Panning

[Whinesilencer]

Hi, this is my first post here. I have got to say, this forum is awesome! I love reading everything on here, and I learn new stuff all the time.

Anyway, I was just curious to know what people's theories are on panning here. Pan hard left and right? Put snare, kick, bass, vocals all in the center? What do you guys typically do?

Thanks!

[Sandyrb]

Hiya, welcome to MTM. :)

What do you guys typically do?

I've said this before on here and it's a famous quote from Shelley Yakus who's a veteran recordist that I definitely respect; "Listen kid, there's left, right and center... everything else is crap!" :)

Now, I don't necessarily agree with that but, like some of the other forum members, I like to plan ahead and capture real stereo fields at source which I guess does mean that my pans are set hard left and right. I tend to give the "features" the prominent positions, center being the most prominent with hard left and hard right a joint second. The "flavors" get the intermediate positions.

Recently I've been mixing a metal album for one of our boys and, to bring the guitars out, I restricted everything else to maximum +/- 65% pan. Then the guitars were at -100/+100. This worked well for this particular project but I'm not sure I could use it for everything.

But, all this being said, the hallowed words of Joe Meek ring in my ears, which being "if it sounds right, it IS right". I guess twist your sources about until they sound great... if you hit that, you've got it. :)

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

[Halfway Competent]

A long time ago, my stereo speakers were a pair of KLH 3-way bookshelf (6.5", 4", tweeter) that were $100/pr at Costco. They sounded "OK". When funds allowed, I started shopping for some good speakers. I ultimately decided to build a set (and all during that project, questioned the wisdom of that decision).

While building the new speakers, I paid very careful attention to making sure both enclosures were PRECISELY the same... Panels for both speakers were cut at the same time, etc. The result of this was a pair of speakers with fantastic imaging characteristics. In fact, it really made the "L/C/R" panning of a lot of recordings obvious. Many recordings suddenly sounded congested, with too much crap in the center, with some nice ambiance in the L/R.

What I usually do... Any stereo pair of anything (i.e. drum overheads, piano, area mics) is panned hard L/R. However, a mono-miked source (like a tom, guitar, etc) might get panned just a bit to one side or the other.

Fortunately, this is something that is easy to experiment with, so try a bunch of stuff out and see what you get. :)

[Tomasz]

Hi, this is my first post here. I have got to say, this forum is awesome! I love reading everything on here, and I learn new stuff all the time.

welcome aboard.. i learn new stuff all the time here as well.
What I like to do is visualize (in my mind) the band in front of me as if i'm witnessing a performance, and place them accordingly in the stereo field. then I like to tweak the panning to help everything have its place. Now if your doing some 5-piece rock band, left to right it appears and sounds sorta like this:
(audience perspective here) left guitar, drums, bass, right guitar, with vocals in the middle.(even if he/she is running around and "cupping" the mic!) Now if the mix is expected to be a literal representation of the band, you can hear and see that the guitars are wider than the drums, and I pan them there accordingly. And since bass frequencies are less directional in general, I like to keep them dead center with the kick and vocals there as well. I used to automatically pan Drum OH's hard right and left, but I found that drums can and usually do sound more punchy to my ears and my clients if they are less drastic in terms of panning width.
I like to think of panning as my potential EQ eliminator.If I have captured the source how it sounds in reality ( my goal 100% of the time, usually by moving the mics fancy that) , or how the artist thinks or wants it to sound,
I should be able to aptly mix with minimal EQ and more positioning/panning.
I also pan in MONO with only ONE speaker on alot. finding the sweet spot for clarity is simplified here and yields truly audible results.. Try it.

Just my thoughts and ideas. good luck and have fun here.

By the way SANDY is mixing a metal record..:cool: I love it.. Can I sit in?

[Sandyrb]

I also pan in MONO with only ONE speaker on alot. finding the sweet spot for clarity is simplified here and yields truly audible results.
I call this 'the Don Smith method' because he talks about it in his interview in The Mixing Engineer's Handbook. Although it sounds antithetical to what one might consider a 'normal' approach to mixing, it totally works. I don't use it all the time, but when there's something niggly that won't quite sit right it can be very handy. Also I use this method just to listen sometimes, very quietly, so that I can really hear the context. It helps.

By the way SANDY is mixing a metal record.. :cool: I love it.. Can I sit in?
Yeah totally out of character I know. :) But this lot are quite good and are almost in danger of restoring my faith in metal! :eek:

Cheers,

[Tomasz]

I call this 'the Don Smith method' because he talks about it in his interview in The Mixing Engineer's Handbook. Although it sounds antithetical to what one might consider a 'normal' approach to mixing, it totally works. I don't use it all the time, but when there's something niggly that won't quite sit right it can be very handy. Also I use this method just to listen sometimes, very quietly, so that I can really hear the context. It helps.


Yeah totally out of character I know. :) But this lot are quite good and are almost in danger of restoring my faith in metal! :eek:

Cheers,

I picked up this idea from that exact source... Quite a handy resource.
i should've given that reference.
And there is good metal to be found and heard, I have faith in that.

Cheers

[Mixwell]

There is arm and shoulder room, as well as head and foot room.

Do something with all of it.

[ears2thesky]

I tend to place key elements more in the center than I used to (especially toms). When I'm comping a multed guitar track I might mix it down to a stereo subgroup and push a couple of the tracks wide, but for the most part only my side mic(M/S overheads) and ambient effects are hard panned.

[Mixwell]

There is arm and shoulder room, as well as head and foot room.

Do something with all of it.

In thinking about the "do something with all of it" sentence,

There is probably something to be said for the real estate YOU DON'T USE.

[Tim Farrant]

I think it comes down to the type of material you are working on. Some stuff can sound cool with hard panning, listen to old blues records for example.

If you have a piano and voice, then panning the piano hard left and the vocal hard right would by many be seen as "strange". However, if you some funky track with lots of percussion then panning the various elements around would seem sensible.

And, given now-a-days people are listening on headphones more than ever before (ipods) then panning choices become more apparent then ever before.

[Mixwell]

Welcome to the Forum Tim!

[Tim Farrant]

Welcome to the Forum Tim!

Thank you!

[Zachg]

And, given now-a-days people are listening on headphones more than ever before (ipods) then panning choices become more apparent then ever before.

Then theres the ones who only listen with one ear bud in... :finger:

"Why can't I hear the riff?!?!?!" :confused:

We shouldn't have to mix specially for these people, but that's basicly how my entitre generation listens to music. Whenever I'm showing friends a song I'm working on, they will always use the one earbud. Is it just a lack of understanding, or is music just irrelevant background noise to them?

Zach

[Tomasz]

Then theres the ones who only listen with one ear bud in... :finger:
"Why can't I hear the riff?!?!?!" :confused:
We shouldn't have to mix specially for these people, but that's basicly how my entitre generation listens to music. Whenever I'm showing friends a song I'm working on, they will always use the one earbud. Is it just a lack of understanding, or is music just irrelevant background noise to them?
Zach

Kudos to you Zach... And plus 1,000% on the finger to those who typify what you describe here... these are passive listeners and multitaskers, and IMO, are a perfect example of what's wrong with much of todays music and quite honestly, todays youth... Hopefully they will be wearing both earbuds when they are forced to learn chinese. Or will they be too busy multitasking, and getting the scoop on the next "hottest thing from titter, or whatever..
Help us educate them Zach... it's part of our job.. maybe they will listen to you, even with one earbud in.... But what do i know, I am just an old burnout.. who loves music and still has a music "listening room, and I'm not talking about the control room... ANyone remember those?
Peace

[The MexICAN]

Then theres the ones who only listen with one ear bud in... :finger:
Zach

I once was given shit by a teacher for panning the snare to the left, not hard left like 43%. He's reason was "You never pan the kick or snare or vocal, that should be right up the center because someone could be listening with only one speaker."

Plus, I had forgetten my mixing manual at home that day.

I love panning that's why we have two, six, seven, and way more speakers. I love the PanScan.

[Ghaines]

A long time ago I read an article in one of the recording magazines that said humans can't differentiate anything other the hard L, center, and hard R. So, for a long time that's how I mixed everything.

