Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Pre-Release Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-28-2011, 08:59 AM   #41
vinx
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: France
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
I don't want to come here and tell anyone how they should work, that's not my idea, you're free to decide how to do your stuff,
Really?...Sure! I can use a "stereo tool" plugin (and i do it...).

And I don't want anybody to tell me how to mix. I do it with my feet,which is my choice, because music is freedom!

Last edited by vinx; 03-28-2011 at 09:14 AM.
vinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 09:10 AM   #42
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinx View Post
Really?...Sure! I can use a "stereo tool" plugin (and i do it...).

And I don't want anybody to tell me how to mix. I do it with my feet,wich is my choice, because music is freedom!
And those modes we have give us that freedom! I don't know, maybe I'm just used to this that I find it so intuitive and cool that seeing people not liking it seems odd to me. It's OK to have preferences, I love options and if devs can sneak those dual panners for you guys it'd be a win-win situation, I guess. My point is we can do that already and it is way more fun because it makes you decide upon hearing the sound, not the other way around
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 09:13 AM   #43
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinx View Post
Mercado, i'm not posting a lot but I'm a long time user . Generally, I like your proposals. But this time, let me say your answer is a Joke.
So you're basically saying that our current implementation is a joke? Ok, well if that's you opinion then I guess there's nothing else to discuss here man, you don't like it, you want your good old panners for L and R, nothing will change your mind, it's OK
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 09:24 AM   #44
vinx
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: France
Posts: 727
Default

Hey, you're fast at it.
Deleted coz I saw your other post and I liked it!
You know what is the Joke. It's not because you can do Z with X+Y that it's the same as doing it with A+B ...Different ways, different people = reaper=freedom
optimistic?

Last edited by vinx; 03-28-2011 at 09:34 AM.
vinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 01:12 PM   #45
Shan
Human being with feelings
 
Shan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,279
Default

Half empty or half full and application of both types is what it comes down to. Both definitely have their application and use. For me, knowing that the "center" is always in the middle of the left and right settings, using individual left/right pan knobs, is the viewpoint I myself take on. I'm still only making two adjustments and "listening". I adjust the left and the right and "listen" to the phantom center. I guess some like to "watch" the center and not "hear" it. That last comment is just the flip side of the dual left/right pan approach.

On the flip side, if I wanted to do some crazy automation of the panning with a stereo source, I'd find it easier to automate the center as apposed to two separate left/right pan knobs. That said, if I want to automate just the left side to move the phantom center and width(which I do), the dual left/right panners would be way easier over messing around with a center/width approach to get that type of result. It really comes down to application as to which approach would be best.

I myself dont want one system replaced with the other, but definitely want the option to have both. That's what REAPER is all about. I myself would actually use both methods depending on application and what I was trying to do, especially when it comes to automation.

Shane
__________________
"Music should be performed by the musician not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM
Shan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 02:27 PM   #46
vinx
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: France
Posts: 727
Default

It's so often I want my Left channel to be stucked on the Left side and set up the sound's width by moving the Right channel's panpot...I must be an old fashioned "good old panners" lover.
vinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2011, 11:18 PM   #47
JasonSpatola
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 259
Default

I really thought I liked the new stereo pan mode until I read this thread... And now I kind of just want separate pans with a button to link their relative positions.

...Or, failing that, the OP's solution.
JasonSpatola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 05:58 AM   #48
jazzdude
Human being with feelings
 
jazzdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
Default

Mercado,

Thanks for your reply, you seem very knowledgable in this area. My settings are as you suggested. "In this case you need to use 'Balance (sinusoidal taper, default)' as pan mode and any pan law you prefer."

I have worked through some other issues that were discussed in this thread that have helped with the overall mix. On mono tracks using a -3db pan law, the shift in the sound stage is subtle and does not extend much beyond either side of center...even at 100% pan. (My kick drum experiment)

I am not concerned with knobs or sliders, or how we even get it done, just wondering if anyone else is having this experience
jazzdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 06:08 AM   #49
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzdude View Post
Mercado,

Thanks for your reply, you seem very knowledgable in this area. My settings are as you suggested. "In this case you need to use 'Balance (sinusoidal taper, default)' as pan mode and any pan law you prefer."

