I did a couple mixes in 5.1 several years ago but it was easy with the MX and the DM, they were made to work together. But I have a question about PT and the DM. Must I first set my 32 inputs (firewire) in the DM to see the according tracks from the PT session and somehow get to the surround card page on the DM while staying in the remote layer? I'm just trying to get my head around this before I start changing stuff.
Question on surround
- Thread starter rqstudio
- Start date
Hi rq,
Which version of PT are you using? From my understanding you'd need HD or CPTK to have surround within PT.
fwiw I have PT9CPTK that provides surround, but I do all the surround stuff within the DM and submix it back to a surround track (or tracks) - i.e. PT for me is basically a tape machine so the remote layer doesn't get used a lot.....
Which version of PT are you using? From my understanding you'd need HD or CPTK to have surround within PT.
fwiw I have PT9CPTK that provides surround, but I do all the surround stuff within the DM and submix it back to a surround track (or tracks) - i.e. PT for me is basically a tape machine so the remote layer doesn't get used a lot.....
I would not be doing the surround in PT. I believe I would be bussing out the 32 channels via firewire and mixing 5.1 with my Tascam surround card and the DM4800, correct?
That's similar to the way I'd approach it, though I'd use direct track to channel assignment (rather than bussing within PT) so each track in PT would enter the DM on channels between 1-64 and would be surround panned in the target channel and/or the DM buss.
I was wondering what you were planning to do in PT via the remote layer (other than basic muting / fader changes etc) and also where you were sending the mixed tracks for re-recording?
I was wondering what you were planning to do in PT via the remote layer (other than basic muting / fader changes etc) and also where you were sending the mixed tracks for re-recording?
I believe this IS the way I want to do it. (I was asking for advise, not sure I'm using the correct language.) As far as mixing down, the last time I did this (5 yrs ago) I stemmed down to Vegas in 5.1 and burnt to DVD.
I told this guy that it may not be the best way to showcase your music because after 30 years, surround still hasn't caught on, other than movie soundtracks and there really isn't any reference to mix by, could sound different in every playback situation...? But he's pretty determined to go ahead with it.
Am I being naive? Do most people have surround systems today?
captdan
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,309
- Karma
- 217
- From
- Northern California
- Website
- www.gliskrecords.com
- Gear owned
- DM3200
I have no data to support this, but I believe most people with surround systems have HD video systems along with them. Since there are paltry few surround music-only discs out there, there's no other compelling need to have it.
Like SuperDuperAudioCD (tm), it just never caught on in music distribution beyond a niche market. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent to the 1960s' 'Columbia Hi-Fi-AudioClub - Stereophonic vinyl and GoldStandard(tm) LowNoise 3M/Scotch tape Crowd.
Or something to that effect. 
If it's any consolation, a good stereo mix SHOULD approach a spatial, quadraphonic quality with only two speakers.
CaptDan
Like SuperDuperAudioCD (tm), it just never caught on in music distribution beyond a niche market. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent to the 1960s' 'Columbia Hi-Fi-AudioClub - Stereophonic vinyl and GoldStandard(tm) LowNoise 3M/Scotch tape Crowd.
Or something to that effect. If it's any consolation, a good stereo mix SHOULD approach a spatial, quadraphonic quality with only two speakers.
CaptDan
I have no data to support this, but I believe most people with surround systems have HD video systems along with them. Since there are paltry few surround music-only discs out there, there's no other compelling need to have it.
Like SuperDuperAudioCD (tm), it just never caught on in music distribution beyond a niche market. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent to the 1960s' 'Columbia Hi-Fi-AudioClub - Stereophonic vinyl and GoldStandard(tm) LowNoise 3M/Scotch tape Crowd.
If it's any consolation, a good stereo mix SHOULD approach a spatial, quadraphonic quality with only two speakers.
CaptDan
I do agree with you capt but sometimes groups looking for any advantage are willing to go a step beyond. These are good musicians and are capable of producing a very good CD but still are looking for a gimmick to help promote their product. I'm just afraid it may shoot them in the foot. Years ago I was under the impression that upper echelon automobiles were going to have 5.1 sound systems in their cars but I don't believe this ever became a reality. I too think if they were to produce a 5.1 that it should accompany a video because not too many people have a 5.1 system dedicated to music only. And in my opinion Rock & Roll doesn't sound good on 90% of the home theaters systems I've heard in fact, I think it can become fatiguing after a while. Oh well...
captdan
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,309
- Karma
- 217
- From
- Northern California
- Website
- www.gliskrecords.com
- Gear owned
- DM3200
Hey - if somebody wants to try something different - they should. Since my crystal ball only works about 10% of the time, I couldn't say if a quad CD is a bad idea or not. Maybe it'll start a new trend. I mean - who would've guessed a bunch of Brit museos in the early 70s could use the term 'Quadraphenia,' only to have history conflate it with scooter/sickle operators?
So - ya never know.
CaptDan
So - ya never know.
CaptDan
When Dark Side of the Moon came out the future for quadrophonic looked promising..... time has proven it to not be the case. I don't know if "the public" listen to music on "their" t.v. surround systems, but I can't see any reason why "they" wouldn't - it seems unlikely "they" would have another high-quality stereo dedicated to music as well in this age of ipods etc.
imo if someone wants a mix in surround that's a great opportunity and I'd grab it, but I'd also cross-reference the mix in stereo (and mono) to verify it works everywhere.
imo if someone wants a mix in surround that's a great opportunity and I'd grab it, but I'd also cross-reference the mix in stereo (and mono) to verify it works everywhere.
Well this isn't my 1st rodeo, I did 2 or 3 surround videos 7 or 8 years ago when I first got the DM-32 and the surround card. I was trying lots of things to own a more versatile studio, like re-mastering 24 trac 2" to digital, A to A to A mixes, and surround, etc. Lets just say the surround thing was not received that well? And I do believe that most of the music you hear in 5.1 movies were not actually up-mixed in 5.1 but simulated? I also do not know for sure but I think the Who and Floyd were also converted by using phasing, eq-ing, not actually mixed with 4,5,or6 discrete amps.
IMO true surround can get very fatiguing after awhile, you're always turning your head to see what's behind you! Hahaha I also remember a poor mans surround, you could do this by simply running 1 wire from + to - to+ to - to + and back again to - on your amp. This sent everything that was out of phase to the rear speakers with rather good results!
IMO true surround can get very fatiguing after awhile, you're always turning your head to see what's behind you! Hahaha I also remember a poor mans surround, you could do this by simply running 1 wire from + to - to+ to - to + and back again to - on your amp. This sent everything that was out of phase to the rear speakers with rather good results!
I thought DSOTM was done with discreet quad - fwiw I also have a stereo record of DSOTM and it's a slightly different mix. Their live shows used to be quad in the early '70s as they'd each have a joystick to send their sound wherever they wanted in the P.A..
Nice to hear someone else used that out-of-phase surround trick - it was a really good imitation for just a few $s.
Nice to hear someone else used that out-of-phase surround trick - it was a really good imitation for just a few $s.
