Surround sound mastering

[wado1942]

I don't get to do surround often these days. In fact, I've been in my new studio for a year and haven't even hooked up my surround monitors. There was a period where I seemed to be doing a fair amount of surround work, but that was for movies, not music only releases. Since everybody handles their media on computers with $30 speakers or on their iPods, there isn't a whole lot of demand for quality of any kind lately, forget extra channels.

That said, if I can, I prefer full rate (not half) DTS if it's concert footage or the like, but when handled carefully, Dolby Digital can be OK as well. DD is much more common as it's a requirement for DVD replay. For music only, I prefer 48KHz 24-bit quad (no center or LFE channels). This can be encoded as a DVD-Video disk and played back on anything that can play DVDs. It folds to stereo pretty well at that. It's rare enough for even large theaters to set up their systems properly, I don't think I've EVER seen a home system done well (in person any way), so 99% of my work is stereo. In fact, stuff I know will be shown in local theaters are pretty much mono to avoid incorrect extraction to Dolby Stereo (which is almost guaranteed) and downing out the dialogue. As much as I love surround sound, there's almost nobody out there who can enjoy its benefits. I, in the mean time, have a small collection of SACDs I like a great deal. I don't have much time for music listening, so I haven't invested a ton of money in surround music.

[Jim Williams]

Surround is back already?

I did "quad" back in 1973.

Then 5.1 "surround" came and went in the 1990's.

I expected it to return, but not so quickly. Usually it takes a generation to forget how the last incarnation failed.

[wado1942]

The problem with surround in 1973 was a lack of decent delivery; 3dB isolation between adjacent channels? That's effectively mono, but really expensive. The thing to overcome now is consumer laziness in placing speakers in the right place (AKA, not all on the floor in a pile), which won't happen anytime soon.

On that note, W. Carlos wrote a great article about surround sound and learning from the mistakes of the 70s. It's a little outdated, but worth reading in your spare time.
http://www.wendycarlos.com/gosurround.html

[Jim Williams]

The problems are well documented.

Set up, delivery, media, amps, speakers, listening position are all obsticles to overcome, but none of them overcame the American housewife.

"You get TWO speakers in the living room, Mr. MAN!"

It was that in 1973 and it still is today.

[807Recordings]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

The problems are well documented.

Set up, delivery, media, amps, speakers, listening position are all obsticles to overcome, but none of them overcame the American housewife.

"You get TWO speakers in the living room, Mr. MAN!"

It was that in 1973 and it still is today.

Naa, more and more ppl have home theatre setups. However setup and accuracy is another issue (same for stereo). I do think though your better off chasing the home theatre setup for mastering and with dolby true HD its actually a very good musical format. Same with DTS HD formats.

Outside of a Blue Ray though no one is really come up with a good download format.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

I am curious how many of you master surround sound (music) releases?

I do some.

And generally, do you have an opinion on its popularity/place in the listener's world in 2012?

It's very much a niche market. Most of surround I get here is classical for the audiophile market and demand there seems quite stable.

There's some pop/rock releases coming out as well, though that's mostly re-mixes/re-releases these days. And I suspect sales numbers there have fallen sharply in recent years; but that's just a guess.

Lastly, do any of you listen in surround for pleasure? And if so do have a preference for format/codec etc?

YES! A great surround recording/mix on a great system in a great room is still one of the most amazing experiences.

Format preferences: SACD has the convenience (insert = play), DVD-A has long playtime and good additional functionality (menu, multiple groups, etc). Both formats sound fantastic.

For portability, I'm also loving DTS-CD (plays on any DVD-player, and I use it a lot to listen to 5.1 in my car).

[Greg Reierson]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Surround is back already?

Most movies and a lot of TV are mixed in surround. Even football...

I think I've done only one music-only project in surround this year. That came and went for sure.

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by wado1942

For music only, I prefer 48KHz 24-bit quad (no center or LFE channels)..

Quoted for truth. Prefer full bandwidth PCM, or DTS at the least.

The rear channels are for More than just reverb and applause, spread the mix around to the sides.

IMO the center channel works best with movie dialog, and the sub for LF effects, or in music a supportive role of low bass and kick. But a good quad mix should work without the Ctr or LFE channels.

Best, JT

[Thor]

Hi Owen,

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

Hi all,

I am curious how many of you master surround sound (music) releases?

