MIX BATTLE 8 | Jazz in Atmos on IEMs VS £10k Stereo Speaker Mix (Working Audio Tools Podcast S5 E10)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лис 2024
- Mixing Jazz in Atmos with Amazon IEM Vs £10k Stereo Speaker Mix (Working Audio Tools Podcast S5 E10)
Mixing Jazz In Stereo VS Atmos.. Is There Any Difference??
In this episode, we discuss the perils of Atmos to Binaural to Stereo mix fold-down translation using a Jazz track by the Emile Hinton Trio, recorded and produced by @PresentDayProduction. Ed throws his stereo mix into the fray for comparison.
Join us, Paul Third and Ed Thorne, on our journey to becoming full-time audio mix engineers. We regularly host guests from the audio community and compare and constructively critique mixes. Covering everything from analogue vs digital, hardware versus plugins, Atmos mixing, mix translation, mixing and mastering, mixing philosophy, and mixing psychology.
The Working Audio Tools Podcast is sponsored by our friends at DistroKid who cater for all your digital distribution needs.
💎 GET 30% OFF DistroKid Subscription: distrokid.com/... 💎
💲 BUY FEATURED PLUGINS 💲
Plugin Boutique - shorturl.at/brETU
💲 BUY FEATURED STUDIO GEAR 💲
Thomann (EU) - shorturl.at/mnHV9
Sweetwater (US) - sweetwater.sjv...
ℹ️ Buying any of your studio gear through this affiliate link earns us a small commission which helps us continue making episodes for you. Thank you for your support! ℹ️
ℹ️ To find out more about us and to get in touch with your questions, check out the links below:
🎬 SUBSCRIBE on UA-cam: / @workingaudiotools
🎧 LISTEN on APPLE: shorturl.at/bozLO
🎧 LISTEN on SPOTIFY: shorturl.at/gqAI1
🎧 LISTEN on AMAZON: shorturl.at/kmtw9
📱INSTAGRAM: / workingaudiotools
💻 PAUL's WEBSITE: www.paulthird.com
💻 ED's WEBSITE: edthorne.com/
💻 IN-HOUSE MASTERING ENGINEER, Marcell: www.actdomake....
For business enquiries and collaborations, please contact us at WorkingAudioTools@gmail.com
Thanks for watching & listening.
As a major jazz fan, I really enjoyed this! I liked Paul's Atmos mix a lot but then I loved Ed's Stereo mix too, I think Paul's fold-down mix was my least favourite, it proves that it often comes down to personal taste and preferences, to my ears there's a marked difference between these two mixes though, I loved the clarity and brightness of Ed's mix and the fact that you could hear every instrument really is what you want in a mix that only has 3 instruments & very little processing (my only quibble would be the panning on the toms being rather unorthadox), it's obviously a different scenario with a busier mix with more frequency content and layers etc..... Paul's Atmos mix was also great and had a much darker feel but some really nice textural ambience in there and an authentic almost live feel, I can't honestly decide between them as they "are" different but great at the same time. to sum up, Ed's feels like a studio mix and Paul's more like a live mix in simple terms......great podcast guys thanks.
Tbh I would say myself and Ed are happy with that as we've intentionally went for those specific sounds. I like how we've been able to take something as simple as piano bass and drums and give 2 completely different perspectives
Agreed. Exactly what we were both going for! Thanks, Sonicart! - Ed
@@WorkingAudioTools My pleasure 👍
Quick tip : Bed is better for binaural translation even thoe people seem to ignore it. It just sounds less phasy and more like what we used to in stereo. I use the bed for kick vocal and bass and manage to get the groove and punch that is usualy lost in atmos mixes.
Good to know. I'll give it a try
This podcast is so useful ... thanks
Glad you think so!
I liked Ed's stereo mix better. More studio clean than room ambience in tone, with the spread feeling left to right. Paul's mix sounded like it was recorded in the jazz cafe with a more front to back feel. So Ed's sounded more Blue Note studio than Paul's Village Vanguard live room tone.
