L-C-R mixing in Sonar

I just found this thread - Has my head spining
 
But I am fascinated by this concept - If any body knows anthying about this please speak up - very interesting ....
 
Look here cause I could probably butcher it trying to explain it - http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=10454&page=3
 
..and yeah... I know it will get moved .... just wanted it to get seen first!

How about a summery? I don't know what you want us to say.

When I first read about LCR panning, my kneejerk reaction was that it's another fad, somebody working from the assumption that if they did it that way in 1951 then it must be superior. (Kind of the same philosophy that leads to illogical conclusions such as noisy, temperamental tube gear must be better than anything made out of transistors. After all, if noisy temperamental tube gear was good enough for the Beatles...and they didn't even have pan pots!)

But Dave Moulton makes perhaps the best case for it in his article "The Phantom Image". This is actually a very old article, anticipating the LCR trend by at least a decade. It certainly convinced me take the concept seriously.

I still do not use the LCR method myself, but I do tend to use bolder panning than I used to. These days my settings are typically at center, 50% l/r or 100% l/r.

On my old Ampex six input mixer L-C-R is a great big super cool TOGGLE SWITCH on each channel.

I think a lot of gear used to be built like that.

Dual ganged "pan" pots are not known for precision manufacture until you hit a top of the line price point.

best regards,
mike

@ John - The first page explains and summarizes it far better then i could...

@ J-Boy - When i goggled Cardinal points you are correct - that is the name for it I guess

@bit - That was kind of my initial reaction as well after reading it

@Mike - You might be right about that statement - I'm still trying to get my head around the concept really.. I tried it a little last night and it seemed a little weired

For me what is fascinating is that I have always tried to set my pans to somewhat mock what I thought the sound stage would be set up like - The essence of what is being said here is that at the very least  0 to+50 and 50 to +100 (Left or Right) is "no man's land" and has no value in regards to the listener's perception. For me that would be a big change if true because I regularly use pans at 10 and 2 O'Clock or pan a snare or hi hat slightly left or right of center. Really place stuff all over the sound field


Anyway - just thought it was interesting and wanted to see if anybody around here used the technique and if they thought it helps with a wider and better defined sound stage.

mike_mccue


re Dave Moulton and phantom image:

"One of the real benefits of this particular element of recording craft is that the listener doesn’t know why the recording with well-crafted and convincing phantom images sound better, he or she simply likes it more, finding the music more realistic and more enjoyable. It is one of the “magical” aspects of the craft."


BIG RED FLAG!!!

That ain't science... that's a poorly presented opinion.

One that I happen to disagree with :-)... but hey, that's just my opinion!!!

best,
mike

Why?  Given a recording with "well crafted and convincing phantom images" and one without do you think the average listener is going to prefer the latter and/or that if he does prefer the recording with phantom imaging he'll identify phantom imaging as the the reason for his preference? 

"the listener doesn’t know why the recording with well-crafted and convincing phantom images sound better, he or she simply likes it more"

I sincerely do not think the majority of listeners care about imaging... but I'll simply state that when someone tells me what I and others like.... I want to see data.

I do think listeners notice parlor tricks... but there's little reason to conclude that they "like" them.

When I go to Best Buy and look for a receiver how many options do I have to buy a great mono rig? How about two track e.g. stereo? How much do I have to spend to get ONLY two outputs to the speakers? I don't think people are buying low end surround rigs (or the rare stereo rig) because they have a passion for imaging... it's just what's on the shelf with the 40% off tag.

I listen to most of my classical music in mono... I like that. I'd hesitate to speak for anyone else.

best regards,
mike

I agree with Mike. It's secondary how true or untrue the argument is. The point is it's presented as if it was a known fact, which is absolutely misleading to not-so-experienced readers. That's like "unsportsmanly conduct" in the journalistic field.

For heaven's sake, it's not an academic paper but would it really make any difference if he provided data to back it up?  I suppose it would also have to be independently performed, double-blind, etc.; how big and broad sampling would you need? I guess it would have to be pretty large, include males and females, all of all ages and races, of course, in the proper proportion, carefully correlated, etc.  Would that make it acceptable? And what difference would it make?  Would you then be willing to actually try for yourself the techniques he's suggesting?
Doesn't that seem a bit too much to expect from an internet article suggesting we try a different approach to mixing? 

