FALKEN said:
First of all, you shouldn't accuse me of sending negative reps under your name. I don't EVER give out negative rep in the first place. Anyway, if I want to call you out, I will. I won't go sneaking around.
Fair enough. I apologize for implying that you have done that, I was wrong to do that.But I get tired of being accused of being a liar by you all the time as well, Castro.
FALKEN said:
Secondly, I don't think I'm over my head on this one. For the past few months I have been mixing on a mixer that I BUILT from scratch. Let me tell you how the panning works. if you pan Left, the signal goes to the left bus. If you pan right, the signal goes to the right bus. If you pan center, the signal goes to both busses.
@ you and chess: There is more to it that just that. I suggest you look up Craig Anderton's and Bobby Owsinski's seperate and unrelated articles on panning where they describe in some detail just how not only can center pan differ from left/right pans, but how center pans on different mixers and even within different DAW software setttings can differ from each other in how they actually affect the signal and the mix. I also suggest that you try my described expieriment for yourself on a couple of different platforms and hear for yourself how the results can differ. Will they always differ? No. Will they sometimes make a very audible difference? Yep. Can I fully explain exactly why that difference does show up? Honestly, no. I don't fully understand the mechanics
of it myself. But I know that it's something I have indeed used in the past and it's a real effect when it does happen, and that it's something I got from someone else who has had far more experience and success at this racket than the three of us put together.
FALKEN said:
Thirdly, The Haas effect has to do with the arrival times of very similar signals (plural). Simply delaying a mono track has nothing to do with the Haas effect. It will only put your track out of sync.
The presedence effect is a psychoacoustic effect that the brain plays based upon it's wiring for interpreting the real world. Because it's wired to instinctively interpret the first of two or more similar sounds in rapid succession (yes, your right, it is plural) as the source sound and the succeeding sounds are reflections or reverberations, it - correctly or not - instinctively interprets the first sound as being closer and therefore (again, interpreted, rightly or wrongly) as louder.
Take that effect and extrapolate it to a pair of panned signals that are close in sound, but one arrives at the ear just milliseconds before the other, and the brain instinctively interprets that earlier signal as the closer and louder source. This interpretation tends to push the interpreted pan location of the binaural tracks in the direction (left or right) of the precedent (earlier) signal. Hence the name "presedence effect" when used in mixing.
Yes, there are phase issues to be considered as well, you're right about that, and those issues are the most extreme when the signals are identical. But there is a fuzzy boundary area in time where the presedence effect and phasing isues trade priority. You and I argued about this very issue, Castro, but in a different context, the last time you tried calling me to the carpet for being a supposed hot air balloon, and I don't feel like rehasing that. Look it up yourself. That's what I did once upon a time; I'm not making this stuff up.
FALKEN said:
Last, if you are going to quote someone and backup your statements with that quote, you ought to cite the source. Like this:
Wikipedia
Well, gee, you got me there. My apologies for not being able to remember just who I picked up a piece of information some ten yeard ago give or take. I admitted as much. Obviously that either makes me a downright liar or drug addict. Look up Anderton and Owsinski for starters. That's not where I got the initial tip from, but they do have a lot of relevant stuff to say regarding both panning and presedence.
And also look up one of Time magazine's new words of the year for 2006: "Wikiality". Never mind, that one I'll give you that one...
Its a noun whose roots come from the conjunction of "Wikipedia" and "reality". It's defined as "Truth based upon concensus rather than upon fact."
Look, I'm not going to argue with you two. You have made it well known what your opinions are of me from the very beginning, regardless of my previus reach outs. I don't give a gram of navel lint what you think of me personally, but you've made it obvious that your personal bias' prevent either one of you from having an open debate about any of this stuff while I'm involved. So I'm standing by my posts as they are and backing out of this thread as I can do no more here.
You win. Stick with what works for you. I don't care. That just gives an edge to folks like me, Halion and Tangerine who have those extra tricks in our bags that we use regularly in *reality*, yet are ovbiously impossible in your *wikiality*, and that you guys are not interested in hearing simply because you don't like the messenger.
G.