Simply random stuff

[jimfisheye]

Yeah some brickwalls sound excellent. But my opinion is that brickwalling is never needed.

"Well what about music that heavily relies on distortion?"

In my own experiments you can achieve those exact effects without brickwalls.

With final master levels not exceeding -14 LUFS, anything is possible without turning to brick wall limiting. Agreed!

Sometimes I'll smash a mix, hear something good for it, and then go back to the mix. Have your brick wall and eat it too!

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

7.1 mixing is so weird...compared to 5.1.

 

[ar surround]

7.1 mixing is so weird...compared to 5.1.

I can see that. It's like, what should you put in those two rear channels? If you have a flyover special effect, it's easy to conceive of what to put back there. But with music, should it be all ambience back there, or discrete elements? If you put discrete elements back there, how do you know if the result will be reasonably consistent from system to system? Loud enough, etc?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I can see that. It's like, what should you put in those two rear channels? If you have a flyover special effect, it's easy to conceive of what to put back there. But with music, should it be all ambience back there, or discrete elements? If you put discrete elements back there, how do you know if the result will be reasonably consistent from system to system? Loud enough, etc?

Exactly that. I find myself leaving the backs to ambience...I seriously have a much easier time putting stuff in heights than 7.1 backs!

 

[jimfisheye]

I'm sticking with reinforcement/ambience/etc with the sides, I think. I'm also staying with the major channel formats as they've landed. (2.0, 5.1, 7.1.4) I'm not making 7.1 mixes. I will however continue to use objects in 7.1.4 to extend things for the 9.x.x people. Staying around -14 LUFS for my 'rock' mixes too. (Almost all the Atmos mixes I've heard are around -14. Often normalized 1 to 4 db down... But they're all right around -14. I haven't seen too much brick wall in Atmos so far either.) Small steps, right?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I'm sticking with reinforcement/ambience/etc with the sides, I think. I'm also staying with the major channel formats as they've landed. (2.0, 5.1, 7.1.4) I'm not making 7.1 mixes. I will however continue to use objects in 7.1.4 to extend things for the 9.x.x people. Staying around -14 LUFS for my 'rock' mixes too. (Almost all the Atmos mixes I've heard are around -14. Often normalized 1 to 4 db down... But they're all right around -14. I haven't seen too much brick wall in Atmos so far either.) Small steps, right?

I think my main issue is that in normal 5.1 I treat the rears as if they're at the full 110 degrees or in a "quad" position...so if I try to move to 7.1, in my mind the "sides" which are the "rears" in 5.1 are still not at 90 degrees, so I tend to underutilize the backs...Anyway, any of my experiments in 7.1 are just that: experiments.

When it comes to loudness, I have what I'm told is a "weird" approach. No matter the genre, I don't bother with loudness targets at all. I keep it as dynamic as possible and then at the very end only push it into the limiter as much as it can without losing dynamic range. This allows certain albums to be kept at a higher level if they can handle it, or a lower level if it cannot. For example, The Golden Bonana at -14 LUFS and droplets at -24 LUFS. Both have been pushed as much as they can without detrimental impact, IMO. Well, maybe TGB could have been pushed to -12 but I had no idea what a limiter was at the time. Both still healthy DR scores of above 10.

A lot of people mix into a limiter which I don't like.

 

[jimfisheye]

The rears in 7.1 are the rears in 4.0 and 5.1. The side channels are the new addition. Like center channels added on the sides. I'm not telling you what to do or anything but that's the format. Quad never went anywhere. Rears towed in or out... is simply that across all 3. I mean, that's what the speaker layout brochures say and all the mixes released the last few decades seem to follow and make sense.

The media player faux pas with 5.1(side) vs 5.1(rear)... Well that's tough shit and is what it is. Not our fault! We're not adding more mistakes to try to work around that!

Any loudness between -16 and -10 covers a lot of ground. (Thinking rock and drums.) Lower for quieter stuff is matter of fact too. Nothing weird there at all! The new Deep purple album at -5.4 LUFS? That's weird! More accurately, just f*****!

I don't like mixing into compression or limiting either. I do have a limiter on the mix bus just in case so a mix is still usable but I'm not 'working' it. Used to be the L2. Using ReaLimit now.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

The rears in 7.1 are the rears in 4.0 and 5.1. The side channels are the new addition. Like center channels added on the sides. I'm not telling you what to do or anything but that's the format. Quad never went anywhere. Rears towed in or out... is simply that across all 3.

The media player faux pas with 5.1(side) vs 5.1(rear)... Well that's tough shit and is what it is. Not our fault! We're not adding more mistakes to try to work around that!