I have worked through some other issues that were discussed in this thread that have helped with the overall mix. On mono tracks using a -3db pan law, the shift in the sound stage is subtle and does not extend much beyond either side of center...even at 100% pan. (My kick drum experiment)

I am not concerned with knobs or sliders, or how we even get it done, just wondering if anyone else is having this experience
Pan law is for preserving 'loudness' while panning, so to speak. 'Balance (sinusoidal taper, default)' should let you pan hard left or right since your signal is mono. I can't think of a reason why this isn't working for you Do you have effects in your bass drum track which are giving you a stereo image?
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 11:18 AM   #50
JasonSpatola
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 259
Default

...Actually, if the width control behaved exactly like the one in ReaDelay, I'd be beyond satisfied.
JasonSpatola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 11:48 AM   #51
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonSpatola View Post
...Actually, if the width control behaved exactly like the one in ReaDelay, I'd be beyond satisfied.
If I'm not mistaken that's exactly how it works.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 11:57 AM   #52
JasonSpatola
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
If I'm not mistaken that's exactly how it works.
I would have thought so myself... but...

If you set the delay length to zero, and turn off the dry output, and leave everything else alone, so you're *only* hearing the changes to the stereo width parameter...

It's... different. Like... Where's the +6.02db "issue"?

If I'm missing something completely obvious here, kick me.

(And try with stereo sources as well as mono ones.)
JasonSpatola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:11 PM   #53
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonSpatola View Post
I would have thought so myself... but...

If you set the delay length to zero, and turn off the dry output, and leave everything else alone, so you're *only* hearing the changes to the stereo width parameter...

It's... different. Like... Where's the +6.02db "issue"?

If I'm missing something completely obvious here, kick me.

(And try with stereo sources as well as mono ones.)
Yep, you're right, just tried it. REAPER compensates this just like it does when you hit the 'mono' button in the Master track.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:17 PM   #54
JasonSpatola
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 259
Default

Oh my god oh my god I want that I want that. At least as an option. You guys are probably gonna come along and pee on my dream, though.

...But seriously, the current stereo pan + this compensation as an option would end any woes I have about the panning implementation, and it'd be my default for all tracks.
JasonSpatola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:28 PM   #55
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonSpatola View Post
Oh my god oh my god I want that I want that. At least as an option. You guys are probably gonna come along and pee on my dream, though.

...But seriously, the current stereo pan + this compensation as an option would end any woes I have about the panning implementation, and it'd be my default for all tracks.
If it's an option, why not
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 12:56 PM   #56
hihat
Human being with feelings
 
hihat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 119
Default

very good but -there is even no width parameter in last theme layouts like it was earlier.guess should relax-solved!
reaper packed with good js stuff instead.
and btw there is extended useful version of stereo processor is here
http://loser.asseca.com/
hihat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 02:00 PM   #57
pcmusicpro
Human being with feelings
 
pcmusicpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cali, Colombia.
Posts: 630
Default

I tested with pink noise, mono and stereo, and I realized (a little late) that I shoud use balance taper on mono tracks and stereo on stereo tracks. My prefered pan law is -2.5 wich is the one Protools uses.

Separate pan controls would be nice but I'm ok with the current implementation too.
pcmusicpro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 04:40 PM   #58
jdutaillis
Human being with feelings
 
jdutaillis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 521
Default

[QUOTE=pcmusicpro;713228] My prefered pan law is -2.5 wich is the one Protools uses.
[QUOTE]

Tools uses -3dB as of version 9. It's the professional standard so nice to see them catching up again!
__________________
Sound Recordist | Sound Designer |Sound Mixer
REAPER | Prism Sound Orpheus | Genelec 8020a + 7050B
Check out my website HERE

