There are two obvious solutions:

• Lower the L/R channels when the signal is correlated (mono) and positioned in the center.
• Increase the L/R channels when the signal is correlated (mono), but positioned hard to one side.

We already have to decide how much to compensate, and now we also have to consider how to execute the compensation (OFF WITH ITS HEAD!).

Unfortunately for us, the world isn’t Center, Left or Right (despite what some idiotic ideas might try to imply). We can have 25% right, 37% right, 87.11111111111111111111111 right, or 63 right.

How do we scale between “Center” and right or left? That’s up to choice. It can be scaled linearly, log, S-shaped or whatever you want.

There’s yet another level of complexity with your (Mr/s. DAW Designer) decision. Your choice of pan law style (decreasing, or increase) need not be a singular choice. You could decrease the center a bit, but also increase the sides as the signal begins to lean that way.

Yet another concern is that if you don’t have a reduction ‘at center’, then boosted pan laws can make the signal exceed 0dBFS by using the pan control. Clipping because you panned? Surely nobody would do this…

Yikes. Lots of decisions to make, and some of them yield a similar sound, but at different output levels at different positions.

There’s more!

Controls matter. No matter how hard we try as musicians, producers and engineers, we mix with our eyes to some extent. You decide that you would like to pan a source “a little bit to the right” so you move the control to 2 o-clock.

Unfortunately, that means something different in every DAW. When you get to the results below, look at the 48,000 samples location and note what the level is relative to the starting level. “50%” is a different value in nearly every product!

We use interfaces, and even if absolute values may produce identical results, varying interactions will yield varied results. The interface matters!

We’re the end user now. Time to figure out what these products are doing, and to do that we test.

• Test - The input signal is a 1khz -3dbFS Sine. I set the DAW’s tempo to 120bpm and automate the main pan from center to full right using linear automation over 1 bar. I then graph what happens to the left channel and right channel.

Let me explain how to read these tests.

• Start - The starting point tells you what the output reduction would be for a mono signal panned center. In the signal above there’s a 6dB compensation since we start at -9dB
• Channels - The right channel is orange and the left channel is blue.
  • Increases in the right channel show that there’s a boost that occurs in a channel as it’s “panned to”.
• Time - The signal should ideally fade to -Infinity at exactly 96,000 samples. If it does not, then that indicates inaccuracy of the DAW’s automation system.

IMPORTANT - I’m not absolutely certain I did these tests correctly. Almost no DAWs seem to do what they imply that they should do. I am not certain that my tests are correct, or if the DAWs are simply bugged/poorly documented.

Due to Ardour’s open-sourceness, I am fairly certain that my tests are correct. My tests correlate directly with the code that’s publicly available.

Technical Details

Here’s how the code works to generate these charts:

• Test DAW with 1khz sine wave, starting at -Inf. Sample rate of 48,000hz.
• Read a directory of files named DAWRight, DAWLeft.
• Convert int values to float (for personal analytics)
• Convert int values to dBFS (for graphing)
• Starting at the 14th sample, take every 48 samples.
• Interpolate values.
• Graph time/value for the interpolated values.

Clean, fast, simple, easy.

NOTE Some DAWs (bad!) filter DC, otherwise using a DC signal would be a good solution.

All of these tests are using the DEFAULT settings.

Some DAWs have a variety of pan law settings, and I’d go nuts trying to show all the variations available.

If you wish to inspect the results yourself, then download the data, open one of the json files in the zip and paste its contents in the live Vega Editor. That will allow you to inspect absolute values and massage the data a bit if you wish.

Ardour 5.12

-3dB Pan law. Opposing side is compensated. Code is available here.

Automation smoothing at play here. Fade does not end at 96,000 samples.

EDIT: I previous made an error. There’s a bug in Ardour 5.12 where automation plays buffered in touch mode. All other DAWs were tested in play/read mode. I have updated the image above with files ArdourLeft2 and ArdourRight2.

data.zip has been updated as well.

Bitwig 3.03

(see conclusion for more about this section)

Bitwig is… broken. Arguably conceptually broken, at least.

The opposing side is over compensated. In the graph you can see that it clips early. Try it with a -3dB mono sine wave yourself, if you hard pan to a side then the opposing side begins to clip quickly.

Bitwig compensates the sides by 4.2dB. Your signal can be boosted by 4.2dB by panning.

