Elilot Scheiner interview from Feb. 2022

[fredblue]

yep. can get even weirder if you get fixated on trying to optimize across room/apple spatial/binaural.... one can go crazy

in a way this kinda ties in with what Steve Genewick intimated in that interview that got posted at QQ recently (can't find it at the mo.) where he was discussing the advantages of Atmos over 5.1 and he said (sorry, i'm paraphrasing like mad but to the effect of);

"5.1 flopped because it didn't work outside of the studio".

so, nowadays, i would sorta imagine an Engineer mixing in Atmos would be working to make things primarily sound at their very best in the studio in the original channel configuration (i'm guessing that would be 7.1.4?) but then (as we've seen many Engineers say over the years) they would take their mix and try it out in various other places/systems/configs (Elliot Scheiner for example not only mixed on Yamaha NS-10's to get that generic kinda Japanese consumer electronics sound but also liked "The Car" to get another perspective on his work) and so in a similar way now i suppose you've got to see how Atmos mixes work out on all sorts of playback equipment, including AirPod Pro's etc and its not enough to cater for one end-user/delivery configuration anymore?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Adam, I'm certain if Elliot was thirty years younger he'd 'begrudingly' embrace ATMOS to satisfy current demands and would do so with his usual aplomb. Nitpicking aside, his remixes and recording projects over the years continue to amaze! NO complaints HERE!

Wonder how long before the remaining Moodies and UMG decide to remix the Moody Blues back catalogue in ATMOS? Nights in White Satin really deserves a makeover!

OTOH, I continue to read stellar reviews of back catalogue movie titles being remixed for ATMOS ...... more than quite a few boasting amazing results!

IMO, Movies, Music in Atmos .... it's all good and there for the taking!

 

[riskylogic]

yep. can get even weirder if you get fixated on trying to optimize across room/apple spatial/binaural.... one can go crazy

I seriously doubt it's even possible. The other variable is lossy - vs nonlossy. You can't mix 8 or more channels without using 4 times more bits than stereo.

 

[fredblue]

Adam, I'm certain if Elliot was thirty years younger he'd 'begrudingly' embrace ATMOS to satisfy current demands and would do so with his usual aplomb. Nitpicking aside, his remixes and recording projects over the years continue to amaze! NO complaints HERE!

Wonder how long before the remaining Moodies and UMG decide to remix the Moody Blues back catalogue in ATMOS? Nights in White Satin really deserves a makeover!

OTOH, I continue to read stellar reviews of back catalogue movie titles being remixed for ATMOS ...... more than quite a few boasting amazing results!

IMO, Movies, Music in Atmos .... it's all good and there for the taking!

hey Ralphie i thought he was still doing the occasional Surround mix with his Son? (they worked together on an Alain Mallett album? maybe..)

seems strange that he'd be so into Surround Music (and have such a flair for mixing it!) and yet seemingly hate Atmos for Music when in many ways it seems a natural fit and even in its relative infancy there's been some superb mixes already.

i wonder if multitracks exist for all those Classic Moodies albums?

i'm mindful of that Lost Chord 5.1 "concoction" that turned out to be a load of old cobblers..!!

 

[Q-Eight]

I have to agree with the cranky old man in regards to panning. It's like, I used to love the early CBS Quads because of their crazy, way out, 4-corner mixes. But as time has gone on, I've come to not enjoy them as much. Sometimes, the drum kit will get lost in a mix if you have something like the kicker in FL, the snare in FR, the hi-hat in BR and the overhead in BL. That's not how I envision reality.

When I mix, I envision myself as if I were the proverbial fly on the wall, but that fly was sitting in the middle of the band. You would be facing the drum kit and probably the bassist. You might have a guitarist at the flanks. The keyboardist and percussionist might be behind you facing the drums. I have a collection now of over 170 legit multitracks, stemming from some Herb Alpert 3-tracks, to Rod Stewart 48-tracks. Of all the songs I've played with, I can only think of TWO off the top of my head that had something pan around.

1- War! by Edwin Starr. I made the troop bootfalls near the end of the song trot around the room. That pretty much makes sense. Footfalls would move.
2- Dancing Machine by the Jackson 5 - the synth bit during the breakdown pans around the room as one might do with such a synth during a breakdown.... like Edgar Winter's Frankenstein.

But that's it. In my mind, drum kits are stationary. The chick flailing away at the tambourine isn't going to run around the room. She's got to stand at her microphone.

 

[ar surround]

1- War! by Edwin Starr. I made the troop bootfalls near the end of the song trot around the room. That pretty much makes sense. Footfalls would move.

I didn't realize there were multis of Edwin Starr's War out there. Sounds like the panning in your mix is appropriate.

