you can mix pure LCR but still place sounds anywhere you want in the left-to-right field.

for example: 
Take your double tracked acoustic, or double tracked synth portaleads... whatever, just double track it, maybe use a different instrument or inversions but play the same part twice... take those two tracks and pan one hard and the other center, and use your faders to create the l/r movement. You will be astonished at how much cooler it is to 'pan' this way.

Putting one or both tracks in the same relative spot using pan knobs is not remotely the same; try it and you'll understand in 2 seconds.

Al, I came across something you may find interesting. This guy sort of feels the way I feel. Before you click on that, hear me out for second.

http://productionadvice.co.uk/lcr-mixing-sucks/

There's a video in that link by Graham Cochrane (whom I respect) that I personally feel is a prime example of LCR failing. Let me tell you why...

The mix to me is not pronounced and you can hear all the stuff being wide and disconnected in my opinion as well as instrument upon instrument laying on top of each other. He mentions in the vid that he has lots of instruments going on. Can you really hear them all? I mean you sort of can if you listen really hard, but to me, listening to music "really hard" isn't something I like to do unless I'm doing a consultation for someone or fixing someone's mix, ya know? I'd much rather have things jump out at me in different spots.

To me, this mix sounds like this:

<<<<music>>>>---------------------------------drums, bass and vocals-----------------------------------<<<<music>>>>

It's definitely not something I'd be happy with.

The link also mentions a few things from Mixerman. That's another guy I respect, but sort of feel some of his ideas are not to my liking nor do I think many of his results are "mindblowing" or "fantastic" like he makes them out to be.

Though I'd NOT agree with the guy in the link when he mentions "LCR sucks" some of what he has to say as well as Graham's video are the reasons why I don't particularly care for the method. With that, I will leave you to form your own conclusions. :)

-Danny

Still, I do believe in the unstated concept underlying LRC, which is that you need to be more dramatic when mixing if you want the listener to notice. That 5% pan might sound like just the ticket to you, but a) you're intently listening and b) you made the adjustment so you know about it and expect to hear it. The end-listener isn't paying that close attention.

 
That's an excellent observation, bit. The 5% thing is like using this smokin' pre that you feel you can't live without. Just about no one is gonna notice. LOL! I agree with you for sure....there's just something about these mixes that make me feel exactly the way you described it in your first sentence, which I didn't quote.
 
What were your thoughts on Graham's mix in that video? Even if you don't agree with me and liked it, could you at least hear it that way I did and see why I might not go for something like this? It just sounds too disconnected to me with the instruments being so on top of each other, it almost sounds like a Sonitus phase plug being used to the extreme. Like once you go past 100% in the width area with the Sonitus phase, it sounds weird. That mix sounds weird to me in that same light.
 
Yet, if I can be truthful here....if bats is using this technique on the mixes I've heard, I don't get that "disconnection" when I've listened to his stuff. I always hear things and it doesn't have that sound stage like I tried to draw up in my last post. The mix Grham did almost sounds like it has a stereo spreader on it to my ears....and that's the sound that can make mixes using this technique unappealing to me. Make sense at all?
 
-Danny 

Me too on the listening experiences thing. The one thing I find though, the tighter panned a mix is, the more is seems to sound good and translate everywhere. The wider mixes seem to be a catch 22 at times.

I don't know where the heck ya been Jack, but all the posts you've been putting up here recently the past few days have been awesome. Stick around here man, it's nice to hear your opinions. :)

-Danny

you don't have to mix guitars, keys, etc, 100% left and right.

you can take a stereo  signal and bring the hard left up 40% on the fader, put the right side at center position, and bring it's fader up  up 60%, and you've moved that sound somewhere around the 20% mark.


or take a mono delay, and use a send on a hard panned track to move the 'image' more towards the center with the delay send....
there are a thousand different ways to skin this cat.


i just don't think you have quite grasped the ideal of it yet...

batsbrew


you don't have to mix guitars, keys, etc, 100% left and right.

you can take a stereo  signal and bring the hard left up 40% on the fader, put the right side at center position, and bring it's fader up  up 60%, and you've moved that sound somewhere around the 20% mark.


or take a mono delay, and use a send on a hard panned track to move the 'image' more towards the center with the delay send....
there are a thousand different ways to skin this cat.


i just don't think you have quite grasped the ideal of it yet...

