Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

How do you mix orchestral scores in quad?

dgburns said:
Are you able to batch out all tracks in one operation
Click to expand...
Yes!



Just export all your stems offline in one go, in whatever format you like, then add another task to create a full mix mp3 afterwards for your nan to listen to in her beat up mobility scooter, on her way to her local bridge tournament. In my case she always rings me up with a predictable "What is this sh*t?".

:thumbsup::whistling:
 
EwigWanderer said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about music mixing, not film mixing.

Markus Kohlprath said:
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?
Click to expand...
It could well be a thing used by a few people, but the common format is 5.1. If you look at, say, Best Buy's site and put in 5.1, you'll see lots of speaker systems (mostly soundbar-type things).

Put in 4.1 and it'll think you mean the Bluetooth version! (I just checked to make sure I wasn't behind the times.)

You can create surround - immersive, sorry, immersive - with any number of speakers. 7.1 or .2 are the only other ones I hear being talked about.
 
Last edited:
Nick Batzdorf said:
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.
Click to expand...
4.1 was actually something many A-listers like Alan Meyerson delivered their mixes in for quite some time, although the format said "5.1" technically. Alan made no secret of the fact that he had little use for the center channel apart from the center-mic of his Decca tree. - This was only several years ago. I'm pretty sure that he's mixing in 3D nowadays, though. :)
 
Dietz said:
4.1 was actually something many A-listers like Alan Meyerson delivered their mixes in for quite some time, although the format said "5.1" technically.
Click to expand...
If you work in Pro Tools (as sound dep do), you try your best to avoid a session with a mix of mono, stereo, 4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 5.1, 7.0, 7.1, 7.1.2 tracks in order to stay sane :)
 
dgburns said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
One operation, or more precisely many operations, but Cubase takes care of it for you since Cubase 10 or 11.

Imagine many tracks using the same Hall reverb. It would make sense to set up a FX/Aux track with that reverb plugin, and using track sends to feed the reverb. Earlier you’d have to use a separate instance of the same Hall reverb for each stem in order to make stems in one operation, but now you have the option in Cubase to include the sends when printing.

Takes a little bit longer since Cubase in reality is printing one stem at a time, but you can reduce the strain in the CPU from say 10 instances of that reverb to 1.

I really appreciate the extra headroom I get CPU wise when working, and don’t mind having a cup of coffee while Cubase is printing stems :)
 
I write in quad, but could easily be in stereo. It’s such a joy to write in surround, so why not do it? You’re doing yourself a disservice by staying only in stereo imo, if nothing else but for the pure joy of it.
 
Fitz said:
I write in quad, but could easily be in stereo. It’s such a joy to write in surround, so why not do it? You’re doing yourself a disservice by staying only in stereo imo, if nothing else but for the pure joy of it.
Click to expand...
It’s fun indeed, but I do have to admit that I’ve had moments when I was writing and realized only the speakers in the front were active :) It’s not night and day when writing I would say. However, when focusing on the mix, the surround speakers are crucial.
 
JohannesR said:
It’s fun indeed, but I do have to admit that I’ve had moments when I was writing and realized only the speakers in the front were active :) It’s not night and day when writing I would say. However, when focusing on the mix, the surround speakers are crucial.
Click to expand...
Not night and day, but your entire attitude when writing a piece changes. If you have properly set up surround mics in the rears of your samples, and not just a splash of reverb, it’s an entirely different thing :)
 
Fitz said:
I write in quad, but could easily be in stereo. It’s such a joy to write in surround, so why not do it? You’re doing yourself a disservice by staying only in stereo imo, if nothing else but for the pure joy of it.
Click to expand...
Do you have for monitors of the same kind or are the rear different? Or put it another way: do you think it's possible or make sense to use different monitors for the rear channels? I have Neumann KH120 and think of getting maybe cheaper Jbl just to try it out.
 
I personally don't, but i know there are more people than we think that write/mix in quad, especially if they don't have (and most don't have it) an atmos set up in their studio.
For example, if i remember right, Daniel James has a quad set up when he compose and mix.
 
I'll point out that, while the .1 Channel (sub) is reserved for Booms and other low end FX, the Bass Management used in many speaker systems will still route LRCS LF energy to the sub, even though it is not present in the .1 Channel.

As has been mentioned, Music is generally not panned to the center channel, which is reserved for dialog, so a quad setup, with sub if the speakers need low-end help, would work fine for mixing music. But what if you want to hear the dialog, too? Short of a full-blown Atmos system, 5.1 seems like a reasonable way to go.
 
Markus Kohlprath said:
Do you have for monitors of the same kind or are the rear different? Or put it another way: do you think it's possible or make sense to use different monitors for the rear channels? I have Neumann KH120 and think of getting maybe cheaper Jbl just to try it out.
Click to expand...
As I used to sell home theater systems and speakers at a hifi specialized store. Every speaker sounds different so yes you can try with a different brand but the sound will be different. So for example when panning let’s say piano from front to back it will sound different with another brand speakers.

And it takes time to get used to monitor/ mix the sound when it comes from back. It’s different than watching (listening) movies because you have to monitor the sound from the back also and make decisions on how much you mix to rear channels.
 
EwigWanderer said:
As I used to sell home theater systems and speakers at a hifi specialized store. Every speaker sounds different so yes you can try with a different brand but the sound will be different. So for example when panning let’s say piano from front to back it will sound different with another brand speakers.

And it takes time to get used to monitor/ mix the sound when it comes from back. It’s different than watching (listening) movies because you have to monitor the sound from the back also and make decisions on how much you mix to rear channels.
Click to expand...
So the answer is if I understand correctly: Better use the same.
 
OTOH, do you really want a piano behind you?

Many folks use different speakers for surrounds, and most content going to surrounds in surround applications is ambient in nature. And Bass Management will fill in missing low end when smaller surround speakers are used.

Identical is ideal, but not essential as long as system is balanced properly front to rear.
 
Markus Kohlprath said:
Do you have for monitors of the same kind or are the rear different? Or put it another way: do you think it's possible or make sense to use different monitors for the rear channels? I have Neumann KH120 and think of getting maybe cheaper Jbl just to try it out.
Click to expand...
I use JBL rear and quested for my main. It works for me, for sure. In an ideal world, all would be the same but I would do the JBL in the rears for you.
 
HCMarkus said:
OTOH, do you really want a piano behind you?

Many folks use different speakers for surrounds, and most content going to surrounds in surround applications is ambient in nature. And Bass Management will fill in missing low end when smaller surround speakers are used.

Identical is ideal, but not essential as long as system is balanced properly front to rear.
Click to expand...
It’s not necessarily a piano is “behind you”. You are immersed in the sound, properly recorded. Not a splash of reverb put in the rears or panned behind… you need to record the surround mics and put them up back there… or don’t pan them back there at all.
 
Markus Kohlprath said:
Do you have for monitors of the same kind or are the rear different? Or put it another way: do you think it's possible or make sense to use different monitors for the rear channels? I have Neumann KH120 and think of getting maybe cheaper Jbl just to try it out.
Click to expand...
I have a pair of Yamaha HS8s, two smaller HS5s for the back and a HS8S sub.
I deliberately picked these because they sound as pure/neutral (which is what you want) as can be, look amazing (in black or white, mind you) AND I know for sure I won't have matching issues.

Add some acoustic treatment to your room, SoundID Reference (surround version) to you Cubase Control Room and you're off to the races. :dancer:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom