

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

I'd try the single column setup in the middle if you can. If you need more SPL do a left/right setup and don't sweat the comb filtering with the tops. Keep the subs in the middle.

[@lucabertolaso2167]

Done, 80% volume plenty of sound. 2 db technologies es1203, sub in the middle, 1 column compised by 16 x 4" drivers. all in mono, I mean L+R into the amplifier, out is mono for both units excellent coverage, near to 150 degrees because the 2 pair of column are indipendent. Do you think I introduce comb filtering if the 2 pair of column are oriented in different angles?

[@vadimmartynyuk]

Live stereo is different than recorded or broadcast stereo. in live sound gotta make sources sound stereo but also be mono and either channels soloed compatible. mic and pan every source / instruments Left and Right in stereo, not different sources and instruments left and right. let’s say a guitar amp miked with 2 mics, but panned hard left and right, in stereo and in middle foh it sounds great plus audience at the extreme left and right both hear guitar sound. Just don’t pan things like this: guitar 1 left, guitar 2 right. Or guitar left and keys right. so just gotta mic the sources for “live stereo” but with 1 to 3 mic rule in mind to avoid comb filtering. Also think of how stereo reverbs, chorus or phasing and other similar effects all sound great in stereo, but if you sum them in mono they sound good too, and if you solo only either right or left channel they still sound good.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

I agree with you on live stereo being different, but disagree on adding all of the complexity of multi-micing sources, eating up channels, and panning things out. I honestly don't think it makes that much of a difference!

[@jacobwetherby]

There's inherently huge problems with running stereo in a live venue, as people are generally "all over the place"... but legend has it that Pink Floyd had a sound system that could do it (speakers on the sides surrounding the audience), and later the sound system was purchased by the Beastie Boys... apparently a very expensive system....

[@jacobwetherby]

but there's technical and prowess problems when it comes to actually micing and panning a stereo setup, and this must all come together on time under a stressful and pressure-full manner... but not impossible, good luck, and good planning...

[@jacobwetherby]

unfortunately, under real situations, ... it's simplicity that wins

[@jacobwetherby]

Also there's power problems as... you will either be A: be under-powered, as you will be running your (PA) amps un-bridged stereo... or B: you will need to have at least twice as many amps (PA rack mount) bridged... so probably 4 bridged rack mounted amps, to properly power your tops and bottoms... so depends on your budget, and hauling capabilities... small venues would be easier, but still a bit of a mess.

[@Labaris]

Thanks for the video. Maybe the comparison between a typical stereo "studio" setup and a PA system would be more fair if the layout of both would be the same. If one system ia prioritizing stereo image and the other focuses on coverage, then the comparison makes no real sense to me. What if you aim the arrays differently in order to emphasize the opposite side of the stereo image to the listeners, instead of the side they're in. For example, if I'm on the left side of the audience but the left speaker is aimed in a way that puts me off axis, while the right (opposite) speaker is aimed directly at me, hence making the difference less pronounced. Obviously, prioritizing stereo image in this way would probably require side fills and a more complex setup in general, but that's not the analysis here. Also, the comb filter would be less noticeable, the more difference you create between the left and right signals (panning things around). Just to be clear, I totally get that coverage is more important most of the time and music in general can't depend on stereo to sound good. The thing is, I think stereo is still important if you can make it happen.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Good point here. I agree that IF the audience shape and PA placement makes stereo possible, great. But that's usually not the case. I also agree that panning things around would produce less comb filtering, but the elements in the mix that are most important are almost always panned center (lead vocal, kick, snare, etc.), so you're still hearing those timing offsets there.

[@Labaris]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio totally agree.

[@valiokeys]

Ah, we meet again my most hated adversary...MONO! I'm a keyboard player and for me being able to hear in stereo is an essential part of my performance since quite a few of the patches and FX are stereo, such as the Auto Pan on a Rhodes or Wurlitzer pianos which is impossible to be represented correctly when summed in mono. Some synth sounds are also very dependent on stereo, because I may have 2 of the same or slightly different type of OSC panned almost hard left and right which results in genuinely ugly sound when monoed due to the pure physics of the OSC, which limits and takes away sometimes more than 50% of the impact of the sound as I was intending to be heard by the audience. I literally have to completely rework or change lots of sound patches in my setup if the PA isn't stereo, which you can imagine how much additional work it means to me. Even as a spectator in the audience, I even find listening to a mono PA very fatiguing for longer periods of time, so I'd rather be pink shifted, level dropped or whatever else, but have the full stereo sonic source information scattered and reflected in the room, my ears can adapt much easier to that. I can swear I'm able to guess whether a set of speakers are playing a stereo or mono source signal from the most awkward and unsuitable listening position imaginable with over 80% accuracy, I've won several bets with that skill of mine. I'm just glad I wasn't born before 1931, I would have rather suicide lol

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Hey, Valio. Thanks for weighing in here. Yes, having a nice image really can create an immersive soundscape, I agree with you there, for sure. I'm not saying that you shouldn't even do a stereo live rig, but that the audience dimensions vs speaker placement options rarely make stereo a viable option, in my humble opinion. If you've got budget, trim height, and an appropriate audience size go full scale front field immersive!

[@valiokeys]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio Sure, there are enough reasons and cases where mono PA makes sense. I was just talking about my personal view on that, and of coarse the world doesn't spin around me. Cheers

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@valiokeys Totally makes sense! No worries at all, thanks for sharing.

