Panning [Help]

[eox]

Hey everyone, it's been awhile since I've posted here at Reasontalk. Anyhow, lately I've noticed that when I try and pan an instrument or effect it just doesn't sound right compared to more commercialized or better produced songs. Is there some info on the subject that I can turn to? I use Reaper as my "main" daw and I see that they have so many different options for stereo panning that I get lost.. Selig, I have your gain and leveller RE's and I see on one of them the left and right knobs.. What's different about that from the mixer?

Reason I ask, my panning seems to get lost by either being to quiet or to "thin" yet I can listen to a song and hear a very distinct spot that a guitar or synth or even a vocal fx part is located. Could anyone enlighten a brother out here?

[Jmax]

Hey everyone, it's been awhile since I've posted here at Reasontalk. Anyhow, lately I've noticed that when I try and pan an instrument or effect it just doesn't sound right compared to more commercialized or better produced songs. Is there some info on the subject that I can turn to? I use Reaper as my "main" daw and I see that they have so many different options for stereo panning that I get lost.. Selig, I have your gain and leveller RE's and I see on one of them the left and right knobs.. What's different about that from the mixer?

Reason I ask, my panning seems to get lost by either being to quiet or to "thin" yet I can listen to a song and hear a very distinct spot that a guitar or synth or even a vocal fx part is located. Could anyone enlighten a brother out here?

I've also wondered how to achieve that as well. Like when I listen to a really amazing deep house track in my monitors I can hear all the instruments and bass clearly in different parts of the monitors and 'space'. Everything sitting perfectly together. I know a lot of it has to do with how instruments are panned, how much panning and also if their doubled up and panned that way. But still I can never seem to achieve what I hear in some of the incredible mixes. They always sound almost 3D like where as my sound is more just stereo with various parts being brought out from left to right. It's an art, that's for sure.

[selig]

Panning is panning. Pan laws are the ONLY thing you can control. Different pan laws may sound different as you move the control, but only in terms of level. To put it anther way, different pan laws will ONLY affect the level of the signal in that the level will not be the same when the pan knobs are placed in the same position.

Most engineers will agree that once you set the panning, if the level is too hot or too soft you'll simply make an adjustment from there. So in the end, the ONLY difference between different pan laws is level, period.

The reason I added separate pan controls for left and right was to emulate the way the original SSL works (which doesn't have stereo channels). Advantages of this approach over the Reason SSL's approach is to more quickly bring one panner in towards center while leaving the other hard panned (as one example), or for quickly reversing the panning of a signal, or simply to better visualize the panning on stereo signals.

That being said, there is one advantage of the SSL's panning approach in Reason, and that is the ability to quickly narrow the panning of a stereo source. Not sure I can name other advantages, but there's at least one thing I mentioned above that simply cannot be done with the SSL panner, and that is reversing the panning of the stereo signal.

FINALLY, and this one is HUGE, there is one thing the SSL does that is absolutely NOT acceptable to me, mainly because it's doing something other than panning. When you pan the main panner on a stereo signal without FIRST adjusting the width control, you are actually adjusting the BALANCE between the left and right signal. For example, when you pan the main PAN control to the left, the ENTIRE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STEREO SIGNAL IS SILENCED! Sorry for yelling, but I find that not only completely unexpected, but also totally unacceptable. There is NO use case where this is the desired result of moving a pan control IMO. What does this mean? It means that for stereo sources you must ALWAYS move BOTH the width AND the pan control to avoid reducing the level of one side or the other. The end result is that this approach is MORE complex and requires MORE interaction than the simple and easy to understand "dual panner" approach as I have implemented in Selig Gain.

Sorry for the rant there, it's just that most folks don't even realize the Reason SSL mixer is doing this to their stereo signal, and I want to make sure this is clear whenever possible when someone brings up panning in Reason because I have yet to hear a single other person mention this - and there are PLENTY of folks producing tutorials that fail to recognize this basic flaw! Makes you wonder…

[selig]

Hey everyone, it's been awhile since I've posted here at Reasontalk. Anyhow, lately I've noticed that when I try and pan an instrument or effect it just doesn't sound right compared to more commercialized or better produced songs. Is there some info on the subject that I can turn to? I use Reaper as my "main" daw and I see that they have so many different options for stereo panning that I get lost.. Selig, I have your gain and leveller RE's and I see on one of them the left and right knobs.. What's different about that from the mixer?

Reason I ask, my panning seems to get lost by either being to quiet or to "thin" yet I can listen to a song and hear a very distinct spot that a guitar or synth or even a vocal fx part is located. Could anyone enlighten a brother out here?

I've also wondered how to achieve that as well. Like when I listen to a really amazing deep house track in my monitors I can hear all the instruments and bass clearly in different parts of the monitors and 'space'. Everything sitting perfectly together. I know a lot of it has to do with how instruments are panned, how much panning and also if their doubled up and panned that way. But still I can never seem to achieve what I hear in some of the incredible mixes. They always sound almost 3D like where as my sound is more just stereo with various parts being brought out from left to right. It's an art, that's for sure.

In some cases you can achieve a better more focused effect by making many sources MONO, and panning them from there. This has nothing to do with the SSL issue I previously mentioned, but more about having everything "in stereo" in the mix. I like to describe is a the ability to "point to" an instrument in the stereo sound stage. I've gone so far as to even make reverbs mono and pan them with the source in order to further focus the instrument in question as coming from a single point source (location). Try it sometime, especially on drums/percussive instruments. Pads IMO should almost always be stereo and fill the sound stage from left to right, but I've said for years "if everything is stereo, then nothing is stereo" (it's just one super wide mono mix) - at least it makes sense to me, hopefully you get what I'm saying!

As always, there are reasons to NOT do as I describe, but I mention this in response to your comments above about how to achieve a certain sound. For totally ambient space music (for which I'm better known) I actually like the "wide mono" approach for many tracks, especially ones intended for relaxation/meditation that are not intended for "focused" listening. As always, YMMV…

[Benedict]

Thanks for the Rant Selig as that finally helps me understand your dual pan knobs and what happens to stereo as you pan in the SSL.

[rcbuse]

FINALLY, and this one is HUGE, there is one thing the SSL does that is absolutely NOT acceptable to me, mainly because it's doing something other than panning. When you pan the main panner on a stereo signal without FIRST adjusting the width control, you are actually adjusting the BALANCE between the left and right signal. For example, when you pan the main PAN control to the left, the ENTIRE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STEREO SIGNAL IS SILENCED! Sorry for yelling, but I find that not only completely unexpected, but also totally unacceptable. There is NO use case where this is the desired result of moving a pan control IMO. What does this mean? It means that for stereo sources you must ALWAYS move BOTH the width AND the pan control to avoid reducing the level of one side or the other. The end result is that this approach is MORE complex and requires MORE interaction than the simple and easy to understand "dual panner" approach as I have implemented in Selig Gain.

Wow, thats pretty crazy. I wouldn't have believed that if I didn't try it for myself. Even the visual feedback makes it seem like its auto adjusting the width as you hard pan, but nope, its just the balance.

[Last Alternative]

Yeah so I think we should have PH fix that pronto. It's not right for commercial producing. Tell you the truth--I never noticed but maybe it's because I still don't know what I'm doing after 6 years of this madness LOL.

[tiker01]

Yeah so I think we should have PH fix that pronto. It's not right for commercial producing. Tell you the truth--I never noticed but maybe it's because I still don't know what I'm doing after 6 years of this madness LOL.

Someone, perhaps Selig, go for it and ask PH to find a better way how the pan operates on the SSL?

BTW do the other mixers in Reason suffer from this?

[True]

I think we should have PH fix that pronto.

Except that it would break lots of projects, and people would have no idea why.

[Exowildebeest]

If you're panning, but using send effects that are mono or not panned, that might make the panning "disappear" in the mix.

Regarding Selig's criticism of the SSL: I never pan with the SSL anyway, but lower in the chain. To me, it sounds kind of nice: one option offers "balance pan", while the other with adjusting the Width makes it a "mono pan" (a mixed signal subsequently panned) - the only thing missing is the normal stereo pan, it could be added and that'd be great, but until then you'll have to use the rack mixers or other tools.

But then Selig will complain about their pan laws and recommend Selig Gain, and rightfully so

[selig]

Yeah so I think we should have PH fix that pronto. It's not right for commercial producing. Tell you the truth--I never noticed but maybe it's because I still don't know what I'm doing after 6 years of this madness LOL.

Someone, perhaps Selig, go for it and ask PH to find a better way how the pan operates on the SSL?

BTW do the other mixers in Reason suffer from this?

