• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not offer for free, offer for sale, offer for trade, or request copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

Welcome to the Multi-Channel Musicians Studio!

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Old Quad Guy

Preservationist
Staff member
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,100
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Hi, Let's thank Jon for creating this section. Thanks! :banana:

We needed to be able to float some ideas and discussion in the area of recording basic tracks and Multi-Channel mixing without having to go off topic all the time. Those of you who worked in a old school recording studio with Tape or are in a brand new Digital "state of the art" studio or with your own bedroom configuration – as we try to record with what we can afford – could help with info when we’re dealing with basic tracks and mixing. Those with professional studio recording knowledge could help us poor starving musicians how to get better basic track recordings. Your experience is invaluable to us musicians and aspiring recording engineers or just plain hobbyist! Musicians can discuss instruments, sound layering, which guitar strings are best or how to sound proof a room and build a recording studio. This is the place to discuss how to mix in Multi-Channel and get better results. Personally, I have many questions!

For those who are not musicians or recording engineers we could discuss what is actually in a Multi-channel mix whether it comes from a Quadraphonic recording or 5.1 and 7.1 mixes. What instruments were used in a Quadraphonic recording and how were they able to get that effect? What equipment was used to get that killer recording? How was it mixed into surround sound and could we still do that with a new recording?

Basic multi-tracks are ether floating around the web or being offered with the purchase of a CD or DVD. We can learn to up our skills when mixing in Multi-Channel. Also, there are many local bands in your area I’ll bet with basic raw tracks in the digital realm. This gives us an opportunity to educate your average musician and let them know that there are more ways to expose their music by mixing their songs in Multi-channel! :sun
 
Last edited:

kap'n krunch

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,395
Location
estados hundidos
Mixdown/mastering tricks:

1-What the hell do they use to make it sound so bright?
I mean , for the recent conversions I use the Harmonic exciter but NEVER at full value, usually half of what the preset is set for. I never used any in my recordings or mixdowns but I fear it's an Industry Standard when I buy a new CD-

Also,

2- I know that SubHarmonic enhancer have been normal fare in live shows, but in "recent" releases ALL OF THE SONGS HAVE THIS SUBHARMONIC tectonic shifter shakin' bass.

Question , are they used more at mixdown or at mastering stages? (my guess is the former one since a good mastering engineer will not alter the sound of the mix, but that's me pipe dreamin')
 

Key

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
252
Mixdown/mastering tricks:

1-What the hell do they use to make it sound so bright?
I mean , for the recent conversions I use the Harmonic exciter but NEVER at full value, usually half of what the preset is set for. I never used any in my recordings or mixdowns but I fear it's an Industry Standard when I buy a new CD-
EQ. Are you trying to emulate the sound of pro CDs with your own mixes or are you trying to get rid of that overly bright mastered sound?

Take the most transparent EQ you can get your hands on and use a WIDE Q (somewhere around 6dB per octave) around 5kHz - 7kHz. If you are trying to get rid of that sound use around -1.5dB - -3dB for moderate mastering and -3dB - -6dB (or more) for really bad mastering - obviously do the opposite if you are trying to simulate that type of mastering. This seems to be the generic lift that is on most CDs. There are some odd ball CDs here and there which have unique EQ curves but I find that generic EQ on CDs a lot more than I don't.

Also,

2- I know that SubHarmonic enhancer have been normal fare in live shows, but in "recent" releases ALL OF THE SONGS HAVE THIS SUBHARMONIC tectonic shifter shakin' bass.

Question , are they used more at mixdown or at mastering stages? (my guess is the former one since a good mastering engineer will not alter the sound of the mix, but that's me pipe dreamin')
A little of both. There are a bunch of bass/undertone exciter plugins that coule be the culprit. It think it comes from the Hip Hop influence - I do this myself on a couple tracks where I basically try to make my P-Bass sound like an 808 synth. A lot of Hip Hop will double up the real bass with a bass synth at an octave lower and lower in volume so it isn't obvious. Anyway you can hear the influence in every genre now. Similar to the way 60s R&B had a hell of a lot more bass than the contemporaries. Then all the rock guys etc.. get jealous of the bass and demand it of the engineers.

