I once conducted an experiment where I created the same mix in 4 DAW's using only the LCR approach. The idea was to make it so exact mixes could be created in all the DAW's for a sound quality comparison between them. By only using LCR you are effectively removing any pan law differences between them. I was surprised as to how good it sounded. But I think panning is a little more complicated than just LCR.

The distance between your speakers is quite important. Slightly too wide and the centre phantom ghost goes away and that image breaks up and you end up with poor centre support. You won't hear smoother panning across the stereo field so much. It tends to jump a bit.

Correct positioning involves putting your monitors on a long plank and getting two friends to slowly pull them apart while you listen blindfolded to a mono source. There will be a strong phantom image and then at some point it will go away. When you re position them so the strong phantom image comes back you have set it up correctly. I see a lot of monitors too far apart often in this forum when people show their studio set-ups. 

I love the sound of the panning movement in Studio One. That centre image starts on the move as soon as you move the pan pot and it seems to travel slowly either side to me. That must be more useful in terms of panning things into more places. The stereo always sounds a little better to me when one utilises all the pan positions. If you were sitting in the centre of an arc of say 8 musicians around you, then the panning of all them is what you would hear isn't it. Would  it be just in three positions, I doubt it. It is always a good thing to bring any aspect of our production back to real life situations. If you were a conductor how would you hear everyone in the orchestra. I have stood there eyes closed, it is a panning masterpiece! It is not just in three places, it is in three dimensional form and right across every part of the full stereo image you are hearing before you.

That stereo Sennheiser binaural head microphone thingy was amazing when it came out in the 80's. I have heard a recording of a train set going around from right in the middle of the train setup itself. It was quite scary how things moved around so well and naturally. 

I'm just starting to dig into the concept of LCR mixing.  I have a noob question.  How do you deal with overhead drum mic's in an LCR mix?  For instance, from what I've read about LCR the kick, bass, snare and vocal (or solo instrument) go up the center.  Well, overhead drum mics pick up some of the kick and snare info correct?  So, if you pan the overheads hard right and left aren't you pulling some of the kick and snare away from the center?
 
What do you guys do about that?

amiller


I'm just starting to dig into the concept of LCR mixing.  I have a noob question.  How do you deal with overhead drum mic's in an LCR mix?  For instance, from what I've read about LCR the kick, bass, snare and vocal (or solo instrument) go up the center.  Well, overhead drum mics pick up some of the kick and snare info correct?  So, if you pan the overheads hard right and left aren't you pulling some of the kick and snare away from the center?
 
What do you guys do about that?

Yeah, it will pull them a bit outwards...but it shouldn't be noticeable enough to make it sound like your kick/snare are no longer centered. Like for example....using EZDrummer...
 
No Overheads gives you a mono sounding kick/snare as it should be: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/No%20OH%27s.mp3
 
Overheads solo'd sounds like this: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/OH%27s%20Solo.mp3
 
That's what you're afraid of, right? Afraid you may get too much spread. Though a real kit wouldn't be quite as dramatic as EZD is here, you don't hear enough of that spread to offset your drum sounds. What it does, it put the kit a bit more in stereo so that when you mix the OH's in with the dry kit, you get this..
 
With dry and OH's: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/Whole%20Kit.mp3
 
See how it just adds to the spread of the drums? Your cymbals are the loudest things in your OH's...so if you were to make them loud enough to where you were hearing drum offsets, I'd be willing to bet your cymbals would be way too loud and you'd lower them. So nothing to worry about on this one. Worst case scenario, if you feel the need, you tighten up the OH pans a bit.
 
Me personally, I don't particularly like the LCR method. I hate rides and crashes being too far out of the 30-50 % pan field. I also hate toms that pan around so much, they literally (like the cymbals) sound too disconnected from the kit as well as the mix.
 
That's just me though....I have no beef with anyone that enjoys using this method. I just think it's awesome to slip things in between pans and like to mix the way I hear or see a live band. You don't hear toms panning hard left/right...you don't hear crashes wide left/right, it's just unrealistic to me and well, sort of fatiguing to my ears when I listen to something like this. It's cool filling up the spaces to me...more of a challenge and much better, clearer end result for my particular style of mixing as well as the material I work with. There are 200 possible pans from left to right...why on earth would we limit ourselves to not using them all? Not bashing on this method of mixing...it's just not for me.
 
-Danny

Thanks for the very cool response.  I agree, LCR does tend to make things sound unrealistic, however, I think it's a good starting place for me.  I like the idea of clearing out the center for the "main" stuff...kick, bass, snare and vocals and then pull some of the far right and left instruments back in a bit.  It lets me isolate and focus in on three points in the beginning and then blend to taste toward the end of the process.

some of the biggest classic rock albums of all time, were recorded strict L-C-R

there was nothing 'unrealistic' sounding in any of those recordings.......

you have to understand the concept of the 'phantom image'.

we're not talking hard panning ala early beatles psuedo stereo here....

amiller


Thanks for the very cool response.  I agree, LCR does tend to make things sound unrealistic, however, I think it's a good starting place for me.  I like the idea of clearing out the center for the "main" stuff...kick, bass, snare and vocals and then pull some of the far right and left instruments back in a bit.  It lets me isolate and focus in on three points in the beginning and then blend to taste toward the end of the process.

