Is this the worst 5.1 mix ever?

Useful post, there. Brings a lot to the conversation......

 

I actually have it. Played it once and never took it to the PC to "look" at it because it was apparent it was a horrible mix. Thanks for posting that because the picture speaks a thousand words. Worse than those old classical Q8's that had the fronts duplicated into the rears but delayed by a second.

 

Same. But now I’m afraid to play it again...it may blow up my speakers!

 

I don't like any of the Genesis multichannel mixes, but "visually" I would bet they look better than that travesty.

 

Unfortunately I couldn't post the music without getting into copyright trouble. But that picture says a lot to the trained eye.

Even there is some activity in the center (its actually VERY QUIET isolated voice and rhythm guitar), it won't have any impact in the overall mix because the Front L/R speakers are so overwhelming loud.


So... yes, sometimes a picture is enough to give you an good clue what the mix will sound like.

 

This is the ripped 5.1 audio track, so is this the final mix as it is on the DVD. Nothing changed.

 

No, the worst 5.1 mix ever killed my pappy. Killed him dead!

 

Now I remember why I only played this once. It’s a terrible record! Some bad lyrics, some boring music and a subpar production. Depressing all the way around.

 

No you can’t.

You can guess what the nature of the mix is, but not the quality of the mix is. Judging the quality of a mix solely on how much or little is in the rears is ridiculous.

 

If it's a 5.1 mix of a studio album, you most certainly can judge it. There's so little volume happening in the rear that there's almost no point in it being a surround mix at all. Especially, as mentioned, compared to how loud the front L/R channels are.

If it were a movie surround mix, sure, you wouldn't expect super-active rear signals. Likewise, a lot of live albums are mixed in surround with primarily the audience/room in the rears, and you wouldn't expect a lot then either. But if a studio recording isn't doing something interesting with the surround channels... why bother?

 

So now you’re qualifying it...

This philosophy that there has to be stuff in the rears has killed surround music. Good mixers and artists know some music demands it, some doesn’t. I have no idea which is which by solely looking at waveforms whether or not the amount of info in the rears is appropriate or not.

More to my original point, one has no idea when looking at waveforms whether the diminished dynamic range is a result of a mix choice, a mastering choice or both. It never really dawned on me someone would actually judge the quality of a mix by the amplitude of the rears.

I have this disc, but haven’t listened to it in some time. I seem to recall I was indifferent to it; I found it was neither notably good nor bad.

 

Not sure if I agree with these statements. If you don't effectively use the rear channels, one only has 3-d stereo, and that is not 5.1 nor is it surround.

 

How can you tell anything about a mix from a waveform? The mastering, maybe. I can definitely see it's compressed heavily. But the mix?

 

Well, when there’s pretty much nothing in 3 of the 5 non-sub channels then that’s a mix problem.

 

Of course this assumes the center channel is really even necessary or needed any more than to anchor the center - which would be a false assumption...

 

Define “effectively”.

 

I agree with David. If there's nothing in the rears, and nothing in the center, no matter how great the fronts sound, and they can be mastered to perfection, then it's a crappy 5.1 mix. Because why? Well, what's the point of having the other channels?

It can be the ultimate 2.o mix, but if it comes with empty channels in the rears and center, it's a BAD 5.1 MIX.

 

In such a manner as to achieve a desired result......

 

So if the desired result is to make minimal use of the rears because it isn’t artistically needed or appropriate...then that would be effectively using the rear channels, no? Or are you defining effective as acheiving “your” desired result?

With a properly set-up 5.1 system, even modest use of the rears can dramatically and realistically widen the soundstage and improve perception of the music being played in real time in a real place.

Not everything benefits from putting a bunch of stuff in the rears just because you can. Many things in fact.

 

I'm gonna assume you loved the Sgt Pepper 5.1 and the Beatles 1 5.1.

 

Just don't use the rears at all then, if thats the desired effect.

 

I read that a few tracks from pepper 5.1 are wonderful and beautifully done. It's just not every song, no?

 

Not particularly. Pepper was mostly a wasted opportunity IMO but I wouldn't call it 3D stereo. It just wasn’t very good. I thought Love was much better as a 5.1 mix (although I don’t care much for the mashup concept as a music only experience).

I’m not opposed to heavy use of the rears when the music calls for it. But just to stick some percussion or background vocals there when it doesn’t need it is as pointless as not using them when it enhances the material.

 

How comes that every thread in this forum sooner or later ends up discussing The Beatles, no matter what the topic of the thread is...

 

Also there is always one guy who thinks his opinion is more valid than anyone else's although nobody agrees with him. Pretty damn funny!