Porter
aka WookieMan
The hard compression is just to stop clipping on the main... it shouldn't squish it that much.
Porter
Porter
wfaraoni
ear art's not a science
everything you say makes sense you've got a knack for this don't youPorter said:
wfaraoni
ear art's not a science
I wish I had ears
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Most of what I am hearing, which you refer to as distortion, is a compressor being overdriven.
The vocal only needs some light limiting in most cases to keep it under control. I do this externally but if you are using a plug-in you would set a limiter out there at 10:1 but around only 2db reduction. Attack should be set to as fast as you can set it and release should be moderate. This way you will not be squashing the sucker but just touching it when it gets out of control. You will retain better dynamics with this approach. My opinion is that even for this type of music the vocal is over compressed.
The bass and kick, in the better mix, are being jointly compressed to my ears, always a good way to glue together the rhythm track. The snare is just off to center but in your original it is panned hard right, too hard sounding.
In the better mix, the background vocals are mostly L and R which gets them out of the center of the track so the vocal can stand out. In your original mix they are indistinct and too centered. The better mix is constructed something like this
L---------------------------C---------------------------- R
BG Vocal------------------------------------------------BG Vocal
----Acoustic-----------------------------------------Acoustic
----------Drums----------------------------------Drums
----------Cymbals------------------------------Cymbals
----------------------------Lead Vocal
----------------------------Bass & Kick
-------------------------------------------------Steel Guitar
So you see the focus of the track is the Vocal and Rhythm and the rest of the elements play off to the sides.
This arrangement also allows you to hear which instruments are fighting for the same frequencies and so you can EQ them to their own space better.
Remember, from the Mixing Engineers Handbook, mix Tall (frequencies not clashing) Wide (Panning correctly) and Deep (Reverb and delay variations).
Overall the cleaner mix is just letting the dynamics through and backing off the excessive compression. Plus some creating panning and production things.
The vocal only needs some light limiting in most cases to keep it under control. I do this externally but if you are using a plug-in you would set a limiter out there at 10:1 but around only 2db reduction. Attack should be set to as fast as you can set it and release should be moderate. This way you will not be squashing the sucker but just touching it when it gets out of control. You will retain better dynamics with this approach. My opinion is that even for this type of music the vocal is over compressed.
The bass and kick, in the better mix, are being jointly compressed to my ears, always a good way to glue together the rhythm track. The snare is just off to center but in your original it is panned hard right, too hard sounding.
In the better mix, the background vocals are mostly L and R which gets them out of the center of the track so the vocal can stand out. In your original mix they are indistinct and too centered. The better mix is constructed something like this
L---------------------------C---------------------------- R
BG Vocal------------------------------------------------BG Vocal
----Acoustic-----------------------------------------Acoustic
----------Drums----------------------------------Drums
----------Cymbals------------------------------Cymbals
----------------------------Lead Vocal
----------------------------Bass & Kick
-------------------------------------------------Steel Guitar
So you see the focus of the track is the Vocal and Rhythm and the rest of the elements play off to the sides.
This arrangement also allows you to hear which instruments are fighting for the same frequencies and so you can EQ them to their own space better.
Remember, from the Mixing Engineers Handbook, mix Tall (frequencies not clashing) Wide (Panning correctly) and Deep (Reverb and delay variations).
Overall the cleaner mix is just letting the dynamics through and backing off the excessive compression. Plus some creating panning and production things.
wfaraoni
ear art's not a science
middleman, very nice visual.
I guess I was playing hooky when they were handing out those mixing engineers handbooks
So if I understand you correctly you suggest to compress first, then pan as needed and dont eq until the mix? or do your final eq on the mixed file. which may be where I overdrive things..
Thats right, new rule eq down don't boost. See Im learning
what do you think of some of the other suggestions to give the bass and drums there own eq freq area on the low end? should I also do that after its mixed so I can hear it or before because I know Im going to need it? Sometimes you can barely hear a kick in the mix unless its been prepped first.
Just for grins whats your opinion/ preffered method on using the bounce to tracks output or straight select tracks and export?
Thanks for the great input.
I think Im getting somewhere with all this help
Peace
Bill
I guess I was playing hooky when they were handing out those mixing engineers handbooks
So if I understand you correctly you suggest to compress first, then pan as needed and dont eq until the mix? or do your final eq on the mixed file. which may be where I overdrive things..
