For me, it really depends on the song, Josh.. There's really not any particular "formula" I follow, I just use what I've learned over the years, and I let my ears decide what sounds best.

There are times I'll record several different guitar tracks, (different takes) and then I'll place them throughout the field, to where I think they sit and sound the best.

I can tell you that, when looking at volume control -as opposed to automatically reaching for a fader - I almost always reach for panning first.

People tend to forget that at its fundamental core - without delving into the various laws of constant power vs tapered, phasing, center field perception and the other parameters - the pan pot is fundamentally a volume control... you are either increasing or attenuating the signal on a side, or at various positions, throughout a field. If you have a mono source, and you pan Left, you are decreasing the volume on the Right... and vice versa.

There are times where, in a mix situation, if an instrument is shy, using fader/gain is not the best move, especially if you are talking about those times when a track needs to come up just a hair, panning, IMO gets the job done nicer. You don't have to separate it very far, either...sometimes just a notch or two, to the left or right, gets a track to sit perfectly.

There are other scenarios that involve multi-mic / stereo arrays; like MS, where I'll pan either very wide, or maybe not so wide, and then use the Fig 8 mic fader (along with its cloned track with the phase flipped) to control the volume of the sides, which effects the width - or narrowness as the case may be - of the instrument, relative to where it is in the space of the mix.

You can also use multiple mics that aren't in a stereo array, to add space and depth. For example, mic'ing a guitar amp with a close up mic, and then using a mic backed off into the room (if the room sounds decent), and then, by moving those two separate tracks around, relative to each other, you can get a very nice "open-ness" to the sound(s).

In the end, I think that it really comes down to the song, and what you feel it needs, and I don't think it's the same in every circumstance. In fact, it hardly ever is. ;)

IMO of course. ;)

d.

In my limited experience, reverb can be used to move things back. Also, sounds with less high frequency content tend to be perceived as more distant.

I always think of music much like painting a picture. The shades and light are similar to freq and reverb/delay. When you are sitting in a room, what freq do you hear more of, closer or further away? Depending on what you are painting, is it black and white or does this mix have colours and shading/ 3D or all in your face?

Other than the obvious surround sound mixing. With a stereo mix, if you talk about moving a sound in a space. It's defenitly a combination of Volume, EQ and reverb for me. Also, to make it constant, I'll watch the dynamics.

audiokid, post: 419987, member: 1 wrote: I always think of music much like painting a picture.

LOL... that's easy for you to say, you're like the Leonardo da Vinci of DAW's. LOL ;)

Chris is right. It's textures, dimensions, and shades. It's why audio engineers use terms like:

Dark
Bright
Muddy
Clear
Colored
Transparent
Glassy
Silky
Rough
Smooth
Wide
Thin
Depth
Space

:)

d.

DonnyThompson, post: 419992, member: 46114 wrote: LOL... that's easy for you to say, you're like the Leonardo da Vinci of DAW's. LOL ;)

Chris is right. It's textures, dimensions, and shades. It's why audio engineers use terms like:

Dark
Bright
Muddy
Clear
Colored
Transparent
Glassy
Silky
Rough
Smooth
Wide
Thin
Depth
Space

:)

d.

:love: