Cardinal Points Pan Law

[vaultstudio]

Has anyone checked out this thread over on prosoundweb?

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/13724/0/

Once you wade through the usual smartass comments/etc there's some pretty interesting thoughts there.... we're not talking Joe Shmoe in his home studio either - there's some major names jumping into the fray...

I actually re-mixed a couple tunes on my latest project with this as a baseline and I ended up liking the results so much I re-mixed everything. It's an interesting starting point...

[wannabecomedeat]

hey bud,

I read like 2 pages (and here it's 1 o'clock in the morning so I'm tired...) didn't quite understand what is supposed to be good.

Isn't cardinal point mixing about panning HARD? some said this is the way to go, and another said never pan hard, another one said paning overhead to 3 and 9. I'm a bit confused (+my maternal language is french, doesn't help much )

so, does that tread says to hard pan or not? More moderated then that?
Is more about surround sound?

[vaultstudio]

It is indeed a long thread, and you have to pick through it for the good stuff. What they're saying - in a nutshell - is to pan mono sources either L, R, or C.... AS A STARTING POINT. What I did in my mixes was basically stereo drums, rhythm guits panned hard L & R, bass & vox straight up centered, and then filled in the 25%-50% range with extras - guitar solo lines, piano, bgv, etc. I was surprised the space that was there for the extra stuff....

[RAMI]

I'm trying to figure out what's so new about panning drums and guitars, putting bass and vocals up the middle while filling "the rest" with extras. If that's what the thread comes down to bottom-line, then that's a lot of bandwidth being taken up for no reason by that thread.

[eraos]

Originally Posted by RAMI

I'm trying to figure out what's so new about panning drums and guitars, putting bass and vocals up the middle while filling "the rest" with extras. If that's what the thread comes down to bottom-line, then that's a lot of bandwidth being taken up for no reason by that thread.

The poster is talking about "hard" panning everything, as if there were only L,C,R switches instead of pan pots. So basically, there is no middle ground, except for necessity, as he says. You only use the spaces in between when you want some thing to stick out, like a tom.

So in the example of overheads, if you can't fully pan them without it sounding weird, adjust the microphones so that you will be able to fully pan them for them to sound right.

So it's not really as simple as what you said, RAMI, but it's not all that much different, I guess either.

I don't really understand the reasoning behind it (haven't finished reading the thread) so I can't really comment on why it supposedly works better than filling out a complete sound stage.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The Cardnial Pan Law is only slightly less silly than the CD Demagnetizer.

C'mon people, has the era of using your own heads completly ceased?

Crikey...

G.

[vaultstudio]

Rami - in a broad sense you are right, but my take on the whole thing was not messing around with paning things 85-15, 75-75, 50-50, etc. etc. etc. I don't want to suggest that's it's a rule, only a starting point. Personally, I like the mixes I did starting this way as opposed to some of my older "spreading around" stuff....

Now I have to see if I can interest Terry Manning, Ross Hogarth, & William Wittman in those CD Demagnitizers...

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The Cardinal Points Pan Flying Circus thingy is just a fancy way of saying "preset", for those who don't feel like actually mixing.

G.

[vaultstudio]

Considering the multiple gold/platinum discs in their pockets, I'll play on the "flying circus" a little bit...

http://www.hoaxproductions.com/discography.html
http://members.aol.com/compasspnt/clnt.html
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...5rb28vr05oa~T4

[bblackwood]

IMO there is some validity to LCR panning. before shooting this down, you should try it - it forces you to work harder to make things work together but you can end up with a positively HUGE sound stage...

[RAMI]

For anyone who's been watching the news in the last 2 years...I'd keep my children far away from anything called "Cardinal Law".

[Ford Van]

Originally Posted by bblackwood

IMO there is some validity to LCR panning. before shooting this down, you should try it - it forces you to work harder to make things work together but you can end up with a positively HUGE sound stage...

I agree!

Also, mono mixing is a MUST! My best mixes were mixes that I spent about 40-50% of my time listening and adjusting stuff while in mono!

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Ford Van

I agree!

Also, mono mixing is a MUST! My best mixes were mixes that I spent about 40-50% of my time listening and adjusting stuff while in mono!

I agree with FV, listening in mono forces you to rethink EQ settings so that instruments don't compete and to listen for phasing problems.

This just seems like another term for taking it to the next step to help ensure things don't compete in the center or L/R channels. After that I would place them in the final positions where you feel appropriate.

[Ford Van]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

I agree with FV, listening in mono forces you to rethink EQ settings so that instruments don't compete and to listen for phasing problems.

This just seems like another term for taking it to the next step to help ensure things don't compete in the center or L/R channels. After that I would place them in the final positions where you feel appropriate.

Exactly! Final levels of everything should be done in stereo, but it will only take a quick listen to get that once you have worked out everything else in mono.