The automation is incorrect. I placed the point at exactly 96,000 samples (bar 2 at 120bpm at 48khz), however the fade did not complete till after.

This is the worst of the behaviours I saw.

Cubase 10.5 build 668

Pan Law options available.

• 0dB
• -3dB
• -4.5dB
• -6dB
• Equal Power DEFAULT

-3dB center. Opposing side rises to 0dB total change.

Digital Performer 10.0 build 79351

-2.5dB center. Opposing side rises to 0dB total change.

FL Studio 20.5.1.522

Reaper Themes Logic Pro X Crack

(see conclusion for more about this section)

0dB center, but opposing side rises +3dB.

This means that panning can cause digital clipping.

Live 10.1.5

(see conclusion for more about this section)

0dB center, but opposing side rises +3dB.

This means that panning can cause digital clipping.

Logic 10.4.7

Pan Law options available.

• 0dB
• -3dB
• -3dB Compensated DEFAULT

0dB center, but opposing side rises +3dB.

This means that panning can cause digital clipping.

Logic’s Automation also rears its ugly head again with poor interpolation and late modulation. I had all “Sample Accurate” settings turned on for this test.

Pro Tools 2019.10.0

Pan Law options available.

• -2.5dB
• -3.0dB DEFAULT
• -4.5dB
• -6.0dB

-3dB center. Opposing side rises to 0dB total change.

That sharp drop appears to be an artifact of Pro Tool’s automation. The scale of the area where you draw the automation is not linear, so a ‘straight line’ ends up with this curve.

Reaper 6.01

Pan Law options available.

• Variable - You can enter your own center value
  • Optional “Gain Compensation (boost pans)
• 0.0dB, no gain compensation DEFAULT

Reaper’s default curve is unique. 0db change at center, but it rises about +2dB partially through the sweep then back down to 0dB change at the end.

Quite oddly this means that you could (assuming a >2dbFS peaking signal) potentially cause digital clipping at ~50% pan, but not at 100% pan.

Studio One 4.5.5 build 54904

0dB change at center. No compensation on opposing channel. This is “console-like”, but it’s generally considered to be the least consistent sounding of common methods.

Studio One’s terrible automation system demonstrates itself yet again with late modulation and poor interpolation.

The data I have is there. Don’t trust it. Try it yourself!

When designing these systems there is sometimes a decision between the idealistic solution that assumes an omniscient user, and a practical solution that assumes humanity.

Ideally the default state of the system, “mono” signals panned to the center, would be untouched. This state would mean that pan law would need to boost as the sides are approached. I call this ‘ideal’ because untouched signals are untouched, and the signal is only changed when the user inputs a change (panning).

Unfortunately, we users are often in a rush, unaware or just plain stupid. If the peak of the signal is within the boost margin, we can cause clipping by panning. Practically, not boosting allows the user to operate the pan control without suffering potential negative consequences.

I believe that the design decision should favour common use in scenarios where the idealistic solution is only slightly better. I consider boosted pans to be a poor design.

It’s your choice though. As long as you are informed, you can make good decisions.

This post took 28 hours to research, write and edit.

Many students know how difficult it is to find time to write an essay or any other paper. Sometimes it isn't possible. The fact is that students are too loaded with additional educational information. If you work in the evenings, then this is almost impossible. Stop wasting time trying to find an answer to the request “help with an essay”. Speedypaper.com will help you find an optimum solution! It is a writing service that offers expert assistance.

You can order any paper regardless of the academic level. It is a great opportunity for every student to solve all their everyday problems. The service's main advantages are that the experts are ready to make your paper as quickly as possible. Just a few hours, and you can get the highest grade.

Another plus is the uniqueness and careful approach to writing any paper. You can count on everything to be perfect. That is why thousands of students have been using this site for many years. It is worth noting that the services of this service are absolutely anonymous. Nobody will know who wrote the paper for you. This is a very important aspect as many students are afraid to submit an essay or term paper they can get online.

There is nothing difficult to place a quick order and get the paper within a few hours. Trust the experts who know what they are doing. All you need is to contact the online chat and solve all the problems in a few clicks. Clarify the details of the order and pay for it. After that, the experts will do everything for you. As you can see, this is absolutely not difficult. Nothing is stopping you from getting the top grade if you use this writing service. Take a step towards your moral peace and get more free time for your activities.