+1 all,

for me its kind of like ducking a kick into a bass

IOWs ... use LCR only when/where things conflict ... especially in the highs. 

Interestingly, most all of us oft widen the high freq stuff in our masters ... perhaps the ears seem to approve selective widening of the highs.  Its the non-highs that beg centrality for purist ears.

all advice helps. stereo separation is a term ive never heard before what does that mean

@ASG:

 While there are other members who can explain it better than I, I'll try.

First, I'm gonna start with midi. You know about channels, right? While they aren't the same thing, if you're starting out you probably co-sign channels according to the track's number. (Ch1/Trk1, etc.) Even if you've een at it for awhile, it avoids confusion - that is, until to start moving tracks around; however, track =/= channel)

If a sound is duplicated (same sound + channel), the sound gets boosted drastically. Now, unless you want this, avoid this. If you run out of channels, bounce the midi to audio to free up more channels - although the same 16 are available.

Now, with the midi volume boost out of the way:

Stereo Separation which you can get with audio tracks easier than midi (if that can be done with midi, idk)

While midi has the volume boost issue, audio has a phase issue. This can be demonstration if two people singing/talking into mics pass by each other. The audio heard from the speakers goes silent momentarily. 

This is due to the "sweet spot" where the mics cross and the audio may die down before it completely stop. This is known as "phase cancellation." Dance/Techno genres use this sound predominately.

Think of it like "crossfading," but what's suppose to "fade-in/out" does so too late.

This is the case when two or more audio tracks collide/coincide with each other. They're both fighting for that "sweet spot."

The best example I can think of is an airy vocal recording doubled. There's going to be some phase there - possibly an egregious amount if it's not tamed well. Now, you may not get the phase, but like you said, you don't want some tracks sitting on top of each other. 

Therefore, nudge one of them ever so slightly and this adverb is key if you want to to appear like the whole "Stereo Field" (where pan comes in) is being used.

Relating this to midi. Regarding the piano + strings in my tracks, neither are strictly on beat. (This is just with straight chords, but my bass lines are certainly off-beat/syncopated very often)

It's common for the piano + strings to be layered, doing the same thing at the exact same time. However, "nudging" one or both gives them the "separation" to help maintain their separate identities even if they seem like they're doing the same thing. (ie: either one is on beat while the other is slightly off.) 

With me, everything besides the rhythm is off-beat and perhaps it's also off-beat; however, in complete context, it all sounds very well glued together

Again, that is "Stereo Separation" for midi. 

It's the same with audio.

Let's say you have Vox 1 and 2 60% from center equally to get better separation, so it's the same thing, but done at a different time, slightly nudge one of them by a few ticks. This "widens" the signal across the stereo field. I recommend this because subtly is one's best weapon. It'll take practice, but this can be achieved.

An example would be layered instruments. Unless you want to be obvious: 

This is a PIANO + STRINGS; however, when in context and even not - This is PIANO + strings is probably better. Heard than seen or Seen than heard. With me so far?

With vocals (but not limited to), this technique is used adamantly. It's obvious we can tell the panning situation: Lead Vocal center, BGV away from center, but they aren't completing with the lead vocal. Whether they're all singing the melody or the BGV consists of complex harmonies, the lead is dead center because it is the most important part.

Much like principle instruments in the orchestra. Where to they sit? Upfront and center because they lead the entire group! Now, members are surrounding them whever the section sits, but they are the focal point.

LCR panning is just one part of stereo separation, but timing is the other part.

Off-beat bass + strings surround the on-beat piano.

Off-beat everything else surrounds the on beat drums. Try listening to something syncopated without rhythm - and no matter how well you can count, you'll miss a beat at some point. (Unless you know the song top to bottom, back-to-front and sideways)

Techno/Dance and everything in-between those two genres are famous for syncopation tripping you up until the beat comes in.

This ties in as the nudge vocal is "off-beat", though you can't tell because of how subtle or because everything else is playing.

