Make Your Mixes WIDER Without Stereo Width Plugins
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.พ. 2021
- ☛ Grab your FREE mixing cheatsheet and get on my list for the best audio training on the web: www.mixcheatsheet.com
What makes something sound LOUD? By comparing it with something that sounds quieter, right?
So, what makes something sound WIDE? By comparing it with something that is NOT wide! Ironically, the way to achieve wider mixes is to have FEWER things panned out wide.
The real key to width is CONTRAST. Check out this video to find out how to achieve that contrast and width in your mixes…without stereo widening plugins. - เพลง
It’s like the master Dave Pensado said: if everything is in stereo you don’t have a wide mix, you have a big mono
Pensado is the 🐐
I like a big mono personally
I don’t like to hear instruments off individually except in live recordings, I like a very congealed sound
If it’s something like a rock or rap track I want everything to be all one piece that moves people in conjunction because it feels bigger that way to me
Like how a section of orchestral strings come together to create one sound
@@Calz20Videos Orchestral strings are one of the most stereo-dispersed sounds ever lol. From left to right in traditional situ recording you have Violin 1, Violin 2, Viola, Celli, Bass spanning across the whole stereo field. Not the greatest example to use :p
@@acidhendrix yeah I know that, but my point was that when they’re all panned they all come together when played together to make a congealed sound
Songs like 60’s tracks where there’s the whole band in one ear and the singer in the other is an unlistenable stereo array to me, orchestras don’t sound like that, they sound like a big wide source of sound, especially when you’re in the room
I pan my stuff all over, but I make sure it works together to make a gelled sound
@@Calz20Videos Oh absolutely, band in one channel and singer in another is horrible
super interesting, but I was kind of disappointed that you didnt showcase what you were talking about. would've been cool to hear some samples.
yes, this was lame
It's not the same vibe as this channel's, but I think of The Band's "The Weight" for instance... Piano on one side, guitars vocals on the other. Or as Mixerman would put it, ditch the idea of symmetry and perfectly balancing left with right etc..
In my productions (depends on the song) I tend to leave everything else but reverb and occasionally cymbals, in mono 'til the choruses (or using Haas delays and panning a guitar reverb to the opposite side, leaving the doubles to come up in the chorus). More and more ways to explore contrast...
true, an example would be really ncie-
@@joaoantoniovione484 thats a good quote from Mixerman. Balanced doesn't mean symmetrical, it just means not falling over.
You probably dont care at all but does someone know a tool to log back into an instagram account??
I stupidly forgot my login password. I would love any tips you can give me!
True story:
I was doing sound for a church that actually had a pretty awesome house system. Mind you this wasn't a huge sanctuary, so when I first started there I walked around to get an idea of what the worship team was mixed like at that point of me stepping in. Despite the fact that they had a fully stereo system (2.1), every channel on the mixer was panned straight up 12 o'clock dead center. This created a messy mix, undistinguished vocals, and phasing problems as I moved about the room.
Before I changed one other thing, I started with the panning. I separated out the instruments *and* the vocals according to where they were located up on the platform which was fairly wide. I sonically located each & every mic and direct line into a stereo image that matched the visual picture from the platform. The one exception was the keyboard which was a stereo signal in the first place, so I panned it hard L/R. Also I panned the effects hard L/R because, you know- why wouldn't I?
To make a long story short, despite the fact that I totally cleared up their muddy mix and fine-tuned everything into a very vivid audio experience, the worship team leader was aghast at what I had done with the panning, and he eventually "fixed" it by re-centering all the panning I had worked out so meticulously. We had words about it, and I eventually quit. I said, "You hired me to mix your p.a., but apparently you still want to do it yourself, so have at it."
I've been working with troglodytes who have no sense of sound-field whatsoever. All they do is pile on the reverb.
@@TheSpeenort Oh, they must be guitar players lol! 90% of guitarists all commit the same sins, and one of them is using way too much reverb- all the time.
