| Author
|
psytrance in surround 5.1
|
krazycid
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
57
Posted : May 27, 2008 16:39:05
|
I am studying and exploring the possibility of accentuating or making more effective the elements of build ups and break downs by using automated surround panning. I have composed 2 tracks 1 morning/progressive and the other with a heavier darker feel to it.The composition has been done in logic and I am doing a surround mix of both using protools.
I will be conducting listening tests comparing the stereo mixes with the 5.1 surround mixes. What I am trying to determine is weather the feeling of tension and release is better communicated or felt at a deeper level in the surround mix with automated movement by using movement of sounds in a circular movement around the listener and also movement of sounds from back to front and vice versa in a creative way. I would like to determine weather it is a distraction or can it be used to heighten the listeners experience in terms of emotional reaction to the music in terms of tension and release created by the builds and breaks.
In other words is it possible to make the builds and breaks more effective.There wont be any additional elements/layers in the surround mix, the only difference between the mixes will be the placement of the sounds and their movement.
This will be done through responses to questionnaires filled out by the listeners.
I have a few questions for all of you;
1.In your own words, How do you define build ups? what are the key elements that make up a build up? (drum rolls. automated filter cuttoffs on the kick bass, opening swell pads? time stretched reverse sound..?)
2. In your own words,How do you define break downs? what elements make up a break down?
3. Do you think psytrance mixed in surround 5.1( with automated surround panning information during the build ups and breakdowns) could possibly have a bigger impact on the listeners emotional response to the music in terms of tension and release as compared to the same compositions mixed in stereo? or do you feel it will simply be a distraction from the trance state we are trying to communicate to the listener?
4.Do you have any other advice for me , as a producer attempting to mix psytrance in surround 5.1 for the first time?
5. In your own words how do you define morning, progressive, full on and dark psytrance?
6. What is your definition of tension and release in terms of dance music?
This study is being conducted in an academic setting .I Will post the results of my findings on this thread on completion.
Thank you all in advance for taking the time to do this. All your help is highly appreciated. Look forward to reading your responses.
Also for those of you who haven't heard it already. I highly recommend Vision One by frolic productions. some excellent psytrance by the likes of Altom ,Ultravoice,Liquid Soul,Laughing Budha on the DVD .
The surround mixes by Max Stellato and Jez Prior are very well done, anybody have a contact for either of them?
Great videos too , perfectly synced to the tracks. Truely a work of art. 
|
|
|
krazycid
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
57
Posted : May 27, 2008 16:56
|
Sorry for the double post of the same thread... honest mistake mods... feel free to delete ... im trying to figure out if i can delete one version myself     |
|
|
|
Glitch_CapeTown
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
36
Posts :
952
Posted : May 27, 2008 17:04
|
|
mk47
Inactive User
Started Topics :
118
Posts :
4444
Posted : May 27, 2008 17:14
|
|
very cool and been discussed before , but apart from very few(practically none?) clubs , pa`s , ur also shutting out all the people who do not have 5.1 system from enjoying that music .... that said , there was a rumor a while ago about a hired goons 5.1 album .. wonder wats up with that
|
|
|
|
krazycid
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
57
Posted : May 27, 2008 20:24
|
Good point there mk47 , like i said theres two versions of the same music , stereo mixes as well as 5.1 mixes, identical elements only difference being the use of surround movement . Which is creating a bit of comb filtering and phasing to some extent ,which in turn sort of sounds like a few subtle,additional sounds, but essentially the same audio regions, the same midi parts used on the same synths, the same dynamic and effects processing , except a bit of delay on the surround speakers to compensate for the phasing issues. So there is a stereo version of the same.Which is also what Frolic productions have done with vision one, the package has one CD stereo mix and one Dvd(5.1)
What you say about very few clubs and Pa's in 5.1 brings me to another point , clubs;sure a little less practical but for outdoor gatherings.... large PA's are often a mix and match of interfaces, consoles, crossovers, amps and finally the speakers amongst other outboard gear like compressors/limiters delay units etc.... imagine this signal flow... live set coming out of an interface/sound card with 6 outputs....routed to 6 stacks of speakers 5 stacks(L,C,R,Ls,Rs) of tops and one stack of Subs via crossovers and amps matched to the speakers of course... the same scenario im not sure would work with a Dj setup.... iv been trying to figure out if the pioneer DVJ x1 has a 5.1 audio out out and if theres any dj mixers out there that can handle all six(5.1) channels in and out ?
Also do u think psytrance is exclusively for the dancefloor? or do u listen to it at home as well?
