Quite a few DAWs have only balance controls instead of true panning controls.
What about Waveform?
Does Waveform have panning for stereo channels?
-
- KVRAF
- 1790 posts since 30 Dec, 2012
We have several pan laws, linear then a number of logarithmic ones with with centre levels of -2.5 dB, -3.0 dB, -4.5 dB and -6.0 dB.
-
- KVRist
- 473 posts since 1 Feb, 2006
can you specify what you mean by "true panning control"?blue monk wrote:Quite a few DAWs have only balance controls instead of true panning controls.
What about Waveform?
-
- KVRian
- 755 posts since 4 Jun, 2004
Suppose he means this:
viewtopic.php?p=6684775
viewtopic.php?p=6684775
-
- KVRist
- 473 posts since 1 Feb, 2006
ah ok, thanks for the link.
my perspective on this:
this whole field of stereoperception and how to deal with it is not solved with a one-knob "true-stereo"-panpot (whatever that means ...).
the old "mixerstyle"-panpot that is most common right now, deals with the "mono-source feeding a stereobus"-scenario very well.
that's the quasi-standard in most daws right now.
things start to get complicated when stereosources come into play. in hardwaremixers where you have only monochannels, you have to use two monochannels with a panpot on each to get a stereo-source. depending on what you feed into those two channels, you have to really know what you are doing with the panpots, when you deal with a stereo-mic setup for example.
first question is: what kind of stereo-setup are you using?
1) is it coincidental (means no time differences between the two mic-channels, stereo-impression only comes from level-differences between channels), you are safe to do what you want with your two panpots. sum it together partially or completely, move that to either side ...
2) is it not coincidental, but partially or completely relying on time-differences between the two mic-channels for the stereo-impression, then you need to be very careful. at best, you leave the two channels completely seperate, panned to each side completely, never summing any of its contents together (because it will cause combfiltering, which hollows the signal more or less, depending on a few factors ...)
so ... no easy solution ... you have to know what you are doing
in modern daws, you can have a stereo-source (stereorecording or imported stereloop) in one channel. how do you know if it contains time-differences for spatilization, that are sensible to summing l-r channels? now what to do? exchange the panpot with what? dual mono pan for the L-R channels? some kind of MS-matrix with the ability to shift the whole thing left or right and adjust the width? how do you know what kind of stereo-input material will react badly to a certain method?
in the end you have to know what you are doing.
even with a supposedly good design of a true-stereo pan (which to me would be a mide-side matrix, with some well thought "borders" of how far you can go with it), you still have to switch things on a track, depending on having mono or stereo-sources.
that's the first pitfall. many people may overlook it or just forget to do it.
so i guess there is a reason it's not there in a mass-market right now.
a professional knows what to do anyway, tools in form of plugins are there plenty. and if not, you know how to route things and do that for yourself. but for the average user?
so the question to me is, should that really be implemented as a standard, with the risk that things get complicated and people don't understand what it is meant for? they may ruin their audio or do fake-adjustments, when trying to "widen" a mono-source for example.
or should we just leave the good old mono to stereo balancer aka panpot as it is and educate people how to get true stereo, with some extra-tools (already available, get your self voxengo MSED, understand the concept and do some true stereo easily)?
all that said, i don't know the answer, but tend to favor the second option doing it with extra tools (some already implemented in some daws). what do others think?
regarding the original question:
waveform does not have a true-stereo pan on tracks, that you can choose. if you need one, you will have to use a dedicated plugin. it may be something the devs could think about.
my perspective on this:
this whole field of stereoperception and how to deal with it is not solved with a one-knob "true-stereo"-panpot (whatever that means ...).
the old "mixerstyle"-panpot that is most common right now, deals with the "mono-source feeding a stereobus"-scenario very well.
that's the quasi-standard in most daws right now.
things start to get complicated when stereosources come into play. in hardwaremixers where you have only monochannels, you have to use two monochannels with a panpot on each to get a stereo-source. depending on what you feed into those two channels, you have to really know what you are doing with the panpots, when you deal with a stereo-mic setup for example.
first question is: what kind of stereo-setup are you using?
1) is it coincidental (means no time differences between the two mic-channels, stereo-impression only comes from level-differences between channels), you are safe to do what you want with your two panpots. sum it together partially or completely, move that to either side ...
