Panning Reverb

[Alexander4444]

Hey there - recently I've been doing some experimentation with hard panning dry source tracks and using sends to reverb plugins which direct the reverb to the opposite side of the mix as the source track. So if it were a guitar track that is hard panned right, the send would be going to an auxiliary track that 1) has a has a reverb plugin and 2) is hard panned to the left.

My questions have to do with the choices involving the mono/stereo nature of the auxiliary track, the mono/stereo nature of the reverb plugin, the mono/stereo nature of the send, and of course the mono/stereo nature of the source track. Basically I would like to discuss the 2 extremes of these options, and I'm curious out of these which one(s) tend to be more used.

Discussion of Each Option:


1) Stereo Source Track (Hard Panned Left) -> Stereo Aux Reverb (Hard Panned Right)

If it is a stereo source track that is hard panned and then being sent to a stereo reverb track that is hard panned to the opposite side (like I've been experimenting with) it seems that I would be negating the stereo nature of both the source track and the reverb. This is because the stereo source track is being summed before being sent to the reverb. This means that the aux track effectively receives a mono signal equally distributed to both its left and right channels. Once the reverb plugin has process it, the output is being hard panned, once again summing the signal. Overall, the combined outputs of the source track and the aux track creates a stereo effect. I was just wondering if there was a more effective means of achieving this effect. The reason why this isn't as effective is because if I want to use the same reverb for a track that is hard panned in the opposite direction, I need to create a duplicate of the stereo rev aux track and hard pan it in the opposite direction of that track. Per reverb, I am using 4 aux channels...2 for the hard panned left and 2 for the hard panned right. I would imagine there is a more efficient method!

2) Mono Source Track (Hard Panned Left) -> Mono Reverb Aux (Hard Panned Right)

This method leads to pretty much the same final effect but without the use of the extra channels that were being used in the first method. As I'm writing this (slightly in hopes of writing myself into my own solution:) I am thinking that method 2 is more efficient as long as the intention is to leave the source and aux track hard panned. Once the goal is to have a more centered source and aux track within the stereo field, the options to at first record a stereo source track in the first place and then to either use

A) a mono-> stereo reverb plugin on a mono aux track or

B) a stereo reverb plugin on a stereo aux

become more pertinent. Ultimately, I think having the option to collapse a stereo track down to a mono track via panning (regardless of where in the stereo field the mono output is being sent: for instance [<25, <25], or [0,0], or [100>,100>] is always the more attractive option. This, I believe, is true especially when considering acoustic guitar parts and piano parts. As long as the recording is phase coherent to a point where collapsing the stereo track down to mono doesn't lead to timbre-changing degrees of cancellation, I would think that granting oneself the option to widen the source track at an artistically tasteful point in the mix is useful.


Conclusion: When considering a track that is not going to be hard panned -> record stereo source tracks. Later, when you intend to apply a reverb that will also not be hard panned, use a stereo bus -> to a stereo aux track which contains an instance of a stereo reverb plugin. This would be the most "stereofied" processing path:)


When considering a track that is going to be hard panned -> record a phase coherent stereo track. Later, when applying reverb, use a mono bus -> to a mono aux track. This aux track can contain a mono reverb plugin that is hard panned to the opposite side of the source track.


I know this was long winded - any commentary and or thoughts are appreciated:) Thanks!

[nst7]

That is pretty complicated.

As a general rule, the whole technique of panning the reverb opposite the source really works best on mono sources or tracks. If your source is stereo, there's usually a reason it's stereo, and you want to leave it that way, not try to pan it in weird ways. And for that type of thing, a typical stereo reverb works best.

[Alexander4444]

Great advice - thanks. That certainly makes sense. One day I would love to see the mixing sessions of the songs I admire. In an attempt to achieve a similar sound, whether its the width, the depth, or the frequency content, I tend complicate things a little too much. It's a problem of determining whats being used, how its being used, and where along the chain its being used. I would love to specifically see and listen to the dry source tracks and then observe the what, how, and where of all the subsequent processing imposed. I work so hard at trying to figure this out, that I think seeing it just one time would create the ultimate ah ha moment. Of course, I know there are multiple ways - but just to see that 'one' way from start to finish would be amazing.

[albee1952]

Yup! This can get very involved. I'll just toss in my thoughts(not really an answer). A stereo track that is hard-panned to one side is really now a mono track(so if that's the effect I wanted, I might split to mono and delete the un-needed audio). More likely that I would have recorded in MONO to begin with). I also sometimes use a mono guitar on one side, with a mono reverb on the other side(I call it the "Jimmy Page" treatment as you'll find that sound on some early Zep recordings). That's the one case where I actually go to Dverb first(I find the trashy sound is quite ideal here). Ultimately, there is no "wrong or right" method or goal here, and if you are laboring over it too much, you might consider just using less reverb(this advice coming from someone that loves reverb and gets yelled at over it)...