# Composing in 5.0 Part II



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 5, 2014)

A few weeks back I started a thread on composing in 5.0

Since then I have been investigating the possibilities further. My studio is going to be set-up as a 5.0 space complete with a very high quality design and full range monitoring system with matched AD/DA so as not to encounter any timing issues with monitoring etc. 

I will be using Cubase 7(x) as I am comfortable with it and perhaps with a RME MADI or AES PCI-e card so that I am comfortable with the drivers and it does seem to hold up my template and I also notice that many composers with serious workflows using it without problems. 

I carry the digital signal to the AD/DA and avoid any driver issues by other manufacturers who's systems perhaps do not have to deal with the issues we composers face with reverbs and what not running including heavy sample loading with high RAM count.

Since there is very little information available generally about writing music in this format, I am going to try and share whatever I learn about the process in these threads over the next few months so that this information is also available to others. 

I am very passionate about this topic and want to get a grip on writing in a multi-channel format since most of my work is for feature films destined for cinema release. 

One such article I found online was a 9-part series on surround by Sound on Sound. 

Here is the link: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Aug01/a ... sound1.asp

In my still naive investigation I have found that the basics must be followed thoroughly for your music to translate properly. There are many problems and creative freedom available to write in this format. The above mentioned article talks in detail about the history of surround (in brief) and about possible environments. 

What I also like about the article is a set of interviews that have very good information and also people contradicting each other on what is acceptable in this format. 

As always, this is changing and very open-ended so far. 

If the final medium is indeed going to be multi-channel it seems to me that writing directly in that format and providing a great experience in the end is more common sense. Furthermore, on projects where time is a limitation and or the engineers are busy doing other things (as it happens very often in India), at least you have more creative control over how the music will sound. 

These are still early days and my studio has not yet started physically. I am still in concept/design phase although the basic plan is mostly done and now in fine tuning stages. 

I have been in touch with Philip Newell for over 3 years now and through our discussions and my understanding of audio, we have migrated from a stereo studio to a fully capable 5.0 music composition space. 

If you are interested in this and or have any information to share, please do so that all of us can learn and these things get documented on Vi-control. 

There have been a few posts in this forum in the past and I have gone through them. Hans Zimmer is a well known composer who writes in surround and has always encouraged composers to try it. 

Lots and lots of composers on video games and films are doing this now and whether you write in stereo it does not matter because its always get's upmixed to 5.1 for any film.

The reason for avoiding the .1 channel has many reasons and some of them can be found in the article from Sound on Sound. The .1 sub is a LFE (Low Frequency Effects) channel which is tricky at times in terms of translation and there is much debate over the correct use of it. Dolby has also gone on record to suggest that for composing music a 5.0 system must be used and a 5.1 set-up is avoidable. 

Nonetheless, countless movies make amazing use of the multi-channel format.

I am going to set up a cheap test system in the next month or so and start experimenting.

I am also looking at various tech available to allow composers to write music in this format. Including reverb engines like TC System 6000 and even software which now seems to be widely used. 

I am also looking seriously at MIR PRO for the possibilities in surround and also because I am a long time VSL user.

So, come on in and please add anything you feel is useful or any experiences to this thread!


Tanuj.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 5, 2014)

there are a few variables in this type of setup. 

you can still compose in stereo and deliver surround formatts to the rerecording mixer. 
you can do this by having a the music mixer do it. 

but if you want to start from a surround format , a few things to consider. 

a lot of re recording mixer will mute your center channel, no questions asks, no feedback, just mute. so delivering in 5.0 might be too much. 4.0 seems the best for mixer as it fits to their template puzzle better. that way the center channel has the dialogue only. there are excceptions of course and many engineers will first hear how much it conflict wiht the dialogue.

i have the RME800 and i just set a second pair of speakers to the back of the room and using the rme mixer copied the signal form the front speakers to the back ones. about 30% wet. so it was a pseudo surround, yet, i can see the appeal, it sounded so filled.
imo it sounded like a good room with great acustic should sound, so for a small budget composer room it was great. but no deliverables this way. just for monitoring. just sharing, def woudnt recommend for pro setup.


----------



## dgburns (Jan 5, 2014)

so,I've been in this for a bit.A couple points in my travels-

you can in fact use the lfe.just don't use it without talking to the mixers first.and maybe for hits and quick things,not for filling in the low end.but if you do use it and provide a lfe ,do send some audio there at least a bit,so everyone knows there is something there.I have had ppl come back on technical due to the inclusion of the lfe,but with no audio,which raised a technical concern(is this an error,as an example)

as for 5.1 or more,remember the fact that you have 6 speakers not 2, so the biggest advantage is you can control how loud things get because you have more speakers.simple,yet often overlooked.as a result,sometimes when you want "more",just start pulling up more sound into the rears.Also,and this might be a mixer thing,but be mindfull of the energy of a sequence,so, if a scene has lots going on sfx wise,It can be helpfull to pull things out of the frnts and to the rears so as not to conflict too much.

as for sample mock ups,your mileage will vary as to the effectiveness of making all things surround.What does it mean to just slap up a 5.1 verb and pass everything through it.Well,in my experience,just alot more sound,not always a better sound.Obviously,for the orchestra,creating a room to put all the instruments in makes sense,and that does mean the rears as well.But some instruments,like piano,sometimes don't translate well with a convo verb ,so you might want to play with positioning.Obviously MIR and the exponential surround verbs will do ok.
consider that for many post guys,mono verbs are actually more helpfull,because they can place the object in a very specific place,where panning stereo stuff in the 5.0 space can be accomplishing nothing more then what you could do just "pulling things off the front speakers a bit.What I mean to say is for many circumstances,it can be just as effective to pan the left and right stereo stem back into the rears a bit to get a pseudo surround effect.Remember that in a cinema,the rears are a wash,not a direct source like the fronts.
as to the whole cinema experience,remember that the image is in front of you,so the idea of panning things all over the place needs to make some kind of sense to the film experience.The dialog is in front of you,tied to the picture.The surrounds should not be so far out in volume as to pull the listener behind them all the time.
And so also the idea that bums me out writing with samples is that even when panning distant mics back to the rears,it is not as satisfying to me as what we get when we record real players in a score stage.the rears can be very detailed and present,but somehow it just works better,and is much easier to deal with.the sound is more convincing.

even if you pull up a great 5.0 score,remember that it needs to work with the other sound sources,sfx etc,and just making it 5.0 might not actually make things easier to hear.in fact,you might find your score getting pulled down quite a bit,again due to the phenomenon of "more sound" due to the added speakers.it's just that the music will now come at you from all the speakers.a good mixer can take a stereo set of stems and almost equally create a good surround mix of your stereo midi mockup stems.maybe better cause he has the other stuff to play it off against.i'm not referring to a real score played in a real room with mics properly setup here.

my advice is to make things obvious,so make the surround effect work for you by making sure it is obvious when you need to.it has been said to me that the separation of sound in a 5.1 setup works well from front to back,so things might appear to the listener as being either front or back,but that the in between pans are not so good at translating in a big space.It really is an education to mix music in a theatre sized place to appreciate this.
definition of sound,and obvious sound placements,as well as discipline in creating and staying with your "score stage " sound through out the film will help you.unless you're scoring a drug induced hippie fest!
this of course does not take into account the style of music.obviously orch stuff will benefit from the obvious convo verbs to place them in a hall,but do consider that rock and edm and dub and techno is stuff that is listened to in stereo,and alot of those producers create in stereo.and it makes some sense to have that kind of music come at yiu from the front speakers.Consider that in an SDDS setup,there are 5 speakers across the front,with two of them usually just for the music.
Also I am on the fence about the center channel issue.Again consider the audience in a big theatre.if you are sitting in the front,yiu would hear the center speaker the loudest,and if you had no music piped into it,it might create a center hole,a deadspot where there is a lack of sound.i'm not sure what the best practices in LA are with center channel,but I'd ask the mixer first.for tv mixes,yes you can forget about the center channel if you want,the audience is so close to the left rights as to not need the space in between filled in.
my two cents


----------



## dannthr (Jan 5, 2014)

I think this is only a compositional issue if your production uses panning. Like are you literally composing with the speaker panning in mind?

