Surround mixing explained to a producer? - Page 2 - Gearslutz.com Gearslutz.com
 


All Advertisers
Go Back   Gearslutz.com > The Forums > Post Production forum!

Surround mixing explained to a producer?
Topic: New Reply New Reply Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th February 2013   #31
Dies for gear
 
danijel's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 1,961
My Recordings/Credits

Juju, while I agree with you that a film should work in stereo, and we shouldn't rely on the extra possibilities for important dramatic effects, you are also talking a lot of nonsense here, believe us. You're confused about technical things, so it'd be best if you keep on giving us your opinion from the filmmakers perspective (that's appreciated), but leave the technical details out
__________________
www.danijelmilosevic.com
danijel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2013   #32
Gear Head
 
t_young's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 61

smh. don't take the bait guys.
t_young is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2013   #33
Gear maniac
 
jujufactory's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 292

My mistake. I meant 3.1, not 2.1. The point being that the back speakers are mostly useless if one considers that 95% of the audience will either watch it in stereo on their home TV and/or in 3.1/3.0 with back speakers improperly placed in the front.
jujufactory is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2013   #34
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: LA, USA
Posts: 7,888
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by jujufactory View Post
My mistake. I meant 3.1, not 2.1. The point being that the back speakers are mostly useless if one considers that 95% of the audience will either watch it in stereo on their home TV and/or in 3.1/3.0 with back speakers improperly placed in the front.
I'm sure you think mp3's are good enough as well.
Henchman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2013   #35
Gear nut
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 104

Quote:
Originally Posted by jujufactory View Post
My mistake. I meant 3.1, not 2.1. The point being that the back speakers are mostly useless if one considers that 95% of the audience will either watch it in stereo on their home TV and/or in 3.1/3.0 with back speakers improperly placed in the front.
This has been discussed several times here before and we all know that once the mix leaves the dub, we cant control it anymore. Playback systems vary a lot. I agree that stereo is probably most common way people are hearing shows and I also believe that the most important channel in 5.1 is center.

The mixers who know what theyre doing will deliver a mix that will work from atmos/7.1 to 1.0 and mixes often get 'remixed' for tv and dvd to ensure that they work on 'compromised' envinronments too.

So whats your point again? (other than telling how we are all blindly following the whims of a marketing dept ) Do you suggest that films should be mixed worst case scenario in mind?
Jussi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2013   #36
Gear maniac
 
jujufactory's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 292

My point is that if you know how to mix stereo then you just have to add one center track to get the movie mix. In my opinion, 3.0 and 5.0 are basically the same thing except that 3.0 is the best compromise between all the formats. That was the point.
jujufactory is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2013   #37
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,271

Quote:
Originally Posted by jujufactory View Post
My point is that if you know how to mix stereo then you just have to add one center track to get the movie mix.
apple-q is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2013   #38
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,271

Quote:
Originally Posted by jujufactory View Post
My point is that if you know how to mix stereo then you just have to add one center track to get the movie mix. In my opinion, 3.0 and 5.0 are basically the same thing except that 3.0 is the best compromise between all the formats. That was the point.
Except 3.0 is not even a format.
apple-q is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2013   #39
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: LA, USA
Posts: 7,888
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by jujufactory View Post
My point is that if you know how to mix stereo then you just have to add one center track to get the movie mix. In my opinion, 3.0 and 5.0 are basically the same thing except that 3.0 is the best compromise between all the formats. That was the point.
Some people like to rise above mediocrity.
Others don't.

I guess what kind of camera or lense you use is irrelevant as well.
As long as the picture is somewhat in focus, right?
Henchman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2013   #40
Gear maniac
 
jujufactory's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 292

Actually the camera and lens is irrelevant as long as the film is good. That is precisely the point.
jujufactory is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2013   #41
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: San Francisco area
Posts: 2,882

Who would you send a 3.1 mix to? A 2.1 mix? Whose spec is that? 2.1 is a sub/sat speaker setup (like Blue Sky), not a delivery format I've ever heard of. Making a stereo mix is still an ok thing to do as long as your delivery spec accepts it and you are aware that many networks etc will upmix the stereo to surround for presentation. This means that unless you monitored as an upmix in the mixing stage the audience will be hearing your film in a way you never have--are you ok with that?

philp
philper is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2013   #42
Gear nut
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 104

-
Jussi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2013   #43
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: LA, USA
Posts: 7,888
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by jujufactory View Post
Actually the camera and lens is irrelevant as long as the film is good. That is precisely the point.
And, you are wrong again.
I have started watching an intendant movie, and turned it off after 5-10 minutes because of either the picture quality,moor sound quality.
Henchman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2013   #44
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 602

subscribed to thread
mattiasnyc is offline  
Reply With Quote
New Reply New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread starter Forum Replies Last Post
Surround positions videoteque Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording 8 29th March 2008 08:07 AM
SURROUND MASTERING the247s Mastering forum 3 19th November 2007 06:20 PM
Live gig CD and DVD mix, any practical methods? Gerax Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording 6 12th April 2007 04:45 AM
lady smith black mambazo surround mix jwh1192 Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording 5 8th January 2007 11:50 PM
Surround recording for DVD, care to share a few tips? Gerax Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording 13 6th November 2006 08:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 AM.

Home - Search Forum - Contact Us - Terms Of Use / Privacy Policy - Advertise on Gearslutz - All Advertisers - Top
 
 
Powered by vBulletin®
Gearslutz.com LTD - UK Company Number 7597610.
Registered Office - 35 Ballards Lane, London, N3 1XW.
Hosted by Nimbus Hosting.

By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.