Tbh that's the exact sound I was going for haha
Paul's mix sounds great here. I really feel like I'm in the room. Eds is very good too but I don't get the sense of intimacy or realism with the mix, maybe over produced?. But it's all subjective ain't it. Great episode guys
Thanks for your feedback
36:53.. I +assume+ that the answer Ed presented was not addressing the thing Paul was about to speak on. In either case... +I'm+ still utterly confused on "the point" (of doing ATMOS mixes if everybody's gonna be listening to the stereo fold-downs). Does it come down to... mixing music for "the next generation" of listeners?
If so, that's funny (to me) how it flies in the face of Albini's analog ethos (i.e. "creating" music that you KNOW will be easily playable in 100 years). Not that one way is right or wrong... Just a really interesting 'divergence of intentions'....if you will.
Either way.. love the show, gentlemen!
And I hope you enjoy the Amphions, Ed!
edit: I mean.. I guess atmos is never gonna REPLACE stereo, so it's not even important to think about how long it will last and how much it might supplant stereo...? but it seems sorta important to think about.. i dunno...
Atmos versus stereo is a different conversation but when a mix in Atmos is done right you can fold down to anything being stereo, 5.1, 7.1, etc and it will translate to that. However a binaural render is not a stereo fold down, also there are different formats for spatial audio which makes it very confusing imo.
Well think of it more in terms of how music can be listened to now.
Music plays quite a big part in movies and TV shows now. More consumers can purchase 5.1, 7.1 & atmos sound bars.
So having a format that could adapt to the listening device is very important for future proofing as it allows listeners to experience the mix in a different way as well as having what they have been used to
When you listen to rumours in Atmos you don't really want to go back to stereo. Being able to solo Stevie Nicks vocal, isolate guitar parts and hear more detail and clarity in an album made in the 70s is pretty unbelievable.
Its allowing artists to strip back the limitations of stereo but still be able to provide a stereo or mono mix.
Its allowing music to have that scalability. In the same way that digital allowed us to remaster music 30-40 years later
@@WorkingAudioTools I agree with you on that Paul, personal I'm not going to go the Atmos route but my new converter has the possibility to do Atmos so if I ever want to go that route at least my converter will be ready for it.
@@WorkingAudioTools I dig it... Though, thinking about it this way, it's like an author writing a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book rather than a conventional novel.
As a music maker I'm, personally, not super fond of the idea of 5 ppl hearing my song in 5 COMPLETELY different ways but.. I guess it's always best to have options - as a "creator".
That's why the idea in future is to produce with atmos in mind from scratch with the artist
I thought all the mixes were fine though the binaural fold-down was a bit off and maybe Ed’s was a bit on the loud side.
I still think that Atmos or immersive audio will have a future because it should translate better across various systems especially in headphones. This is contrast to prior setups that require discrete channels (quadrophonic, 5.1). But it’s still in its infancy and things are changing all the time. And good on you for jumping in on it and helping in your way to shape it. But it’s clear there is still a way to go.
In addition to the WAVs (24-bit, 48kHz), you also have the metadata that will give positions over time in an 360° soundstage. The playback render will make sure it is in the “correct spot” no matter the number of speakers. In fact, this was why Atmos was devised for cinema theatres because everyone has different speaker setups and it’s easier to have one deliverable that can accommodate multiple setups rather than have to create fuck knows how many “versions”. And maybe this is where the “disconnect” between the actual Atmos mix and the binaural fold-downs.
I personally would love to get into Atmos mixing. I know I don’t have the space, time, budget to set up twelve to fourteen speakers to do it that way. I *think* I can get away with using headphones and various tools to get me close to that realm. And yes I *know* there’s a difference and there are issues and so on. But still, I think the music I make begs for an Atmos/immersive presentation because 1) it can be quite dense with layers and 2) I love the feeling of “being bathed” in sound and not just having it blast at my ears like a firehose =].
