Remarkable 7.1 from Live Stereo Recording

[@tejobolten1011]

Sounds great! In the metering is see a overpower if this has to go to atmos. :-)

[@paavojumppanen914]

It's not going to Atmos. I was just using the binaural rendering support of Atmos so that I could showcase how it might sound on real 7.1.

[@miksteduzeltiriz]

The stereo version is much better. The 7.1 simply sounds like a room reverb was turned on without the actual 3d "front to back" aspect. Are you still planning on building a VST3 version for Harbal?

[@paavojumppanen914]

Your appraisal seems perplexing to me as it is diametrically opposed to how I hear it, but I respect your opinion. Ultimately, the only opinion that counts is Petr Pavlas' given he commissioned me to do it, and in that regard, he is very happy with the 7.1 and stereo remixes that I prepared for him. As I have said before in another video, I am working on an EQ plugin, but it isn't going to be Har-Bal Harmonic Balancer as a plugin. To do so would be a development nightmare.

[@miksteduzeltiriz]

@@paavojumppanen914 7.1 or any other binaural processing only makes the sound smudgy for me. I am yet to find a binaural/atmos/multichannel mix that is better in all aspects compared to the stereo mix. So its not your processing - its an "all water is wet" situation, for me at least. Glad the EQ plugin is still in the works, I hope it is close to what harbal does - I've been following harbal ever since it first came out and I am yet to find any other EQ that does anything similar to what yours does.

[@paavojumppanen914]

@miksteduzeltiriz, ok, I now understand where you are coming from but there are two clarifications I would point out with regards to the points you made. Firstly, binaural is quite different to real surround. The real surround sound significantly better in my view but it is obviously much harder to demonstrate. Secondly, the wetness of my mix needn't have been to the extent that I made it, however, I chose that degree of liveliness out of attempting to be authentic towards how the live performance would have sounded to an audience member in the venue. The original stereo mix, in that regard, sounds almost completely dead and very unlike how an audience member would have heard it. If I was doing a "studio mix" it wouldn't be that wet.

[@paavojumppanen914]

@miksteduzeltiriz, oh and the EQ will have similar traits to Har-Bal standalone but with omissions of peak taming and probably real time spectrum. On the other hand it will likely have features specifically targeted to a DAW context. Be quite a while before I get it done though. Life has been busy, my motivation has been lacking, and I've got some Har-Bal standalone development work to finish first.

[@miksteduzeltiriz]

@@paavojumppanen914 I agree that real surround with properly placed speakers like the ones you'd have in a movie theater are great, and music designed to be played on those would be great to listen to. However most people do not sit in the middle of a room to listen to music for an hour. Most people listen to music while doing other things, like while working our doing chores outside (headphones) or at home (maybe stereo speakers but most probably a boombox or a bluetooth speaker nowadays) or while driving, or in a live setting. Very few people even have a full range stereo system, let alone a good surround one. So this forces binaural algorithms to do the heavy lifting. Even if no extra reverb was added and the mix was simply modified to take advantage of the added audio paths, the binaural rendering still smudges the mix and the number of atmos-binaural etc mixes I prefered to the stereo is still zero. I dont doubt the full atmos mix would sound great in a properly built room, but that kind of listening environment is not a priority for me. Even if I was willing to take on the cost, I'd still probably buy a better stereo system instead of building an atmos listening environment. Other people might differ in this opinion and that is fine.