Originally Posted by Ostermilk
That's a good article.
I used to do the L/C/R thing more often than I do now.
The main reason I'm not too bothered about it these days is because a lot more people commonly listen on buds or cans so that's more of a consideration than it used to be. I'm not too fussy about micro panning though I tend to use amounts like 25,50, 75, 100% just to get in the ball park and try for depth with some judicious EQing. I don't particularly like hard-panned doubled guitars as is the norm I like to have them cross-talk a bit so I normally go 75% there anyway, I find it preferable in getting a fuller rythm tone that sounds more cohesive as a whole yet still gives width and doesn't crowd the centre.
I try and get that much balanced up by listening both in cans and nearfields and have a few walks round the room whilst mixing and tend to use short verbs and delays with as little tail as possible to fake an impression of space before I'll add any hall or plate type tails if wanted.
Lastly at the finishing off stage I may use an imaging tool on the overall mix and/or a bit of mid-sidery to round off.
I'm not recommending that for anyone else but it's just the way of working I've personally arrived at, FWIW.
I'm pretty much using the same few pan positions, having never heard any difference in 'micro-panning' like the article suggests.
But double tracked instrument always get hard panned - most folks are looking for MORE width with the stereo spectrum, not less and doubled instruments sound great in phones to me as they are perfect balanced and are a great way to achieve this effect with no 'negatives' IMO.
OTOH, for my tastes I pan drum overheads/toms/hat/ride OTOH no further than 50% to either side most of the time.