I am co-directing a feature film, and one of the areas I wanted to cover, is whether or not it's worth it to have a 5.1 mix for sending it into festivals. I talked to the post sound mixer, and he said not to bother paying for a 5.1 mix, unless a distributor specifically asks for one. For festivals, just a 3.0 stereo mix is good.

But do you think that's true though? I just wanted other confirmation that this is the way to go when trying to make a good impression at festivals?

Stereo will be fine for festivals, they won't be selecting films on the basis of the sound system being used nor are the people attending film festivals that interested.

Oh okay, cause I read another article here:

https://www.cinemasound.com/5-reasons-mix-everything-5-1-surround-even-never-deliver-way/

And that person says to do a 5.1 mix cause it will save money to just get it over with in the first place, but also because it will blow your movie out of the water with people watching, if many of the others are only mixed in stereo, if that's true? Is it also true that stereo sounds terrible in a theater, compared to other, more home systems?

Can you do a 5:1 mix Ryan? Or do you know anywhere local to you that can do it? What exactly is the point if the this movie doesn't lend itself to it?

Equipment wise, my studio can cope with 5:1 (on paper) but I've never needed to do a surround mix for anything I have ever done. Getting the extra speakers in and aligned is far too much in cost, space and time. It's hard enough in stereo, even adding a centre speaker is fraught with compatibility problems and just a step to far for me to even consider it.

For what it's worth - the person who wrote that article clearly hyped the whole thing up, and I seriously doubt most of the 'information' provided.

This paragraph made me laugh! [quote]5.1 makes you seem much more “professional” and thereby your studio and work is more “valuable.” And while it’s true that a 5.1 mix is at least another 25% more work than a stereo mix, the value is 100% more in the production value alone – not to mention the hirability of your work – which increases 4X. Everyone mixes in stereo. Few are willing to do it in surround. But you will, and everyone will notice. Especially at the screening, when the director’s buddy who is coat-tailing the director’s world premiere event by screening his own short right before will have his silly attempt at filmmaking crushed when your 5.1-ready mix shows up and reminds everyone why stereo-sucks in a theater…and you’re the real filmmaker/mixer/creative.[/.quote]

25% more?? Even his maths is shocking. Different planet. Everyone will notice? Really? My wife listens to music on our TV's tiny speakers. She could press one button and have it through a real sound system - but she doesn't.

Okay thanks, I also thought maybe the article was hyping some things up, since some variables were not mentioned or covered.

As for doing a 5.1 mix, I've been doing stereo mixes, and it seems to me that with 5.1, the main difference is, is that instead of directing sounds to left, right and center channels, instead, you just direct some of the sounds to the rear channels, and LFE channel instead.

So it doesn't seem like a lot more work, cause it takes just as much time to direct a sound to back channel, than it would to a the L, R, and C, if that makes sense? The more work seems to be the LFE channel area so far.

Now I can just do a 3.0 stereo mix if that is sufficient, but it seems to take the same amount of time to move a sound to a different channel than it would a channel in 3.0.

What do you expect a cinema sound site to say?

I've made films in both stereo and Dolby surround sound and I've seen other films screened and the end result depended on the venue and how good the theatre's sound system was. Overall, the stereo sound was more consistent in different theatres.

It didn't make any difference to the audience reaction, it was the quality of the acting, story, etc which the festival audience was aware of, not the sound system.

For your dialogue heavy films, it's probably a waste of time doing a 5.1 mix. If you've got star ships flying over the audience or depth charges exploding all around and other action you can make use of it, not if you've got two or three people talking in a room.

Anyone with software can mix in 5:1, but what happens in a normal stereo screening? Your centre voice channel vanishes leaving your dialogue missing compared to the sound effects and music - where did you get the idea doing surround mixes is easy. It is easy to get a totally unworkable product. Very hard to do where stereo, or even mono compatibility is needed. This is NOT beginner stuff Ryan - not in a million years.

That's what happened in theatres not equipped for the surround sound. Festivals tend to screen in all kinds of places, so I wouldn't bet on getting a full cinema sound system.

Okay thanks. I could also do two mixes, one stereo, one surround as well, if that is an option as well.

When you say stereo sounds good for a lot of festivals, do you mean 2.0 or 3.0 stereo?

The movie is that one I am co-directing and it's that one I talked about before, that was similar to The Hunger Games. So it's more of a sci-fi thriller, if that would call for 5.1. Seems like it could for some of the action scenes and effects.

Why? First case - assuming it's stereo with a centre channel, where will your dialogue be? What will then be in the L and R? In 5:1 it's same again for the rear channels, and of course what goes in the sub channel?

Sound effects? ambience? Considering the grief you have shooting pictures and mono sound with your motley bunch of actors and know-it-all helpers, how on earth will you make surround work. Even 2 vs 3 channels is going too really stretch you. Do you know how to balance centre vs left and rights if your dialogue creeps into those too? It's not remotely easy to do. My mixers have a dedicated centre channel and getting that to sit correctly is far from easy.

Oh okay, well what I have been doing is, is that for surround so far, if I want dialogue say to go from left to right as an actor moves from left to right, in Premiere Pro, I will set a key frame, in which the dialogue would move from left to right along with the actor.

That's how I have been doing it so far, when it comes to sound going from one channel to the next.

Where did you get this notion? That's a very strange thing to do in my experience. In a typical movie theatre the left and right speakers can be maybe 20m apart? Having voices that travel this far sounds bizarre, so the centre speaker does the work and the soundstage is shrunk - maybe 30% left to right, so that wherever you sit you can hear. Remember that each shot should sound similar, and if you start doing this panning thing you then get very strange location shifts. Imagine you breaking your 180 degree rule, would left suddenly flip to be right? If sound follows location then it should, but that will shake the audience. As a general rule, sound stays broadly mono from people's mouths. If you need to create a more realistic stereo field, then you cannot do this for each shot because the cuts really shock the listener. So you need audio that flows gently from shot to shot, meaning dialogue is rarely much more than mono. Footsteps and other Foley-esque sound can be panned wide, or plonked in the rear to match the shot, but it's just not normal to pan voices in this way. Even worse - if the camera pans left to re-centre the actor - would you then move it again? Hence my concern you're going to make the sound simply horrible to listen to. What have you decided - mono dialogue and sound effects, or realism and static cameras and moving people, or what?

You cannot attempt to place people in each shot, because the next shot comes along and ruins it!

I wouldn't start doing a a 5.1 mix on a feature film unless I was mixing in an appropriately equipped sound environment. Given the thread on the wind noise on your microphone, why do you believe you've got the skills to do a 5.1 mix sound track of a feature film?

The simple the better for festivals. A stereo mix is usually fine, staying away from hard left / right panning
I have experienced, heard of and read about multichannel audio nightmares at festivals. If you really want a multichannel presentation, hire a pro to mix it.. and audition it on the theater's system prior. Even then, have a stereo and mono mix version as a backup.

I do lots of show tracks - either backing tracks or click tracks for theatres, and until you get used to big spaces, your mixes usually have a huge hole in the middle, where things seem to vanish into - hence I expect, Cinema evolved with a centre channel which is the critical one. If you mix in 'stereo' - good old fashioned left/right, it's vital to leave things that are critical as mono, unless it's for effect. music and effects can explore greater width, but dialogue is centre.

Where did you get this notion? That's a very strange thing to do in my experience. In a typical movie theatre the left and right speakers can be maybe 20m apart? Having voices that travel this far sounds bizarre, so the centre speaker does the work and the soundstage is shrunk - maybe 30% left to right, so that wherever you sit you can hear. Remember that each shot should sound similar, and if you start doing this panning thing you then get very strange location shifts. Imagine you breaking your 180 degree rule, would left suddenly flip to be right? If sound follows location then it should, but that will shake the audience. As a general rule, sound stays broadly mono from people's mouths. If you need to create a more realistic stereo field, then you cannot do this for each shot because the cuts really shock the listener. So you need audio that flows gently from shot to shot, meaning dialogue is rarely much more than mono. Footsteps and other Foley-esque sound can be panned wide, or plonked in the rear to match the shot, but it's just not normal to pan voices in this way. Even worse - if the camera pans left to re-centre the actor - would you then move it again? Hence my concern you're going to make the sound simply horrible to listen to. What have you decided - mono dialogue and sound effects, or realism and static cameras and moving people, or what?

You cannot attempt to place people in each shot, because the next shot comes along and ruins it!

Oh okay, well when I watch a movie that has surround sound in the mix, on blu ray for example, if an actor is on say the left side of the screen, I can hear the dialogue come more from the left. If an actor moves to the right, I can hear the dialogue grow more to the right. So I thought that was normal then. I just try to judge matching where the actors are on the screen, to where it would therefore sound in the channels. Should I just keep all the dialogue in the center channel then, no matter where the actors are in the room?

I wouldn't start doing a a 5.1 mix on a feature film unless I was mixing in an appropriately equipped sound environment. Given the thread on the wind noise on your microphone, why do you believe you've got the skills to do a 5.1 mix sound track of a feature film?

Oh well that wind microphone issue is a completely different issue than mixing in 5.1. I just think it seems like apples and oranges and one has nothing to do with the other, since booming is a very different skill than post mixing, isn't it?

I do lots of show tracks - either backing tracks or click tracks for theatres, and until you get used to big spaces, your mixes usually have a huge hole in the middle, where things seem to vanish into - hence I expect, Cinema evolved with a centre channel which is the critical one. If you mix in 'stereo' - good old fashioned left/right, it's vital to leave things that are critical as mono, unless it's for effect. music and effects can explore greater width, but dialogue is centre.

Oh okay, well if I am to do stereo, I was told to a 3.0 stereo mix, for theaters. So not left/right, but left/center/right, or so I was told. Is that better?

It's just that wind going into a mic, is different than where an actor is in the room, so I thought that one had nothing to do with the other, when it comes to doing a mix.

It reveals your lack off knowledge or even awareness of the issues that will arise dong a mix on a feature film. One is the junior end of the sound crew, while the other is at the top end of the department.I hope you don't have a tight schedule because you're probably be at it for months as you learn what you're doing, if you're doing a decent soundtrack, even in stereo.

Oh okay, well to say that the mic/boom operator is at the junior end of the crew, and the post production sound mixer, is at the top, I never thought of one area as higher than the other, just different areas. That's like saying that a camera operator is at the junior end, and a post colorist is at the top. I never thought of it that way, just different areas.

For example, people have mentioned that my camera operating is bad, but not my post color grading, which makes me think maybe I am better at that area. So I thought I didn't need to one different area, in order to advance in another.

The camera operator does more than point the camera, but they may not be the DP which is higher in the department (although the DP can be doing both jobs). There are also levels in being a colourist, because the levels of detail that you can become involved with the colour correction increases with higher end productions. .
The knowledge required by the sound mixer is much higher than that of the boom operator because they need to have overall control of the sound track , also they need to be more creative than the boom operator together with the interpersonal skills to deal with directors, producers and people in the editorial department.

If you had to pay these people you'd notice the difference pretty quickly.

I am co-directing a feature film, and one of the areas I wanted to cover, is whether or not it's worth it to have a 5.1 mix for sending it into festivals. I talked to the post sound mixer, and he said not to bother paying for a 5.1 mix, unless a distributor specifically asks for one. For festivals, just a 3.0 stereo mix is good.

But do you think that's true though? I just wanted other confirmation that this is the way to go when trying to make a good impression at festivals?


Outdoor festivals *sigh* After years introducing new model Ford cars to their dealers, sound for outdoor festivals can be a crap shoot, every one will be different.

We ended up flying ‘everything’ around Aust. in a Bristol Freighter. It flew cattle around outback Qld. we called the 23yr old pilot, Biggles.

He’d never flown below the Qld. border. I remember flying up the Murray River between the trees, with an NRMA road map on Biggles knee, looking for the steeple on the Shepparton Town Hall.

Whatever format you end up mixing in, do another safety mono mix with the voice track prominent. Contact someone you can trust at each festival clue them in, and pray they know what they’re doing on the night.

Cheers.

Let me help translate. When Ryan says
“Should I do a 5.1 mix for a feature film?”
He means I’m going to do surround sound, followed by whole bunch of questions on how to do it despite your protestations.

A long time ago he started a similar subject about trying to record surround sound dialogue by position mics all over the a room. Edit: Found it! https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-things-audio/536732-should-i-using-multiple-mics-record-dialogue-sound-effects.html

Well is there anything wrong with me asking more questions about it? I just want to know all the pros and cons of 5.1 vs. stereo before making the best decision. I just don't understand why a lot of filmmakers choose stereo over 5.1 and do not see the advantage. I am told don't do 5.1 unless it's specifically requested by a distributor down the line, but if you are going to do stereo, why not go for the 5.1 anyway then? What's the advantage of stereo over 5.1?

You seem to be going off on tangents like star filters and now surround sound when you haven’t mastered the basics.

To reiterate what others have already said:

1. You don’t have the skill, experience, or budget to do a proper surround sound mix.

2. Surround sound will not help you in a film festival. You will be judged on the over all merits of your film.

Oh okay thanks. Well I am asking questions based on what I think may be good for the next project. Not meaning to sound like I am going off on tangents. I can of course hire someone to do the mixing as well, just wondering which mix would be best, or maybe I could have both done.

Oh okay, well when I watch a movie that has surround sound in the mix, on blu ray for example, if an actor is on say the left side of the screen, I can hear the dialogue come more from the left. If an actor moves to the right, I can hear the dialogue grow more to the right. So I thought that was normal then. I just try to judge matching where the actors are on the screen, to where it would therefore sound in the channels...
No.
Dialog.Is.Center.
Dialog is center - that’s the convention.

Your perceptions are complex and are influenced by what you see and expect. Put on headphones and close your eyes; you’ll find that dialog is center.

Well is there anything wrong with me asking more questions about it? I just want to know all the pros and cons of 5.1 vs. stereo before making the best decision. I just don't understand why a lot of filmmakers choose stereo over 5.1 and do not see the advantage. I am told don't do 5.1 unless it's specifically requested by a distributor down the line, but if you are going to do stereo, why not go for the 5.1 anyway then? What's the advantage of stereo over 5.1?
Compatibility, predictability, and a less complex workflow and set of standards. If you’re considering mixing dialog to L and R depending on characters’ screen position you’ve not yet gained sufficient skills in mixing for stereo or L-C-R.

Don’t let your grasp exceed your reach, or you’ll hurt what you’re trying to help. Be conservative about sound. All the pros are conservative about sound, because they want to be hired back. Doing a great mono mix is better than explorations of 5.1.

Some dedicated study may help you bring focus to sound. There are online courses, there are college/trade school courses, there are some excellent books- have you read Jay Rose’s books? There’s learning to be had in careful listening.

Edit: never mind. I hit the link in Pete’s post #22 above and realized we *have* been all through this at length back in May. Maybe you should review it. Many sorts of working professionals shared accepted best practices 7 mos. ago...

Oh okay thanks. I reviewed that previous post as well, but thought that post talked mostly about 5.1 only and not 3.0 stereo. I think this is my first time asking about 3.0 stereo.

I also thought about doing a mono mix as well, but was advised by others, don't ever do a mono mix when wanting to show off a feature film, if that's true.

As for as dialog being in the center only, I was also going by what this person said before in the video:

5 Dangers of Mixing in 5.1 Surround - YouTube

In the video at about 2:35 into the clip, he says do not have the dialog in the center and have a little of it in the right and left channels. Is that true what he is saying?

I can read Jay Rose's books, thanks!

I also keep hearing that you need 5.1 for DCPs at some festivals, but I also listened to some films at a film festival I attended, and I could swear a lot of them were in stereo. I tried looking up the sound mixes of those movies on the Imdb specs, but none of them have the sound mixes listed, almost as if the filmmakers didn't want to say...

He says center dialogue is the convention but he breaks the rule puts a little in the other channels. Maybe for your first film with surround sound you should stick to convention. But at your level of film making you can experiment with anything you want. Again you keep asking us whether you should do things you fully intend to do.

Oh I don't have to do anything, I just want to know some pros and cons of things that's all. Like if someone tells me don't bother with surround and just do stereo, I still don't know what the advantage of stereo is over it.

You will find the answer to that earlier in the thread regarding festivals, where centre speaker forr stereo was brought up and the variable quality of sound systems was discussed.

Given your statements regarding directing e.g. having difficulties directing actors and needing to plan everything with a storyboard, I suspect you may find similar issues when trying to do surround sound, when stereo is difficult enough.

Regarding the very slight amounts of dialogue in the left and right, use your ears and ensure that your speakers are correctly set up at the correct volume in a suitable mixing space. However, if in doubt, keep the dialogue in the centre, especially since you've never mixed for a theatre; the first screening is not the best place to discover something doesn't work. Plus, it's not totally your film.

If you need to keep asking on the forum how you do things, perhaps you shouldn't be doing this with a feature film. Shorts are good for practicing these things,

How exactly do you propose to distribute the finished product - as in how are you going to send it to the festival? Have they supplied you with a required format, including the sound?

I'm not sure you understand the real fundamentals here. Have you got a 5:1 system, with a sub in your home/studio/edit suite?

Do you understand the complexity and the parameters for levels in 5:1? I have a friend who has built a home cinema that cost more than my house, and he spends hours with a measurement mic and specific cinema software tweaking the playback system to give the 'perfect' listening environment for the three seats centre. When I try to sit in the comfy sofa seats at the rear, he moves me to get the best listening environment. He then watches movies that explore the sound space. Usually they're terrible movies, but there are common elements. Movement (audio movement) on speech is minimal. The dialogue irrespective of where the speaking person is in the frame ALWAYS comes from the centre channel. It might focus left or right in the front channels, but the centre channel never loses it - so while there can be movement in the stereo field it's minimal. The rear channels get FX and reverb in the main - and often not even realistic reverb - just space.

With a half decent home system this will be evident by listening.

I want to pick you up on the idea of 'junior' - that's not what anyone was saying. There is, however a sort of status of job roles, and it's also reflected in the pay for the role. All job roles in our business have a 'level' of sorts, but they really differ in breadth and depth and ultimate importance. They all need different skill sets. Some are progressive jobs, where as your skillset grows, you jump up to the next job on the hierarchical pyramid, where often job areas start to converge. The director, on top of the pyramid has everyone's departments under them - sound, lighting, cameras, editing, set, costume but even marketing and promotion might creep in in some projects. A sparks, or audio person, or the old clapper/loader is on or near the base of the pyramid. It is foolish to compare what a boom swinger does to the person sitting in the studio doing a surround mix. Their contribution to the 'whole' gets weighed, status confirmed and pay awarded. You can infer a level or status, but as they do different jobs in the same department I suspect the surround mixer would indeed by a higher status job role. Not something you could walk in cold to, unlike as you discovered you tried when you did booming. You never mastered it, and didn't become expert - but as you have done this in every role so far, you still have the same status - beginner.

I have been in recording studios since I was 16, and while I think I'm competent enough now, I have friends who can do it quicker and often better than me without seeming to even try. One retired early, then got called back out of retirement by his old employer, because a project came up nobody was comfy with.

Ryan - surely you know all this? That old topic made me sigh. You seem to have learned zero since you posted it. I'm so tempted to make a rubbish youtube video full of bad advice, wrong terminology and seriously crazy comments and wait for you to link to it. Do you not have any kind of quality filter? You also take everything people say literally, when often they're making ironic comments and you don't pick up on it.

I'm very comfy in studios, and I make part of my living from music for moving images and I do not think I would be comfy mixing audio for a movie project in 5:1 stereo. I think I would do it adequately, but if the project were really important, I would make stems, and give these to a real surround mixer. I have the equipment, but I do NOT have the skills to do an effective surround mix that would work in a real cinema setting. I could do it, but it would not have the right levels for one, and it would probably just not work, or work poorly. Stereo, or L/C/R fine - I do these happily, but not 5:1.

Okay sure. And I can pay for a surround sound or stereo mix if that is better, just trying to cover some areas myself if I can to save money.

I also talked to another filmmaker who's film got sold to Netflix, and he said they wanted a 5.1 mix but he just gave them a 3.0 stereo mix, with the other three channels on the 5.1, being empty, and they accepted that. He said just to do that if a distributor asked, since it worked for him. That seems surprising though.

It would be a lot more sensible if the feature film sound mix is done at a suitably equipped facility. If you have no experience in a key part of a commercial film, it works out cheaper in the long run to get people who know what they're doing.

Purchased productions tend to be treated differently to commissioned productions, Netflicks may be less concerned about this than if it was one of their own commissioned productions, in which they have a long term investment.

Sure, and I can hire someone who knows what they are doing then. But if that is the case, should I pay for a 3.0 or a 5.1 then?

