leevitalone1
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Teahouse on the tracks, wow! The imaging is so well done, no wonder the master of surround made itYeah, Kamakiriad is one of those “Gold” standards for me also
How do you like surround mixes to sound?
- Thread starter J. PUPSTER
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I missed seeing this thread, and now it's got me thinking. Live albums/concerts are always a bit of a disappointment compared to being at a gig. I rarely watch a live dvd/bd more than twice, but I'll listen to them much more often. So I like a discrete mix, or a wide horseshoe shaped mix. I'm not a fan of drums all in a corner though.
hwkn
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
I like my surround mixes to sound like you're in the room with the band ala the John Lennon 5.1 mixes in the Imagine box or the mixes from the hotel room in Carbondale Illinois or the tour bus from the Jackson Browne Running On Empty DVD-A.[if at all possible]
I feel (especially for live mixes) that each type of venue should be considered for the directionality of the mix, or maybe call it "listener perspective."
I also believe with the abundance of available data space on modern Blu-ray discs, that there should be an offering of alternative "listener perspectives" so that we can choose which one suits our individual tastes. But I'm sure time in mixing is expensive. However, that would be more valuable to me, especially in these Mega box sets, than marbles, stickers and other trinkets. At the very least, a middle of the band type mix, and also a more realistic audience position (albeit with at least clean sound coming from the stage, which often times it is not!)
One of my favorite stereo concerts titles I have is from Dire Straits - "On The Night", sounds to me like they really mic'd it well and hopefully will decode great to surround at least. But a Blu-Ray remix to surround on that title would be most welcome by me.
https://www.discogs.com/Dire-Straits-On-The-Night/release/8077715
I also believe with the abundance of available data space on modern Blu-ray discs, that there should be an offering of alternative "listener perspectives" so that we can choose which one suits our individual tastes. But I'm sure time in mixing is expensive. However, that would be more valuable to me, especially in these Mega box sets, than marbles, stickers and other trinkets. At the very least, a middle of the band type mix, and also a more realistic audience position (albeit with at least clean sound coming from the stage, which often times it is not!)
One of my favorite stereo concerts titles I have is from Dire Straits - "On The Night", sounds to me like they really mic'd it well and hopefully will decode great to surround at least. But a Blu-Ray remix to surround on that title would be most welcome by me.
https://www.discogs.com/Dire-Straits-On-The-Night/release/8077715
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 25,711
Then look no further, Pupster. This delightful restored 2015 remaster [on the Second Sight label] of the Talking Heads STOP MAKING SENSE offers both a wonderful studio mix and theater mix and I very recently purchased it from Deep Discount for under $10!
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Stop-Making-Sense-Blu-ray/140718/#UserReviews
Yes I have that one also... One of the best!
Do you have that On The Night DVD Ralphie?
I just watched the first song off it on my computer and the band was at their peak IMO with two drummers (lots of microphones), just sounds great, and the band is really having a blast!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 25,711
No, I do not. Wish they'd start releasing some of those DVD concerts on blu ray ...... or better yet, 4K.
In one word, fresh! I usually buy albums I know and love in stereo (or mono) or at least titles from artists I already know and am willing to take a chance on. I have bought some stuff just because I could even if I did not know it beforehand. QQ has sent me buying stuff and my LRS has titles occassionally at a price I can live with. If I am familiar with the previous stereo version, I want the new one to not deviate in the sense of adding or subtracting elements I am used to. I can enjoy ambient or discrete mixes. Abbey Road blew my mind and Bat Out Of Hell drove me to tears. My Vanessa Mae disc was my only real disappointment being only glorified stereo. I want a fresh take on favourites and new unfamiliar stuff has to grab me in fidelity, content and creative mixing. I won't tell the artists how to mix but make me want to hear it, not bore me or change stuff I love so I don't recognise it or get distracted because tidbits are wrong. I think I like the stereo LPs from 1958 to 1970 because the wide effect made me know it wasn't mono. By the 1980s stereo was just a catch word on many pop LPs separation suffered. When I found quad, it made familiar stuff come alive again. Many titles would not be in my collection if they weren't quad or immersive. When I got upset about my Bryan Adams BluRay, it was because the stereo LP bored me and the multichannel thrilled me. If the stereo was all I could have, I'd not rebuy it for my collection. I had enough of it in the 80s.
So I'm guessing you meant that Bat Out Of Hell drove you to "Good" tears then?
I believe I remember that the Polls weren't kind to that one, but I didn't think it was that bad
I'm fine with good stereo, I just prefer good Quad!
No, Bat out of Hell was HORRIBLE! The total opposite of Abbey Road. And I agree with your comments on stereo vs. quad. Vanessa Mae was good sounding but not very surround to me but BOOH was worse by any standard.So I'm guessing you meant that Bat Out Of Hell drove you to "Good" tears then?
