How do you like surround mixes to sound?

[J. PUPSTER]

I'm asking for input as to how members like to hear their surround titles mixed. May depend on type of music etc. Also to clean up some posts that appear in Poll threads etc.

Some mixes like the JSP blues SACD titles tend to have the instruments pegged in the corner sound. But for me that just seems like lazy mixing. I prefer discrete, yes, but with also lots of phantom middles (even on the sides) and I hear mixes that can even send sounds with believable spatial definition through the middle field, and in some instances across my ceiling

 

[Audiowannabee]

Isn't DISCRETE isolation of the instrument s the whole point of Quad???

The "air between the instrument s "

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Isn't DISCRETE isolation of the instrument s the whole point of Quad???

The "air between the instrument s "

Some mixes like the JSP blues SACD titles tend to have that instruments pegged in the corner sound. But for me that just seems like lazy mixing. I prefer discrete, yes, but with also lots of phantom middles (even on the sides) and I hear mixes that can even send sounds with believable spatial definition through the middle field, and in some instances across my ceiling

 

[marpow]

Some mixes like the JSP blues SACD titles tend to have that instruments pegged in the corner sound. But for me that just seems like lazy mixing. I prefer discrete, yes, but with also lots of phantom middles (even on the sides) and I hear mixes that can even send sounds with believable spatial definition through the middle field, and in some instances across my ceiling

I agree totally with you especially those JSP recordings, and believe me I love them all, I remember when I got the Bryther Smith and there was one song where a cowbell was parked rear left and it was so irritating.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I agree totally with you especially those JSP recordings, and believe me I love them all, I remember when I got the Bryther Smith and there was one song where a cowbell was parked rear left and it was so irritating.

And WTF are we doing up so early, I started in at 5:30am - too much fun I guess

 

[marpow]

And WTF are we doing up so early, I started in at 5:30am - too much fun I guess

Early? I get up at 5:00 every morning San Mateo M-F and I am at work by 6:30 San Francisco. I sleep in on the weekends till around 6:30. Needless to say I crash on average about 9:00.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Some mixes like the JSP blues SACD titles tend to have that instruments pegged in the corner sound. But for me that just seems like lazy mixing. I prefer discrete, yes, but with also lots of phantom middles (even on the sides) and I hear mixes that can even send sounds with believable spatial definition through the middle field, and in some instances across my ceiling

+1
Some subtle panning, especially stereo across the fronts, and some discrete panning is my preference. No drums in a corner. I can live with it, but I'd say no it isn't necessarily the point of quad.
If some love hard panned everything, great. No judgement here.

 

[mandrix]

Well Pupster, I sort of like your thinking!

 

[leevitalone1]

I like good production, with attention on bass and the instruments "spread out" because this allows a cleaner result. kamakiriad is a good example. Good clean sound, with attention to the use of all channels. To me, it 'opens up" the music allowing it to be expressed in a manner that is very enjoyable.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I like good production, with attention on bass and the instruments "spread out" because this allows a cleaner result. kamakiriad is a good example. Good clean sound, with attention to the use of all channels. To me, it 'opens up" the music allowing it to be expressed in a manner that is very enjoyable.

Yeah, Kamakiriad is one of those “Gold” standards for me also

 

[sjcorne]

Yeah, Kamakiriad is one of those “Gold” standards for me also

I always find Scheiner's mixes to be really well balanced. What's interesting is that in most cases, he doesn't fully anchor instruments in the rears like on the old quad mixes: you get a strong front image with most of the lead instruments, and some extra stuff unexpectedly popping out of the surrounds (backing vocals, percussion, rhythm guitar, etc). Everything is slightly blended, but there's never anything at full power in all channels at once. As much as I love the old Columbia quads, sometimes the rears are a bit hot and the vocals get lost. That never happens on Scheiner's mixes.

