bitflipper

cowboydan
...I think the pan pot on a stereo track is more of a balance pot and cannot work as a pan pot. The channel tools plugin is a great work around, but I would rather see a stereo track with 2 pan pots that I can use to put left and right where I want them without using extra plugins.

This is exactly correct; the pan slider is a balance control like the "balance" knob on your stereo. It simply changes the volume of each channel inversely and will not effect the perception of position in quite the same way that you hear with mono tracks.
 
That's not a design defect, it's just that panning in the traditional sense has no meaning on a stereo track where the two channels are fixed at hard left and right. What the Channel Tools plugin does is to treat each channel as if it was a mono track, bleeding some of the left into the right and vice versa the same way a mono track is panned.
 
Some DAWs do indeed offer dual-pan controls for stereo tracks. If you have Superior Drummer, take a look at its mixer for an example. This gives more precise control, at the expense of some convenience. What it will not do is make the left sound "more left" and the right "more right", since your starting point in a stereo track is already hard-left and hard-right.
 
The advantage of split-mono over using Channel Tools is that the left and right signals are now completely independent of one another and may be effected and routed separately. This can open up some interesting possibilities with delays and reverbs such as panning a reverb send to the opposite side or delaying one side of a reverb effect but not the other. You can also EQ left and right separately even if you don't have an EQ that can do that to a stereo signal, which is useful for adding width.
 
I use Channel Tools on almost every stereo track. Say you have a luscious pad coming out of a synth that makes good use of internal panning to give movement and texture (Omnisphere's famous for that). But you don't want it to occupy the whole panorama, or need to balance it against a similar texture that's also in the mix. Channel Tools lets you move the pad(s) to one side while preserving the effect of the moving modulation within the patch.
 
This technique is essential for any true stereo source, such as a Leslie effect. A Leslie ain't a Leslie without stereo, but the physical speaker is still usually set to one side of the stage. You normally want a Hammond to be similarly situated in the mix, off to one side but definitely in stereo.

This was the answer I got from Bitflipper. I think this would be helpfull for you. I hope so anyway.

Nitrox32
Just to further clarify what I'm trying to achieve (if possible), I'm working on an orchestral piece that uses only woodwinds and brass.  The lower voices are basically block chords.  The overall chordal balance between instruments produces a nice overall sound.  Because the lower voices consist of many instruments (tuba, euphonium, trombone, bari sax, tenor sax, bassoon and bass clarinet), they all are taking up the same frequency space.  Because of this I have lost the characteristic sound of each instrument.  What I've done so far is eq'ed out the sub bass frequencies of each instrument, narrowed the stereo field of each instrument and panned them to their proper position on the stage.  The reverb is subtle and I don't feel there is a muddiness to the overall sound.  As a result I hear a nice blended sound.  That being said, in this situation with seven instruments occupying the same frequency space playing only block chords is achieving a blending sound the best I can hope for (which I'm fine with) or is there a way to improve the mix by using mono sounds instead of stereo to isolate each instrument.  I recently posted the same question on the VSL forums.  The only response that I got was that based on my situation creating a blended sound was the best I could get.  Any other thoughts?
 

The space is created with the orchestration, not the EQ. A thick wall of sound can be created intentionally, in which case, chasing singular instrument definition would be very difficult and unnatural IMO. If you want particular instruments to shine in your piece then I think it may be a good idea to strip away some of the others that are getting in the way. Another option is to consider the register that each section is playing in. Wood winds an octave higher than the brass for instance. Also be aware that intstrumental sections give different volumes for the same dynamics so you may not write all instruments at 'forte' if you want them all to be heard.

In terms of your original mono/stereo question I think that you have the right idea with placing your orchestral instruments on a stage which aside from left and right also includes front to back. This and the dynamics ( not forgetting the orchestration) should help you get the mix you desire.
Bibs

wizard71

If you want particular instruments to shine in your piece then I think it may be a good idea to strip away some of the others that are getting in the way. Bibs

With this in mind, you bring the volume of your desired instrument up by lowering all others in same frequency range. And take this idea further by changing which instrument is highlighted in different sections of the song.

This way you could hear the character of the desired instrument and alternate different instruments in different sections.

A tip: Try R-mix if you want to change panning or volume of certain sounds in a sample

Obviously this doesn't apply to your current project; but I have watched a number of tutorials/interviews about dance music as in a club and have friends that are FOH engineers and on no live sound nights act as DJs. Personally, dance is not my preferred genre but hey I am a hired gun. In clubs the preference is for mono as house speaker placement is often tied to architecture. The only time stereo appears is for an effect, or the entire stereo output has originally been very tightly panned, as in L pan one notch off centre, R pan one notch off centre.
Also when I compose and mix theatre dance music for contemporary or classical dance it is often better to have most sound centred/mono so your seating position isn't subjected to unbalanced sound. Although this is really defined by architecture, so if a company is touring the work, I will make at least two mixes, one stereo and one mono.

If you're using that many instruments in the same range and sometimes the same notes I would agree with what some others have said; the maximum achievable is a good blend, unless you revisit your arrangement.
 
That said, don't forget that the sound character of an instrument is made by the overtones, not the fundamental frequencies. Assuming the played parts are relatively static, you may be able to make e.g. the clarinet a bit more "clarinet-y" by boosting the overtones that differentiate it from, say, the trombone. Or attenuate the other instruments in that range, etc.
Limited results predicted ;)