Yes, the 14:2 and Line Mixer both behave this way. I have complained about this since version 2.5 or so.

[selig]

If you're panning, but using send effects that are mono or not panned, that might make the panning "disappear" in the mix.

Regarding Selig's criticism of the SSL: I never pan with the SSL anyway, but lower in the chain. To me, it sounds kind of nice: one option offers "balance pan", while the other with adjusting the Width makes it a "mono pan" (a mixed signal subsequently panned) - the only thing missing is the normal stereo pan, it could be added and that'd be great, but until then you'll have to use the rack mixers or other tools.

But then Selig will complain about their pan laws and recommend Selig Gain, and rightfully so

Not sure I follow the first bit, but the sends follow the panning, so if the sound disappears from the mix due to panning, it disappears from the send as well. This is as expected, even if the send effects are mono or not panned. But I may not be understanding your comment 100%, so forgive me if this doesn't pertain to your point!

[Exowildebeest]

If you're panning, but using send effects that are mono or not panned, that might make the panning "disappear" in the mix.

Regarding Selig's criticism of the SSL: I never pan with the SSL anyway, but lower in the chain. To me, it sounds kind of nice: one option offers "balance pan", while the other with adjusting the Width makes it a "mono pan" (a mixed signal subsequently panned) - the only thing missing is the normal stereo pan, it could be added and that'd be great, but until then you'll have to use the rack mixers or other tools.

But then Selig will complain about their pan laws and recommend Selig Gain, and rightfully so

Not sure I follow the first bit, but the sends follow the panning, so if the sound disappears from the mix due to panning, it disappears from the send as well. This is as expected, even if the send effects are mono or not panned. But I may not be understanding your comment 100%, so forgive me if this doesn't pertain to your point!

Firstly, I was wrong on the panning with the Rack mixers - those have the same behaviour as the SSL, I didn't know and it blows my mind to be honest

Regarding the sends: it really depends on the send effect you're using, I know the input follows the panning, but that's not necessarily the case for what comes out of whatever effect the send goes through Hence that it might offset a bit of the effect of the panning, depending on context of course...

[tiker01]

Yeah so I think we should have PH fix that pronto. It's not right for commercial producing. Tell you the truth--I never noticed but maybe it's because I still don't know what I'm doing after 6 years of this madness LOL.

Someone, perhaps Selig, go for it and ask PH to find a better way how the pan operates on the SSL?

BTW do the other mixers in Reason suffer from this?

Yes, the 14:2 and Line Mixer both behave this way. I have complained about this since version 2.5 or so.

To further expand the topic is this the case in Redrum, Kong drum slots and NNXT-NN19 samples?

What do you think is it worth to have another try? Nowadays PH seems to be more listening, although they can easily reject the fix request due to backwards compatibility. I think it would be hypocritical as they have changed the vocoder in a way which can affect the sound of old projects and they could always add a switch to the mixer to use it in legacy mode as they did with the 14:2 mixer EQ.

Also could you write an illustrated article on this the topic i.e. how pan works in general, how usually it relates to stereo field width and how we should use the Reasons mixers perhaps in comparison to those other DAW you are familiar with and of course Gain.

[selig]

If you're panning, but using send effects that are mono or not panned, that might make the panning "disappear" in the mix.

Regarding Selig's criticism of the SSL: I never pan with the SSL anyway, but lower in the chain. To me, it sounds kind of nice: one option offers "balance pan", while the other with adjusting the Width makes it a "mono pan" (a mixed signal subsequently panned) - the only thing missing is the normal stereo pan, it could be added and that'd be great, but until then you'll have to use the rack mixers or other tools.

But then Selig will complain about their pan laws and recommend Selig Gain, and rightfully so

Not sure I follow the first bit, but the sends follow the panning, so if the sound disappears from the mix due to panning, it disappears from the send as well. This is as expected, even if the send effects are mono or not panned. But I may not be understanding your comment 100%, so forgive me if this doesn't pertain to your point!

Firstly, I was wrong on the panning with the Rack mixers - those have the same behaviour as the SSL, I didn't know and it blows my mind to be honest

Regarding the sends: it really depends on the send effect you're using, I know the input follows the panning, but that's not necessarily the case for what comes out of whatever effect the send goes through Hence that it might offset a bit of the effect of the panning, depending on context of course...

All I know is the issue we are discussing has no effect on sends, whether the effect is mono or stereo.