Last edited by jdutaillis; 03-29-2011 at 05:34 PM.
jdutaillis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 05:15 PM   #59
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcmusicpro View Post
My prefered pan law is -2.5 wich is the one Protools uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdutaillis View Post
Tools uses -3dB as of version 9. It's the professional standard so nice to see them catching up again!
I use -4.5dB because it's the most linear pan law I hear in my studio, that's how I picked it
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 05:34 PM   #60
jdutaillis
Human being with feelings
 
jdutaillis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
I use -4.5dB because it's the most linear pan law I hear in my studio, that's how I picked it
Do your mixes translate well to other speakers? What about on cans? Just curious
__________________
Sound Recordist | Sound Designer |Sound Mixer
REAPER | Prism Sound Orpheus | Genelec 8020a + 7050B
Check out my website HERE
jdutaillis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 05:41 PM   #61
WyattRice
Human being with feelings
 
WyattRice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,067
Default

I'm happy with Reapers current way of panning. I do wish that Reaper had left and right volume faders on the master, but no big deal.

I'm for the other options as well. Reapers way!

Cheers!
__________________
DDP To Cue Writer. | DDP Marker Editor.
WyattRice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 05:58 PM   #62
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdutaillis View Post
Do your mixes translate well to other speakers? What about on cans? Just curious
Yep, they all translate well. I rarely use cans, I think the last time I used a pair was last year when I borrowed my brother's iPod
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 06:17 PM   #63
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
Default

my girlfriend has some nice cans.
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 06:52 PM   #64
jazzdude
Human being with feelings
 
jazzdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
Pan law is for preserving 'loudness' while panning, so to speak. 'Balance (sinusoidal taper, default)' should let you pan hard left or right since your signal is mono. I can't think of a reason why this isn't working for you Do you have effects in your bass drum track which are giving you a stereo image?
Mercado,

Thanks you have been a big help. I think I have it sorted out. I followed your line of thinking and removed all plugins and sends, still the same behavior. I opened a new project and recorded the kick again, different result.Panning on mono sources is working as expected on newly recorded material.

I have been working with some previously recorded material that may have recorded mono sources in the stereo pan sinusoidal mode.

Do you think this could have caused the limited pan range on these mono tracks? The good news is that it has not killed the overall track
jazzdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 07:00 PM   #65
jazzdude
Human being with feelings
 
jazzdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
Default Pan Laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
I use -4.5dB because it's the most linear pan law I hear in my studio, that's how I picked it
-4.5 is much smoother to my ears, which probably equates to more linear. However, I wonder if the soundstage can get a little larger than life.
jazzdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 07:21 PM   #66
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzdude View Post
Do you think this could have caused the limited pan range on these mono tracks? The good news is that it has not killed the overall track
No, I don't think so since apparently you recorded straight from an input and at that point of the signal path there's no pan law involved (you can hear it but it isn't actually recorded). If you can post a simple project with just one of those tracks and a bit of one of those recordings I'd take a look at it, maybe we're just missing something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzdude View Post
-4.5 is much smoother to my ears, which probably equates to more linear. However, I wonder if the soundstage can get a little larger than life.
As long as you know your room and monitors I guess this isn't likely to happen. -4.5dB is the pan law used in all SSL consoles, btw.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 07:38 PM   #67
hopi
Human being with feelings
 
hopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right Hear
Posts: 15,618
Default

just to say, after playing with it even more today, I like the reaper panning flexibility....

what's not to like?
__________________
...should be fixed for the next build... http://tinyurl.com/cr7o7yl
https://soundcloud.com/hopikiva
hopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2011, 10:01 PM   #68
jdutaillis
Human being with feelings
 
jdutaillis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
-4.5dB is the pan law used in all SSL consoles, btw.
Didn't know that one! So many huge albums mixed on SSLs it must be a winner. Will have to do some testing. Cheers!
__________________
Sound Recordist | Sound Designer |Sound Mixer
REAPER | Prism Sound Orpheus | Genelec 8020a + 7050B
Check out my website HERE
jdutaillis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:57 AM   #69
bblue
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: El Cajon, CA (San Diego)
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro View Post
That's not how Stereo Pan works. Have you actually tried it in a mix? Have you tried to match panning 2 mono tracks to 30%L and 60%R, for example, and a track with those 2 mono tracks (parent folder) using Stereo Pan? It works.
Well, of course! I've been mixing for over 40 years on a variety of consoles, almost all of which, despite labelling, use a simple balance mode for stereo trimming. Just like Reaper used to, unless they used a separate L and R balance control like Pro Tools does.

In your example above, are you referring to Stereo Pan on a typical console? Or stereo pan as currently implemented in Reaper?

I've never said you can't accomplish a similar pan move in a variety of ways, what I have said was that there is a significant difference in traditional stereo pan (which is basically just channel balance) and the way Reaper now manages stereo pan *on stereo tracks*. It's the only way you can easily, with one control (and therefore one automation point), maintain what has previously been defined as a stereo field and move that field left to right without change its width (unless it has to).

A full L to R stereo field is 90 degrees wide (45 degrees to the left and 45 degrees to the right from center). Let's say that you defined your field with two mono track positions as in your example left channel at 30%, or about -15 degrees, and right channel at 60%, or about 25 degrees. That gives you a stereo field that is 40 degrees wide.

Now with those tracks going to a stereo buss (folder), with traditional stereo balance you would be raising and lowering left or right channel to move the image around, but that also changes the field width. In Reaper's V4 stereo pan, it (more or less) linearly moves the entire 40 degree span uniformly to the left or right, maintaining the field balance. The two are quite different approaches and produce different results.

What I was trying originally to point out was:

1) That in Reapers new method, movement of that stereo field stops when going further would narrow the field beyond a certain amount. If you were to further reduce the width of the field with the width control, the stereo pan would move the field a little more each direction since it would be narrower to start with.

2) There is no reason to stop at those points, because if you continued to pan past the ideal limit, it would be understood that the field would have to be narrowed to fit.

3) That if the changes were made to not limit the stop points in Reaper's stereo pan (above), the same pan system would work equally well on both stereo and mono tracks, and the need for two different pan methods would not be necessary. Since you instead could keep your stereo tracks separated as two mono tracks, and the improved system would still operate the same with mono tracks (balance mode, essentially) you wouldn't lose any capabilities that you now have. It would just be simpler to use.

Sure, you can accomplish all these steps with a separate L and R pan on a stereo track and with the help of a variety of different plugins, but it would be clumsy in general and tedious if automation was involved.

--Bill
bblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 04:50 AM   #70
vinx
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: France
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopi View Post
just to say, after playing with it even more today, I like the reaper panning flexibility....

what's not to like?
I like the new stereo pan mode . But it's perfectible (as bblue stated). And even perfect it wont fit everybody's workflow (read shan's post). Cubendo handles all panning modes. So why restrict the possibilities ?
Anyway I'm sure most people would choose basic Dual panning in their daily use if it was available, and consider pan+width as a cool add-on...

Moreover, Pan+width behavior looks really strange for audio-newbies (and others).
A "Swap LR" button would be better to go to -100%/0% range, leaving the place for a potential 0/200% width range with 100% at the centre
This same button could be a "gang" when dual panning...?

Last edited by vinx; 03-30-2011 at 05:19 AM.
vinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:04 PM   #71
astrobuf
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 21
Default

I'm a long time Reaper user, though I don't post much on these forums. Been interested in seeing a fix to the old 3.x version pan taper, which wasn't well implemented.

Well I've been testing with 4.0 alpha 60, so this relates to that release.

Much respect Mercado. I see that you've been so helpful and willing to educate users on this topic, but I have to tell you that I think you are wrong about the new stereo pan algorithm. I mostly agree with bblue, but in addition I don't think that the pan even functions as correctly as you think.

If you look at the goniometer plot that you yourself posted, http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...3&postcount=24 that looks like a bad panning algorithm because the signal strength develops a pronounced peak when you pan away from center.

If you pass a test signal and sweep the pan back and forth (create a pan envelope that sweeps the pan from full left to full right and loop it), it's obvious that there is a pronounced dip at the pan center if you are not using -6dB law. Yes, I can hear this with my ears as well as see it with my eyes. Additionally, I strongly object to the behaviour that the pan angle changes as the stereo width is adjusted. That doesn't make sense when you think of a pan as an angle to a sound source, which is the whole point of a sinusoidal taper also known as circular.