Any loudness between -16 and -10 covers a lot of ground. (Thinking rock and drums.) Lower for quieter stuff is matter of fact too. Nothing weird there at all! The new Deep purple album at -5.4 LUFS? That's weird! More accurately, just f*****!

Channel assignments hurt my brain...

When it comes to insanely loud stuff, I couldn't agree more. Depending on what type of music you listen to and how far down the rabbit hole you go, you'll eventually hit -1 LUFS recordings...and start sobbing in anguish!

Now of course, there's some music that intentionally sounds that way for the "vibe" but I'm not sure how much of it I agree with...

 

[jimfisheye]

-1 LUFS vibe... You mean like Yoko?


I like speaker channels. The only thing better is more of them!
The evolution is backwards comparable too. Quad is still there. I like that!

 

[ar surround]

The rears in 7.1 are the rears in 4.0 and 5.1. The side channels are the new addition. Like center channels added on the sides. I'm not telling you what to do or anything but that's the format. Quad never went anywhere. Rears towed in or out... is simply that across all 3. I mean, that's what the speaker layout brochures say and all the mixes released the last few decades seem to follow and make sense.

The layout I use for my five main speakers is shown below. After the figure, I explain why my speaker layout is like this, and why the rear surrounds are not used as the the rears when I play quad or 5.1. (Note that I have a 7.0.4 system.)

The side surround speakers shown here are 4-way towers, six feet from my MLP. It makes no sense for me to use the rear surround speakers for quad or 5.1 because:

1) My rear surrounds are much smaller than the side surrounds. The rears are 2-ways hung on the back wall at different distances from the MLP due to the room's configuration.

2) Also, placing my side surrounds at 90 degrees prevents blending of the sound from the various 4-way drivers due to lack of distance from the MLP. It is especially problematic for a listener who is not in the MLP.

My previous system had smaller speakers for both the side surrounds and rear surrounds. So it was easier to achieve a layout with the side surrounds at 90 degrees; and the rear surrounds placed evenly across the rear wall of the room.

Acutally, I never have noticed a deterioration in sound or movie effects with my surround speakers at 110 degrees vs 90 degrees. And using the 4-way tower speakers for quad and 5.1 yeilds a much more balanced presentation as they are matched to the front towers and the large center channel speaker.

Sometimes with quad, I will sit on the front edge of the couch which yields more of a 'four corner' effect to the sound field. Sometimes I will upmix quad with AuroMatic to 5.0.5 or Dolby Surround 7.0.4...whatever sounds best.

 

[bsco]

Most of the modern communication methods depend on a remarkable infrastructure. Point-to-point radio can operate without any intervening connections. Anyone remember slow-scan TV? I could put a picture on a voice-grade channel, although it took several seconds to do so.

If the Internet went down (and some folks believe it’s quite fragile and hackable), we wouldn’t even have our old land-line phones any more in most places. Radio would be our only communications. Many ham clubs practice those scenarios.

I have a land line and for what it costs I will never part with it.....I have had to use it when we have power outages here.....

 

[jimfisheye]

I'm chasing the mixes and I make the room work with more standard placement where 4.0, 5.1, and 7.1.4 coincide. Format-wise they coincide. Don't take that as a critique or directive. Just explaining my motivation. I do like my rears towed in but more like 120 deg.

So the side channels are in the phantom center between fronts and rears per spec. I still treat the 4 corners as the main mix channels. I thought most surround mixes (that aren't decidedly front heavy anyway) are doing this? Center and sides are more solo channels. Tops can be anything from discrete elements to ambience to impact.

The overall mix balances across channels is still really important. Maybe most important! Fidelity still comes first. The mix should still sound right from the next room and even with some non standard speaker placement. Imaged/phantom elements will start to get skewed the further away you go but the main balances stay locked in. That's the goal anyway.

I think there's some wiggle room in this. Especially if it's just a listening system. (ie. Not also doing mixing.) The speaker placement charts all give a range of positions. I guess I'm aiming to be strict with some things so there's room for variables and the mix still works across different systems.

 

[mandrix]

7.1 mixing is so weird...compared to 5.1.

Wait until you get to Atmos. There is a forum member that mixes extensively in 5.1...but he's been stepping out into Atmos of late and doing a hell of a job.
@Methuselah’s Grandpa , I don't think he'd mind me mentioning him. The man has talent, all I'm saying.

 

[ar surround]

The man has talent, all I'm saying.

Ditto!

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

So just because Atmos has that -18 LUFS music thing does NOT mean the music isn't brickwalled...it could easily be "bricked" then turned down...

I suspect that some Atmos releases are probably like this.

 

[ar surround]

So just because Atmos has that -18 LUFS music thing does NOT mean the music isn't brickwalled...it could easily be "bricked" then turned down...

I suspect that some Atmos releases are probably like this.