Thats right, new rule eq down don't boost. See Im learning
what do you think of some of the other suggestions to give the bass and drums there own eq freq area on the low end? should I also do that after its mixed so I can hear it or before because I know Im going to need it? Sometimes you can barely hear a kick in the mix unless its been prepped first.
Just for grins whats your opinion/ preffered method on using the bounce to tracks output or straight select tracks and export?
Thanks for the great input.
I think Im getting somewhere with all this help
Peace
Bill
Middleman
Professional Amateur
GENERAL Compression rules of thumbs:
Vocals - Country, Jazz, Pop - Light limiting to light compression
Rock, Hip Hop, Rap, etc. - medium to heavy compression
Guitars - County, Jazz, Pop - generally don't need any more compression than the guitarest uses. Only variation would be acoustic guitars, these can be compressed up to a medium level i.e. 6:1
Rock - compress and gate to taste - no rules here.
Bass - compress always, either alone or with the kick drum if things are not that tight. 6:1 but more depending on the music.
Kick - compress always - no rules here varies dramatically
Pads - ie. synth, steel guitar, organ, strings etc. generally none as they tend to have their own built in transient cap but not always. This is where you want to keep the dynamics.
Background vocals - generally light in Country, Jazz and Pop but not always. Depends on the effect you are going for.
Wow, I can't beleive I am even attempting to define rules for compression but these are just starting points. Really, two main uses are:
1. Just keep in mind transients, those little unexpected peaks in volume, which can ruin or dominate a track. This is what compression is trying to control.
2. The other use of compression is as an effect. If you want that fat sound or in your face sound, you can mix a heavily compressed version of a track along with a clean version and get some very subtle but cool sounds.
In the country vain of things you are trying to control transients and keep as much dynamics as possible. The vocal is the exception as country vocals are sometimes heavily compressed but not always. With this approach you can add overall light buss compression later to reel-in the whole mix or tighten it up later.
Personally I am into clean sounding music like Nora Jones, James Taylor, Diana Krall, Vince Gill, host of others. This requires light or transparent limiting/compression, as little as possible in the mix. This way it preserves as much clarity as possible.
I think I've gone far enough down the road here with out fencing myself in. All rules are meant to be broken but the attempt here was to get you thinking in terms of a balanced picture of your audio. Also, tasteful usage of compression. The most common abuse I hear by newbies is excessive compression in the wrong or most obvious place, the lead vocal or acoustic guitar.
Vocals - Country, Jazz, Pop - Light limiting to light compression
Rock, Hip Hop, Rap, etc. - medium to heavy compression
Guitars - County, Jazz, Pop - generally don't need any more compression than the guitarest uses. Only variation would be acoustic guitars, these can be compressed up to a medium level i.e. 6:1
Rock - compress and gate to taste - no rules here.
Bass - compress always, either alone or with the kick drum if things are not that tight. 6:1 but more depending on the music.
Kick - compress always - no rules here varies dramatically
Pads - ie. synth, steel guitar, organ, strings etc. generally none as they tend to have their own built in transient cap but not always. This is where you want to keep the dynamics.
Background vocals - generally light in Country, Jazz and Pop but not always. Depends on the effect you are going for.
Wow, I can't beleive I am even attempting to define rules for compression but these are just starting points. Really, two main uses are:
1. Just keep in mind transients, those little unexpected peaks in volume, which can ruin or dominate a track. This is what compression is trying to control.
2. The other use of compression is as an effect. If you want that fat sound or in your face sound, you can mix a heavily compressed version of a track along with a clean version and get some very subtle but cool sounds.
In the country vain of things you are trying to control transients and keep as much dynamics as possible. The vocal is the exception as country vocals are sometimes heavily compressed but not always. With this approach you can add overall light buss compression later to reel-in the whole mix or tighten it up later.
Personally I am into clean sounding music like Nora Jones, James Taylor, Diana Krall, Vince Gill, host of others. This requires light or transparent limiting/compression, as little as possible in the mix. This way it preserves as much clarity as possible.
I think I've gone far enough down the road here with out fencing myself in. All rules are meant to be broken but the attempt here was to get you thinking in terms of a balanced picture of your audio. Also, tasteful usage of compression. The most common abuse I hear by newbies is excessive compression in the wrong or most obvious place, the lead vocal or acoustic guitar.