I believe I remember that the Polls weren't kind to that one, but I didn't think it was that bad
I'm fine with good stereo, I just prefer good Quad!
I agree. This is my preference most of the time....
I like the old quad. mixing style when it comes to titles like the DV Weather Report, Bitches Brew & Spectrum.
When I get the opportunity to remix something from multitrack, it really depends on the multitrack in regards to how I mix.
8-track stuff is both easy and hard. You have less items to place around and that can shorten your mixing time, BUT, sometimes you'll get three tracks worth of vocals, so now you only have 5 instrument tracks. That's where things begin to complicate. Also, with 8-track, usually you only get one track of drums. Occasionally you'll get two, but even then it's only kicker & kit so there's not a lot to split up there. With most 8-tracks, I'll go four corner with drums getting stuck in the Back Right corner. It's my homage to the Sly & The Family Stone Quad lp/tape. It just works. However, where that album put the bass in Back Left, I'll mix bass either front center or center-All. I did this with my mix of "For What it's Worth" and it really works. With three guitar tracks on that one, that gives you either a guitar or the drums plus bass in each channel. It really fleshes out the mix. Vocals front center, backing vocals back center and you're done.
16-track gets more difficult. With stuff like this, I pretend front speakers and rear speakers are a stereo pair. I generally do not like to mix in the phantom sides. I find stuff gets lost when it gets placed there but also, that position is REALLY dependent on where the end-user has put their speakers. I can only think of one song where I stepped out of my comfort zone and used the phantom sides and that was my mix of Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler". You only get two tracks of acoustic guitar on that one, so how do you make the mix sound like you're standing in the studio? Well, I cheated and made that same stereo pair of guitars go to the back at half strength, with echo and a millisecond or two of delay. For the opening bits, it sounds like you're standing IN the studio but when the rest of the mix kicks in, you can really only hear the guitars in the front speakers.
The beauty of 16 track is you get more variety. Generally, drums are spread across the front. I haven't yet done a "drums in the rear" mix that I've really enjoyed from 16 track. I find putting drums across the front, bass front center really gives the mix focus like, you KNOW *this* is the way you're supposed to face. In the rears I will put the secondary anchors, ie: not a lead instrument; be it an acoustic guitar, organ, piano, rhythm electric..... those go in the back corners. Secondary percussion goes in the back corners, too.
One caveat being if you've got a piano in a stereo pair that IS a leading instrument, you mix that into a nice stereo mix up front with the drums. If the piano is just there for the ride, give it a nice stereo spot in the rear. I like the Columbia style of mixing of opposing strings and horns. My preference though is horns nice and wide up front, strings in tight stereo in the rear. However, if all you've got is horns, and they are prominent in the song, well then they go wide up front again but do some studio echo of them bouncing out the back. Again, it really fills out the mix. See my mix of "Superstition".
I love call-and-response vocals. So, if you've got 'em, flaunt 'em. Lead in the front, backing vocals out back. If you've got double-tracked vocals, set 'em wide in the front similar to The Raiders' "Indian Reservation". See my mix of "I Love Rock n' Roll".
24-track is the bane of my existence unless it's been cleaned up. The 24-track of "Bohemian Rhapsody" took me two weeks of four-hour nights to clean up just so that eratic or erroneous unused bits wouldn't blast out of G-D nowhere. That was a horrible multitrack to play with. I can't think of any other 24's I've gotten my claws into. There might be others but nothing that jump out at me.
In summation, I enjoy mixes that preserve focus, are discrete and playful when necessary. That's something I feel I should add. The spinning "around the world" Quad trick is often over-used or mis-used. I only pull out that trick if it's a part of the song that could potentially, and/or realistically go around the listening space. The only song that comes to mind where I did this was John Lennon's "Oh, Yoko!". I made the harmonica part during the coda and fadeout to gallop around the room, as if John Lennon was running around during the last seconds of the song. Oh, and I guess I made the bubbling noises and backing singers pot around during "Octopus' Garden" in my Quad mix of Abbey Road. But that was more of a gimme because I'd hardly done that effect mixing the entire album. It has it's place but over-use just makes it less appreciated.
As for the pro's, I do enjoy Scheiners' mixes. There is a man who knows what he's doing. The only thing I could possibly dislike about his mixes is I find them to be a bit noisy. By that I mean, it sometimes seems that he sums everything going on in the front channels, and then places that in the rears at a low volume in an effort to never allow the back channels to go silent. I understand that but often times it has a habit of drowning out quieter parts that ARE in the rear channels and lessens the amount of discrete information. The Lynyrd Skynyrd stuff is a great example. Though I do wonder if he did it to hide cross-talk. The amount does tend to vary from song to song.