[selig]

Yeah so I think we should have PH fix that pronto. It's not right for commercial producing. Tell you the truth--I never noticed but maybe it's because I still don't know what I'm doing after 6 years of this madness LOL.

Someone, perhaps Selig, go for it and ask PH to find a better way how the pan operates on the SSL?

BTW do the other mixers in Reason suffer from this?

Yes, the 14:2 and Line Mixer both behave this way. I have complained about this since version 2.5 or so.

To further expand the topic is this the case in Redrum, Kong drum slots and NNXT-NN19 samples?

What do you think is it worth to have another try? Nowadays PH seems to be more listening, although they can easily reject the fix request due to backwards compatibility. I think it would be hypocritical as they have changed the vocoder in a way which can affect the sound of old projects and they could always add a switch to the mixer to use it in legacy mode as they did with the 14:2 mixer EQ.

Also could you write an illustrated article on this the topic i.e. how pan works in general, how usually it relates to stereo field width and how we should use the Reasons mixers perhaps in comparison to those other DAW you are familiar with and of course Gain.

If one knows what a balance control does, aka a crossfader (to use the DJ term), it's pretty simple to describe without the need for an "article" of any sort. As far as how pan works in general, IMO and experience you have two pan knobs, end of story.

To use the Reason mixer's pan controls you need to 'tie' the width control to the pan control in that as you move the pan away from center you need to move the width control away from the max setting, ending up with mono when the pan control is far left/right. Shame it's that complicated, which most would assume this approach is actually simpler then the twin pan approach. For mono sources, everything works 100% as expected, so there's no worry there (luckily!).

Sadly, the 14:2 and Line mixer's pan controls are really "balance" controls, and there's no workaround when using them - a stereo source when panned to one side will silence the other.

[Exowildebeest]

If you're panning, but using send effects that are mono or not panned, that might make the panning "disappear" in the mix.

Regarding Selig's criticism of the SSL: I never pan with the SSL anyway, but lower in the chain. To me, it sounds kind of nice: one option offers "balance pan", while the other with adjusting the Width makes it a "mono pan" (a mixed signal subsequently panned) - the only thing missing is the normal stereo pan, it could be added and that'd be great, but until then you'll have to use the rack mixers or other tools.

But then Selig will complain about their pan laws and recommend Selig Gain, and rightfully so

Not sure I follow the first bit, but the sends follow the panning, so if the sound disappears from the mix due to panning, it disappears from the send as well. This is as expected, even if the send effects are mono or not panned. But I may not be understanding your comment 100%, so forgive me if this doesn't pertain to your point!

Firstly, I was wrong on the panning with the Rack mixers - those have the same behaviour as the SSL, I didn't know and it blows my mind to be honest

Regarding the sends: it really depends on the send effect you're using, I know the input follows the panning, but that's not necessarily the case for what comes out of whatever effect the send goes through Hence that it might offset a bit of the effect of the panning, depending on context of course...

All I know is the issue we are discussing has no effect on sends, whether the effect is mono or stereo.

I didn't mean that issue - I meant OP's original issue This thread has strayed a bit.

[Exowildebeest]

And I was thinking that the Rack Mixers wouldn't get updated with proper panning, but then I realized they could just add a toggle button - just like they did on the 14:2 mixer for the EQ. That way they can preserve backwards compatibility.

[selig]

And I was thinking that the Rack Mixers wouldn't get updated with proper panning, but then I realized they could just add a toggle button - just like they did on the 14:2 mixer for the EQ. That way they can preserve backwards compatibility.

+1 for this!

[selig]

If you're panning, but using send effects that are mono or not panned, that might make the panning "disappear" in the mix.

Regarding Selig's criticism of the SSL: I never pan with the SSL anyway, but lower in the chain. To me, it sounds kind of nice: one option offers "balance pan", while the other with adjusting the Width makes it a "mono pan" (a mixed signal subsequently panned) - the only thing missing is the normal stereo pan, it could be added and that'd be great, but until then you'll have to use the rack mixers or other tools.

But then Selig will complain about their pan laws and recommend Selig Gain, and rightfully so

Not sure I follow the first bit, but the sends follow the panning, so if the sound disappears from the mix due to panning, it disappears from the send as well. This is as expected, even if the send effects are mono or not panned. But I may not be understanding your comment 100%, so forgive me if this doesn't pertain to your point!

