Why not go ahead and make it official with a vote on the Poll page (could just copy & paste to it!)
Rolling Stones Goats Head Soup Deluxe Edition (with 5.1 & Dolby Atmos mixes!)
- Thread starter everyday_ffm
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I just posted about this on SHF (as a reply to a member there who felt the mix is a bit inconsistent with regard to the rears) and thought I’d mention similar thoughts here as well.
On pretty much every song, the rear channels are a combination of isolated information and ambience/reflections from the front-panned instruments (as is the case with most modern surround remixes). What’s interesting is that, in the 7.1 version, the ambience from the fronts and instruments heard solely in the rears are often separated into the different rear speaker pairs.
For instance, in “Star Star”, the ‘normal’ rears just have isolated piano and the extra ‘surround backs’ have the same piano, along with drum and vocal echo. Obviously, this is all being collapsed into a single pair of rear channels when played on a 5.1 setup. Does that mean that any element present in both sets of rear channels is actually being doubled in volume when folded down to 5.1?
Giles Martin used the same technique on the 7.1 of Abbey Road. In "She Came In Through The Bathroom Window", the main rears have vocal and drum reflections, while the 'surround backs' have isolated electric guitar. Backing vocals are present in both pairs.
I noticed the same thing in the 7.1 of “Heartbreaker” - the horns are in both sets of rear channels. So are they actually being heard at too loud a volume on the folded-down 5.1?
“Dancing With Mr. D.” is one of the more disappointing tracks from a surround perspective and curiously enough, there’s almost nothing in the main pair of rear channels on the 7.1 version. Pretty much all the rear information is in the ‘surround backs’.
To be clear, I’m not an opponent of Atmos in any way and I enjoyed this release enough to vote an "8" on the poll. I just want to be sure that the downmixing process isn't making what I hear on my 5.1 system drastically different than what they heard in the studio.
On pretty much every song, the rear channels are a combination of isolated information and ambience/reflections from the front-panned instruments (as is the case with most modern surround remixes). What’s interesting is that, in the 7.1 version, the ambience from the fronts and instruments heard solely in the rears are often separated into the different rear speaker pairs.
For instance, in “Star Star”, the ‘normal’ rears just have isolated piano and the extra ‘surround backs’ have the same piano, along with drum and vocal echo. Obviously, this is all being collapsed into a single pair of rear channels when played on a 5.1 setup. Does that mean that any element present in both sets of rear channels is actually being doubled in volume when folded down to 5.1?
Giles Martin used the same technique on the 7.1 of Abbey Road. In "She Came In Through The Bathroom Window", the main rears have vocal and drum reflections, while the 'surround backs' have isolated electric guitar. Backing vocals are present in both pairs.
I noticed the same thing in the 7.1 of “Heartbreaker” - the horns are in both sets of rear channels. So are they actually being heard at too loud a volume on the folded-down 5.1?
“Dancing With Mr. D.” is one of the more disappointing tracks from a surround perspective and curiously enough, there’s almost nothing in the main pair of rear channels on the 7.1 version. Pretty much all the rear information is in the ‘surround backs’.
To be clear, I’m not an opponent of Atmos in any way and I enjoyed this release enough to vote an "8" on the poll. I just want to be sure that the downmixing process isn't making what I hear on my 5.1 system drastically different than what they heard in the studio.
I split out those various channels (speakers) on “Dancing With Mr. D.”, isolated the (called the 6 L&R rear surround) speakers which on Jonathan's wave form pic are hardly visible. If you expand out those 2 channels in Audacity there is some sound there, albeit very faint. They basically just consist of an acoustic guitar strumming the same on both sides. I feel if listening to this mix, that the acoustic guitar on those "rear" speakers would be hardly noticeable. Perhaps there are some embedded codec metadata or whatever information that tells the processing how to handle the levels on various channels that the mix engineers know how to adjust for (just speculation?)
Here's the Dolby diagram for the 7.1 speaker layout (they call those sides) the "left and right surround" the 5's- and the (far rear) the "left and right rear surround" speakers the 6's.
So on a 7.x system that acoustic guitar is coming from the 6's position here; and through some file manipulation from me and others now in order to really hear them, they should be boosted about 20-25dbs, in order for them to be heard within the rest of the mix.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2017
- Messages
- 97
This box set represents a significant upgrade over the previous Rolling Stones box sets. It is more on the level of the Beatles box sets and the multichannel mix is a huge listening experience improvement over the original stereo mix. It makes the album new again and takes it to a different level. One can argue that the remix is not Steven Wilson quality, and that the box set was priced a bit too high - but it is still a big step forward. Hopefully it is successful enough to inspire more of these from the Rolling Stones as well as the many other groups with fabulous catalogues that have yet to release multichannel mixes.