I believe that I know what you mean. This idea of targeting a certain LUFS seems to me to be strictly a way of normalizing the sound of various tracks in relation to each other. It seems independent of dynamic range. So given two songs with the same LUFS, the one with high dynamic range will sound lower in volume, while the song with a dynamic range that is squished to death will still sound louder. Is this correct?

 

[jimfisheye]

I believe that I know what you mean. This idea of targeting a certain LUFS seems to me to be strictly a way of normalizing the sound of various tracks in relation to each other. It seems independent of dynamic range. So given two songs with the same LUFS, the one with high dynamic range will sound lower in volume, while the song with a dynamic range that is squished to death will still sound louder. Is this correct?

It's the new volume war trick the kids are doing to work around the meters. It's crude and dumb.

LUFS is basically db level but takes into account that music can have random quieter parts and some louder parts. You could skew the metering easier with straight db measurement. LUFS is more accurate representation and doesn't let you get away with that.

The brick wall slam and then just turn it down is what the kids are doing to spoof the new system and keep the volume wars alive. If you master to a target LUFS level, that might involve some compression or limiting if you have transient heavy material. (Like a loud punctuating snare drum.) Compress/limit that and now you can turn the whole thing up some. Now you can hit the loudness you wanted. The amount of compression you needed for that is what it is and sounds damaged if you go too far.

Streaming services are starting to impose volume limits. A TV commercial in the past would compress the peaks and turn up the volume. Finesse compressing the peaks and you find you can manipulate the system and hit different db levels on the meter at will. LUFS doesn't let you get away with as much.

Modern volume war method to work around that (because there's always some wise guy):
Brutally slam the program WAY past the allowed limit!
Now just turn the whole thing down until the meter reads what you want. This results in program that hits a few db louder than it would mastering it 'properly' and using the full dynamic range. It sounds very damaged and compromised compared to doing this properly! Volume war chasers don't care because... ours go to 11!

So... yeah... this crap has already hit Atmos. The mixes are actually mostly around -14 LUFS and turned down from there. Not highly damaged and not what are considered volume war levels. Working around the metering for a little more volume at the expense of the dynamics all the same though. It's a moot point next to the mutilated sound from limited streaming bandwidth that makes streaming Atmos more novelty IMHO.

There's a line with everything. Matching the volumes between songs when mastering an album and just turning a couple tracks down a couple db isn't crossing the line. The overall 'slam and turn it down' thing sure is though!

This is why we can't all have nice things. Invent a system with more dynamic range. Someone comes along and throws that away to make it loud and crude again!

 

[JediJoker]

...LUFS... ...seems independent of dynamic range.

Indeed, loudness is not the same as dynamic range.

 

[jimfisheye]

Things are moving in the right direction for sure!

Measuring loudness in an audio context rather that pure db meter levels is a good way to put it.

But yeah, the volume warriors have already started finding workarounds!

 

[mandrix]

The layout I use for my five main speakers is shown below. After the figure, I explain why my speaker layout is like this, and why the rear surrounds are not used as the the rears when I play quad or 5.1. (Note that I have a 7.0.4 system.)

View attachment 108447

The side surround speakers shown here are 4-way towers, six feet from my MLP. It makes no sense for me to use the rear surround speakers for quad or 5.1 because:

1) My rear surrounds are much smaller than the side surrounds. The rears are 2-ways hung on the back wall at different distances from the MLP due to the room's configuration.

2) Also, placing my side surrounds at 90 degrees prevents blending of the sound from the various 4-way drivers due to lack of distance from the MLP. It is especially problematic for a listener who is not in the MLP.

My previous system had smaller speakers for both the side surrounds and rear surrounds. So it was easier to achieve a layout with the side surrounds at 90 degrees; and the rear surrounds placed evenly across the rear wall of the room.

Acutally, I never have noticed a deterioration in sound or movie effects with my surround speakers at 110 degrees vs 90 degrees. And using the 4-way tower speakers for quad and 5.1 yeilds a much more balanced presentation as they are matched to the front towers and the large center channel speaker.

Sometimes with quad, I will sit on the front edge of the couch which yields more of a 'four corner' effect to the sound field. Sometimes I will upmix quad with AuroMatic to 5.0.5 or Dolby Surround 7.0.4...whatever sounds best.

Interesting. I had a 7.1.4 setup and recently changed to a 5.1.4 for some of the same reasons.
Because of the room layout, my MLP is not centered front to back but is more rearward. My rear speakers are actually at a more extreme angle than 110* though I haven't checked the exact angle.
All the hifi gear is to my left so I had to position the rears a little further back. Seems to be working pretty good for 5.1 especially.
When I changed the setup I didn't do the full range of mic setup for Dirac Live, as it was more of a test. I need to go back now and do a 9 point or > calibration.