Cardinal Points Pan Law

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I know it was totally unintentional, but this is pretty much how all of the mid-career Beatle stuff turned out(LCR).

Sometimes it *was* intentional, other times they had little choice. I can't speak specifically to Revolver (or FTM, specifically to any specific album), but a lot of the early 60's stuff, including, I believe some early Beatles has everything LCR for two reasons:

First, because often that's all some of their mixing desks were capable of. While this was not always the case, there were early desks who's "pan" controls were simply three-position switches, and not full potentiometers.

Second, back when stereophonic was new, there was not only a real infatuation with hard panning in order to emphasize the fact that it *was* stereo, but there were marketing reasons too. Kind of like what Kats said a couple of posts ago about "give 'em" the full thrill". It WAS a real "boss" (translation: "k3wl" ) to make the most out of the new stereo effect. (Then add some pot and a tab of acid and, well...just ask Alice )

But also, there was a bit of marketing pressure there too. Stereophonic vinyl pressings used to cost more than mono ones, and both were sold in the the same store bins. Also stereo equipment had to be bought to play these new stereo albums.

While some classical and jazz labels (and their listeners) liked the idea of creating a "natural" stereo reproduction, most pop labels and their listeners wanted to emphasize the stereophonic idea to an extreme in order to create the maximum difference between a stereo pressing and a mono one. Since pop listeners thought this was "boss" too, this helped make the case for spending money on both the new stereo gear and the higher-cost stereo vinyl pressings.

The canvas doesn't have to be a picture perfect live snapshot, but it doesn't have to be some wacky avant-garde modern paint splatter either. Mix and match. Make it sound cool.
That probably made no sense....

I think it makes perfect sense, IMHO.

It's not that I think there's anything "wrong" with hard-panning. I put stuff on the edges just like the next guy. And like I mentioned a long time ago early in this thread, because of this thread I set aside an entire evening with my headphones and my primary personal playlist, which is a collection of several hundred cuts of a very ecclectic mix of music styles covering at least 80 years of pro recording. I skipped the early mono stuff and just listened to what was recorded in stereo, and I was shocked to realize the large percentage of stuff that was actually LCR mixed. So it is a common technique. While I think much of the reason for that is a matter of studio time and cost than artistic decision, it is none the less used often and often times with very good results.

I just see it as, like gecko says, very limiting both creatively and technically. But even more than that, it's a concept that just seems so alien when looked at from the "canvas" perspective. Whether one mixes with 4D in mind or not, the fact remains that those 4 dimensions exist. Even if one mixes in mono with limited frequency resonse and leaves it there, that is still a choice made within in the four dimensions.

The four aural dimensions exist whether are conscious of them or view them from that perspective or not. All the 4D approach does is to say, OK, they are there, and when you start out they are all empty (silent). Nobody says you *have* to fill up every square inch of the canvas; just like in music where the rests are just as important as the notes, in mixing the empty spaces are just as important as the sound. But this is the aural space that is being offered to you to use as you see fit. Given the song, the arrangement, and the trackings that you have as your subject material and paint, how can you use this space to compliment and make the most out of that as you can?

While LCR panning scemes can and often do sound just fine, when asking the 4D question above, how often does "keep everything at the cardinal points" really wind up being the optimum answer? It just looks like a very limiting and synthetic construct that has nothing to do with the subject material and the paint one is woking with.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The point being that just because you pan LCR doesn't mean your limiting your stereo field to LCR. The difference being is that your making choices during the tracking stage with mic placements/techniques or during the mixing stage with effects, eq, and arrangements.

This is a very good point. Hard panning the two sides of a stereo track (or two mono tracks of a stereo miking setup) simply naturally reporduces that stereo info, which in itself may contain info that is not located hard left or hard right.

But typically that's not what we're talking about here; we're talking about the vast majority, if not all, of the tracks being mono tracks that are panned to the cardinal points. Sure there are often full stereo OHs (but give a listen, you'd be amazed at how often that is actually not the case when taking a large sample of recordings; it still amazes me), but that's not the main issue here.

Also, it is not uncommon for an LCR production to use the empty spaces around 45° for stereo or panned mono reverbs. Those that do this do fill more of the canvas than just the cardinal points, but it's still the main source tracking at LCR.

G.

 

[madmax25]

I totally hear you, Glen.
To be honest, I haven't really read every post and I got scared by the stuff they were saying in the other thread in the link up top. I think I get the just of it. Really, other than a few times ever, straight LCR seems pretty boring and strange. And yeah, with the beatles, i think they were doing crazy bounces with 2 or 4 tracks, correct? plus the 3 position pan pots...crazy stuff...
but yeah, spaces are good when the mix calls for it. There's a time and place for everything. Interesting history lesson about mono/stereo. Thanks for that.

Elliot

 

[kats]

I totally hear you, Glen.
Really, other than a few times ever, straight LCR seems pretty boring and strange.
Elliot

You'd actually be surprised. If you listen to radio, you've heard alot more LCR than you think. The first name that comes to mind is Chris Lord-Alge, and it seems like he's all over everything!

I think you guys are confusing old stereo recordings with the modern approach that cardinal points pan law has developed into.

 

[kats]

Another argument put forward in this thread postulates the merits of mixing (or, at least, of validating a mix) in mono. If the final use is known to be predominantly in mono, then I conceed the value of this. Otherwise, I'm not convinced. Here's why: For a while I diligently checked the air in my tyres each time I filled up. After a while I stopped doing this, because I discovered I didn't need to; I could tell by the feel of the car on the road when there was a problem with tyre inflation. In the same way, it is possible to identify problems with a mix without needing to check in mono*. You can sense it in the stereo mix that you are working on.

