A point about multichannel audio I would like to make…

[Stephen W Tayler]

I do have a personal view on the whole concept of multichannel audio. Once again I do compare it all to film.

How wonderful to have all these channels and positions. But we don’t have to feel obliged to use all of them all of the time. For me it has to be about the focus, and the overall picture.

It can be all about trying to recreate a live experience, a feeling of being there in the venue - or it can all be about making a personal picture inside your head.

Therefore on a concept album I might choose to have some moments in mono, some in stereo or surround at ear level, and maybe put some transitions or effects in the overhead channels….

Or if it is all about an engaging atmospheric experience, it can all be about enveloping the listener without precise discrete positioning. (my solo projects might clarify what I am expressing here…)

There are no rules - and this is what makes it all so individual and exciting!!

This has always been my attitude to stereo and five point one. I have also worked with many experimental multichannel setups for experimental sound installations in exhibition spaces that have been amazing unique experiences.

So once again I make my point - there are no rules!!

All the best - SWTx

 

[JohnN]

Rebel with a cause. Right on!

 

[Petr Kropotkin]

So once again I make my point - there are no rules!!

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

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

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

ah - I shall respond about this at some point, but there can be a moment of brickwalling to make a dynamic point - there are a few special moments in some of the very first mixes/productions I was ever involved with - it was never about loudness, but about the SOUND!!! more soon........

 

[Petr Kropotkin]

...there can be a moment of brickwalling to make a dynamic point...

Ah, yes, I don't disagree about "a moment", I mean the attitude of the engineer/mixer that applies it to the whole (or most) of the song. That video I posted about the new Lennon release shows how much is lost from the 2002 mix; if you missed it it, here it is, teed up at the relevant point showing the waveforms and the music itself:

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

OK here you go - 'Feels Good To Me' by Bruford



Deliberately mixed through a heavy compressor called a Gainbrain - not for loudness, but for the radical dynamic pressure it creates.

There was a more recent remix (not by me!) that avoided that strategy, but in my opinion completely missed the point and sounded weak!!

There were several more of these moments used with mixes for Tommy Bolin and Brand X among others. It has to be all about the context.

SWTx

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

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

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

So once again I make my point - there are no rules!!

Bass in the rears.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

and here - where it deliberately kicks in at about 1:27 - Gainbrain!!

 

[par4ken]

Stephen, I like what you are saying.

I've often said that the first rule is "there are no rules"! That applies to the way mixes are done and to the way systems are set up at home. Experiment, try something different. While not all attempts will be successful at least we won't be bored with the same old, same old!

 

[mandrix]

I've been "upmixing" since about 2006/7. Opinions on that aside, for my personal use I place things where I want them. Since the advent of AI stem separation tools, it's become easier to split out instruments and vocals.
I do mixdowns in Plogue then finish with Audition. I don't have any other DAW's so I have to get creative. I find the cut and paste in Audition very handy for moving things around. Although Audition will only create up to 5.1, it will import files with more channels.
I've done a few Atmos encodes, thus far no more adventurous than 5.1.4.

Anyway the point is I agree with your philosophy.

 

[Fourplay]

Relevant to this discussion, I have recently been enjoying your style of mix (and music) on your De Capo release. Great job!

 

[barfle]

Music production is an art, and all art is not appealing to everyone. I think that’s OK.

Every work of art is an experiment. The composer won’t know going in if he or she will like what they make, and the few composers I know like some of their work more than other comopsitions. Same with instrument players, acoustic setup people, recording engineers and mixers.

Sure, you get better with experience, but if that’s all you rely on, you get in a rut and turn stale. Creativity requires you to try things you never did before, and it may not turn out well. Or it might be the next big thing.

So, Stephen, and all other creative types here, don’t be constrained. It may not always be easy to come up with something different, but let’s hear what you got! If a compression artifact is the sound you want, then bring it on. If a phase reversal sounds good, show me. We won’t have an art form without creativity.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Music production is an art, and all art is not appealing to everyone. I think that’s OK.

Every work of art is an experiment. The composer won’t know going in if he or she will like what they make, and the few composers I know like some of their work more than other comopsitions. Same with instrument players, acoustic setup people, recording engineers and mixers.

Sure, you get better with experience, but if that’s all you rely on, you get in a rut and turn stale. Creativity requires you to try things you never did before, and it may not turn out well. Or it might be the next big thing.

So, Stephen, and all other creative types here, don’t be constrained. It may not always be easy to come up with something different, but let’s hear what you got! If a compression artifact is the sound you want, then bring it on. If a phase reversal sounds good, show me. We won’t have an art form without creativity.

I have never been constrained - thank goodness!!!

 

[stoopid]

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

 

[mandrix]

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

I get it. But I think the post is more about his point of view than ours.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

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

Then you do it!!

 

[jamoke]

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.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

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

 

[mandrix]

Yeah for classic re-mixes not staying absolutely true to the original will for sure upset some people.
I'm not so much about that, as long as the end result is good.