pete moss wrote:

> hello all,
> here is a question about making a stereo signal in an orc.
> most of you seem to like doing something like this:
>
> outs  asig*ix, asig*(1-ix)    ; if ix = 1 then left channel only, if ix
> = 0 then right
>
> on p318 of dodge v2, he recommends doing a similar operation
>
> outs asig*sqrt(ix), asig*sqrt(1-ix)
>
> is one better than the other?  if ix = .5, then the signal will be
> between channels.  in the first case, the signal will be at half
> intensity, in the second, the signal will be multiplied by .707, which
> is greater than .5.  who has the better method, dodge or the rest of
> you?  i have been using the former method myself, but maybe dodge is
> better?

Definitely use the dodge example otherwise you'll get what's known as "The
hole in the middle"  effect when you pan your sound across the stereo
field.  You don't want your sound to seem like it's far away as you
approach the center (unless for some reason you want that).   I think that
many hardware mixers do this sqrt type of panning automatically...

If speed is an issue, you might pre-calculate a function table curve to
index the same panning effect.   Read about this in Richard Moore's book
(Elements of Computer Music).

john

On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, John Boyd wrote:

> 
> Definitely use the dodge example otherwise you'll get what's known as "The
> hole in the middle"  effect when you pan your sound across the stereo
> field.  You don't want your sound to seem like it's far away as you
> approach the center (unless for some reason you want that).   I think that
> many hardware mixers do this sqrt type of panning automatically...
> 

Yep... this is known as 'constant power' panning to hardware types.
                                                            
 ----------------------
 Mark T Vigorito
 mtv@U.Arizona.EDU
 http://u.arizona.edu/~mtv

At 04:22 PM 11/4/97 -0800, you wrote:
>pete moss wrote:
>
>> hello all,
>> here is a question about making a stereo signal in an orc.
>> most of you seem to like doing something like this:
>>
>> outs  asig*ix, asig*(1-ix)    ; if ix = 1 then left channel only, if ix
>> = 0 then right
>>
>> on p318 of dodge v2, he recommends doing a similar operation
>>
>> outs asig*sqrt(ix), asig*sqrt(1-ix)
>>
>> is one better than the other?  if ix = .5, then the signal will be
>> between channels.  in the first case, the signal will be at half
>> intensity, in the second, the signal will be multiplied by .707, which
>> is greater than .5.  who has the better method, dodge or the rest of
>> you?  i have been using the former method myself, but maybe dodge is
>> better?

Don't forget the quarter-sine-wave panning technique- this is what's used
under the hood of many keyboards for pan scaling.  

Generate the sine table in your score file:    
f1 0 1025 9 .25 1 0  ;The first quadrant of a sine for panning

In the orc file you would add:
kpanl    tablei kbalance, 1, 1
kpanr    tablei 1.0 - kbalance, 1, 1
outs     asrc * kenv * kpanl ,asrc * kenv * kpanr

The basics of this technique were received from this list about six months
ago and it's served me well.

Steve C


--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Curtin  
http://www.emf.org/people_curtin.html
Lucent Technologies - Bell Labs Innovations
rm. 3C-208, 200 Laurel Ave S
Middletown, NJ 07748-4801  U S A
ph: (908)957-2996   fax: (908)957-6878
--------------------------------------------------------------