And you know what? That way sucks. And so does that particular magazine. But whatever. Those guys don't record anything, they just hump gear and talk to other people that molest gear without ever actually using it for recording something that someone is going to hear. I digress...

Maybe in a series of University tests the general person off the street can't localize things, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. THe point is to give your music the breadth and depth it requires.

That said, from a mastering perspective, you should have your bass stuff in phase and more towards the center than not. I recently did a master for vinyl where 100% of the bass synth parts were out of phase or hard panned - a major NO NO for records. Otherwise, do what sounds good to you.

[The MexICAN]

Maybe in a series of University tests the general person off the street can't localize things, BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. THe point is to give your music the breadth and depth it requires.
Excellent!!


That said, from a mastering perspective, you should have your bass stuff in phase and more towards the center than not. I recently did a master for vinyl where 100% of the bass synth parts were out of phase or hard panned - a major NO NO for records. Otherwise, do what sounds good to you.

I don't understand 100%, do you mean panned hard left or right, not stereo? Or does this apply to stereo synth/bass parts?

Also, does this apply to only mastering for vinyl?

[antiearth]

Everything you need to know about panning was written by Stun Mode...it's called "pan the snare down the middle" I believe The Mexican will agree.

[The MexICAN]

100% agree. I think we should post the finished mix on here. Or another part of the forum dedicated to everyones bands, mixes, stuffs. Not necessarily for criticism, or whatever you want you know show off stuff like that. Is there already a place for that?

I'll get the Shadow to finish the mix or just do it myself. We'll see.

[antiearth]

small legs

[Mixwell]

Everything you need to know about panning was written by Stun Mode...it's called "pan the snare down the middle" I believe The Mexican will agree.

You mean, pan ALL the snares up the middle?

There are more than one ya know.

The Junkyard Sandwiched Tom/Snare is my favorite.

[The MexICAN]

So back on topic.
Do many of you pan according to your room?
So, if you have a band in a room with all the instruments and amps will you pan with your room?
Drums (centerish)
Bass (left)
Guitars (right)
Etc.

Not exactly that, obviously.

Do many of you try to record band in a room with amps, or do you try to get as much isolation as possible and put amps in separate rooms?

[Mo Facta]

Hi, this is my first post here. I have got to say, this forum is awesome! I love reading everything on here, and I learn new stuff all the time.

Anyway, I was just curious to know what people's theories are on panning here. Pan hard left and right? Put snare, kick, bass, vocals all in the center? What do you guys typically do?

Thanks!

LCR is the only way to go, for me, for the most part.

If you do it right, panning doesn't even come into it because you're actually routing your tracks to one of three bus options: left, center, or right. Hence, you never even touch the pan knob. A couple of AE's I know have said that they have found that using this techinique on an analog console instead of using the pan pot improves clarity because they're omitting the gain stage utilized by the pan pot. This can aid in clarity and imaging in a huge way. Try it and check it out for yourself. Most DAW have option for LCR busses.

Dave Moulton did a study condensed to an article where it was determined that most people, including engineers, have a very tough time with localisation cues within as far as +/- 3dB left or right. The article is HERE (http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/principles_of_multitrack_mixing_the_phantom_image/P1/).

However, here's an interesting excerpt:

However, I was very startled to discover that the phantom image didn’t seem to move at all even when the levels between channels changed a whole decibel! I was so startled that I became positive I had made a mistake when preparing the tape! A little investigation (well, about three hours, including chasing down all the wiring in the monitoring system!) showed me that I hadn’t made a mistake, and when the dust finally settled I had found out something quite interesting: that as long as the difference between channels is less than 3 decibels, the phantom image hovers pretty much in the middle point between the two speakers.

So as you can see, panorama is a bit of a difficult subject when you're talking about miniscule offsets. I suggest you read the whole article because it's highly informative.

One more thing I want to say is on the subject of LCR and stereo sources. If you think about it, LCR mixing forces you to make sure that your stereo sources are correctly in phase because there are no other options but L or R. Otherwise, it's not true stereo, is it? That's the only option for a stereo signal; hard left, hard right. This also ensures mono fold down compatibility, which means that the mix topology actually begins in the tracking phase. I find this simplified process of the LCR approach really gives a holistic perspective to the given project.

