Pink Floyd/The Division Bell - Ask Andy Jackson about the Mastering and the Mix

[Andy Jackson]

While we are talking about Animals....Andy, do you know if there are any live recordings in the vault from the Animals tour that would be suitable for release either in their current form or with some work? I'm sure you know this is the holy grail for many fans!

No idea I'm afraid. In general, don't forget I'm not 'company', I'm a freelancer who does some project for them.

 

[epaladin]

Your multi-channel mix of Division Bell is amazing. This is one of my favorite multi-channel mixes and brings an album I've loved for many years to new heights. It's almost like discovering it again for the first time. Thank you for "getting" multi-channel mixes and avoiding the center channel. I was around when quad albums were new and had a set-up back in the 70's (I'm old). And thank you for indulging us all here. Your time and input are greatly appreciated.

Ditto on this paragraph from rontoon!! Truly appreciate your willingness and time to share this very interesting information Andy. Thanks so much. Adding my best wishes for all your future endeavors as well...

 

[epaladin]

DONE!! Thanks strat54 for the prodding, it's a great idea and it's been implemented.

Good job

Wow, great news!! Thanks Jon (and strat54 for the suggestion) for making this happen. I'm off to find the thread right now...

 

[0tto]

In terms of mixing, both the centre & sub seem a/ irrelevant & b/ a minefield to use.

Centre: unless you use it fully discrete, you are into the vagueries of electrical versus acoustical summing (which is totally room dependent) & the fact that often centre speakers don't match L&R. Using it discrete it will a/ have the possibility that it'll be missing on some systems & b/ sound totally different from the virtual centre of L&R, which, assuming there is a stereo mix as well (always is) means the (for example) vocal will sound very different, in an unpredictable way, to the stereo.

Sub: You really can't reliably put the same signal in L/R (or LCR) and the sub, the electrical/ acoustical summing differences are a complete nightmare if anyone is using bass management, so you're left with putting different stuff in the sub from the mains. Not going to risk bass guitar or kick drum, so there's nothing much left, unless you've got 'low frequency effects', which is what is meant for (in cinema). Music mostly doesn't have 'low frequency effects' as it is generally devoid of spaceships, dinosaurs or explosions (apart from "On the run)

Andy, thank you for all your responses, explanations and hints. it is great when people, professionally involved in music, does shared their thinking, opinions and views.
anyway with all respect, i can't agree with your thought about the center channel and sub and that this exclusively attribute for movies. the singing is as much dialogue,
directed at listener as a talk in movie. dedicating single channel mainly for vox, gives more clarity to voice, with minimum distortion due to crossfading by similar
frequencies of other sound sources, mixed down with voice. that's very significantly can be heard on surround mixes of classical vocal.


as for sub... well, in some part you're right in regards of low freq. effects. but look this way, utilization of sub to create punch if you know what i mean.
main problem of sub channel on majority of existent surround, that mixer just put there filtered out low end of the mixed tracks and to minimize unpleasant hum, usually
just adjusted it to very low level. thats is wrong. in music there should be placed parts of kick drum and very low octave sharp attacks of bass with balanced according
to other channels sound level. those elements hardly can be heard even on above average modern speakers as for most part they do not employ big speaker which can
push enough of air which can create this "punch in chest" effect when this sound not as much hears as physically feels.

 

[fredblue]

Hey! How've you been? Where've you been? Long time no see on QQ! Great to see you!

 

[Andy Jackson]

Andy, thank you for all your responses, explanations and hints. it is great when people, professionally involved in music, does shared their thinking, opinions and views.
anyway with all respect, i can't agree with your thought about the center channel and sub and that this exclusively attribute for movies. the singing is as much dialogue,
directed at listener as a talk in movie. dedicating single channel mainly for vox, gives more clarity to voice, with minimum distortion due to crossfading by similar
frequencies of other sound sources, mixed down with voice. that's very significantly can be heard on surround mixes of classical vocal.


as for sub... well, in some part you're right in regards of low freq. effects. but look this way, utilization of sub to create punch if you know what i mean.
main problem of sub channel on majority of existent surround, that mixer just put there filtered out low end of the mixed tracks and to minimize unpleasant hum, usually
just adjusted it to very low level. thats is wrong. in music there should be placed parts of kick drum and very low octave sharp attacks of bass with balanced according
to other channels sound level. those elements hardly can be heard even on above average modern speakers as for most part they do not employ big speaker which can
push enough of air which can create this "punch in chest" effect when this sound not as much hears as physically feels.