Firstly, I was wrong on the panning with the Rack mixers - those have the same behaviour as the SSL, I didn't know and it blows my mind to be honest

Regarding the sends: it really depends on the send effect you're using, I know the input follows the panning, but that's not necessarily the case for what comes out of whatever effect the send goes through Hence that it might offset a bit of the effect of the panning, depending on context of course...

All I know is the issue we are discussing has no effect on sends, whether the effect is mono or stereo.

I didn't mean that issue - I meant OP's original issue This thread has strayed a bit.

Right you are, sorry for any confusion!

[exe135]

Sadly, the 14:2 and Line mixer's pan controls are really "balance" controls, and there's no workaround when using them - a stereo source when panned to one side will silence the other.

My experience is very limited, but all mixers I have seen behave this way on stereo channels. The pan knob is (hopefully) labeled balance then. That's why you usually use two mono channels to have all panning options.
That's why the width knob is added on "better" mixers for stereo channels.

All channels in Reason are stereo channels, mono does not really exist, the pan on the SSL is a balance knob. But I think with width you can achieve the same outcome as with dual mono channels (as far as panning is concerned). If you want to switch sides, you can reverse the inputs.

I agree, that balance/width causes more headache, but I think it is working as intended.

[stfual]

Reason I ask, my panning seems to get lost by either being to quiet or to "thin" yet I can listen to a song and hear a very distinct spot that a guitar or synth or even a vocal fx part is located. Could anyone enlighten a brother out here?

Perceived source position is volume and timing so perhaps try a few milliseconds of delay on the quieter side?

[eigenvee]

[quote="selig"
For example, when you pan the main PAN control to the left, the ENTIRE RIGHT SIDE OF THE STEREO SIGNAL IS SILENCED!

[/quote]


Hi there. What in your opinion would be the correct outcome, if not this? Are you saying that, as you pan to the left, the right side should be gradually mixed in with the left signal, such that a hard left pan would be an equal sum of left and right? Is this how stereo panning is typically implemented in other systems?

[selig]

Sadly, the 14:2 and Line mixer's pan controls are really "balance" controls, and there's no workaround when using them - a stereo source when panned to one side will silence the other.

My experience is very limited, but all mixers I have seen behave this way on stereo channels. The pan knob is (hopefully) labeled balance then. That's why you usually use two mono channels to have all panning options.
That's why the width knob is added on "better" mixers for stereo channels.

All channels in Reason are stereo channels, mono does not really exist, the pan on the SSL is a balance knob. But I think with width you can achieve the same outcome as with dual mono channels (as far as panning is concerned). If you want to switch sides, you can reverse the inputs.

I agree, that balance/width causes more headache, but I think it is working as intended.

It is only working as intended if the knobs are labeled as you describe above - but unfortunately they are not.

BTW, if you only hook up one input to any channel, be it a Mix Channel or an Audio Channel, it is 100% a mono channel (with a stereo output, like just about every console out there).

Also as to your assertion that you can do anything with width as with mono, the answer is a very "careful" yes, with a well placed "but" after that. How for example do you achieve the following: left channel panned center, right panned 75% right; left channel panned hard left, right channel automated from hard left to hard right (without moving the left), etc. These things CAN be done, BUT if you don't get it exactly correct then you start messing with the balance of the stereo source (since the pan knob is really a balance knob). OTOH, these sort of things are dirt simple with dual panner.

And it's not like dual pan knobs take up any more space than a pan/width control, and if the input is mono you simply use just one of the knobs (the software SHOULD be smart enough to know when there's only one input connected and show you the appropriate knobs). Ultimately, there needs to be an option for alternate panning controls IMO.

[selig]

Hi there. What in your opinion would be the correct outcome, if not this? Are you saying that, as you pan to the left, the right side should be gradually mixed in with the left signal, such that a hard left pan would be an equal sum of left and right? Is this how stereo panning is typically implemented in other systems?

This is an easy answer - the correct outcome is what you would get with dual panners, simples. I'm saying that as you pan to the left, the right side should be PANNED gradually to the left - isn't that what a pan control is supposed to do?

The width control would then bring the two sides closer together, again simples right? It's what I expected to happen, anyway.

I can't comment with any authority on how other DAWs handle stereo panning that don't use two pan controls (one for the left and one for the right) due to lack of experience on those systems.