I strongly agree with bblue that the default pan algorithm must work well with both mono and stereo sources. That only makes sense, because a mono source is also a stereo source (with both channels equal). This shouldn't be so difficult, and to illustrate my point I am attaching two JS plugins to show how panning could be done in a much more straightforward way.

By way of a baseline, consider the flux:: Stereo Tool VST plugin's panner. When that panner is panned left, the right channel is mixed in until under a hard pan both L and R channels are fully mixed into the L output channel and the R output is zeroed. Of course that also crushes stereo width proportionately. This panner is like 6db law, as a mono signal would be doubled in intensity in a hard pan to one channel, and will sound somewhat louder, but it is totally transparent if the output is summed to mono.

Next, my stereosinuspan JS plugin. It tries to follow a constant power law and a sinusoidal taper to avoid the increase in signal strength on a hard pan. The volume is more constant across a sweep when heard in stereo, but under a hard pan it will fade a bit if summed to mono. It also crushes the stereo width proportionately.

Next, why don't we just do a stereo field rotation? On a mono input it is equivalent to a 3db sinusoidal pan, and it won't crush the width of a stereo signal. Personally, I think that it should be Reaper's default panner. I include a JS implementation pan+width for your testing.

None of these plugins have the objectionable peaks and dips, and all allow full panning of the signal across +- 45 degrees, and all work equally well with stereo and mono sources.

Please give these both a listen and compare them under a goniometer. What do you think? (changed -- see post https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?p=717015 for my set of pan plugins).

Last edited by astrobuf; 04-04-2011 at 07:52 PM. Reason: attached files were changed
astrobuf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:49 PM   #72
bitrate
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 477
Default

For the -4.5, you tick the compensated check box, yes?
bitrate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 08:32 PM   #73
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitrate View Post
For the -4.5, you tick the compensated check box, yes?
No, I don't.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 03:39 AM   #74
bblue
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: El Cajon, CA (San Diego)
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrobuf View Post
By way of a baseline, consider the flux:: Stereo Tool VST plugin's panner. When that panner is panned left, the right channel is mixed in until under a hard pan both L and R channels are fully mixed into the L output channel and the R output is zeroed. Of course that also crushes stereo width proportionately. This panner is like 6db law, as a mono signal would be doubled in intensity in a hard pan to one channel, and will sound somewhat louder, but it is totally transparent if the output is summed to mono.
I had completely forgotten about the stereo panning in Flux's StereoTool. You're right, it is doing the correct version of what Reaper is trying to do. And it does the right things regardless of stereo or mono source (except for possible pan law tweaking).

Quote:
...
Next, why don't we just do a stereo field rotation? On a mono input it is equivalent to a 3db sinusoidal pan, and it won't crush the width of a stereo signal. Personally, I think that it should be Reaper's default panner. I include a JS implementation pan+width for your testing.

None of these plugins have the objectionable peaks and dips, and all allow full panning of the signal across +- 45 degrees, and all work equally well with stereo and mono sources.
Stereo field rotation is a totally different animal. It does just what it says and does NOT maintain the stereo field placement relative to the +-45 degree points (hard right and hard left). If e.g. you rotate right you are moving past the right channel 45 degree anchor, into L-R territory. If you moved to the right a whole 45 degrees, what used to be your left channel would now be center, center channel would now become right channel, and right channel is pulled 45 degrees out of phase into the pseudo surround field area. That's not at all what you want for stereo panning, though it can be a very interesting effect.

The goniometer tool (basically just an XY scope), a small version of what comes with Stereo Tool, clearly shows the behavior differences of rotation. Schwa's Schope in phase mode is like an XY scope, only just the half above the 180 degree line is shown, with gain graticules. It gives you an enhanced perspective of what's in your L to R field. Note, though, it doesn't have a graticule line for 0 degrees (mono), and the graticule lines that should represent +-22.5 degrees (center right and center left) are closer to 18 or 19 degrees, so you have to use a little imagination. Still, very handy.


To make everyone happy, and since we already have two sliders or knobs dealing with panning, I would propose the following for Reaper:

1. Have two modes, a true stereo pan and width control similar to what we have now, and a dual balance mode consisting of L pan and R pan, like Pro Tools. And an action to switch between them (if possible).

2. Reaper knows whether a given track has one channel (single wav) or two or more channels (the first two of which would be the object of stereo panning). So it could automatically select from one of two pan law presets depending on which pan mode is selected. The user would be able to set their preferred default values for both presets.

3. The stereo pan and width mode characteristics would be improved to behave similarly to Stereo Tool, and allow both stereo and mono positioning from full left to full right.

4. Completely do away with the current balance mode, since it is now covered by #3.


It seems like a pretty clean approach that would satisfy both 'camps' and eliminate a lot of confusion.

Comments?

--Bill
bblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 03:52 AM   #75
vinx
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: France
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrobuf View Post
Please give these both a listen and compare them under a goniometer. What do you think?
I've tried them. I like the "stereosinuspan" which could be a real default pan (the current is more a balance).

Your pan+width is more "logical" and powerful than reaper's one (but it deals with "out of phase" side level increase to maintain the width %). However I've found that the width parameter is only a side level at this state (not mid/side balance). I would prefer the 100-200% range to be a gradual mid level's fade, with only side at 200% (as your 0-100 is a side level's fade) : more "width" effect and it would also prevent clipping at 200%.

The last thing is the current reaper "pan+width" is much more handy to automate the center, without having a side level increase at some point(out of phase effect).
It seems to me these are different weapons...

Last edited by vinx; 03-31-2011 at 04:01 AM.
vinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 04:04 AM   #76
vinx
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: France
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblue View Post
To make everyone happy, and since we already have two sliders or knobs dealing with panning, I would propose the following for Reaper:

1. Have two modes, a true stereo pan and width control similar to what we have now, and a dual balance mode consisting of L pan and R pan, like Pro Tools. And an action to switch between them (if possible).

2. Reaper knows whether a given track has one channel (single wav) or two or more channels (the first two of which would be the object of stereo panning). So it could automatically select from one of two pan law presets depending on which pan mode is selected. The user would be able to set their preferred default values for both presets.

3. The stereo pan and width mode characteristics would be improved to behave similarly to Stereo Tool, and allow both stereo and mono positioning from full left to full right.

4. Completely do away with the current balance mode, since it is now covered by #3.

--Bill
+1
seems ok if we can't have more than 2 sliders

But what about a mono wave with a stereo fx inserted? Does reaper know at present when a sound is really mono ?

Last edited by vinx; 03-31-2011 at 04:46 AM.
vinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 12:19 PM   #77
bblue
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: El Cajon, CA (San Diego)
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinx View Post
+1
seems ok if we can't have more than 2 sliders

But what about a mono wave with a stereo fx inserted? Does reaper know at present when a sound is really mono ?
No, I don't think so. The file contents idea won't work.

Ahh. But it doesn't have to! There could still be just one pan law assignment for each pan mode (stereo pan and separate L & R). I checked this again with Stereo Tool and Reaper's existing stereo pan mode. Both operate similarly when the pan law is set to -6.0. That doesn't represent a real pan law value, but rather a value that for the most part compensates for the characteristics of the stereo pan mode. It works exactly the same whether the signal originates as mono or stereo.

Since plug-ins assume two in and at least two out (usually), what is being processed through the channel strip is two channels, regardless of whether they are the same (mono) or different (stereo), or when (at what point in the chain of fx's) they might change from mono to stereo or vice versa. So it's a non-issue. One pan-law setting for each pan method will do it.

It would be nice to hear from a dev about any reason this proposal and the resulting simplification wouldn't work or couldn't be implemented.