We do. The amount varies, and I'd say especially recently it's been mostly for DVD/BluRay (with picture, i.e. concert, live show, etc).

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

And generally, do you have an opinion on its popularity/place in the listener's world in 2012?

I think that too varies greatly. I'm a fan, and do what I can to promote it because IMHO a well done surround mix offer a level of immersion and realism that surpasses stereo, like going from mono to stereo is a step up from mono. What I see is that almost everyone here has a home theater setup. Not everyone bothers to set it up or calibrate it, but you see just as many homes with one speaker beside a couch and another in a bookshelf for stereo listening, so I think it's more a question of interest. For people who like to sit down and enjoy a movie, they'll take the added time and effort to set up their listening correctly, and the same setup will apply to surround music as well.

My hope is that with the adoption of HDTV worldwide, which requires a 5.1 audio mix as the minimum audio requirement, we'll get more experience in general in working with and listening to the format. Maybe when consumers have gotten comfortable with watching TV in surround, putting on their favorite band after a surround program will in some ways be a bit of a let down and make it all the more apparent how much more surround offers, and perhaps create a demand for more surround content (music). We'll see.

Surround is here to stay at least as far as TV broadcast goes, and that isn't going away. If you have a mono TV speaker, you're still getting the full 5.1 mix all the way to your receiver/box, which does the downmix for you.

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

Lastly, do any of you listen in surround for pleasure? And if so do have a preference for format/codec etc?

All the time. No real preference, although I like "real" PCM or DSD to lossy compressed formats (DTS/Dolby). 24/96 on BluRay is amazing

We have a growing collection of fantastic sounding material from a wide range of sources and genres, and I try and play something for a client at every session if we get the time. While there are a lot of "silly" 5.1 releases where the effect is overdone (just like there were when stereo was young), there are quite a few that cause jaws to drop, consistently.

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

I look forward to hearing from y'all!

So what's your take on surround?

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

Best,

Owen Gillett

Cheers,
Thor

[Owen Gillett]

Originally Posted by Thor

Hi Owen,

So what's your take on surround?

Cheers,
Thor

Hi Thor,

I think the same as you do that it is superior to stereo and a holds great creative potential which hasn't been tapped enough by the music making community yet.

Surely anyone who has done any surround mixing will relate to the experience of temporarily switching back to stereo and feeling everything dimensionally disappear!

Sometimes the effect of surround can be subtle until you go back to stereo and then you realise how awesome it is!

I am recording an album of my own music in October and am contemplating a surround mix (as well as stereo ofcourse). I am hoping to find some of the niche listeners and keep the surround format alive!

I have heard pretty conflicting info about whether surround is "alive or dead" so I thought gearslutz might be a good place to ask what people think.

I found your post quite encouraging that there are some listeners out there and that it may even become more commonplace in the future whether in a physical format or not.

Cheers!

Owen

[AUDIOBOMBER]

i`ve never seen a proper surround listening setup anywhere....
just some computer game nurds with their 50euro 5.1 setup spread randomly around their room.

[wado1942]

Originally Posted by AUDIOBOMBER

i`ve never seen a proper surround listening setup anywhere....

Seconded; My MiL has her fronts on top of an 8' high entertainment center and the surrounds in the bottom shelves. I haven't found the sub or center yet. A friend of mine at least sort of had something going, with the fronts in the ideal position, but the sub was way off to the side (and it sounded like it) and the surrounds on the back wall. What made that worse is that his couch was also against the back wall. Most places, I see everything in a pile. I do a lot of work in T.V. and found that the local productions are all done in mono here, because when they did stereo, people were always calling and complaining that they couldn't hear the dialogue/monologue. Turns out, it was people with surround systems set to extract all stereo info to Dolby Pro Logic. It was grabbing all the side information, boosting it and throwing it into the surround channel. When they switched to mono, the problem went away. The only theater in town that plays non-Hollywood releases has the same problem. It better be mixed for Dolby surround or mono or else nobody can heard the dialogue.

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

The rear channels are for more than just reverb and applause, spread the mix around to the sides.

IMO the center channel works best with movie dialog, and the sub for LF effects, or in music a supportive role of low bass and kick. But a good quad mix should work without the Ctr or LFE channels.

Best, JT

One thing W. Carlos mentioned in that article is the idea of using four identical mics across the front for classical performances. This wraps the orchestra around the listener, giving more of a conductor's point of view but maintains the balance of the audience perspective.