LCR is a poor name for this. LCR is a tried-and-true three-channel Stereo approach, using three front speakers. This was first demonstrated in the 1930s by Bell Labs; the first commercial use of Stereo used LCR speakers across the front and multiple-speaker mono surrounds for roadshow presentations of Fantasia. For around a decade from the mid-'50s to the mid-'60s, three-channel recording and monitoring was used for most studio recording; typically orchestra/band in R and L, and soloist/singer in C. This type of acquisition meant that the recording could be re-balanced upon remixing for mono or stereo LP, and the integrity of the mix would travel better through all formats.

We can mix in true LCR in SONAR easily - use a surround bus, and only mix stuff to LCR (no surround or LFE channel info). This - if everybody has three front speakers - can create an infinitely better center image than any phantom approach.

Cardinal Points is a silly name, but better tha LCR for this purpose - details can be found at http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/13724/0/0/1467/. AC/DC Back in Black mixed by Terry Manning is a great example of this, as is ZZ Top Tres Hombres - Terry mixes religiously this way, and this mix survives through one speaker, two speakers, headphones, etc. IIRC, Terry has stated that he doesn't think that positioning a sound outside LCR is evil, just that he reserves it for stuff that he wants to pop out and grab the listener.

IMO Cardinal Points is a compromise from true LCR acquisition and delivery, but it's a good approach to understand, and use as-appropriate.

Thanks for pointing me to that thread Doug - I'ts huge!!
But I found this post by Terry that seems to sum up the philosophy regarding a working mix:

Hi Chuck,

Of course the bit about it being bad that the centre is 3 or 6 or whatever down is just in fun. All good desks certainly have to have a basic pan law to correct for the buildup, and keep things "in volume" as they move.


But the part about panning mono sources MOSTLY to the three points is not in jest, as several have opined before.


Kendrix, no, I actually do not think that the Cardinal Points® get "overloaded," if things are properly recorded and panned. If they did, then how would mono ever work at all?

Don't forget that I am talking about monaurally recorded sources, and I do not mean every source, every time, only on L-C-R. This is a concept, and is meant to take one out of the mindset that every mono source ought, out of habit, to be panned "somewhere else" other than L-C-R each and every time. Keep things basic and simple UNTIL you NEED to do something special or different.

One thing I think IS funny is that many people will work so hard panning one thing 80%-80%, then another thing 73%-73%, then another 68%-71%, etc., trying to find that "little hole" where things "fit together in space" and can "pop out." Then they complain that they want to widen the whole stereo field! How about actually USING IT for a change?

Also, there is the matter of stereo recorded sources. Here is where the real usage of "NML" comes into play. A properly mic'd stereo source will indeed contain informational clues helping to place the instrument/sound source within the stereo field naturally.

When all of this works together, and the stereo mix also sounds good reduced to monaural, is when things start to sound "solid" and good.

Frank had just emailed me the drawing, having been thinking of some previous Cardinal Points® mentions, and we thought it was funny; so the illogical extreme was approached.

Once again.

Parables Are Us.

 
 
Edit: To add one more thing (Not that I think it validates or invalidates the effectiveness of it) - Apparently the most commercially successful mix engineer of this generation uses this concept - CLA

j boy


This approach to mixing is promoted by, among others, Terry Manning.  Mike, if you Google his engineering track record you'll see he's a pretty heavy hitter. 

CPP works, and I myself use it as a basis for my standard mixing technique.  If you choose not to accept that it's effective, I'm not inclined to argue the point.  To each their own. But I think from your comments you're not quite getting the gist of what it's about.

With all due respect, if you read my messages posted above and concluded that I have something against this approach to mixing... then we aren't going to have a useful conversation today.

I pointed out a very specific aspect of the discussion that I found immensely distasteful and presumptuous.

Personally I mix in many ways. I usually work to suit the material and the intended distribution medium. I think talking about it like it's a science is total bull hockey. Did you miss the part about my all discrete, transformer coupled, L-C-R mixer? :-)

I mean if all that "psuedo psycho science" is so good... what happened to the mp3???? :-)
hint: that's a sarcastic wise crack and I may not have the commitment to defend the statement should I be called out on it. :-)

very best regards,
mike

I thought it was about Left Center Right politics...what do you think about this Obama guy?