electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
 
    Front Page  |  Articles  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links  |  Store
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
 Forum index » How-tos » Surround and Sound Reinforcement
Mixing in 5.1 - What methods & tools do you use?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: diatonis, mosc
Page 1 of 2 [45 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:27 pm    Post subject: Mixing in 5.1 - What methods & tools do you use? Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I'm starting this post in response to one made earlier on by Kassen.
Quote:
At one point I discovered that there were no stereo reverbs on the market that suited my needs at the time. What I needed was a real stereo reverb that had parameters to dynamically move the position of the source material as well as the position of the listener relative to the room's walls so; I coded my own. It worked like a charm, sadly it got lost in HD crash. It also ate my laptop's 2GHz pentium 4m alive.

The research that I had to do for that told me that hardly any real spatialisation tools exist that can be used off the shelf if you want moving soundsources and that it's very heavy computationally if you want to do it well.

I know you can do real stereo synthetically because I've actually done it; I've never seen a real n.1 system that went beyond panned mono and so I doubt it has been done at all. So; if Neilwilkes thinks my remark is so funny I'd realy like to know what he uses for this. With that challenge I'm hoping to demonstrate that we are actually talking about completely different things.

Surely if no tools to properly generate, mix and process n.1 material exist and if it's exceedingly rare to find a good sounding n.1 system playing well made material then those are highly topical points in a discussion named "what's wrong with 5.1"? So, if it's so funny it should be easy to tell me what to use for this; if there is anything at all that suits my needs I'll considder switching.


So I am going to try & wade through this as best I can considering it's gone 9PM and I have had a 14 hour day today with the last 6 hours being full-on Metal. Not my personal Ciup of tea, but it pays the bills!

Point one is about stereo reverbs.
To my way of thinking, there is a problem right away - using stereo processors is never going to give a sensible result unless by accident, or else deliberately looking for a confused & unnatural soundfield. All you can do with a stereo reverb in surround is pan it, and this will seriously screw with all the ER & Tails to the point it stops being a reverb & develops into a messy washy sound. The only time it is okay to use a stereo reverb in 5.1 is when you are placing it into a stereo child buss within the main surround buss - ie, you place the 'verb into just Ls/Rs. In this case, a stereo verb is okay. Any other time it's a compromise.
Multichannel verbs are easy enough to find - one even ships as standard with Cubase SX3 & Nuendo 3 - Roomworks.
There is also W5 (as mentioned by Diatonis)
Voxengo's Pristine Space
TC SurroundVerb
Steinberg OctoVerb (part of the Surround Edition)
Waves R360
TonyB has a Quad reverb too in his shareware surround bundle.
Altiverb PC may also be multichannel - I don't know.
That is 7 definite and one maybe, and I am certain there are more.

The trick to creating great sounding 5.1 mixes isn't about reverb either. To my experience, I find that I use considerably less 'verb in 5.1 than stereo, mainly because I don't need to artificially create a sense of depth. I also find I use a lot less EQ too - again, not anything like as much instrumentation all fighting for the same space, so things are a lot easier to place & give a convincing sense of depth & realism to.

Other multichannel tools.
5.1 compressors are vital - and also vital that you do not over use them. Again, with 5.1 especially in 24 bit, we just should not be using too much compression. The sound of an overcompressed mix is ghastly beyond belief, and should be avoided at all costs. Dynamics is the key to a great mix in multichannel. But if you must:
OctoComp in Steiny's Surround Bundle
C360 5.0 & 5.1 in the Waves 360 bundle.
Starplugs do a pretty reasonable one too - SuperSizer Surround. In fact, Starplugs do quite a range of very affordable tools. Once you get used to the odd interface, they are easy to use & include compressors, EQ, Exciters, all the usual toys.

EQ is trickier. Again, OctoQ in the Surround Edition, and STarplugs do one too - not yet bought it so cannot comment as yet. I intend to buy it tomorrow though.
Voxengo are supposed to be taking CurveEQ into multichannel.
In general though, EQ can be better done on the channel or group level.
Just use what is in your DAW.

There are plenty of panners & delays, so no shortage of tools for the job.
But it's all about so much more than reverb & plugins. What you need to do is let the song tell you what goes where, and just go with it. Correct placement is the key to it all, and once you have got this right, the rest is all detail - and falls into place quite easily. Panners need to be properly learned.

Where Kassen has me baffled is in the comment
Quote:
I've never seen a real n.1 system that went beyond panned mono and so I doubt it has been done at all.

All a stereo system is when you get right down to it is panned mono.
I can set up any track type I like:
Mono, stereo, LRC, right up to 10.2 should I so choose to do so, so I fail to see the point & would appreciate some clarification.
My DAW of choice has all manner of tools built into it's interface that go way beyond "panned mono", although when I am faced with a multitrack recording that has the usual suspects on it, Gtr, Bass, Drums etc, then it will be mainly mono tracks with some stereo tracks, some LRC tracks (depends on what I am doing).

