Panning effects to opposite sides
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 05 Jun 2016
Hi
I often see engineers/producers pan effects, such as reverb and delay, to the opposite side that the original signal is panned. For example, I might have a doubled guitar part, one panned hard right and one panned hard left, and I want a reverb on the hard right channel to be panned left and vice versa for the other (I hope this makes sense!).
How can I achieve this in Reason? I don't really want to use a different masterbus send for each left and right instance of each effect. It seems very easy in Pro Tools.
Advice very much welcome.
Best wishes
Simon
I often see engineers/producers pan effects, such as reverb and delay, to the opposite side that the original signal is panned. For example, I might have a doubled guitar part, one panned hard right and one panned hard left, and I want a reverb on the hard right channel to be panned left and vice versa for the other (I hope this makes sense!).
How can I achieve this in Reason? I don't really want to use a different masterbus send for each left and right instance of each effect. It seems very easy in Pro Tools.
Advice very much welcome.
Best wishes
Simon
- Carly(Poohbear)
- Competition Winner
- Posts: 2884
- Joined: 25 Jan 2015
- Location: UK
Create a parallel channel, remove the right cable to make it mono, add your reverb\delay\any device and pan the opposite way.
I suppose really if you are hard panning any stereo device fully left or right you should turn it into mono signal first then pan...
I suppose really if you are hard panning any stereo device fully left or right you should turn it into mono signal first then pan...
-
- Posts: 536
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016
But if we're talking about mixer sends, won't this reverse the output panning for all tracks that are using that send? If you're still going to want some instruments to be able to use that particular reverb (or whatever) "normally", what do you do? Just use two of them on different send slots, one with the channels oriented normally and one where they're flipped?
-
- Posts: 536
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016
I believe the idea that Loque and selig are suggesting is, when you've got (for example) a reverb on a send slot, you can just swap the left and right output cables, so that they criss-cross. Then you'll get all of the left-channel material from the output of that reverb into the right channel of your mixdown, and vice versa. As my question above indicates, this will affect all instruments that use that particular send FX, which I could see being a problem sometimes.
Last edited by househoppin09 on 31 Jul 2018, edited 1 time in total.
Yea, just use another send if you like.househoppin09 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2018But if we're talking about mixer sends, won't this reverse the output panning for all tracks that are using that send? If you're still going to want some instruments to be able to use that particular reverb (or whatever) "normally", what do you do? Just use two of them on different send slots, one with the channels oriented normally and one where they're flipped?
I prefer a bus mix channel, add a mixer as insert fx to that bus and add the fx to this mixer with switched channels. Also i often route the fx out directly to another channel of the mixer instead of the mixer return, which gives me control over panning, volume and feedback loops.
For more position control, i like to add an EQ for binaural panning or moving it up or down with HPF or LPF. Just as an example... It always depends what I want to achieve.
Reason12, Win10
Exactly.househoppin09 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2018I believe the idea that Loque and selig are suggesting is, when you've got (for example) a reverb on a send slot, you can just swap the left and right output cables, so that they criss-cross. Then you'll get all of the left-channel material from the output of that reverb into the right channel of your mixdown, and vice versa. As my question above indicates, this will affect all instruments that use that particular send FX, which I could see being a problem sometimes.
According the problem, you are right in the case, you do not want that fx for all channels.
Reason12, Win10
There are many things you can do with sends, one is to use a second send that is not reversed and merge it with the first.househoppin09 wrote:But if we're talking about mixer sends, won't this reverse the output panning for all tracks that are using that send? If you're still going to want some instruments to be able to use that particular reverb (or whatever) "normally", what do you do? Just use two of them on different send slots, one with the channels oriented normally and one where they're flipped?
Also remember that center panned mono sources will not have the panning effect applied. In this way you can use the same effect/send and simultaneously get mono(center)FX, dry left/wet right, AND dry right/wet left, all with varying degrees of panning if you like.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
Actually, with a small or medium room reverb that is true stereo, it can be fantastic effect on many/all sources that need reverb, especially if you use a longer reverb for the more traditional ambience effect (without the panning effect).Loque wrote:Exactly.househoppin09 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2018I believe the idea that Loque and selig are suggesting is, when you've got (for example) a reverb on a send slot, you can just swap the left and right output cables, so that they criss-cross. Then you'll get all of the left-channel material from the output of that reverb into the right channel of your mixdown, and vice versa. As my question above indicates, this will affect all instruments that use that particular send FX, which I could see being a problem sometimes.
According the problem, you are right in the case, you do not want that fx for all channels.
But yes, it certainly won’t work in all cases/mixes...
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Posts: 536
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016
Sorry, I must be dense--what kind of setup do you have in mind for the "second send" here? Two reverbs on the same send FX slot, one with the stereo swap and one without, with their outputs merged and fed into a single return? Or, two reverbs on two different send FX slots, one with the stereo swap and one without, with their outputs merged and fed to...where? I'm having trouble seeing how either of those could be at all useful, much less produce the flexible menu of options you describe, but I've probably misunderstood the proposed routing.selig wrote: ↑01 Aug 2018There are many things you can do with sends, one is to use a second send that is not reversed and merge it with the first.
Also remember that center panned mono sources will not have the panning effect applied. In this way you can use the same effect/send and simultaneously get mono(center)FX, dry left/wet right, AND dry right/wet left, all with varying degrees of panning if you like.
