the theory behind off-center tracks?

[Eclepto Funk]

i am aware that recording software gives me the ability to put tracks off center, so they "sound" like they're coming from the right or from the left

 

so ...

 

what's the theory behind that? what's the goal? do you basically want to space out the instruments like in a stage lay-out, so you can "hear" the bass to the right, guitar to the left, drums and singer center?

 

i'd appreciate any guidance on what the goals are, and how this nifty feature can be used

 

thanks in advance

[Dean Roddey]

You can go either way. You can go for a 'sounds like a band on stage' thing, or you can do a very artificial thing, whatever you feel suits your style and the style of the song at hand. The most common layout you'll hear in most rock/pop these days is something like:

 

Center: Vocal, kick, snare, high-hat

Hard L/R: Guitars mostly, but also various other bits and pieces, organ, strings, etc... Often a part is played twice exactly the same and one panned left and one right. It creates a very large sound.

Other: Toms of course are generally spread out across some breadth of the sound stage, various other accents that come in such that they don't interfere with the vocal are often spread around the center to one degree or another. Some parts that play constantly also, as long as they don't interfere with the vocal.

 

That's just uber-common these days. But you hear various radical departures as well. I was listening to a Red Hot Chill Peppers tune the other day and almost everything was dead center but one kind of funky guitar piece. And for effect sometimes the instruments in the middle will get pushed off to the sides for some period of time. The arrangement is often changed in the different sections of the tune, for variety.

 

But anyway, the point of panning is to make pretty sounds, just like all the other tools. What constitutes pretty sounds to you may be different others (though hopefully not from everyone :-)

[blue2blue]

I'm thinkin' you need to spend a little undistracted time just listening to your favorite records or some stuff that friends and colleagues recommend. Don't read. Don't watch TV. Don't think about your GF. More than necessary.

 

Just plunk yourself down in the sweet spot between your near field monitors and play some of your favorite tracks -- and maybe throw in some stuff that is supposed to sound good from a few genres (just to get some perspective -- what works for grindcore deathmetal is not always the right approach for celtic folk music -- but you can still learn something).

 

Anyhow, if you spend some good, quality ear time, I'm thinking the question above will answer itself -- and your next questions will be a lot more interesting.

[Eclepto Funk]

thanks Dean ... it's hard for me to hear what goes where

 

of course, listening to the Beatles is always an experience -- how things seem to shift left and right and so on and back and forth

 

how much shift is "a little?" how much is "a lot?"

 

also, i've noticed that if i shift things a lot towards one side or the other, the volume tends to go down on that track ... is that common or is my software crappy?

 

 

 

and your next questions will be a lot more interesting.

 

i wouldn't hold my breath

[rsadasiv]

The Beatles (ditto the Beach Boys and any Phil Spector production) are not the place to listen for stereo field studies - use music released after 1970.

[Eclepto Funk]

really? i've always thought it's neat how the Beatles/George Martin would make sounds bounce from one side to the other ... and how distinct in space the sounds are within the recording

 

i can hear it, i just can't do it, hence the questions ... when i try to do it, it doesn't sound like much of a difference, or the tracks lose volume

[blue2blue]

Only their later stuff was designed to be released in stereo.

 

And, even then, they tended to be somewhat hemmed in by the technology of the times, as well. Most of their stuff was recorded on four track machines (up to and including Sgt Pepper) but the early stuff was, IIRC, recorded on 3 track, which was common in big studio productions in the 50s and early 60s. Multiple machines or track bouncing were sometimes used but a lot of productions were simply cut in three passes. Even when there was ping ponging of one kind or another, the older masters were three tracks.

 

The earliest stereo recordings at the very end of the fifties were the province of audiophile recordings and stereo demonstration records. Then jazz and classical. Then pop productions, big stars, Sinatra and so on. And, finally, the kids, at the end of the 60s.

 

In fact, it was the perceived market for bands like the Beatles among older fans -- who bought LPs instead of singles, that finally pushed the labels to re-release the early stuff on stereo records. (In those days, 45 RPM singles were almost never pressed in stereo.)

 

But when they went to remix it for stereo, there wasn't much to work with.

 

It was typical to record the whole rhythm section (drums, bass, piano, rhythm guitar) on one track, then the lead vocal and lead instrumental, if any, on one, sometimes combining back up vocals on that track but sometimes leaving them to the 3rd, sweetening track, where the horns and strings and sometimes solo instrument would be.

 

So when you remix something like that, you've got issues.

 

It's compounded by the preocupation with extreme stereo (you have to remember most folks who had stereos had either those console jobs with the speakers flanking a phonotraph and radio or, worse yet, one of those portables with the funky speakers about 18 inches apart (my family had one of those and it was the prime motivator for me building my own first stereo when I was 12 or so).

 

 

Anyhow, nowadays -- unless you're pressing to vinyl -- there's no one right way to approach stereo. (Vinyl requires most of the bass energy to be concentrated in the middle and to avoid certain phase issues between the sides.)