 

[The56Kid]

I always find Scheiner's mixes to be really well balanced. What's interesting is that in most cases, he doesn't fully anchor instruments in the rears like on the old quad mixes: you get a strong front image with most of the lead instruments, and some extra stuff unexpectedly popping out of the surrounds (backing vocals, percussion, rhythm guitar, etc). Everything is slightly blended, but there's never anything at full power in all channels at once. As much as I love the old Columbia quads, sometimes the rears are a bit hot and the vocals get lost. That never happens on Scheiner's mixes.

What Jonathan said!

 

[4-earredwonder]

For me, a great surround remix does not call attention to itself. It should be as though the album was meant to be released in that format. As Jonathan succintly points out, Elliot Scheiner and might I add Steve Wilson GET IT. An uncanny blend of fronts and rears ....never really calling attention to themselves but rather amplifying and elucidating the elements of the multitracks which might have otherwise been obscured in a stereo mix.

I've always pondered why artists who record in multitrack are content with remixing into plain vanilla stereo when their efforts would be better realized by utilizing 5.1/7.1 or 9.2 channels....and even more perplexed when artists are reluctant to revisit their older material and REFRESH it by remixing into surround. The technology is certainly there .... better than ever ......and like Hollywood visionaries who with CG can create dazzling worlds previously impossible to create with archaic technology ....the possibilities of extending that soundstage beyond those two front channels are likewise endless.

Wake UP EVERYBODY ....... Surround is no longer a GIMMICK ........ in the right hands it's HIGH ART for a new millennium!

 

[J. PUPSTER]

One aspect of this I see come up often is drum placement. Some object to drums being in the rear at all. I don't mind rear drums as long as they are spread out between the two rears; it makes me think of it as a stage sound where the drums are behind you. Having played guitar with a few amateur bands (decades ago), I'm used to that kind of sound.

I'm also sensitive to having guitar leads in the rears (hate it), I always like them in the fronts. The Allman Brothers Band Live at Fillmore East is one I've heard that puts Sky Dog and Betts in the rears - drives me insane!!! Some short licks, riffs or filler on guitars in the rears however, is just dandy.

It would be great if someone could devise a set of pre-mixed alternatives so we as listeners could move pieces around ourselves to suit our own tastes. The Blu-ray format should have enough space to do something like that in Hi-Def surround. I actually believe, some of the Gordon Goodwin Big Phat Band discs do that, but I've not tried it yet.

 

[sjcorne]

One aspect of this I see come up often is drum placement. Some object to drums being in the rear at all. I don't mind rear drums as long as they are spread out between the two rears; it makes me think of it as a stage sound where the drums are behind you. Having played guitar with a few amateur bands (decades ago), I'm used to that kind of sound.

I find some of those "drums in the right rear, bass in the left rear" mixes have a really nice groove, especially the R&B/Soul titles that employ that technique (Tower Of Power, Sly's Hits, Miracles, Manhattans). I also really enjoyed the Imagine raw studio mixes. Though I totally understand why some may not be a fan of that.

The one thing I can't stand is if something is panned to all speakers at once (dead center of the room). I've just never heard an example of it that really worked for me: It only seems to make the soundfield confusing and less clear, like I'm listening to a bad matrix decode and not a discrete surround mix. I don't want to have to listen closely to detect front/rear separation in a surround mix.

 

[MrSmithers]

Wake UP EVERYBODY ......

That's a great prompt Ralph - because that song by Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes from 'The AF Collection' is a great example of a good mix...

I do find more of an affinity to some of these older quad mixes. Simply because they weren't afraid to use every angle of the listening experience - they kinda had to!

But I have to agree with sjcorne and yourselves that Elliot Scheiner is a true god who just gets the whole thing every time... Bob Clearmountain is another fave... I love the work of Steven Wilson too but some of the music is a little heavy for me... Nothing against the mixes though...

Backing vocals, hand claps, keyboards and all sorts of extra's from the mutitracks work well in the rears... Plus I'm also a sucker for some crazy panning every now and again...

