Surround mix style - what do you prefer?

[Dazzathedrummer]

Hi,

So if you seen my intro post you'll know that I'm a semi-pro musician and audio engineer and I'm just getting into surround.

I'd like to know (for the purpose of guiding my own mixes) what style of surround mix you prefer. From what I've gathered, the distinct styles are...

- Stereo mix with a bit of reverb in the rears (highest compatability accross systems)
- 'In the middle of the band' mix like the band are in a circle around you (less compatable with smaller speakers, especially if a sub is providing most of the bass)
- Completely abstract 'anything anywhere' (can be difficult with less capable systems)

I was listeneing to Mike Oldfield's 'Return to Ommadawn' at the weekend and was a bit mesmerised by how it sounded mixed over all five areas (5.1) - particularly intersting to move around the room and get a different perspective.

 

[GOS]

Welcome!

First, a good amount of the members on this forum (as the name suggests) have vintage Quadraphonic equipment and probably a couple shelves full of Quad tapes or LP's from back in the day. As such, discreet surround is the preferred version. I would say, a majority of "this" population does not like front-centric with reverb for the rear channels. (though Classical type music makes great advantage of such styles.....and many concert recordings seem to do this)

Then, there are surround recordings that utilize more of an immersive touch (with much less ping-pong, or super discreet elements popping out of speakers.

I love them both, immersive and discreet. Steven Wilson "can" be the king of discreet and someone like Eliott Scheiner has done some amazing immersive type releases. Though, that's not necessarily his signature as I've heard discreet from him as well.

I suspect, once more members see this thread, you will get ALL KINDS of responses. Most of them, though will not vote for front-centric with reverb in the rears.

 

[privateuniverse]

Most of them, though will not vote for front-centric with reverb in the rears.

What he ^ said!

Agreed. Hearing more than just ambience in the rears is my preferred style of mix. I like hearing unique elements in the rear speakers.

 

[Dazzathedrummer]

Welcome!

First, a good amount of the members on this forum (as the name suggests) have vintage Quadraphonic equipment and probably a couple shelves full of Quad tapes or LP's from back in the day. As such, discreet surround is the preferred version. I would say, a majority of "this" population does not like front-centric with reverb for the rear channels. (though Classical type music makes great advantage of such styles.....and many concert recordings seem to do this)

Then, there are surround recordings that utilize more of an immersive touch (with much less ping-pong, or super discreet elements popping out of speakers.

I love them both, immersive and discreet. Steven Wilson "can" be the king of discreet and someone like Eliott Scheiner has done some amazing immersive type releases. Though, that's not necessarily his signature as I've heard discreet from him as well.

I suspect, once more members see this thread, you will get ALL KINDS of responses. Most of them, though will not vote for front-centric with reverb in the rears.

It's intersting - I've not listened to enough yet to make a decision and I guess different styles are suited to different approaches.
I've got three Steven Wilson surround mixes - the two Marillion albums and Hand Cannot Erase - I'll have to give them a bit of a study listen - I didn't like his stereo remixes of the two Marillion albums as they didn't seem to be as imersive as the original mixes ...I'd be interested to know if the SW 5.1 mixes add value to the original stereo mixes.

Are there any albums where multiple mixes are offered for different approaches?

 

[proufo]

Immersive. Possible/sensible only with certain types of artists/music/albums. The best!

Anything anywhere second, but I hate when they shift the performers from one speaker to others from cut to cut.

Reverb in the sides not a choice these days. It can be synthesized very adequately in real time. But if they do, I would think of it as a stereo mix with enhancements (say Allmans at Fillmore Blu-rays).

 

[Dazzathedrummer]

The main reason for this is to determine the approach to my own mixes.
I imagine that most 'normal' people that have 'surround' will have tiny satelite speakers or sound bars that they mainly use for watching TV - do I play it safe and cater for those limitations - or do I maximise (I think I know the answer!!).

 

[mlrocker]

I favor discrete quad with movement of course , but I've done some cool stuff with blended stereo in ambient music

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I’m partial to Scheiner mixes like this one:

https://www.discogs.com/Donald-Fagen-Kamakiriad/release/3178007

 

[marpow]

Very interesting subject when I sit down and think about it.

I believe the main thing is that we hear something different in different speakers. The releases that really get slammed on this site are ones where we pay our hard earned money for a new release and it is just stereo in front and ambient (Faux) in rears like the recent Stones- Goats Head Soup, what a waste.

Studio: I like my surround to be gimmicky, lots of things moving around but not parked in a certain speaker. There is a blues disc by Bryther Smith where the cowbell on one track is parked in the rear left and is really irritating.
I like the vocals to be front and center, the bass and drums spread across front, the rest can move all around. The recent two Santana Quad discs are good examples because of the added, congas, timbales, etc. It's fun when instruments move back and forth diagonally.

Live: Very, very hard to get discrete surround right from a live performance, to the point I actually just like the rears to be ambient with audience, but I like them to be active, it's a drag when you only hear the audience between songs.

I prefer 5.1 over 4.0, I like my subs and my center speaker. Atmos is a huge bonus but so far have not really heard a bunch of good Atmos, mostly the mixers using the heights as ambience, unlike movies where the Atmos mixers seem more aggressive. Booka Shade does Atmos music the best I have heard so far.

Sometimes I can't handle any surround and I just like stereo. Could you imagine Robert Johnson in surround, ugh. I have heard stereo discs that are way better than there surround of the same.

I am certainly no expert and there is enough evidence to show opposite of what I said, and I would likely agree as I can't remember everything all the time, but this is kind of the tip of my iceberg.

You asked about different approaches offered, Clapton's Ocean Blvd box set and Lennon's Imagine box set offer the same in stereo, quad and 5.1, really fun to listen to all the versions. No doubt there are others.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Hi,

So if you seen my intro post you'll know that I'm a semi-pro musician and audio engineer and I'm just getting into surround.

I'd like to know (for the purpose of guiding my own mixes) what style of surround mix you prefer. From what I've gathered, the distinct styles are...

- Stereo mix with a bit of reverb in the rears (highest compatability accross systems)
- 'In the middle of the band' mix like the band are in a circle around you (less compatable with smaller speakers, especially if a sub is providing most of the bass)
- Completely abstract 'anything anywhere' (can be difficult with less capable systems)

I was listeneing to Mike Oldfield's 'Return to Ommadawn' at the weekend and was a bit mesmerised by how it sounded mixed over all five areas (5.1) - particularly intersting to move around the room and get a different perspective.

What style of music does your band play; maybe we can suggest specific titles to check out?

 

[sjcorne]

...it is just stereo in front and ambient (Faux) in rears like the recent Stones- Goats Head Soup, what a waste.

Goats Head Soup is certainly not the best surround mix I've heard this year, but there's far more than just ambience in the rear speakers. I hear isolated elements back there in nearly every track--examples include the keyboard in 100 Years Ago", backing vocals in "Coming Down Again", strings in "Angie", horns in "Heartbreaker", handclaps in "Hide Your Love", and piano in "Star Star".

 

[Clint Eastwood]

The main reason for this is to determine the approach to my own mixes.
I imagine that most 'normal' people that have 'surround' will have tiny satelite speakers or sound bars that they mainly use for watching TV - do I play it safe and cater for those limitations - or do I maximise (I think I know the answer!!).

First let me mention that the words "sound bars" are usually not heard on this forum....they do have a place...but that place is not here....most of us acknowledge that when there is a small space(and there is no room for a conventional speaker system)that a sound bar is "acceptable"...the other situation is that some of our members have
to bow to the unreasonable demands of a significant other....in this rare case... the member is given some latitude from our community...although they know not to discuss such heresy in the open forum..

I came from the video world....and my first experience with surround involved a heavy use of the center channel...which carries the dialogue in movies...that preference translated to audio surround...I like the vocals in the center channel and I don't want bleed over into the surround channels...like most live music concerts...I want different individual instruments to be in those surround channels....but I must say that a well done quad mix is very appealing as well...the emphasis on well done...which I have experienced with Dutton and other great titles from the 70's...

 

[sjcorne]

I didn't like his stereo remixes of the two Marillion albums as they didn't seem to be as imersive as the original mixes ...I'd be interested to know if the SW 5.1 mixes add value to the original stereo mixes.

The Misplaced Childhood Blu-Ray only includes SW's 5.1 mix and the original stereo mix. In this case, he felt that his stereo remix did not improve upon the original and chose not to have it released. Same deal with his remixes of Rush's A Farewell To Kings and Tears For Fears' The Seeds Of Love.

 

[jimfisheye]

I like to make discrete hyper-realistic mixes. Not necessarily strictly from the perspective of the middle of the band. Sometimes the 'action' includes ambient elements.

I don't mind the room ambience only in the rear and stereo only up front in something like a live recording and live mix where a multitrack doesn't exist. In this case anything is better than nothing! I'll take that audience-only in the rears! It's a legitimate and welcome use of the surround format.

When the stereo in front and ambience only in the rear thing is done as an intentional compromise though and the multitracks exist, it comes across as cheap. Or the movie soundtracks or sports broadcasts that are made more to fold down to stereo than present the pseudo surround mix properly. It's still more than just stereo and that's all well and good but I'd describe this stuff as technically stereo mixes with ambient extension and using surround format. Nothing wrong with that! Just don't confuse it with genuine discrete surround mixes.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Hi,

So if you seen my intro post you'll know that I'm a semi-pro musician and audio engineer and I'm just getting into surround.

I'd like to know (for the purpose of guiding my own mixes) what style of surround mix you prefer. From what I've gathered, the distinct styles are...

- Stereo mix with a bit of reverb in the rears (highest compatability accross systems)
- 'In the middle of the band' mix like the band are in a circle around you (less compatable with smaller speakers, especially if a sub is providing most of the bass)
- Completely abstract 'anything anywhere' (can be difficult with less capable systems)

I was listeneing to Mike Oldfield's 'Return to Ommadawn' at the weekend and was a bit mesmerised by how it sounded mixed over all five areas (5.1) - particularly intersting to move around the room and get a different perspective.

Obviously, you've never heard the extraordinary British Label's Dutton Vocalion reissues of CLASSIC QUADRAPHONIC SACDs culled from the 1970's. VERY reasonably priced, they are almost textbook examples of what can be achieved in four corner DISCRETE surround sound.

https://www.duttonvocalion.co.uk/products.php?cat=2

 

[furui_suterioo]

I love really gimmicky ping pong quad, rotating leslie panning effects, extra echo, four-corner etc. Machine Head USA Reel and Paranoid quad mixes are the style I like, although some would say that is "fatiguing" which I can definitely understand. I actually use my quadphones most of the time to listen to all music(when I cant play it out loud) in double stereo except with the rear speakers L/R swapped, which by itself is mono UNTIL you switch into phase reverse, then the sound turns back to stereo but "remixed"(some sounds remain in their original locations and some get moved depending on the recording) and sounds more spacious, highlighting echoes in a way which I have only ever heard from the rear channels of an SQ decoder, it sounds wacky.

 

[Fourplay]

Thanks for your question.

I presume you are mixing for stereo as well. So there will be a mix for those without a proper surround setup. A sound bar is not that, despite some people believing it. I recommend against mixing for the lowest common denominator, as you will lose the audience that really cares about surround (aka, us on this forum).

To me, reverb and ambience alone in the rears is a waste. It would dissuade me away from a purchase.

I like immersive, and moving elements do not bother me. Think of the surround field as an aural canvas. As a mixer you can paint that environment in any way that pleases you. I encourage you to mix the way you think is cool, as part of your artistic statement.

Two suggestions from my personal taste - some people want the drums and percussion across the fronts. I have heard VERY cool mixes where the percussion is all around. Maybe not "cowbell in one channel," as was referenced earlier, but actually putting elements of a single trap set in corners of the room, so the regular drums come alive. Try it and listen. The other one is if you are doing complex vocal harmonies - don't be afraid to spread those out. Listen to The Eagles - Seven Bridges Road from Hell Freezes Over and see if that does not get your spine a-tinglin'.

That is what we are looking for here. Shoot for the spine tingling mix. Everyone else can listen to the stereo.

 

[jimfisheye]

"Mixing for the lowest common denominator"

Turns out that making the best mix possible still translates to the worst speakers the most properly. In other words, there's no way to tailor a mix for cheap or gimmick speakers. (Soundbars of course are gimmick to the point of not even really being suitable for mono sound IMHO.) If someone has a soundbar or other cheapness, they're used to their system's "offset". The best mixes sound the best everywhere.

I will add however that the shitbars are kind of tailored to the movie or sports broadcast style pseudo surround mixes that are really glorified stereo. When you take a faux surround mix with only reverb in the rear, ricocheting that reverb content off your ceiling and then back wall and finally back to you kind of works. (That's what those upfiring little side speakers in the shitbar are doing.) A proper music surround mix will be mutilated by such a device. (As will even stereo or mono IMHO.)

I like to route my mixing board for both stereo and 5.1 surround simultaneously. The routing diverges at the end of the busing to both stereo and surround. Of course there are always additional components in the surround vs the stereo with supporting reflections and so forth in the additional dimension. But this lets me keep the source mix elements consistent and any edits, etc etc. The business of chasing two mixes back and forth (make a change, now copy it to the other mix) is an awful experience that I try to avoid.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

NO to just ambience in the rears.
NO to compressed dynamic range
YES to discreet. the more agressive, the better
Immersive is OK, as long as you can still make out some distinct instrument locations,

Most of us do not have small sattelite speakers.
Most of us do use a sub(s)

Lennon's deluxe Imagine release is the only example I can think of that has both discrete and ambient/immersive mixes of the same tracks, although the discrete mixes are drier and without overdubbed strings, backing vocals, etc. This board generally loved the discrete stuff. The ambient stuff was meh.

 

[ar surround]

My two bits: As others have said, 100% ambient mixes don‘t do much for me. As far as immersive vs. discrete mixes, I prefer a mixture of discreteness, immersion and ambience. For example, there is a Penteo upmix of Sticky Fingers around out there. It’s much more discrete than an upmix done via the Surround Master, but it sounds lifeless with the ambience sucked out among other problems. I much prefer the album played via the Surround Master...a more immersive yet much more exciting listen.

So in the final analysis, @marpow law applies...Whatever “sounds fucking great” is the way to go.