stereo spread of tracks

[ikijapan]

I've been reading up using the search function, and I've noticed a lot of experienced people here advise that panning, for example, 2 guitar tracks all the way L and R is rather amature or something in that regard.

So, I've been experimenting with 2 different songs. Both are miced the same way, XY. 1 is an acoustic guitar songs. The other is a piano songs. Both also feature voice.

My first thought is to just pan them hard left and right for both situations. But after some reading here, I decided to pan them more like half left and a little more than half right, and try different combonations of L and R...
but bottom line is, both the different songs seem to sound better hard L and R on the stereo guitar and piano.

What am I missing here? Am I misunderstanding some of the advice I had been reading?

 

[Monkey Allen]

Don't believe what you read. It's just an internet forum. Just pan it to where you think it sounds good.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've been reading up using the search function, and I've noticed a lot of experienced people here advise that panning, for example, 2 guitar tracks all the way L and R is rather amature or something in that regard.

I'll bet at least one of my posts was in there .

I'm not saying that hard panning guitar is in and of itself amateurish. There are plenty of pro tracks that have used that technique.

What I have said is that hard-panning power chord guitars is waaaay overdone and seemingly considered "the only way" to do things amonsgt many young headbangers.

It just gets so boring to listen to after a while when every song is mixed the exact same way. How is your band going to make a name for itself if it sounds exactly like everyone else, and when a mix is made not to the demands of the song, but to a by-rote, worn-out formula?

G.

 

[Golden]

Don't believe what you read. It's just an internet forum. Just pan it to where you think it sounds good.

That's basically all we're doing... panning and turning knobs until we get it where "we/the individual" like to hear it...

Maybe that's too basic...

 

[ikijapan]

I'll bet at least one of my posts was in there .

I'm not saying that hard panning guitar is in and of itself amateurish. There are plenty of pro tracks that have used that technique.

What I have said is that hard-panning power chord guitars is waaaay overdone and seemingly considered "the only way" to do things amonsgt many young headbangers.

It just gets so boring to listen to after a while when every song is mixed the exact same way. How is your band going to make a name for itself if it sounds exactly like everyone else, and when a mix is made not to the demands of the song, but to a by-rote, worn-out formula?

G.

Yes, I think I had specifically read somewhere that you said something like that, tee hee.

I can understand what you are saying about it being overdone by us headbangers. But can we review the piano thing for a moment?
I have a piano recording in stereo, spaced pair...and I mean ANYTHING other than hard left and right just sounds...not as good. Am I doing something wrong??

Here's my hypothesis: If you do anything other than hard left and right, the guitars are actually meeting somewhere in the middle too and maybe phasing becomes a problem then? That's why it doesn't sound as good in other panning positions? Is that a possibility? Hmm, but it's also the same with the XY acoustic guitars, and those shouldn't have phase problems.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yes, I think I had specifically read somewhere that you said something like that, tee hee.

I figured as much. I think I may be the only one on this board who complains about that . And, yes, I realize I may be alone, but I remain unshaken in that stand. Read on...

I have a piano recording in stereo, spaced pair...and I mean ANYTHING other than hard left and right just sounds...not as good. Am I doing something wrong??

Not necessarily wrong, more likely the results are a result of the miking technique. If you're close miking with a spaced pair, then yes, phase issues as well as the "natural-ness" of the stereo image can limit and affect what you can do with the panning.

If you want a tighter stereo image - i.e. one not hard-panned 180° - I'd suggest changing to coincident pair mixing instead of a spaced pair. An ORTF setup just a few inches off the strings can give a very clean and tight stereo recording of a piano with the ability to pan the stereo image narrower.

In fact we just went thorugh this exact situation just a week or two ago in the Recording Techniques thread, where the OP started with a spaced pair that sounded bad. I suggested the ORTF mounting and (in his words) "bingo!", he got the sound he was looking for.

Here's my hypothesis: If you do anything other than hard left and right, the guitars are actually meeting somewhere in the middle too and maybe phasing becomes a problem then? That's why it doesn't sound as good in other panning positions?

