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

well, i didn't mean you specifically danny..

i'm just throwing it out there in general, for everyone to see both side.

i think it's a great thing to experiment with...

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.

batsbrew


well, i didn't mean you specifically danny..

i'm just throwing it out there in general, for everyone to see both side.

i think it's a great thing to experiment with...

Ah sorry, thought you meant me. I think it's great that you share it...and you do it well. Like I told Al, I'm honestly not trying to sway anyone. But there should be a rule though....anyone that uses this should use the volumizing trick with it instead of just panning straight LCR and letting it fly. Those volume things you do literally pull some of the instrumentation out of the hard pans...which is probably why you don't get the artifacts and separation/disconnection I'm talking about. :)
 
Like for example, if you checked out that Graham Cochrane vid...he explains it as "all instruments go LCR" and doesn't mention volumes on stereo instruments or putting something hard and something centered that may be the same instrument with volume control pulling on the pan. This is where people fail without the other parts being in the technique, ya know? And Graham's mix to me, sounds just like he explained it. Everything just LCR and disconnected. The last thing we want is n00bs to take that sort of thing as gospel....then we'll really have a mess. LOL! :)
 
-Danny

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

Danny Danzi


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

thanks danny! yeah life has changed for me quite a bit since i was last on here "full-time"... but i'm getting back into creating music again and hope i can return at least some of what i've gotten on this forum over the years. 

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?

that is definitely the case. mixing in mono is an essential part of the process, especially if you are using time-delay or doubling effects. listen to that huge multi-layered LCR delayed distortion guitar tone turn into the sound of angry hornets stuck in a metal can a few times and you'll never forget to check in mono again

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.

amiller


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.

That, my brother....is the right attitude and how you learn this stuff. You try something until you have exhausted it. Then you check in with people you trust to make sure you're doing it right. Then you experiment some more. And sooner or later, you'll have the answers as to whether or not the technique is for you. That congestion you mention is the problem I had with it. It forces you to REALLY carve up some of your instruments if you are to hear everything consistently. I personally think this can sometimes be too much of a challenge for newer engineers. However, the carving aspect is always a good technique to master as you will need to use it many times through your engineering endeavors.
 
But, the object is to do as little carving as possible really. That's what makes a mix a great mix. Just keep doing what you're doing. Every little thing you learn and experience is a good thing to add into the total scheme of things. Good luck Al! :)
 
-Danny