Say it isn't so? Only mono panners on stereo tracks?

[Matt-in-a]

Hi,
[EDIT for clarity for new readers. This edit is written days after the original post. This post was written after having a legit copy of DP for one day, with a 14 hour straight and intense dive into the depths on my own. I was elated that DP was going to become my DAW of choice, until I got to the point of setting up a mix. From excitement to "nooooooooooooooo - please tell me it is just ME being dim" took 20 mins and a quick plunge into bafflement. Love DP, but very surprised to find some basic audio aspects unmet in such a deep deep program. Hence this thread. Posts are left unedited apart from this entry so the original tone is unchanged. End edit.]

I am a long time Logic, Protools and Cubase user. I find Logic great for writing, but useless for mixing (mono panner on stereo tracks), and getting increasingly unstable. I am not a cubase lover, but at least it has the ability to use a true stereo panner (which allows mixing 101 - width).

I am evaluating DP8, and over the last week have become increasingly sold from the writing angle, creating arrangements etc. Sound design and placement are of course part of the writing / construction process, so when I got past chunks, bits, bites, nibbles, snacks and so on and I turned my focus to the main course - the mixing board - and am W.T.F?

PLEASE tell me I am missing something and DP8 has an option somewhere to allow true stereo panners on stereo tracks? Otherwise game over. I fear the worst, and start to understand why only composers (at least in my circles on the East and West coasts) seem to use this app and not composer/engineer/producers.

Please tell me that I need to and have missed something - but the fm has been r and nowhere in the 7.2 highrise of a manual or the v8 pdf can I see the mention of stereo pan ability - just the silly old mono panner on a stereo track which is about as useful as chocolate teapot.

The surround is lovely with the range of options.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

The TRIM plug in may be what you're looking for. It's included in DP and can be applied to individual tracks or the whole mix.

[Radiogal]

I do not see the problem. DP has a PAN on all stereo O/P track channels, also there is a PAN for all stereo AUX sends from every track. It´s not instable in any way.

[Matt-in-a]

Thanks MLC - yes that sort of functionality but on the channel strip itself. Not possible? Only available via plugin? Sadly, mixing via plugs is not a workflow I can get into (screen real estate, overhead, detached pans from channel strip, the way pans work on control surfaces etc and so on).

I assume from your knowledgeable suggestion that my fears are well founded and this is indeed not a viable mixing DAW?

[Matt-in-a]

Thanks Radiogal. I wasn't suggesting it was unstable at all. Just trying to get my head around whether DP has an option I cannot seem to find to select true stereo panners for stereo tracks. I can only see mono panners on all my stereo outputs, whether audio, Aux or whatever. I would be REALLY happy to be wrong about this because I am loving DP in so many other ways. You know the way that surround tracks have a range of different approaches to surround panning? Just looking for a stereo panner on a stereo track. Possible?

(Edit, maybe it is more apt to call it a dual mono panner rather than a stereo panner for clarity sake, although PT and Cubase call them stereo panners).

[Radiogal]

When you write "Stereo panner", do you really mean stereo balancer? Like in ProTools; 2 knobs, one for L and one for R, on the same stereo O/P track?

Please tell us what you wanna acomplish that a one knob stereo panner
couldn´t do?

[Matt-in-a]

Radiogal - yes - that's correct - dual knobs, one for left and one for right.

The single knobs behave completely differently of course. Problem with single knob is that the left stays in hard left when you pan to the left, and collapses the width at the same time. If someone wanted a constant width but a shift in placement this cannot be done with a single mono panner. The single mono panner assumes that one side of the image remains stable while the other shifts, an assumption that for my work is about 99% false.

e.g. anything recorded stereo but then resized in the phantom image where neither side is assumed to be hard panned (which can't be done with a single mono panner). This includes stereo VIs which assume full width generation (hard pan), or that one side is going to be hard panned because that is all the single panner can manage. Whereas is fact we might often want something to be narrowed, or maybe maintain a stable width for one section, narrow slightly for a busy section, or maybe broaden for a more open section such as when changing orchestration for energy reasons, spreading behind dialogue, making something more dense by narrowing, parting the "waters" to make way for something else, inserting foley and etc etc. Also e.g. drums in a pop track, guitars in pretty much anything, etc etc.

[Radiogal]

Alright. I mix OTB and do like the way you´re discribing right on my mixing desk.
So yes, it´s true that if you want to accomplish that ITB I´d say, like MLC, to use DPs TRIM plugin.. Not as quick as 2 knobs on the track, but it works.

[stephentayler]

I do actually find this a problem in DP myself, but I resolve it by using the Trim plugin.