I recognize why a good center channel is important, but we well-tuned home theater doesn't have as much benefit. I remember Bob Clearmountain saying the same thing for different reasons. He prefers to balance most things between L/R channels, reserving the center channel only for things like a guitar solo. He says that both L/R center panned and true center channels sound like they're coming from the same place, but "C" has a more specific "somewhere" whereas the bulk of the centered stuff doesn't just sound like a speaker right there. At any rate, if I disable the LFE and center channels, that leaves more bandwidth for the L, R, SL, SR channels. Under some conditions, DTS can actually be lossless and AC3 can be perceptually lossless. So, say the default profile forces the center channel to get 30-40% of the bandwidth most of the time. I can disable that channel and the LFE, change the profile to one designed for a busier mix, the encoder changes the rules to allow the four remaining channels to split the remaining bandwidth fairly equally.

When I'm doing movies for theatrical release, it's important to actually use the center channel for dialogue, though, because people sitting off to the left side or whatever will hear the dialogue in the left speaker instead of the center of the screen. For musical releases, I take the assumption that everybody has a system greater than or equal to mine, where the listener is in the sweet spot of a well-calibrated system. I say "Forget about those who are too lazy to do it right." in those cases. I have so many productions in my library where there's absolutely nothing important happening in the surround channels. What's the point?

[Jim Williams]

Surround has been relegated to the movies for cars driving off and scary teen films. Only ambience is heard during sporting events. It is and has been a total failure for pure music listening. No matter, the next incarnation is only 1/2 a generation away, look for it to come back again in 2020.

The results will be the same. Besides all those reasons I posted before, the real reason music surround has failed has nothing to do with the equipment.

It has everything to do with human response. We like entertainers to be presented in front of us, hence the creation of the stage. We don't like sounds coming from where we can't see them. This is our basic fight or flight response to pre-historic threats. If you hear a sound from behind you, the first response is to turn your head and determine if that sound is "friend or foe". That is a distraction from the listening experience.

For that same reason, movie mixers prefer the sounds to first eminate from the screen, then pull off camera. If not, everyone in the theater will be turning their heads around to look at what's producing that sound.

Listening tests with average listeners, (not audio or mastering guys) repeat the same results, people don't like it and prefer the music and sounds come from the stage.

No matter, surround will be back, again and again.

[Thor]

As much as I agree with Jim on a lot of things, I have to disagree with him on this ;-).

I think the reason isn't so much surround simulating pre-historic threats, as the fact that in today's world we simply have such a wide range of entertainment and distraction that music, at least in surround, may simply serve a niche of enthusiastic listeners. Compounded by the fact that there aren't a whole lot of compelling artists making music that grabs and amazes us and forces us to drop what we're doing and...listen!

However, I'd say that's the same with stereo, or music in general. While music still has the power to touch many people, it's lost a lot of the importance it once had, and has to share our attention with movies, computers, games, online chatting, and all sorts of other diversions that didn't exist or were inaccessible to most people 20-40 years ago.

There are people for whom music is their life, many of those people end up as musicians, some as engineers, a few as lawyers (you all know who I'm referring to...)

There's no problem having the entertainers presented in front of you in surround, in fact most well done productions do that. However it opens up creative license for the composer/artist that stereo doesn't afford, and used creatively and tastefully heightens the listening experience. As an example, try The Flaming Lips "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" to see what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about surround in your car while you drive to work, or in the kitchen while you make dinner. I'm talking about sitting down to enjoy a work of art that someone has put together. If you can sit for 2 hours and watch a movie, why not 40 minutes to listen to some amazing music?

Obviously, we need artists with something to say, worth listening to, who can write, arrange and perform. Those don't grow on trees, or under rocks, especially these days. But for those interested in music as something other than background noise, the soundtrack of their lives while they're off doing other things, or muzak in an elevator, I would say that surround has as much a reason to exist an thrive as does vinyl or any other specialist format. Such as it is at this point in time, a specialist format. One I hope to see grow and thrive and become more commonplace.

Cheers,
Thor

[chk23]

I'm one of those who has a high end surround system that is also capable of delivering excellent quality for music.
(this is one of the three front-speakers - more massive than the subwoofers of most of the so called "home theater systems" of today).

I really enjoy good 5.1 recordings - but it's hard to find decent 5.1 material today - besides the mandatory live DVD with some cheering audience sounds from the rear speakers.