Or are you asking about mixing?

Keeping in mind that I'm not an engineer, I like to start with stereo mix maybe leaning a bit back (like 30-50%) and I might use a quad reverb or a pair of stereo reverbs for front/rear ambience.

But here's the thing, man, this all depends on the SFX and VOX panning effects. It all needs to play well, so I don't really think about WRITING for surround unless I'm going to do some kind of panning effect.

It's really a discussion that has to take place with the director and the audio dept. leads or supervisors.

I hate scores that don't play well with SFX.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 11, 2014)

First off - thank you so much for sharing your views. They are really helping me to form some ideas about writing in this format. 

The LFE has been advised as a strict NO by most people I admire and it makes sense. So, we are leaving the LFE out.

The monitoring system is a full range one as mentioned which goes down to 20 Hz. 

The surround speakers will be 4 in number to have more of a wash feeling as advised by Dolby. The designer is also an expert in designing 5.1 and Atmos rooms. 

There is a lot of debate on the center channel. I suppose as many of you have said, its best to speak with the mixing engineer and talk to everyone involved about what we are trying to say through the music and where the SFX etc will take more of a prominent role. 

I guess, where there is no dialogue, it would make sense to not leave out the center channel completely. 

Whether or not I put a lot of music in it will depend. So I may need it in some cases of course. Not all of the movie has dialogue. Secondly, when I am writing myself, I will keep the dialogues in the center. This will be helpful in understanding how it will all sound roughly. 

I have scored over 30 films as additional composer with a couple to my own credit as well. I too feel after witnessing the mixing process and just generally reading up that, very obvious panning should be avoided. This can create timing issues in the cinemas specially if they are large. 

I suppose the general feeling is that it should be a balanced mixed, focused first on the front at all times and making use of the surrounds but not to put any critical information in it. 

These kind of decisions help during fold-down as well. Basically, they say dont put anything too out there - things that you could live with if they were lost in translation.

Not every cinema has the perfect playback system calibrated to the T. The reality is that subs can be louder, blown or too soft. Similarly, some of the speakers in surround may not be working.

We also have Auro and Atmos now. So things are changing fast. 

In the end, I think it makes sense to write directly in the multi-channel format. Why not? That is how its going to play in the end. 

Similar questions may have come up when we moved from Mono to Stereo. 

My music will be pre-mixed by an engineer in 5.0. 

I am going to design a mix template which is identical to my composing template. This way, I can bounce everything dry and figure out a way to re-create or copy settings onto the mixing session. 

The engineer can then mix, fine tune and make it proper and balanced. 

With time, I will hopefully get better. 

Its a completely new thing but I have been thinking about it for a long time and it seems to me that writing directly in the format it is going to be played in is important.

There are a lot of creative things you can do and it is done regularly in cinemas with scores and other things.

It depends who the composer is and what kind of music is being done for the film.

Perhaps, John Williams is not concerned with these things when he is writing the next Star Wars. But someone like John Powell, Zimmer or even other composers who do not strictly stick to the orchestra will have a different take.

Once again, information is scarce on this topic.

When my studio will be done, it will be the first 5.0 composing studio in Mumbai! So, its a very new concept over here. I know some guys like A R Rahman and few others do it in surround in Chennai. 

So actually, as far as I know my studio will be one of a very handful composer studios with surround capability.

This makes it difficult to talk to others about it and share ideas because I dont know anyone remotely who does this in India right now.


Tanuj.


----------



## Dietz (Jan 11, 2014)

I've been mixing in surround since over 15 years now, in quite diverse formats (almost everything from 5.0 to 12.4, in discrete setups as well as Ambisonics and wave-field synthesis 8-)). From reading your posts, it seems as you have really done your homework, Tanuj. Congratulations.

Some quick comments:




vibrato @ Sat Jan 11 said:


> [...]
> The LFE has been advised as a strict NO by most people I admire and it makes sense. So, we are leaving the LFE out.



That makes sense, although things might be slightly different when working for commercial DVD/BlueRay-releases. The mastering engineers I trust in (who will also do the AC3 and DTS-encoding) told me that there are decoders out there who want to see at least _something_ going on in the .1-channel. Digital black might cause them acting strange. That's why I usually feed just a little bit of something into the LFE (e.g. deep drums like a kick-drum around -20 dB, in case of groove-oriented music), just to keep the decoder happy.




