A point about multichannel audio I would like to make…

[jimfisheye]

Love your perspective Stephen!

I'll try to offer a take on some of the apparent want for isolated instruments and such. Some of the early quad mixes did this and some were really simple with it. In an era where masters often got compressed to dullness and/or low end shy, the quad mix had more impact. You could hear things that were buried in the stereo mix. Like the bass guitar sometimes! And even if the stereo mix had the extra time to finesse and the quad mix was the first mixdown, just being double the speakers and just being surround to begin with made an impact.

I wonder if the requests for isolated instruments come from listening to some of those mixes and being impressed with them. Maybe it's not a fully intentional wish to hear that over a more accomplished mix but more "Impress me like some of those old quad mixes did!"

 

[kfbkfb]

Re: Compressors - with Atmos mixes (for example), are the individual channels linked in some way (in the compressor) so that the sound images don't move around due to the action of the compressor?


Kirk Bayne

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Re: Compressors - with Atmos mixes (for example), are the individual channels linked in some way (in the compressor) so that the sound images don't move around due to the action of the compressor?


Kirk Bayne

They can be - or not - all down to an individual choice as ever.....

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Then you do it!!

I'd be more than happy to

 

[jimfisheye]

Re: Compressors - with Atmos mixes (for example), are the individual channels linked in some way (in the compressor) so that the sound images don't move around due to the action of the compressor?


Kirk Bayne

That's up to the mixer. Fully yes or no or somewhere in between and always case by case. Some engineers like to mix into a compressor. Some despise it.

 

[4-earredwonder]

So from what I understand - you just want to hear the original components, rather than a mix, a blend, a vision of the music and sound?

I actually find disassembling some audio tracks takes away from the original intention. But I am sure it really depends on the unique recordings and what the arrangers, musicians and production team intended.

Sometimes there is magic that is best left untouched!!

But then what do I know!! SWTx

You certainly know a LOT, Stephen, if, as in your initial post on this thread, you compare the mixing of music multitracks to mixing for film soundtracks, an entire art form unto itself!

Early 70's QUAD mixes which were somewhat radical in isolating instruments in the rear channels [like Drum kits] to 'embellish' the new format were, IMO, absurd! It may have seemed 'cool' at the time but it also drew one's attention away from the cohesiveness of what a band should sound like playing as a whole! Placing background singers in the rears surely made more sense but quite often that wasn't the case. In a motion picture, the audio should match the video and over the years, most especially with the introduction of ATMOS, a more seamlessly sophisticated approach is clearly evident.

I was quite literally blown away by your approach in remixing Camel's back catalogue [5 titles] into 5.1! I had previously owned some of these titles on Universal's SHM~SACD Stereo format and quite frankly, the uncanny clarity and vision of your remixes was, IMO, on every level SPOT ON!

Provided one's system is up to snuff with matching speakers front and rear ... and not a mosh up of disparate drivers ..... your understanding of how a remix should sound is right up there with the best of them ...... and at this juncture, there are really only a handful of remix engineers who truly GET IT!

 

[rugene]

"No Rules" is a rule that applies to everything, including my happiness. Just follow your instinct...

 

[ar surround]

Early 70's QUAD mixes which were somewhat radical in isolating instruments in the rear channels [like Drum kits] to 'embellish' the new format were, IMO, absurd! It may have seemed 'cool' at the time but it also drew one's attention away from the cohesiveness of what a band should sound like playing as a whole!

Listening to Birds Of Fire as I write this. It has the drum kit in the rears...and IT KICKS ASS.

 

[CINERAMAX]

Color me a surrealist, I detest the allocentric soundfield aspect of live concert videos, I also detest paying for atmos and getting stereo ( whooppee someone figured out how to split mono in 2). I very very much prefer near constant sonic pirouttes created with artistry and good taste and my candid advice if you are just beginning to mix in Atmos, best stick that pedal to the metal, spare us the mono, stereo and concert sounding _______. Thanks in advance your loyal follower.

 

[The Hoople]

So from what I understand - you just want to hear the original components, rather than a mix, a blend, a vision of the music and sound?

I actually find disassembling some audio tracks takes away from the original intention. But I am sure it really depends on the unique recordings and what the arrangers, musicians and production team intended.

Sometimes there is magic that is best left untouched!!

But then what do I know!! SWTx

A week or so ago I was listening to Jakko's 5.1 rendering of Bruford's One Of A Kind and had this exact same thought. In certain sections, it seemed that what to me was a great melding of all the parts in your original mix had been somehow ruined by the mixing choices and turned into a sonic mess where things just didn't go together.

 

[stoopid]

Then you do it!!

I was an active home recording artist/engineer, I would have loved to plop down coin for the DAW, audio interface and speakers to do it. I have plenty of back catalog to mess with too. But alas, it never came to be and my days making music have sadly passed.