Cheers for ur input much appreciated |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : May 27, 2008 23:04
|
you only need a stereo out that you can then feed into a stereo to 5.1 converter... ideal weighing is c weighted. Make sure you have the amplitude of the .1 around 85db and set the other speakers accordingly. I have been looking for people to collaborate with on that one. And provided your lt rt is good, stereo freaks (so last millenium) will get their fare share too... I can mix 5.1 music, ambient full on, dark, whatever you're into man... what do you use for panning? As a matter of fact if you have the right tools panning doesn't take that long. It takes longer to write a track... the thing with stereo and 5.1 really is:
with stereo you are looking at something, you have a 180 degree window and can pan your sounds according to that 180 degree spectrum, meaning you are always on the outside. When you mix 5.1 you have a 360 degree circle and the listener is in the middle of the circle. Needless to say that you can make him a part of your musical spectrum, include him and have him in the middle of what you are trying to do. Needless to say that the emotional response will be more intense as the listener is not a bystander but participant! Which is precisely the reason why movies get mixed 5.1
 Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : May 27, 2008 23:18
|
|
krazycid
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
57
Posted : May 29, 2008 19:32
|
Hi Upavas, really like your visualization of immersing the listener in a 360 degree circle and really glad to find someone who believes psy in 5.1 can work 
at the same time,when you talk of stereo to 5.1 converters, one cant really get true surround, what the converters do is create its own "virtual" surround by taking a split of the Left and right and feeding it to the other speakers going through filters and delays according to how the converters are set up essentially beefing up the sound a bit by having it coming from more directions
With these converters one cant really get into "automated surround panning" and movement of elements around the listener
This said, it is still a great idea for Dj sets in Virtual surround, which i imagine could also be an awesome awesome experience  I think you may have just given me a brilliant idea for my next experiment.
I am mixing in protools using an Icon as the control surface, so for some of my movements I ride the knobs while for some i still prefer to simply grab the surround panner with the mouse and for some I even pencil it in. So ya to answer your question
for panning I use the digidesign surround panner thats an integrated part of protools.
I disagree with you when you say stereo is last millenium. Its so much easier to mix in surround as it is in stereo and make it sound really good.
Definitely with you when you say it takes longer to write a track.
As far as emotional responses being stronger, it is what Im hoping for the result of my listening test/survey to be..glad you feel so strongly in the affirmative .. as against the movement of sounds causing distraction.
really hoping this thread turns into an active conversation and gets our community to seriously start thinking about the various possibilities of working with surround for our music
there definitely is an interest...i noticed over a hundred views, but very few responses so far...
checked out your myspace... good work man Really appreciate your input Upavas
trancedance-harddance-crazydance-monkeydance-peacedance-active meditation-takesyoutoanotherleveldance |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : May 29, 2008 21:20
|
An icon, you bastard, I want one!!! Real bad!
I have made 5.1 work with Psytrance, so it is not my opinion, it is my experience. It is true, you won't get true 5.1 surround with a converter, but that shouldn't bug you since you do have an icon interface. So just make it 5.1 in Pro Tools...
As far as mixing 5.1 and stereo is concerned. It is the same ease or difficulty, just because you have a 360 degree field doesn't mean that sounds don't cancel each other out. It also doesn't mean that you have more space in the mix. Even though you have 360 degrees instead of 180.
An advantage is that you can decide on how much of the signal to rout to your sub, a disadvantage is that you have more speakers which can cancel each other out more easily...
Like you I hope this turns into an active thread. I fear most people either don't know enough of 5.1 mixing or think it's bullocks.
It would be so cool to get the Psy scene 5.1ized!!!
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
krazycid
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
57
Posted : Jun 1, 2008 15:13
|
Hey Upavas. I was just wondering you'd mentioned earlier that " ideal weighing is c weighted." what exactly is the difference between A weighted and C weighted? I know it has something to do with equal loudness contours but not quite sure exactly what? Also what is the ideal monitoring level for conducting listening tests? do you have any links where i can read up on either of these factors?
As far as 5.1 vs stereo which is easier? I guess to a large extent it depends on personal experience ....but Tomlinson Holman who developed THX during his period as corporate technical direcor at Lucasfilms.... in his book "surround sound up and running" (second edition) on page no. 108 says that while the mechanics of mixing in surround might be a little more difficult because of the number of channels, but the actual mixing task is easier... the reason he gives for this is exactly what u had said.... more space in the mix more speakers to fit the same information.
Honestly I am finding alot more space in my surround mix... each element sounds alot clearer ... and it seems to me that there is now scope for fitting in alot more sounds in the same tracks. Which means if more people started mixing in 5.1 they would be able to make more complex compositions....
Cheers for your input man .... much appreciated
trancedance-harddance-crazydance-monkeydance-peacedance-active meditation-takesyoutoanotherleveldance |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jun 1, 2008 16:45
|
Hi all,
I really like the idea of doing surround mixes but there are a few issues I can think of:
1) There is no standard for (5.1) surround sound for music. What I mean by that is that there are no standards for the speaker angles, distances etc.
There are standards for surround sound in video/film but they are not really practical for music: The surround channels are supposed to be diffuse. In other words, they should NOT point at the listener! Also they are not at the same angles as the front speakers.
This is not what you want when mixing surround music. You want the surround speakers to point towards the listener so that you indeed get 360 degrees audio.
What this means in practise is that a 5.1 surround system that is properly set up for film/video is not well set up for music and that a set up that you choose for music might differ from what someone else thinks is a good set up.