[@62twinturboImpala]

It’s an interesting discussion but I disagree mostly. Much of your discussion focuses on true stereo instead of imaging and interest. While a mono source sent to both channels and listened to or recorded at multiple locations, will stand up to your discussion, imagining left content to left speakers and right content to right speakers creates a far wider sound stage while creating interest for the audience. Comb filtering can be a challenge and can be reduced by careful planning and knowing the content your mixing. While it cannot be completely eliminated the interest has a far greater impact on the audience. The audience doesn’t think about comb filtering. L&R imaging is not true stereo but imaging and movement and a wider sound stage to work within. Not all instruments are on the center of stage. Some are on the left and some are on the right. People closer to the front will certainly have influence from the stage back line. There will be delays and comb filtering from stage and PA arrival times. When I mix a concert I always use imaging, sometimes hard pan sometimes a blend, but always for the best sound AND listener experience. This is an age old discussion and there will always be trade-off and compromises and decisions based on types of venues and the challenges to create the best show possible as well as a reason to sell higher priced tickets for the front and center experience. It’s never going to be perfect, but for me, going to a mono show is like listen with only one ear,,, boring.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

Thanks for your input. We can respectfully agree to disagree. I'm with you that if a large portion of the audience is within the coverage of two different speakers I'll end up doing some panning, but I guess most of the rigs I'm mixing on these days don't have much overlap, so hard panning is not a tool in my toolbox for those shows. It's not worth it for me personally to sacrifice the balance in my mix I've worked so hard to make just so a (very) few can have a sense of space. I agree that FX returns should come in stereo because that does help with imaging regardless.

[@62twinturboImpala]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thanks for your reply to a fairly long comment, sorry typical of me. I knew we would continue to be on opposite sides of this discussion. I do expect some concert goers to get less benefit and effect of imaging. That’s why there are the cheap seats. However a most sound companies design for mono and end up with mono then adopt your opinion. To do a great imaged show you have to begin and design it to be well imaged. Shows I mix are always imaged and shows I attend are rarely anything but mono designed and it shows. You can’t design mono and expect great imaging later. My 1st imaged shows I designed and mixed date to 1972. From theaters to armory’s to arenas. From 1000 to 40,000. Doesn’t make me right or you wrong, just a different approach and mindset. People today listen to MP3, lol. So expectations are already low. Anyway, I enjoy watching most of your videos, I’m know many benefit from it. Always remember if you don’t get the results you expect or desire, change your methods and procedures. Anything can be done, we just have to want to do it bad enough. Not meant to be argumentative, I respect your opinion. Thanks for taking time to discuss, and I wouldn’t expect or want you to change your mind on my say so. You have to be open and want to change 1st. I use SMAART myself, mainly because of industry acceptance and SPL monitoring/logging, along with Meyers MAPP 3D. Open Sound Meter is another fine tool glad to introduce to to those who don’t have the budgets for expensive tools. Alway remind people tools are just tools to help make decisions, their ears make the final decisions. Keep up the good work. Cheers.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

You're very welcome! I appreciate the dialogue as well and you sharing your well formulated experience and opinion. You're totally right in saying that if the audience shape and design is able to permit a large part of the audience to experience a nice wide image, then definitely go for it. And it sounds like you've been doing this well for a long time! I'm glad you've enjoyed other videos I've put out hope to continue more fun discussions elsewhere.

[@johnmatt5660]

Does a center summed speaker plus left/right stereo cause intelligibility issues? The worship leader likes the idea of separation.

[@Chmied]

I don't think headphones are truly considered stereo. There is no interaction between the 2 speakers, so it's more like dual mono. Where your studio monitors overlap, that overlap is key to a true stereo imaging. It's the differences in amplitude between the 2 speakers that creates the stereo image.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

You're right, I should have been more clear there. There's no crossfeed on headphones unless you're using a plugin like Goodhertz's CanOpener (which is fantastic, by the way). Thanks for pointing that out.

[@Chmied]

@@MichaelCurtisAudioJust so the viewers know is all, i knew you knew. Ill have to try it.

[@Chmied]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio Just recently found you, love you work, keep it up. Sub array's, muah gold!!!

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@Chmied It's all good! Yes, Goodhertz makes killer stuff.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@Chmied Thank you so much!

[@hf568tube]

I think stereo matters, i try to use it where possible. But there is a better way then Panorama. Look here the parameters: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jnfMloKkeciLoq8

[@michaelyoung7911]

Millions of years 🤣

[@zolwikwkurwik]

If I send stereo signal to two subs (one receives left channel, second receives right signal), can I use them for cardioid inline array?

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

As long as all of your low frequency elements in your mix are panned up the middle, then yes.

[@sound-guy]

Another thought about keyboards (synthesizers) is that when summed to mono some patches have L/R cancellation that makes the patch sound different in a bad way. Sending the L/R to separate speakers (even right next to each other) lets the summation happen in the air, where cancellation is not as abrupt as it would be inside a digital synth. This can be another effect to consider in the setup. I've set stereo channels to 50% stereo width to A) reduce the proximity effect and B) avoid the in-synth "monoization" issues.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

I see your point. Even if I have a LR setup with minimal overlap I'm still sending the left channel of synths to the left speaker and right to the right, then walking and listening and to see how far I can pan things out that makes sense. I agree that SOME separation is better than none. Where I disagree is using two speakers right next to each other to get some sense of width. Sure, you'd get some sense of width from your synths, but every other mono source would suffer due to the comb filtering.

[@sound-guy]

@@MichaelCurtisAudio I may have described the "two speaker next to each other" scenario poorly. You are correct that this would add no value to perception of width. This was just meant as an observation that letting synth L/R combine in the air can sometimes provide a more pleasing summation than a digital summation to mono within a synth. It's a method to have in the toolbox when stereo separation is impractical (due to room constraints), but mono synth outputs "sound bad" due to digital L/R cancellation within the synth. I'll have to think more about your note on comb filtering. I'm sure you are correct.

[@MichaelCurtisAudio]

@@sound-guy No worries, thanks for the clarification!