Sometimes unchained panning suits the song, like with Grand Funk's Paranoid. The stereo version has a lot of guitar panning and the 5.1 that I made from stems has the guitars moving across and around the room. I mean, the song is supposed to sound paranoid. LOL

 

[~dave~~wave~]

yep. can get even weirder if you get fixated on trying to optimize across room/apple spatial/binaural.... one can go crazy

You can go crazy trying to remember where you read a post on this forum, as well.

Post #3,725 on page 187 of this thread has a relevant quote courtesy of @humprof :
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...s-streaming-via-tidal-apple.31491/post-653449

 

[humprof]

You can go crazy trying to remember where you read a post on this forum, as well.

Post #3,725 on page 187 of this thread has a relevant quote courtesy of @humprof :
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...s-streaming-via-tidal-apple.31491/post-653449

It's like an especially diabolical game of Concentration, with a board containing tens of thousands of square tiles.

 

[ar surround]

You can go crazy trying to remember where you read a post on this forum, as well.

Post #3,725 on page 187 of this thread has a relevant quote courtesy of @humprof :

One must bookmark pages where there are posts one may need in the future. Now, as far as realizing a post is something one may need in the future...duh...

 

[barfle]

1- War! by Edwin Starr. I made the troop bootfalls near the end of the song trot around the room. That pretty much makes sense. Footfalls would move.

Is that available?

 

[austinsignal]

in a way this kinda ties in with what Steve Genewick intimated in that interview that got posted at QQ recently (can't find it at the mo.) where he was discussing the advantages of Atmos over 5.1 and he said (sorry, i'm paraphrasing like mad but to the effect of);

"5.1 flopped because it didn't work outside of the studio".

so, nowadays, i would sorta imagine an Engineer mixing in Atmos would be working to make things primarily sound at their very best in the studio in the original channel configuration (i'm guessing that would be 7.1.4?) but then (as we've seen many Engineers say over the years) they would take their mix and try it out in various other places/systems/configs (Elliot Scheiner for example not only mixed on Yamaha NS-10's to get that generic kinda Japanese consumer electronics sound but also liked "The Car" to get another perspective on his work) and so in a similar way now i suppose you've got to see how Atmos mixes work out on all sorts of playback equipment, including AirPod Pro's etc and its not enough to cater for one end-user/delivery configuration anymore?

yeah - exactly right. For me, I just focus on 7.1.4, 5.1, and Spatial with airpods. There are a couple reasons for including spatial/airpods - 1. I suspect that spatial/airpods get far more playing time with consumers than any other format, given what Apple is doing with prioritizing spatial content and 2. for the first time, there's a format that exists where you know exactly what the consumer is listening on. So when mixing, I know I'm hearing it exactly like the consumer does. I also include 5.1 because of the preponderance of 5.1 home theater systems out there. At the end, I run through all the formats and check them - but at that point I really don't find much that's weird. This link below is not new - some things have changed since it was made but I think it's pretty instructive and entertaining Andrew Scheps and ATMOS Panel

 

[austinsignal]

I seriously doubt it's even possible. The other variable is lossy - vs nonlossy. You can't mix 8 or more channels without using 4 times more bits than stereo.

 

[austinsignal]

I think pretty much everyone that mixes ATMOS does it. LOGIC in particular lets you toggle between all the surround formats supported in ATMOS, and Spatial for headphones during the mix session.

 

[riskylogic]

I think pretty much everyone that mixes ATMOS does it. LOGIC in particular lets you toggle between all the surround formats supported in ATMOS, and Spatial for headphones during the mix session.

That's not it - the problem is making a mix sound good in any format. Something mixed for lossy binaural isn't going to sound good on a lossless bluray and vice-versa

 

[sjcorne]

I doubt anyone mixes with the bitrate of the delivery format in mind.

 

[riskylogic]

I doubt anyone mixes with the bitrate of the delivery format in mind.

I dunno but some lossy Atmos streams sound much better than others.

 

[austinsignal]

That's not it - the problem is making a mix sound good in any format. Something mixed for lossy binaural isn't going to sound good on a lossless bluray and vice-versa

Ok - if you say so….

 

[JediJoker]

Something mixed for lossy binaural isn't going to sound good on a lossless bluray and vice-versa

As an engineer, I never mix to the lowest common denominator. A good mix will translate properly across all playback systems.

 

[riskylogic]

As an engineer, I never mix to the lowest common denominator. A good mix will translate properly across all playback systems.

My favorites in binaural usually come from quad mixes.

 

[ManWhoCan]

@sjcorne In reply to riskylogic who said "That's not it - the problem is making a mix sound good in any format. Something mixed for lossy binaural isn't going to sound good on a lossless bluray and vice-versa." you say:

I doubt anyone mixes with the bitrate of the delivery format in mind.

You've made several remarks about lossy/lossless, where you give me the impression that you may not think lossless is any better than lossy. #39 "Must all threads devolve into lossy vs. lossless?" We all know mastering is maybe the most important criteria, but all things being equal, don't you think lossless is always superior to lossy?