Sorry iki, that's a nice theory, but it is at least a little off-target. You don't need close-panning for stuff to "meet in the middle". If two tracks are symmetrically panned, the balance between them around the middle remains the same, whether the panning is 20%, 50%, or 100%. Now, maybe some phase issues become more apparent as the panning gets closer, but I honestly don't think that's what you're hearing as "better" and "worse".

No question that hard-panned doubled guitars have a very cool sound to them. Let me expand the question a bit to examine the real issue. Let's not ask why the doubled guitars have to be hard panned, let's ask why the guitars have to be doubled at all, or at least, if they are doubled, why they have to have the same sonic signature to them? Do the advocates of that technique really want to say that that is the only way heavier and metallic music can sound good? Is the genre so limited that there are no alternatives to such an arrangement? If so, that is the only branch of music that I can think of that is *that* limited in scope where such an electronic arrangement is the only way to make the music sound good.

Hard-panned, doubled distortion can sound great, I admit. But, come on, why does every single song ever created by amateurs in those genres have to be done that way? Get creative, guys. I'm quite sure you can get your metallic ya yas out without having to do the same thing everytime. If the listener were a woman and the music arrangements were sex, the listener would have dumped you guys out of boredom a long time ago.

Get creative and break "the rules". That's all I'm asking.

G.

 

[giraffe]

Get creative and break "the rules". That's all I'm asking.

G.

but you know how it is G, that's what people expect.
i mean, i mostly do demos (and many of them too fast) and that's the sound people want.
so, whatever, you know.

 

[ikijapan]

I figured as much. I think I may be the only one on this board who complains about that . And, yes, I realize I may be alone, but I remain unshaken in that stand. Read on...Not necessarily wrong, more likely the results are a result of the miking technique. If you're close miking with a spaced pair, then yes, phase issues as well as the "natural-ness" of the stereo image can limit and affect what you can do with the panning.

If you want a tighter stereo image - i.e. one not hard-panned 180° - I'd suggest changing to coincident pair mixing instead of a spaced pair. An ORTF setup just a few inches off the strings can give a very clean and tight stereo recording of a piano with the ability to pan the stereo image narrower.

In fact we just went thorugh this exact situation just a week or two ago in the Recording Techniques thread, where the OP started with a spaced pair that sounded bad. I suggested the ORTF mounting and (in his words) "bingo!", he got the sound he was looking for.

Sorry iki, that's a nice theory, but it is at least a little off-target. You don't need close-panning for stuff to "meet in the middle". If two tracks are symmetrically panned, the balance between them around the middle remains the same, whether the panning is 20%, 50%, or 100%. Now, maybe some phase issues become more apparent as the panning gets closer, but I honestly don't think that's what you're hearing as "better" and "worse".

No question that hard-panned doubled guitars have a very cool sound to them. Let me expand the question a bit to examine the real issue. Let's not ask why the doubled guitars have to be hard panned, let's ask why the guitars have to be doubled at all, or at least, if they are doubled, why they have to have the same sonic signature to them? Do the advocates of that technique really want to say that that is the only way heavier and metallic music can sound good? Is the genre so limited that there are no alternatives to such an arrangement? If so, that is the only branch of music that I can think of that is *that* limited in scope where such an electronic arrangement is the only way to make the music sound good.

Hard-panned, doubled distortion can sound great, I admit. But, come on, why does every single song ever created by amateurs in those genres have to be done that way? Get creative, guys. I'm quite sure you can get your metallic ya yas out without having to do the same thing everytime. If the listener were a woman and the music arrangements were sex, the listener would have dumped you guys out of boredom a long time ago.

Get creative and break "the rules". That's all I'm asking.

G.

wow, thanks for the response southside glenn.

So, I can understand your comment about us headbangers. But I'm just tying to get a grip with making music sound a generic way before I go battle with trying to actually doing something original.

And it's in that vein that I am trying to experiment in the first place. I actually tried a lot of different things first. I've tried ORTF, XY, spaced pair.
Let me break down what I've tried, maybe someone can point out what else I should be trying.

