Panning in the past

[Beck]

I really feel I am out in left field reading that.
That's to say, well 'nice, and.. thank you

You're welcome. I forgot to mention that's also when the term "Hard Panning" came into being. Hard meaning it was difficult. Also "Far-Field Monitoring" AKA "Far-Fetched."

Still not a question of tape tracks, but of mixer channels.

And all joking aside, this is correct. Before Pan controls were standard on mixing boards one audio source was fed into two channels, thus accentuating and/or attenuating the signal with level controls assigned to right and left buss would move it across the stereo panorama. You can still do that with any stereo mixer by setting the pan controls on two channels hard left and right and then using channel faders to "Pan" the signal.

 

[itaughttremonti]

For example, CLA is an LCR guy (and has mentioned I think in a Pensado's Place interview about how he is LCR for everything except some percussion like I just mentioned). I tend to adopt that same strategy. When i first started mixing I'd pan the rhythm guitars say 50% L and 50% right, but I realized it was just more open and wide to go everything full throttle either L, C or R for most part.

So going by this technique, you pan everything hard LCR and use EQ for everything to find its "place"?

P.S. After reading your post I went and found something CLA had mixed on my iPod (Daughtry) and listened. Everything definitely sounded LCR...

 

[Farview]

Still not a question of tape tracks, but of mixer channels.

If you look at how he asked the original question, he asked why they didn't just copy the tracks. So I answered the question he asked, instead of offering an easier solution to a hypothetical problem that doesn't speak to his question.

 

[Lt. Bob]

If you look at how he asked the original question, he asked why they didn't just copy the tracks. So I answered the question he asked, instead of offering an easier solution to a hypothetical problem that doesn't speak to his question.

yep ...... I would have pointed that out but couldn't come up with a concise answer. The original question was absolutely a matter of tape tracks

 

[Beck]

If you look at how he asked the original question, he asked why they didn't just copy the tracks. So I answered the question he asked, instead of offering an easier solution to a hypothetical problem that doesn't speak to his question.

What am I missing here?

I think this ^^^ is the part of the question others where addressing.

But I always answer a question in light of what an OP is missing, even if they don't mention it. People often don't know enough about something to ask the right questions.

 

[mixsit]

I just re-bought Doors Strange Days'...
Now here is a nice example of LRC (more of less. ) 3D' wide, huge depth up the center at times..

Another rule' that get's broken here is some beautiful pure P-bass tones panned hard left (where Manzarek's keys and bass it replaces on some of them reside.

(Noobs' may want to eq up a bit here as the low conture is no where near what we're used to hearing these days.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I just re-bought Doors Strange Days'...
Now here is a nice example of LRC (more of less. ) 3D' wide, huge depth up the center at times..

Another rule' that get's broken here is some beautiful pure P-bass tones panned hard left (where Manzarek's keys and bass it replaces on some of them reside.

I bet on the LP all the low frequencies were centered, even if some bass instruments were panned. The format simply could not handle significant levels of panned LF.

 

[Manslick]

Probably a stupid question, but... I've heard mixers in the past only had a choice between hard right, center and hard left. Why didn't they just duplicate a track, have one panned right and one panned left, then adjust the faders to where they wanted the track panned? I'm sure copying a tape and having it on its own track would be easy peasy for an engineer? What am I missing here?

I'm curious where you heard this. EMI was making stereo recordings in the 1950. This is explained on page 103 of the book Recording the Beatles. Are you about a specific studio and or time period? And when you say "mixers", do you mean the machine or the person doing the mixing?

 

[dainbramage]

I'm curious where you heard this. EMI was making stereo recordings in the 1950. This is explained on page 103 of the book Recording the Beatles. Are you about a specific studio and or time period? And when you say "mixers", do you mean the machine or the person doing the mixing?

Interesting. I think I read it on this forum, and I was referring to the machines.