Patches from a certain muscly, bearded guitar player

I'm not personally a fan of the whole "delay one side for stereo enhancement" technique used in that preset but I left it in there just to keep it consistent with the original preset design.

That was intentional??? I thought it was a mistake and immediately "corrected" it.
 
Stereo live? You can't hear it ... I was told.

That's bollocks IMHO. At least, if you transcend the "stereo" term to dual mono.
Sure, if you use a sound which only works if you hear both channels equally, people outside the stereo triangle will hear something very different and perhaps bad. Example: hard panned ping pong delay is way off if you only hear the "ping" or the "pong".
But if you create a sound where both channels work well independently (= dual mono) there are only benefits: people hearing only one channel experience the same as if you ran mono anyway, people hearing both channels experience a thicker or more spatial sound (if you dial it that way). On a side note: I've rarely played venues big enough so that people being outside the stereo triangle would matter; most of the audience heard both channels, wherever they were.

Regarding this delay offset trick: I stay away from phase manipulation (which happens here) because it will sound bad unless the channels are hard panned (i.e. 100% left and right). This easily happens when the soundguy has no idea what he's doing (or does things like he always did, whatever you tell him).
 
Dual mono means each side is exactly the same, so you still can't do any spatial techniques until you are in stereo AKA 2 different signals. It's stereo even if you are just using that one spatial effect.
 
Dual mono means each side is exactly the same, so you still can't do any spatial techniques until you are in stereo AKA 2 different signals. It's stereo even if you are just using that one spatial effect.

Not in my book. I remember Jay Mitchell explaining it, but I don't remember the exact words. Anyway, in simple terms:

- "stereo", as in stereophonic sound, means, that there are two independent signals which create the illusion of one (!) "room" or audible perspective, with a pseudo (!) center. Example: imagine a stereo recording of a three piece band (g, b, dr) with the guitar in the center. It "appears" to be playing from in between your two loudspeakers.

- dual mono, as it applies in my case, means two independent (and somehow differing) signals that don't create a pseudo center. Example: two different amps and cabs on either side. This still sounds wider (or spatial) than just running single mono.
 
Cool. Still sounds like "stereo" to me. :p

Can anyone offer more clarification? I'll probably hit up like, the Internet or something later.
 
I think I found Jay's post(s).
First, an explanation he wrote at some newsgroup about stereo:
The term "stereophonic" refers specifically to the use of a pair of speakers
to create a sonic image that can lie at any point between the two. The
center image in a stereo system is a "phantom" image, since there is no
source at that position. This phantom image will not exist for the vast
majority of the audience at a concert, so the notion of creating stereo
sound in a concert is not a viable one. Having independent left and right
channels does not, by itself, make "stereo" sound.

Second, the post I remembered and that he wrote here at FAS forum:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/ultra-std-discussion/25470-wet-dry-wet-rigs.html#post395934
Excerpt:
Left-right sources are not necessarily stereophonic. The point of stereo is to create a "phantom image" where there is no physical sound source. This works only when the entire audience is in the median plane between the stereo sources. The cause of this extreme sensitivity to position is not amplitude differences between the sources, it is the arrival times of the sounds from the stereo sources at your ears. Very small differences in arrival time - on the order of a millisecond (i.e., listener about a foot off the median plane) cause substantial degradation in the "phantom" stereo image.

The point of W/D/W is to create spaciousness of sound, not a "phantom" center image. When there is a physical source of sound in the desired location - the dry speaker in this case - the ability to localize to that source is extremely robust over a wide range of angles and relative distances from each source (the two wet and one dry) to the listener. In order to get a stable center image with an LCR or W/D/W system, all you have to do is send that signal to the center (dry) speaker. You can do the same with signals you want panned hard left or hard right, because there are physical sources in those locations. As for localization to locations other than left, center, and right, you don't do that with LCR or W/D/W. You can very effectively create apparent motion (via crossfading) of the sound source, but the end points of the apparent motion must coincide with physical speaker locations in order to be reliably perceived by the entire audience.

There are multiple interesting posts on topic in that thread.

Granted, I don't go for such W/D/W approach, but the basic logic applies.
 
Is that Petrucci Rhythm preset meant to be run in stereo? Maybe that's why it doesn't sound right in mono. Sounds like you're playing in a tin can. But I notice it has a 12ms delay. Maybe in stereo the sound would be huge
 
That Petrucci Rhythm-Preset is nothing new, it was just moved from Bank C (at around 300 and something) to Bank A.
 
Is that Petrucci Rhythm preset meant to be run in stereo? Maybe that's why it doesn't sound right in mono. Sounds like you're playing in a tin can. But I notice it has a 12ms delay. Maybe in stereo the sound would be huge

Yes, that's the idea. If you run it in mono you'll get odd phase cancellations.
 
I loved my w/d/w rig mesa dry center taped into 3 fx-se70,dhp-55,quadraverb each with stereo output into boogie 2-90
I know its not the same but I run a lot of my patches with pedals into the amp and go all the way to output and split off delay,reverb and run them all the way to output
-------------------dry--output
(----------delay--output
(----------reverb--output
It sounds better to me if you blend the fx alongside the direct amp signal
 
Correct me if I am incorrect, but I believe this is what went down...

M@ went to where Petrucci is working on recording the new Dream Theater record. Impulse response was taken of Petrucci's cab and mics set up in the studio, (although the impulse sounds nothing like any Mesa cab impulse I've ever heard, in a bad way) FAS set up presets and tone matched Petrucci's amps and let John play through his Axe emulating his amp rig with firmware 10. John was like OMG! Amazing.

FAS promised Petrucci's tone matched presets with Firmware 10.

Sound accurate?


That's exactly how I interpreted it as well.


If the new cab IR in 10.00 is any indication, Petrucci's tone is really going to suck on the new DT album. :mrgreen


Seriously though, I don't think he has had a truly great studio tone since 6DOIT.
 
That's exactly how I interpreted it as well.


If the new cab IR in 10.00 is any indication, Petrucci's tone is really going to suck on the new DT album. :mrgreen


Seriously though, I don't think he has had a truly great studio tone since 6DOIT.

Couldn't agree more Shredi. It's possible the cab they took that impulse from has seen far too many miles on the road! Time to get a new cab John!
 
Couldn't agree more Shredi. It's possible the cab they took that impulse from has seen far too many miles on the road! Time to get a new cab John!

I'm gonna go ahead and say between FAS and JP, the safe bet is that the cab sounds exactly how they wanted it to. Perhaps the issue is that none of us has John Petrucci's hands or can play as well as he can...?
 
Back
Top Bottom