Splitting/Panning/Delaying tracks...are there uses for it?

[miroslav]

OK...as a segue off the "Getting big guitar sounds" thread...I've started a new thread so as not to confuse the issue since in that other thread we all agreed that splitting/panning/delaying is NOT the best technique for getting big guitar sounds...
...but since lots of folks try using split/panned/delayed tracks (DAWs make this VERY easy, which is why it comes up often)...it might be interesting to consider/discuss instances where it can be used and where it works in a production and how to best use it so as to avoid the pitfalls.

I think some folks just have a negative attitude to it 100% of the time, and while I agree that it does get overused by newbs for a lot of wrong reasons....that doesn't necessarily make a bad/wrong technique 100% of the time...
...so not need to simply avoid using it or even discussing it with heated attitudes.

Anyone wish to kick it off with suggestions or questions?

Just to be clear - this is NOT the best technique if you are looking to fatten up your guitar sound, so let's not even bring it up here. That's already been covered in the other thread.

 

[Track Rat]

Hell, if you want to make a mono rhythm guitar (for instance) have some space, it's not a bad idea. Pan the original track to one side, make a copy and pan that track the other way and slide it up some amount to taste (also lower the volume of the delayed track). Less than 20-30 msec can sound phasey if collapsed to mono, more than 100 msec can sound like an echo.
For things like this, it's not a bad way to do business.

 

[Dogbreath]

I had a drum track that I used the copy/paste thing for the OH's.
I kept the original 2 tracks in there for the meat of the kit but used these other 2 tracks with a cut in the lows and a slight boost in the highs to get a little more ...well... high end. More "tingly"
The blend sounded just right for that song.

I've also used the copy/paste (along with some pitch shifting) for a "gang vocal" type section.
Worked out well.

 

[Dogbreath]

just remembered...

I had another tune I was messing with and during a short lead section (3 or 4 seconds) I took the end part of this lead guitar sustain note that was panned at about 10 o'clock, copy/pasted, did some quick automation with a heavy reverb and a quick wider pan split.

Sounded pretty cool.

 

[Greg_L]

I don't like it.

 

[grimtraveller]

I had a drum track that I used the copy/paste thing for the OH's.

When I was new to digital recording, I had a session with a friend on drums in which we covered three songs and the feel of all three was great, just what I was looking for. But when I later settled down to listen to them closely, I noticed that one of the O/Hs was clipping like crazy because my friend had a tendency to beat the shit out of the drums back in 2009 and although there was a need for some aggressive parts, this was too much. The clipping O/H sounded awful, it was my first experience of the dreaded digital clip sound, that awful "kkkkrrrrrr". The other one was fine so I deleted the shit one and simply replaced it with the good one on each song. They sounded fine to me then and still do. I was listening to one the other day and I'd forgotten that one of the drum tracks was doubled.
Even back in my cassette portastudio days, I'd sometimes double part of a track, sometimes FX'd, sometimes not and pan the parts to different places, just for a bit of 'indefineable presence'. It's hard to explain it but it was definitely a different kind of presence than you'd get by simply raising the volume fader on a single channel. It wasn't something I'd do as a default move. But every so often it would work.

 

[sixer2007]

The other one was fine so I deleted the shit one and simply replaced it with the good one on each song. They sounded fine to me then and still do.

Wouldn't that make one side of your kit nearly disappear though? Like if it was the Left side that was mucked up, wouldn't the hats be super quite and unintelligible? I'm not saying it didn't work or sound good, just a curious thought.

 

[mixsit]

If Grim copied and invereted the polarity- yeah that would be a mess, but he didn't say. If all it is is a copy panned it's just 'big mono-- ie louder

 

[grimtraveller]

Wouldn't that make one side of your kit nearly disappear though? Like if it was the Left side that was mucked up, wouldn't the hats be super quite and unintelligible? I'm not saying it didn't work or sound good, just a curious thought.

That's what I thought would happen initially but it didn't. At that stage, I was into my first couple of months of miking drums in stereo so I was experimenting with where to put the mics. In that period, I still thought of overheads as "cymbal mics" and I also used to specifically mic the hi hat and close mic each of the toms but send them through a mixer. The combination of all that cack-handedness somehow worked. Also, bear in mind that I'm neither a drummer nor a recording competent, or at least, I wasn't particularly competent back in 2009 though I think I've improved somewhat since. On top of that, I don't think like a drummer so all of the drum recording symmetry is secondary to whether or not I like the sound that I'm hearing. For example, I rarely hard pan my overheads {I recently tried it on a couple of songs and liked it}. I also like this little trick my Zambian drumming mate showed me of panning different toms to different ends of the mixer to get that nice speaker to speaker effect on a roll. I'm a sucker for little things like that.

 

[miroslav]

If all it is is a copy panned it's just 'big mono-- ie louder

Right.

Without some delay...it doesn't work. Not sure what Grim did or if he used any delay...just speaking in general, you need some delay between the two. Panning is optional, but IMO, it opens up your options rather than just delaying and keeping both panned to the same spot...and of course, it's not going to work with everything in every situation, but certainly a very common/usable approach.

 

[miroslav]

I also like this little trick my Zambian drumming mate showed me of panning different toms to different ends of the mixer to get that nice speaker to speaker effect on a roll. I'm a sucker for little things like that.

Yeah....those are the kinds of things that can take a production from the more basic "live band playing" sound/approach to anything goes if it works for the song.

 

[grimtraveller]

If Grim copied and invereted the polarity- yeah that would be a mess, but he didn't say.

I haven't got a clue how to invert the polarity ! On one of my preamps there's a 'phase invert' switch but my knowledge of such things is less than my knowledge of how to rescue Greece from the Eurozone crisis it's in !

