Left-Right Balance: It's important

[Silver Sonya]

Title of thread says it all, pretty much.

I have many thoughts on this topic, but I will spare everyone an essay (just this once!) and try to keep it simple.

I don't want to discourage anyone from artistic explorations of the stereo field --- yes, sometimes the cello in the left channel needs to make a statement! --- but be mindful of the consequences when it comes to mastering. Wildly capricious stereo mixing often results in a quieter overall master.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Oh, no! I'm writing an essay again! OK, I'll stop.

- c

[Darius van H]

I absolutely love some of the things that were done in the 60's with extreme panning. Proper arrangements, great musicians, in a real acoustic space, extreme pannig, love it.

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Darius van H

I absolutely love some of the things that were done in the 60's with extreme panning. Proper arrangements, great musicians, in a real acoustic space, extreme pannig, love it.

Agreed! Wholeheartedly.

To be clear: Not discouraging that at all. I love creative stereo.

I'm just encouraging people to be aware of it, to consider it, as they work. If you want to willfully throw the notion of "balance" out the window, cool. But don't do it accidentally. Y'know?

- c

[tonmeister]

The wider you pan the more distracting it is.
I tend to think early 60's stereo mixes were engineers having a play with a new toy. Modern mixing has established some sensible conventions, lead vocal, bass, kick & snare in the middle, then spread out from there. Panned instruments should usually have another like instrument to balance it. Or you can create a "outside the head" effect with other stereo / phase techniques.
I know this is a bit boring, and whacky panning does have it's place in space-age pop or psychedelica, but take the Beatles for example; the mono versions are almost always superior.

[masteringhouse]

When Geoff Emerick was on tour for his book he often mentioned that he preferred the mono versions of the tracks. I had asked him why he panned drums to the side he simply said "I don't know".

Many jazz recordings that I hear from the 60s have a main instrument panned hard to one side and the room sound panned hard to the other side. It does give an instrument gorgeous large sound.

Some of the panning decisions during the period may have been due to experimentation in stereo, limitations with recording to a smaller number of tracks and having to bounce, as well as old boards that only had L/C/R without a variable pan.

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by tonmeister

The wider you pan the more distracting it is.
I tend to think early 60's stereo mixes were engineers having a play with a new toy. Modern mixing has established some sensible conventions, lead vocal, bass, kick & snare in the middle, then spread out from there. Panned instruments should usually have another like instrument to balance it. Or you can create a "outside the head" effect with other stereo / phase techniques.
I know this is a bit boring, and whacky panning does have it's place in space-age pop or psychedelica, but take the Beatles for example; the mono versions are almost always superior.

This reminds me of the time I was mastering a Snooky Pryor (Chicago blues legend, now desceased) compilation. Apparently at one time in his life he had lots on money and owned a studio where they always had the latest gear.

On this particular track, all was going as expected until the first solo whereupon I almost fell off my chair laughing! Just for that section, they bused in a ton of reverb, like it was a effect rather than enhancement!


I asked the producer if he wanted me to attempt to minimize the stereo field for that section and he said no, it is part of the history of that recording.

[Llitsor]

Originally Posted by Darius van H

I absolutely love some of the things that were done in the 60's with extreme panning. Proper arrangements, great musicians, in a real acoustic space, extreme pannig, love it.

Agreed. I don't see why artists & engineers shy away from that these days. Folk will gladly pile in massive amounts of compression, limiting, distortion and a multitude of other effects without giving it a second thought. Yet when it comes to panning, the knob barely gets touched. Its no wonder so many modern recordings sound so flat when they are compressed to kingdom come, and are often nigh on indistinguishable from mono in many cases.

It doesnt surprise me that surround sound is not more widely used these days. Folks rarely seem to get a grip on 2 speakers yet still. Never mind 6+ !

[Lagerfeldt]

I love hard panned mixes when they're done right (=usually simple arrangements).

[RedTuxedo]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

I love hard panned mixes when they're done right (=usually simple arrangements).

I agree. The mix engineer needs to have a good understanding of the use of space.

[Jesse Graffam]

There's been a few discussions on here before about panning, even in the mastering board, and I wonder about some of the references people have name-dropped before...

in regards to people that wire their mixers to only allow hard left/right or center, with no pan knobs... and are making amazing full life-like stereo sounds with em. I know people are, and i'm just wondering if anyone knows of any resources about that... even interviews talking about it a bit would be appreciated. I don't read many books about mixing.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Some of the panning decisions during the period may have been due to experimentation in stereo, limitations with recording to a smaller number of tracks and having to bounce, as well as old boards that only had L/C/R without a variable pan.

From the book RTB, Most of the hard panning for the stereo mixes of the Beatles was due to the pre-configured panning of the four track tape returns on the Redd console.

From 1966 and before when Norm Smith engineered, tracks 1 and 2 from the 4 track were returned to the Redd console channels 1 and 2. These channels had no pan pots on them and were fixed hard left and hard right.

Track 1 of the 4 track usually consisted of drums, bass and r.guitar (hard left).
Track 2 usually had guitar, piano and percussion (hard right).
Tracks 3 and 4 usually contained Vocal and solo's + misc. and returned to the Redd console, on channels 7 and 8 which were primarily kept panned to the center.

After 66 when Emerick engineer, he experimented a bit more with different track layout and configurations but kept somewhat consistent with the hard panning configurations that Smith used up until the 8 tracks and solid state consoles were used.

[masteringhouse]

Thanks Tom, will have to pickup that book at some point!

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

When Geoff Emerick was on tour for his book he often mentioned that he preferred the mono versions of the tracks. I had asked him why he panned drums to the side he simply said "I don't know".

How is that possible?


DC

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by dcollins

How is that possible?


DC

I don't know :-)

I'm guessing that it was a bit of dry English humour.

[bob katz]

No essay in response, either. Just some important points: Ignore the meters, use your ears, and calibrate the left-right balance of your monitors first.

BK

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

I don't know :-)

I'm guessing that it was a bit of dry English humour.

I hope so.


DC

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by bob katz

No essay in response, either. Just some important points: Ignore the meters, use your ears, and calibrate the left-right balance of your monitors first.

I'm buying a lottery ticket.


DC

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by dcollins

I'm buying a lottery ticket.


DC

I'm sorry, is that voice out of phase in the middle of nowhere?

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I'm sorry, is that voice out of phase in the middle of nowhere?

Hard to say without a phase meter.


DC

[12ax7]

Originally Posted by bob katz

No essay in response, either. Just some important points: Ignore the meters, use your ears, and calibrate the left-right balance of your monitors first.

BK

I don't ignore the meters.

I just don't let 'em boss me around. They are there to serve me (not the other way 'round).

Ears & brain have enough problems getting along without making the mistake of allowing the eyes any more than an purely advisory position!

But this line you wrote bears repeating:

"...calibrate the left-right balance of your monitors first."

This is VERY important (and is often overlooked).

I also find that it often helps to monitor "reverse L&R" a couple of times before I finish a mix. You might be surprised how different the left and right monitors sound (even in fairly well-treated rooms).

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Hard to say without a phase meter.


DC

I suggest that you reduce your attack and increase the release as the only thing you're hurting is your own sound.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by bob katz

i suggest that you reduce your attack and increase the release as the only thing you're hurting is your own sound.

???


DC

[Darwin James]

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by bob katz

calibrate the left-right balance of your monitors .

BK

And this goes without saying but I'll say it anyway. When printing a mix (non-bounce) be sure to calibrate the input levels of the device that you are recording to. At times the problems I've run across with regard to balance weren't due to an engineer hearing the balance correctly at the source, but from not properly setting the L/R levels or monitoring the recorded signal.

