Login / Register
 
Surround mixing explained to a producer?
New Reply
Subscribe
#31
19th February 2013
Old 19th February 2013
  #31
Lives for gear
 
danijel's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 2,057
My Recordings/Credits

danijel is offline
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
#32
19th February 2013
Old 19th February 2013
  #32
Gear nut
 
t_young's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 91

t_young is offline
smh. don't take the bait guys.
#33
19th February 2013
Old 19th February 2013
  #33
Gear addict
 
jujufactory's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 309

jujufactory is offline
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.
#34
19th February 2013
Old 19th February 2013
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: LA, USA
Posts: 8,698
My Recordings/Credits

Henchman is offline
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.
#35
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #35
Gear maniac
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: London

Jussi is offline
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?
#36
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #36
Gear addict
 
jujufactory's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 309

jujufactory is offline
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.
#37
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,498

apple-q is offline
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.
#38
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,498

apple-q is offline
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.
#39
20th February 2013
Old 20th February 2013
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: LA, USA
Posts: 8,698
My Recordings/Credits

Henchman is offline
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?
#40
10th March 2013
Old 10th March 2013
  #40
Gear addict
 
jujufactory's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 309

jujufactory is offline
Actually the camera and lens is irrelevant as long as the film is good. That is precisely the point.
#41
10th March 2013
Old 10th March 2013
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: San Francisco area
Posts: 3,357

philper is online now
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
#42
10th March 2013
Old 10th March 2013
  #42
Gear maniac
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: London

Jussi is offline
-
#43
10th March 2013
Old 10th March 2013
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: LA, USA
Posts: 8,698
My Recordings/Credits

Henchman is offline
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.
#44
11th March 2013
Old 11th March 2013
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,386

mattiasnyc is offline
subscribed to thread
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
videoteque / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
8
the247s / Mastering forum
3
Gerax / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
6
jwh1192 / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
5
Gerax / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
13

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.