What pisses me off is when you get a producer who just want's to just echo the existing stereo mix... That's been done before, lay off the shackles and be brave!

I love the fact we have companies like D-V exploring the quad vaults because a lot of those albums are just perfect examples of how to mix in surround. It brings out music that I would never normally be interested in - into another world!

 

[marpow]

How do you like surround mixes to sound?

Really fucking good. Is that an appropriate answer? Because everybody posted before me basically nailed the question with there answers.

 

[timothyemerson]

Discreet, please. Yes, I'd like panning with that.

Allman Brothers Band's 'Revival' on Idlewild South is the best example I own of a discreet mix with super smooth panning of vocals around the speakers.

People, can you feel it?

 

[ar surround]

I'm asking for input as to how members like to hear their surround titles mixed. May depend on type of music etc. Also to clean up some posts that appear in Poll threads etc.

Some mixes like the JSP blues SACD titles tend to have the instruments pegged in the corner sound. But for me that just seems like lazy mixing. I prefer discrete, yes, but with also lots of phantom middles (even on the sides) and I hear mixes that can even send sounds with believable spatial definition through the middle field, and in some instances across my ceiling

I don't really want to pin someone down any particular kind of execution. I'm happy as long as the presentation is very pleasing to my ears...perhaps what Pupster refers to as "believable spacial definition." [Edit: Or what marpow calls "Really fucking good."] A couple of examples:

Alan Parsons Eye In The Sky album: I really like the the new 5.1 mix that came out, but actually prefer the 2-channel mix presented in faux 7.1 with Logic7. It's just as immersive and Parsons fooled around with the phasing to the point where sounds appear to be coming from the sides and behind. I've gotta try this one with Surround Master V2 when it arrives.

Fleetwood Mac Sara: Another really nice 5.1, but again I prefer the 2-channel version in faux 7.1. I can identify all of the instruments and voices just as well as with the 5.1. But the dynamics on the 2.0 hi-res version are better...particularly Mick's drumming...which is unfortunately toned down in the 5.1.

 

[jimfisheye]

I'm asking for input as to how members like to hear their surround titles mixed. May depend on type of music etc. Also to clean up some posts that appear in Poll threads etc.

Some mixes like the JSP blues SACD titles tend to have the instruments pegged in the corner sound. But for me that just seems like lazy mixing. I prefer discrete, yes, but with also lots of phantom middles (even on the sides) and I hear mixes that can even send sounds with believable spatial definition through the middle field, and in some instances across my ceiling

I'll at least listen to anything that was ambitious enough to be released in surround. I still have a childlike fascination with sound in motion and can easily be won over with discrete sound play!

Having said that...

I expect a professional level of fidelity. It had better at least match the fidelity of the stereo or mono release (if their was one). The titles that have inferior fidelity to the stereo or mono counterpart are an extremely frustrating listen! I've heard too many stereo mixes that are much more immersive than the botched surround mix that got released. I'll make an exception for damaged out of print copies of course. What's left is what's left. Zero tolerance for new releases that are inferior though.

I expect the dynamic range of a surround system to be taken advantage of!
I want dynamics! The volume war hype mastering has no business in the surround format whatsoever. Leave that for mp3s and iThings please.

Discrete is nice but anything that takes advantage of the surround sound stage and the expanded dynamic range of the system is a fine thing. I don't prefer a live mix, for example, that presents a stereo mix of the music in front and only audience in back. But I DO prefer that if the only other choice is stereo-only! Maybe a live show was only recorded from the live stereo board mix and then someone found an audience recording. I'll take the board in front, audience in the rear presentation for that! But if you have multitrack in front of you and simply didn't bother to make a full surround mix, I'm less impressed.

Remixes done years after the period are tricky...
If the original stereo or mono mix has a lot of fiddly nuanced mix moves, those better be attended to in the remix! If they're not, a remix could be worthless even if the fidelity is improved and the soundstage is expended to surround.