> The monitoring system is a full range one as mentioned which goes down to 20 Hz.



A sensible decision! 




> [...] There is a lot of debate on the center channel. I suppose as many of you have said, its best to speak with the mixing engineer and talk to everyone involved about what we are trying to say through the music and where the SFX etc will take more of a prominent role.
> 
> I guess, where there is no dialogue, it would make sense to not leave out the center channel completely.
> 
> Whether or not I put a lot of music in it will depend. So I may need it in some cases of course. Not all of the movie has dialogue. Secondly, when I am writing myself, I will keep the dialogues in the center. This will be helpful in understanding how it will all sound roughly.



I understand that you're strictly writing for movie. OTOH: When doing pure music mixes for surround I like to make use of the different imaging you get from the L/R phantom-center and the actual C-channel. 


The most important part to understand is that we shouldn't use single "channels", but rather the whole sound-field opened by the chosen surround format - which means that a signal shouldn't _ever_ come from one speaker alone (except for quite rare occasions). This is especially true for the center speaker (... remember those hilarious examples of early surround-releases with totally exposed main vocals in the C? *rofl*)




> I have scored over 30 films as additional composer with a couple to my own credit as well. I too feel after witnessing the mixing process and just generally reading up that, very obvious panning should be avoided. This can create timing issues in the cinemas specially if they are large.



This is very, very true, and as a matter of fact I've seen (and heard) big names fail in that respect. While it is tempting to put rhythmic elements of a mix far apart from each other, this will destroy a groove completely in any location larger than the average living-room, for everybody who's _not_ sitting in the sweet spot. Runtime delays will already get quite noticeable in surround systems with a diameter of 10 meters (= about 30 ms difference between L and Rs).




> I suppose the general feeling is that it should be a balanced mixed, focused first on the front at all times and making use of the surrounds but not to put any critical information in it.




Well put! There are well-done examples which don't stick to that rule, but more often than not it's a good idea to use surround as "widened stereo". For me, the difference between stereo and surround is much like looking through a window at a scene first, the opening the door and walking into the room, looking at the same scene from the other side of the window. 




> These kind of decisions help during fold-down as well. Basically, they say dont put anything too out there - things that you could live with if they were lost in translation.



Agreed. 




> [...] Its a completely new thing but I have been thinking about it for a long time and it seems to me that writing directly in the format it is going to be played in is important.
> 
> There are a lot of creative things you can do and it is done regularly in cinemas with scores and other things. [...]



Yes! I absolutely concur with you and I wish you all the best.

/Dietz


.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jan 11, 2014)

I've been in all-digital 5.1 mode for the last 12 years, for the whole process all the way from initial sound design and sound selection through composition and mixing. I monitor in 5.1 (Dynaudio AIR system with digital input) and print to three or six 5.1 stems. I mix my scores myself - these are mid-level features with hybrid scores - no orchestral simulation or real orchestra recordings. If I'm using a Kontakt orchestral library that's in 5.1 (like CineSamples or whatever) I just pick whichever stereo pair I like (overhead, near, far, etc.) and use that - I don't attempt to route and replicate the original 5.1 soundstage. That's fine as I am not really in the business of accurate orchestral simulation.

I absolutely DO use the LFE channel for some music elements, but it's only kick drums, war drum hits, booms, etc. and some bass guitar and synth bass… with the odd synth effect or bass drop. No strings or brass go to the LFE channel. The re-recording mixers on the dub stage like this very much, as the type of movies I do are often violent, with loud sound design and chaotic scenes backed by throbbing electronic score. In loud scenes the mixers can allow some of the pulsing kicks and synth bass to hit the LFE channel to keep the power level up. I always talk to the mixers before delivery and they always say, "Sure, if you've got stuff routed to the LFE that's great and we might use it." They never say, "Don't bother." They do wind up using the LFE stuff I deliver most of the time, even on some quiet scenes with low throbbing synth stuff. I use an effect send from individual tracks to route selected elements to the LFE bus and I apply lowpass filtering and some light limiting on the bus sub master to keep the levels consistent.

Out of the six channels, the one I leave empty is the center. I mainly do this because I don't have conventional LCR panning in my mix environment, and on the first film project I did I asked the mixers what they thought I should do and they replied, "Leave it empty, that's fine." I don't much care about the difference between LCR and "phantom center" and it's never sounded strange on the dub stage. My mixes don't usually have stuff panned so far off to one side that the balance will sound strange to audience on the other side, even in a big room, so that's not been a problem. The mixers seem to like having the center channel open for dialog and sfx, and with each project I bring this topic up and I have never had a mixer tell me to put stuff into the center channel. They always tell me that if they have a problem with the phantom center that they will just add a little of the L+R busses into the center, but so far that hasn't happened.

My rear channels always have something in them - usually it's selected elements hitting a pair of stereo reverbs and ping-pong delays - a stereo pair for the front and another stereo pair for the rears. As with the LFE channels, selected elements are routed to the front and/or rear effects via sends from individual tracks. I use this to create a claustrophobic feel which is quite useful in horror and chaotic scenes. Ligeti-style clusters coming at you from all sides can really up the ante in these types of scenes. I also do a fair bit of "quad-tracking" - as with double tracking a matching pair of guitars for a big stereo sound in rock productions, I'll track four performances of scraping piano strings or ambient guitar or whatever, and pan two of them to the back speakers and this can create a great sense of being trapped in the scene without just using delays or reverbs for the back pair. I also use reverbs in the rears to create the effect of sounds rushing from the back of the room to the front, or vice-versa, by offsetting either the front or rear pair. This is great for scare hits and other big events that happen in otherwise quiet moments. Ping-pong delays in quad are also great and I often use these to make things sound more chaotic and claustrophobic. In talking with the mixers they seem to love these approaches but they don't just leave the rears at full level - they selectively bring them in and out depending on what the sound design is doing. I put stuff in there in case they need it and it seems like they use my rears about half of the time.

This is what I've done on films for a long time, but for television I just give them stereo. I've offered 5.1 deliveries for television but the mixers generally give me a pained look - like, "Oh crap, do we have to deal with that on a two-day mix?" So if they need any music in the rears for those mixes they just make it with reverbs on the spot. No complaints so far.

For video games I find that they like the 5.1 deliveries for the cut scenes and pre-rendered cinematics, but for in-game score they usually only use the stereo (front pair) to save bandwidth and playback engine resources.

As I'm composing and mixing I switch between monitoring the full 5.1 spread and only listening to the L+R with no sub. I spend most of my time in L+R mode so I won't be disappointed when I mute the LFE and rear speakers - I get the mix sounding powerful in stereo mode as I know that's the one most people will hear, and the one we'll ALL hear if the mixers decide to kill the LFE and rears at various points in the film. Since the Dynaudio AIR system has mute buttons for each channel right on the volume remote it's simple to switch those "extra" channels on and off while working. A bonus of leaving my center channel empty of music is that I can route the dialog and sfx from my video playback rig to the center speaker, and now I have a mute button for those channels right at hand while working without reaching over to a mixer or whatever.

I print to a second computer running ProTools HD3 that is acting as a stem recorder and records each cue as a big stack of time-stamped WAV files which can be dropped into the playback rigs on the dub stage with ease. Video is played back from a standalone computer running VideoSlave (formerly I used VirtualVTR). I set all this up in 2002 and haven't changed a thing since then.

I've had the music mixers from the dub stage come over to my place on some projects before I start printing mixes, so I could show them what I'm putting in the LFE and rear channels, and they generally agreed with my approach and have not suggested any changes or raised any red flags. My empty center channel has made it easier for them to get everything loud while staying within the limits of QC, and they seem to appreciate that. None have ever suggested that I start putting music in that empty center channel!


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 18, 2014)

Thank you Dietz and Charlie (I was hoping you would post because I read an older post of yours on this forum on the very same topic).

I think, the aesthetics will take some time for me to get right and learn. 

I am now really confused and stuck with the technical set-up of the studio. 

Everything must support 5.0!

So, for example summing unit where I can pass all my tracks through and print on to another system.

