usage of space in 5.1 music production

[dutchman]

Is there a difference in how you use the space in surround between different musical (sub)genres? For classical it's beginning to be a standard to put to the orchestra in front and put the ambience on all speakers (as you are sitting in the adience). For popmusic there isn't a real standard. Some people put there sources everywhere they like, others put allmost everything in front and just some SFX and reverb in the surroundspeakers. What about punk, metal, r&b, soul, fusion etc.?

[Jose Mrochek]

Cool topic ! I would like to know to

[maks]

good question...but as i investigated this.. it seems no one can agree on one thing except maybe 5.1...so, the verdict? create your own standard because it is still new to many while you have time...

[nikki-k]

Hi!
I am actually doing a prog-rock/metal project, intention is to do a 5.1 mix, as well as stereo. I just got my monitoring up for doing 5.1, and it is awesome. Just doing light work so far, but going back to stereo kinda "hurts" lol!

At first, I was so excited, throwing stuff into the rear surrounds, figuring I would "wear myself out" on using them in that manner. It has worked, as I now am not simply throwing things there. Takes a bit to get used to the "expanded field" feeling.

I too am very interested to hear from experiences of working with 5.1 for similar genres. I am keeping the LFE unused for the most part right now, and center channel use is being kept to a bare minimum. Time, experience, and hopefully experienced users' opinions will help

I am trying to find a way to do downmixing (5.1->stereo) within Pro Tools easily (not using an external unit for this in other words; using a Blue Sky system with BMC, so I have bass management).

[AUDIOSFX]

My best advice to you all is view your LCR like a stereo field without a phantom center..use the center channel to create a sold stereo plus one field... think, really good movie theater sound. center carries the mix...

Surrounds are wonderful...you can use them to define that LCR image...it also provides a direct source or a diffuse one. reverb returns in surrounds or delays can help define without distraction. you can also pan around but I find in music it gets a bit silly. The reality is its a different world.. I compare it to going from mono to stereo. Stereo to 5.1 is a huge leap forward. You will notice going back to collapse is not very inspiring...

Imagine not having to cram all that data into to 2 speakers but 6.....

There are no set rules but the film industry has been mixing 5.1 since Apocalypse Now(6 track mag) and that sound track is damn amazing. Film is a great source to understand the placement and environmental impact of your music mix in surround.

Just like your favorite record or track being your guide find that amazing multi-channel mix and see what you learn from it...

Calibration and bass management are VERY IMPORTANT...

I have been an advocate in every forum I join to the importance of this..It IS NOT LIKE MIXING A STEREO TRACK there is a reason to cal... and your mix will reflect it.. so would your stereo mix but thats a thread long since past..

As far as using LFE...Be careful and err on the side of less is more.. I wouldnt say dont use it I would say use it lightly uinless you have an explosion in your song...

All in all the media your working in usually dictates the steering. If I mix a live to dvd show its from the audience perspective punk rock , robots even.. Classical is usually a spectater type environment hence its steering.. Hip hop on the other hand and electronica can be wild and crazy..its your palette be creative...



-will s

[Jose Mrochek]

In school, back in 1999 teachers told us that 5.1 was very far from being standard as stereo. That we should not worry, that mixing in stereo will go on for many many more years. Even though I see a few more mixes in 5.1, when do you guys predict this will be a standard ? and when will every music recording will have to have a 5.1 mix ???

[AUDIOSFX]

For me it already is. Every film I mix is in 5.1 and all the music I mix in it is 5.1 as well as lt rt and stereo. When I am in pre production I always plan to record for 5.1 in mind. Not meaning it will get used right away but its an asset that can be valuable to the client at some point in the future if not now.

As far as 5.1 as a music standard I push every engineer I know into at least trying it once and every one of them prefer to mix in multichannel than stereo anyday....

Universal is pushing DVD A and Sony is pushing SACD more and more releases are planed and the market will (I hope) yield a place for it now and in perpetuity.