Acoustic guitar: XY, spaced pair. Either way, 12 fret goes to right channel, bridge goes to left channel. I've heard people blend these together somehow...I haven't really tried that, not sure how to approach it.
With the acoustic guitar what I am trying to accomplish (right now) is getting a nice punchy in your face sound, which was lacking when I recorded the same track by direct in on clean tone electric.
The acoustic is sounding very good, much better for what I am trying to do, with this approach. XY seems to work best.

Piano: I've tried ORTF, XY, spaced pair. All close miced. They all sound fine, but it just seems that the piano sounds "small" when I don't pan hard left and right. It just seems that the bass comes in nice and widespread hard left, and the middle and treble notes come in appropriately in the middle and right with hard right. It sounds like you are sitting at the piano and playing that way. Anything less than hard pan, sounds smaller...

Anything I should be trying or that I'm missing out on here? It's probably due to my inexperienced ear, but I'm just not seeing the benefit of not hard panning.

 

[gcapel]

Hard-panned, doubled distortion can sound great, I admit. But, come on, why does every single song ever created by amateurs in those genres have to be done that way? Get creative, guys. I'm quite sure you can get your metallic ya yas out without having to do the same thing everytime. If the listener were a woman and the music arrangements were sex, the listener would have dumped you guys out of boredom a long time ago.

Get creative and break "the rules". That's all I'm asking.

G.

Amen

IF you listen to some QOTSA, they are doing all kinds of guitar panning on the fly during the song itself. THe verse part would have the guitar on the right and bass on the left. Then the chorus would fatn up with dual rythm guitars and bass in the middle.

Iv; heard the Melvins duplicate tracks and advance one ahead a notch. But not throught the entire song.

I'm just throwing some ideas around

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

but you know how it is G, that's what people expect...that's the sound people want.

Being a hired gun mixer is one thing. I'm not saying that the engineer should disagree or argue with the client . I'm talking about the clients and the self-recorders here.

It sounds like you are sitting at the piano and playing that way. Anything less than hard pan, sounds smaller.

When you go to a live venue (I don't mean a baseball stadium concert, I'm talking more anything from a home recital to a small club up to a medium auditorium...or even a studio sound room), does the fact that you are a witness to the piano playing and not sitting in front of the piano playing it yourself, and not hearing it in a wide stereo spread, make it sound "small"?

There are a lot of great keyboard tracks that aren't even recorded in stereo. Most quality classical and jazz piano sounds *huge*, but many are recorded far-field and not even close miked, let alone hard-panned.

Anything I should be trying or that I'm missing out on here? It's probably due to my inexperienced ear, but I'm just not seeing the benefit of not hard panning.

Like others have said, do what sounds good to you. I'm not dictating to you that you shouldn't hard pan everything that comes your way, including dog farts (as long as you can't smell them, who cares? ) Do what you like.

But I would suggest, to answer your first question, that you spend some time critically listening to an array of commercially music and examining the mix structure with your ears. There's a whole multitude of different ways to mix any cat; I have a feeling that your "inexperience", as you put it, is not just in mixing, but in listening. Theres a whole lot of excellent music out there - including in the harder genres - that isn't just the same old formula of L/R double git, drums spaced wider than Britney's knees, and everything else up the middle.

And as far as benefits to not hard-panning...well, how about completly opening up the possibilities and giving yourself an entire sonic soundstage to work with? Or giving yourself a lot more room to place instruments like pianos, keyboards, horns, etc. without having to pile all the instruments on top of each other until all you have is a brown gravy of sound? Or actually creating a stereo soundstage instead of a dual-mono artiface? Or using location and movement of instruments within a song to create interest, set mood, etc.?

How about the feedback that the lack of such restrictions can add to your music creation? If you challenge yourself, for just one song, to come up with a hard-rockin' metal song that really gets the blood boiling without falling back one the old doubled distortion in your face all the time, who knows what sound you might come up with that will blow the masses away and set you apart from the millions of clones out there all doing the same thing as everybody else?

G.