No Verb No Vibe!
@@ulfdanielsen6009 Not true, but I did use 'verb when it sounded right. What I did was EQ the reverb to be very dark; same thing with the delay That way I still got the cavernous effect without burying the clarity of the dry signal.
One guest worship leader actually went out of his way after the service to congratulate me on the sound. He said even from up on the platform it was great. I was quite humbled. This guy was Bethel trained, and they are pretty serious about sound & music.
@@BigBri550 I think you pointed out the main issue in your recent comment. Audio engineers need proper training and experience to be good. Otherwise all they'll do is making horrible, muddy mixes without knowing what they are doing, and creating monstrosities like panning everything dead-center, adding tons of reverb to everything (in an already reverberant room) to sound "cool" because reverb is "cool". It's quite common at church because many engineers do it completely voluntarily as complete amateurs - and I definitely don't blame them! The problem starts when they refuse to accept that they can't mix and therefore refuse to improve because they've been doing the same things for years - they mix up being a pro and doing something for a long time.
Awesome! I love how you point out that these things don't exist in a vacuum. We aren't JUST listening to a mix. We are listening to it AND responding to verbal relations that have been made between the mix and other things.
Personally I like to put distorted guitars somewhere in between center and full pan so they get slightly mixed with each others and you get some of that interval consonance and dissonance. If they're hard panned to the sides, they sound very separate so unless they're identical compositions, they feel a bit loose. Of course if the spectrum is a bit crowded and say a rhythm and a lead are overlapping some and perhaps in a dissonant way that sounds bad, it's convenient to pan them further away to avoid the blend.
I mostly agree, stereo widening plugins can introduce phasing issues, etc, but the solution isn't LCR panning. You can get a lot of width by having things panned throughout the stereo field, and it sounds more like a "real" space that the listener is immersed in. Why do you think there are so many degrees on the pan knobs, just for shits and giggles??
this works for orchestra, and movie scores, but for pop, hip-hop etc., it actually floods the song IMO.
@@The.ARCHIT3CT for heavy music is pretty much the go to way
Jordan, your "mythbusts" and your tips go beyond the metal genre. Always spot on!
I'd love to see you mix something different. I bet you'd kick ass as well!
I'm so glad I finally heard someone say this. I've been producing for a little over 20 years and I've always gotten stems for mixing gigs and request from in house artists demanding the most arbitrary stereo field positionings for various elements with zero justification given.
I'm a HUGE fan of LCR for that very reason - the lack of substantive arguments to the contrary.
Stereo wideners are sick for ambient pads or heavy reverb leads that kinda float around the mix
You can do this very easily by utilizing the haas effect. Idk why people need plugins smh
LCR panning is the way to go. Mono-ish verses, ultra wide choruses. If you have similar parts, one played on acoustic, another on electric guitar, pan one to the left, another to right, backing vocals lcr, organ, piano and synths are stereo, but mono piano is interesting. No widening plugins are needed because they can mess up with the phase and mono compatibility of a mix
Jordan is the goat, he gives honest help and gives no bs tips and tool to get better mixes.
Been watching all the videos on TH-cam about this and this is by far the best explanation!
True, my mixes improved massively by going to the basics
I ain’t gonna lie, this is what I needed to hear.
you are right on the money. i've used the waves spreader twice. the first time i took it off. the second time i took it off. width isn't a trick its a product of method and technique.
Been saying it for years: contrasts make a great mix. One of the best projects I worked on this year was an album of LCR mixes.
I always used your tips, and WTF! It's give me a better result, and also, it's change my mindset about mixing itself! Thank's Jordan
I used to be in d category of using an imager but with time I realized panning with hass effects works well for me. Great video 👍
Man, I applied this to my guitar tracks that were panned L-100 L-70 R-70 R-100 and then rendered and referenced... Immediately better. Awesome.
