Producer Nigel Godrich dismisses “all this Dolby Atmos rubbish” as he says that “stereo is optimum”

Well, I had thought differently about making cakes until there were cake mixes. There is certainly art and craft to photography perfected in different results - but, when the results are limited by possibilities that did not exist prior, you can't say your method is "optimized" by a result that hasn't even been created. Thus, you can't say your method is optimized for only your current result.

My point more to the subject at hand for an example: who's to say, Ken Caillat wouldn't have made Rumors in 5.1 if that had been an option at that time. Obviously he had the option to mix it to quad then, but that wasn't really the same format, nor was it in as widespread use as 5.1 was for DVD players in the home in the 21st Century.

 

Who's to say he would? 5:1 was never more than a niche thing even in the peak DVD era. Relatively few albums were released in 5:1 even then, especially new ones.

 

And that's my point. That's my point about all albums that were designed for stereo. They were designed for the prevailing format, but that doesn't mean there weren't other wishes the producer could have had in his heart.

 

I knew what you meant, and didn't take it personally . There's definitely "gimmicky" 5.1 mixes - some fun, some just silly. The same can be said of some overly aggressive stereo mixes. I was an early adopter of a "home cinema" system, and SACD, so audio surround mixes started as a novelty, but ended up my preferred way to listen to many favourites. 2 prime oft-mentioned examples, Roxy's "Avalon" and Ferry's "Boys and Girls" are truly wondrous IMO. But of course to each his own.

 

Nah..Your posting was fine and is a very common, if somewhat justified, reaction to this format. And never stop posting a bit drunk!

 

None of the 5.1 mixes that I love even have "special effects".

Stereo was initially presented as elements moving wildly across the soundstage. When that initial consumer push calmed down, the format was then treated far more artfully and developed into the standard that we now all love.
I'd argue that 5.1 is in the same stage now, it just that most people will never hear it because it's a bit of a pain in the ass to navigate.

 

Ehhhhhh... not sure about this comparison. To me, surround sound is more like 2D vs. 3D photography. With black and white vs. colour imagery, you always have the option to put content in b+w alongside colour imagery; there's no downside to mixing the formats. (See the 1968 movie "If..." for a good example of this.). You can also heavily desaturate the colour palette, so that you effectively have a slightly enhanced monochrome image. Also, all modern displays have the ability to display monochrome or colour imagery; it costs the same to shoot and display in colour instead of black and white.

With surround sound, it's expected that you need to shove stuff in the rear channels. Yes, you could just have a multichannel mix that uses the front channels 90% of the time (just like you can have a 3D image that's two dimension most of the time), but the audience will feel cheated. There's added pressure to use every aspect of the 5.1 experience, whether it's truly needed or not.

Personally, I'd be okay with surround mixes that don't take full advantage of the entire audio field - a remix of Kind of Blue that uses the 3 track masters and translates them to a simple 3 channel surround mix would be very welcome - but that's not what most audiences are looking for. If they're shelling out the big bucks for a fancy and expensive system, they want to hear that full surround experience. Even with the recent Pink Floyd Animals remix (which is beautifully done), people were complaining about the center channel not being used 100% of the time.

Surround sound should be treated like stereo - the artist has the choice to use the extra channels or ignore them - but until the cost goes down and the accessibility goes up, it's going to inevitably end up effecting the artistic decisions made during the mixing process.

 

Flaming Lips consider their "Yoshimi" mix to be the definitive version of the LP. I think it's safe to say that very few of their fans have even heard it.

 

Absolutely agree with him. If you listen to the whole podcast he talks about how surround music just doesn’t swing as much as stereo (I forget exactly how he phrased it). Every time I listen to surround music, it’s like “geewhiz, the background vocals are behind me!” - I don’t want my music to sound like a superhero movie. Surround music done well would sound like a live performance, and that’s almost never how it’s done. It’s always mixed in a way that seems like the intent was to demo 5.1 systems in a Best Buy store. I got Apple Music because they offer lossless and a lot of the records are now mixed in Atmos, and I’ve been completely unimpressed. The Atmos mixes just thin everything out.

He also talks about how it’s just technology for technologies sake, like they’re trying to just sell you something that you don’t need. The podcast is very interesting and it’s clear that all he really cares about is serving the music, something that absolutely none of these technology companies give the slightest crap about (and I say that from deep experience).

 

ATMOS is still something most are trying to figure. I got neck deep in it last year with a couple of other producers, and we mixed an ATMOS track for a young band I work with. You can check it out on Apple Music, “Tie The Line” by Fortune Child. Turned out pretty good but the unfortunate thing is that the required hardware to enjoy ATMOS with is still cost prohibitive to the normal person. Binaural headphones is the closest most can get to spatial audio.

 

If an artist specifically envisions their song or album for 5.1 surround sound and tells its audience that, then that's really cool. But that's probably a very very tiny percentage of musicians who have done so, and if they do, they are inherently speaking only to a small percentage of their own audience. It's valid completely (and it would be interesting if a popular artist released a single ONLY in 5.1 to experience that way), but it's just definitely for a smaller segment of the population compared to what a stereo release would be which is "mainstream."

Someone upthread mentioned Flaming Lips and their album Yoshimi. I enjoyed this album a lot when it came out, listening to it on CD and of course the singles that were all over college radio. I've never heard the album in 5.1 surround. Am I missing the artist's original intent with this music? I don't know, perhaps I am. But I enjoy the songs in stereo regardless.

 

Respectfully, this is simply not true. Many amazing 5.1 mixes use the rears primarily for ambience.

There is a very good reason that audio 5.1 enthusiasts spend most of their money on the front center speaker.

Based on my experience, people into 5.1 are a very niche group of music lovers who no longer define the experience by how the alarm clocks of Floyds "Time" surround their heads?

 

LOL. My post count would drop precipitously. I regret a few on occasion, but not often. And those wouldn't qualify for "a bit".

Yup. 'Whole Lotta Love" comes to mind regarding stereo. May as well have those zooming around the room as left/right LOL. There are some great subtle mixes, and some IMO opinion great mixes that use it aggressively and well. I would argue it's fairly mature already, but remains kind of a "niche" thing.
And yeah, if you don't already have the equipment for movies, TV, or the space etc. it certainly might not be worth your while. Blanket dissing of it I treat the same as any other statements like that - 5.1 sucks? No, Rap/Hip Hop suck!!

 

I'm on #teamnigel.

 

Yup! The 5.1 mix for Becks "Sea Change" is an absolute masterstroke of the medium, and is my demo disk when I want to floor someone who thinks 5.1. is a gimmick.

Elton John's "Captain Fantastic.." power, energy and TONE come to life in a magic way with 5.1.

NIN's 5.1 mix of "The Downward Spiral" is a miracle of sound design.

I do wish more people could hear these things!

 

You are being far to logical and rational. How can I fly off the handle, chase windmills, yell at people to get off my lawn, and act like an emotional baby man when make intelligent posts like this?

 

You are, yes.

 

It's important to remember that the Flaming Lips are the same group that put an album out intended to be listened to on four playback systems, at the same time, using four different CDs.

 

2 way stereo is King. End of.

 

Agree with Nigel on this. I have listened to a few surround mixes and they are good fun and all but ultimately just a gimmick. Bit like watching movies in 3-D.

 

Your Chemist title is rescinded.

 

Why? That's very reductionist. But sometimes it's done like that and it feels like you are in the middle of the band. Have you listened to the 5.1 raw mixes of Imagine?

A few are like that, not "always".

Some people said the same in the 60s:
"When they invented stereo I remember thinking 'why? What do you want two speakers for? Because it ruined the sound from our point of view."
George Harrison.

 

Gawd, yes. And yet many choose the "stereo" option on DVDs and blu-rays. Understandable with no 5.1 system of course.
It's to ENJOY. No right or wrong. Bowie's "Live" and "Stage" are very enjoyable too.