Panning

[soundtrack2life]

I know there are no hard and fast rules. However I have been doing alot of research recently on the web & etc to improve my mixing abilities. That said when I find references to panning "9 o'clock to 3 o'clock " etc. How do I translate that into SAW? Is there a cross refernece to map out the "o'clocks"?
TIA,
Joe

[Cary B. Cornett]

... when I find references to panning "9 o'clock to 3 o'clock " etc. How do I translate that into SAW? Is there a cross refernece to map out the "o'clocks"?
TIA,
Joe
Not precisely. For one thing, the "panning law" varies from one console to another, and last I knew, SAW's panning law was different from most. However, "12 o'clock" on most pan knobs corresponds to "dead center".

I am amazed and sometimes disgusted by how many mixes out there are almost mono. The real bugbear driving this is a phenomenon that I first heard described as "center channel buildup". The short explanation is that, when a stereo mix is played in mono, things panned center will be louder than things panned to the extreme ends. If you don't want this to happen at all, there are two ways to avoid it: either don't pan anything dead center, or don't pan anything to "hard left" or "hard right". Most mix engineers appear to have adopted the second solution, but this "better compatibility" comes at a certain cost to any real excitement in the mix.

In a stereo (2 channel) mix, there are exactly 2 locations that "nail down", meaning the sound comes from EXACTLY THERE no matter where you are in the room: the left and right speakers. Therefore, only parts that are hard panned to one side or the other will always localize exactly where they belong (I think this is particularly important to someone listening in a car, where the listener is almost NEVER dead center between channels). One of my favorite examples of dramatic use of this effect is the rhythm guitar at the beginning of the Doobie Brothers' song "China Grove", with the guitar hard left and the return from the tape echo hard right. If that bit of "ping pong" doesn't get your attention....

I tend to look at the center-channel buildup thing as more an opportunity than a problem. In mixing, we are usually fighting masking, in that you can only clearly hear so many things at a time. One way of being able to fit more in and still hear it all is by panning things to different places. In mono, of course, everything comes from one place, so you can't hear as many different things at once. I can pick certain things that I want to hear more loudly in a stereo mix, but am willing to let be "toned down" in mono, and hard pan those to one side or the other. This allows me to push the levels up a bit for certain "ear candy" parts without having them cloud the mono mix too much.

Don't be afraid of the extreme ends in panning, just be judicious about exactly WHAT you put there. That way, it is easier to keep the excitement in your mixes without having too much trouble with center-channel buildup (IOW, make that "buildup" your friend instead of your enemy).

[Arco]

the clock metaphor seems to me to function well if you're mixing in surround. then you place yourself in the middle of the clock and then i could "see" the whole clock thing...for 'regular' mixing it doesn't quite work as well for me.

I think of the panning as the left-right and then depth is supplied by other tricks including reverb, most obviously.

..of course, when you strap on headphones things might get more "clock-like", not sure...<two cents>

[Arco]

Not precisely. For one thing, the "panning law" varies from one console to another, and last I knew, SAW's panning law was different from most. However, "12 o'clock" on most pan knobs corresponds to "dead center".

Of course that's it! It's been so long since I've turned a pan knob the metaphor was lost on me...yikes.

[soundtrack2life]

I listen to alot of older music ie Beatles, Hendrix etc. It amazes me how they use to pan back then. When you listen to one side at a time it sounds like crap but together it is awesome. Anyway I have alway hear the term pan law but never really new much about it.
Joe

[UpTilDawn]

Basically, my translation of the clock positions would "pan" out as this:

12:00 is dead center,
9:00 is hard left,
3:00 is hard right and
every other pan position is found in between these three.

DanT

[Ollie]

One engineer who does quite good work: Joan Osborne, Cyndi Lauper, etc. William Wittman has says he has three positions. Center, All the way Left, All the way Right. That is it. If he needs anything different than that, he usually uses more than one mic on the source and pans them according to what he needs.

I am not saying that this works for everyone, but it works for him. Listen to
"One of Us" or St Theresa on a Joan Osborne album and it sounds fantastic.