Anyway I think there is a lot of double and triple hyping of the frequency range so it can come from a lot of things. A lot of instruments are made with a certain hype to the high end. Combine that with a microphone with some hype on the high end and then mix it on some speakers with a weak high end and you will get some insane treble.
 

ndiamone

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Silicon Valley (but I don't own it)
We needed to be able to float some ideas and discussion in the area of recording basic tracks and Multi-Channel mixing without having to go off topic all the time. Those of you who worked in a old school recording studio with Tape or are in a brand new Digital "state of the art" studio or with your own bedroom configuration – as we try to record with what we can afford – could help with info when we’re dealing with basic tracks and mixing. Those with professional studio recording knowledge could help us poor starving musicians how to get better basic track recordings. Your experience is invaluable to us musicians and aspiring recording engineers or just plain hobbyist! Musicians can discuss instruments, sound layering, which guitar strings are best or how to sound proof a room and build a recording studio. This is the place to discuss how to mix in Multi-Channel and get better results.
Or you could just save time, energy and duplication and all go run over here to have all your questions answered: http://homerecording.com/bbs/index.php? or the Steve Hoffman forums http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2.
Plenty of 4.0 and 5.1 cross-thread-heads over there.

OldQuadGuy said:
They're hostile and dismissive (in this one 2 year old thread over there) about mixing in surround.
And it's a thread with no new comments since then.
If we don't educate the boys on the other related forums (and I do mean ``boys'' as the members there tend to be boys generally in their 20's and 30's compared to the membership here being men in their 40's, 50's and 60's,) then as time goes by we really WILL be the only ones that care. Then as we die off, so will the interest, and boys 2 or 3 generations out won't even know or care what a CD or a .wav file is, nevermind a multichannel LP, tape or disc.
 
Last edited:

Old Quad Guy

Preservationist
Staff member
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,100
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Or you could just save time, energy and duplication and all go run over here to have all your questions answered: http://homerecording.com/bbs/index.php?
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

But at first glance they're discussing things like:

Do you mix in surround or stereo?
http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=227767&highlight=quadraphonic
They're hostile and dismissive in this thread about mixing in surround. And it's a 2 year old thread with no new comments since then.
or
Multichannel audio formats?
http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=285197&highlight=quadraphonic

They're talking about mixing to MP3Surround and Quad at 24/48. It sounds like this thread could use QuadraphonicQuad help.

Everyone here at QQ has a dedicated "point of view" towards Multi-Channel. Personally, I'm interested in the views of QQ members even if we duplicate what is being done at another message board. So we could use the info from other boards and try to raise the overall awareness of Multi-Channel all around.
 
Last edited:

zabble

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
1,134
Location
Chicago
I can see myself checking into this section often.

I've been recording my own music for a long, long time using all-analogue technology. At first I resisted, but I've now come to embrace digital recording (which can be less forgiving if used improperly). Now that I am fully into recording and mixing on my Nuendo system, I look forward to mixing my stuff in 5.1. This section could prove to be a worthy addition!
 

timbre4

Super Moderator
Staff member
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,908
Location
College Grove, TN
I'm glad of this new discussion area as well. Just skimmed the above and got me to thinking already. My sandbox is Sound Forge / ACID / Vegas / Reason.

I use real basses and guitars, 88 key MIDI controller, Yamaha MT32, Lexicon MX300.....

Is anybody else using Reason? I'm really slow on this one and would like to get going with it. Just bought amazing full length mellotron samples 35 notes and going old school MIDI in the effort to get them happening...

EDIT: I have about 15-20 pieces mixed in 5.1, beyond the 2.0 mixes up on ACIDplanet.com (link below)
 
Last edited:

Old Quad Guy

Preservationist
Staff member
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,100
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I'm glad of this new discussion area as well. Just skimmed the above and got me to thinking already. My sandbox is Sound Forge / ACID / Vegas / Reason.