Remember the only way right now to get HD stereo is either DVD A or SACD or DVD V... And since copy protection is such a major issue I bet you will be seeing alot more of it and both flavors stereo and 5.1 ...

-ws

[Jose Mrochek]

If my album goes well the first thing I will do is get a 5.1 system with SACD, I am dying to hear darkside of the moon 5.1!


AUDIOFX, when you plan to record for 5.1. (music) how is it that you approach different ?? In the tracking stage , do you have to think in more (for example) guitar parts, ??? more back up vocals ?? I mean, there is so much stuff(musically) you can put in a stereo mix without saturating the mix, I cant imagine being able to fill another 4 speakers!!! Do you think the classic 4 piece rock band will fade away 100 years from now, and venues with sorround will have 4 guitarrists 2 drummers, etc. etc... do you know what I mean ?? what do you think about this ?? Do you think 5.1 will change how we make music ? I know there will always probably be 12 notes, but it intrigued me when you said you think different when you approach a 5.1 recording. I would love to know alot about this. thanks for your comments

[AUDIOSFX]

Its very complex and simple at the same time. When I record guitars I may use an LCR mic placement. When I record drums I have a dedicated quad mic/ room set up.
This is as simple as stereo overs and stereo room mics. It all depends. ..

Vocals are focused usually in lcr and I might record more vocal pads or backgrounds to "fill the array up"... But the musician count will probably stay the same.

Its where we steer the sound that creates the environment not the number of musicians. It gives us control at an environmental level not a point source llevel. Dont think of it in terms of x intsrument =x speaker think more these sounds blend well in this environment. A mono track can have a quad fx return and you can do amazing things with it.

Its not stereo mixing but the principals remain generally the same and a great stereo mixer usually can be a great 5.1 mixer.

Its really new territory and there is so much to explain.

If you have specific questions it might be an easier way to go about this.

In addition this is Dyes territory and I am not the moderator..

-ws

[nikki-k]

Hi!
One of the biggest concerns for me has been how a mix done with 5 identical sats plus sub will end up translating on a "home" 5.1 system.

Home systems run from being someone with something like "matched Altec + sub" computer speaker systems, to the audiophile with a matched, hi-end system in a treated room, with the middle ground including those (like me) who bought nice towers, nice amp/receiver, and added different sats for rear surround, and a "dedicated center channel."

With that in mind, treating LCR as being "equal" would result in a bit of imbalance, since the center for some will not be a "full range," while the L&R would be.

Another difficult decision is due to the project I am doing: Semi Pinly FLoyd "The Wall" in idea, where a stereo CD will be released, in addition to an "animated, full feature film" on DVD. Essentially, same CD (about 70 mins in length), plus additional dialog and narration for the DVD (probably about 90-100 mins when finished).

After "playing" with 5.1 for only a week or so now, I already miss it when I go back to a stereo session.

[AUDIOSFX]

Thats why there are strict standards in dvd mastering and encoding.

Your right you can not calculate for wide variables but you calculate and cal for what the"standards" are and work accordingly. When you mix do you mix for phase challenged computer monitor's or a set of genelecs? Not everyone uses computer monitors and not everyone uses genie's

You find the least common denominator and apply. ac3 encoding ,dts encoding and dvd a encoding have very specific feilds and flags that are utilized to "translate" the material in its own best capacity. Most home theater systems are calibratable and translation is pretty descent.
How do you think all those DVD V 's released translate? The same way as your mix.

Hence the calibration standard for mixing and playback are relatively the same. THis is not the case for stereo recordings

When I worked at THX we spent alot of time coming up with OPTIMODE and other manufaturers including the guys that did The Wall dvd made special features just for calibration on their disk.

You can only hope for the consumer to care that the center is caled 5 db low.

Now..bass mangement is designed to adjust for this very frequency range challenged set up by redirecting frequency's non equal amplitude monitors cant handle.

Creating the very balance your worried about.

Dont be affraid to mix your stuff right....

-ws

[nikki-k]

Hi!
Thx Will - part of what I was looking for, and had assumed.

The other part of my dilema is this:
Realizing Bass Management, I am not too worried when approaching LRLsRs. For LFE, I have done enough reading to realize that for music, and basically anything but a special effect intended for that real, low end, I am currently avoiding use of it, except in those circumstances.

Center channel is my prime area of concern at this point actually.
Since a "properly mixed" LR *should* yield the same "center panned instruments" result in a 5.1 mix as a stereo mix, center panned instruments/vocals would not benefit from C use, correct? I am under the impression that C is left for dialog and such, or use by end user (playing a DVD for instance) who chooses to use one of the "effect" settings common to many "surround" or 5.1 systems. Yes?

My plan was to record my tracks, and then when time for mixing, setup 5.1 session (using Pro Tools), and ignore the LFE and C channels at that point. Basically mix for stereo (LR), and "mix in" the LsRs as "feels right." As dialog/narrative is added in (some will be on CD, all on DVD), then factor in the Center channel.
If an effect here or there (there is one scene with a thunder storm for instance) presents oppourtunity for LFE use, so be it.

I will not be mastering and encoding the "final product," so it is only the mix, and what I send to *them* that I need to deal with.
I will be putting the mix thru a system with Bass Management, and also doing checks via downmixing for stereo, so I have a rough idea of things, and do not end up sending a world of problems to the mastering guys

Are there any flaws with that approach?
Really appreciate the feedback!

[AUDIOSFX]

nikki k check your pm..

-ws

[Gie-Sound]

My concern is the CENTER channel....

In the beginning I did put my lead vocal (100%) on it... But i don't do that anymore...
Why not??? Because a lot of people at home configure their 5.1 systems bad/wrong (or they don't do it at all)...
Some people have the center-speaker way up (because they focus on the actors in a movie)... and if your lead-vocal is there.. it will be to damn loud!!!...
Other people have the center-speaker way down... and that off course kills your lead-vocal....

So nowadays I only use it a little.... So I put my lead on the L/R like you would do with a stereo-mix, but I reduce it's level by (let's say 1 or 2dB)... and then I bring it up on the center just a little bit, to back it up to it's "normal" level....

........also watch out with those rear speakers ... chances of bad configuration are even higher!!! People have 5.1... so now they wanne have those surround effects (in movies) pretty loud, to impress their friends...

So think carefully about placing your ingredients on this "special channels"... cause it may sound good on your setup... But....

[Roland]

The only advice I would offer anyone regarding 5.1 mixes is to stay out of the sub! Ok if you want to use a special effect, but for music it sounds "pants"! I have seen a few DVD's where the engineer decided to "creatively" stick some bass and b/d in the sub and the effect has always been bloated and unbalancing.

If listeners have small sat speakers with a sub their bass management system will/should take care of that for you.

As for panning, I personally prefer to see the music across the front with ambience to the rear, (especially with classical and jazz, however I can think of several projects where to pan instruments and sounds around the soundfield could well be musically justified. Things like Dark Side of the moon, and alike spring to mind.

Regards


Roland

[AUDIOSFX]

Gie-Sound...

It sounds to me like sticking with stereo is a good idea?


That makes no sense... dont use the center and dont use the surrounds in fear of bad calibration. You might as well not mix at all since the balance knob could of been tweaked by your child or the playback volume is so low you cant hear playack...

The point is most people I know cal their systems and playback works well. There are numerous ways to calibrate and some disks even come with a calibration section.

You have control over your center channel level during encode of every format...

If you don't stick to the calibration a "consumer " will more likely think that your mix is the way his/her system should be set up and you would be wrong... and setting a wrong example.


Roland..

Many engineers I know do not use the sub for music, but most use of 5.1 is for dvd v or film hence its usage. It can be quit affective i.e. hip hop and not everyone redirects lfe from satellites. There is redirection on most home theaters so I don't think your advice is bad. I just think ilfe should be used wisely..


no offense in this post is intended to any party
and if you are...well....


-ws

[nikki-k]

Hi!
Yep- consumer, home 5.1 mis-cal'd nightmares is what I worry about most, as I have no clue as to what the ratio of "proper->improper" is.