I also do not have a console and I am looking for the best cost/feature compatibility. I was thinking perhaps I could get the SSL X-Desk with an expansion. 

I am starting another thread on this topic.

Thanks guys!


Tanuj.


----------



## Rctec (Jan 19, 2014)

...I don't have time to read all the replies, let alone the original questions right now, so just some bits of disorganized and probably redundant thoughts...

Always have a center channel. Learned that from Andy Nelson (look him up on IMDB. But...does all the Spielberg movies). Otherwise your sound-stage will 'collapse' into the center. 

Don't put pitched things into the sub. The crossover is going to play havock with your orchestration, notes will jump out, while others will be completely lost. Only low perc and fx type things. (just had all my analog synth output stages modified for "Spiderman" to go down to 10 Hz. I leave it up to the Dub to see if it works...)

5.1 is so last year...we are dubbing in 11.1, BUT! ...The point is, if you want to make your music 'future-proof', don't stay in stereo.

I, like Charlie, don't give a shit about 'proper' surround - even though all my samples are correctly recorded and reproduced in the right perspective - if that's what I want. But I actually think that we live in exciting times where we can play with ambiences and perspectives as a compositional device, superimpose two rooms on top of each other, turn one around by 180 degrees... basically taking the offstage Mahler 2nd symphony idea - where the flute-solo is perfectly audible against an onslaught of brass, or the string quartet idea within Vaughn-Williams' "Thomas Tallis" and really manipulate that in a way those composers never could.

The lesson I've learned is not to get too crazy with the equipment. You can do most of this within your little DAW. Look at the DTS thing we did for the Z+ app on "Man Of Steel" - it's a free app, so you can try it out - it works, ...and even though it's sort of a proto-type when we worked with it, it is an inevitable way that it'll suddenly turn all those movies you're watching on your IPad or computer into a proper surround, immersive experience.

...If you have any faith in having a future in the sonic world, you better get that extra set of speakers. And just faking it up by putting reverb in the rear isn't going to cut it.

-Hz-


----------



## twnd (Jan 19, 2014)

Thanks rctec, your experiance is always very valuable!


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 19, 2014)

Thank you for your input Hans! Really appreciate it! 

I was wondering, what took you so long to jump into a multi-channel thread  

I am getting the best system that I can afford at the moment. And it will have to remain 5.0 for now.

I checked out the app for MOS and its very impressive! Got some of my favourite tracks from your score too for this app specially. 

Now only if I could get access to your team and guys at Dolby to do one for me when I score the next Indian Superhero movie 

But, very exciting stuff indeed. I was specially stunned with the Speaker check demo with your voice in the start and of course, the music sounded very different. Now I know why you hate listening to your stuff in stereo !!!


Tanuj.


----------



## Brettlof (Jan 19, 2014)

> Now only if I could get access to your team and guys at Dolby to do one for me when I score the next Indian Superhero movie Smile



This headphone surround 3D isnt magic. I did it on my own at my bachelor thesis. If you are interessted in more of these 11.1, 13.1 setups or headphone surround 3D, i ll allready start a discussion but noboby wanted to talk with me, until now :D 

Maybe you want to join

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36135


BTW: DTS headphone X isnt Dolby 

best,
B


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 21, 2014)

http://soundworkscollection.com/videos/the-sound-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 21, 2014)

This just came out today:

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2014/01/21/mu ... oundstage/

Seems relevant. I love Keith Johnson's stereo work.... great orchestral recordings.


----------



## AR (Mar 24, 2014)

I use Cubase. How much percentage for the center speaker should I give (lets say for a full string chord that fills the whole spectrum from L100 to R100)?


----------



## Firstfewbars (Mar 24, 2014)

I compose in 5.0 (Logic9) and for my Albion (1,2,3) instruments I have the center and surround channels 6-8 dB lower than LR.
I use the close mic for center, tree for LR and ambience mics for Ls Rs. This is for the strings. I have the center channel a bit lower when it comes to brass/woodwinds.
Everything else (LASS, VSL etc) is bussed to a couple of Exonential Audio Phoenix Surround Reverbs with a similar setup/mix.


----------