A band that takes their 5.1 mixes really seriously is "porcupine tree" - love their surround edition of "in absentia" ( DVD-A 5,1, DTS 5.1 and PCM stereo).

[Owen Gillett]

Originally Posted by Thor

If you can sit for 2 hours and watch a movie, why not 40 minutes to listen to some amazing music?

I couldn't agree more!

Music needs to be regarded as an experience again instead of background noise.

And I think you might also be right about the lack of artists presenting their work in suround is partly to do with the fact that hyper-compressed muzak is kind of no more interesting in 5.1

Owen

[chk23]

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

I couldn't agree more!

Music needs to be regarded as an experience again instead of background noise.

And I think you might also be right about the lack of artists presenting their work in suround is partly to do with the fact that hyper-compressed muzak is kind of no more interesting in 5.1

Owen

And as I was already talking about "in absentia" before, there's even a song on that album that perfectly fits with your post


(Porcupine Tree "Sound of Muzak")

btw: haven't heard the album in a long time - time to grab a glass of wine and get in front of the speakers...

[Owen Gillett]

Yes and Steven Wilson mixes seems to turn into surround too!

I think he's probably flying one of the highest flags for 5.1 and for artistic integrity in general in the current commercial climate.

He has even done some of his own surround mastering in the past!

PS yes I really like in absentia and I know the song you mention!

Best,

Owen Gillett

[wado1942]

That brings me to another idea. I learned this trick from W. Carlos (not the article, but Carlos directly). Build up your surround mix, then fold it down to stereo using a specific matrix. SL gets assigned to L at -3dB and an inverted SL signal goes to R at -10dB. SR likewise, is assigned to R at -3dB and its inverse is sent to L at -10dB. This sounds almost as convincing as a true surround mix under good circumstances. A straight fold-down will appear to have what was SR and SL to be too loud. This is because those channels would have otherwise been behind you, where your hearing is less sensitive. The inverse is added to the adjacent channel to cause some cancellation in the middle, acoustically pushing the sound of the folded channels further to the side. Since the inverse signal is 7dB below the non-inverted signal, the maximum error in any part of the room is less than 5dB and less than 3db or so at the sweet spot.

I've played with this matrix a bit in my spare time and found you can make just about anything to sound like it's at least 30 degrees beyond where the actually speaker is, which is really cool. So, this is a good trick to give some of that enveloping effect to an ordinary stereo PCM or AC3 mix. I wouldn't put anything super important in the surround channels for a case like that, but you're less likely to miss something in those channels than you are in the typical ignoramus's home theater with surround speakers because they didn't wire them, didn't enable them or have their player to set 5.1 mixes to fold down to stereo and apply some false surround processing.

[Thor]

Very interesting idea, Stephen. When I get a break from the flood of work that recently came in, I'll definitely sit down and try this out, it sounds good in theory.

Thanks for sharing it.

Thor

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Surround has been relegated to the movies for cars driving off and scary teen films.

Relegated? To an industry that earns more?.... hmmm !!!

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Only ambience is heard during sporting events. It is and has been a total failure for pure music listening. No matter, the next incarnation is only 1/2 a generation away, look for it to come back again in 2020.

The results will be the same. Besides all those reasons I posted before, the real reason music surround has failed has nothing to do with the equipment.

It has everything to do with human response. We like entertainers to be presented in front of us, hence the creation of the stage. We don't like sounds coming from where we can't see them. This is our basic fight or flight response to pre-historic threats. If you hear a sound from behind you, the first response is to turn your head and determine if that sound is "friend or foe". That is a distraction from the listening experience.

For that same reason, movie mixers prefer the sounds to first eminate from the screen, then pull off camera. If not, everyone in the theater will be turning their heads around to look at what's producing that sound.

Listening tests with average listeners, (not audio or mastering guys) repeat the same results, people don't like it and perfer the music and sounds come from the stage.

No matter, surround will be back, again and again.

Totally agree. But surround in movies and games is big money - and much more difficult than mixing pop. That's why we get more dosh!!

[chk23]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

It has everything to do with human response. We like entertainers to be presented in front of us, hence the creation of the stage. We don't like sounds coming from where we can't see them. This is our basic fight or flight response to pre-historic threats. If you hear a sound from behind you, the first response is to turn your head and determine if that sound is "friend or foe". That is a distraction from the listening experience.