[Dogman]

Originally Posted by Ford Van

Exactly! Final levels of everything should be done in stereo, but it will only take a quick listen to get that once you have worked out everything else in mono.

Ok, explain this a bit...I mix in Sonar. Are you saying to listen with the master summed mono instead of stereo? That's what I am getting from this discussion, but want to clarify.

[RAMI]

That's what they be saying.

Get it right in mono.

[Dogman]

Originally Posted by RAMI

That's what they be saying.

Get it right in mono.

Kinda what I figured, but I figure I had better clarify before I find a new way to screw my music up....

[FALKEN]

Originally Posted by eraos

The poster is talking about "hard" panning everything, as if there were only L,C,R switches instead of pan pots.

uhh...on my mixer there are only L,C,R switches instead of pan pots. what's the big deal?

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by Dogman

Kinda what I figured, but I figure I had better clarify before I find a new way to screw my music up....

I know what you're saying. I've discovered many ways to screw up mine. Every new trick = one new screw up.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Wow, here I am in a minority of one again .

My problems with the LCR (or LcR, or CPP) approach to mixing are that it a) flies in the face of the "4D" approach to mixing, of which I am a fan almost to the point of evangilizing, and b) tends to lead to mixes that, while they can intrinsically sound perfectly good, tend to get monotonous and uncreative when you put a disc or playlist of LCR-mixed songs together.

And as far as "the experts" liking and using LCR often, for every one who does, one can find another who doesn't (Roger Nichols, Alan Parsons, Paul Hornsby, etc.) It's the old game of you get your expert to testify and I'll get mine, and we'll let the jury decide who's the better public speaker. It's a silly game that's not worth playing.

Let the inspiration and structure of the song and the arrangement determine the mix layout in the four dimensions to create a true stereophonic sound field, and leave the straightjacket of starting with the three artificial and arbitrary cardinal points in the bag, IMHO.

G.

[eraos]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Wow, here I am in a minority of one again .

My problems with the LCR (or LcR, or CPP) approach to mixing are that it a) flies in the face of the "4D" approach to mixing, of which I am a fan almost to the point of evangilizing, and b) tends to lead to mixes that, while they can intrinsically sound perfectly good, tend to get monotonous and uncreative when you put a disc or playlist of LCR-mixed songs together.

And as far as "the experts" liking and using LCR often, for every one who does, one can find another who doesn't (Roger Nichols, Alan Parsons, Paul Hornsby, etc.) It's the old game of you get your expert to testify and I'll get mine, and we'll let the jury decide who's the better public speaker. It's a silly game that's not worth playing.

Let the inspiration and structure of the song and the arrangement determine the mix layout in the four dimensions to create a true stereophonic sound field, and leave the straightjacket of starting with the three artificial and arbitrary cardinal points in the bag, IMHO.

G.

I wouldn't say you're in the minority. It seems like those that have shown support are recognizing, as you have said, that it can make a mix sound perfectly good, that it is another tool for an engineer.

I personally haven't tried it, but I'm not discounting it's possible usefulness to make a clean mix. But I agree that the 3d, 4d mix is a much more creative process. I guess it would all depend on the goal.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Wow, here I am in a minority of one again .

My problems with the LCR (or LcR, or CPP) approach to mixing are that it a) flies in the face of the "4D" approach to mixing, of which I am a fan almost to the point of evangilizing, and b) tends to lead to mixes that, while they can intrinsically sound perfectly good, tend to get monotonous and uncreative when you put a disc or playlist of LCR-mixed songs together.

Glen, I think that you may be taking this concept a bit too literally. In the thread I believe that it mentions a few times that you don't have to strictly follow a hard panned approach.

An approach to mixing that I've used is to first turn up all of the tracks and mix them as if it were a live concert. That generally means no panning. The advantage here is that you optimize the sound as a whole rather than as a bunch of pieces and hope that they fit together. After that, start ripping it apart.

I think that rather than panning things all over the place as a starting point, using hard pans as a starting point and making adjustments from there makes sense, but it's nothing Earth shattering. It's just a way of honing a mix from a courser viewpoint.

Geoff Emerick has a "trick" where he divides the frequency spectrum of a mix in a similar way, mixing all of the bass intruments together as a unit, then midrange, and treble. It gives you a bit more focus without getting down to the individual elements. I prefer this approach over soloing out each track and making say "the best X sound" then throwing everything together in the pot.

Everything has to work together. Sometimes you find that when you take Emerick's approach and solo the track later a track may sound f*cking awful, but in the mix sounds great. Likewise the panning approach here may make you leave things a little further to one side than you would normally, but if the entire mix gains greater separation and dimension it's a good thing.