He's right, the simpler the better like for instance my master engineer told me to turn up my vocal on a mix by 3db in the 7khz range, I concluded that that was just going to make the vocal more apparent and bright because it was setting a lil under the melodies, I simply turned the volume fader up by 3db, not touching the vocal eq, and achieved the same effect.
Great video! I only use stereo widening plugins when I'm mastering for clients who can't go back and fix the mix. You're right! It's just a band-aid
Good advice. The more different in tone two parts are the wider they will become. The more common the two parts are the more they want to sum to the center. For example, two gtr performances recorded with the exact same chain (panned left and right) will not sound as wide as two different gtr tones panned left and right.
Interesting idea regarding toms. I always pan them hard left and right cause I love the sound when the drummer goes round the kit.
This is gold. Worked great for me. Thank you much!
In my old bands we worked hard on the arrangements and rehearsed loads before recording. One of the bands had an awesome drummer. Helps a lot with a great mix.
Spot-on! Arrangement is a forgotten art. I hate to do the old fart thing but I'll make an exception. Due to limitations of head-count, track-count, and expensive studio time, we had to plan and arrange. Now there are no limits, it's too easy to throw ideas at a track without considering how they are going to work together. Width is like loudness, it has to be baked-in from the start not sprinkled on afterwards.
Agreed. Space overall is, to me, what creates good mixes. Highs and lows, left and right even in rhythm and notes. However, this video helped me realize that I may be overdoing it when I have more instruments involved. In the past I have tried to give each one their own pan position when that may not be necessary.
but if it doesnt collapse to mono then it's probably a bad mix, unless the listener is specifically only ever going to be listening in stereo
Great advice here - glad I found your video! I'll be recording my acoustic Gypsy Swing trio this year and have been considering using "LCR" mixing (I didn't realize it had a name). I wasn't sure if I was crazy, but most of my favorite sounding mixes (wider sounding too) are from old jazz records that I have and I noticed that the instruments were either L, C, or R. I thought it would be cool to do this as it would also match our positions live from the listeners POV: (L) Rhythm Guitar - (C) Upright Bass - (R) Lead Guitar. I also want to center the bass in case we can afford to press vinyl at some point. Validation... Thanks!
Arrangement affects width too. Take two rhythm guitars panned L and R. If they are just playing the same thing, it won't add much width but if they're playing off each other the result will be nice and wide.
Great point - recently found your channel and finding it really helpful
I do like to use Waves Stereo Width Enhancer on guitars just a touch. Like 1.15, but I do not rely on it to create width but just to enhance what's already there. I find also using mid-side eq on the master bus to help widen things up a touch.
@@ewr34certxwertwer What?
Will give this a try, thank you very much.
The only reason I would use a stereo widener is for the specific effect, not the function it promises. For instance, I would use it on the double of a vocal to blend a different sound with the main vocal.
Going to try this, thanks man
This was really helpful, Thank You!!
If folks think that doubling their own tracks is tedious and boring clearly do not have a passion for their hobby. Dont be lazy. A little bit of effort with produce MASSIVE results
Love your explanations and tricks!!!!! efective. You are one of my best trick Prof! 👏🏼🥰🎊💕🌟
just a beginner in mixing here but never touched those stereo width plugins, thanks for the video...
Don't rule them out. Jordan makes great points but you should still experiment. There are instances in which they are useful, but maybe Jordan doesn't come across them in his work much.
Thank you.... I was noticing how live your mixing environment is... 😳
thanks man, this video changed my life
The Dan Worall videos about LCR mixing and stereo width are awesome too. A little bit nerdy though.
Game changer! Thanks for sharing
I'm not a pro and I do like the result of adding some both stereo widening to the mix and something like Izotope vocal doubler (free) on chorus vocals and select dry parts.
My concern with full L/R panned is that once played as mono those get reduced by 50% volume - they disappear. So I pan maybe 30% - still perceived as stereo - but only 15% volume loss when converted to mono.
(Checking in mono has also revealed problems with stereo enhancers and doublers - so I always check result in mono.)
Thanks so much for so much clarity
Killer video sir!
Agree to an extent, but I find that panning guitars, especially rhythm guitars, more than 85% or mayyyybe 90% really tends to bring out any and all imperfections in the performance, while taking away that center that can add groove to a mix. I absolutely agree that takes should be as tight as possible, but unless you've got a robot on guitar and you go nuts with time stretching to make the panned takes perfect, I think you can run into trouble with full-on hard pans. Sticking between 75% and 90% has helped glue the multitrack takes together for me, while allowing for a wide sound. What do you think?
I will qualify a little on the placement of overheads for example. As much as my rooms are hard left and right, as much for my overheads I panne them between 70 and 80% as on the majority of drums. This seems more realistic to me
great information thank you!
great stuff . Thank You
Such great advice.
Thankyou so much for the tips
Well this helped a lot made my House mix sound clear and full
Thank You Jordan 👍
Good video to listen to !!
Good video! I agree with many of your points. I did notice however notice that when you were talking about ineffective width plugins, you showed Waves S1 as an example. The only reason I bring this up is that I used to think this plugin didn't work, but I discovered the track already has to have stereo information going into it for the best effect. Try waves doubler 2 with the Pensado vocal direct preset going into S1 with the Pensado 3D width preset and you have some nice width. Maybe the modulation won't work for every situation but it's subtle enough to not be too obvious. Further tweaking can help too.
The Haas effect is another way to get width without plugins. Hard pan 2 tracks and delay one side by 10-15 ms. 14 is my personal starting point :)
I tried using the Haas effect but it translates awfully in mono. So I'd rather have a different guitar tone that makes the left side slightly different than the right side
You have great logic!
I'm going to try this on some recent mixes and A/B them. I don't use plugins, but I do have shit panned all over the place lol. Looking for that wall of guitars sound... I'm curious to see how this approach translates. Btw, third video of yours and I'm hitting the subscribe... Glad I found this channel! Cheers✌
I’m conflicted here, Jordan! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I greatly respect yours, but I think it’s a little shortsighted to dig on wideners. At the end of the day, they are just tools and if they don’t work for you, that’s cool. I say this whilst simultaneously agreeing that your assertions about contrast are really at the heart of what wideness really is. You can’t have wide without narrow, light without dark etc. But having spent time studying with industry heavies like Andrew Scheps and working with others like Alex Ghenea, Joe Zook, Mike Fraser, I can tell you that there are many people who both mix LCR and use wideners with great results. I have found ways to make a width process work for me but that doesn’t come from a lack of understanding of what they do, or of critical listening. Again, they’re just tools. They merely give us access to that which we wouldn’t otherwise have without them.
this dude just randomly shows up on my feed with the information I need without me having to type a word on the searcher its like I'm meant for this or TH-cam just reading my mind wtf! LOL great content ima kill it with this info
i go full mono and get mixes that sound sound wider then the best stereo songs. theres alot of tricks but usually if you can get volume without increasing the volume then that makes things sound big
This makes so much sense
Maybe it's an amateur move to 'trick the ear' as you say but that's where we've arrived. The whole of mixing process wrt perceived loudness is an elaborate tricking of ears saga. I don't see anything wrong with using stereo width plugins as far as the result is as intended. These types of purist approaches followed by advice rooted in those approaches could really hurt a novice's process for months if not years.
Recent thought process (a realisation, or I spend too much time alone lol?): used to think panning could create space so sounds of similar freq aren't on top of each other. Seemed to make sense, until reading about mixing in mono. Then realised it's more just an illusion (?) Yes, it can make sounds appear like they're occupying a different space, but in reality they're still in the same part of the spectrum. Summing everything mono reveals that as it seems to collapse sounds back on top of each other, so to speak.