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Sorry, I got off on a tangent there. Here are the answers to your questions.
"So if I understand you correctly you suggest to compress first, then pan as needed and dont eq until the mix? or do your final eq on the mixed file. which may be where I overdrive things.."
I EQ as I go. But this is a whole thread discussion. Bass and Kick below 125Hz is critical, vocal in the midrange, etc. Certain instruments should own their own freq. location. If I don't like what I hear then I tweak it prior to hitting record. I may fine tweak it later in the the mix. But this is the first step
"what do you think of some of the other suggestions to give the bass and drums there own eq freq area on the low end? should I also do that after its mixed so I can hear it or before because I know Im going to need it? Sometimes you can barely hear a kick in the mix unless its been prepped first."
Yes, I do this. Generally I start with the kick and drum and try to vary this from song to song. Sometimes I put the 50 Hz pulse under the kick sometimes I don't. Occasionally I will swap the bass guitar with the kick as to what is going to dominate the low freqs and what will be higher. Sometimes I cut above 100 sharp and hard so nothing goes out above this and it leaves lo end acoustic guitar, vocal or even bass strings on an electric to dominate. But generally the kick and bass own 50 Hz to 100 or even 125. This is the first thing I do once I have the drums and bass tracked.
"Just for grins whats your opinion/ preffered method on using the bounce to tracks output or straight select tracks and export?"
I use the bounce to tracks method. Never used the export feature so cannot answer the question.
"So if I understand you correctly you suggest to compress first, then pan as needed and dont eq until the mix? or do your final eq on the mixed file. which may be where I overdrive things.."
I EQ as I go. But this is a whole thread discussion. Bass and Kick below 125Hz is critical, vocal in the midrange, etc. Certain instruments should own their own freq. location. If I don't like what I hear then I tweak it prior to hitting record. I may fine tweak it later in the the mix. But this is the first step
"what do you think of some of the other suggestions to give the bass and drums there own eq freq area on the low end? should I also do that after its mixed so I can hear it or before because I know Im going to need it? Sometimes you can barely hear a kick in the mix unless its been prepped first."
Yes, I do this. Generally I start with the kick and drum and try to vary this from song to song. Sometimes I put the 50 Hz pulse under the kick sometimes I don't. Occasionally I will swap the bass guitar with the kick as to what is going to dominate the low freqs and what will be higher. Sometimes I cut above 100 sharp and hard so nothing goes out above this and it leaves lo end acoustic guitar, vocal or even bass strings on an electric to dominate. But generally the kick and bass own 50 Hz to 100 or even 125. This is the first thing I do once I have the drums and bass tracked.
"Just for grins whats your opinion/ preffered method on using the bounce to tracks output or straight select tracks and export?"
I use the bounce to tracks method. Never used the export feature so cannot answer the question.
M
mtardif
New member
Aaron Cheney said:
Aaron, I was thinking about doing the same thing for a cd we are putting together. I can put the tracks together well enough and get the mix to sound pretty good, but it still needs to be mastered by someone who knows what they're doing. Do you have any recommendations for mastering engineers?? And will they do it for anyone that would pay them, or is it a pretty selective process??
wfaraoni
ear art's not a science
If you ask nice Ill do it for you.
lmao
lmao
lmao
lmao
M
mtardif
New member
wfaraoni...Thanks for the offer! Actually I think I've abondoned the idea of having someone else do it the more I play around with Sonar. I'm really having too much fun!wfaraoni said:
Middleman said:
Middleman, thanks for all of the info you've thrown out in this thread. It's really given me a jumping off point with my mixes. I've got quick question about panning though. I'm a little confused on how you would pan something both left AND right. Are you talking about 2 duplicate mono tracks, one panned left and the other right?? If that's so, isn't that the same as anything in the center?? I'm hoping this isn't some easy concept that I'm just looking right through. Thanks!!
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Yes, the technique I was referring to takes two different instances of a track and places one hard left, or thereabouts, and one hard right. It's different sounding from just placing a single track at center.
The idea is to get conflicting vocal frequencies, or guitars - whatever there may be a lot of - on to the soundstage without having them bunch up sonically in the middle, or anywhere actually.