It's funny that everyone is making such a big deal about this. When I asked Emerick why he panned things the way he did on Beatles albums (a decidedly LCR approach) he said there was no reason behind it. They were just required to make stereo versions of the mixes.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Glen, I think that you may be taking this concept a bit too literally. In the thread I believe that it mentions a few times that you don't have to strictly follow a hard panned approach.

True enough on paper, I agree, Tom. But I'll gotta tell you, last night I put my headphones on and listened on a random shuffle to my personal and DJ playlist containing about 400 tracks of virtually every genre of music there is. I did this listening specifically in the light of this thread. There were so many here who's opinions I respect that disagreed with me, that I went back to the raw data to give the topic a fair shake, so to speak; to see why I might have been wrong .

I was absolutely amazed at how often LCR is folowed quite strictly, with the middle "no man's lands" use almost exclusively for reverb. I never realized until last night just how pervasively a farily literal version of this method actually is used. The success and "strictness" of this technique varies from the ultra-strict and pretty lousy (IMHO) sounding such as much of the 60's pop stuff (see: Monkees - Let's Dance On) was done, to some quite impressive, rich, thick mixes that are still pretty strict LCR with reverb smoothing it out a bit (see: Santa Esmerelda - Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood.)

Also in listening to these tracks, it reaffirmed for me - with exceptions, of course - just how homogenous and predictable the mixes started sounding after a while, especially when you have the occasional "natural" (I use the term loosely) stereophnic mixes or the 3D/4D mixes thrown in between that, to my ears anyway, when done well sound so much more rich, open, textured and interesting then even the best LCR mixes.

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

The advantage here is that you optimize the sound as a whole rather than as a bunch of pieces and hope that they fit together. After that, start ripping it apart.

Yeah, I understand that as a slightly fancier version of checking a mix in mono, which is a technique I don't disagree with as being a useful tool when required.

But here again, my honest opinion (and one likey to draw flames here) is that it shouldn't take long before an engineer outgrows the need to check mixes in mono - or in the case of LCR, in "tri-aural" - much as a bike rider soon outgrows the need for training wheels. Sure there are cases where to this day I have to check how some tracks go together when laid on top of each other, but after being at this for a while, I find that it gets much easier to be able to tell with some certainty well beyond just "hope" how well tracks will mesh and balance and how the mix will develop without having to do that.

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

I think that rather than panning things all over the place as a starting point, using hard pans as a starting point and making adjustments from there makes sense, but it's nothing Earth shattering.

For me, i's not just a matter of randomly "panning things all over the place", it's a matter of developing a specific layout in my head before I even reach for the faders or the pan controls. This layout is inspired (and sometimes even dictated, to a loose degree) by the song and the arrangement. Using the commonly known guidelines for getting the right balance and articulation in each of the "dimensions", and for building the mix from the ground based upon common foundations such as lyrical types and inportance, melodic or structural hooks, and overall arrangement style, the rough mix should be - by this method - already mentally roughed in before one actually starts playing the mix.

By this method, arbitrarily sticking this track hard left, that one hard right, etc, just seems like taking that production plan and throwing it out the window just to start at some arbitrary and artificial starting point.

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Geoff Emerick has a "trick" where he divides the frequency spectrum of a mix in a similar way, mixing all of the bass intruments together as a unit, then midrange, and treble. It gives you a bit more focus without getting down to the individual elements.

Now that's not a bad idea. I can see that. I do it slighty different myself in that Itend to break down into groups based upon instrumental function; i.e. rhythm section first (including drums and bass), blending into other rhythm instruments from low rhythm to high rhythm git, accompaniment pieces (keys, horns, etc.), lead pieces (lead gits, lead brass, etc.), and vocals.

But what I just don't personally see that much of a need for is to begin the mix with these instruments stacked in a small handful of arbitrary positions, especially if those positions bear no relation to where I have the actual mix placements planned. Now if I am actually *planning* an LCR-based mix, then that's a different story, of course (and I have done them in the past.) But, unless it's a very dense and tricky soundstage (see Phil Spector or anything by Poi Dog Pondering ) where some mon or stacked comparisons may help fine tune some track EQ somewhat, it just seems to be an inappropriatly arbitrary start for a multi-dimension mix. And one which can bias and inadvertantly straightjacket the engineer if they have not already rough-mixed the production in their head.

I'm not really meaning to make a big deal out of it; just trying to add and explain an alternate, and equally accepted amongst the Big Boys, method that is almost diametrically opposed to LCR in methodology.

G.

[masteringhouse]

Glen,

There's certainly nothing wrong with an alternate approach as long as it gets you where you want to be in the final result.

Some of the things that you mentioned though depend on you actually tracking the instruments and having that background knowledge. If you're faced with mixing someone else's tracks you might not know mic positions, so for example initially panning overheads far L/R allows you to hear how much of a spread in the drums you have and make adjustments from there. Likewise if using multiple miking, listening to things in mono or center will raise phasing issues a lot more quickly than if they are panned to opposite speakers no matter how much experience you may have.