Cheers :)

[joshfeldman]

I may be a little late here but I just stumped upon this thread and have some thoughts.

In my first and only thread, one piece of advice that has stuck out for me was from Sandy from Pulsworks which was: You don't have to hear it, it just has to work. I may be taking this somewhat out of context here but I experienced that working on some strings this afternoon. The recordings that this phrase pertain to are 4 tracks, stereo violin and viola. I was fighting this issue where even though the tracks are in phase, (the dynamics are balanced across the stereo field) because the top mic caught much more high end than the bottom did, the frequency range across the stereo field was totally out of balance. What I found worked the best was reversing the pan of the Viola track and bringing back the pan a tiny bit on both inside tracks. To clarify, it looks like Violin Top +64 Bot -50 Viola Top -64 Bot +50. (Logic's hard pan is 64)

This subtle change made a massive difference for me, not only is the frequency range balanced across the stereo field but that small pan separated the two instruments and gave them space AND kept everything sounding natural. It was honestly very exciting. Most importantly I think, or at least the point I'm trying to make is, even knowing what I did, listening to the tracks it is very difficult to place which instrument is on which side but it was (at least to my padawan ears) still very effective.

Also, what about something like a string quartet or backup singers? How could an accurate stereo image be achieved with only L-C-R to work with?

[Halfway Competent]

Also, what about something like a string quartet or backup singers? How could an accurate stereo image be achieved with only L-C-R to work with?

Easy; stereo pair of mics. :)

I once miked up a string trio live at a wedding with a pair of AT4033s (two violins and a cello). The musicians were arranged in a triangle, facing each other. I positioned the mics such that each mic would pick up two instruments, and panned them stereo. Worked out great.

I miked up another wedding with a string quartet; similar arrangement, except there were two people down one side, one person at the end, and another on the other side, all facing in at each other. That was slightly more difficult. The lead violinist was kind of a bitch, too (but hot!), and hard to deal with, i.e., "Is this mic out of your way?" "Whatever."

Anyway, ultimately, if you have your strings in a semicircle it's easiest; just set up an X/Y of a couple SDCs and you're golden. Or a Blumlein of Fig-8s. Or a spaced pair of omnis (note, I've never worked with omnis, so I've no idea how to actually position them... Suffice it to say, an X/Y of omnis likely would yield no stereo spread).

As for backup vocals, I usually mic a choir with a spaced pair. A rule of thumb I read once, and I've found it works well, is to have your mics 2' above the highest row of singers, and 2' in front of the front row. That will give you a very present sound, though little ambiance. Pull 'em back farther for more ambiance/less presence. Of course, you're likely not miking a choir, exactly, but similar principles probably apply to smaller vocal ensembles. I've also seen sessions where the ensemble gathered around in a circle, with a Blumlein stereo pair in the center.

[moose]

There's a lot more to panning IMO then simple LCR. Going that route is usually sorta boring... yes its stereo, but it ends up having the impact of a "big" mono. Lots of room between the extremes... why not use some of it?

I often pan stereo elements to 10 & 2 or 9 & 3... leave the extreme sides for things that need to be extremely wide. Occasionally I'll take a stereo acoustic or whatever and do something like put one side at 5 oclock and the other at 11. Totally unbalanced. Yet when that part comes in there's a hell of an impact on the listener.

Last couple three years I've mixed a lot of live music (off multitrack) and one guy in particular kept calling me out for "larger then life" panning on my early mixes. Said that a B3/Leslie or stereo guitar never wraps around your head the way I had it... half the band loved it and the other half didn't care. The one guy though... he made me sorta re-think my approach to panning.

A long time ago in my assistant/intern days we had a pretty well known cat come through the shop to do a few mixes. He had all the toms panned apart... like 9-2-11-4 on a big kit. When I asked him about it he said that he liked to hear 'em really move around on the big fills...

Mondo stereo.

[Mo Facta]

There's a lot more to panning IMO then simple LCR. Going that route is usually sorta boring... yes its stereo, but it ends up having the impact of a "big" mono. Lots of room between the extremes... why not use some of it?