I totally disagree - either I'm differentent or you didn't ever listen to a really excellent surround recording. It's the immersion, the feeling to be "within" the sound and not in front of it, that I enjoy with really good surround productions. It's not, that the singer (entertainer) wanders around in the surround field while singing - that would indeed be disconcerting. But I like the idea of being surrounded by the strings, or the way, the drums are mixed on "in absentia" - with the more subtle sounds like cymbals, percussion and highhat in the back (sometimes one would detatch itself and start wandering around) and snares/toms/base in the front - a snare in the back would have the effect you described though - resembles a gunshot from behind, not very convenient at all

Maybe you have to detach yourself from the conception of necessarily simulating a live concert situation in every mix. Enjoying music on the couch in front of your hifi system is a different experience in a different situation.
And even if - you get a much more realistic room simulation with a surround system than with a stereo.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Thor

While music still has the power to touch many people, it's lost a lot of the importance it once had, and has to share our attention with movies, computers, games, online chatting, and all sorts of other diversions that didn't exist or were inaccessible to most people 20-40 years ago.

If you can sit for 2 hours and watch a movie, why not 40 minutes to listen to some amazing music?

Cheers,
Thor

You just answered your own question. People have other diversions. Long gone are those days of bringing home DSOTM, closing the windows, lighting up the black light and a joint, putting on those Koss headphones and sinking back into that bean-bag chair for 40 minutes of un-interrupted music "emersion".

Try that with any 18 year old today. He will get fidgity in 2 minutes and begin to check his "messages".

As for surround being acceptable and pleasant to the average listener, that has not proved out. If it were, it would have been accepted and embraced. Instead it has been shunned except for audio ******s and those promoting it.

Ask any non-audio person if they own or listen to surround music. Then ask them if they would want to.

[Thor]

Hi Jim,

the question was rhetorical. There are still people who enjoy an album, even young people. Quite a few less than 30 years ago, when we *all* hung out to listen to the latest album release. Maybe if the myriad methods of distraction had existed then, music wouldn't be the unifying art form it's been.

Sure, the few 18 year olds who would still sit down to listen to an album might check their texts or facebook while listening, but they still exist. Probably not many of them left, like you said most people don't have the attention span. Is that the music's fault..?

While there are acres of easily distracted young adults everywhere, there are also small, local indie artists selling out small clubs and building dedicated followings of fans the old fashioned way, paying their dues and polishing their chops. These are young people.

But this brings us into a whole different discussion - what role music has today, and by extension, where's all the greatness gone. Has it been reduced to something to keep the silence in the background at bay, to prevent us from feeling alone? Has it become a marketing tool, divvying us up in to neat little segments and making us feel we belong, are part of the in crowd, the right group?

I would say that the same arguments you use against surround apply just as neatly to stereo, indeed to music overall. Are kids with their iPods and earbuds "audio people", or does the music only serve as the soundtrack to their lives, an accoutrement to their look (along with clothes/fashion, etc) without any real meaning apart from helping define them as belonging to one group and not to others?

Thank you for leading us into a most interesting discussion (although we are rapidly moving off-topic...)

Thor

[brethes]

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

Hi all,

I am curious how many of you master surround sound (music) releases?
Owen Gillett

I have started doing more & more but it is in connection with films where "mastering" is not usually sought (but should be considering the frustrating number of movies shown on TV where the sound is diabolical and who vastly benefit from a Mastering stage to optimize levels and dynamic range for TV!)

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

And generally, do you have an opinion on its popularity/place in the listener's world in 2012?
Owen Gillett

5:1 music is fast becoming the norm for films thanks to Digital TV delivery formats and to Blu-Ray. It is still very much of a niche market for purely music, but with people having more & more home TV cinema systems at home, a Blu-Ray or DVD compatible music album is surround makes more & more sense.

Originally Posted by Owen Gillett

Lastly, do any of you listen in surround for pleasure? And if so do have a preference for format/codec etc?
Owen Gillett

I don't listen to surround much for pleasure as most of the music I listen to is not available in surround. But with well mixed 5:1 music played on a properly set-up playback system, the experience is amazing and switching back to stereo feels like a let down. Even upmixing can work wonders (a lot of the music I receive to mix in a surround film soundtrack comes in stereo). PCM 24bit 48Khz seems to be the norm at the moment and sounds great. But even Prologic II works well done properly and has the advantage of compatibility (decoding either in stereo or surround depending on the player) for home theatre systems.