The unadulterated reference tone is becoming a lost art.

[tonmeister]

I've found often when a mix needs to have the left/right balance adjusted, that this should be done after any mid/side processing occurs. (Soloing the side signal and check to confirm that the centre nulls completely.)
In the past I have made the mistake of adjusting balance right at the start.
I suppose this is just basic common sense
Maybe some mixes that lean shouldn't be over-corrected either if the centre stuff is good and theres just a loud instrument out to one side

[KJandKT]

Is there a simple way to make sure that your left and right monitors are balanced properly in a studio? I'm assuming that you guys are referring to placement and equal loudness?

Thanks and God bless

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by KJandKT

Is there a simple way to make sure that your left and right monitors are balanced properly in a studio? I'm assuming that you guys are referring to placement and equal loudness?

Thanks and God bless

Simple? Well, it is simple, but you can make it as detailed as you wish.

Your two loudspeakers should be matched in frequency (and therefore phase) response. That's what you're testing for.

I also suggest you get the Chesky test disc with the LEDR test and use it to test for any room reflection/boundary issues that are intefering with imaging.

I also suggest that you get an analog voltmeter and confirm that an equal-level 1 kHz test tone reads equal analog voltages at the critical analog points (including loudspeaker terminals).

Now, play a mono pink noise file that is absolutely centered. How do you know it's centered? You can feed it through the same pan pot that you previously used to center and match the sine wave test tone whose analog voltages you previously verified.

Verify that all frequencies of the pink noise are focused in the center between the loudspeakers. As you move from left to right about the center position, you should hear comb filtering and there will be a clear center position where the sound clears up and is most tightly focused. If this matches up with the physical center position, then Bob's your uncle. (Or Tom, or Dick or Dave if you prefer). Adjust the toe-in and/or spacing of the loudspeakers to get the best compromise between good center focus and soundstage and stereo spread.

Using an SPL meter located dead center, confirm that the measured SPLs of each loudspeaker are the same, within a tenth. If this does not match what you heard, then either your ears or your monitors' frequency responses are not balanced, OR, your room acoustics are causing reflections that are affecting the left-right imaging. That's where the LEDR test comes in.

Also, check the mono switch in your system and confirm that it images the sound in the center as did the pan-potted pink noise.

For a test of functionality, take some some stereo music where the vocalist is known to be absolutely centered, and switch between mono and stereo monitoring and listen critically to see if the vocalist's position shifts. If he/she seems to shift, this indicates perhaps some previously-unexposed frequency response inaccuracies between the speakers, or an inaccurate mono switch, or power amplifiers or loudspeakers with unmatched sensitivity.

If your system passes all of those tests, then you can be sure of your left-right judgments!

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by KJandKT

Is there a simple way to make sure that your left and right monitors are balanced properly in a studio? I'm assuming that you guys are referring to placement and equal loudness?

Thanks and God bless

Symetrical room layout in particular around the speakers. Quality speakers where the manufacturer select the drivers for tight tolerances.


/Peter

[Key]

Originally Posted by KJandKT

Is there a simple way to make sure that your left and right monitors are balanced properly in a studio? I'm assuming that you guys are referring to placement and equal loudness?

Thanks and God bless

Buy quality active monitors? Some companies are better at matching stereo sets of speakers and amps by means of using a reference speaker and an inverse square wave cancellation test. And well some companies are not so good at this.

A quick way to test is playing mono files - does the soundstage seem locked dead center or pulled to one side? Acoustics CAN pull the soundstage to one side so be careful it's not just the room.

You will see people recommending SPL meters but I tend to think if you have a good DAC/ADC (check it with RMAA) you will be better using the computer and some test tones. Also you could try sticking an omni around front center and then facing the speakers at themselves and trying to do an invert cancellation test like a spoke of earlier. The more it cancels the more they are matched.

[KJandKT]

Bob and Audiop

Thanks so much for your responses! They were very helpful.