I mix in surround. I start at the beginning and I end at the end. Isn't that surround?

Mixing in circles for years
Ms. Remy Ann David

stratman312 wrote: I currently have sonar 7 studio, but I was wondering if only the producer edition supports surround sound mixing.

What does it say on the box or in the manual? That will give you the definite answer. From What I can tell, only Producer can mix in surround. Also you will be bound by what your interface is capable of as well as the number of monitors you have.

Yeah, I was trying to find that out, but the manual I have is for both studio and producer, and I couldn't find anything in it anyway, and I was curious if anyone had suggestions as to how they go about mixing in surround (as far as gear is concerned.)

What interface do you have now? The box for your version of Sonar should have all the features listed on the back.

I have a Firebox and an M audio firewire 410. I don't believe I have the box anymore.

You should be ok with the four10. Always keep the box.

1: it looks cool when people come to see your rig.
2: it lets people know that your rig is legitimate.

If I can lift this thread for a moment:

I can dig surround for movies. But I haven't understood why music would benefit any from surround. If, at the end of the day, you are trying to get a copy of what a working band might sound like if they were better at playing, how does surround sound help this?

The most recent time I went out and listened to live music, this past weekend, there was no one behind me playing the tambourine, or off to the right rear picking the xylophone.

Doesn't it place the burden on the listener to update equipment just to experience this? Kinda like 3D glasses for your ears?

How important is it really? Is it the move from mono to stereo? The short lived leap and fall back in it move from stereo to quad?

I'm assuming the OP is planning to try his hand at A/V post. That would be the only reason I would want to work in Surround.

I have been saying the same thing now for years, just like Space. It's great for the movies. Music in surround doesn't even happen at a theater in the round. When you listen to a performance, where are the musicians? Right, on stage in front of you. Your surround should be the ambience behind you. For instance, the idiot who doesn't shut up in the row behind you off to your left and that damned baby that keeps fussing off to your right. Shut up! I don't need that surround. In a similar situation, I love those guys that say they love that pounding bass, while pounding on their chests. I tell them that if somebody is pounding on my chest, I've obviously had a heart attack. And that's not good. Sub woofers? For gods sake, let the dog out of the basement, he's got to pee. Geez....

If we have speakers in the ceiling why don't we have them in the floor?
Ms. Remy Ann David

Y'all haven't had the pleasure of hearing Pink Floyd in concert? They were doing "surround" years ago. Nothing like clocks and cash registers ringing and clanging all over the place! Not to mention some of those synth pads swirling around. No use in music? BAH!

But, I digress. For less adventuresome music, maybe using the surround channels to open up the space around you with some spatial effects may be cool, if done carefully so it doesn't sound like you're in an empty arena? May even slightly widen the stereo spread on certain things.

I can see how it could be useful.

Kapt.Krunch

That was quadraphonic sound. They were very theatrical in the first place. Pioneers in big screen back drops and animations. Pink Floyd were more than a band back then. They were performers in their own league.

hueseph wrote: That was quadraphonic sound.

I realize that, hueseph. 8-) That's why I wrote 'They were doing "surround"(in quotes) years ago.' OK, so it was an early attempt to "surround" the listener. And, it was a trip.

Still, I don't see why surround couldn't be put to good use, if done well. But, "if done well" will be the sticking point. Plus, gotta be a LOT of work making decisions for that many channels.

Kapt.Krunch

Yeah, if this makes a difference I do ambient type stuff and imagine hearing things all around the listener would make for a truly great listening experience. I don't think a 'rock band' would be that great in surround, but I think some styles could really benefit from surround mixing.

Kapt.Krunch wrote: [quote=hueseph]That was quadraphonic sound.

I realize that, hueseph. 8-)

Now don't get me wrong. I was just overstating the obvious. I know you knew that I knew that you knew that I knew.

stratman312 wrote: I don't think a 'rock band' would be that great in surround

Floyd was no mere rock band. I could hear Queen doing surround too. Dream Theatre, Rush , there's a few bands I could think of that could really take advantage of surround in a live setting. On a standard recording? Maybe if it was done right.

Queen did do some quadraphonic stuff in the 70's but I can't remember exactly what it was. Something in the Flash Gordon soundtrack or maybe A Night At The Opera.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think bands like Floyd and Queen who were doing pretty unconventional stuff would sound great in surround, but for the most part if you take your average band, there's no huge benefit from surround.

IMHO surround is a nasty animal, whether it be 5.1 or 7.1.

The mix process is far more costly for one thing. Getting it right is another.

Granted I'd love to see surround audio become the standard, but hell, the advertiser's who sponsor 5.1 broadcast don't find it economical to fit their stuff in the format. So, if it's not financially worthwhile for a Fortune 50, much less a Fortune 500 company, then how can we expect to justify 5.1 in audio... much less 7.1?

If we could move to either standard, it would finally be a good dividing line between the amatuer/project studio and the professional studio... but I seriously doubt we'll ever see it... at least not until empty3's and one eared iPod listening goes by the wayside.

My .02 worth of noise.

stratman312 wrote: Oh don't get me wrong, I think bands like Floyd and Queen who were doing pretty unconventional stuff would sound great in surround, but for the most part if you take your average band, there's no huge benefit from surround.

Sure, you wouldn't want to steer things around the room with a basic rock band, but surround might be able to put you in a larger space, with carefully mixed reverb, and maybe even enhance something like a B3 and Leslie swirling...if it was all kept mostly up front with hints of reflections and spatial widening. A loud Leslie in a smaller place can bounce around fairly well. Headphones normally don't sound like your typical live concert, either, if things are panned much in stereo. Heck, stereo speakers don't sound much like a concert, for that matter.

I sure wouldn't put a straight-up rock band's guitar behind the listener for any reason. That would just be goofy. But, it would be fun to bounce around the synth in something like that part in Edgar Winter's "Frankenstein". I actually did hear that Quad LP long ago on a guy's Quad system. Would probably be even more entertaining on a better surround system.

Also, is the extra storage penalty and hassle mixing it worth it to a particular tune?

Kapt.Krunch