I create what I need to do the job in hand. Doesn't everyone else?

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17620
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 125
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Thanks for taking the time to write that post. Very informative. You are way ahead of me.

I try to avoid reverb and EQ in all of my mixes too. Since I am doing mostly electronic music with my own synth patches I find it best to get the sound right before it goes to the mixdown. Still, there are times when you can make good use of these.

I'm using Sonar for my DAW. It has pretty good built-in support for multi-channel mixing. The version I have - I think it is the Producer version - has a pretty nice plugin called the Lexicon Pantheon Surround Reverb. I don't find it to be essential, but its a nice to have. I think the Kyma system is a better way to do multichannel because you can build multi-channel reverbs any way you want. It comes with some built-in ones you can use and modify.

I guess I'm still in the experimental / learning stage with surround. I have no recordings of finished pieces yet.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

mosc wrote:


I guess I'm still in the experimental / learning stage with surround.


As are we all, when we are being honest with ourselves.
It's a whole new field.

The point about n.1 being "panned mono" is the confusing one for me. If I am mixing from a multitrack, then the odds are high there are going to be an awful lot of mono tracks involved, and there is nothing wrong with this.
If I am dealing with a string section, again what I have is going to depend a great deal on how things were recorded.
If, for example, a Decca Tree arrangement was used, then I can slap these to an LRC track, and incorporate this with no problem. If it was done with overhead mics, then I have to take what I have, set up a 5.1 subgroup, set the routing to go to the subgroup, and I can place each mix exactly where I want it to go in the final soundfield.
I don't have an issue with this way of working as it gives the most flexibility.
It's a myth that a 5.1 production has to be recorded in 5.1 - that is akin to sayimng a stereo mix must be recorded in stereo. It's nonsense.
Okay, we have a lot more things to consider when mixing in 5.1, especially phase issues and the old favourite of making certain everything arrives at the listener at the right time. But that is basic setup, and depends also on the end user setting up their player correctly as well and not leaving everything at factory default (which is rarely, if ever, suitable for anything)

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17620
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 125
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

For people that aren't familiar, a Decca Tree is a special mic configuration that is useful for recording spaciality.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

http://mixonline.com/recording/applications/audio_decca_tree/

(Google decca tree for more information)

Quite true about panned mono. Most of my music is based on mono recordings for analog synthesizers, although recently I've been making most tracks in stereo because I'm using automated panners, stereo chorus, phase shifters etc. This gives the track a certain texture. It's different from localiazation. The track has a certain sound that requries stereo. I've found that I can pan this in a surround environment with the two channels located at the opposite end of the surround circle. This enhances the effect - reduces the sensitivity of the sweet spot - makes it more enveloping.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

mosc wrote:
I've found that I can pan this in a surround environment with the two channels located at the opposite end of the surround circle. This enhances the effect - reduces the sensitivity of the sweet spot - makes it more enveloping.


I must remember that one!
The Nuendo Surround panner has an X/Y Mirror function that will do exactly this.

FWIW, I am just finishing off - okay, on Tuesday I will be just finishing off - a 5.1 remix of a track by the Bombay Dub Orchestra - check them out, it's really good music.
They are a West London duo using a 28 piece Indian String Section - and it's like Enigma/Zero 7 with strings & Sitars! Awesome.
If it's okay with the band I will post an excerpt of this track - I know it will be available from their website.

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Mixing in 5.1 - What methods & tools do you use? Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neilwilkes wrote:
Where Kassen has me baffled is in the comment
Quote:
I've never seen a real n.1 system that went beyond panned mono and so I doubt it has been done at all.

All a stereo system is when you get right down to it is panned mono.


and then you say;

Quote:
My DAW of choice has all manner of tools built into it's interface that go way beyond "panned mono", although when I am faced with a multitrack recording that has the usual suspects on it, Gtr, Bass, Drums etc, then it will be mainly mono tracks with some stereo tracks, some LRC tracks (depends on what I am doing).


So I'm just going to rest my case.

[Editor's note: Kassen's "case" is in this topic: http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-10529.html ]

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Sorry Kassen, I still don't get the gripe you have here.
With 5.1 you can do a seriously good job of location.

You criticize as you cannot pinpoint a sound as you do in the park.
Then you criticize all n.1 systems as panned mono.
Then I try to explain I can work in all channel assignments from mono to 5.1 up to 10.2 should I require to do so, and you say yoy rest your case.

what case?