[Mark Stebbeds]

That said when I find references to panning "9 o'clock to 3 o'clock " etc. How do I translate that into SAW? Is there a cross refernece to map out the "o'clocks"?


Sounds like hard left and hard right to me.

Mark

[Ian Alexander]

My mixer's pan knobs and most others I've looked at go farther around than 9 and 3. More like 7 o'clock to 5 o'clock. At 9 and 3, I still have a bit of signal in the "opposite" ear.

Some British mixers have dead center at 6 o'clock and pan the signal in the direction that you're twisting the bottom, or closer side of the knob. I believe these also go past 9 and 3.

Perhaps the 9 and 3 idea is to avoid the troubles with hard right or left panning that Cary mentioned.

I like stereo if I'm in the sweet spot, but I happen to like mono, too. For spoken word or solo musical performances, mono is the only real approximation of what happened. In PA applications, anyone seated slightly off-center (considered prime seats) experiences some interesting, potentially annoying phase issues when two speakers are used. You may have noticed that many churches and other auditoriums have gone from two wall mounted speakers flanking the stage area to a single cluster above the center.

Even if you dislike mono, I think it's a very good idea to check the mono-compatibility of mixes. A lot of radio listening, maybe even most radio listening is still done on cheap clock radios in offices or on nightstands, on background music systems in stores and restaurants, or as mentioned, off center in cars. Some effects that sound great in stereo can disappear in mono. Madonna used Q-sound on an album years ago and it sounded like a completely different mix in mono. Oops.

[Mark Stebbeds]

My mixer's pan knobs and most others I've looked at go farther around than 9 and 3. More like 7 o'clock to 5 o'clock.

Well there you go. A perfect example of different interpretation.

You are thinking in terms of an analog knob on a console, and yes the range is greater when comparing to 9 to 3 on a clock face.

I was thinking in terms of the stereo spectrum being 180 degrees from one extreme to the other. Hard left and hard right, or 9 to 3, is as far as you can go.:)

Mark

[lownoise]

I would interpret the reference to "panning '9 o'clock to 3 o'clock' " to mean something short of hard L and hard R - in other words, be careful about locating at the extremes...

I have never seen a rotary pan control whose range was defined by a horizontal line; it is typically more like 7 to 5.

Douglas

[bcorkery]

12:00 is dead center,
9:00 is hard left,
3:00 is hard rightToo many digital clocks these days. :p

[Tim Miskimon]

One engineer who does quite good work: Joan Osborne, Cyndi Lauper, etc. William Wittman has says he has three positions. Center, All the way Left, All the way Right. That is it. If he needs anything different than that, he usually uses more than one mic on the source and pans them according to what he needs.

I am not saying that this works for everyone, but it works for him. Listen to
"One of Us" or St Theresa on a Joan Osborne album and it sounds fantastic.

I agree that those recordings sound good but most likely because there are not that many instruments on them.
In a more busy production it is necessary to have all those pan positions in between far left & far right to keep things from masking other things - unless you want to use lots of EQ to make things cut & sit in the mix better.
There are certainly many really good mixes that use far left/right panning (as well as mono mixes) but all those points in between can open up a mix & add space & depth when used properly. Good panning can also make a mix more exciting to listen to.

[UpTilDawn]

This discussion is timely, as I am in the midst of attempting to eek out a live big band mix to give it the broad depth and clarity of similar songs recorded by Gordon Goodwin's Big Phat Band. Aside from the extraordinary skill level of the players, one of the huge factors that make their cds exciting to listen to is the attention to detail in the mix.

It's been an extremely enlighttening experience to compare my mixes side-by-side to these incredible recordings. Panning is a BIG factor with this band, as is the eq tricks necessary to get each instrument in an 18-20 piece big band to have its own voice, yet blend perfectly.