I think you are failing to take into account:

The stereo mix is the record. Not the 5.1 Using a discrete centre will NEVER sound the same as a phantom centre so it will NEVER sound like the record.Last thing I want is for the timbre of the vocal to change. Your saying that cinema uses the centre speaker for dialogue for clarity is not right, it uses it to hold it in the centre of the screen for people sitting off centre in the cinema. Singing is not dialogue, nor realistically is anyone going to listen to a 5.1 system off centre, so any argument about holding the vocal in the centre is irrelevant.

Sub If you need it to get LF, then two ways to look at it. On a 5.1 system, use bass management (which the end user should do, NOT the mixer). If your system does not have correct bass without it, then sort it out. Again the stereo IS the record, the 5.1 should match except for positioning, if it doesn't its plain wrong. Can't emphasise that enough.

 

[Andy Jackson]

Hey! How've you been? Where've you been? Long time no see on QQ! Great to see you!

Who dat?

 

[Circular Vibes]

Methinks Fred means Otto. Haven't heard from Otto in ages. Good to see your back Otto.

 

[Andy Jackson]

None the wiser!

 

[0tto]

fredblue
Circular Vibes


thanks for welcoming me back to QQ.
was quite busy, then pretty badly injured my hand, that there were doubt if it would be operable fully again. anyway, i hope soon i'll have more
time for QQ. particularly seeing such interesting people like Andy, does participate in conversations.

Andy Jackson

i'm apologize Andy but seems you not got what i tried to say.
there are many factors which have impact on the fidelity of the sound. cancellation or distortion of particular range of freq. due to identical diapason of the freq.
when source elements are mixed together, pretty obvious and common factor. we all can easily distinguish recorded sound from natural live sound and especially the vocal.
multichannel format of delivery of the mix helps to minimize such downfall, giving to mixer more of physical points to manipulate the sound with purpose to separate elements
and to prevent the crossing of similar frequencies.
sadly most people, even in the pro. field, don't hear or can't understand that, viewing mainly surround only as a mean of delivery of cool effects.
so far seems Steven Wilson the only one, who's really very well use this advantage of surround mixing technic and always getting very clear surround mixes.
comparison of multichannel and stereo mixes absolutely non relevant. it's totally different, incomparable things and they should be accepted as different categories, each with it's own rights.


as for .1, i don't have problems with low end on my system. front pair consist two 12" woofers and i can perfectly listen either quad or 5.1 placement with or without sub.
but on the other systems problem with low end pretty common. filtering and redirection of low freq. by hardware means is crappy tweak as it does identical job to one,
i've discribed above - filtering off of low end and creating the channel, filled with hum which can't give anything but headache from prolonged listening

 

[Andy Jackson]

fredblue
Circular Vibes

comparison of multichannel and stereo mixes absolutely non relevant. it's totally different, incomparable things and they should be accepted as different categories, each with it's own rights.

I think you are 100% wrong about that. You are welcome to do whatever you want on your own records, I will stick by what I think. One reason I'm so happy with the 4.0 mix of 'signal to noise', it's the same record as the stereo but with the addition dimension.

 

[0tto]

Andy there isn't any doubt you should do your thing as you see or feel it to be right.
i'm not criticizing your work in any way. it was just my personal thoughts on the topic of surround
mixes and different approach of different people to it.
as for you, i can express only gratitude and respect for what you're doing

 

[LizardKing]

I think you are 100% wrong about that. You are welcome to do whatever you want on your own records, I will stick by what I think. One reason I'm so happy with the 4.0 mix of 'signal to noise', it's the same record as the stereo but with the addition dimension.

Got the Signal to Noise DVD-Audio disc yesterday & had a listen... great album & mix

 

[rtbluray]

I think you are failing to take into account:

The stereo mix is the record. Not the 5.1 Using a discrete centre will NEVER sound the same as a phantom centre so it will NEVER sound like the record.Last thing I want is for the timbre of the vocal to change. Your saying that cinema uses the centre speaker for dialogue for clarity is not right, it uses it to hold it in the centre of the screen for people sitting off centre in the cinema. Singing is not dialogue, nor realistically is anyone going to listen to a 5.1 system off centre, so any argument about holding the vocal in the centre is irrelevant.

Sub If you need it to get LF, then two ways to look at it. On a 5.1 system, use bass management (which the end user should do, NOT the mixer). If your system does not have correct bass without it, then sort it out. Again the stereo IS the record, the 5.1 should match except for positioning, if it doesn't its plain wrong. Can't emphasise that enough.