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17620
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 125
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Personally, I'm interested in the musical opportunities of 5.1 systems. I'm not interested in recreating the exact spacial field of an acoustical source, like a orchestra or a park. (I think a 5 channel system has a better chance at that than a 2 channel one though.)

I like electronic sounds that have texture - sounds that are sensuous - that immerse the listener. To me, the more speakers the better.

I was talking to John Eaton who was doing live electronic music in the sixties. In some concerts, he used 48 channels and speakers! I would like to have heard that.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
paul e.



Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 1567
Location: toronto, canada
Audio files: 2

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

mosc wrote:
Personally, I'm interested in the musical opportunities of 5.1 systems. I'm not interested in recreating the exact spacial field of an acoustical source, like a orchestra or a park. (I think a 5 channel system has a better chance at that than a 2 channel one though.)

I like electronic sounds that have texture - sounds that are sensuous - that immerse the listener. To me, the more speakers the better.

I was talking to John Eaton who was doing live electronic music in the sixties. In some concerts, he used 48 channels and speakers! I would like to have heard that.


seems like a very balanced view on the whole thing

_________________
Spiral Recordings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neilwilkes wrote:
Sorry Kassen, I still don't get the gripe you have here.


This is because we are talking about entirely different things.

No harm done, enjoy your U.S. action movies.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:
Sorry Kassen, I still don't get the gripe you have here.


This is because we are talking about entirely different things.

No harm done, enjoy your U.S. action movies.


I guess you are talking about something entirely different to me.
I am, trying to explain how I mix for 5.1 music, and you are now banging on about dodgy hollywood movies?!?
Where did that one come from!

Can we try to stick to the point please?

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joe Misra



Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Chicago
G2 patch files: 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I've been a bit hesitant about stepping out of lurk-mode here, I'm not very good at participating in forum discussions.

Last fall I made a deal with my father-in-law: he filled out the 4 missing channels with matching monitors (Tannoy Reveal Actives), and I agreed to make my next release a DVD-Audio one. Regardless of how viable a format that really is, I now have a very nice dining room studio Smile

At the moment I'm mixing in Cubase SX, though to be honest I've been spending most of my time just getting used to the way the whole rig sounds, not really taking full advantage of everything.

Anyway, here's a picture.


DSC_0489.jpg
 Description:
Dining room studio.
 Filesize:  325.44 KB
 Viewed:  206 Time(s)
This image has been reduced to fit the page. Click on it to enlarge.

DSC_0489.jpg


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17620
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 125
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Nice looking setup, Joe... Very Happy
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
kkissinger



Joined: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1221
Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 29

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Upgrading to 5.1
Subject description: Seeking hardware and software recommendations
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

This thread has been very informative along with other threads about surround sound.

I am an electronic musician playing synths and Theremin.

My current recording/mixing setup is stereo -- running Cubase Audio Falcon. Would like to upgrade to a modern computer-based system to do Sequencing/Recording/Mixing/Mastering/Rendering. I want to produce 5.1 mixes that can be folded down to stereo.

Additionally, I play live with my own backing tracks and have a nice 3.1 system that I will expand to 5.1. I am interested in doing outdoor programs that deliver surround sound to the listeners. Thus, I will need a CD or DVD player that can deliver discreet channels and a computer system that can burn 5.1 DVDs or CDs.

The number of formats for Surround Sound is overwhelming -- if anyone has advice on the best choice of format would appreciate the info.

As far as computer hardware I must choose between a PC and MAC.

Currently, I am running Cubase on my Falcon and am VERY happy with it. Should I stick with a later version of Cubase or should I consider ProTools?

btw -- 5.2 is a possibility because I actually have two subs -- at the moment they share the same channel.

Look forward to any information that you can share. Please feel free to speak technically -- if I don't understand a term I'll look it up or ask for clarification.

Thanks! -- Kevin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17620
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 125
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I don't know Cubase or ProTools, but I'm using Sonar to good effect, but I have done very little 5 channel mixing.

As for the 5.2 I'd think the best is to mix 5.0 - five full spectrum channels and then use a bass management system to drive the two sub woofers. The simplest would be to use the front left and right signals for the bass, but maybe a mix of the left and rights.

Experiments I've heard indicate that DTS sounds better than Dolby, but that is very subjective.

I'm no expert in this area.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Joe Misra



Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Chicago
G2 patch files: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:55 am    Post subject: Re: Upgrading to 5.1
Subject description: Seeking hardware and software recommendations
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

kkissinger wrote:

The number of formats for Surround Sound is overwhelming -- if anyone has advice on the best choice of format would appreciate the info.


I'm not sure if you mean 7.1 vs 5.1, or if you mean DVD-A vs SACD... My goal is to be authoring 5.1 DVD-A format stuff in 48khz/24bit PCM..

