How do you mix orchestral scores in quad?
- Thread starter tcdlim
- Start date
You do know that 4.1 isn't normally a thing, right?
Anyway, as a starting point - not that I claim expertise or even experience in surround mixing - treat the rear speakers as a way to expand the depth (i.e. mix in a little of some things in the front). If you add a center speaker, it's just to cement the stereo image a little.
Anyway, as a starting point - not that I claim expertise or even experience in surround mixing - treat the rear speakers as a way to expand the depth (i.e. mix in a little of some things in the front). If you add a center speaker, it's just to cement the stereo image a little.
Markus Kohlprath
Senior Member
It's been a year or two ago but did't Tom Holkenborg say he works in 4.1?
That probably means it's a thing. Is it?
That probably means it's a thing. Is it?
doctoremmet
Senior Member
Holkenborg is indeed still a quad guy. I’d check his Studio Time series of videos.
EwigWanderer
Senior Member
Center channel is usually reserved for dialog and efx. Sub channel for efx too so I would't mix music for that unless I'm sure what I'm doing.
First of all, may I ask why 4.0 or 4.1? I don't know any network or streaming service that has quad in their delivery specs. It's usually 7.1, or even Dolby Atmos. If you're working with movies, the re-recording mixers tend to prefer 7.1 stems.
However, on a practical and technical level, it makes a lot of sense to stay in quad for as long as possible in your signal flow before going up to 7.1, because it splits the demand for computer resources in half, and is much easier to deal with while writing/producing. The center speaker is basically reserved for dialogue and the sound mixers don't want you to go in the way, so stay away! You could have some surround reverbs utilising the center speaker, plus you can solidify the image in front by having just a little bit of music there - but it's so subtle you can do that at the very end of the signal flow.
Before upgrading your workflow from stereo to surround, you should ask yourself what you'd be putting in the rear speakers. If you don't have any recorded surround material of significant value, then surround reverbs and panning is basically what is going to be in your surrounds, and you could have a smoother workflow by having only stereo instrument/audio tracks in your DAW. And "surround-ize" the mix at the very last step of the signal flow (FX sends and stem tracks).
On the other hand, if you have some samples recorded in a great sounding hall (Spitfire, Orchestral Tools etc.), it does make a difference to pan the surround mics all the way back - there is something more organic and nice sounding with real recorded reverb as opposed to artificial reverb, at least in my ears. Then I'd suggest to have TWO outputs from your Kontakt/SINE etc. instances making it send quad; pan the surround mics to the back and the rest in front as a starting point. Then going into 7.1 stems with your 7.1 reverbs. We're talking about the last 10% here, so if you're not up to par computer wise, don't care about those last 10%, or just lazy, you could stay in stereo and rely on reverb plugins to create the surround channels for you. That will save you a lot of resources if you need to deliver surround stems, at the cost of cutting corners a bit.
Lastly, if you record live, then it's 7.1 all the way. The way I've done it lately is to have my mixer print 7.1 stems of the recorded orchestral material, and then I drop those into my Cubase session before I print stems including my programmed tracks.
However, on a practical and technical level, it makes a lot of sense to stay in quad for as long as possible in your signal flow before going up to 7.1, because it splits the demand for computer resources in half, and is much easier to deal with while writing/producing. The center speaker is basically reserved for dialogue and the sound mixers don't want you to go in the way, so stay away! You could have some surround reverbs utilising the center speaker, plus you can solidify the image in front by having just a little bit of music there - but it's so subtle you can do that at the very end of the signal flow.
Before upgrading your workflow from stereo to surround, you should ask yourself what you'd be putting in the rear speakers. If you don't have any recorded surround material of significant value, then surround reverbs and panning is basically what is going to be in your surrounds, and you could have a smoother workflow by having only stereo instrument/audio tracks in your DAW. And "surround-ize" the mix at the very last step of the signal flow (FX sends and stem tracks).
On the other hand, if you have some samples recorded in a great sounding hall (Spitfire, Orchestral Tools etc.), it does make a difference to pan the surround mics all the way back - there is something more organic and nice sounding with real recorded reverb as opposed to artificial reverb, at least in my ears. Then I'd suggest to have TWO outputs from your Kontakt/SINE etc. instances making it send quad; pan the surround mics to the back and the rest in front as a starting point. Then going into 7.1 stems with your 7.1 reverbs. We're talking about the last 10% here, so if you're not up to par computer wise, don't care about those last 10%, or just lazy, you could stay in stereo and rely on reverb plugins to create the surround channels for you. That will save you a lot of resources if you need to deliver surround stems, at the cost of cutting corners a bit.
Lastly, if you record live, then it's 7.1 all the way. The way I've done it lately is to have my mixer print 7.1 stems of the recorded orchestral material, and then I drop those into my Cubase session before I print stems including my programmed tracks.
Last edited:
oh whats LFE by the way?
quickbrownf0x
I had fun once. It was awful.