Whether you actually listen to your mix in mono, or your "spidey sense" tingles you, you are in fact checking or at least concerning yourself about mono.

In any case, the demand for mono mixes is dwindling daily, so I don't really care any more how it sounds in mono. Freed from that constraint, I can concentrate on assembling the track in stereo the best way I can.

I guess that depends on how you define mono. I'd say 90% of the time the listener isn't alone in an isosceles triangle config listening to music. I don't consider a TV with speakers 12" apart to be real stereo, nor a ghetto blaster on a beach with speakers 1' apart with the listeners 20' away. In fact that would sound more monophonic than stereophonic. And in all those cases including the other playback formats I mentioned previously, any phase issues resolved or separation achieved through panning become moot.

And what about pan law? Once your mix falls into mono, or even close to mono once in less than perfect listening enviroment, you have a new issue of balance - where nothing is what it was.

It's a pretty tricky issue, no doubt.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think you guys are confusing old stereo recordings with the modern approach that cardinal points pan law has developed into.

I can only speak for myself, but no confusion here. There is a difference between old binaural and an actual modern stereo field.

As I said, LCR is pervasive among commercial recordings even today. I understand this completely. There's no question that LCR is predominant. And many pretty darn good-sounding mixes have been made that way. But there's also no question in my mind that it's often used because it's to the process of mixing what MP3 is to digital encoding; it is seen as an acceptable compromise between quality and efficiency.

The core idea there is that mixing to LCR *as a starting point* is really kind a bit more sophisticated version of of doing the test mix in mono (monaural). But instead of creating a mix and then collapsing it to mono to make sure it holds up, a more experienced or discriminating ear can start out with a trinaural mix, get things cooperating fine that way, then aether using their own ears (like gecko) to extrapolate that down to comparing the three cardinal points with each other in their heads for compatibility, or simply collapsing the groups and checking for sure. Then they can develop the stereo image field as desired after that.

What seems to happen more often than not, though is that last step is never taken. Things are left at the cardinal points because either a) even after some 50 years of stereophony some people still think that hard-panned equals big, and b) (the big one) that it sounds "good enough" that way and one can easily then pass it on to mastering and get to the next meal ticket without anyone except those of us who listen for these kinds of things really complaining. And then there's those like the OP of that PSW thread who simply think that it "sounds better" to keep things out of "no man's land". Yikes.

Again, if that floats one's boat, I'm not saying it's "wrong". But for some of us it's like putting the cart before the horse; deciding a mix scheme independent of the content is like picking a wine before you know what the main course is going to be.

And also again, it's not my idea; I first read it "officially" defined by reading people like Owsinski and Gibson and others who I forget offhand, but I first started thinking that way myself long before that by studying the engineering works of people like Alan Parsons, Roger Nichols and Paul Hornsby, and many of the early synth explorers like Larry Fast, Brian Eno and Vangelis (long before Chariots of Fire). These people have all done stuff that would just plain collapse and not work if they were forced to wedge their images into only three of the available 180 degrees of soundstage, leaving the rest for the room or the occasional oddball rack tom.

Imagine if you woke up tomorrow morning with the opportunity to mix Paul Simon, David Byrne, Poi Dog Pondering, Peter Tosh, Moby, the Subdudes, Sonia Dada, The Dirty Dozen Brass Band or any other act with potentially thick and textured arrangements and you were told that you *had* to do everything in LCR. Thats like being asked out on a date with Jessica Alba but only if she wears sweats and doesn't get within 5 feet of you.

You're right that whole planning the soundstage for the playback environment idea is a waste of time. Simply because you have no idea what the playback environment will be like or where the listener will be positioned within the sound field. This is an equal problem regardless of whether one mixes in binaural, trinaural, LCR, full stereo or 7.1 surround; whether you're stuck in the rear corner of a tin-ceilinged bar filled with swaying drunks, or the driver's seat of a Toyota Solaris, it ain't gonna matter. It's not going to be the same image the engineer hears in the CR, or a major advantage or disadvantage to mixing either way in those playback conditions. So you might as well just make your best mix and resign yourself to the fact that it will be lost on the listener half of the time.

G.

 

[kats]

What seems to happen more often than not, though is that last step is never taken. Things are left at the cardinal points because either a) even after some 50 years of stereophony some people still think that hard-panned equals big, and b) (the big one) that it sounds "good enough" that way and one can easily then pass it on to mastering and get to the next meal ticket without anyone except those of us who listen for these kinds of things really complaining. And then there's those like the OP of that PSW thread who simply think that it "sounds better" to keep things out of "no man's land". Yikes.
G.

Well I think we've covered most of the bases on this one. But I'd like to be the devils advocate and disagree with the quoted statement. I believe LCR not to be the lazy route, but rather takes more discipline, planning, and experience to make it work correctly. If everything is out in "no man's land" using LCR, you just haven't applied yourself.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If everything is out in "no man's land" using LCR, you just haven't applied yourself.

No, no, no, go back and read the first post in the PSW thread linked to at the beginning of this thread. I'm not saying that LCR is "no man's land", the OP claims that anything BUT the cardinal points is "no man's land".

And I advocate the oppsite POV, that someone who just follows the LCR panning scheme with zero regard for what the content inspires is not applying themselves fully.

You're right, we're just repeating ourselves now, so we probably should just let it rest and send it to jury . I do appreciate your knowledge and your ability to sport the debate without turning it into something personal. Thanks for both!

G.