Keep in mind amiller, it's really only unrealistic to me unless you share my feelings. I'm honestly not trying to down it or change your mind or anyone elses. The best way I can explain it in my experience is this..
 
You're painting a portrait with your mix...
 
The good:
 
You have three awesome colors to choose from.
 
The color of Left, Right and Center.
 
Some of the greatest recordings were done this way.
 
It's a lot easier in some ways and is a great starting point for you.
 
The not so good: (in my opinion only)
 
Why settle for three awesome colors and limit yourslelf when you can use 197 more that are available?
 
It can be a lot more difficult mixing this way when you consider how many instruments you just may have panned L/R. The more stuff you put onto top of itself, the more of a chance of frequency masking if you're not careful as well as things walking on top of other things where a simple "tighter pan" can give the instrument more of an identity and allow it to stick out more in the mix.
 
Some of the OTHER greatest recordings were NOT done this way to where using the full pan field created amazing mixes that took you on a journey due to the sound placement and pan fields within a tune appearing for the first time. That is shock value and it can really enhance a mix.
 
If we use stereo effects in a mix and do no control how wide they spread, bunching up several makes the effects walk on top of each other when they are L/R. Remember, every stereo effect you add is set to hard L/R by default. This also makes the effects a bit harder to hear unless you really eq them to stay out of each others way as well as the instruments they are enhancing.
 
If this is the case with effects that are hard panned, imagine the difficulties you could be presented with when you have a huge mix that uses LCR. The more instruments you have that can share the hard pan fields, the more difficult it can be to make all their voices heard consistently.
 
My number one peeve with the LCR method is ear fatigue. There is nowhere else for the sound to go. It is extended as far as it can from start to finish. To me, the hard pans accentuate incredible special effects when you use those pans "in a specialty" situation. For example, if you created a mix that was panned at 80% for the most part as that being your widest point, any time you put something beyond 80, it's going to create shock value and stick out in a good way.
 
The far pans always do this and make something come to life. This is due to nothing else being sent there for the duration of a mix...so when you put it at 100 L/R, the impact is there. When you have little things happening in between the gaps, the coloration also shows dynamics inside the mix...so when you do hit those hard pans...bang, it's unexpected and creates an impact that is remembered by those that care who are into the whole production thing.
 
Again, I'm honestly not trying to bash the method or talk anyone out of it. I'm merely sharing my opinion as to why I personally am not crazy about it. If something works for someone and they get great results from it, that is the most important of all and it matters not what anyone has to say about it. :)
 
-Danny

P.S. One other thing I forgot to mention. The tighter you pan a mix, the less separated it becomes. The wider, the more separated and disconnected to my ears. To me, tighter is better in most styles of music. For dance stuff etc, yeah, they specialize in that hard stuff....but for huge mixes, pop stuff with loads of instrumentation, country, rock, metal symhony type stuff...I'd never consider LCR.

-Danny

Danny,
 
Thanks for the info and I never thought you were bashing LCR.  In fact, I would say you know the ins and outs of LCR and are simply giving your take on the method...good stuff.  I'm learning about recording and mixing on a daily basis and I'm not married to any one method.  I tend to use what works FOR ME.  So, anything you can share is very valuable to me ... thanks again.
 
As for LCR, the OP of this thread provided a link to someone else's take on LCR.  I've included below a excerpt from that link.  I would love to hear your take on what this guy wrote:
 
"I got into some loudspeaker research, and found myself called upon one day to make a research recording, wherein I recorded a batch of clicks with very carefully documented changes in level between the stereo channels. This was one of those cases where I figured I knew what was going to happen before I started. Given my golden ears, there just wasn’t much doubt that I could hear the image move as soon as I tweaked the pan-pot even a little, so I decided to calibrate the changes to 1/10th of a decibel, so that I’d be able to really pick out the subtle differences in localization that were going to happen when the levels between channels changed. 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. I promptly ran this down to my buddies at the local loudspeaker factory and we tried it in the anechoic chamber with blindfolds and people pointing at the imaginary phantom, and it still remained true: with up to 3 dB difference between channels (that’s half-power, remember!) the image didn’t move much, maybe five degrees. With between 3 and 6 decibels difference in levels, the phantom quickly and without much stability migrated to the louder speaker, hovering just inboard of that speaker, and once the difference was greater than 7 decibels, the phantom was for all intents and purposes coming from the louder speaker.

So, once again, I’d fooled myself, and had some new stuff to learn and think about. The principle of mixing I’ve evolved from this (not very profound, I’m sorry to say) is that there are only three panning positions: Left, Center and Right. Within those zones, the pan-pot yields a little sense of localization shift, but mostly it isn’t stable and moving my head by an inch or so screws it up. It isn’t very reliable and I can’t count on that localization detail being there in playback away from the studio."

amiller


Danny,
 
Thanks for the info and I never thought you were bashing LCR.  In fact, I would say you know the ins and outs of LCR and are simply giving your take on the method...good stuff.  I'm learning about recording and mixing on a daily basis and I'm not married to any one method.  I tend to use what works FOR ME.  So, anything you can share is very valuable to me ... thanks again.
 
