Extended stereo to 4.1 upmix - is it working ok?!!

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

OdysseyMusik

400 Club - QQ All-Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
458
Location
Copenhagen, DK
I've worked with some extended mixes of the Keith Hopcroft album Downstream. Original instrumental tracks was lost but Keith and I could make a 96-24 transfer of the stereo master reels.
I would be very happy if some of you could give the track Hello a listen as extended 4.1 upmix and as a normally steady 4.1 upmix;
You can stream/download it here: https://surroundmusic.one/album/keith-hopcroft-downstream/
What is your thoughts about that?


If more of you agree that extended upmix works better than steady upmix we could spread the word! For example I'm sure The first 3 Gentle Giants would be nice to have with extended upmixes for these number there was not surround mixed!

In my ears steady upmixes of albums (never made into real surroundmixes) sounds 50% better than the stereo sound, while good surroundmixes sounds 100% better:
Different kinds of mix.png

What is your opinion on that?
 
Hey Jan! Well, this clearly has more activity in the rear channels, I feel there's even movement here that I didn't notice before. How exactly did you achieve this: it's still a complete upmix, correct? You did not get your hands on any discrete elements in the meantime?

During the instrumental break, I notice the song gets uneven in volume levels between the different channels. On the one hand, yes, there's more going on in the rears now, but I think it's at the expense of an incohesive sound field.

Since the song has not gotten any longer, what exactly does the term "extended" mean in this context?
 
Hey Jan! Well, this clearly has more activity in the rear channels, I feel there's even movement here that I didn't notice before. How exactly did you achieve this: it's still a complete upmix, correct? You did not get your hands on any discrete elements in the meantime?

During the instrumental break, I notice the song gets uneven in volume levels between the different channels. On the one hand, yes, there's more going on in the rears now, but I think it's at the expense of an incohesive sound field.

Since the song has not gotten any longer, what exactly does the term "extended" mean in this context?

Thank you very much for the analysis!
Yes, it's still the same original stereo mix that I use. I can grasp the middle point between left and right channel and move it a little around listening center (center of the 4 speakers). Just like dancing to the music and supporting some instruments a little more at the back at some times and often the vocal a little more forward. In drum breaks, I've tried to exaggerate and give it a good turn. (Also in some intro and outro on other tracks) I agree with you that it distorts the audio image a bit too much and should be limited. But maybe some reverb can help .... I will work on that as a 4th generation of my extended upmix.

It took me several hours to do so it's a complicated process. But I think there are good perspectives in it;
For example, to make extended upmix of the numbers on the first 3 Gentle Giants albums that did not get a SW 5.1 mix. I assume that the original intruent and vocal tracks were too broken to make 5.1 mix of the entire albums. For my sake, I've also started with Jethro Tull's Living In The Past, where some of the numbers are not 5.1 bonus on the new boxsets.
If I can persuade Gentle Giants or Ian Anderson to maybe publish it, is the big question!;)
 
Now I have worked further with the extended mix. (Or what should I call it?;))
I separated the previous mix into 5 channels and added a bit reverb to fill out the holes in the drum-breaks (and only there). It also got a little more bass in the front and less in the rears.
So now it is ended up with a quite living upmix I will say!
Links are now updated; Hope you like it too!;)
 
Yes, definitely better!

Still, in some places, I get the impression the sound is a bit too forcefully yanked from the fronts. I can imagine it must be very challenging to make the rears "heard" without compromising the fronts when you are upmixing, but alas, as it is, it doesn't quite work yet for me.

I hope somebody else will chime in. This album and your work on it deserve more recognition. It was one of my favourite discoveries of 2017, I played it up and down all summer :)
 
Yes, definitely better!

Still, in some places, I get the impression the sound is a bit too forcefully yanked from the fronts. I can imagine it must be very challenging to make the rears "heard" without compromising the fronts when you are upmixing, but alas, as it is, it doesn't quite work yet for me.

I hope somebody else will chime in. This album and your work on it deserve more recognition. It was one of my favourite discoveries of 2017, I played it up and down all summer :)

OK! Is it the drum-breaks that doesn't work for you or more places?
 
I have now made a finale extended upmix of Hello. Streaming/download here.
Full album download is updated with that now.

Hope more will give a comment on this extended upmix! Is it a little better than normally steady upmix?

IMHO it gives a more living and interesting mix and could be used on a lot of good old album with no original instrument and vocal tracks left. Supertramp? Some of Mike Oldfield? ... and so on.... If there was a demand of extended upmixes of these albums the artists maybe would listen.... who knows?!



(For the curious the previous more extrreme upmix is here.)
 
Back
Top