Final thought: maybe Paul was the GOD Particle the whole time? 😁
I mixed my stereo mix to -14LUFS. Not sure what’s loud about that. Maybe perceived loudness with the top end? - Ed
@@WorkingAudioTools That could be. I know you were aiming for a Spotify deliverable, but jazz is typically quieter on record and CD (I think it lands at around -18 or -16).
It wasn’t a dealbreaker or anything and you were going to make adjustments to it anyway =]
I asked around and googled this and heard numbers from -8(!) up to -18 so took the middle ground.
@@WorkingAudioTools I can imagine the -8 would be more contemporary and more “fusion” like and the -18 would be more “traditional”.
After all, -14 was devised as an overall average across all genres from classical music to pop/EDM/metal 😁
I'm sure you mentioned it somewhere, but why did you switch to PT, Ed?
Strictly for more work opportunities. PT opens a few doors other DAWs can't.
@@WorkingAudioTools That's fair
Hmm... Has Paul tried printing acustica audio sphere into the mix to get that translation directly into a binaural mix? Ok. So I have some good planars with me on vacation here.... So I'm putting them on to listen to your mixes.... The atmos mix is definitely not translating for me.... It just feels... mixed a bit unusually.... I liked the stereo fold-down version more. I still haven't experienced Atmos translate binanuarily... Am i doing something wrong? Do i need the apple stuff, it what? Usually it just makes a music sound weirder for me.
I've thought about it but that would involve me trying to change the industry to release 2 seperate albums. Speaker atmos and binaural atmos. I think personally this is the way to go cause you can print stuff like sienna sphere and recreate a more realistic affect.
Plus it could potentially give more work to others who are not able to invest in a speaker setup.
Its all just wishful thinking though
I didn't even listen to this mix binaurally on any other headphone because I wanted to test the limitations of in ears.
Personally to make that mix work more binaurally, I would need to treat it more stereo and ditch the idea of the piano over your left shoulder. Have the piano wide L+R in the sides so when it folds down it sounds like piano hard panned and drums tucked in.
That's what I'm hearing a lot of modern atmos mixes doing. I just wanted to see how something that is going for full atmos like recreating a room would sound like binaurally but for me anyway, you still need a L+R approach to some extent so the foldown doesn't feel lopsided
When mixing in Atmos -18 dBfs is the aimed target so the dynamic range is much higher.
Also the use of limiters and clippers is much less when mixing in Atmos, so definitely a different approach imo.
Maybe that's why Atmos sounds so 'good' because Dolby basically whipped the loudness wars off the table 🤔
Yeah that was my challenge in this. Ensuring the lufs was -18dbfs integrated and true peak was -1dbfs. A jazz track with a lot of dynamics was the stress test as when the drums get super loud at the end you need to use compression or limiting in order to keep that true peak in check. Using the least amount in order to preserve the natural sound of the drums required a bit of work to identify those loudest jumps
@@WorkingAudioToolswouldn't limiting and/or clipping be a better option for taming the peaks? I'm used to thinking of compression more for consistency or groove than to handle true peak level, would never reach for one to control true peak. Am I missing something? Please school me if so
Tbh I used kotelnikov GE in full peak mode, 8:1 or whatever cause I don't have tdr limiter 6 on my macbook. Can't remember my tdr login and I don't think I've got the manual license on my pc. I basically used kotelnikov more as a limiter but if I had Limiter 6 I would have used the peak limiter and maybe like half a db of clipping
@@WorkingAudioTools That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clearing that up
@@WorkingAudioTools You'll get there Paul, I'm pretty sure about that. I think mixing in Atmos has a different approach, once you've done more mixes you'll learn the process and get better with it. You're ahead of the curve and it will take some time to adapt 😉
Imho the atmos mix is "too close". Piano and drums both are very wide, so it gives the impression of the listener being very close to the instrument, like standing somewhere on a stage. I'd rather sit in the audience with the stage in front of me with atmos bringing in the room, a more conservative approach if you like. This would make translation to stereo easier too.
Tbh I couldn't really get much further back. I pushed them pretty far back as it was but if you push them maximum far back then you'll just lose them in binaural. That's the difficult compromise. Creating a room with atmos in speakers is much easier than headphones but what works more like sitting back at audience perspective in binaural doesnt translate to speakers.
At the end of the day the reality is that to create a realistic audience stage perspective you need a massive room with a lot of depth which is very difficult considering most setups are equidistant. To be at least 3m from the front speakers your left and right would need to be 3m apart and same with the rears. You'd need like a 4x7m room minimum haha
But as soon as that is in a more confined space the closer the speakers become. That's why I think you can only consistently put them in a room where you are in the middle. Binaural is actually in your ear. You can't get any closer which needs even more psuedo trickery to try and recreate the spacial elements.
Dunno maybe after more experimentation I can find a balance but the physical limitations will always be the biggest hurdle
@@WorkingAudioTools There is an Atmos version of Oscar Peterson's Night Train which is quite nice. Very ample, piano in the middle and bass and drums on the sides. Nevertheless you feel like in the audience. In my case this is binaural listening only ...
Hey guys, sonically good but the placement choices weren't "jazz". Ed's piano was 8 feet wide in my room and the drum fills sounded like the neighbours pounding on the walls (joke!). Paul's idea of putting the piano behind the listener may be a fun "parlour trick", but when it's the pianist's trio my money is on the pianist being up front and the "accompaniment" arcing around. I really believe in "referencing to death" when I am working outside my wheelhouse... a great example of modern quartet mix is Brad Mehldau's "LongGone" - you can be sure the artist would want his recordings to fit into a playlist next to this sort of production.
The whole point of the atmos mix was to make people feel like they were in a room. I tried drums over the shoulder but it makes people feel uneasy. Drums should always be in front. I tried first having the piano to left corner, drums to right corner but it just didn't work in speakers and didn't create the room feel.
Tbh I think with stripped back stuff atmos is less about recreating a room and more about an extension of stereo. Trying to get the atmos mix, binaural and stereo mix to work is a massive challenge.
Rumours is a good example of how to simplify it.
Never going back has one guitar L&R front, the double L&R sides. Super simple. Supersonic does the same, bonehead left and right, noel in the sides.
I probably should have just put the piano in the sides L&R. Bass in the centre channel. Drums L&R. Super simple and will translate perfect to binaural
@@WorkingAudioTools It's not unusual for a jazz trio to have piano L-C, bass C and drums C-R (Brad Mehldau Trio live is exactly that). I've tried it with the DearVR Pro and got a pretty good binaural result - I didn't find your Binaural reduction had the depth I expected. That could, as you say, be a result of the piano object being behind the listener... the height and rear dimensions are the least convincing in the DearVR, so I imagine the reduction from full Atmos can't really produce convincing height and rear for bog standard headphones either.
Don't get me wrong.... I liked a lot of things about Paul's mix.. some things were suiting the track better. It's just that weird pseudo-spatial stuff makes it feel nebulous and mixed kind of funny..... I prefer stereo mixes on headphones... That weird spatial stuff goes away that doesn't really make it sound surround to me... I have a string suspicion Apple is just trying to sell more higher ends earbuds. I'd love to have a real Dolby listening environment.... Maybe it will be awesome in the car.... When we really get a lot of speakers in vehicles to play with.
It would've been interesting to know if your thoughts would have been the same if you didn't know Paul's was a binaural foldown.
What do you think your views have been if we would've said this week was just a normal stereo comparison.
We are just thinking about how the notion of knowing something is pseudo spacial plays with your perception of the mix