Any suggestions for DVD done well in the 5.1 dept? (I only have a DVD-V player, not DVD-A specific player, nor do I have anything to play SACD)
I tend to the prog-rock, heavy rock genre of things, and old enough that I grew up on Zep, Yes, Chicago, etc.

**edit:
OOOPS!
I just checked, and I do have DVD-A. (JVC XV-FA95GD)

[Jose Mrochek]

If mix engineers would mix for consumers, then why even mix on SSL boards, why would we have a forum, why not just mix on headphones or record directly to mp3. I think it's very rare to find a home with a good stereo set up. I'm a bit more positive in the sense that consumers who bought 5.1 systems, are a bit more worried about the set up. And even if they were to set it up wrong, we should not limit creativity in that sense. I think 5.1 is such a technological blessing it should be used to the max!

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by AUDIOSFX
Gie-Sound...
It sounds to me like sticking with stereo is a good idea?

That makes no sense... dont use the center and dont use the surrounds in fear of bad calibration. -ws

That's NOT what I said!tutt

I try to point out, that you should consider WHAT you do with those...
Personally I would not like to f@ck up things like a LEAD vocal...
I do use the rear speakers... but I don't put main instruments on them, but use them more for effects (space) / ambience / audience....
I'm just trying to point out where my worries concering my 5.1 mixes are...

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
If mix engineers would mix for consumers, then why even mix on SSL boards, why would we have a forum, why not just mix on headphones or record directly to mp3.

I think you put it a little to simple...
... don't know about you... but I don't mix for people owning a studio with big expensive speakers... I mix for those consumers!!! (They are the ones who have to listen to it... and they are paying...)
And since most of those are listening on cheap sets... I consider those setups, and try to make my mixes translate the best on those systems!
....so your SSL comment doesn't make any sense...

[Jose Mrochek]

Let me try and say it again...


I think a mix first of all has to be liked by you. you as a consumer, mixer or whatever. My point was, if you are going to be so worried about the consumer, the consumer could probably care less if you mix it on a SSL or Mackie, as long as they like the song. If we can agree on that, then the rest is all personal satisfaction I think. And what separates a good mix engineer with a bad one, is that the good ones have good taste, that is also liked by other people. I think that in the 5.1 world, it's the same. If you like something do it, if other people dont like it.. then, you need to work more on how you do things. But not start off by trying to satisfy consumers. satisfy yourself, then the client and theeen maybe the consumer .. you know ? Let the songwriters worry about consumers

[Jose Mrochek]

While I was reading other posts this question came to mind. I didn't live through the transition from mono to stereo. So please correct me if I'm wrong. When the Beatles did their first stereo recordings, I don't think engineers said "hey, let's not pan this guitar full left or mono users (that probably where the majority those days) wont be able to hear it. And man, the beatles and other bands from those days did some heavy duty panning. BASS completely on one side along with drums, with vocal on the other side and so on. You wouldn't understand crap on mono. And I think the same translates to 5.1 You have to assume the consumer set it up right, or else you are out of business. And on the other topic.. a mix sounding great on high end studio speakers, should translate perfectly to consumer boxes. This is not the case if you think the other way around!

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
Let me try and say it again...


I think a mix first of all has to be liked by you. you as a consumer, mixer or whatever. My point was, if you are going to be so worried about the consumer, the consumer could probably care less if you mix it on a SSL or Mackie, as long as they like the song. If we can agree on that, then the rest is all personal satisfaction I think.

I agree on the first part... Off course they don't care about SSL or Mackie...
But I think they do care about what sounds good to them... I know a lot of (not in music-bizz) people who say: "Wow this record sounds great!" ("Or I like the songs, but the sound doesn't rock".. and stuff like that.) So once again: I do think you should try to build a mix that translates good on different speakers!
When I jut started mixing, I was only pleasing myself, and a friend with a big ass sound system... But my other friends kept making comments about the sound of my mixes... they compared it to similair music CD's from other artists and thought they had better sound. "Big-ass-sound-system-friend" thought my mixes sounded better than the other records... So I had let's say a 5% succes score
Once I start building mixes that translated better to budget-soundsystems, my other friends suddenly liked my mixes better... So my score went up to (let's say) 80% enthousiastic people...