DanT

[Dave Labrecque]

I listen to alot of older music ie Beatles, Hendrix etc. It amazes me how they use to pan back then. When you listen to one side at a time it sounds like crap but together it is awesome. Anyway I have alway hear the term pan law but never really new much about it.
Joe

Note that some of the early Beatles stuff was mixed hard left/right "by mistake". I remember reading somewhere that the reason some of the early American releases had, for example, all the vocals in one channel and all the rhythm in the other is that Captitol records received some kind of stem mixes and remastered them that way, not being sure how do apply stereo to The Beatles music, which was intended to be mixed to mono. It could be argued to some degree that they actually did about all they could do, but that's not what they were "supposed" to do.

When the remastered CDs started coming out in the mid- (or was it late?) 80s, they were mono mixes... as they were intended.

This probably only applies thorough about 1965 or mid-'66 stuff. With Rubber Soul and Revolver it was good-bye mono. With the exception of single releases, which continued in mono until "Hey Jude", I think. Wow, a stereo single. Whoda thunk it?

But later, they sure had some hard stereo happening on-purpose. I love turning the balance on "Run For Your Life" all the way to the right at the start of the song. First, you hear the slightest bit of bleed as the rhythm starts up. Then you hear the vocal mic come up with the rhythm blaring in John's cans. Then a big inhale and...

The first time I heard this I remember feeling that it was just like standing with him in the booth during the vocal overdub. 16-bit ain't so bad. :)

[Dave Labrecque]

I listen to alot of older music ie Beatles, Hendrix etc. It amazes me how they use to pan back then. When you listen to one side at a time it sounds like crap but together it is awesome. Anyway I have alway hear the term pan law but never really new much about it.
Joe

Note that some of the early Beatles stuff was mixed hard left/right "by mistake". I remember reading somewhere that the reason some of the early American releases had, for example, all the vocals in one channel and all the rhythm in the other is that Captitol records received some kind of stem mixes and "mixed" (or didn't) and mastered them that way, not being sure how do apply stereo to The Beatles' music, which was intended to be mixed to mono. It could be argued to some degree that they actually did about all they could do, but that's not what they were "supposed" to do.

When the remastered CDs started coming out in the mid- (or was it late?) 80s, they were mono mixes... as they were intended.

This probably only applies thorough about 1965 or mid-'66 stuff. With Rubber Soul and Revolver it was good-bye mono. With the exception of single releases, which continued in mono until "Hey Jude", I think. Wow, a stereo single. Whoda thunk it?

But later, they sure had some hard stereo happening on-purpose. I love turning the balance on "Run For Your Life" all the way to the right at the start of the song. First, you hear the slightest bit of bleed as the rhythm starts up. Then you hear the vocal mic come up with the rhythm blaring in John's cans. Then a big inhale and...

The first time I heard this I remember feeling that it was just like standing with him in the booth during the vocal overdub. 16-bit ain't so bad. :)

[Ian Alexander]

Dave left the echo plug patched again.:cool:

[Tree Leopard]

.. with a just a hint of tape flange ...

Through headphones hard L or R = 7 o'clock / 5 o'clock, that is as if the signal is coming from just behind you, where as 9 / 3 o'clock is directly at either side. FWIW, that's how I've always understood it.

I'm pretty sure that Spectrafoo, Waves, Element Audio analysis plugs all show phase as a pie with the "happy hour" chopped out (5-7 pm), using the console model, based on the limits of a rotary pan pot. So I guess it comes down to how long you'd like to extend the happy hour. :)

Andre

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave left the echo plug patched again.:cool:

How'd that happen? (how'd that happen) :eek:

[UpTilDawn]

.. with a just a hint of tape flange ...

Through headphones hard L or R = 7 o'clock / 5 o'clock, that is as if the signal is coming from just behind you, where as 9 / 3 o'clock is directly at either side. FWIW, that's how I've always understood it.

I'm pretty sure that Spectrafoo, Waves, Element Audio analysis plugs all show phase as a pie with the "happy hour" chopped out (5-7 pm), using the console model, based on the limits of a rotary pan pot. So I guess it comes down to how long you'd like to extend the happy hour. :)

Andre

Okay, I can see how 7 and 5 would be hard left and right. I just never had anybody ask me before. But with headphones on, there's more than just a simple over-the-head dimmension available as well. I've heard some pretty amazing mixes that place the sound in front of me and at angles off axis from the verticle plane over my head.

