Drums-in-a-corner mixes make no sense to me. They don’t put the drums all on one side of the stereo mix, so why isolate them in the quad or 5.1?
Drums-in-a-corner mixes make no sense to me. They don’t put the drums all on one side of the stereo mix, so why isolate them in the quad or 5.1?
I can think of a number of reasons:
1. To match the placement of the drums on the stereo mix- this happens on the Deodato quads and some of the Doobie Brothers quads. The originally stereo mixes have the drums panned hard to one side.
2. Because the drums were recorded to one track- this happens on Sly & The Family Stone’s Greatest Hits, Laura Nyro’s Eli, and various other late ‘60s or early ‘70s albums originally recorded to eight tracks.
3. To comply with SQ mixing rules- The SQ matrix system CBS was using to deliver quad mixes on vinyl dictated that the rear channels can only contain hard panned mono elements, because when playing an SQ LP in mono the rear-center panned information would cancel entirely. CBS touted that their quad LPs could be played in mono, stereo, or quad
It seems that their engineers thought an easy way to deliver SQ-compatible quad mixes was to jam bass in one rear channel and drums in the other. You can disagree with it, but know that there is context behind what appears to be a random or illogical decision.
Personally, I think drums in one rear speaker is better than drums in all four speakers.
Of course we are all allowed our own preferences.
Absolutely! I totally understand how people could be annoyed about the spatial impact of the drum kit being reduced in a surround mix, especially when the stereo mix shows the drums were recorded to multiple tracks.
But I think in the case of the CBS quad mixes, it comes down to the engineer being pressed for time and trying to deliver a mix compatible for matrix mixdown. That explains quite a few of their mixes- Tower Of Power, RTF, Sly, Dan Fogelberg, Charlie Rich, etc.
It’s interesting seeing the 2013 Tommy mix brought up. I actually liked it quite a bit more than Townshend’s previous 5.1 attempt on DVD-A/SACD.
One thing I really hated about that old mix is the that the vocals are in the center and rears, but not the fronts. It gives this weird triangular effect, and almost sounds better when you flip front and rear, putting all the vocals in the front.
In new mix, you get some nice quad-like seperation of the instruments to the four corners, and it’s quite a bit more dynamic.
You brought up the Sly Stone GH album. True that the drums may have been recorded to a single track (for at least some songs) but it would have taken no more time nor had any effect on the matrix to spread that single track across the front. Isn’t that what was done for the stereo mix?
The Tommy drums are the opposite of too much! Confining Keith Moon to a single speaker (and not even a main) is diminishing.
It might not be possible on Tommy because of the multitracks, but I would love to hear Moon's or Bonham's kit spread over the whole soundstage, but with isolated bits in the fronts and rears, to really put me inside of the kit.
I can think of a number of reasons:
1. To match the placement of the drums on the stereo mix- this happens on the Deodato quads and some of the Doobie Brothers quads. The original stereo mixes have the drums panned hard to one side.
2. Because the drums were recorded to one track- this happens on Sly & The Family Stone’s Greatest Hits, Laura Nyro’s Eli, and various other late ‘60s or early ‘70s albums originally recorded to eight tracks.
3. To comply with SQ mixing rules- The SQ matrix system CBS was using to deliver quad mixes on vinyl dictated that the rear channels can only contain hard panned mono elements, because when playing an SQ LP in mono the rear-center panned information would cancel entirely. CBS touted that their quad LPs could be played without issue in mono, stereo, or quad.
It seems that their engineers thought an easy way to deliver SQ-compatible quad mixes was to jam bass in one rear channel and drums in the other. You can disagree with it, but know that there is context behind what appears to be a random or illogical decision.
Personally, I think drums in one rear speaker is better than drums in all four speakers.
anyway, where were we?
oh yeah, a few nice Quad mix aggressive panning moves that really work for me are;
- the intro to the title track of Billy Paul's "War Of The Gods",
- the merry-go-round organ sound effects on the title track of Johnny Nash's "My Merry Go Round",
- the Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes' "Black and Blue" Quad is a real showcase of 'how to use the pan pot a lot and not lose the plot' (TM!) with 360-degree pans, diagonal pans, front to back pans, front left to front right pans, rear left to rear right pans, you name it! it may be the panniest CBS Quad mix ever!
I do appreciate some more "gimmicky" mixing like the Back in the Saddle stuff; but it does have to be appropriate for the music. Too much, can be just right, paired with the right music. I also believe (to stretch this out a bit) it goes to personal taste of the listener as to whether your listening vantage point is front of the stage or sitting in the drummers chair or middle of the band. But that also implies from what placement of certain instruments and amps as opposed to real life settings or some quasi-actual surround placement.
One thing I've disliked about the AB Live at the Fillmore recordings is they place the guitars in the rear channels (drives me insane!) As they are used mostly as solo and alternating rhythm instruments; for me they belong in the front channels. For me you can't go wrong with just a good old fashioned Elliot Scheiner mix.
This brings up what could be a golden opportunity for the artists and producers to give the listener the choice of hearing various mixes given the different tastes of listeners and the data capacity of the Blu-ray format.
One thing I've disliked about the AB Live at the Fillmore recordings is they place the guitars in the rear channels (drives me insane!) As they are used mostly as solo and alternating rhythm instruments; for me they belong in the front channels.
Just a personal preference for that recording it varies with others.Luckily you've got three (!) distinct surround mixes of that one to check out. The quad is my go-to because it does something more interesting than the old "audience in the back, band in the front" live surround mix, which is the approach both 5.1 mixes follow. I see your point though.
Rhythm guitars or guitar and keys split between the rears is one of my favorite moves on a surround mix: quite a few CBS titles use that approach (various Winter Brothers albums, various Jeff Becks, Derringer's All American Boy, both BoCs, etc etc).
how to use the pan pot a lot and not lose the plot' (TM!)
Enter your email address to join: