stereo or surround?

[mixaholic]

is it better to mix in stereo or surround sound? what do yall prefer?

 

[djclueveli]

maybe stereo if you don't have surround sound speakers

 

[Farview]

What are you making? A CD or DVD? CDs will never be surround capable. DVDs are pretty boring without video.

 

[mixaholic]

farview i'm mixing just a regular song. i saw somewhere on the "the mixing engineers handbook" that mixing in surround sound has more advantages so i was just wondering what yall think. thanks

 

[bennychico11]

surround is cool and fun...but a lot of extra work too.

besides, when do you really listen to a band in surround sound in a live setting? bands are usuallly placed in front of you and you listen to them with your stereo ears. I guess it all depends on what you're trying to recreate. A live concert setting, or a concert setting with you in the middle of the band.

 

[Farview]

farview i'm mixing just a regular song. i saw somewhere on the "the mixing engineers handbook" that mixing in surround sound has more advantages so i was just wondering what yall think. thanks

If you don't have any way of encoding your mix, you won't be able to do anything with the 6 tracks that you have just created for surround.

Every CD that you buy at the store is stereo.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

i saw somewhere on the "the mixing engineers handbook" that mixing in surround sound has more advantages so i was just wondering what yall think. thanks

Surround mixing *does* have it's advantages IF you want to create a specifc 3D composition, whether it be something on an abstract 3D canvas like what Pink Floyd or Tangerine Dream might do, or whether it's mixing for "realism" as in mixing a movie soundtrack (we've all heard that helicopter come from behind us in "Close Encounters".) You can do spacial stuff that just can't be sone the same way in stereo.

Surround mixing also has it's disadvantages. It's uselss on radio, in a car stereo, iPod, MP3 or any home stereo system that's not surround-ready (and yes you junior gamers, there are a lot more of those than you might think.) Unless you are creating a composition strictly for surround, this means creating two different mixes (and two different masters), one encoded for stereo and one encoded for surround.

And then there's the cost. Mixing for surround means having the hardware and software in studio to mix in surround (including 5 quality studio monitors and a subwoofer, and a proper surround encoder.) It also means that if you send you your stuff for mastering, that you have to have a surround-ready mastering facility to go to, which is not goingto be a $20 a song PT shop .

Your choice.

G.

 

[underp]

what SouthSIDE Glen said

Sourround should never be considered as an option, to archive your final product.

Your final product should always be stereo. have you seen a headphones set with 6 speakers hanging around ?. NO.


Most of time, surround mixes are done, just to create a feel, a sub-real space, an ambience, FOR something that you're watching at the same time.


ohhh, sorry for the bad english, you get the idea.


an always remember to keep your multi-tracks.
you never know what's gonna happen tomorrow.

 

[LeeRosario]

I like the way Bob Katz says it,


"What's the rush in mixing in surround if you haven't mastered good ol fashion stereo?"


surround is great when it works, but the likelyhood that it happens often is rare. Plus, if you really look into how the best surround mixes are done, you'd be surprised to find out that it becomes sort of a glorified stereo.


For example, I was reading an article on the guys who did up one of the Coldplay live DVDs in surround. He basically mixed all the elements of the band on the L,C,R channels (in the typical fashion), then leaving the surround channels for ambient stuff like crowd sounds and reverbs.

So the end result is a lifelike experience, but not that it can't be done close enough in stereo.

 

[Farview]

If you have the money, equipment and time to do it, great. It is a pretty useless endevor.