I use real basses and guitars, 88 key MIDI controller, Yamaha MT32, Lexicon MX300.....

Is anybody else using Reason? I'm really slow on this one and would like to get going with it. Just bought amazing full length mellotron samples 35 notes and going old school MIDI in the effort to get them happening...

EDIT: I have about 15-20 pieces mixed in 5.1, beyond the 2.0 mixes up on ACIDplanet.com (link below)
I was recorded using Reason about 4 years ago with a 24 track board, but don't know the program as yet, but will look into it. I've been working with MIDI since 1990 with a Mac Plus with 4 Megs of RAM, Master Tracks Pro software (on a small single sided disc) and a Korg M1 at the Diablo Valley College MIDI lab. A year later, in 1991 we were some of the first people to use – as far as I know – the first software to integrate MIDI and audio recording with Opcode’s “Vision” for the general public with better Mac's. I’m not sure what PC’s were doing then.
 

timbre4

Super Moderator
Staff member
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
6,908
Location
College Grove, TN
I tried to "import" the mellotron wavs into the Reason Sampler last week but got nowhere. Will circle back and try again soon.
 

StarTrek1701

Active Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
98
I hope this is not too off-topic.

Has anybody made an attempt or is it possible to decode the three channels used in very early stereo recording. I am thinking of the early Mercury classical discs with Paray/Detroit and Dorati/Minneapolis. There was an attempt to do so and release them on SACD, but the titles that I was really looking for never appeared. I believe RCA and Columbia had an early effort in this area as well, but I do not know to what extent.
 

ndiamone

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Silicon Valley (but I don't own it)
I hope this is not too off-topic.

Has anybody made an attempt or is it possible to decode the three channels used in very early stereo recording. I am thinking of the early Mercury classical discs with Paray/Detroit and Dorati/Minneapolis. There was an attempt to do so and release them on SACD, but the titles that I was really looking for never appeared. I believe RCA and Columbia had an early effort in this area as well, but I do not know to what extent.
If the original session was in fact recorded to 3-track and if the original 3-track still survives, then yes, plenty of early triple-track sessions can be remastered directly from the work parts and cut onto high-resolution multichannel discs. What we usually do is record the original 3 tracks each onto their own digital high resolution channel, and then take the Center-minus-Right, Center-minus-Left and Left-minus Right signlas and use that for the surrounds.

As many electronic echo returns are sent to the opposite channel from the channel in which they originate, the original C-L channel more often than not stands in for the right-rear, with the C-R channel standing in for the left rear. The L-R signal is either spread evenly between the two as-is, or else is given a small amount of reverb in its' own right and balanced in with C-L and C-R to create a theatrical effect resembling that of the original recording venue.

For sessions earlier than that, however which were recorded to various proprietary twin-track systems, most of those sessions had a `hole' in the middle of the mix as stereo had not yet been thought of in those terms. The result is either a very wide twin-track mix with half the orchestra on one the other half on two and nothing in the middle but the natural ambiance and ghostings of the opposite channel, or else they bring the sides in on the mix, resulting in a 10-and-2 or 11-and-1 stereo panning, closely resembling binaural.

Sometimes what they do is take an A-mix with the two tracks mixed close enough so that their appears to be a center track when in fact there is none, resulting in an 11-and-1 or 10-and-2 type panning and mix that in with a 9-and-3 mix with the sides (Lt/Rt) erased, leaving just the ambiance and opposite-channel ghostings, which are in fact stereo, i.e the natural room-acoustical returns of the left channel in the ambiance of the right and vice versa.

So, the 11-and-1 mix or 10-and-2 mix will appear very dry and closed in, when heard all by itself, but the mixing engineer will then add in their extracted ambiance tracks in the manner described above and use that for the rear.

The test and demo discs I got for Toscanini in Stereo are exactly like that. Nothing like the actual production that ended up on CD and SACD which does in fact sound closed in and almost binaural.

Back to 3-track.

