Engineer Greg Ladanyi explains why Surround is better

[kstuart]

Hello,

I found this quote from studio engineer Greg Ladanyi on why multi-channel mixes sound better (this is just what I hear when listening to the Yes - Fragile DVD-Audio, for example.):

Quote: "I'm trying to bring the songs closer to the listener," said Ladanyi. I think you can get closer to the production values through a 5.1 mix. You can hear atmospheres in 5.1 that get lost in stereo. You really have to work to make 60 tracks of music fit into just two. You might have to take some bottom out of some instruments, add a lot of compression, and EQ to make sure everything is in balance. When you disperse the same music over 5.1 speakers, the music has more space to be alive in. It's a tremendous difference."

"Right, and I've noticed bass definition gets a big boost in 5.1."

Ladanyi is on a roll: "Remember, guitars and keyboards' bass harmonics can cover up bass instruments. By separating those instruments in the surround mix, bass clarity goes way up. Sometimes I'll move instruments around in the 5.1 mix just until the bass gets more defined."

"Speaking of definition, what are your thoughts on mixing for the center speaker?"

"Imagine mixing Crosby, Stills & Nash and giving each one his own speaker—left, center, and right—so you can almost see each vocal in each speaker. Their harmony parts are more-easily heard. In stereo, you get a wash of blends."


The whole article is interesting:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/showarchives.cgi?152Home Theater Magazine on DVD-Audio

 

[daved64]

Ian Anderson...are you listening???????

 

[DPROKOPY]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Their harmony parts are more-easily heard. In stereo, you get a wash of blends.[/quote]
I'm not so sure about this theory. Sure you don't really get much of a "wash" of anything if you spread three voices over three speakers. You get three very distinguishable voices. Sure it's easy to pick out the harmony parts, but that's not always for the best. Especially in the case of a group like CSN (or The Byrds, or The Beach Boys, or The Beatles), part of what makes their harmonies so great IS hearing them all blended together in one "space." I always find spreading out harmonies - whether it's in stereo, or especially in multichannel - to be kinda distracting, and almost TOO clear.

I remember one of the big complaints when "Pet Sounds" was remixed for stereo was that now you could actually hear how Brian Wilson combined certain instruments (bass and piano, for example) to create a whole new sound. Spreading them out into stereo kinda diminished that effect. I can only imagine what spreading them out into surround will eventually do (if/when we finally get that 5.1 "Pet Sounds"). That's one of the big reasons that people like Wilson and Phil Spector mixed in mono in the first place - they liked how things combined to form something that the ear couldn't distinguish into "oh, that's a guitar, that's a piano."

I really hope we never hear CSN mixed like that. I actually doubt it'll happen, as I believe they usually recorded all their vocals onto one track, maybe even using one mike to do so - precisely for the reason I described. They knew the appeal of the blend, versus hearing each individual voice and being able to pick the harmonies apart.

 

[daved64]

I agree with your comments about the vocals, it's the same thing with an orchestra....10 cellos playing at the same time have these lovely overtones that you would not get if you recorded 10 cellist's at separate times over 10 tracks......but sometimes separating some of the instrumentation really opens up a recording (ELP's Brain Salad Surgery is a good example). I also agree with your Wilson/Spector theory....that's what the "Wall of Sound" was all about.

 

[kstuart]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>That's one of the big reasons that people like Wilson and Phil Spector mixed in mono in the first place[/quote]

Actually, the reason that Brian Wilson mixed in mono, was that he was deaf in one ear!

Another interesting quote from the article:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>SG: Why do you think some folks are put off by surround?

Mickey Hart: Here's what I think is going on: When music comes from behind, it trips the fight-or-flight mechanism in our brains. Until you get used to hearing sound that way, it can be unnerving.

[/quote]

 

[DPROKOPY]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Actually, the reason that Brian Wilson mixed in mono, was that he was deaf in one ear![/quote]
That's true, as well. But he also did subscribe to the theory that Spector had, about how mono allows the producer greater control over what the listener hears. They both disliked the fact that a listener's perception of a stereo mix varies greatly depending on where one sits in relation to the speakers, etc. That's even more the truth with surround mixes, in my opinion. You basically have to plant yourself in ONE space to appreciate a surround mix to its fullest. Once you start moving around, even just a few feet, you lose the effect.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Mickey Hart: Here's what I think is going on: When music comes from behind, it trips the fight-or-flight mechanism in our brains.[/quote]
That's so true with my cats. I know they tend to get freaked out when they hear weird things from my rear speakers - and they never care what's coming out of the fronts at all. They're just not used to hearing sounds coming from behind the sofa! :lol:

 

[kstuart]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You basically have to plant yourself in ONE space to appreciate a surround mix to its fullest. Once you start moving around, even just a few feet, you lose the effect.[/quote] This is one of the big advantages of <a href="http://www.ambisonic.net" target="top">Ambisonics Surround</a>. The surround mix is the same no matter where the listener is in the room - it's a true "image".

 

[Cai Campbell]

Given optimal stereo/surround speaker placement, I don't think the parameters that define the listener sweet-spot are much different for either stereo or surround-sound. However, I do think the audio clues that you are outside the sweet-spot are much stronger in a surround environment. The major difference, I think, is that the surround sweet-spot is more tightly focused.

I don't have any experience with Ambisonics, but given a decent surround mix, as you move away from the sweet-spot, the character of the recording changes. It doesn't necessarily sound worse (although it certainly can) mostly it just sounds different. In contrast, with a stereo recording, as you move from the sweet-spot it will almost always sound worse. As soon as you lose the stereo imaging, the soundstage will collapse or the balance will be too greatly exaggerated one way or another. There are exceptions, of course, such as "hard stereo" mixes like the early Beatles stuff. These type of mixes are similar to surround in that they sound different, not necessarily worse, as you move away from the sweet-spot.

The exaggerated balance is an issue with surround-sound as well, but to a lesser extent. If you're closer to one speaker, you still have three or four other speakers "filling the space" instead of just one. While it may be more obvious that you are outside the sweet-spot, it will usually still be a very pleasant listening experience.

Another thing I have noticed with surround-sound is that it can still sound very good if you are outside the surround environment. I'm not really sure how to characterize it, but if you are playing something and happen to be in the next room, there is a certain aspect to the experience that sounds more fulfilling than if you were in the same situation while listening to a stereo recording.

 

[kstuart]

From the link above:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Ambisonics thus offers a number of major advantages over current 5.1 systems:

It provides full surround -- with height ("periphony") -- while requiring only four channels total (B-Format or UHJ)
The surround-sound image remains largely unaffected by listener position -- no "sweet spot"
Images can appear anywhere, not solely in the speaker positions
You can place the loudspeakers in convenient positions -- not necessarily a square (B-Format or UHJ)
The mono/stereo-compatible hierarchical encoding scheme, UHJ, allows the transmission of Ambisonic material via two or more channels, offering the maximum effect for a given number of transmission channels.
Undecoded 2-channel UHJ provides significant "super stereo" effects, comparable to those of other systems.
No decoder is required for G-Format, although a decoder may be needed for other formats
[/quote]

 

[Cai Campbell]

The problem with Ambisonics is there isn't any decent material out there! I mean, if I want to listen to "Bird Calls of the Amazon" or some other nonsense, then I guess I'd run out and buy an Ambisonic decoder. Last time I checked, there was a grand total of ONE title I was interested in: Alan Parsons - "Stereotomy". Thanks to Tab, no Ambisonic decoder needed for that one...