Amazing post!
When I see a file like that on my DAW, I assume FL-FR-C-LFE-'CH6'-'CH7'-RL-RR. Is that correct? With the CH6&7 being the extra channels
The Foobar2000 VU meter shows it like this:
I guess I'm not 100% sure if the extra 7.1 channels are known as the 'rears' or the 'sides'.
I mean as in 5.1 plus 2. To me, the CH6 and Ch7 are the "plus 2"
From the Smyth Realiser Manual: I believe it maps FL(1)-FR(2)-C(3)-LFE(4)-RL(5)-RR(6)-Lb(7)-Rb(8) as below
So what we call Rear in 5.1 actually are sides in 7.1 which is how it comes through on the headphones, so no rear sounds if in 5.1 they emanate from the sides.
So what we call Rear in 5.1 actually are sides in 7.1 which is how it comes through on the headphones, so no rear sounds if in 5.1 they emanate from the sides.
Do you mean the 6 & 7 being the Rear Most speakers (the pink ones) "left and right rear surround" or the sides? I've always assumed the 4 & 5 in the DAW (Audacity) were (those quieter channels with the strumming guitar in Dancing With Mr. D.) were located on the sides, but having only a 5.1 system I'm not sure now. Someone with a 7.1 can verify easily by listening to the lone acoustic guitar (if they can even hear it over the rest of the mix.) Definitely would like to get this right (might have to change my post to reflect it if wrong!)
I guess it's a matter of where you put them. In my "Big Room", I have a major 5.1 speaker set up. When 7.1 came out, before Atmos, the description of the new channels was sort of a back center, like your 6's above. So in my mind, I still thought of the rears from the 5.1 as the main audio channels with the new backs as a fill in. I put some smaller speakers back there and when playing 7.1 stuff never really got much out of them. Here's a crude layout of my theater room. the x's being the added speakers for 7.1
OK, so are you saying it's represented like this in Audacity - putting the isolated Strumming guitar in Dancing With Mr. D. in the rear most 6 & 7? You could verify by listening to them on your system.
I'm honestly not trying to be cute, just want to get it right.
I've been listening to wav files of the mixes, the 7.1 rip and the 5.1 rip, be it a downmix or whatever. I am not sure if it's just me, but it really looks like the fronts and center are the same on both:
So I pulled the rears and back rears from the 7.1 and put them into a quad file, then put the rears from the 5.1 into a stereo file in a quad (5.1) layout, then listened and looked for what they did or what the downmix does. The second tune is a good example, as the piano that's in the rears of the 5.1 is not in the rears of the 7.1, it's in the other two channels, as shown in the screen cap below.
So basically for this mix the rear channels are either 4 channel (7.1) or 2 channel (5.1), because the info in these channels pretty much stays in the backs
That being said, this mix is really pretty good. And I am talking the 5.1, so if it's not a "real" 5.1 mix, who cares? It's fine
So I pulled the rears and back rears from the 7.1 and put them into a quad file, then put the rears from the 5.1 into a stereo file in a quad (5.1) layout, then listened and looked for what they did or what the downmix does. The second tune is a good example, as the piano that's in the rears of the 5.1 is not in the rears of the 7.1, it's in the other two channels, as shown in the screen cap below.
So basically for this mix the rear channels are either 4 channel (7.1) or 2 channel (5.1), because the info in these channels pretty much stays in the backs
That being said, this mix is really pretty good. And I am talking the 5.1, so if it's not a "real" 5.1 mix, who cares? It's fine
Yes, that is my way of thinking, and like I said, it's my way - not necessarily the right way
Yes, "Tasting better every time" as it says on the Recipe insert. Now - Who's on first?
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 26,015
Man o' MAN, this thread has turned into a veritable "Science Project." What's NEXT: A QQ Poster attempts to pry the GHS hard covered book from its gooey mooring and then kvetches that as he placed it on his lap, his gonads stuck to his BVDs and he ended up with Sticky Fingers!
Last edited:
I'm very similar in my 7.1 set up...eventually to become ATMOS (rough layout in the 2nd pic).
The trick is to shave first.
himey
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,895
Having the origional Atmos mixing software downmix to 5.1, like with the Abbey Road, takes the guess work out of this and creates a more uniform 5.1 experience.
I am not fully convinced that the 5.1 DD (core) on this, can be on the same level as a 5.1 mix, derived from origional mixing software (Pro Tools?), even taking the format out of the equation. Thanks so much for your love of this hobby!
Similar threads