--Bill
bblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 03:32 AM   #78
astrobuf
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblue View Post
Stereo field rotation is a totally different animal. It does just what it says and does NOT maintain the stereo field placement relative to the +-45 degree points (hard right and hard left). If e.g. you rotate right you are moving past the right channel 45 degree anchor, into L-R territory.
Stereo is in L-R territory by definition. I think you mean that we will start driving L and R antiphase. A small amount is unavoidable (eg. reverb), but I concede the point that it's generally not acceptable to rotate the soundstage into this region unless its for some special effect or something, you'll degrade mono compatibility for one thing.

What I was suggesting was a rotation limited to the 45 degree points, because for a mono input it's the equivalent of a pan. And for stereo signals it preserves the field geometry and generally sounds good in stereo(ie. a hard pan doesn't crush your stereo signal to a mono one coming out of one channel.) On the other hand, operating on the principle of least surprise, I fully agree that it's higher priority to have a mixing panner because that's the way we're used to working.

Quote:
3. The stereo pan and width mode characteristics would be improved to behave similarly to Stereo Tool, and allow both stereo and mono positioning from full left to full right.

4. Completely do away with the current balance mode, since it is now covered by #3.
--Bill
I mostly agree with your list, except the balance mode is needed to maintain compatibility with old projects mixed with it.
astrobuf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2011, 03:43 AM   #79
astrobuf
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinx View Post
I've tried them. I like the "stereosinuspan" which could be a real default pan (the current is more a balance).

Your pan+width is more "logical" and powerful than reaper's one (but it deals with "out of phase" side level increase to maintain the width %). However I've found that the width parameter is only a side level at this state (not mid/side balance). I would prefer the 100-200% range to be a gradual mid level's fade, with only side at 200% (as your 0-100 is a side level's fade) : more "width" effect and it would also prevent clipping at 200%.
Yeah! Someone tried my panners!

For most material there is much more energy in the Mid signal than the Side. A single balance control would likely throw off the overall volume and require a gain adjustment anyway. Probably better to have separate M/S gain controls.
astrobuf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2011, 02:52 AM   #80
bblue
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: El Cajon, CA (San Diego)
Posts: 593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrobuf View Post
Stereo is in L-R territory by definition. I think you mean that we will start driving L and R antiphase. A small amount is unavoidable (eg. reverb), but I concede the point that it's generally not acceptable to rotate the soundstage into this region unless its for some special effect or something, you'll degrade mono compatibility for one thing.
I apologize for not being clear. My L-R reference above was meant to mean L minus R, essentially the same as your references to 'antiphase', aka side channel.

Quote:
What I was suggesting was a rotation limited to the 45 degree points, because for a mono input it's the equivalent of a pan. And for stereo signals it preserves the field geometry and generally sounds good in stereo(ie. a hard pan doesn't crush your stereo signal to a mono one coming out of one channel.) On the other hand, operating on the principle of least surprise, I fully agree that it's higher priority to have a mixing panner because that's the way we're used to working.
What I really wanted in the true stereo pan, was that its stereo field width not to change at all, until e.g., the right side of the field being panned met with the 45 degree or hard right pan position (and the same going left). From that point panning further right (left) would simply reduce the width of the field while still giving the illusion it is moving.

That would be ideal, IMO. The way Stereo Tools (Flux) and other tools do it "correctly" now is a gradual reduction of width while panning the field to the side, but starting the reduction long before it really needs to. I'm sure it's a math complexity issue, but one day I'd sure like to see stereo pan implemented with this in mind. I'd try it myself, but I just don't have a sufficient understanding of the math involved.

Quote:
I mostly agree with your list, except the balance mode is needed to maintain compatibility with old projects mixed with it.
Oh, that. Hmmm. Yes, I see your point. Unfortunately, that would mean we'd have three completely different methods of panning, each with their own pan law settings. It's not likely that the devs would want that. For that matter, they probably won't be sufficiently motivated to fix their current stereo pan anyway. Especially not when most folks think it's just fine.

I work with precisely defined stereo fields all the time, so the existing methods (without repair) are not satisfactory. Until stereo panning is implemented correctly, the only solution is plug-ins and automation.

Oh, btw, I downloaded your plug-ins to try them in my test suite for this, but haven't actually done it yet. Been having some stability problems with my DAW and have been focusing on that.

--Bill
bblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.