Stereo Tracks (volume issue)

[Astro-Xana]

I use audacity in creating my very own pieces of music in which I record many things and put it all together to form my very own pieces of music which takes tremendous amount of time and effort. My pieces of music can be very complex and can contain up to 15 stereo tracks.

Now I do prefer stereo over mono as stereo offers more depth, but not knowing that stereo is actually bad. I have recently created a piece of music and I noticed that when listening to it on a few computers, the stereo tracks all vary in volume. It seems as though the more depth a stereo track has (in which the waveforms in both the left and right channels are more different), the less that track can be heard (unlike on my computer in which all the tracks sound just fine). And as for stereo tracks that contain waveforms more similar in both the left and right channels, the more those tracks can be heard on these other computers. Applying effects (such as wahwah or phaser which is obviously necessary for me in creating music) adds more depth which makes it less heard on other computers. And I've also recorded some audio enhanced by the ffdshow audio decoder with "Crystality" checked and set the "extra stereo" all the way up. And though it does sound louder on my computer, that extra stereo effect made that audio very quiet on these other computers.

I tried setting everything to mono (in which I split all the stereo tracks and set all the channels to mono), but the result was still the same on these computers. I not only worked extremely hard in making this piece of music, but I also worked very hard in adjusting the volumes of all the stereo tracks that make up this piece of music on my computer--but only to hear my piece of music containing stereo tracks with completely inaccurate volumes on these other computers which was very disappointing to me. I mean, now I realize that I should of started out in recording in mono from the very beginning because looking back now, there was one other piece of music I did in mono which actually did sound the same on other computers. Therefore, is there any way to get the volumes of these stereo tracks to be the same just like on my computer (like another method to convert them all into mono just as if I recorded everything in mono to begin with)?

[kozikowski]

I don't entirely trust most computer sound. I've seen several external speaker systems that would have to improve a lot to qualify for trash.

It's also possible that your system is the only one broken.

I would record the show, or enough of it so you can tell what's going on, onto a Music CD. I think Windows Media can do this if you don't have your own authoring and burning program. Take it to someone's house that has a good sound system and play it. Yours doesn't count. It has to be somebody else.

You can also play the CD on a portable CD player and wear headphones.

Can you post a bit of the stereo performance somewhere where we can hear it--the pieces that sound funny? Try to pick a clip with good sound and then bad sound. upload a clip to your web site?

There are some pretty strange things that can affect show quality, so we need to narrow it down.

Koz

[steve]

I'm going to make a bold statement and wait forever for someone to prove me wrong:
ALL COMPUTER SPEAKERS ARE BAD. (the polite version).

Unfortunately, they are not all bad in the same way.
Some computer speakers have a frequency response that is limited to a range of 400Hz to 12kHz.
Other speakers will have a massive boost of frequencies around 200Hz
Some will display a massive peak in the frequency response at 1kHz.
None of them produce sound that accurately responds to the signal that is being sent to them.

Recording studios use monitor speakers that cost hundred or thousand of dollars. The reason is that they want to hear the recorded audio as accurately as possible, and speakers that can do this cost a lot of money.

Even with a "perfect" recording, it will sound different played through one sound system than it sounds on another sound system.

Studio monitors are also known as reference speakers - they are designed to provide an accurate reference sound so that you can hear the "cold hard truth" about your mix.

For recording on a budget, choosing the best speakers within your budget is an important part of setting up your studio. Good quality (studio) headphones can provide an inexpensive alternative to expensive speakers, but they can also produce a very misleading impression of the music.

I would recommend getting the best "near field monitors" that you can afford, and also have several other pairs of speakers available so that you can get an idea of what your music will sound like on different systems.

[hellosailor]

This could be why professional musicians used to hire recording engineers and producers: To deal with all the technical issues.

If you are going to be taking your music around to other computers, I'd suggest buying a really good set of headphones and using those as the comparison point, so you don't have to worry about computer speakers. Or, a set of speakers to carry around as your "standard". Most computer speakers really are $10 POS, and then you still have to wonder how each user has set their sound card settings on top of it.

If the sound card settings are all set to "default" with no boosts, no fx, and you use your own set of cans/speakers and still hear variations--then it's time to see what else is involved.

[kozikowski]

And you can also have phasing issues and we can deal with that, too. This is where you have external, good quality speakers that are wired incorrectly. Even though the wires seem to be going to the right places, if you mix that way, it will drive you nuts, and that, too, will not sound right on anybody else's system.

Koz