How Much Is Too Much?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

I guess it might be better than in all four but I prefer having them across the front to match the stereo mix rather than isolating them to a greater degree than they were in stereo.

One of the hallmarks of most good stereo mixes is the placement of the drums and percusssion. To not apply that same sensibility to a MC mix and instead cram them all into one channel? I’m sure whoever made these decisions had their reasons. I just question whether the choice they made was the best option.

Of course we are all allowed our own preferences.
 
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.
 
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.

“Pressed for time” is probably the reason in many cases. It may explain the decision, but only to the degree that it supports the claim that the decision made was not the best one from a sonic perspective.

I get that they may have had little other choice at the time. That doesn’t make the mix any better, however.

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?
 
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?

On the really early CBS quad titles, they went full four-corner and would never pan anything other than vocals to the center position. Their later mixes where quite a bit more refined with stereo drums accross the front and stuff like guitar, harmonica, or piano solos in the center.

I suppose they were really trying to wow consumers with pure quad seperation, even if the panning didn’t really make sense? With those early SQ decoders, even the most discrete mixes sounded like double stereo.

I definitely don’t think anyone expected that we’d be talking about these quad mixes forty years later. They are what they are I suppose, I enjoy them, but some are undoubtedly better than others.
 
The "drums in a corner" on Tommy work for me (although I think I did some kind of channel swapping on that one)... they also work in Lennon's "Imagine" studio mixes, and the Sly mixes... but not always (I can't stand the sound of the drums on Steve Miller's "The Joker" quad mix). When it comes to drums being spread around the room, Steven Wilson really did it right on his mix of Rush "A Farewell To Kings"... I guess it all comes down to individual mixes for me.
 
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.

A few years ago Steve Hoffman (in a thread I can't find now) had commented that Keith was the most under-microphoned drummer. If you look at one of the pictures in the SA-CD release booklet of Tommy you can only see one mic on Keith. Unfortunate.
 
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.

there are so many CBS SQ Quads that aren't of the "bass in one Rear/drums in the other Rear" variety that decode well, i honestly think a lot of those "bass in one Rear/drums in the other Rear" jobs, particularly the later mixes, were done by the same handful of engineers as much because it was their mixing preference as much as anything else, including the limitations of the SQ system. i'd lay money on A&M's Dick Bogert being behind a lot of those uncredited "bass in one Rear/drums in the other Rear" mixes from '75-'77 because several earlier mixes credited to him are that style, including Minnie Riperton's "Perfect Angel" which credits him and then the follow up Minnie Riperton Quad "Adventures In Paradise" is similarly "bass in one Rear/drums in the other Rear" but no specific Quad remix credit. coincidence maybe but my educated guess is he liked mixing that way because those mixes do not sound like rush jobs to me at all or that they were only done that way so that SQ could cope with them, they are musical and they are fabulous!

since i first picked up on it as a "Quirky Quad Thing" (*TM), i've come to listen out more closely than ever now to what is happening in these "bass in one Rear/drums in the other Rear" mixes.. and even though i've never heard Quads such as Michael Martin Murphey's "Swans Against The Sun" (Quad mix credit = Dick Bogert), Miracles "Love Crazy", Manhattans "Feels So Good" in discrete Quad only decoded SQ form, i don't feel they are the poorer surround for having the majority of the rhythm section hard-panned into each Rear.

not meant as anything derogatory to anyone and not an insinuation anyone's surround setup may be off at all but just for me personally i find that if i use Audyssey the Rears become too prominent and those "bass in one Rear/drums in the other Rear" mixes suddenly the drums stick out like sore drums, err i mean thumbs! no, i mean drums! so i shut Audyssey off and then those "bass in one Rear/drums in the other Rear" mixes become better balanced, everything gels more and the thumbs, umm drums, are less in your face or rather over your shoulder! (y)

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!
best of all the panning of all that lot fits with the music and/or lyrical sentiment of each track, in me ever so 'umble opinion! juuuuuuuuust brilliant! :love:
 
I've never heard a mix that is too agressive. I would never want mixes to stop at some specific point because sound engineers decided they would be too agressive. I want all mixes to be different. If surround mixes all sound similar then listening to them becomes boring. This is the main issue I have with SQ quads, many sound very similar to my ears (but I still really enjoy them).
 
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!

All great choices! "Is There A Place For Me" is the real standout track on Black & Blue for me, absolutely brilliant.

A couple other fun quad moves I really enjoy:
  • Aerosmith's "Back In The Saddle" - The horse galloping and whip effects circling the room
  • Santana's "Everybody's Everything" - Horn section jumping from speaker to speaker
  • Ten Years After's "Here They Come" - The guitar outro is incredible
  • Deep Purple's "Lazy" - Intro keyboard flying around
  • Mahavishnu Orchestra's "One Word" - Cobham's drums do a nice around-the-room pan on the intro
  • Chicago's "Just You 'n' Me" - Sax solo pans around
  • Black Sabbath's "War Pigs" - Some great guitar pans and the drums jump from front to back
 
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.
 
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.

just doing a new needledrop & Surround Master decode of Grover Washington Jr.'s "Soul Box" SQ set (couldn't find the old 'drop i did a few years ago! whoops! i may have filed it under "R" for "Rubbish!" o_O ) and on several of the tracks all sorts of instruments are prominently over in one of the Rears, a guitar in Rear Left on one track, a piano Rear Right in another, even the lead instrument pops up in a Rear channel a few times, its a really inventive mix, you never know quite what's going to pop up where! :eek:
by spreading the music out over 4 sides of vinyl in a box set (as the name suggests it really is a box of soul!) the sound quality's pretty good to boot but really any album that starts with Bread, via The Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder and Billie Holiday and ends with Billy Cobham playing Billy Cobham (!) with assembled musicians the calibre of Bob James, Randy Brecker, Ralph McDonald, Airto and many others has got to be worth a listen even if the ol' Quad mix is kinda quirky, right! :ROFLMAO:
 
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.

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).
 
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).
Just a personal preference for that recording it varies with others.
 
To me, there is no such thing as a "too aggressive" mix. I just take what I get and be happy and appreciate the artist's choices. Of course the mix has to suite the music, but that is subjective.
 
Listening to Tomita's version of Bolero today on the recent DV Quad SACD "Daphnis Et Chloe" and the synthed 'drum' does a figure of 8, brilliant!

As an aside I did detect a segment/riff from the Daphnis Et Chloe track reminded me of the keyboards in "Gates Of Delirium" on Yes' "Relayer" album, was Mr. Moraz a fan of Ravel? :unsure:
 
Hmmm...
I was hoping for more listening suggestions out of this! Oh well...

There are certainly some awkward mixes out there as mentioned. Still more from just plain crude or hurried work than anything to do specifically with soundstage placement or motion in surround.

The Flaming Lips come to mind for "gratuitous". Not "too much" though. More like "just right". :D

Listen to Dave's guitar spinning 360s in his solo in Money if you have the quad edition of the Best of North American Tour 1977. Kind of over the top. But again... I like it! Not even close to "too much".

I think "how much is too much?" will be the question I'll try to answer with the next Raging Lunatics project though. Seems like a good goal. :)
 
Back
Top