Ultimately it's just another technique. Breaking away from old habits sometimes makes you hear things differently and inspires you to try something that ordinarily you might have missed. As an analogy there are guitar players who use alterate tunings for the sole purpose of breaking out of playing with their usual fingerings. When they go back to their usual tuning it completely screws them up and results in something "new". If nothing else this technique might provide the same insight.

As a personal example I was listening to an old Jazz CD by Lee Morgan many years ago and noticed that the reverb on his trumpet was panned to the left while his trumpet was completely to the right. Initially I found this a bit odd, but it created a very cool effect that made him sound "larger" than if it was on both sides with him panned somewhere in the middle. Since hearing that it's a technique that I use fairly often when setting up room reverbs on distorted electric guitars. There's a cool blend that happens when combining the reverb of one guitar over the opposite one, rather than combining them elsewhere or an a more "natural" combination.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Some of the things that you mentioned though depend on you actually tracking the instruments and having that background knowledge. If you're faced with mixing someone else's tracks you might not know mic positions, so for example initially panning overheads far L/R allows you to hear how much of a spread in the drums you have and make adjustments from there. Likewise if using multiple miking, listening to things in mono or center will raise phasing issues a lot more quickly than if they are panned to opposite speakers no matter how much experience you may have.

All true. And I honestly am not meaning to sound narrow-minded. I think you probably know me a bit better than that. It's not like I'm unrehearsed in LCR. Or that I do a lot of tracking. Most of my work is in mixing other people's trackings, and I did a lot of LCR-style mixing before I adapted the 4D technique.

It's just that for me, I just find LCR to be restrictive in instances where a mix is not already rough planned, and counterproductive when it already is. Issues like you mention, which are very true, can be handled fine outside the cardinal points. The OHs will work out fine when working the rhythm section sub-mix without having to stack anything in mono. Similar with multi-miking and doing the rhythm git submix; phase issues can be checked without having to tri-aural everything.

I just get so exasperated with the status quo of mixing these days, pro or amateur. Everybody throwing a million mics into the studio, worried about this or that little sound, and then just throwing it into a predictable mix of doubled and hard-panned guitars, bass, kick, snare and vocals down the middle, with toms and cymbals either spread hard, or lightly sprinkled in stereo from the OHs. Any primate or computer algorithm can do that, and do it wothout having to waste all that tracking detail.

And my listening test last night depressed me even more because I found by my sampling that the more strict interpretations of LCR style are far more common than I suspected; there simply don't seem to be a whole lot of engineers who bother to "bust apart" the tracks after tri-panning them. Some of them get the tri-panning to sound pretty darn good, I agree. But it in many cases is not as good as it could be if they bothered to expand the soundstage after getting the technical details right.

I go back to that Santa Esmerelda cover of the Animals hit as a perfect example. I invite you Tom, to grab a copy of it (I'll give you the $.99 to buy it if you want ). What a nice job they did with the instrumental intro (once you get past the 4/4 disco kick ). A very thick and sophisticated mix with a lot of stuff going on, yet they managed to keep it very clean and sharp even within a failry strict LCR configuration using reverb to fill in the gaping holes in the middle. This is a fine example of one of the best in LCR mixing that I have heard in a while. But listen to it closely, Listen to the hard-pan Spanish guitars come in to be slowly overcome/overlaid by identically hard-panned 70's funk-style rhythm gits. Sounds pretty cool.

But imagine it if the Spanih gits and the funk gits has their own pan space with, say, the Spanards coming just inside of hard pan (maybe 70% hard) and the funk electrics coming in at maybe 45% or so. Not only would that give them their own space so that one would not e stepping on the other, but it would add texture and dimension to the mix, and mostly, it would add movement to the mix. This movement, drawing the listener to the center just in time to hear the horns explode over the top like a mushroom cloud would be a great improvement to an already good sounding mix.

There's way too much *keeping* everything LCR once it starts that way. It's such a waste of soundstage, IMHO. You need to check phase and EQ balance and you're not sure by benefit of experience if you're there yet? Throw the ol' mono switch and check it out. But build your mix from the bottom up according to a preconceived plan that uses the full pallate of space, I say. It can be done very successfully without having to first wedge everything into 0° and 90° each side, just reserving the rest for reverb or a stretched drum kit. Think of it. It's throwing everying in three individual degrees and wasting the remaining 177° for reverb or for just spreading stuff out from an arbitrary starting position.

Just an opinion, of course. But it's one I'm obviously pretty adamant amout. To paraphrase the slogan from Paul Green's School of Rock, I'm just trying to save the fine art of mixing one mix at a time .

G.