2) is it not coincidental, but partially or completely relying on time-differences between the two mic-channels for the stereo-impression, then you need to be very careful. at best, you leave the two channels completely seperate, panned to each side completely, never summing any of its contents together (because it will cause combfiltering, which hollows the signal more or less, depending on a few factors ...)
so ... no easy solution ... you have to know what you are doing
in modern daws, you can have a stereo-source (stereorecording or imported stereloop) in one channel. how do you know if it contains time-differences for spatilization, that are sensible to summing l-r channels? now what to do? exchange the panpot with what? dual mono pan for the L-R channels? some kind of MS-matrix with the ability to shift the whole thing left or right and adjust the width? how do you know what kind of stereo-input material will react badly to a certain method?
in the end you have to know what you are doing.
even with a supposedly good design of a true-stereo pan (which to me would be a mide-side matrix, with some well thought "borders" of how far you can go with it), you still have to switch things on a track, depending on having mono or stereo-sources.
that's the first pitfall. many people may overlook it or just forget to do it.
so i guess there is a reason it's not there in a mass-market right now.
a professional knows what to do anyway, tools in form of plugins are there plenty. and if not, you know how to route things and do that for yourself. but for the average user?
so the question to me is, should that really be implemented as a standard, with the risk that things get complicated and people don't understand what it is meant for? they may ruin their audio or do fake-adjustments, when trying to "widen" a mono-source for example.
or should we just leave the good old mono to stereo balancer aka panpot as it is and educate people how to get true stereo, with some extra-tools (already available, get your self voxengo MSED, understand the concept and do some true stereo easily)?
all that said, i don't know the answer, but tend to favor the second option doing it with extra tools (some already implemented in some daws). what do others think?
regarding the original question:
waveform does not have a true-stereo pan on tracks, that you can choose. if you need one, you will have to use a dedicated plugin. it may be something the devs could think about.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 553 posts since 25 Mar, 2008
Thank you for the answers and elaboration.
Answers to your questions:
Yes, the link is about what I mean.
I don't record anything via microphone. Originally I used to use only synthesized sounds. Today I also use found sound percussion. That's obviously recorded via a mic. But I would never record acoustic instruments in a studio.
And I have ears to decide what does not sound right.
The new option in Logic Pro x 10.3 is something that you can turn on via a context menu. It's not the default. Any discussion about this being too 'risky' could end with that. I must also say that DAWs and music production is by nature complex. A DAW that does not allow to do necessary things because the company policy is to think of their users having –lets put this as polite as possible– limited knowledge and abilities, means that I am not their target audience.
Why I think it's necessary:
Panning in stereo channels enables the producer to control the stereo width plus the positions in the stereo field. This is indispensable. If you can't do this, your stereo channels will all be at maximum width. I don't know how anyone could make a professional mix on this basis.
Having to use a plug-in for panning on all stereo channels is a hassle I don't want. This requires maybe 500 to 1,000 more mouse clicks in a a session and less immediate overview. I would not consider a feature set professional in this case.
Another thing I would suggest, unless already available: Optional phase Ø buttons per mixer channel. Often useful when mixing bass and kick drum.
'If you think about it, a piano or drum kit panned hard left and right will sound as wide as the whole stage, which is quite unnatural. '
http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ ... o-panorama
The next is no longer the case with the current version of Logic Pro X:
'Because Logic Pro's Pan control only adjusts the balance between the left and right channels, you can't use it to define exactly where the 'phantom' centre image should be located or how wide the stereo spread should be. For more precise adjustment, it's better to use the Direction mixer plug-in.'
http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/direction-mixer
Answers to your questions:
Yes, the link is about what I mean.
I don't record anything via microphone. Originally I used to use only synthesized sounds. Today I also use found sound percussion. That's obviously recorded via a mic. But I would never record acoustic instruments in a studio.
And I have ears to decide what does not sound right.
The new option in Logic Pro x 10.3 is something that you can turn on via a context menu. It's not the default. Any discussion about this being too 'risky' could end with that. I must also say that DAWs and music production is by nature complex. A DAW that does not allow to do necessary things because the company policy is to think of their users having –lets put this as polite as possible– limited knowledge and abilities, means that I am not their target audience.
Why I think it's necessary:
Panning in stereo channels enables the producer to control the stereo width plus the positions in the stereo field. This is indispensable. If you can't do this, your stereo channels will all be at maximum width. I don't know how anyone could make a professional mix on this basis.
Having to use a plug-in for panning on all stereo channels is a hassle I don't want. This requires maybe 500 to 1,000 more mouse clicks in a a session and less immediate overview. I would not consider a feature set professional in this case.
Another thing I would suggest, unless already available: Optional phase Ø buttons per mixer channel. Often useful when mixing bass and kick drum.
'If you think about it, a piano or drum kit panned hard left and right will sound as wide as the whole stage, which is quite unnatural. '
http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ ... o-panorama
The next is no longer the case with the current version of Logic Pro X:
'Because Logic Pro's Pan control only adjusts the balance between the left and right channels, you can't use it to define exactly where the 'phantom' centre image should be located or how wide the stereo spread should be. For more precise adjustment, it's better to use the Direction mixer plug-in.'
http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/direction-mixer