 

Sometimes you want something that simulates a stage layout, something that doesn't call attention to itself and makes you feel like there's nothing between you and the band, playing in some space or on some stage. Naturalistic, you might say.

 

But sometimes you want something that sounds totally artificial, hyped, weird, maybe even simulating movement or odd spatial effects. Surrealistic, to extend the analogy.

 

 

Anyhow, listen to a lot of music and and analyze that.

 

The recorded music of the past is the best guide as to the different ways things can sound -- from there it's up to you to find the right one and then to implement that.

[Eclepto Funk]

 

It was typical to record the whole rhythm section (drums, bass, piano, rhythm guitar) on one track, then the lead vocal and lead instrumental, if any, on one, sometimes combining back up vocals on that track but sometimes leaving them to the 3rd, sweetening track, where the horns and strings and sometimes solo instrument would be.

 

 

 

it's pretty amazing what they were able to accomplish with 3 or 4 tracks

 

to me, it sounds a lot better than most of the stuff being produced today with eight dozen tracks, but that's just me

[blue2blue]

thanks Dean ... it's hard for me to hear what goes where of course, listening to the Beatles is always an experience -- how things seem to shift left and right and so on and back and forth how much shift is "a little?" how much is "a lot?" also, i've noticed that if i shift things a lot towards one side or the other, the volume tends to go down on that track ... is that common or is my software crappy? i wouldn't hold my breath

 

Well, actually, the question was interesting -- I just knew my answer would be boring.

 

[Eclepto Funk]

 

Well, actually, the question was intersting --

 

 

 

lol, that's too kind .. it is a boring question for people who know a lot about this stuff ... no worries

[kurdy]

 

really? i've always thought it's neat how the Beatles/George Martin would make sounds bounce from one side to the other ... and how distinct in space the sounds are within the recording i can hear it, i just can't do it, hence the questions ... when i try to do it, it doesn't sound like much of a difference, or the tracks lose volume

 

 

Yeah, the Beatles stuff was never meant to be heard in stereo. They recorded with mono in mind; it was only remixed in stereo after the fact for American release. All the weird panning, like drums to one side, vocals on the other, was not an invention of the Beatles or George Martin, but likely a bunch of hack engineers who hadn't quite figured out yet how to use stereo properly, as the medium was still quite new. Not to say it didn't sound cool sometimes, but mostly I just find it distracts from the music.

 

I hope one day they'll reissue the mono versions of the Beatles' albums, so we can finally hear how they were originally meant to sound.

[Dean Roddey]

Yeh, and definitely as mentioned, do a lot of listening. I do it almost every night. I sit down and just randomly pick tracks out of my CD collection and just disappear into them. With a nice set of near field monitors and a well treated room, it's great because the sound stage is really broad and well defined. If the speakers image really well, you can hear exactly where instruments are placed.

 

If you listen to something like The Black Crowes, they are very bluesy and rootsy and generally they have a fairly straightforward, though exaggerated in it's width, production that mimics the band on stage. They do push the guitars to the sides more than they would sound in a real live show though. If you listen to something like King Crimson, you'll generally get very artifical placements of instruments, for instance, and that fits their much more 'artificial' music.

 

I personally find stuff that really creates a broad sound stage with a lot of stuff going on to be the most engaging myself. Sometimes, due to the way it's mixed, it'll sound like something is almost behind me it sounds to far off to one side of the sound stage.

 

One album that I think it's just an example of beautiful production is Natalie Merchant's Tiger Lilly. It's pretty amazing. It's often sparse but incredibly full at the same time. And this is something I keep trying to get myself to absorb. If you have a very sparse arrangement, then every instrument can be vary large, i.e. have a wide spread, a lot of reverb, a lot of frequency range, etc... So sometimes a sparse arrangement can sound enormous. As it gets busier, every instrument has to pare down it's contribution so that it doesn't become a wall o' noise, and sometimes that actually leads to a smaller sound.

 

I was listening to Vienna Teng's Ponchertrain (sp?) tonight, which BTW I REALLY recommend her Dreaming Through the Noise album, and it's a very sparse arrangement that sounds like it's going to swallow you on a good system. It's just enormous and fills the whole room, and it's absolutely gorgeous.

[larry the b]

jimi hendrix's are you experienced is an early record that really takes advantage of stereo sound. it's quite cool the first time you listen to it on headphones.

[bluesway]

all i'm going to add is that there are three places in a mix that you need a great reason to put music there: dead center, hard left and hard right. someone suggested guitars hard sides...that's not really common practice and it creates the "big mono" sound....NOT stereo.

 

the best advice in this thread so far [as usual] came from blue2blue with his LISTEN approach. just sit down and listen you'll get the best feel of it just by listening and NOT really discussing it too much. since you're a guitarist, look at it this way: you can't really EXPLAIN to someone how to bend a note and make it sound bluesy - it's better just to play them muddy waters/bb king/etc. same with this.