Most often I use it for background vocals which although they are EQd differently from the main vocal, they still are going to bunch up in the middle if I have them all center panned. So, I split the back ground vocals and push one out to the right and the other left where they will be heard and then leave the main vocal down the center. Not always hard right and left by the way, this depends on the track.
You can also split background vocals into 3 tracks and place one left, one right and one down the middle. The one in the middle gets a little more reverb, or chorus, or whatever, to push it behind the centered main vocal. This is nice for when the lead vocal is coming in and out and you want the background vocals to keep singing. It builds a wall of vocals that the lead can come in and out of and because the middle background vocal is not as dry and the main vocal is pushed forward.
Here is my mental map for mixes, just as a starting point
Left----------------------Center---------------------Right
Midrange BKG<<<<<<Midrange Vocals>>>>>>Midrange BKG
Inst High<<<<<<<<<<<<<Bass>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inst High
Cymbals<<Toms<<<<<<<<Kick>Snare/HH>Toms>>>Cymbals
So, not only is there a panning priority but also an EQ placement priority across the stereo field. If there is a build up of frequencies in any one area, you can move things left or right to maintain balance or clarity.
For example my piano and Hammond B3 sounds always fight for the same frequencies. The easy option is piano left and organ right, opposite each other. But what if I want the organ to carry the whole background message? Then I would probably start carving the EQ on either the piano or organ to allow me to spread it across the mix without clouding things up. The other option is to duplicate the tracks of the organ and piano and put them in different panned places, maybe organ just outside the piano on the left and right. Then I may not have to radically EQ the two to get them to work together.
This is all about options and there is not one set formula. But it is important to have a bag of options you can reach for to make things gel.
Disclaimer: This is just meant to be a starting point. Sometimes I may have 12 tracks of background vocals but the positioning may or may not change from the guidelines above. How about 12 tracks of background vocals panned from left to right across the field? What does that sound like? It's art so only your ears can tell you when its right.
The idea is to get conflicting vocal frequencies, or guitars - whatever there may be a lot of - on to the soundstage without having them bunch up sonically in the middle, or anywhere actually.
Most often I use it for background vocals which although they are EQd differently from the main vocal, they still are going to bunch up in the middle if I have them all center panned. So, I split the back ground vocals and push one out to the right and the other left where they will be heard and then leave the main vocal down the center. Not always hard right and left by the way, this depends on the track.
You can also split background vocals into 3 tracks and place one left, one right and one down the middle. The one in the middle gets a little more reverb, or chorus, or whatever, to push it behind the centered main vocal. This is nice for when the lead vocal is coming in and out and you want the background vocals to keep singing. It builds a wall of vocals that the lead can come in and out of and because the middle background vocal is not as dry and the main vocal is pushed forward.
Here is my mental map for mixes, just as a starting point
Left----------------------Center---------------------Right
Midrange BKG<<<<<<Midrange Vocals>>>>>>Midrange BKG
Inst High<<<<<<<<<<<<<Bass>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inst High
Cymbals<<Toms<<<<<<<<Kick>Snare/HH>Toms>>>Cymbals
So, not only is there a panning priority but also an EQ placement priority across the stereo field. If there is a build up of frequencies in any one area, you can move things left or right to maintain balance or clarity.
For example my piano and Hammond B3 sounds always fight for the same frequencies. The easy option is piano left and organ right, opposite each other. But what if I want the organ to carry the whole background message? Then I would probably start carving the EQ on either the piano or organ to allow me to spread it across the mix without clouding things up. The other option is to duplicate the tracks of the organ and piano and put them in different panned places, maybe organ just outside the piano on the left and right. Then I may not have to radically EQ the two to get them to work together.
This is all about options and there is not one set formula. But it is important to have a bag of options you can reach for to make things gel.
Disclaimer: This is just meant to be a starting point. Sometimes I may have 12 tracks of background vocals but the positioning may or may not change from the guidelines above. How about 12 tracks of background vocals panned from left to right across the field? What does that sound like? It's art so only your ears can tell you when its right.
Last edited:
M
mtardif
New member
Messed around with mono-ing my background vocals (5 parts) and getting them hard left and right and it sounds freakin sweet!! Really distinguished from the main vox without standing out too much.