The big difference between mixing and use of panners in DP and Protools is working in surround. On stereo channels in a surround environment PT provides 2 small surround panniers for the left and right elements. The only way I can have the same control in DP is by separating the 2 parts of the stereo track.

Don't get me wrong, I love DP and it is the centre of my personal studio system. But I do really enjoy the luxury of a powerful PTHD on a lot of the mixing work I am hired for.

DP however is a great all round creative environment, and I have mixed many albums here, as well as my compositional and experimental work.

Cheers

SWT

[Matt-in-a]

OK thanks Radiogal. I only have 32 chans OTB so am forced to stem a lot ITB.
Bummer. Plugs won't work. I have been through that in Logic, not feasible.
Thanks for your help radiogal, much appreciated. Very helpful and got me to where I needed to be very quickly.

all the best.
cheers,
Matt

PS - Edit - Thanks Stephen - just saw your post. Yes, still PTHD for mixing I fear. It makes a great tape recorder, but just not for ground-up writing (for me anyway). I have always done that in Logic (since the days when it was creator on the Atari), but looking for something else and was hoping DP might be it. Again - appreciate all the help.

[HCMarkus]

Another approach is to track stereo using two mono tracks, then group whatever functions you don't want the tracks to share. Track grouping in DP is very powerful.

In my template, I am set up to do this with grouped guitar tracks; I often track acoustics with both a condenser and a dynamic mic panned to some extent and treated differently. Drum OHs I put on a stereo track, because I typically pan hard left and right. Pianos and other keys are typically VIs, so I'll use the aforementioned Trim plugin if needed.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Thanks MLC - yes that sort of functionality but on the channel strip itself. Not possible? Only available via plugin? Sadly, mixing via plugs is not a workflow I can get into (screen real estate, overhead, detached pans from channel strip, the way pans work on control surfaces etc and so on).

I assume from your knowledgeable suggestion that my fears are well founded and this is indeed not a viable mixing DAW?

If the plugin is active on the channel in the mixer it will be available on the channel strip. I suspect the trim plug is a very overlooked plug by many users. Another is the notation window (not the Quickscribe, but notation) which makes "reading" a track in a grand staff possible (notes appear in any range [transposed by octaves] for the purpose of notation appearance).

OK, I'm o/t, but I miss the development of the notation window as much as our new friend will miss his desired whatever. The trim plug will solve the problem quickly and easily.

If you can't incorporate things like plug ins into your workflow, you definitely want to use something like Reaper.



Seriously, with consolidated windows, screen real estate is not an issue. I keep a single channel strip in the narrow right window. Whatever track is selected, that strip is the active one. If I want the whole mixer, I open that full screen separate window to see as many tracks as possible while mixing. Pans are not detached from the channel strip nor are the plugs. Some actually have their graphs visible, like the EQ visibility in the channel strip.

Here's the bottom line. DP is DeeP. You will be able to customize it to any extent you wish and get great results and the company is fantastic. (I'm not just saying that because I won a Track 16 interface at their last LA event).

There's a lot to learn in there. Most of us just use the stuff we need, but that serves many composers, engineers, recordists, hobbyists, score to image and timecode projects, not to mention the scientific folks who use the app for research and field recordings.

It is, IMO, the high end Swiss Army Knife of DAWs. If the absence of the pan thing really bothers you that much then go for a different program. It doesn't seem like a realistic deal breaker to me, but we clear have different priorities. That's cool.

Welcome to the group. Mind the trolls!

ps - Good workaround HCMarcus. See what I'm sayin'? DP will do what the o/p wants and probably in more than two ways.

[Matt-in-a]

ooops - coming thick and fast now. Lovely.

I have been through the workflow of multiple mono tracks and the hell that is separately EQing, dynamic control etc. Are plugs e.g. (dynamics with sidechain and non-discrete paths) able to be handled as a single entity across two tracks to get around that in DP? Would be hard computationally so i wouldn't think that would be a default setup but if it could that might work well.

Also, splitting stereo tracks into dual mono aux busses would mean a LOT of bussing in a complex session (tried that in Logic and delay compensation across busses is a joke).

[MIDI Life Crisis]

This would be a good time to post your system specs... otherwise I don't think you'll get a definitive answer.

[cuttime]

I have been through the workflow of multiple mono tracks and the hell that is separately EQing, dynamic control etc. Are plugs e.g. (dynamics with sidechain and non-discrete paths) able to be handled as a single entity across two tracks to get around that in DP?
it could that might work well.

Now we're talking channel strip. Look into that, though it would be nice if the trim was available there.