I've heard a few of your mixes which were all very good, and your descriptions of the process (in this thread and elsewhere) remind me of the foundational "mixing as an art, but with more channels". Your first post seemed super obvious to me, describing what is effectively the same approach for a stereo mix applied to the added space/channels. I would imagine just having good notes (and in 2024, thoroughly labeled automation) keeps the impending mess and madness in check.

 

[barfle]

Excuse me sir, but if you're not painting the picture as I see it in my head you are doing it all wrong.

Sincerely,

Never Satisfied, esq

We’ve commissioned a few pieces of artwork and one thing we always tried to do was to let the artist do his or her thing. We had a tile table designed, and I believe the artist was happy with the result, as were we.

 

[barfle]

For me, I really don't care if there are 4, 6, 8, or 12 channels. The reason I listen to multi-channel audio is so I can HEAR the individual instruments.
Having the sound-field mixed around me allows me to key in on whatever player or voice I want to concentrate on.
It's more about the unraveling of the stereo mix than the number of channels.

I certainly can’t pick one violin out of an orchesra, or in many cases, the firsts from the seconds. But I rarely have trouble picking out the oboe or the trombone, even in mono recordings.

 

[key_wiz]

For me, I really don't care if there are 4, 6, 8, or 12 channels. The reason I listen to multi-channel audio is so I can HEAR the individual instruments.
Having the sound-field mixed around me allows me to key in on whatever player or voice I want to concentrate on.
It's more about the unraveling of the stereo mix than the number of channels.

So from what I understand - you just want to hear the original components, rather than a mix, a blend, a vision of the music and sound?

I actually find disassembling some audio tracks takes away from the original intention. But I am sure it really depends on the unique recordings and what the arrangers, musicians and production team intended.

Sometimes there is magic that is best left untouched!!

But then what do I know!! SWTx

I think I kinda get what Jamoke is talking about here. As a musician who has spent a lot of time both on stage and in the studio, I often am listening to music differently than I think most other people probably do. And one of the things I like about surround is both the way it can make me feel like I'm on stage with the musicians or how it can give me a better sense of what it was like to be in the studio either playing or behind the console. And I like the degree of better separation it gives the instruments on more dense recordings.

Which isn't to say I want to have a separate channel for each instrument, but I get the 'unraveling of the stereo mix' thing.

Having said that, the best surround mixes are the ones that are so involving that I forget all of that and just LISTEN.

 

[stoopid]

... how it can give me a better sense of what it was like to be in the studio either playing or behind the console. And I like the degree of better separation it gives the instruments on more dense recordings...
Having said that, the best surround mixes are the ones that are so involving that I forget all of that and just LISTEN.

My favorite surround mixes are where the band/instrumentation is spread out across the room and they play. Probably why I'm stuck with being satisfied with 5.1, seems to be enough space to accomplish this. I've been diving back into SACDs the past couple years, and find many of those early 2000s surround mixes to be some of my favorites because that was kinda the template the engineers seemed to follow. I don't mind the more experimental side as well, but if given the choice or asked why I spend the time to listen to surround music it's really for that 'sitting in the middle of the room with them' experience.

 

[wavelength]

Yeah for classic re-mixes not staying absolutely true to the original will for sure upset some people.

And I just don't understand why that is. Why does it matter to them if they don't like the re-mix? I mean, they've always got their much beloved original there to listen to whenever they like.

 

[MidiMagic]

Not that you would do so, but I think there should be one rule: NO BRICKWALLING!!!

I make brickwalled CDs, but only so I can listen to classical pieces in a car.

 

[barfle]

I make brickwalled CDs, but only so I can listen to classical pieces in a car.

Before I retired, I had about a one-hour commute, and I spent the time listening to podcasts. In order to hear them well, I compressed the shit out of the original files, probably taking 20 db of range out of them. Spoken word, not music.

 

[doyscoy]

here's another one from the very first album I ever mixed!!

Well, my universe just got smaller. The song "Post Toastee" from this same LP significantly inspired my pathway to becoming a professional recording engineer. While learning the mechanics of sound engineering at "The Recording Workshop" in Chillicothe, Ohio (Summer of 1980), I tried my best to emulate the drums from "Post Toastee" while mixing my resumé reel from the sessions recorded there with the local bands. One of the bands' original songs had a drum break, with tom-toms featured, and I seized that opportunity to give them the thunderous, powerful, reverb-rich production elements I loved so much about "Post Toastee". When auditioning for the assistant engineering job at Alpha International in Philadelphia, later that year, my drum mix caught the ears of the studio owner, and impressed him enough to give me the position. So, THANK YOU, SWT, for inspiring me towards the career of a lifetime.

 

[Beistovin]

What I would LOVE to hear would be Rupert Hine “Wildest Wish to Fly” done in a similar way as the Howard Jones 5.1 releases! I wore that record out! Firefly in the Night! That would be insanely wonderful. Alas my vision is not another man’s! So many great releases this team has produced! Love the work with Rush, Bob Geldof, Chris deBurgh and probably more that I am not even aware of!