DCC Archive Steve's philosophy on 5.1 mixes?

I assume you'd go light on putting instruments and voices behind my head (hopefully) so what kind of sound would you go for on a 5.1 mix? Would you leave 4 track recordings alone? Any digital quad reverbing in your future? Just curious, thanks.

 

Those are my feelings exactly, Steve! It's the "coolness" factor that would wear thin on me.

I played in a band and know what it feels like and sounds like. But if I am the audience, I don't want to be on stage, I want to be in front, facing it.

 

I think one of the great discussions that audiophiles could have right now is the 'difference between outside looking in, or inside looking around' arguement. It seems from what I read that there are stereophiles who, for one reason or another, don't like surround. I've been a 'quadrophile' from the 70's, so, from 1973 onward, I was totally into surround music. The lack of my most desired titles was very frustrating, but having to also deal with mono recordings that had no stereo counterpart (late 60's dilemma) made for acceptance of the fact, that, as Mick once said, 'You can't always get what you want'. For certain music, like Pink Floyd, I love the 3 dimentional aspects of surround that I find lacking in simple 2 channel format. For certain live stuff, having the audience in the rears and the band primarily in the front proves to be a great vantage point that the majority of fans would have...so, different recordings would require different 'sound placement' procedures.
discuss

 

Sorry lennonfan! I'm one of those audiophiles that don't really care that much for surround sound and LIKE mono mixes, even when stereo counterparts exist because the stereo mixes don't always match the feel and sound of the HIT version. It will be the same for surround/5.1. A lot of gimmicky things are gonna happen and dominate, while the original tapes will be obscured and perhaps, forgotten entierly.

BUT, I understand that the Ohio Player's "Honey" album from 1975 was originally mixed to quad. Just listening to the regular stereo mix you can tell there is a lot going on in the mix and that they had to compromise so much. Just listen to the song "Fopp"! MoFi did master the album in surround a few years ago but never released it. Maybe, if Steve gets a chance to master it, DCC could release it so we can hear how it really is supposed to sound.

Sly Stone mixed "Hot Fun In The Summertine" to mono and surround, but never got around to stereo. Legacy did that in the early 90s.

See, I can deal with surround, only if I know that engineers aren't going to do some crazy sh** with the sound. If the stuff was INTENDED for surround, I have no problem with it. I would have a problem with "Hotel California", though.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

 

The musician in me ENJOYS the "you are in the middle of the action" sound. That's the way my band always souded best - at the informal "practice" sessions as opposed to recording or performing.

That said - I've always felt the 3/4 surround soundfield works best for live recordings. That's the way it sounds from the audience.

Taking both of these diametrically opposing viewpoints and trying to come to a compromise isn't easy, but here goes:

If the original STEREO image was "active" (e.g. - not representative of a live sound), an active surround mix is fine. That is why ELP's "Brain Salad Surgery" works. Same could be said for Pink Floyd or even Jimi Hendrix studio recordings (lets face it - even in stereo - do you actually imagine Jimi's guitar amp being flung from side to side of the stage during Voodoo Child - Slight Return?) I know these mixes bother SOME people - yet they never comment on how natural the sound of John and George's amps being stacked on top of Ringo's drums in the left corner of the room sound, while Paul's bass amp is in the right corner. They must have had some loooong guitar chords, because Paul is actually singing from center stage - and J and G are singing far right next to Paul's bass amp (Paperback Writer - stereo). See what I mean? That is a stereo image as unatural and ****ed up as hearing Joe Walsh standing behind you to the left.

Now - if you put me in the middle of the Nelson Riddle orchestra while ol' blue eyes is telling me about thr Summer Winds - I too might be a little annoyed.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

 

Grant...I have the quad 8-tracks of both Fire and Honey by Ohio Players...in Quad they're just extrordinary. I understand there's also DTS surround cds of those 2 titles (which really are the best albums they made IMO). I think that as long as they present you with the option of orig. mono, stereo or Quad mix, it doesn't matter if there's a new upgraded mix using original elements. All through the 70's that happened, and it started with the stereo/mono options of the late 50's and 60's.

 

Steve,

Mixing in surround is a tough call.

Most engineers I work with STILL are not sure of the best way to do it!

We must realize that this could be Phil Spector's WORST nightmare:

FIVE speakers in someone's house, and we don't even know if they all match, are the same size, or if they are all set up at the correct volume, or where they are positioned, or what!

If the ENGINEERS are still scratching their heads, we know we are in murky waters!

Right?

 

There's nothing wrong with a surround mix for fun and enjoyment so long as we never let go of the original mix.

If we do, the "original mix" people will start to grow in numbers and become a clan of sorts just like the Q8 and "Quad" people are, right now. I don't really think this will happen.

Most any DVD or SACD has plenty of room for both; a wacked-out surround AND the original 2 or MONO mix.

"Tomorrow Never Knows" would have easilly been a Quad mix if John and Paul had the ability, oudasity and audience for it.

 

THAT'S one of the problems with DVD-A, hell, DVD-V and any surround, the average listener is not properly set up, nor do they care! Forget Phil Spector! It's Alan Parson's worst nightmare! At least Phil Spector was able to control ALL of the possible playback parameters with mono.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

 

Just to clarify my point - stating that surround mixes sound "unatural" is an invalid arguement unlees you feel the same about "unatural" stereo mixes. How many stereo mixes do we all listen to that have no credible semblance to a natural soundstage?? More than we imagine - I think.

Besides - there is a credible difference to being onstage and in the audience. To Keith Richards - Ronnie was on the right, Mick and Charlie were on the near right, and Bill was to his left.......

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

 

Imagine taking a master painting and carefully lifting off each stage of the artist's work and laying it on a blank canvass. You would end up with a collection of images each of which makes up part of the original. This would give an insight into the creation of the finished product but it would no longer be a work of art!

When Spector, Wilson etc created their mono mixes they were creating works of art. If you want a surround mix fine but let's hope the original masterpiece is not forgotten!

The same goes for stereo mixes where this was the artist's/producer's work (ie don't count the stereo Paperback Writer as anything other than an interesting aside). A surround mix of Hotel California is not a work of art - it's a peek at the multitrack masters.

If a recording is made with the intention of it being presented in surround then so be it - for the music that I'm interested in mono or stereo are where it's at .

Merry Christmas


--------------------------------------------
I'm with Phil on this one - Back to mono!

.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Malc S ]

 

While I agree with the point that most stereo mixes are unnatural, it still seems more gimmicky to have something pop up behind you. I haven't listened extensively to surround sound, but what I've heard tends to pull me out of the experience rather than into it. I think, "There's something behind me. Allright." On The Eagles' Hell Freezes Over, I see a keyboard being played in front of me, and hear it behind me. That's odd. So instead of enjoying NEW YORK MINUTE, I'm noticing how weird it is that the keyboard is behind me. Do you get used to this sort of thing, or is this just a particularly distracting example? Do you think (like I do) that the general public would be let down unless there's a bunch of crap going on in the surrounds a good portion of the time?
Discuss

 

Well I agree with you absolutely Pinknik. I've been to more live performances than I care to remember and other than audience noises, I never was conscious of *any* sound coming from behind me, not even so-called "ambient" sound.

I also think of it like this: recording engineers have been given so much rope that they have hung themselves in terms of recording and multitracking, and even in the mastering process with all these digital tools at their disposal. With 5.1 the chances of screwing up a mix are more than 2.5 times as great.

So I hope SACDs continue to have a dedicated stereo mix on each title. I'm fairly certain they will. Quad came and went and I'm hopeful that 5.1 is just "flavor of the month" and will come and go for music, too. It certainly adds a lot of expense to the production of discs, and once record labels realize they can turn a bigger profit with traditional stereo, it's just a matter of time before the gimmicks are gone.

 

Depends on the format. With SACD, you have a studio Stereo and Multichannel mix, so the Stereo mix will live on there !

 

I'd say it's far less dependent on the format than on the wishes of the recording artists and producers/engineers of the original recording! Remember that both high-resolution formats, DVD-A and SACD, make room for both 5.1-channel and original stereo mixes.
An example of this would be the upcoming Neil Young DVD-A reissue of "Harvest". Neil originally planned to have only a 192k/24-bit remaster of the original stereo mix but was persuaded by the album's co-producer that 5.1-surround, if handled properly, could be equally valid as a musical artistic statement. As a result, when this title finally comes out, it will have both!