Panning

[Mixwell]

Originally Posted by moose

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]

Originally Posted by Mixwell

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]

Originally Posted by Sandyrb

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/mack...us_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!!!

[Mo Facta]

Originally Posted by moose

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]

Originally Posted by moose

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.