Of course there are as many approaches as there are people in the world. However, in all due respect, from you above post it is clear that you don't fully understand the philosophy of LCR mixing. Did you read the Dave Moulton article? Please read it HERE (http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/principles_of_multitrack_mixing_the_phantom_image/P1/).

I often pan stereo elements to 10 & 2 or 9 & 3... leave the extreme sides for things that need to be extremely wide. Occasionally I'll take a stereo acoustic or whatever and do something like put one side at 5 oclock and the other at 11. Totally unbalanced. Yet when that part comes in there's a hell of an impact on the listener.

If you think about it, if you narrow the stereo field on a stereo source, it's not really stereo, is it? By narrowing the field you are only in fact lessening the effect of phase cancellation when you collapse to mono by thus introducing natural phase inconsistencies inherant in the stereo recording. Why would you want to quasi-collapse a source, that, if recorded properly, is meant to be stereo: hard left, hard right?

Last couple three years I've mixed a lot of live music (off multitrack) and one guy in particular kept calling me out for "larger then life" panning on my early mixes. Said that a B3/Leslie or stereo guitar never wraps around your head the way I had it... half the band loved it and the other half didn't care. The one guy though... he made me sorta re-think my approach to panning.

Do yourself a favor and listen to Muse, The Resistance, mixed by Mike Stent. My first impression was how huge that record sounded along with being completely clear with miles of wide and punch. For me, this record is a bastion of the modern LCR mixing style and it becomes very obvious once you are able to audition the mid and side fields through and MS encoder, like the free Antress ModernSplitter. What you will find is that the larger than life sound (and loudness) DOES NOT come from intermediate panning techniques. It comes from CONTRAST between the mid and side.

So, when you run, say, the first track off the record through the MS encoder, and audition the mid field, what you get is, in essence, what makes the song the song. Surprisingly, things like rythym guitars, kick, snare, lead vocals (some bv's), bass and lead keyboard sounds - the essential elements, ALL MONO! If you audition the side fields you get things like the toms (hard L, hard R), stereo backing vocals, stereo guitar leads, ALL reverbs, claps and stabs, etc. ALL hard L, hard R. Provided his stereo sources are phase coherant - which they are - what you have there is a mix that loses VERY little when you collapse into mono and retains impact, clarity. This is because if you mix your essential song elements in the center you can make the space you need on the sides to tickle the ear/brain into perceiving "wideness" more effectively. Sure, you have to be creative, but that is what it's all about.

A long time ago in my assistant/intern days we had a pretty well known cat come through the shop to do a few mixes. He had all the toms panned apart... like 9-2-11-4 on a big kit. When I asked him about it he said that he liked to hear 'em really move around on the big fills...

Mondo stereo.

Like I said before, there is no right or wrong way. Sandy is correct in that if it sounds good, it sounds good no matter the method. I would just suggest learning more about LCR before you label it boring because there is actually some real wisdom in the philosophy that is worth while looking at.

Cheers :)

[Sandyrb]

When I asked him about it he said that he liked to hear 'em really move around on the big fills.

Me too! Although huge tom sweeps are a bit passe these days I really like to hear them move... it gives the track so much... well... movement. :) But it can be difficult to reconcile the close mic pans with the natural stereo from the overheads. I don't like the kit to sound like a bunch of separate pieces which have been wodged together, you know? Like a synth kit; no real interaction between the elements. I like the thing to sound like one huge instrument. Panning, I find, is a huge part of that.

Yeah! 1980s 15-tom fills rock out! ;)

Cheers,

[moose]

Of course there are as many approaches as there are people in the world. However, in all due respect, from you above post it is clear that you don't fully understand the philosophy of LCR mixing. Did you read the Dave Moulton article?

I did read a bit of the Dave Moulton thing and with all due respect I thought it was a piece of shit. Seems like it was written by a propellerhead who hasn't spent that much time listening to real music... or producing it. Replace the pan pots with toggle switches & use 1ms delays to move things around... oooooooK!!!

He sorta lost me in that bit where he's talking about his self-proclaimed "golden ears" along with the white papers and university tests.

I could really care less about that stuff... just like I could care less about a 'generic' soundstage and realism in "pop" music recording. Lemme tell 'ya all of recording is a farce, except maybe classical. Its never real. As soon as you do a punch-in or cut a take together its all a lie. Just depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go...

Personally I really dig the panning on old '60s & '70s records. Put the drums on the left, vocals on the right. Wish I could do a whole record like that... gotta find the right band or artist who'd be into it. Instead I'll make nods to that when I can get away with it.



If you think about it, if you narrow the stereo field on a stereo source, it's not really stereo, is it? By narrowing the field you are only in fact lessening the effect of phase cancellation when you collapse to mono by thus introducing natural phase inconsistencies inherant in the stereo recording. Why would you want to quasi-collapse a source, that, if recorded properly, is meant to be stereo: hard left, hard right?


Because, maybe its like, I dunno... too wide or something? :rolleyes:

Like my friend above who didn't like the Leslie & stereo guitar wrapping around his head... I had to bring 'em way in on the later mixes. They write the checks and that's enough for me! I'm not personally attached to the stuff, so as long they love the final thing why should I care?

If everything is big and wide, then nothing is big and wide.

In that specific case by bringing the stereo instruments inwards there's more room on the sides for ambiance... the room sounds MUCH bigger. Of course that was a live release, tracked on stage in front of thousands of people... there should be a degree of realism.

But a record, in a studio? Nah... forget it. Put stuff wherever you want.

I do a lot of panning (and general mixing) in mono as well.

Makes perfect sense when you think about pan laws and different consoles/DAWs.

[Mo Facta]

I did read a bit of the Dave Moulton thing and with all due respect I thought it was a piece of shit. Seems like it was written by a propellerhead who hasn't spent that much time listening to real music... or producing it. Replace the pan pots with toggle switches & use 1ms delays to move things around... oooooooK!!!

Ok man, no need to get snotty about it. Like I said, TWICE, if it sounds good, then no problem. I was actually pointed to the article by Bob Ohlsson, the highly respected mastering engineer. Just so you know, Dave Moulton is a senior professor at Berklee, one of the most respected schools of music and recording in the world. He is also a highly respected audio researcher and author. So, excuse me, but I'd take his word over yours anyday.

He sorta lost me in that bit where he's talking about his self-proclaimed "golden ears" along with the white papers and university tests.

Like I said, Berklee is not just any old University. It is a premiere conservatory of music and recording which is highly respected by professionals world wide. And yes, I'll give him his 'self-proclaimed' ears because, quite simply, he has them.

I could really care less about that stuff... just like I could care less about a 'generic' soundstage and realism in "pop" music recording. Lemme tell 'ya all of recording is a farce, except maybe classical. Its never real. As soon as you do a punch-in or cut a take together its all a lie. Just depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go...

That's funny because Dave Moulton's primary expertise is in classical music.

Personally I really dig the panning on old '60s & '70s records. Put the drums on the left, vocals on the right. Wish I could do a whole record like that... gotta find the right band or artist who'd be into it. Instead I'll make nods to that when I can get away with it.

Yeah, we all like to get romantic about techniques of ages past. That's fine. But what happens when you get hired for a "modern" production?

Because, maybe its like, I dunno... too wide or something? :rolleyes:

There's that snottiness again. Too wide? For what? If a stereo recording sounds too wide you obviously have phase problems and it's just a bad stereo recording. If you knew you needed a narrower stereo field, why not just record it with an X/Y pair so you didn't have to narrow anything?

Like my friend above who didn't like the Leslie & stereo guitar wrapping around his head... I had to bring 'em way in on the later mixes. They write the checks and that's enough for me! I'm not personally attached to the stuff, so as long they love the final thing why should I care?

Personal taste is the spice of life. That's fine. The client is king. That's also fine.

If everything is big and wide, then nothing is big and wide.

I can agree with that. That's why I said wideness does not come from intermediate panning. It comes from CONTRAST between the mid and side.

In that specific case by bringing the stereo instruments inwards there's more room on the sides for ambiance... the room sounds MUCH bigger. Of course that was a live release, tracked on stage in front of thousands of people... there should be a degree of realism.