Your reasons for not using the center channel are perfectly valid because of the timbre differences due to the elimination of crosstalk, but why not change the processing in the center channel to better match what one would hear in stereo? That way the timbre differences are minimized from stereo to center and you're now dealing with a point as opposed to an image, one that won't shift around if you shift your position. That's basically the approach that I am taking for my Master's project on surround.

And how do you deal with mixing the surround channels then? When I process something for front left and right for stereo and then compare the difference going between the sound in the front and then the same processed sound coming from the rear channels, it definitely is NOT the same and would also need to be processed differently in order to better match what one would hear in stereo.

 

[Andy Jackson]

Your reasons for not using the center channel are perfectly valid because of the timbre differences due to the elimination of crosstalk, but why not change the processing in the center channel to better match what one would hear in stereo? That way the timbre differences are minimized from stereo to center and you're now dealing with a point as opposed to an image, one that won't shift around if you shift your position. That's basically the approach that I am taking for my Master's project on surround.

You can think of it that way, it depends, always ask the question 'has the mix fallen apart', that is the primary criterion. In particular, as the argument seems to be for putting the vocal in the centre, that of all things I don't want to dislocate from the rest of the mix. As for shifting position, I can't see anyone listening to surround out of the middle really

And how do you deal with mixing the surround channels then? When I process something for front left and right for stereo and then compare the difference going between the sound in the front and then the same processed sound coming from the rear channels, it definitely is NOT the same and would also need to be processed differently in order to better match what one would hear in stereo.

Well firstly I'd say that using the rears as a stereo pair doesn't really work (except with a 'pair' of discrete sources, two monos, which were originally hard L&R front & can be hard L&R rear). In general I find that shifting stuff back I'll need to make it a tad louder & brighter to have the same apparent level & timbre. How much is case by case, always referring back to the stereo.

 

[sukothai]

I for one applaud Andy's decision to go 4.0. You know my opinion on LFE for music: it can be tossed. The center channel is a bit more useful, but in the end I find it difficult to deal with. Every disc seems to have a different level at the center; so I'm constantly adjusting my systems. And the center sounds good on one system, but not the other; probably due to speaker placement or distance or etc.

Quad just works.

 

[Andy Jackson]

Got the Signal to Noise DVD-Audio disc yesterday & had a listen... great album & mix

thanks, spread the word!

 

[Andy Jackson]

I for one applaud Andy's decision to go 4.0. You know my opinion on LFE for music: it can be tossed. The center channel is a bit more useful, but in the end I find it difficult to deal with. Every disc seems to have a different level at the center; so I'm constantly adjusting my systems. And the center sounds good on one system, but not the other; probably due to speaker placement or distance or etc.

Quad just works.

Well it did for me on that one, I think the quad & the stereo are 'the same record' for me.

 

[GOS]

thanks, spread the word!

Andy -

I find this thread simply astounding. It's amazing to hear from you....and I also ordered Signal to Noise a week ago or so...simply because of playing a few snips of the songs. I find it very appealing and can't wait to hear the disc. It's on it's way, so, I'll have it soon.

I'm so jealous of your career - I find it all so fascinating and must be rewarding. Keep up the great work, I've been on the hi-res surround band wagon since it's inception.

 

[rtbluray]

You can think of it that way, it depends, always ask the question 'has the mix fallen apart', that is the primary criterion. In particular, as the argument seems to be for putting the vocal in the centre, that of all things I don't want to dislocate from the rest of the mix. As for shifting position, I can't see anyone listening to surround out of the middle really



Well firstly I'd say that using the rears as a stereo pair doesn't really work (except with a 'pair' of discrete sources, two monos, which were originally hard L&R front & can be hard L&R rear). In general I find that shifting stuff back I'll need to make it a tad louder & brighter to have the same apparent level & timbre. How much is case by case, always referring back to the stereo.

What I have been doing for the front channels to keep everything "glued" together is if something is at full level in the center channel (like a lead vocal) I will also send it out to the front left and right channels at a reduced level (usually -6dB or more). That way the vocal is not only in the center channel but it's still prominent there, and it will not shift nor cause phasing issues.
Same with phantom center elements in the front left and right channels (like kick drum, snare drum, bass guitar, etc), those will get sent to the center channel as well but also at a reduced level (of -6dB or more), that way the center holds the center between the front left and right and the vocal isn't completely alone if the center is soloed.

And thanks for your tips on the surround channels!