If all it is is a copy panned it's just 'big mono-- ie louder

I think that may well be kind of what happened.

 

[grimtraveller]

Yeah....those are the kinds of things that can take a production from the more basic "live band playing" sound/approach to anything goes if it works for the song.

I never really consciously thought about it until relatively recently, but much of the music I've dug over the last 40 or so years has not been that of 'the live band playing'. The instant an overdub appears, that's out of the window. So when I started recording, there was never any question of the notion of a live band because in so many instances, the stuff I liked wasn't. It's not pushing it to say that perhaps most music recordings haven't been.
But that has never altered the beauty or rawness of myriads of recordings.

 

[aaronmcoleman]

The ONLY use I could ever imagine it for is maybe if I wanted some crazy effect or reverb on one side. But even in that case, I'd probably double track and pan and apply the effect or reverb.

I'm not going to say 100% of the time it's stupid and don't do it, but I don't think I've ever done it...except for the one time someone recommended it to me on this forum in 2003 (different user name and I can't remember the password so I made a new one a couple years ago), and I don't think there's a single situation I would want to use it in.

If you like it that's cool, no rules, just good sound. I rebel against the double and pan idea because so many noobs are attracted to it that it's become one of those home recording myths. It's ruined many decent acoustic tracks, and made a lot of bad tracks worse. They think it'll make a mono track sound stereo...It won't.

Don't pan and delay, that's as close to a recording "rule" as I can think.

 

[grimtraveller]

Mmmm...OK, you can avoid it if it doesn't suit your style, but I think there are countless records where it worked very well for a given track(s).
I don't think those engineers, producers and artists thought it was stupid and silly....or the fans who heard those records.

Again, coming up through 60s and 70s music and taking on board much of the thinking that was around among huge numbers of engineers, producers and artists, I'm reluctant to throw out any technique. It may be so that few things will work for every song, similarly, some things may only work for a few songs. But pretty much anything that has been used since the advent of recording can work, even if said practice has been long abandoned.

 

[miroslav]

Yes...the minute things are "manipulated" it's not really a live band playing....I just meant that when you hear a live band, there's usually a set format/layout. Even when they play different songs, the drums are "there" and set up the same...the guitars are "there"...etc...
...so when you start tearing that apart and putting on tom here and another there...or applying some kind of process, something like a split/pan/delay to a track...it takes it to a more imaginary level.

I like the "live band playing" approach to recording...where you only put down what a live band can duplicate...but I also do love all the productions that toss that out the window and just provide a imaginary sound-scape.

 

[mixsit]

Right.

Without some delay...it doesn't work. Not sure what Grim did or if he used any delay...just speaking in general, you need some delay between the two. Panning is optional, but IMO, it opens up your options rather than just delaying and keeping both panned to the same spot...and of course, it's not going to work with everything in every situation, but certainly a very common/usable approach.

Yeah, but even delayed.. here come a few then.. Less than about 2MS out to several MS the image will shift hard to the non delayed side (even if you balance it with volume.
( 5-8 or 10 or so IIRC image gets vague/squirrely/shifty'. Might work..
At about what, 20MS? it's getting into audibly delayed territory?
We could try 8-12, don't know, (maybe I'll do a trial in a bit when I get the rig going..) but you got these transients that make stuff like this real easy to hear.
Guitars, vocals and such, maybe lots more forgiving/leeway than O/H'.

 

[miroslav]

I rebel against the double and pan idea because so many noobs are attracted to it that it's become one of those home recording myths. It's ruined many decent acoustic tracks, and made a lot of bad tracks worse. They think it'll make a mono track sound stereo...It won't.

Don't pan and delay, that's as close to a recording "rule" as I can think.

Well...I don't really consider or care about what a newb does. I mean, I will always try and give good advice, but in the end, it's really not my concern if someone else ignores or misuses it and ends up with chicken salad as their mix.

I've used split/pan/delay many times...on all kinds of tracks...and it works fine.

It's got NOTHING to do with being lazy. I've double tracked and triple tracked (I'm talking playing twice or three times) on many occasions. It's a different process and a different sound...but on other occasions I've chosen the splti/pan/delay...both work, there are NO rules.

 

[RAMI]

....and how is this different than applying a digital delay to your signal and panning that?

Just asking, even though I already know the answer.

This isn't a technique any more than applying reverb to a drum kik is a "technique".

 

[miroslav]

Yeah, but even delayed.. here come a few then.. Less than about 2MS out to several MS the image will shift hard to the non delayed side (even if you balance it with volume.
( 5-8 or 10 or so IIRC image gets vague/squirrely/shifty'. Might work..
At about what, 20MS? it's getting into audibly delayed territory?
We could try 8-12, don't know, (maybe I'll do a trial in a bit when I get the rig going..) but you got these transients that make stuff like this real easy to hear.
Guitars, vocals and such, maybe lots more forgiving/leeway than O/H'.

Yes...all solid points.

I've dealt with the level/image shift to one side....but I then would balance it by doing another instrument, in the opposite direction.

So you still get your "guitar" on the left and your "piano" on the right as their primary positions...but then they each have that delay on their opposite side.
What's cool to me about this in the stereo environment is that you can walk or move from L to R (or R to L) across your sound-stage, and you don't end up losing the element that was panned to one side because it follows you. The more central elements stay fairly solid at either end.

I enjoy playing around with this kind of stuff in the image field...and no, I don't worry too much about Mono, because it will collapse your entire image anyway...with it without the split/panned/delayed stuff. I've also not encountered any obvious phase issues that significantly mess things up when the mix goes mono...but again, I don't really care about mono too much.
Not many people listen to things in mono any more. The single-speaker AM radio has long ago died.