Steven Wilson SW Mixing Process Discussion

[sjcorne]

But the mixes are attributed to others in the booklet…Steven Wilson with an engineering credit?

I think we're looking too deeply into this, but the generic 'engineering' credit could just be their way of explaining that Wilson didn't have to make any decisions regarding EQ, compression, reverb, etc for the surround mixes - all of that was already done for the stereo mix, he just got to decide where the various individual elements would go in the surround field.

 

[MartinBaird]

I think we're looking too deeply into this, but the generic 'engineering' credit could just be their way of explaining that Wilson didn't have to make any decisions regarding EQ, compression, reverb, etc for the surround mixes - all of that was already done for the stereo mix, he just got to decide where the various individual elements would go in the surround field.

I'd be shocked if Steven Wilson was not making EQ, compression, and reverb decisions. Spreading elements to 5 or more speakers as opposed to 2 speakers is hugely different as are our perceptions of the sounds in the two formats.

 

[sjcorne]

I'd be shocked if Steven Wilson was not making EQ, compression, and reverb decisions. Spreading elements to 5 or more speakers as opposed to 2 speakers is hugely different as are our perceptions of the sounds in the two formats.

I'm pretty sure that's always been his process for doing these multichannel mixes, he'll mix in stereo first (though in this case, the stereo mix was already done by Charlton Pettus and the band) then simply move the elements out into the surround field without changing anything.
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...eparating-fact-from-fiction.20295/post-242077

 

[marcb]

I think we're looking too deeply into this, but the generic 'engineering' credit could just be their way of explaining that Wilson didn't have to make any decisions regarding EQ, compression, reverb, etc for the surround mixes - all of that was already done for the stereo mix, he just got to decide where the various individual elements would go in the surround field.

That’s not how it - or he - works. I guarantee you he’s not just deciding where the various elements go in the surround. He essentially masters in the mix, so the final mix is the master.

 

[sjcorne]

That’s not how it - or he - works. I guarantee you he’s not just deciding where the various elements go in the surround. He essentially masters in the mix, so the final mix is the master.

I don't think so, his process is outlined pretty well in this Sound-On-Sound piece and he's given some interviews explaining it as well - all the EQ, compression, volume automation, etc gets done at the stereo mixing stage, then he does the spatial positioning for 5.1 or Atmos. In this case, TFF must have provided him pre-mixed stems with reverb/compression/EQ baked-in or their final DAW session for the stereo mix (which would have the raw audio files linked plus all the edits, plugins, automation, etc). @Plan9 would likely have all the details.

 

[marcb]

I don't think so, his process is outlined pretty well in this Sound-On-Sound piece and he's given some interviews explaining it as well - all the EQ, compression, volume automation, etc gets done at the stereo mixing stage, then he does the spatial positioning for 5.1 or Atmos. In this case, TFF must have provided him pre-mixed stems with reverb/compression/EQ baked-in or their final DAW session for the stereo mix (which would have the raw audio files linked plus all the edits, plugins, automation, etc). @Plan9 would likely have all the details.

I’ve read that article before, but I’m not going to read it all again. But I don’t you’re reading it correctly, because that’s not how it works.

“At that point, with an agreed final stereo mix, Wilson either goes on to create the 5.1 mix, if that's part of the job, or he'll deliver a stereo mix if that's all that's required.”

Of course, there is some stuff baked in during the recording process itself. But that doesn’t mean he is just positioning stuff when doing his mixes. It doesn’t work that way.

Stereo mixes and surround mixes are two (three in the case of Tipping Point) separate things. You may dial in the moves to some degree by doing a stereo mix, but they’re separate events. Otherwise, it’s just an upmix from stereo. The compression, EQ, etc which sounds right on a particular element in a stereo mix doesn’t necessarily sit the same way in a surround mix.

 

[sjcorne]

Stereo mixes and surround mixes are two (three in the case of Tipping Point) separate things. You may dial in the moves to some degree by doing a stereo mix, but they’re separate events. Otherwise, it’s just an upmix from stereo. The compression, EQ, etc which sounds right on a particular element in a stereo mix doesn’t necessarily sit the same way in a surround mix.

They're not really separate mixes in the traditional sense, it's just one mix with the elements distributed differently. Once you're done mixing in stereo, all you have to do is change the master fader in your session from stereo to surround and then reassign the locations of your individual tracks/buses with the surround panner control. It's an efficient way to work as all the difficult editing, balancing, and processing steps only have to be done once.

I think I posted a link to this upthread, but @rtbluray had the chance to interview Steven Wilson back in 2015 and he offered this quote:

Once the stereo mix is done, I move things out into the surround field, and that’s the mix. When you listen to one of my surround mixes, you are listening to exactly the same mix, by which I mean, if you take out the decision making process in terms of spatial positioning, it is the same mix. It’s the same EQ, compression, processing, rides, balances. Even the panning takes its cues from the original stereo mix panning.

 

[dobyblue]

But that's referring to projects where the stereo mix is Steven Wilson's, right?

 

[sjcorne]

But that's referring to projects where the stereo mix is Steven Wilson's, right?

The process works the same way even if a different person altogether mixed it in stereo, so long as whomever is doing the surround version receives the final DAW session for the stereo mix. This is probably a poor analogy, but it's like handing someone a mixing console and outboard gear with all the moves perfectly dialed in - only they haven't yet exported to a 2-channel file, so you can still manipulate the individual elements within their finished mix.

I've even had the opportunity to do this myself for friends, they'll give me their Pro Tools folder (by executing a "Save Copy In") and I'll open it up in a 5.1 capable mixing room to do the spatial positioning. This way, I get to keep all their edits and plugins when I start moving things out into the back speakers. If I were to start a brand new mix in surround with just the raw session recordings, I'd have to re-create all their edits and figure out which plugins they used for compression, reverb, etc. It would be incredibly time-consuming and never sound exactly the same.