Helpful, thanks
Are those types of plugins actually intended to be used as a way to widen your whole mix though? I agree that the amateur mind set would be to throw those things on your stereo buss and expect your mix to be wider/better but I don’t think the plugins themselves are even made for that. I use them fairly often but more so as either A) an effect or B) a way to layer together vocals like doubles. I’ve also occasionally used them on certain synth elements. I think it depends more on the mindset of the person rather than the tool itself.
Sorry for the longer post...just supporting the above I hope.
Great core info...but having a listen to fave reference tracks like 'In Your Eyes' is spaced arrangement, instruments, spectral AND pan but what is missing here is the use of binaural reference...especially in cans..LCR is great for minimal element rock/pop etc absolutely...but start painting and its just 3 monos really.
To really learn from a different perspective...have a look at a good HDR photo, you see focus depth contrast but you don't get the luxury of 3d which is what a good mix is (very generally of course). What you DO get with audio is the L&R sublties that standard pan can't give ie millisecond and eq differences BETWEEN L&R; a pan knob is a level modulation only. Changing from mono close micing to stereo techniques is the key to getting wide instruments in context (or applying faux treatment of the above).
LCR is an art form unto itself and well worth the study...but its like an eq with a couple of preset positions...BUT its great info because it reinforces REFERENCE
The worst thing about widening plugs is definitely translation...just hit the mono button and you get it straight away.
We are all learning this road...even the pros...they have just made their workflows solid and can shape around the edges as they go with new ideas but I encourage everyone to just keep pushing everything and study it...widening plugs make eg Brauer based mixing a nice little touch but bear in mind too...just some MS/S only high eq will tweak directional/location to human hearing cues.
Keep in mind, 'magic IS in the midrange', build that picture first, then keep pushing in to the lows/tops when mixing else you go around and around in a continuous circle; spatialising should be some icing at the end
Try using this or a simliar type (dearVR micro is the newer version)
th-cam.com/video/C_onYCgzzL4/w-d-xo.html
BUT obviously stick to the core message of this vid...contrast...not on everything...use HRTF blending
Interesting LCR hybrid is to populate a binaural panner across L CL C CR R as presets
Add a standard panner plug along with it but mute it.
Subgroup or just single place each element to one of these...especially for acoustic/ambient...and only use reflections for subgroups with transients. Try ABing with turning panner off and standard pan on and see what I mean...keep checking mono
:-) Peace
I always use pan 100% but with a pair of mics reproducing the binaural perception like ORTF technique. Latter I saw a doc about Bruce Swedien THE engineer behind all Michel Jackson / Quince Jones albums and noticed he did the same with lots of stereo captures on this iconic productions. You maybe will like to check ou this approach.
Please tell me if this is silly. For the static/rough mix, I sometimes set my LR elements anywhere from 75 to 89 on the panorama and treat that like it’s hard panned. I do this so there’s room to grow when a big chorus or otherwise climactic bit of the song comes up, and automate those pans to then go to 100. By contrast, seems like the mix just got bigger/wider when that last chorus hit.
Nah you're on the right track, that would definitely make the chorus sound bigger and wider because it's being panned out even further
I haven't tried that but I know a lot of mixers do it.
Appreciated
@@hummarstraful *nods to the Virgo*
Best explanation ever thanku
Nice video good info thx
I came for hardcore/Gabber/ Hard techno. noticed this was the wrong channel . I stayed for excellent well articulated tutorials !
I have found that widening plugins end up making the instrument sound thin and won't translate outside the studio. And when you check it mono the sounds almost disappears. I just happened to watch a Chris Lord-Alge Mix With The Masters video in which he said that widening has to sound good in mono also. Those widening plugins don't achieve that imho.
*cough* Wider by Polyverse *cough*
@@tachyon2557 dude I just downloaded that plugin! All I have to say is thank you!!!!!!!