If all that is left of a 3 track work part is the 2 track stereo mixdown, you can still extract a fairly close approximation of the original discrete center channel by using ProTools or Adobe Audition by using the Center Channel Extraction tool explained in great detail here: http://bsnpubs.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3024365highlight=adobe+audition+tutorial and performing passes with various other filters and tools to arrive at the final product. After that, it's simple enough to save the center wave in addition to the Lt/Rt waves that remain and create a discrete 3-track disc.

Stereo and quadraphonic sync-up artists have been doing it for years.

No you cannot use Sound Forge or Diamond Cut Pro etc etc etc as these programs do not feature a Center Channel Extractor.
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
15,817
Location
Connecticut
.......If all that is left of a 3 track work part is the 2 track stereo mixdown, you can still extract a fairly close approximation of the original discrete center channel by using ProTools or Adobe Audition by using the Center Channel Extraction tool explained in great detail here: http://bsnpubs.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3024365highlight=adobe+audition+tutorial and performing passes with various other filters and tools to arrive at the final product. After that, it's simple enough to save the center wave in addition to the Lt/Rt waves that remain and create a discrete 3-track disc........
Wow! That's one hell of a nice tutorial. Great job on that one.

Why don't you think Sound Forge 10.0 is as good as AA 3.0 for audio editing, aside from the fact that AA has the Center Channel Extractor? I actually own both programs (SF since v4.5, AA since Cool Edit Pro 1.2), but have always felt that editing and using plug-ins on wav files is easier and more intuitive using Sound Forge. Maybe it's just that I know my way around SF's interface better.
 

ndiamone

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Silicon Valley (but I don't own it)
Why don't you think Sound Forge 10.0 is as good as AA 3.0 for audio editing, aside from the fact that AA has the Center Channel Extractor?
Remember, just about any non-Pro-Tools music editing program will have some, but not all, of the features on professional Pro-Tools. Therefore, most budding audio restorationists will have Sound Forge, Diamond Cut Pro and Adobe Audition all at the same time, along with possibly a few other programs for say one individual effect it does better than another program.

It's the same as people who record in one program from their soundcard because certain recording programs have fewer artifacts, perform clicks pops and hiss reduction in another program, perform tempo and pitch adjustments in another program, perform extractions in another program and mixdown in still another program.
I actually own both programs (SF since v4.5, AA since Cool Edit Pro 1.2), but have always felt that editing and using plug-ins on wav files is easier and more intuitive using Sound Forge. Maybe it's just that I know my way around SF's interface better.
That could be. Also, if you are doing a lot of restorations from vinyl or shellacque, you should find a copy of Diamond Cut Pro from someplace as well, because that program has the fewest artifacts when processing clicks and pops reduction.

Myself, I've had Adobe Audition since it was called Coolmix Beta 0.95 before it even became Cool Edit Pro. I had a music teacher I knew then buy one of the Betas from a friend of his (I know---non Mac musician--pretty rare), but his computer was like a leftover office PC and the program was forever choking, while the school bought the itty-bitty almost-featureless Sonic Solutions Beta.

Since Coolmix was one of the first quasi affordable music editing programs for the home PC, even though for it's time it was a huge program and as a result needed more memory and processing power than most home PC's of the period could tolerate, I gave him the extremely small Sonic Solutions Beta program which had limited features the school bought as a tryout, traded him for the Coolmix Beta, took it to the Media Lab at school with me, and started whizzing through tracks like hair clippers to a San Francisco hippie joining the Army. Conversely since the Sonic Solutions Beta was designed to be more in tune with the needs of the recording musician rather than those of the recording engineer, the musician guy was just as happy with his Sonic Solutions Beta as we were with his Coolmix Beta.
 

Felix E. Martinez

300 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
335
About 5 years ago, I had some time to go foraging thru my archives and found some stuff that I thought would be interesting to hear in 5.1 - a variety of music styles recorded on 4 track analog, 16/48 digital multitrack tape, and multitrack hi-res sessions of Digital Performer. DTS had sent me their software encoder to review for DVD Etc. Magazine and I said: "time to go to town!" The m/c tracks were already archived in 24/48, so all the material was ready to play with. Over a span of a couple months I remixed these tracks into 5.1 in Digital Performer, using Audio Ease convolution m/c reverb, etc., and it was a deliriously good time - eclipsed only by the experience of listening in my home theater to the final DTS CD I burned. Would have loved to do a bonafide DVD-A, but the final DTS CD (if memory serves, 24/44.1) is pretty darn close to the orig Digital Performer 5.1 mix sessions.

Anyway, this experience taught me a great many things, which I incorporated into my later recordings and writings/reviews. Preferences about mastering levels, EQ, lead vocal placement (I abhor the lead vox mixed into all channels - HATE IT), and overall surround balance in the mix (what sometimes felt or sounded like a good idea would suddenly reveal other unorthodox placements of instruments which was even better). My initial mixes were about 2.5db too loud in the rears, a factor of the room I was mixing in, but this was easily remedied in the mastering and have since adjusted the rear speaker levels in the mixing room accordingly.

Looking forward to reading more experiences from others...
 
Last edited:

ndiamone

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Silicon Valley (but I don't own it)
Anyway, this experience taught me a great many things, which I incorporated into my later recordings and writings/reviews. Preferences about mastering levels, EQ, lead vocal placement (I abhor the lead vox mixed into all channels - HATE IT), and overall surround balance in the mix (what sometimes felt or sounded like a good idea would suddenly reveal other unorthodox placements of instruments which was even better). My initial mixes were about 2.5db too loud in the rears, a factor of the room I was mixing in, but this was easily remedied in the mastering and have since adjusted the rear speaker levels in the mixing room accordingly.

Looking forward to reading more experiences from others...
Yes, I find that to be the case as well, rears being too hot in the final mix. It might be a carryover from quad, because really really early quad mixes had a lot of ``sins'' in them, lead vocals in the rears, reverbs in the fronts and dry in the rears (tracks by Glen Grey such as Begin the Beguine, Opus One or especially Let's Dance, all from Greatest Hits of the Big Bands in Hi-Fi (tells you how old the recordings are---as they went back to the multis and remixed for stereo in the 60's and quad in the 70's).

The modern CD's preserve the original remix matrix encoding from the 70's. Listen to Let's Dance for example. All the reverb is in the front and a very dry, closed in sound encompasses the rear. I took the 4-track half-inch safety dub I had, leftover from Ampex Duplication in Chicago, swapped fronts for rears and it sounds fine.

Other ``mixing sins'' include too much (or any in my preference) backup singers in the fronts. I always mix a SLIGHTLY echo-plated instrumental-only mix with the dry backup singers in the rears laid on top and the plate returns swapped left for right in the front like they did for the Grease 20th anniversary remix.

Gimmicky mixes are another story though, like the Bangles Hazy Shade of Winter on an old Dolby Surround demo disc. The guitar intro is split up into a call-and-response affair cycling around the four speakers and then the girls come in holophonically in the middle of the room. Nice for a gimmick, but nothing you'd want to listen to on say, the radio everyday.

Older versions like the various Active Stereo mixes of the late 50's and early 60's by people like Enoch Light, Dick Schory or the various 101 Strings incarnations (Chabrier's Espana from Songs of Spain Vol I comes to mind or the Q-8 mix of Bach's Sinfonia to Cantana #29 by Walter (Wendy) Carlos) wear out their welcome fairly rapidly as well.

But used VERY sparingly like cayenne pepper if you're a milquetoast and a paleface like me these effects can open up your mix and give it a little life.

Remember, back in the 4-track no-overdub days, guys would arrange on purpose for the recording medium, i.e how many tracks they had, in this case four (or three). Musicians in those days would also be part acoustical-scientist, knowing what instrumental timbres and frequencies could blend together most effectively while sharing a track on the recorder and at the same time, still being able to stand out sufficiently in the final mix.

I mean they have 1898 tracks now and most mixes sound terrible, because half the problem is they close-mic everything, never letting the sound develop like a fine wine or a film, they isolate everything onto its own track, and half the sound is the interplay in the room between the instruments and voices.