Why take a stereo source, mess with it's L/R balance, introduce phase cancellation by narrowing it just so you can get the ambience in there? It's forest for the trees, if you ask me. What's wrong with a mono source?

But a record, in a studio? Nah... forget it. Put stuff wherever you want.

I do a lot of panning (and general mixing) in mono as well.

Makes perfect sense when you think about pan laws and different consoles/DAWs.

Sure, pan all you want. I never said don't. All I said is maybe try to understand LCR a little better before you write it off as nonsense.

Cheers :)

[Mixwell]

I did read a bit of the Dave Moulton thing and with all due respect I thought it was a piece of shit. Seems like it was written by a propellerhead who hasn't spent that much time listening to real music... or producing it. Replace the pan pots with toggle switches & use 1ms delays to move things around... oooooooK!!!

He sorta lost me in that bit where he's talking about his self-proclaimed "golden ears" along with the white papers and university tests.

I could really care less about that stuff... just like I could care less about a 'generic' soundstage and realism in "pop" music recording. Lemme tell 'ya all of recording is a farce, except maybe classical. Its never real. As soon as you do a punch-in or cut a take together its all a lie. Just depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go...



Hey Moose why don't you watch your words more carefully and try to be respectful. Dave is a friend of mine I don't appreciate you slagging the guys work, nor adding tension to our forum where there previously was none, by anyone else.

[moose]

Hey Moose why don't you watch your words more carefully and try to be respectful. Dave is a friend of mine I don't appreciate you slagging the guys work, nor adding tension to our forum where there previously was none, by anyone else.

Huh... 'ya know Adam, its funny but I didn't feel any tension until your post here. I've never really been one to muffler my thoughts on anything and if I think something, or someone is full of crap I'm gonna say so. Surely ya'll can appreciate that no? Frankly if someone calls one of my friends an ass I'm not going to take it personally. Why should I?

Didn't realize this corner of the internet was going to be 'policed' like the purple pages... but dually noted nonetheless.

Anyway... I do have a pretty solid understanding of LCR mixing, especially as it applies to large concert PA's. That doesn't mean I'm about to replace all the pan pots on my console with hard switches... or that I even think its a good idea.

Don't really have time to get into more details or address Mo Factas comments one by one right now, but if you want to know how I address panning on a 'modern' record then ya'll can wait until my next production drops in mid-September and pick it up off iTunes or wherever.

On that one I'd like to think we made equal nods to the "modern" thing with big, enveloping hard-panned guitars, as well as equal nods to the old school with other elements... like the lack of vibe re-placer on the drums.

There was no Toolz abuse either... they actually played everything! Imagine that!!! Maybe I'll even pick it apart on here if anyones interested.

I gotta get to my festival gig... homeworks just about finished printing... peace!

[Mixwell]

Decency and Respect gets you a lot further than calling personally relative shenanigans.

Its fine that you don't agree with things. Great. To call his work shit is offensive and thus you offended me, and created a negative atmosphere in this thread. I am not trying to bully you MOOSE, I am stating the law of common decency - and you owe us that so please post with more respect. I surely don't agree with everyone either, but defacing someones work and name publicly is a poor quality we ought to stray from. Deface products all you want.

[Sandyrb]

I must confess, guys, I didn't think the Dave Moulton article had much meat to it either. I've done countless experiments of my own (just 'coz I geeky well can) that give me different results than his. Ah but what the heck do I know? :)

I did enjoy what he wrote about the precedence effect. That's something I've used a lot in my recordings; farting around with phase to create different stereo perceptions. I think it's a most useful technique.

I will say this though; I note with interest that the article was written in '92 and I think it's fair to say that there's been a significant change in recording technologies since then (note that I don't say "advance"). Perhaps Dave's results were more pertinent to the technologies he was using then.

I like panning stuff around when required and I like the LCR thing too... they're different approaches for different applications. What works for the material is what's important, right?

Peace out bros. :) Cheers,

[Mo Facta]

Ok guys, well, this gives a perfect platform to discuss the elements of the article more deeply. And Sandy, the fact that the article was written in '92 does not de-value the information contained within it. A lot has changed since the 50's but still, the fundamentals of a lot of that technology remain. The fact that it's just been updated and emulated digitally does not change the parameters in which we work. All it has done is change the workflow.