Classic but still great trick. Tks!
02:25 Pizza L, R? Spaghetti 57? Jordan are you trying to record food? In this case I would definitely recommend panning. One for each pizza xD
The best way to do it is mid/side processing. But only high quality hardware/software can make it sound good. I use a mid side compressor the widen my mix on the master bus. Sound wide and very dense.
This channel is dope.
Good video, well explained and to the point. I hit you with a like and subscribe.
Thanks for the video and tips. I'm with you on LCR. One thing though, the quiet/loud analogy is not logical. Stereo doesn't compare to mono in the same way. Stereo is perceived by contrast between left and right, not between sides and middle.
great video
Pan for reality, as in where they are on stage, then allow yourself for creatively using space.You can EQ the guitars and keyboards out of the way of the mono space too.
LCR is just one of the options.
What I have found... Is that you can use stereo delay plugins to help widen your mixes... As well as reverb. We can also look at using the Haas Effect technique on certain elements in mixes...
mid side processing as well
@@emanuel_soundtrack whats mid side processing
What I like to do in rock mixes is to have the clean guitars during the verses 50%LR and the crunchy rythm guitars during the choruses 100% LR. If there's a quiet part before the last chorus and I'm in control of the arrangement, I like to only have one guitar in the middle and even cut out the bass to make it as small and narrow as possible. Makes the choruses sound huge.
Yeah that makes sense. You can try and it can work out
Wow this is a cool idea
makes so much sense
I agree that you can achieve wide mixes without widening plugin but you have to consider that mixers like Andrew Scheps have a widening plugin on the mixbus and other mixers like Michael Brauer have it on a part of the mix. It's not a beginner attitude but a matter of good taste in things
It depends on the plugin you're using, and why you're using it. He encourages no to use it as a band aid for a lack of the ability of making the mix wide from the foundation up
I actually pan like this mainly out of laziness lol except for toms like Jordan and my mixes are always nice and wide and I didn’t even know that this was the reason. I actually use a widener on rhythm guitars sometimes but it’s not doing much. Good to know I was accidentally doing this correctly
Yes, but how would you go on about panning automation say from verse to chorus? Doesn't it make sense to go hard LCR on the chorus and pan things "inwards" on the verse for instance?
I am going to try this asap! I have a few things scattered in between and my mix sounds narrow
Two similar guitars panned fully left right will ends up in the mid section. But, two different guitar sounds, even with slight changes, will make your ears, (we only have two) recognise a difference in sound and where it's located and that gives a wider sound. That also can be achieved by having one guitar delayed some milliseconds.
Drums is interesting.
A lot work with digital plugins or drum machines and one trick to make them sound more alive is to copy them so you have two extra tracks with the whole kit and then balance the drums from their supposed distance to the overhead mics, and then only use a wet signal with a room reverb that suits the song.
Makes a big difference compared to only adding reverb.
I agree, stereo spread plugins are just spreading frequencies around and the only thing you mostly compared with is your own mix. So it sounds a little "wider" but does that make a good mix? Of course not!
Thanks for sharing :)
I tried using the Haas effect (in the way you said by delaying one guitar by some milliseconds) but it translates awfully in mono. So I'd rather have a different guitar tone that makes the left side slightly different than the right side
solid advice
Another thing that creates wideness, is having contrasting parts hard panned. If you double your guitar track note for note (especially on the same guitar) it will be different, but it will still sound very similar in the L and R speakers. But, if the parts are different parts, the ear will notice it much more and you experience the widening effect more. It's an old school example, but recently I went back and listened to old Zepplin recordings and Jimmy Page routinely played different parts with different guitar tones in the L and R speakers simultaneously. It really achieved the width listening experience very well.
Studying Page is enjoyable because it is the same as being a fan of Page.
Yep, definitely it's a good way to do increase stereo width. Also playing the same riff in a different voicing (for example dropping the fifth of the power chord down an octave) is a good strategy
on the guitars, try out slightly or even massively different gears (the guitar itself, the amp, and the cab) but having them to have the same idea of guitar tone, that'll have lots of differential in which making the stereo image wider, as Rick Beato have shown in his reamping Meshuggah DI tracks.
if you really want to use stereo width plugin, use SPARINGLY, like Nolly did on some of his mixes.
I'm a beginner. I'd love to hear your opinion on some of the things I'm practising or going through (in the context of a metal mix).
1. I pan my double tracked rhythm guitars around 75-80% in the verses or other "non-climactic" parts. Then I automate them to go full 100% when the chorus or a breakdown kicks in for that "oomph". What do you think of this approach?
2. I find that with just hard panned double tracked guitars, my mixes sound too separate, disconnected and empty, hollow, without much body. Any idea what's going on? I usually do quad-tracking or triple tracking (2 hard panned, 1 center) to try to fill up the space.
For the first thing, yeah, that's a pretty good idea, it can work out in some cases. For the second one... maybe some other elements such as bass or drums can be improved.
Have you had any issues with reverb and LCR panning? I noticed that two of the reverb plugins I have, have zero output to the opposite speaker when I have a (soloed) guitar panned all of the way to one side (which is unnatural as a room would reflect a little opposite the source). The Inspirata reverb plugin didn't do this, but the Sunset Sound and Abbey Road Plates did. I figured out on the SS that if I turn the "width" knob to "0", I hear a little reverb in the opposite speaker and it sounds like it should - seems totally counterintuitive. I discovered that the Abbey Road Plates has a "crosstalk" lever that does the same. I didn't realize it was happening until I soloed a channel... I thought something was wrong with the plugin at first.
finally true channel igot now... gbu, thats understandable.. only experienced guys will get itt..
I often mix for my friends lofi projects and the stereo width helps to make acoustic guitars work better, but for full band stuff i only occasionally use it on delays and reverbs. otherwise it just doesnt help my mixes
Excellent points r.e. the (ab)use of stereo widening plugins, especially across the entire stereo mix, and of achieving width by contrast to narrow, and of timing tightness as a strong part of getting side information sound & feel wide.
However, you forgot highpassing and using high frequency signals for width; plus that idea of LCR panning being a "rule" is TOTALLY off the mark and misleading.
As someone doing this for decades and way back in the day, let me specify that LCR was born out of necessity, because some early consoles only offered that as "panning" i.e. stereo placement option, by switches, not by a pot. And even back then, we would circumvent this by using fader levels sending into a LR group or pair of tracks to create different perceived panning positions, like for example with drum toms (which are btw totally unrealistic and weird sounding if panned hard LCR), or with backing vocals.
The stereo field is there to be used, countless great albums attest to that.
FYI get yourself a physical copy of Paul McCartney's "Press To Play" album and check out the mixing diagram drawings in the liner notes, might open a window or two.
As with everything in music, there are NO rules, except the laws of physics. You touched on some of these, and very correctly so, but also (perhaps unwantingly) contributed to spreading some of that bogus "rules of" type dogma which is all too present on the web today, and confuses many young engineers & musicmakers.
Not your best idea or video, IMHO.
I agree. Stereo imagers and stuff are still a valid tool to achieve wideness, as you said at the beginning, without over doing it.
What about the brass in a funky song? For example, there is a trumpet, a sax, and a trombone. I can't send them to the 100% side, because they'll fight the guitars. Is it a good idea to put them at 50%? Thanks for answer.
you explaining has got to be the greatest thing ever. Become a professor or something lmao
Great video! But if i'd have to get a wide lead synth sound? I should duplicate the stem and put each in the opposite side?
I like rhythm guitars slightly left or right in the verses. Same with vocals. Slightly off center and it gives a sense of space in a different way. I dont play metal and it generally a bit more atmospheric which may be the main difference. Other than that i tend to agree