Folks that are obsessed with symmetry in stereo

[losthighway]

There, a perfect example of a somewhat lopsided stereo image.

[mwerden]

I was always confused by the way people want everything panned equal all the time. Even if a client was 17 I'd imagine they've still heard hundreds of hours of classic rock radio (maybe I'm biased, grew up in CT). If someone's taken the time to learn an instrument, write some songs and get a recording session together, have they really never heard anything from before the 70s?

On the flip side, I spend a lot of time (when I have it) making sure my panning is appropriate. I think stereo info can be one of the best/most subtle parts of a mix and I'll try to get everything to make sense. For example, if something's leaning right I'll try to bring some ambience or effects in to make it drift left. I don't always get it correct, but I definitely focus on it.

Whatever, a bunch of people have commented on the panning on my band's album so I guess I hear panning a bit differently. Must be all that early 70s country music. I love that shit - kick panned left, snare panned right? Who knew those country folks were such stoners?

[thunderboy]

True stereo is very different from panned mono. Stereo sounds 3-dimensional because both sides of the image "hear" each sound differently (not just higher or lower in volume, but also delayed, revervbed, off-axis, etc.) just like your ears do. You can create a stereo image from mono sources by (for example) panning the dry sound to one side while sending a slightly delayed and quieter version of the same sound to the other. Yes, this will sound "unbalanced" but also surprisingly life-like.

Again, two different guitar tracks, not one.

Two MONO guitar tracks. "True" stereo would require every source to be captured in stereo, otherwise the "stereo" image must be manufactured as described above. I think that was the point there.

Personally, I think doubled and panned, as you are doing, is cooler. And who in their right mind would record everything in stereo anyway...

jt

[drumsound]

True stereo is very different from panned mono. Stereo sounds 3-dimensional because both sides of the image "hear" each sound differently (not just higher or lower in volume, but also delayed, revervbed, off-axis, etc.) just like your ears do. You can create a stereo image from mono sources by (for example) panning the dry sound to one side while sending a slightly delayed and quieter version of the same sound to the other. Yes, this will sound "unbalanced" but also surprisingly life-like.

Again, two different guitar tracks, not one.

Two MONO guitar tracks. "True" stereo would require every source to be captured in stereo, otherwise the "stereo" image must be manufactured as described above. I think that was the point there.

Personally, I think doubled and panned, as you are doing, is cooler. And who in their right mind would record everything in stereo anyway...

jt

Bruce Swedeen

[Babaluma]

george martin recommends it too

[mscottweber]

George Martin?

Pfb, what does he know...

[thunderboy]

I did qualify it: "...in their right mind..."

Because those cats are insane.

jt

[mscottweber]

Very true, very true...

[markitzero]

I'm guilty of being militant about a balanced stereo image. During the main parts of the song, why would I want to be distracted by weird stereo effects? It's one thing to pan a maraca hard right and a tambourine hard left, because to me that balances out the image, albeit with two different sounds, but performing the same task. Dunno if that makes sense...

In the OP's case, I would leave the lone guitar panned hard, and then add a spring or room verb or something just for that one part, and pan THAT hard the other way to balance it. (someone else mentioned early Van Halen albums...) Having a single track switch positions instantly in the stereo spectrum never sounds right to me. Just because that's what the guitarist THINKS he wants, doesn't mean it IS what he wants.

I do love to and seek out opportunities to do crazy stereo effects when they a) are appropriate for the song, b) do not distract from the song, c) don't get repetitious/old/lame/overused, d) add "ear candy" to the recording.

I have had people want to go apeshit with stereo effects and panning automation, which I will happily oblige if it sounds good. Most of the time people have a sound or effect in their head and have no idea how to accomplish it, explain it, or even if it would work. So to do exactly what they want never works. I always work out that stuff with the artist if they're gung ho about it.

Some people barely notice cool sounding stuff anyway, so sometimes I ask why I even bother.

[jgimbel]

Some people barely notice cool sounding stuff anyway, so sometimes I ask why I even bother.

The important people do

While I think you're right and many people don't pay much attention to that kind of thing, I'm much, much more likely to have a higher respect for a band who has details in their recordings like that. If you have two versions of one song, one where they didn't put in any ear candy as you say because they figure no one will notice, and one version where they do put in that kind of ear candy detail just in case people do notice, I'd MUCH prefer the latter. Often the people who DO notice are the most important listeners, in that they're the ones who care enough about the music to pay attention to that kind of thing, who are really the folks you want to keep listening.