-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 16 Apr 2018
You can also send your channels to a 14:2 and use two sends there, bring them in to mix channels and pan them.
DAW: Reason 12
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 16 Apr 2018
You’ve got endless sends if you use the 14:2 creatively.
DAW: Reason 12
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 05 Jun 2016
Independent control of level and panning; you can pre- or post-EQ the FX using the SSL separate from the dry channel; you can send the dry channel to a Send but not the wet channel, or vice versa.
Cons - it's another mix channel to look at/deal with; To control the level of both at the same time (or Mute/solo), you'll need to either bus them (ANOTHER channel), or use some kind of gain device early in the chain (which you'll have to visit the rack to operate - it won't be accessible from the SSL).
Cons - it's another mix channel to look at/deal with; To control the level of both at the same time (or Mute/solo), you'll need to either bus them (ANOTHER channel), or use some kind of gain device early in the chain (which you'll have to visit the rack to operate - it won't be accessible from the SSL).
I was thinking two sends, merged into one Reverb (since it’s more CPU friendly than two reverbs). One send reversed L/R, obviously.househoppin09 wrote:Sorry, I must be dense--what kind of setup do you have in mind for the "second send" here? Two reverbs on the same send FX slot, one with the stereo swap and one without, with their outputs merged and fed into a single return? Or, two reverbs on two different send FX slots, one with the stereo swap and one without, with their outputs merged and fed to...where? I'm having trouble seeing how either of those could be at all useful, much less produce the flexible menu of options you describe, but I've probably misunderstood the proposed routing.selig wrote: ↑01 Aug 2018There are many things you can do with sends, one is to use a second send that is not reversed and merge it with the first.
Also remember that center panned mono sources will not have the panning effect applied. In this way you can use the same effect/send and simultaneously get mono(center)FX, dry left/wet right, AND dry right/wet left, all with varying degrees of panning if you like.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 05 Jun 2016
A screenshot would be helpful if you have a moment!selig wrote: ↑02 Aug 2018I was thinking two sends, merged into one Reverb (since it’s more CPU friendly than two reverbs). One send reversed L/R, obviously.househoppin09 wrote:
Sorry, I must be dense--what kind of setup do you have in mind for the "second send" here? Two reverbs on the same send FX slot, one with the stereo swap and one without, with their outputs merged and fed into a single return? Or, two reverbs on two different send FX slots, one with the stereo swap and one without, with their outputs merged and fed to...where? I'm having trouble seeing how either of those could be at all useful, much less produce the flexible menu of options you describe, but I've probably misunderstood the proposed routing.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Another con is you cannot easily share this FX with other channels, IF that’s important.EdGrip wrote:Independent control of level and panning; you can pre- or post-EQ the FX using the SSL separate from the dry channel; you can send the dry channel to a Send but not the wet channel, or vice versa.
Cons - it's another mix channel to look at/deal with; To control the level of both at the same time (or Mute/solo), you'll need to either bus them (ANOTHER channel), or use some kind of gain device early in the chain (which you'll have to visit the rack to operate - it won't be accessible from the SSL).
I’d say the choice will be based on the context. Multiple channels sharing the same “reverse pan” FX would require a second “multed” send. A single channel using this FX would be simplest building as an insert with a line mixer. I don’t think you’d need a parallel channel unless you needed to EQ/compress the FX in an advanced way.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 05 Jun 2016
Hmm. So how would I set this up using an inserted line mixer?selig wrote: ↑02 Aug 2018Another con is you cannot easily share this FX with other channels, IF that’s important.EdGrip wrote:Independent control of level and panning; you can pre- or post-EQ the FX using the SSL separate from the dry channel; you can send the dry channel to a Send but not the wet channel, or vice versa.
Cons - it's another mix channel to look at/deal with; To control the level of both at the same time (or Mute/solo), you'll need to either bus them (ANOTHER channel), or use some kind of gain device early in the chain (which you'll have to visit the rack to operate - it won't be accessible from the SSL).
I’d say the choice will be based on the context. Multiple channels sharing the same “reverse pan” FX would require a second “multed” send. A single channel using this FX would be simplest building as an insert with a line mixer. I don’t think you’d need a parallel channel unless you needed to EQ/compress the FX in an advanced way.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
If I'm understanding right, you'd go from the parallel out jacks on each channel you want to add the effect to, into a line mixer or a spider device to blend them, and then take the output from this mixing device to the input of your FX channel. That way, more than one channel can share the same FX channel.
I would instead use the sends on the line mixer, otherwise you cannot adjust independent send levels for each channel!EdGrip wrote:If I'm understanding right, you'd go from the parallel out jacks on each channel you want to add the effect to, into a line mixer or a spider device to blend them, and then take the output from this mixing device to the input of your FX channel. That way, more than one channel can share the same FX channel.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
The line mixer suggestion was for a single channel, so simply insert a line mixer, use the send (reversed) for the effect, and done.SimonPieman wrote:Hmm. So how would I set this up using an inserted line mixer?selig wrote: ↑02 Aug 2018Another con is you cannot easily share this FX with other channels, IF that’s important.
I’d say the choice will be based on the context. Multiple channels sharing the same “reverse pan” FX would require a second “multed” send. A single channel using this FX would be simplest building as an insert with a line mixer. I don’t think you’d need a parallel channel unless you needed to EQ/compress the FX in an advanced way.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: _andreypetr_, Ahrefs [Bot], False Mirror and 12 guests