In light of this I think it might make more sense to just mix in 4.0 (quadraphonic) and forget the centre and LFE channels. (The LFE channel can be used for extra bass but that should be done at the listener/PA's end with a good bass management module).
4.0 also makes it much easier to set-up in clubs and on big outdoor rigs.
2) The next issue is delays between speakers in big outdoor rigs. Anything that is more than 2 channels will only have one relatively small sweet spot where everything is in phase. I've been at festivals with big multi-stack PAs and I get really annoyed at what sounds like a constant train wreck unless you are standing right in the middle between all the stacks. Each kick drum has delayed multiple hits. The bigger the system and thus the bigger the distance between the stacks the larger the problem.
With a stereo set up, there is always a line right down the middle between the speakers where the sound from both speakers arrives in phase with no delays.
You could get around this problem by only sending certain sounds to the surround speakers. (No kick/bass and no percussion that plays on all channels at the same time) but that kind of defeats the whole ideas I think.
3) As far as I know, there are no multichannel CD players or mixers.
4) Clubs are often physically designed for stereo. By this I mean the way the PA speakers are set up pointing away from the DJ. The DJ listens to monitors. If there are stacks in the back of the club pointing towards the stage, it can make mixing quite difficult. (You hear multiple kicks due to the delay). Also the bar is often at the back of the club or festival and having large stacks beside the bar is not practical. Also the entrance doors are often at that side. Having big bass speakers close to the entrance is also a problem in many clubs.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Jun 1, 2008 23:05
|
Undertow,
I have had several experiences with Quadraphonic and I disagree strongly, yes the setup might be easier, but the sound quality sucks imo.
I have created a pretty cool standard for music for 5.1. It works every time...
It is not so much the setup of the speakers, it is what goes through them that matters. I have had tracks in a big ass cinema which sounded fine all over the place.
The setup was for cinema, the room was c weighted and it sounded great!
In my experience the bassmanagement usually should be used as a last instance, it makes absolute sense to make sure the right amount of boost goes into the LFE channel, you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble.
As far as a filmsetup not working for music is concerned, it probably does not work for music when it is not properly set up. I have mixed 5.1 music in a film setup and it worked great. Why would it not work?
4.0 sucks as far as soundquality is concerned, it is just not the same...
Naturally you have to take phase issues into account when mixing 5.1 , more so than when mixing stereo, once you do you will find it sounds interesting from all kinds of angels in the given space, the mix you heard on that festival was probably lousy!
The Kick was not mixed properly if you heard multiple instances of it, the mix rules we have in Stereo DO NOT APPLY to 5.1 mixing. It is a totally different science!
As in stereo you can mix so that in 5.1 you do not have these phase cancellation issues. Think phaser!
Not sending kick and bass to LS and RS makes sense and does not in anyway defeat the 5.1 idea.
I do agree with your last statement and it is up to us to make it so that the clubs change from stereo to 5.1, just like it was in the 60ies when they jumped from mono to stereo...
oh, and 5.1 cannot be played with cd media, you will need dvd in order to play 5.1 material!
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Jun 1, 2008 23:16
|
Krazykid,
C weighted is what your average home surround system has, a weighted is usually used to check noiselevels and their Amplitude. It can be used in a cinema environment, but c weighted is considered better.
Go to Wikipedia to read more....
As far as which mixing is easier, 5.1 or stereo, all I can tell you is that both ways of mixing are quite different from each other, and that a lot of peeps who mix fantastically in Stereo don't know squat about 5.1 . And do not forget that the hzspectrum in 5.1 is unchanged from stereo, and you get more cancellation issues that you will have to take care of...
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
MercuryFall
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
52
Posts :
711
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 15:55
|
probably a 5.1 mix in PSY can be the definite psychedelic experience!!
In rock music, it is mainly used to add some reverb behind you so you have the feeling to be inside the room.
In psy, we could be very creative and use 5.1 in a way to make you feel completely tripped out.
I hope some major artists will give it a try and spark inspiration for the rest of us ;-) |
|
|
|
-aeon-
Aeon
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
546
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 16:32
|
i have written some tracks in surround... it's amazing, such an enjoyable and involving process. there have been threads about it in the past.
here are some thoughts:
- i agree with whomever suggested quadraphonic. in most party setups, the difference between 'true' 5.1 surround and quad surround would be negligible. i don't buy the argument that quadraphonic is so much worse than 5.1... a dedicated LFE is pointless, so that brings us down to 5 channels; taking away the centre channel will hardly make a huge difference. but really the strongest argument in favour of 4.0 is that it could be reasonably implemented in most clubs, and at most outdoor parties, with little or no extra expense or effort.
- it is much more pleasurable (for me, anyway) to write in surround rather than mixing in surround - you do tend to think differently about all sorts of things.
- be careful when writing not to rely too much on surround gimmicks like round-the-room sweeps and pingpongs. don't overdo the surround effects, concentrate on getting the mix right and then treat the surround artifacts as you would stereo image tricks - i.e. NOT integral to the music, but make it a whole lot nicer
- most of the time you want to avoid sending too much bass to the 'rear' channels. |
|
|
|
|