Looking at some of those old scores written for a 4-track through a modern arranger's eyes, one can only wonder what was going through his mind at the time.

Til you do like we do that is, and play it out loud with your own (usually university) orchestra, place the musicians, mics, baffles and other paraphernalia according to the original session chart, and go ahead and record. We'd write our own modern mic placement chart over the top of the original chart and record on our own modern 24 track recorder. Then at the same time, we'd record their original mic choice and track assignments onto a 4-track just to compare, and damn if the modern 4-track didn't have a life and an energy we could never get out of the 24 track no matter WHO did the mixing.

So, those old guys had something special going on after all.
 

kap'n krunch

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,395
Location
estados hundidos
Do you guys have any advice regarding mixing the Stereo and Quad simultaneaulsy or separately?
I have started mixing our latest CD and,I do the stereo 1st , and then the Quad(not 5.1, I only got 4 speakers), so then I do something else in the quad and I have to go back to the stereo to make that change...
What volume do you use when mixing?
I go for loud enough, but not hurting the ears.
Thanks for the tips! (oh ,a dime!)
 

ndiamone

600 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Silicon Valley (but I don't own it)
Do you guys have any advice regarding mixing the Stereo and Quad simultaneously or separately?)
I like mixing it simultaneously,it's less work, and more often than not, you can use a lot of the presets in the surround mix as part of your stereo mix.

I have started mixing our latest CD and,I do the stereo 1st , and then the Quad (not 5.1, I only got 4 speakers), so then I do something else in the quad and I have to go back to the stereo to make that change...
Since I usually have access to at least two large mains (or five more often than not,) two nearfield monitors (or five), I tackle the open (surround) mix first as well like you do in film. But you can save yourself a LOT of work if you have 8 channels in your mix bus, then you can do 4/5.1 mixes and your stereo mix at the same time. So the following directions are from a 4/5.1 mix that you can use most of when downmixing to stereo.

The way an 8-channel bus makes mixing simultaneously (or almost-simultaneously) a lot easier is, I make the center and sub share one channel as the frequency range is different. Like most people don't like leads in the surrounds, one of the other cardinal rules is no below 150Hz in the center and no above 150Hz in the subs. So since my ``surround'' mix only takes up 5 of the 8 channels, I use the other three for my ``stereo'' mix, which is really just a close copy of the discrete front three of a 5.1 mix, minus all the reverb returns and ambience and etc.

If your console has a Save Mix feature, save your mix so far as an Audition Mix, or if your console is manual, take a Xerox of your console chart and take down the positions of all the dials and sliders having to do with your mix.

What volume do you use when mixing?
The best way to get the proper balance is a three-step process: the step mentioned above counts as the first one, followed by:
2. to achieve a close approximation at normal (grandmother) living room listening level. Meaning, if you can't comment on elements of the mix over the volume of the mix itself to the man sitting next to you at the mixing desk, it's too loud. Briefly increase the volume of an individual element if you need to in order to get an idea of it's overall blend in the final mix, but then return the monitors back to living-room-in-an-apartment-with-crabby-old-neighbors level.

Perform a Save Mix again, if your console has a `Save Original Mix with Updates'' then do that, or else take another Xerox of your console sheet and write down all the differences between the main mix you just did and the updates you just performed at living-room level.

Now, when you're done with that and have your close-approximation mix and your first set of updates, you do it again.
3. Insist on absolute silence in the control room at this point, make everybody set down their beer and put out their cigarettes.
Turn out all unnecessary lights untill you're sitting in an all-but-black room with no distractions.

When you add your mix updates this time, lower the monitor level until the loudest peaks are just barely audible, play the number through a few times at that very low-level to get an idea what needs brought up, what needs brought back, and where your left-to-right and front-to-back balance needs tweaked and perform those tweaks. Then, under the same silence as before, return the monitor to living-room level as before, and either utilize `Save Mix with Updates 2' or use a third sheet of your console diagram and document your updates that way, rewind and listen to the number again a few times.

Concentrate on your front three channels the most, your lead in the center, and it's full and wide musical bed to the left and right. Myself personally I never pan anything past 10 and 2, or maybe 10:30 and 1:30, for reasons of preserving the same surprises in stereo as you have for surround.

Surrounds should be used S-P-A-R-I-N-G-L-Y for anything other than ambiance and various effect-returns, swapped left for right for whatever the effect is processing. When you want to use surrounds for instruments, it should be a pleasant but somewhat jarring unexpected surprise, which is why it needs to be used sparingly. If the audience starts to detect a pattern of surrounds used for this particular effect at this particular point in the music, then an engineer has lost his audience and become predictable.

The reason I never pan anything in the front three past 10 and 2, is I need that 9 and 3 panning to preserve my ``surprises'' in Stereo that I toiled over in 5.1 for hours and hours and hours. Meaning I'll pan my ambiance starting at maybe 10:30 and 1:30 and fill the space between there and 9 and 3. Then, I'll mirror-match the panning of my effect whatever it is (on say the left channel) and mirror-match that effect return on the right, again reserving the space between 10:30 and 1:30 and 9 and 3 just for this purpose.

All my little brief instrumental surround surprises are mixed exclusively into 9 and 3 Lt/Rt panning, that way in case somebody has a stereo system with matrix (Dolby Pro Logic, etc) the matrix will bend that around and create its own surrounds for the listener, opening up the space. Listen to a pre-recorded quadraphonic open-reel of a Tomita recording from the 70's and then it's RCA Dolby Surround encoded equivalent through the proper decoder, and then turn the decoder off the CD and listen in Stereo for a good example.

And you can do all of that with an 8-channel bus. Assign 1 2 and 3 as Left Center and Right, and then if your console has the feature, select ``Mirror'' and then assign 4, 5 and 6 to be the mirror-mix, leaving 7 and 8 for your discrete surrounds. That way, whatever you do to 1, 2 and 3 will be replicated onto 4, 5 and 6 which are the front three of your surround mix.

Since all musicians have better hearing in one ear than the other and will therefore always make slightly lopsided mixes, if you want a really easy and cool way of centering your lead between left and right perfectly, besides sending your lead to a discrete center track of its' own in the mix, check your mix through your DIFFERENCE button or it's also called L-R or VERTICAL (i.e. the reverse of Lateral Mono).

If you listen to the Vertical channel of your mix and you hear bleed from the lead, that means either your panning is ever-so-slightly off center (could be the fault of the knobs on the console not being as exact as you'd like), or else your effect-returns from the lead are panned too close to the center. Try placing the effects-return out near the edges of the stereo field and then try listening to the VERTICAL channel of your mix again. Your lead should now have completely disappeared except for some sibilants and some other very faint echoes.

Once you're done with that, do the same with your bed. Bring up 1 and 3 and leave 2 down, and then utilize SLR which is Swap Left for Right and make sure your mix balance is as good backwards as it is the right way round. As we said earlier, since all musicians and engineers hear better one way or the other, swapping the mix left for right will ensure that whichever ear is not the engineer's dominant one will not get favourable treatment, resulting in a lop-sided mix, especially important in quad or 5.1.

Now, try as I said folding in your surround mix to your main mix panning the rears between 10:30 and 1:30 and 9 and 3 in the main mix and see what you think.
Thanks for the tips! (oh ,a dime!)
 

kap'n krunch

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,395
Location
estados hundidos
Thanks a bunch for the extended reply, ndiamone -I really appreciate it!
Will follow your instructions and report back.
BTW, I am mixing it in Logic, so unfortunately I don't have a "real" mixing board, and now that you mention it , I miss having all the different strips and buttons; but on the other hand , the "mixer" settings are not changed.

(.... but then return the monitors back to living-room-in-an-apartment-with-crabby-old-neighbors level. ) LOL, very true!

As you mentioned, I'd also like to have a stereo DPLII ready mix -but I can't monitor it directly, I'd have to rewire the output (easy to do), so another great suggestion.

:) :smokin
 
2
Top