As for LCR, the OP of this thread provided a link to someone else's take on LCR.  I've included below a excerpt from that link.  I would love to hear your take on what this guy wrote:
 
"I got into some loudspeaker research, and found myself called upon one day to make a research recording, wherein I recorded a batch of clicks with very carefully documented changes in level between the stereo channels. This was one of those cases where I figured I knew what was going to happen before I started. Given my golden ears, there just wasn’t much doubt that I could hear the image move as soon as I tweaked the pan-pot even a little, so I decided to calibrate the changes to 1/10th of a decibel, so that I’d be able to really pick out the subtle differences in localization that were going to happen when the levels between channels changed. 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. I promptly ran this down to my buddies at the local loudspeaker factory and we tried it in the anechoic chamber with blindfolds and people pointing at the imaginary phantom, and it still remained true: with up to 3 dB difference between channels (that’s half-power, remember!) the image didn’t move much, maybe five degrees. With between 3 and 6 decibels difference in levels, the phantom quickly and without much stability migrated to the louder speaker, hovering just inboard of that speaker, and once the difference was greater than 7 decibels, the phantom was for all intents and purposes coming from the louder speaker.

So, once again, I’d fooled myself, and had some new stuff to learn and think about. The principle of mixing I’ve evolved from this (not very profound, I’m sorry to say) is that there are only three panning positions: Left, Center and Right. Within those zones, the pan-pot yields a little sense of localization shift, but mostly it isn’t stable and moving my head by an inch or so screws it up. It isn’t very reliable and I can’t count on that localization detail being there in playback away from the studio."

Al, that's cool...thanks for the re-assurance. Sometimes when I comment, I'm a bit too passionate and get taken the wrong way...so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't making you feel I was ramming the opinion down your throat. :)
 
As to the excerpt....it makes complete sense and is acceptable. I've done it to where I was happy with the outcome. But you have to remember, and this is the most important...
 
The phantom center and a good representation of the LCR method comes from a guy that has a grasp on what sounds work as well as how to eq things to keep them out of another instruments way. This to me can be a nightmare for a newer engineer because at that stage, most do not have a proper concept on how to control frequency masking nor do they know about carving something up. It would be easier for this new engineer to use pans that stop the instruments from walking on top of each other in my opinion because if they are in the gaps a little, they show more, ya know? Like if we pan two guitars hard left/right and then have a keyboard sound that also shares mids that is hard left/right...this can be a  problem for a newer engineer to make work.
 
Heck, as it is, one of the bigges issues for new engineers is making a kick drum and bass guitar work that share the center pan field. Imagine a bunch of instruments sharing the hard left/right pans? See my point?
 
That's really it in a nutshell and what I SHOULD have said in my other posts. A guy that knows what he's doing is going to be successful at this without the possible problems areas I mentioned. I still favor filling up the gaps as well as using the hard pans for shock value and less ear fatigue, but when you know what you're doing...heck, you could mix the tune in mono and still come out smelling like a rose. LOL!
 
-Danny

Another situation where panning to the exact same positions does not work so well is when you are building a complex and detailed soundscape using synthesisers for example. I might have 4 synths all creating part of a very complex sustained texture. All 4 of them are creating a smooth lush aspect to the overall sound. 

Now you have got four instruments all producing very nice stereo from within themselves and you have a L R output from each. What do you do with them?  Well bringing them all back in hard L R is one way to go. It works OK but I find they are slightly harder to balance for some reason. Reasons that Danny has attributed to above for sure. After years of experimenting I have found that returning them to different pan placement works best. 

Synth 1 might be returned hard L to 12 O'Clock. Synth 2 from 12 O'Clock to hard R, Synth 3 from say 9 O'Clock to 3 O'Clock and synth 4 narrower from say 10 O'Clock to 2 O'Clock. Another approach works well too and this is synth 1 returned to 7 O 'Clock and 10 O'Clock, synth 2 from 9 O'Clock to 1 O'Clock, synth 3 from 11 O,Clock to 3 O'Clock and finally synth 4 from 2 O'Clock to Hard R. This sounds good too and when you pan like this with the returns I find the 4 elements easier to hear and balance. Because some become louder, those parts can be turned down to a certain extent too. 

I discovered all this working with Emulator samplers from the 80's and 90's. Every sample on every key within a single patch can occupy a pan position. And not only that but there is an LFO for every sample! And it can modulate the pan position with its centre position around any point, panning either side of that all adjustable and rate of course. When you start creating complex patches and getting into this, it has to be heard to be believed! Talk about movement and yet nothing frequency or time wise touching the sound. Some notes will can sweep wider from L to R and slower and other notes can have faster panning over tighter ranges and all positioned differently. I swear you can hear all this as it is going on. Velocity touch can be routed to pan position as well (on top of the LFO input) for some extra fun. Many did not know (including me initially) these features were all built in. Once you start using them you will never go back. This is a great example of the use of panning.