 

[jimfisheye]

I think most of the replies already have this covered but expanding the mix out to surround even after the stereo version has been worked on is absolutely more than just panning elements out to different speakers! That sound you heard was mixing engineers rolling their eyes all the way to the back stop.

I tend to make both the stereo and 5.1 mix on the same board. Routing splits off to the surround buses as applies. The idea is consistent edits and sources and not chasing two mixes back and forth. I hate redoing work. There's still unique eq'ing and compression for a lot of things. There's a ton of reflection work for the extra dimension to dial in that's unique to the surround mix.

SW's mixes are usually masterful with uncompromised clarity and no hint of weird masking anywhere. (Whether or not you agree with the creative mix decisions.) He grabs for eq and compression intuitively and really dials things in. He seems to understand reflections and soundfield intuitively. There may have been some simpleton things going on in the 1970s with some of the more low budget quad remixes but not here. You just don't get these fleshed out surround mixes by just panning some of the mix elements to different speakers!

 

[sjcorne]

There's a ton of reflection work for the extra dimension to dial in that's unique to the surround mix.

Isn't the "reflection work" just using the divergence control on the surround panner to blend the signal into adjacent speakers? I know I've done this for the center speaker vocals and it does make them seem more integrated into the overall presentation.

 

[jimfisheye]

Isn't the "reflection work" just using the divergence control on the surround panner to blend the signal into adjacent speakers? I know I've done this for the center speaker vocals and it does make them seem more integrated into the overall presentation.

That's just a panning position decision. I mean soundstage reflection components. First reflections and so forth. SW makes full immersive soundstage mixes.

 

[jimfisheye]

Just to be clear, my mixes aren't anywhere near what Wilson's are. I don't know him and I haven't watched him mix. The mixes speak for themselves though. This isn't just redirecting a few pans and then magic takes over and does all the rest of the stuff I hear in there. I may not be able to turn in mixes like he does but I can sure hear them!

 

[kap'n krunch]

for me, the most interesting decisions would be where to place a reverb and delays, either on the same channels and to their respective sides from where they are or across (180 degrees away), ..or BOTH!!!

BTW, Steve, if you ever read this PLEASE let me know where I can find a chair like yours (I've had three back surgeries and that chair of yours is not only gorgeous but it looks as if it's extremely ergonomic); I know that you are a Skorpio and you guyses and gals are extremely secretive but I promise I will never divulge your secret if you ever tell me!!!

 

[dobyblue]

The process works the same way even if a different person altogether mixed it in stereo, so long as whomever is doing the surround version receives the final DAW session for the stereo mix. This is probably a poor analogy, but it's like handing someone a mixing console and outboard gear with all the moves perfectly dialed in - only they haven't yet exported to a 2-channel file, so you can still manipulate the individual elements within their finished mix.

I've even had the opportunity to do this myself for friends, they'll give me their Pro Tools folder (by executing a "Save Copy In") and I'll open it up in a 5.1 capable mixing room to do the spatial positioning. This way, I get to keep all their edits and plugins when I start moving things out into the back speakers. If I were to start a brand new mix in surround with just the raw session recordings, I'd have to re-create all their edits and figure out which plugins they used for compression, reverb, etc. ****It would be incredibly time-consuming and never sound exactly the same.****

So kind of like any surround mix of an older album? Beatles, Appetite, etc.

 

[sjcorne]

So kind of like any surround mix of an older album? Beatles, Appetite, etc.

Yep - I'm pretty sure Giles Martin and Bob Clearmountain work in a similar fashion, completing most of the important work in stereo and then expanding that mix out into the surround field (though Clearmountain does the routing to the extra channels through his SSL console instead of within Pro Tools). I think Elliot Scheiner's process is different for the 5.1 remixes of older albums, he may start from scratch in the surround format instead of doing a stereo remix first and tweaking from there.

 

[MidiMagic]

Some of this does not make sense.

How do you pan up and down among channels when the main level has 7 channels and the upper level has 4 and they are not even at the same angles?

The mixing engineer would have to be an octopus and the board have how many panpots for each part.

Two joysticks and 3 sliders????

 

[jimfisheye]

I don't think anyone is trying to be intentionally insulting to some of the engineers mentioned here. The accusation of just re panning some mix elements though... Wow, you know!

 

[sjcorne]

I don't think anyone is trying to be intentionally insulting to some of the engineers mentioned here. The accusation of just re panning some mix elements though... Wow, you know!

Bob Clearmountain on his process for doing the surround mixes:

“It’s the same mix,” Clearmountain says. “It’s basically a stereo mix, but while I’m doing that, I’m assigning output channels for the surround. There’s a small fader on the SSL that you can put between the big fader—the fader I’m mixing with, the main VCA/motorized fader—between that and the routing bus. I put all those right at 0, and then I can make little adjustments while I listen to the surround so I can trim each one, the difference between the stereo mix and the surround mix. So all the rides, the EQs and processing are the same, but I can adjust relative levels between the two mixes.”

 

[kap'n krunch]

Some of this does not make sense.

How do you pan up and down among channels when the main level has 7 channels and the upper level has 4 and they are not even at the same angles?

The mixing engineer would have to be an octopus and the board have how many panpots for each part.

Two joysticks and 3 sliders????

are you joking or are you serious?
no problemo, there are 120+ sends to the vertical and horizontal axis, either mono or stereo and there is a nifty little box where you place them correspondingly, quite simple (IN A WAY!!!)