In my opinion we are not mixing for ourselves, we are mixing for an audience. You should try and please them.
If you have to mix a punkrock album, chances are that 95% of the audience/fans listen to it on cheap speakers (simply because they can't affort anything else)... I think it's our job (well I think it's my job anyway) to try and mix so those fans think it sounds killer... (and if that means you think the sound sucks on your big-ass speakers.... well...)

once again: I'm NOT saying you shouldn't pan things across all speakers...

[Gie-Sound]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
While I was reading other posts this question came to mind. I didn't live through the transition from mono to stereo. So please correct me if I'm wrong. When the Beatles did their first stereo recordings, I don't think engineers said "hey, let's not pan this guitar full left or mono users (that probably where the majority those days) wont be able to hear it. And man, the beatles and other bands from those days did some heavy duty panning. BASS completely on one side along with drums, with vocal on the other side and so on. You wouldn't understand crap on mono.

.... So why doesn't anyone mix that way anymore???

[Roland]

Originally posted by Gie-Sound
.... So why doesn't anyone mix that way anymore???

Coz you are never going to get another paid job if you do!

But seriously, following the comments over the last few posts, I'm afraid that for every consumer that does give a sh*t about sound and production values, the vast majority don't. Even, if the truth be known, neither do I. I can think of many well recorded things that I never want to hear again and some dreadful recordings of great songs that I and many of you here love.

Regards


Roland

[Jose Mrochek]

Gie Sound.. could you post a sample of one of your mixes ? I see it useless to go on with this discussion without actually listening to what you are saying.

P.S. Never mix to Genelecs, you will find them so useless

[AUDIOSFX]

I think we are missing the point.
Forums are for various ideas from many points of view.

Gie Sound...

Your post I responded to left me thinking you had actuallly chosen a specific mixing path and a possible lack of use of specific "channels" in the multi-channel set up.
Thats how I read your post..

Thanks for clearing my "interpretation" up.

The reality is calibration is a standard we should follow for the specific media in mind.

How you mix is entirely up to you.

Thats the great thing about sonic arts, it is about individual and collaborative expression and there is no right or wrong.


To a certain extent.

We know or should know when what we are mixing is bad or if we have lost perspective entirely.

SO...

Advice should always be taken on an individual basis. Ultimately you should decide what works best for you and your sense of "confidence" in what your working on..( and of course the paying client which ultimately decide if they want garbage or sonic nirvana...)

No one can guarantee playback on any medium, but you should at least mix to standards that have worked before you and will still work after your gone.

You can find all the info you need by doing a little research and experimenting yourself. It is not rocket science and actually can be alot of fun. Don't get so bogged down by "science" that your "art" is paralyzed...

-ws

[nikki-k]

Hi!
First, thx to Will

Being new to 5.1, my questions as to what *can* go where when mixing, with the "uncalibrated" consumer in mind, was mainly one of, "should this even be a concern?" Since I am guessing that *most* would not have a full range Center (for example), and since Bass Management will compensate (to some degree) for this, when mixing music in 5.1, would placing say, electric bass in the center channel be one way to go instead of center panning it via LR? With some of the "dedicated center channel" enclosures I have seen (and listened to), it would be quite obvious that the *typical* home listener would then hear that Center channel assigned bass quite differently than if it had been panned center via LR.
I have even seen receivers that do DD/DTS 5.1 (and more) that have a configuration option for tuning the mid-range response freq characteristic(s) for the center channel.

To me, the room one mixes in should contain a properly calibrated system. Why? It is a foundation (after all), and most of us know what happens if one builds on a foundation of shite.

As solid as the foundation can be then, it is what is built upon it that is the "artistic" part. If 100 studios all calibrate the same, and the monitoring experience from room to room is within X tolerance, and then each produces 100 CD's, the end purchaser of said product will have a certain amount of confidence in each of those CD's have an equal chance of sounding *good* on their equipment.

