Using the stereo spectrum

One possible reason for this is, have you ever seen 2 people listening to separate earbuds from the same ipod? If the mix was widely panned, they'd be hearing entirely different things.

Dave King

I would think the release of the new stereo Beatles recordings probably blew everybody out of the saddle that believed in "panning rules". But heck, who are those guys that re-mixed the Beatles catalog and what do they know?

 
..not to nitpick, but the new Beatles releases were re-mastered, not re-mixed.  They left the mixes alone.

jimmyman
   You bring up a very good point. To me it seems that the
subject of "stereo" would benefit by breaking it down into
"panning" and "imaging". And then even further down into
"how much?". Then there is even more "types" of creating
a stereo image. delay, phase, and Eq to name a few are
different ways of "stereoizing"

I can only speak from my thoughts about the stereo
subject because we all have different preferences. With
that said here are my views. If you loose anything by
dropping "one side" (by that I mean if your ears tell you
it don't sound good without both sides) then there is a
problem in panning or imaging.

  Sometimes the "stereo" subject gets carried to far.
If the songs "greatness" "depends" on a stereo sound
then again something is wrong. There are times when
things get panned because they don't "fit" in the mix.
So instead of "tweaking the sound" (which can be
hard to accomplish)  it gets moved instead.

In "pro" music (modern that is) it appears that if there
(is) a hard panned instrument then it is barely audible.
An instrument that is vital should not be panned by much.
To my ears if there is a huge amount of a stereo image
in a song it sounds synthetic.

  If you "convert" or playback a tune in mono that has
a stereo image and it sounds "phasey" or you loose
"instruments" then again there is a problem. I've met
one record producer who had only one speaker hooked
up in his office. He would base his evaluation on a
song by playing only half of the mix.

In the past I've "relied" on some type of "stereozing"
(most times it was way too much) in my songs to
lead me to "perceive" my mix sounded good. But I
was lying to myself because as time went on I
realized i was depending on that instead of it being
"sweetening".

  Today I generally keep all the instruments in the
middle. Then I look for ways to "widen up" things.
It can be very difficult to say if panning is good
or bad because it's so dependent and on the
song and taste or desired outcome.

Through time I've found myself trying to not pan
rhythm instruments or percussion by much. If my
ears hear a "little bit" of a stereo sound be it
panning or imaging then I enjoy it. If the "sound"
is very "extreme" in the stereo image then it sounds
unnatural.

Of course I'm speaking of "songs". Movie's and such
would be a different story. To get technical there may
be no such thing as mono (for a person with normal
hearing) because the environment and the ears
"already" create some amount of a stereo image.

If my ears when listening to a tune say "there sure
is a lot of panning" it distracts me. If the song sounds
like there is a left/right and "middle" image but all
are equal in perception then it sounds very pleasant.

It is difficult to very specific about sound sometimes
because of the complexity of it. So I hope I don't
sound vague. What I can say is that I look at "quality"
of sound first and more important than "imaging".
it's like saying "quality of sound" is a necessity and
"imaging" is a luxury.  

feedback50


I wonder what the influence of portable listening devices has been on panning. Certainly a much larger share of the audience is listening through ear-buds than there was a decade or so ago. This probably exaggerates the listener's perspective on panning. (This has caused me some frustrating experiences with bands that evaluate my mixes on ear buds, often insisting on eq and dynamic changes that have tragic consequences to the mix.) 
.