[Eclepto Funk]

thanks everybody ... great advice and songs to go start listening to

[Dean Roddey]

 

all i'm going to add is that there are three places in a mix that you need a great reason to put music there: dead center, hard left and hard right. someone suggested guitars hard sides...that's not really common practice and it creates the "big mono" sound....NOT stereo.

 

 

Ummm... No, that's not the case. It's INCREDIBLY common, because it doesn't create a big mono sound, it creates a huge stereo sound. It only creates a big mono sound if you take the same exact part and pan it hard right/left. But that's not what I said. I said perform it twice and pan each performance right/left. This creates an enormous sound. Actually, they will commonly do two or three or more guitar parts, each doubled, and pan the two performances of each r/l to create an even more enormous sound.

 

And of course in many cases they are not the same part, so there'll be guitar on one side, organ on the other, or two completely different guitar parts, and so forth. This is also VERY common.

 

You just cannot have listened to much commercial rock/pop music if you doubt this. I listen to a LOT of CD tracks while paying very close attention to the production, and it's amazingly common, with various other smaller parts mixed somewhere in between.

[liko]

 

i am aware that recording software gives me the ability to put tracks off center, so they "sound" like they're coming from the right or from the left so ... what's the theory behind that? what's the goal? do you basically want to space out the instruments like in a stage lay-out, so you can "hear" the bass to the right, guitar to the left, drums and singer center? i'd appreciate any guidance on what the goals are, and how this nifty feature can be used thanks in advance

 

 

 

Dean pretty much nailed it. What the mixing software basically does is take a bunch of mono signals and simulate a stereo sound. People have been used to hearing a spread-out arrangement since orchestral days, so even though the PA in a live performance generally just throws it all together (though you can balance tracks L/R on the mixing board too), the studio engineer will digest the tracks down to an arranged stereo mix.

 

However, there have been numerous examples of the use of channel shifting as an effect. For instance, listen to the intro to Black Sabbath's "Crazy Train"; the rattle just before the guitar kicks in sweeps from left to right with increasing speed.

 

In other words, it's generally there as a standard tool on the mixing board to simulate an on-stage arrangement, but the use of it is limited only by your imagination.

[Dean Roddey]

Since the psychedelic days, the amount of active panning has really gone down. But you still hear it. A nice one that comes to mind is on the Throwing Copper album (Live), Lightning Crashes, which has that nice phase shifted guitar panning slowly back and forth. Though, when it hits dead center in a few cases, if you are in the sweet spot it causes that wierd feeling in your head that you often get when double parts are simulated by phase inversion on one side. It almost kinds of pulls your head to one side. But it's a nice sound for that tune.

 

Of course you still hear plenty of Leslie-like organ effects taht bounce across the whole sound stage, and that sounds nice. And probably in more trip-hoppy stuff you might get more aggressive, trippy active panning stuff. But it's kind of become kind of out of style.

[bluesway]

It only creates a big mono sound if you take the same exact part and pan it hard right/left. But that's not what I said.

okay. *shrugs*

 

i guess i misunderstood you, but who can blame me?

i THINK there's still some substance to what i'm saying, but i've read your other posts, though...and i fully recognize that i could definitely could learn a lot from you...consider me just poking some fun.

[Dean Roddey]

No problem. You should give it a try. It's quite a powerful technique. The nice thing about it is that, not only does it create a wide image, but it does so while leaving the middle more open than any of the 'faux doubling' techniques where you clone the track and delay one of them and whatnot. So it widens the stage without so much stepping on what's going on in the middle.

[eeglug]

I use that technique on almost every song I do these days...

[blue2blue]

Whenever I try that it comes out sounding like "Andy Warhol" by Bowie. If I'm lucky. The rest of the time it sounds like two guitars that shouldn't even be in the same tune.

 

 

 

(Still... agreeably sloppy -- by today's grid-snapped standards -- or not, I love the guitars on "Andy Warhol.")

[Dean Roddey]

It's interesting that, every once in a blue moon, you'll manage to get a note that is exactly the same on both sides. The odds are small, since it has to be exactly in time, exactly in phase, and the exact same attack/decay characteristics, or extremely close. But I had one note in my current tune where it completely collapses to the center for one note. It's kind of an interesting effect, and it happens quickly enough that you almost don't notice it. If it happens, you can often just splice out one side's note and nudge it forward or back a wee bit.

 

Some folks are really good at it and create super tight doubled parts. I'm not that guy, but I can do ok. The thing is, I end up doing 50 or more takes of any part I lay down, if not 100. Out of all of those takes, I generall will end up with parts of two that will serve as the two doubled parts because I've played it enough to really have it down pretty tightly.

[KennethNishimot]

The greatest stereo recording of all time is without a doubt "persuasive percussion".

 

Literally, listen to that recording and that is all you will ever need to know about mixing in your entire life.

[bluesway]

 

The greatest stereo recording of all time is without a doubt "persuasive percussion". Literally, listen to that recording and that is all you will ever need to know about mixing in your entire life.

 

 

huh? whuzdat?