You've been leaving off the closing quote tag [/quote]

I don't remember either but you're likely correct. It's certain that the surround sound in the theatrical release would have been created in post rather than recorded on-location. Sound design was by Walter Murch. production recording by Nathan Boxer, post-production recording by Randy Thom.

Mis-information
 

Beg pardon, all! Simon was mixer on Platoon, not Apocalypse Now.
Nick.


"Do one thing for me, Sredni Vashtar." H.H. Munro

sorry, see below

never mind

Sorry but not right at all. Almost every feature that is mixed in surround is recorded in stereo or mono and almost all surround work is done in post via panning and judicious use of reverb and delay. Check the post and surround forum at Digidesign or Gearslutz for threads describing how these tricks are done or pick up any of a number of books on the subject. Regarding the aforementioned fish market ambience, one trick to take a stereo recording and put it in a surround field would be to take two different sections of ambience and split them between the front and rears, perhaps adding mono spot effects to liven up the sound (motorcycles, individual hawkers etc). Another trick, especially with music, is to add a touch of reverb to the rears and perhaps even a bit of dry to taste.

As for the original posters question regarding repurposing the mix to 5.1, here's a great thread that describes some ways to do it:

Minimum Essential Tools For Creating a 5.1 Film Mix - Gearslutz.com

John.

John is quite right. I have done 5.1 mixes. Most sources are mono or stereo. I used ambient tracks from a vp88 for a lot of effects where i pulled sections of the track, offset them 10 to 30 secs, and maybe some eq and sent them to the back channels. I've also had 5 mikes set up to record th 5 tracks. In fact I had them 20 to 30 ft apart outside to get a nice wide image. So there are lots of tricks to get 5.1 from mono or stereo sources including just panning a mono source around

Sorry for the multiple posts, is there a method to delete one that I'm just missing? john.

See, This is what I meant. 5.1 is not meant to be TRICKED to be done correctly. Can it be tricked? Sure. But my point was that it takes planning during the shoot and direction to ensure the audio being captured lends itself to the experience of the video. The OP had no forethought to do this in his project. That's not a mistake, just something he didn't consider for his project. I think to go back in afterward and try to play with delays and reverbs could possibly detract from the origininal intended experience. This is especially true when (if) the concert soundtracks were captured as a board feed only. To try to seperate it all out again vs. MIXING discrete tracks for the 5.1 experience IMO is a waste of time. So yes, 5.1 is only 5.1. 6 channels of audio intended to mesmerize the listener must be planned for (and mic'd) during (pre)production.


from John:

Sorry but not right at all. Almost every feature that is mixed in surround is recorded in stereo or mono and almost all surround work is done in post via panning and judicious use of reverb and delay.

This is true. My point is though, that EVERY feature plans for the audio architecture, executes it in proper micing of discrete channels and then takes it to post to mix. This is not how the OP did his project.

It's common for everyone to expect 5.1 for concerts but documentary vocals don't need it. The fishmarket project is a great place for it. Why? Because as the talent strolls through the market, proper micing alows the viewer to feel that they are there themselves. To try to create that effect after the fact by taking a single soundtrack, and tricking the pans is a poor mans way of doing it. I know, I have done it myself.

Jeff

Well, let's substitute the word "technique" for the word "trick" then as this is how it's done in almost every major and indie feature that is mixed in 5.1. While a great amount of planning goes into the recording of sound for any feature (or hopefully any doc) it doesn't change the fact that they rarely record in surround nor do they plan to. The idea as I understand it and have implemented it is to merely recreate the feel or enhance said feel. Do I think it works well in all situations? No, but that's a subjective matter best left to the mixer and director of a particular film. My intention was to show that it is done regularly and can be done with some standard techniques that have been developed. This is not a "poor man's trick", this is a technique that is used on major motion pictures and used by name re-recording mixers on a regular basis. Not only that but with the move to all digital transmission in February we will see more of this on smaller projects as broadcasters try to fulfill their customers desire to hear audio on their surround systems. (coincidentally, a great article on this in the new issue of ProSound News)
Respectfully, John.