I'm finally realizing the name of the game is everything should have its own certain frequencies and/or its own space in the stereo mix depending on what's being masked by what. Whew!! That's a lot to go back and mess with.
Thanks for your help!! I swear I'll be getting these samples out here shortly.
I'm finally realizing the name of the game is everything should have its own certain frequencies and/or its own space in the stereo mix depending on what's being masked by what. Whew!! That's a lot to go back and mess with.
Thanks for your help!! I swear I'll be getting these samples out here shortly.
wfaraoni
ear art's not a science
mtardif said:
I am Thinking this is one of the BIG KEYS to getting a Better mix.
Everything having its own frequencies is a great plan but when I start to eq things, for instance, the guitar part, I wind up with it sounding like its being played through a megaphone
, you know that hollow telephone boxed sound. Ive read a bunch of recommendations on what to cut for bass, drums, and guitar etc. but they vary (as they should) so widely depending on the piece.
So I am asking,
As a general neutral STARTING point,
What do those of you who can/Do achieve musical separation without muffling the instruments Use for a guideline??
Ie: Drums, Bass, Guitar, vox, keyboard and synth, other strings, horns.
The more feedback the better here I think
REQUEST:
maybe Someone can actually post some samples of raw, Then adjusted, then in the mix! So we can get a feel for the ART!
That would be REALLY GREAT not only for me but for lots of folks Im sure.
Thanks
Bill
Paul881
Look Mom, I can play!
mtardif said:
You got it! What you might like to do is to try and visualize mixing as a 3D jigsaw puzzle. Front to back is volume, left to right is panning and delay, frequency is top to bottom. Each instrument needs its own space in the mix, otherwise thats where you get muddiness.
Reverb fills space, the lower the frequency and the more dense the diffusion, the more space it fills. Thats why reverb is beloved of poor singers, it masks a lot of pitch and tone issues
When you see pro's at work, they bring up the mix in a certain order. i.e. Bass and drums first, guitars and then vocals, other instruments and then percussion. And EQ'ing as they go, then going back and doing it all again until it sounds "right".
People like Dachay spend days and weeks trying to get their mix right, and in the end, it shows, the highly polished results speak for themselves. Plus he has the right gear to do the job, Wavelab and a suite of WAVE tools.
Bill, read these articles, they are a great starting point:
Mixing:
http://prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/3EFE3B007B30C0608625684B0000DCBB
Mixing Vocals:
http://prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/41AE5FECC7D8418D86256675000A3CFD
I'll fix it in the mix!
http://prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/EA692AA1AD0C40CB8625664B00614650
EQ:
http://prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/AFFCBC3A0382C83A862565D6001E69A8
Mastering
http://prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/F717F79532C9067386256688001A7623
Enjoy!
Middleman
Professional Amateur
wfaraoni said:I am Thinking this is one of the BIG KEYS to getting a Better mix.
Everything having its own frequencies is a great plan but when I start to eq things, for instance, the guitar part, I wind up with it sounding like its being played through a megaphone
Ive read a bunch of recommendations on what to cut for bass, drums, and guitar etc. but they vary (as they should) so widely depending on the piece.
So I am asking,
As a general neutral STARTING point,
What do those of you who can/Do achieve musical separation without muffling the instruments Use for a guideline??
Ie: Drums, Bass, Guitar, vox, keyboard and synth, other strings, horns.
The more feedback the better here I think
REQUEST:
maybe Someone can actually post some samples of raw, Then adjusted, then in the mix! So we can get a feel for the ART!
That would be REALLY GREAT not only for me but for lots of folks Im sure.
Thanks
Bill
The answer to your questions is very complex. Remember that what the instrument sounds like soloed is going to be different from its sound sitting in a mix. Your guitar may sound like a megaphone but that could be OK in the mix.
I used to ask the same questions about how to make a mix sound good so I can't blame you for asking. What I have found is that it's a lot of things all working at once that make a mix sound good. First, was it tracked correctly with everything in tune. Next, did you limit or compress things that had too much dynamic range i.e. go from too loud to too soft. Next step, were things EQd right coming into the computer. Far from the end, you have to give each instrument its own sonic space in the frequency range. Find an instrument frequency chart to figure this out.
Then listen to your favorite CD and try to emulate the sounds you hear. Placement of instrument from left to right is important. Now, listen to things that seem to just not be defined well. These could be two instruments in the same frequency range. This is where you fine tune with EQ and panning.
Finally study the delay times of things to determine what type of room did the music occur in, or that you want it to occur in. This can be various reverbs or delays on different instruments to give them the sound you were thinking of.
Then there is buss compression and other tricks.
Learning to mix well is like karate. You have to spend time in each discipline to get good and advance to the next level.
I spent 4 months reading books on compression understanding what it does and how it can be used. The same for delays and reverb, chorus, pitch shifting, sound placement and parametric EQs.
After 4 years I am starting to get the type of results I hear on commercial CDs.
The best 1 tip I can give you is get the book "The Mixing Engineer's Handbook " - Bobby Owsinski. It's got enough tips in it to keep you going for at least a year.
Last edited:
Paul881
Look Mom, I can play!
Middleman said:
Almost the same choice of music as me
Great minds think alike (or fools seldom differ
)
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Paul881 said:Almost the same choice of music as me
Absolutely! I think.
Regarding the Nora Jones album, it should be required beginners listening for learning how to mix.
Several things pop out at me that were done on those tracks.
1. Focus on the breathiness of the singer and emphasizing that element. This makes it extremely intimate and lyric centric.
2. Sparse chordal structure behind the vocal. This is the biggest mistake amateurs make i.e. pounding guitars and pianos to carry the song. Listen how the main instrument chords are not played all at once but the notes of the chords are played one at a time for the most part. This leaves a lot of air and allows the voice to remain upfront. Also, the notes are falling between vocal lines not competing while the singer is singing.
3. Ambient definition on the bass and drums. You can hear the room bouncing all the bass and drum efforts.
4. Warm and different EQ of vocal harmonies creating subtle blending vs. stacking all the same EQd tracks against a similar EQd main vocal.
I could go on but this explains why this album was so successful. The musicianship was really not all that premiere; there are several mistakes in notes. Nora is expressive but not excessively so. It's the sound that was captured, arranged and mixed effectively that really is the shining star on this. Oh and song selection, that was top notch too.
Last edited:
Paul881
Look Mom, I can play!
Wow, you are as obsessive with listening as I am
And you are perfectly right, there are a few bum notes in there, and a great mistake somewhere on drums, but the overall mix is magic, sheer magic, for all the reasons you give.
Its the performance that counts and great musicianship is more about what notes you leave out than play.
I get to hear a lot of school bands and they all try to get in on the act, loads of guitar chords and pumping volumes. And yet less is more.
On WindowsMedia.com today they have some old live Led Zep stuff. All very basic but built around Plants amazing vocals, bass there but in the background and Page playing de minimus notes. And Bonham keeping time and only coming on strong in places. An object lesson in live playing.
The breathiness of Norah is interesting because most tutors say this is a bad thing. But what it produced is an air of late night intimacy for the album and it works.
One of the best albums I have ever bought and listened to.
And you are perfectly right, there are a few bum notes in there, and a great mistake somewhere on drums, but the overall mix is magic, sheer magic, for all the reasons you give.
Its the performance that counts and great musicianship is more about what notes you leave out than play.
I get to hear a lot of school bands and they all try to get in on the act, loads of guitar chords and pumping volumes. And yet less is more.
On WindowsMedia.com today they have some old live Led Zep stuff. All very basic but built around Plants amazing vocals, bass there but in the background and Page playing de minimus notes. And Bonham keeping time and only coming on strong in places. An object lesson in live playing.
The breathiness of Norah is interesting because most tutors say this is a bad thing. But what it produced is an air of late night intimacy for the album and it works.
One of the best albums I have ever bought and listened to.
M
mtardif
New member
Middleman said:
Another question, because I'm running out of CPU power!! Is there anyway to pan 1 track right and left without having to duplicate the track?? I thought this may be possible sending 1 track to Aux-Bus1 panned right and to Aux-Bus2 panned left or by sending the signal without and panning and setting the pan levels in the aux bus return??- Thanks
M
mtardif
New member
Middleman said:
Another question, because I'm running out of CPU power!! Is there anyway to pan 1 track right and left without having to duplicate the track?? I thought this may be possible sending 1 track to Aux-Bus1 panned right and to Aux-Bus2 panned left or by sending the signal without and panning and setting the pan levels in the aux bus return??- Thanks