I've read many posts here concerning the use of some sort of directional panning plug-in (e.g., in Logic, its stock DirMixer) versus simply panning instruments varying degrees right and left using the track's pan knob. I've experimented, bouncing comparisons using both techniques, and there is no doubt that simple panning cuts some of the sound, and the DirMixer (or similar third party plug) preserves it. So, the big question: put a DirMixer on every single instrument track? Really? Has anybody looked at the additional processor load imposed by loading up 40 or so or these mix helper plugins? Most importantly has anybody (other than me right now) done an A/B comparison of a complete mix using these two different methods? Curious to know the consesus out there, if there is one.
-
preserving stereo sample with DirMixer instead of pan
-
An A/B comparison would yield poorly, as the two methods are very different.
As a matter of fact, the "ordinary" track panner of Logic does _not_ narrow the stereo field whan panning a signal to the left or to the right; instead, it just lowers the opposing channel in volume - thus the loss of sonic information you experience. In Logic, the most CPU-preserving method to pan a stereo-signal properly seems to be the DirMixer. Other DAWs like Nuendo/CubaseSX or ProTools allow for independent positioning of the L and the R-channel by default.
For many users, Waves' S1 Imager is the most elaborate version to achieve both proper panning and the desired stereo-width.
HTH,
/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library -
For my last mockup I built my custom panner in Reaktor which I used as plugins. I wanted to add delay to the panning so essentially I converted the mono-compatible VSL samples to some really wide A/B-microphone setup. It sounds huuuuuggggeee. Don't switch to mono though. But I really love it and will stay with that.
-
"An A/B comparison would yield poorly, as the two methods are very different."
Certainly. But I'm looking for a qualitative, even if subjective, difference, such that I can select one method and use it as my default, my template. So the A/B may be useful. Thus far, I favor the sound obtained using the dirmixer today. What's your preferred method?
"For many users, Waves' S1 Imager is the most elaborate version to achieve both proper panning and the desired stereo-width."
What's the advantage of the S1 Imager over the simple DirMixer, which itself purports to provide a stereo width control?
-
Panning is really obsolete, it should have a panner for a mono track and a dir mixer inbuilt for all stereo tracks these days the processing overhead can't be that much different. Makes sense to me, why would anyone really want to pan a stereo source? Only in some circumstances, then you can just load a panning plug in [:P]
-
Other DAWs have this built in as standard. Maybe time to take Apple to task?@mpower88 said:
Panning is really obsolete, it should have a panner for a mono track and a dir mixer inbuilt for all stereo tracks these days the processing overhead can't be that much different. Makes sense to me, why would anyone really want to pan a stereo source? Only in some circumstances, then you can just load a panning plug in [:P]
D
-
Hmm . Well I've started to narrow stereo width on my instruments .. typically to about 0.5 of normal stereo. This helps better to locate the positions of instruments within the virtual space. As long as you get the depth and reverb right I have to say that I like what I hear.
this is also using the Dir Mix.Panning is really obsolete, it should have a panner for a mono track and a dir mixer inbuilt for all stereo tracks these days the processing overhead can't be that much different. Makes sense to me, why would anyone really want to pan a stereo source?
Totally agree with that. It makes sense on Mono tracks but stereo tracks really need something like the Dir Mix. I think sequencers are getting there though. With all of the Surround sound features that they come with panning is starting to change.
-
Matt, I've found that it really does depend on the program. To my ears Nuendo seems to do a good job of it, but I have heard others that don't sound too good. I think that sometimes it depends on whether or not it is a solo instrument. I actually don't really mind mono instruments within a big mix, but for a string section (for example) you wouldn't want to make the width narrower than absolutely necessary.
One of the mistakes that gets made sometimes is panning the first violins hard left. The snag is that the only person who hears from this perspective is the conductor, so for an audience this is not the correct angle.
DG
-
@DG said:
One of the mistakes that gets made sometimes is panning the first violins hard left. The snag is that the only person who hears from this perspective is the conductor, so for an audience this is not the correct angle.
DG
Thanks for making that point, DG. I'd even go further to say that the sound heard by an audience member sitting front row center doesn't always translate well when emulating a real world mixing scenario. Not all real world examples work well when doing a stereo mix.
That's why I've spent a bit more time studying orchestral recordings that appeal to my ears more than trying to emulate the concert hall experience *so* literally. Ultimately, what we hope to emulate with our mixes are good mixes as they are represented on well mixed CDs. You just don't hear the disjointed sound of extreme panning on good mixes at the expense of the instrumental blend-- and that also applies to contrabasses being panned so hard to the right.