Best case consumer experience is one where the person has a room to listen that is set properly (room construct, treatment, and playback system calibration). Since the person mixing had the same, the experience should translate well, with very little variation from what the mixer intended (by their artistic mixing choices). Whether it sounds good or not is subjective, of course.

Worse choice is consumer with cheapo boom-box, listening while in the shower. Having done this myself, I know what the enviornment and playback equipment choice will do to the *sound* of the CD I am playing. It is all relative.

Yes, one could mix in a crap room, on crap system, uncalibrated, ignoring guidelines set forth. But the "universal translation" in the relative sense would be somewhat (if not completely) skewed. Or am I wrong in my thinking? If I am wrong, then this is meaningless diatribe, instead of being my usual needless babbling...

As far as placement in the Quad part of 5.1 (LRLsRs), artistic freedom rules IMO. (I have found LFE and C to require a little more restraint and consideration, personally anyway)
When done with a bit of insight as to what works and does not (trial and error, group/forum sharing of experiences), I find 5.1 inspiring and liberating. Almost like seeing the most beautiful, magnificent sunset. 5.1 adds the abilty to further broaden the landscape, almost beyond the peripheral. The scene is more encompassing, forcing one to consider facing different directions in order to fully take in the whole experience. Stereo is only being able to face forward, or simply admire a painting of that sunset.

[Jose Mrochek]

I have seen alot of posts, that suggest trial and error or tweak until you think it sounds good. I went to a recording school, where teachers would say "I can't teach you how to mix, that's my art, and you should build your art" Man, that is so selfish!!!! Because you guys know.. there are standards! Theres a 80% standard a mix should sound like to compete with other commercial records. And these standards could definetly be shared. And this is why I admire Charles Dye's point of view. I know I could ask him, look.. I have this drumset.. please tell me all of your eq, compression settings, effects.. and guess what, I think he would tell me.. and I would end up with a drumsound sounding pretty damm good even if I'm an amateur. I will never sound like a Charles mix, but hey I'm off to a great start! Maybe saved me years of trial and error to get to that start. I was expecting other people to tell Gie Sound that, limiting yourself to mix for small speakers will in the long run be a complete waste of time. Because we all know mixes should sound damm good in big speakers as well as little ones. There are some things that people tend to refer as "art", in other words.. Do your thing, It took me years to find out why, I won't give it to you in 5 minutes. This has to end.

[7rojo7]

usage of space in 5.1 music production.
I see that there are many stereo mixes that can be made.
L-R
L-C
C-R
Ls-L
Rs-R
Ls-Rs
Ls-R
Rs-L
C-(Ls-Rs)
Aside from joystick control there's also simple stereo placement in all these fields, I haven't started listening to what I can do yet but I've imagined quite a bit. Human binaural echo location is quite an amazing trait to play with, of course it's the brain that's the weak link and that is why we believe something in stereo is mono. and see 24fps as moving images.
If we're going to start worrying about badly cal'ed consumer equipment we might as well have quit in the 50's with the advent of the bookshelf speaker being placed behind the houseplant on the side of the couch.
My setup will be 5 1030a's with a 7050 sub, my Control24 has surround monitor capabilities. At home I have a really basic system and I can't get the surrounds behind me either, they're set wide, it sounds cool anyway, not how the engineer planned it for certain, but it's my home and if I put my surrounds wide instead of behind me or behind the house plant on the side of the couch that's my business. I have an old cheap home theater system and even it has preset programs for different listening situations, not to mention my player which has many features of its own.
I heard a demonstration of SACD in Amsterdam under pretty nice circumstances and I really liked the experience. I doubt many could replicate this in their homes, or studios for that matter. It's the marketing factor that swings these things more than anything else. The quality has to be the highest for a well cal'ed system because people with these systems are the ones who write reviews and so forth, it's a mistake to produce for the LCD or for the Elite. High quality can find its way to any level.