Right, but then you're not pure LCR if you're going to use volumes to differentiate where the pan resides. Volumizing stereo tracks is the same as panning mono tracks if you get right down to it. You can also take a mono sound and put a stereo effect on it and pan the effect and raise the effected level.
 
My point was, there are guys that go straight LCR and don't do any volume tricks...this is the thing I don't like as much. That vid that was in the link I posted...that's a prime example of what I don't like about it. It's way too separated and everything is walking on top.
 
As I noted in one of my posts here, I've never heard that artifact in your mixes. So the differences are, you are using controlled volumes to set up your pans....other people that do this go straight LCR and don't differentiate as you have. Trust me, I've grasped it, it's just not something I'm into.
 
This is the sort of thing I enjoy. You can hear where each instrument appears without them being straight LCR. Every space is taken up and I really enjoy hearing things this way. It's just more pronounced to me and has more impact for my own personal preference. This is truly remarkable and worth a listen all the way through with good speakers. It was the highlight of my morning when I found it. :)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnOmrDzRrGQ&feature=youtu.be
 
-Danny

The LCR thing was an early invention. They only had a switch. They did not figure out the pan pot concept until a bit later. Modern panning is a better thing (in terms of the console) than straight LCR switching. Remember LCR was the first attempt at output routing. Doesn't mean we have to stick to it either. 

They would have not used stereo in the way Bat suggest early in the piece. That requires two channels and the consoles of the day had very few channels and they would have not wasted one by doing that technique. I also doubt they would have routed a single mono channel to two mixer channels and set one to Hard L or Hard R and the other the Centre and played with balances that way either.

Also altering the level on a stereo signal the way Bat suggests is not the same as having a stereo signal being returned to two channels (which we can afford today) and being able to pan those returns anywhere as I have outlined in post #30. What is good about that is the levels of both sides of the stereo image remain constant. If you start altering the levels on one side of a stereo image it will go askew. 

It is a bit like the old analog vs digital argument. Analog came first and most believe it is the best, nothing better, have to sound like that at all costs. But it can be noisy, add distortion, alter transients, wow and flutter etc.. (all really great stuff!) What we have now is very good and mostly superior so jump in, use the latest technology and go with it. The good thing like digital recording sounding very analog when it wants to, is that the modern pan pot can do both LCR and everything in between. You have got both options now. You would be a fool to not explore the possibilities of what fine static panning can also offer and also movement too. That is an important one.

Danny thanks for that link you were right it sounds great and the smooth panning at the start sounds great on my system too.

Danny thanks for that link you were right it sounds great and the smooth panning at the start sounds great on my system too.

 
You're welcome Jeff...figured a few guys may enjoy that. That gave me a nice eargasm this morning to start my day. I'm no Beck fan, but man, that was really well put together. Bowie should have done it himself...would have probably been sicker. :)
 
-Danny

Man, this thread is a treasure trove of useful information...very cool.
 
I've been watching the "5 minutes to a better mix" videos on YouTube.  One of the vids is about LCR and another is about EQ'ing in mono.  The idea of EQ'ing in mono is that if you carve up the frequencies to sound good in mono the individual tracks will not "cover" each other up as much when moved to LCR.  Any thoughts?

I've got lots of experimenting to do with LCR.  So far my results have been less than stellar.  When I move stuff hard left and right it does indeed open up the middle, however, the sides become very congested.  It's like being in a crowded room.  I can hear the person directly in front of me talking to me but the din of the rest of the room is very distracting.  I really don't what the rest of the room is talking about ... it just sounds like a cacophony of muffled of voices.
 
I'm determined to get a "passing grade" LCR mix.  Not because I want to mix purely in LCR but because I want to know the ins-and-outs of LCR.  It's strengths and weaknesses.  How elese does one build their recording/mixing chops if not by exploring all of the possibilities and learning from your mistakes and successes.  Finding what works for me.

Great stuff here!!

another interesting hard panned song:

todd rundgren, 'i saw the light'

http://grooveshark.com/s/..w+The+Light/DxlBJ?src=5

Don't forget too that when you reproducing an LCR mix in a room with two speakers you are going to loose some of the apparent extreme panning of the L and R sides just due to natural room reflections and reverb and acoustics of the listening space. The effect will become less pronounced. Extreme LCR panning may be required in order to achieve more natural panning in the room created by the speakers.

Maybe mixes that use all pan positions may be better suited to headphone listening. I would imagine an LCR mix might sound a bit strange on headphones.