I think of hard left and right as being 9 and 3 because the speakers (headphones included) are on a horizontal plane to either side of my head. I generally would not place them below my head.

DanT

[Mark Stebbeds]

Note that some of the early Beatles stuff was mixed hard left/right "by mistake".

Several years ago there was a book called "The Beatles Recording Sessions" of which I'm a proud owner of a hard copy. There was an EMI employee that was very ill and couldn't work much, so they gave him the job of organizing the tape locker and the recording notes, and the results led to this book.

I don't remember any talk about stereo "mistakes", but they did talk about having to do stereo mixes during the same sessions as the monos for the American releases. The reason a lot of stuff ended up hard left and hard right was due to the four track format, and IIRC, there weren't pan pots in the early days, only a button to assign left for right, or push both for center.

I know also this to be true of the early Motown stereo recordings. At first there was only one speaker and no summing bus, so they could only listen to one side at a time.

Mark

[UpTilDawn]

Exactly my recollection as well Mark.

Nothing like hearing all the initial band tracks in one channel and tambourine, ghost rhythm/reverb/bleed and backing vocals in the other.

The only headphones I used to have were the mono ones my dad used for his multiband radio. I would plug the plug all the way into the stereo jack on my record player and hear only one channel... plug it in half way and hear the other. I spent hours and hours listening to one channel of entire Beatles Lps and then re listening to the other channel..... Fascinated all the while at the transparent nature of those bare added tracks.

DanT

[Dave Labrecque]

Several years ago there was a book called "The Beatles Recording Sessions" of which I'm a proud owner of a hard copy. There was an EMI employee that was very ill and couldn't work much, so they gave him the job of organizing the tape locker and the recording notes, and the results led to this book.

I don't remember any talk about stereo "mistakes", but they did talk about having to do stereo mixes during the same sessions as the monos for the American releases. The reason a lot of stuff ended up hard left and hard right was due to the four track format, and IIRC, there weren't pan pots in the early days, only a button to assign left for right, or push both for center.

I know also this to be true of the early Motown stereo recordings. At first there was only one speaker and no summing bus, so they could only listen to one side at a time.

Mark

I'm a proud owner of the same edition. :) I read the thing I was talking about years ago in an admittedly less-authoritative reference, though I can't recall which. But my impression was that it was something done after the fact, in the states (at Capitol?), so it wouldn't have been documented in the Abbey Road/EMI files.

Of course, there's always the possibility that I'm way off. :rolleyes: I remember though that it was said that the early stereo mixes in America were not intended by The Beatles/George Martin/EMI. And the part about four-track masters limitations being part of the explanation sounds right.

Dang. Now you can't even ring up George and ask him. There's always Ringo...

[Dave Labrecque]

I spent hours and hours listening to one channel of entire Beatles Lps and then re listening to the other channel....

Great story. :)

[Mark Stebbeds]

I'm a proud owner of the same edition. :)

Err...I forgot to mention where I picked up my copy....:)

mark

[Mark Stebbeds]

I'm a proud owner of the same edition. :) I read the thing I was talking about years ago in an admittedly less-authoritative reference, though I can't recall which. But my impression was that it was something done after the fact, in the states (at Capitol?), so it wouldn't have been documented in the Abbey Road/EMI files.



I remember some reference in the book about the request for the first stereo mixes not being taken seriously. I recall them being done after the fact at Abbey Road however. Someday I'll read it again.


mark

[Dave Labrecque]

Err...I forgot to mention where I picked up my copy....:)

mark

Ya know... the stack on the back of the "throne" has seemed a little shorter since your last visit. D'oh!

[Dave Labrecque]

I remember some reference in the book about the request for the first stereo mixes not being taken seriously. I recall them being done after the fact at Abbey Road however. Someday I'll read it again.


mark

OK... but I want it back immediately thereafter.