I gave the example of the Chorus effect. It's many instances of the same sound (signal) that is slightly off with each instance. This veers into frequency/frequency of pitch, but:

A440 doesn't sound like A440 when the chorus knob is wide open; however, as you slightly creep it upwards, you start to notice the effect. The note becomes "fat or widened" because of all the "wet" signals diluting the dry one. (Reverb/Delay/Flange/Phase works the same way)

If you're still confused, play with those "wet" knobs to see how they function. They're just "quantifying" the repeated signal.

Did this help as well or no? I did touch on other issues, but they do tie into this. (I think)

A further thought on this: running with the idea that you don't really have fine graded positional control, it can be useful to think in five positions: L - LC - C - RC - R. It's less utterly definite than strict LCR but can be a good starting point for a more interesting stereo image, without ending up all over the place. The most useful thing about experimenting LCR is, again, abandoning the illusion that separating things by 10% gives any meaningful stereo separation, and hearing some actual separation.

Does no one here use movement across the field, like modulated delays and bouncing stuff around the space?

Or are we all in the mono is more manly camp (pun intended), and whatever George Martin did 50 years ago is still the 'correct' way.

Of course it's all illusion and creating an impression but isn't that part of the fun that LCR kills?

I remember all those Moody Blues records of the late 60's and early 70's blowing my mind with all sorts of stuff flying around my head.  I love all that still you can't do any of that with a static hard pan.

Who cares if it doesn't make the same sense if you are off centre as long as it all still sounds good?  Many people use buds and stuff to listen so why not give them some extra fun too?

droddey

Philip


+1 all,

for me its kind of like ducking a kick into a bass

IOWs ... use LCR only when/where things conflict ... especially in the highs. 

Interestingly, most all of us oft widen the high freq stuff in our masters ... perhaps the ears seem to approve selective widening of the highs.  Its the non-highs that beg centrality for purist ears.

Only once you start getting up into the mids and up do the frequencies become sufficiently directional in the room to really be solidly placed to the far ends. Really high passed acoustic or electric guitars or shakers or tamborines and such, those when placed hard left or right really seem wide. Probably it also helps that high frequency stuff on the far edges are probably less likely to destructively interfere in the room, I would think, making them even more apparently separated.

Yeah Droddy, that makes a lot of sense.  Your logic also affords me more consideration to experiment with more bold HPFs (perhaps frequency-automated) for the tracks that I'd consider to pan around the most.

Some of those great Zero 7 songs will have a quite audible track or two actively moving around the stereo field

Simple Things is a great example of use of width.

And a great example of studio engineers making good music.

I personally feel the pan pot is a useful control and should be used. That combined with early reflections and the right reverb (convolution) can create a very strong sense of positioning with lots of depth. I agree that things sound better too when they are moving around.

 
+1 and my feelings as well, Jeff. Impulses today are so insane, they literally take us a step further than traditional reverb in my opinion plus give us lots of control. A good reverb unit is also a plus...but I seem to lean more towards impulses when that sense of positioning space is needed. I too am a fan of pans that go beyond the simple LCR method. I just think it can make a mix sound better to my ears. :)
 
-Danny

One thing that hasn't been mentioned about LCR panning in the early days of stereo is that the early stereo desks/pres often didn't have pan pots, they had three-position switches marked L C R, so the only options available were hard left, hard right and centre.

Hence the recordings of the period with the drums panned hard right, vocals center and bass and guitar hard left when mono would have sounded far more natural (and usually better).

I'm with Jonbouy on this - panning isn't just there as a way of setting out a "fake stage with a band on it" or separating things out in a mix (eq can often do that better in any case), it can be a useful and powerful sound designing tool and effect in it's own right.

An autopan plugin containing an LFO or two with a variety of waveforms is something Sonar could really do with in my opinion.

the pros that use LCR exclusively, also use the soundstage and the LCR technique, for ARRANGEMENTS.

this is key.