I'm in 4.1 simply because I wanted to experiment with working in surround (Try a CS80 Bladerunner-like lead patch with a bit of modulating Blackhole splosh.... oooh, it's so nice in surround! 
), but obviously in most cases you end up downmixing to just stereo.
I've set up VEPro/Cubase in the way @JohannesR mentions, where if I want to send stuff out to the back, I can, but by default it's just good-old stereo. Most of the time it's reverbs and delays, FX for my synths, though. Nothing crucial.
Also, I took some advice from JXL and moved 90% of my FX processing (for all instruments) over to my VEPro machines, which really helps when it comes to computer resources, especially if you're in 4.1 or higher. It's great!
), but obviously in most cases you end up downmixing to just stereo.I've set up VEPro/Cubase in the way @JohannesR mentions, where if I want to send stuff out to the back, I can, but by default it's just good-old stereo. Most of the time it's reverbs and delays, FX for my synths, though. Nothing crucial.
Also, I took some advice from JXL and moved 90% of my FX processing (for all instruments) over to my VEPro machines, which really helps when it comes to computer resources, especially if you're in 4.1 or higher. It's great!
Last edited:
It’s the sub (Low-frequency effects). It’s the .1 in 4.1, 5.1 and 7.1.
A very common beginner mistake (guilty as charged) is to send all kinds of bass sounds to the sub, but emphasis should be put on “Effects” in LFE. It’s just for sudden effects such as low drum hits/impacts.
The front speakers in theaters are full range, and more than capable of carrying bass lines. Once you start sending basses to the LFE, you risk running into problems with phase.
Sounds like a great setup! 4.1 is a lot of bang for the buck since you have speakers in the front, speakers in the back and sub. No wasted resources on side speakers and center speaker, which is diminishing returns anyway. Just be aware that you might have to deliver 5.1 or 7.1 if you’re working with films and/or series.I'm in 4.1 simply because I wanted to experiment with working in surround (Try a CS80 Bladerunner-like lead patch with a bit of modulating Blackhole splosh.... oooh, it's so nice in surround!
I've set up VEPro/Cubase in the way @JohannesR mentions, where if I want to send stuff out to the back, I can, but by default it's just good-old stereo. Most of the time it's reverbs and delays, FX for my synths, though. Nothing crucial.
Also, I took some advice from JXL and moved 90% of my FX processing (for all instruments) over to my VEPro machines, which really helps when it comes to computer resources, especially if you're in 4.1 or higher. It's great!
The game changer for me computer wise was batch offline bounce in Cubase since 11 (or 12?) which made it possible to share reverbs between stems. Cut down the need for processing power drastically.
Last edited:
quickbrownf0x
I had fun once. It was awful.
Cheers. Forget my rinky-dink setup; I'd love to have a look at yours. If I'm not mistaken, you've been doing a bunch of stuff for Marvel lately, right? That's awesome. Were you required to deliver in 5/7.1 there, too?
I remember Harry Gregson-Williams saying he tends to just stick with stereo stems, because most of the time things will get remixed and re-panned anyway, so he couldn't be bothered. But maybe times have changed? It's also what I heard from one of my audio engineering professors, waaaaay back when I was just a wee quickbrownfox. Have I mentioned that I'm an old fart yet?
He just put up a video on his channel saying that he is.
tc9000
Absolute Member
25 years ago (!) I had quite a nice HiFi setup - a TEAC amp, Rotel deck, and a couple of custom built speakers. A friend asked me to look after his Wharfedale speakers. The amp could drive two pairs of speakers so I thought screw it I'm going to set the Wharfdales up and they happened to be on the opposite side of the room from my main speakers. At some point I realised I could have both pairs on at the same time and OH MY GOD the sound was incredible! Just stereo x2 was superb hahah... I really should look into ambisonics / 4.1 / 5.1 / 7.1 etc etc
General consensus seems like writing and mixing in 4.1, 5.1 or 7.1 seems like a luxury at times if things are gonna go back to stereo most of the time? Forgive the silly question coming, but if I write in stereo, would it sound exactly the same as if I wrote in 4.1/5.1/7.1 which then mixes down to stereo for standard formats?
dgburns
software surfer
Can you elaborate? Are you able to batch out all tracks in one operation, or do you have to render one stem at a time ?
quickbrownf0x
I had fun once. It was awful.
Depends a little. Downmixing from surround to stereo means (if you don't manually compensate for it) your DAW will decide what to do with the information from your surround monitors, how that's distributed across your stereo mix. That can f*ck up your overall mix if you're not careful, make it too hot, distort, or sound like you're literally swimming in reverb, for instance. Same with upmixing btw. So you need to pay attention to your overall routing and how your sound is distributed. In Cubase that stuff is pretty easy to do, with built-in downmix features/plugins.
Surround Sound
MixConvert V6
If you're a Cubase user I'd definitely look into setting up Control Room btw., because it's awesome.