It depends on your budget. but if go to a proper facility they'll have a mixing suite, because you'll need the loudspeakers, screen etc for the surround sound in order to do a proper theatrical mix. It's not just the person, but the faculties that allows them to do their job.

You need to get quotes for planning your budget. I would do a deal with someone with drama experience, because they're likely to be a lot faster than someone without any experience, plus they'll know the delivery requirements.

Okay sure. I can just record all the sound effects and foley then to save money, and then someone else can do all the engineering and mixing if that's better.

As for whether or not a 5.1 lends itself to the story, if we are seeking distribution, is it best to have 5.1 ready to go, regardless, if they want it, whether it lends itself to the story or not?

Lay your tracks and confirm with whoever is doing the mix the format and how they want it delivered.

You're unlikely to get theatrical distribution, steaming or similar is more likely. It may come down to cost in the end, if you can afford to do a good 5:1 mix, that fine, if not go for stereo.

Oh okay thanks. I didn't think I would get theatrical distribution, but hoped for some kind like Netflix or Amazon, like some other filmmakers I know, have had.

YOU can record the Foley? I somehow doubt that Ryan. It's yet another totally different area of recording. Do you have the equipment and the facilities? Do you have any experience with it at all? I'd strongly advise you to take a piece of your already recorded stuff - the time machine would work - and mute the sound totally and try to make the noises you had recorded for real. The trees rustling, the car doors slamming, footsteps on pavement and grass. This would be good for you to try, and you never know, you could be good at it.

I also find it quite funny that Netflix didn't comment on a 5:1 requirement with no rear or sub channel. Considering how nit picking they are on vision issues, I find this very hard to believe.

Oh well maybe I am not the best at Foley. I did it on some of my past projects, to save money, but I still got others to do the mix, after the Foley was recorded. Aside from the post mixing, how does my Foley sound in these project clips? Or is it hard to tell with the post mixing done after the Foley? I also did the non-Foley sound effects as well:

Trioxin Commercial second copy - YouTube
fight sequence foley - YouTube

I also did the Foley in this one:

Rebecca McGrath : Demo Reel - YouTube

What did you actually do? I'm guessing the obvious stuff in the fight sequence where the baseball bats are flying, but it's difficult to tell what was live and what was recreated. The impression is the general sound was a little 'raw' - so some bits sounded very clean, like the drink can opening. For what it's worth - I'd hang onto the girl and grandad in the last sequence. The best two actors in those clips. I'd also say that none of those clips would do very well in 5:1, nothing much for the rear channels to do.

What did you actually do? I'm guessing the obvious stuff in the fight sequence where the baseball bats are flying, but it's difficult to tell what was live and what was recreated. The impression is the general sound was a little 'raw' - so some bits sounded very clean, like the drink can opening. For what it's worth - I'd hang onto the girl and grandad in the last sequence. The best two actors in those clips. I'd also say that none of those clips would do very well in 5:1, nothing much for the rear channels to do.

Oh okay. If I remember correct I recorded all the Foley and sound effects. Someone else did the mixing afterwards, but I don't think they added in any of their own.

And yes, these clips would not call for 5.1. The first two were mixed in stereo, and the third one was done in mono I believe. But if these types of projects or genres do not call for 5.1 then I don't have to. However, if I am co-directing a feature now, where the producers want to seek distribution and Netflix or other distributors ask for it, should I have a mixer do a 5.1 anyway then?

Before you get super wrapped up in this (or anything else), you should make sure the other director is even going to allow you to make those types of decisions. You've already mentioned how you've been overridden on other things and relegated to a much smaller role than you'd initially imagined. Does he/she have any idea you're thinking about this, or star filters, or any of the rest? You might get a rude awakening if these things have not been discussed.

Yes I have gone over it with him. Of course I am no sound mixing expert by any means, but he says that since I know more about the sound part of things, he says, he is allowing me to make those decisions so far.

Until you get it wrong, Ryan. Remember people get very protective when their ideas get messed up by somebody else.

Going back to Foley - I meant which of the sounds we heard were real, and which ones did you create in your studio? Difficult to comment on a sound that was a bit weak, but turned out to be a real, but poorly recorded one rather than a recreation?

Oh, in the first two clips, all if it was recreated if I remember correct.

In the third most of it was. The sounds of the girl going through the beg I did,a s well as the footsteps.