8-track stuff is both easy and hard. You have less items to place around and that can shorten your mixing time, BUT, sometimes you'll get three tracks worth of vocals, so now you only have 5 instrument tracks. That's where things begin to complicate. Also, with 8-track, usually you only get one track of drums. Occasionally you'll get two, but even then it's only kicker & kit so there's not a lot to split up there. With most 8-tracks, I'll go four corner with drums getting stuck in the Back Right corner. It's my homage to the Sly & The Family Stone Quad lp/tape. It just works. However, where that album put the bass in Back Left, I'll mix bass either front center or center-All. I did this with my mix of "For What it's Worth" and it really works. With three guitar tracks on that one, that gives you either a guitar or the drums plus bass in each channel. It really fleshes out the mix. Vocals front center, backing vocals back center and you're done.
16-track gets more difficult. With stuff like this, I pretend front speakers and rear speakers are a stereo pair. I generally do not like to mix in the phantom sides. I find stuff gets lost when it gets placed there but also, that position is REALLY dependent on where the end-user has put their speakers. I can only think of one song where I stepped out of my comfort zone and used the phantom sides and that was my mix of Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler". You only get two tracks of acoustic guitar on that one, so how do you make the mix sound like you're standing in the studio? Well, I cheated and made that same stereo pair of guitars go to the back at half strength, with echo and a millisecond or two of delay. For the opening bits, it sounds like you're standing IN the studio but when the rest of the mix kicks in, you can really only hear the guitars in the front speakers.
The beauty of 16 track is you get more variety. Generally, drums are spread across the front. I haven't yet done a "drums in the rear" mix that I've really enjoyed from 16 track. I find putting drums across the front, bass front center really gives the mix focus like, you KNOW *this* is the way you're supposed to face. In the rears I will put the secondary anchors, ie: not a lead instrument; be it an acoustic guitar, organ, piano, rhythm electric..... those go in the back corners. Secondary percussion goes in the back corners, too.
One caveat being if you've got a piano in a stereo pair that IS a leading instrument, you mix that into a nice stereo mix up front with the drums. If the piano is just there for the ride, give it a nice stereo spot in the rear. I like the Columbia style of mixing of opposing strings and horns. My preference though is horns nice and wide up front, strings in tight stereo in the rear. However, if all you've got is horns, and they are prominent in the song, well then they go wide up front again but do some studio echo of them bouncing out the back. Again, it really fills out the mix. See my mix of "Superstition".
I love call-and-response vocals. So, if you've got 'em, flaunt 'em. Lead in the front, backing vocals out back. If you've got double-tracked vocals, set 'em wide in the front similar to The Raiders' "Indian Reservation". See my mix of "I Love Rock n' Roll".
24-track is the bane of my existence unless it's been cleaned up. The 24-track of "Bohemian Rhapsody" took me two weeks of four-hour nights to clean up just so that eratic or erroneous unused bits wouldn't blast out of G-D nowhere. That was a horrible multitrack to play with. I can't think of any other 24's I've gotten my claws into. There might be others but nothing that jump out at me.
In summation, I enjoy mixes that preserve focus, are discrete and playful when necessary. That's something I feel I should add. The spinning "around the world" Quad trick is often over-used or mis-used. I only pull out that trick if it's a part of the song that could potentially, and/or realistically go around the listening space. The only song that comes to mind where I did this was John Lennon's "Oh, Yoko!". I made the harmonica part during the coda and fadeout to gallop around the room, as if John Lennon was running around during the last seconds of the song. Oh, and I guess I made the bubbling noises and backing singers pot around during "Octopus' Garden" in my Quad mix of Abbey Road. But that was more of a gimme because I'd hardly done that effect mixing the entire album. It has it's place but over-use just makes it less appreciated.
As for the pro's, I do enjoy Scheiners' mixes. There is a man who knows what he's doing. The only thing I could possibly dislike about his mixes is I find them to be a bit noisy. By that I mean, it sometimes seems that he sums everything going on in the front channels, and then places that in the rears at a low volume in an effort to never allow the back channels to go silent. I understand that but often times it has a habit of drowning out quieter parts that ARE in the rear channels and lessens the amount of discrete information. The Lynyrd Skynyrd stuff is a great example. Though I do wonder if he did it to hide cross-talk. The amount does tend to vary from song to song.
Last edited:
Ranasakawa
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
It depends on the vintage of the music. 60s rock is better if the vocals are central and the other instruments spread around the other speakers, however a multi-track recording of a later band sounds better to my ears when the vocals are spread around the speakers and blended in the instruments. With the vocal having more channels it is better to give us more breathing space rather than shoving the vocals in the centre speaker when it is possible that 4 or more channels were used on the multi-track tape mix
I want them to sound like Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, not as Janis' Pearl.
I cannot really articulate the difference, nor want to (for me, the best way to kill my pleasures is to analyze them).
I cannot really articulate the difference, nor want to (for me, the best way to kill my pleasures is to analyze them).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Listening to in Dolby Atmos Streaming, via Tidal/Apple/Amazon- Latest: SomethingAnything
-
-
-
-