First thing's first. The phantom image. This is actually the basis of the entire idea. The effectiveness of this center image combined with minute phase inconsistencies (the precedence effect) is actually the essence of what we do in creating a stereo mix. There's no way around it. Close your eyes and listen to a mono source from two speakers and sure enough, you'll be able to envision a real point between the space where the music seems to be eminating from.

Now, how do you think this relates to certain styles or approaches of mixing and why, or why not, is it irrelevant in creating an effective mix?

Moose said it himself; if everything is wide, nothing is wide. SO, if your goal is to create a spacious mix with punch and clarity, how would you go about doing it, purely from a panorama perspective?

Cheers :)

[Mo Facta]

What works for the material is what's important, right?


That will never be contested but this discussion is about more than just a blanket philosophy. It's a specific inquest into WHY and HOW.

Cheers :)

[moose]

Decency and Respect gets you a lot further than calling personally relative shenanigans.

Its fine that you don't agree with things. Great. To call his work shit is offensive and thus you offended me, and created a negative atmosphere in this thread. I am not trying to bully you MOOSE, I am stating the law of common decency - and you owe us that so please post with more respect. I surely don't agree with everyone either, but defacing someones work and name publicly is a poor quality we ought to stray from. Deface products all you want.

Well this is all well and amusing...

I didn't think I had called shenanigans, nor lacked decency and respect... or a negative attitude, though a long time ago someone... might've even been Fletcher who said that when someone pops out "with all due respect" what they really mean to say is "fuck you". Go figure. If you wanted to see a negative attitude from me, well congratulations. You've managed to provoke a happy hippie.

So much for free speech & the first amendment eh?

All I said, and I'm gonna stand by my words is that the DM article is bunk. That's not slagging the man. And I find it HIGHLY amusing that you'd relate to his words as your own. There's a bunch of gems on that site... love his review of the Smackie consoles;

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/mackie_32_input_8bus_console/P1/

There are other interesting anecdotes, a fair number of 'em, generally speaking to excellent sonics, dynamic range and physical reliability of Mackie products. Equally important, I have never heard anybody trash Mackie. No tales of horror, no misadventures; the mythology is all happy faces. Collectively, these stories gives me good reason to hope that this Mackie product might be a good one, in spite of a price that simply screams: "Marginal!"

So like, can we say now that someone at Mercenary loves the Smackie boards and nobodies trash talked 'em? Like ZOMG!!! They're GREAT!!! LOL WUT?!

See how that goes?

So I can deface products but not people? What if I say that Manley blows? Would EveAnna take it personally? Or Neve? Avenson? How about Neumann? The family of Georg Neumann might come after us! Oh nos!!!

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll10/Loki99-photos/Francis.jpg

[Mo Facta]

All I said, and I'm gonna stand by my words is that the DM article is bunk.

And yet you still haven't given any evidence or reasons as to WHY you think it's "bunk". Personally, I think you dismissed the article because it didn't fit into your personal mix philosophy and now you're forcing yourself not to go back on your statement.

The article is science and if you don't have a scientific rebuttle to debunk it, your words fall nothing short of OPINION. It's one thing to say something is "shit" as you put it, but it's another to turn around and disprove an article with astute, scientific evidence. And believe me, if you did that, you have my vote for president.

The floor is open. Use it.

Cheers :)

[Mixwell]

So much for free speech & the first amendment eh?

Rule 5. on this forum is as states.

Be cool, and use common sense.

Do I have to explain this further Moose?

Please adhere to this rule or your posts will be moderated.

And - Again leave the insults at the door. They are not welcome here.

[moose]

Ya know Mr. Mixwell... truthfully you'd likely be getting a MUCH different reaction outta me if there wasn't some previous history of veiled jabs & comments hurled in my direction from you before... be it here, on other forums or even at the last AES show in NYC. Respect goes both ways and frankly it always seems to be lacking from your end.

Honestly I don't need that sorta thing in my life... I get to deal with enough self-righteous knucklheads as it is and it would seem there are far friendly places on the interknot to whittle away my free time. I'll leave you to pontificate in your sandbox. All the best.