One problem with DVD-A I learned right away is to do anything higher than that i.e. 96khz/24bit you have to use a proprietary encoder. I believe I read that this is because most players can't read fast enough to stream 96khz/24bit PCM, not sure anymore though.. The options are: either DTS or DDS (lossy), or MPL (lossless), encoders for which are all too expensive for me...

This is what I purchased to author the discs: http://www.discwelder.com/low/low_dBronze.htm

I should mention that I haven't gotten any of my burns to play in other DVD players yet, but it may be because I'm using DVD+R discs, I purchased a huge spindle of these by mistake... They do play back in DVD players on my PC though.

Another weird thing I noticed was that Discwelder Bronze always created huge DVDs even if I was only burning minute-long tests, I was concerned something was messed up, but here's what Minnetonka told me:

"There is part of the DVD spec, that for "maximum compatibility" for that
disk with players, at least about a gig must be written to the DVD,
regardless of how much audio data may be contained on the disk. This
applies in the DVD-V world too. So most all DVD-A and/or DVD-V authoring
programs will always fill out the disk out to at least a gig or so, even
if there is not that much material to author onto the disk."

_________________
eerik inpuj sound - http://www.inpuj.net/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joe Misra



Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Chicago
G2 patch files: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

mosc wrote:

As for the 5.2 I'd think the best is to mix 5.0 - five full spectrum channels and then use a bass management system to drive the two sub woofers. The simplest would be to use the front left and right signals for the bass, but maybe a mix of the left and rights.


I agree with this too, should mix the 5 "satellites" as full-spectrum and adjust your monitoring setup accordingly wth some sort of bass management. I was mixing bass to the LFE channel just so I could hear it until I realized that was wrong... I just recently rigged things up so the sub receives LFE, L and R. My monitors drop off pretty sharply at 65hz or so, just had to use the lowpass on the sub to adjust the makeshift "crossover"... Not ideal, but the best I could manage without spending any more money.

_________________
eerik inpuj sound - http://www.inpuj.net/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:23 am    Post subject: Re: Upgrading to 5.1
Subject description: Seeking hardware and software recommendations
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

kkissinger wrote:

My current recording/mixing setup is stereo -- running Cubase Audio Falcon. Would like to upgrade to a modern computer-based system to do Sequencing/Recording/Mixing/Mastering/Rendering. I want to produce 5.1 mixes that can be folded down to stereo.


If working in DVD-Audio, you can set SMART co-efficients to downmix for stereo playback, but t his is generally considered to be a poor substitute for a dedicated stereo mix. However, it can work well if care is taken. It won't be as good, but it will work.

kkissinger wrote:
Additionally, I play live with my own backing tracks and have a nice 3.1 system that I will expand to 5.1. I am interested in doing outdoor programs that deliver surround sound to the listeners. Thus, I will need a CD or DVD player that can deliver discreet channels and a computer system that can burn 5.1 DVDs or CDs.

The number of formats for Surround Sound is overwhelming -- if anyone has advice on the best choice of format would appreciate the info.


This depends on what you end up buying.
If your DVD player can play back DVD-Audio, then this is the way forward as it allows you to create your work at resolutions from 16/44.1 up to 24/96. However, there is a gotcha here. 5.1 at 24/96 requires the mandatory use of MLP lossless encoding due to the spec bitrates limiting guaranteed playback to a maximum of 9.6Mb/sec, and uncompressed 24/96 in 5.1 is well over 13.
Now. Having just said that, there is a way around this - a company called Cirlinca make a product called DVD-Audio solo that will allow you to author a very basic disc at 5.1 in 24/96 without MLP encoding - however, you need to be aware that most players probably won't play it back.
MLP is not cheap - it's around $2500 for the encoder, then you will need an app that supports it for authoring. There are 2 - Minnetonka's discWelder Chrome and Sonic's DAC. The former is another $3,000 the latter $15,000.
But, if truth be told, most (99%) of listeners will never be able to tell the difference between 96KHz and 48KHz, and if you stick to 48KHz then you can use basic tools like Bronze, or more advanced like Steel (If customized menus are important) or even apps like Steinberg's WaveLab.

Moving on to DVD-Video based formats now, you have 2 options:
Dolby Digital or DTS. In my opinion, DTS is superior as it throws away far less data - but again, if the field is levelled, most cannot tell the two apart.
DTS encoders are not that cheap - expect to pay around $500 - $1000 for one that can deal with all forms of DTS, and even as much as $1200 if DTS at 24/96 is required.
Playing it back will require an amplifier that can decode the stream. Most current AV amps will do this with no problem.
Authoring is again an issue here - but there is still yet a third way to get 5.1 material out there that is substantially cheaper to prepare - DTS-CD.
All you need is a $99 encoder from SurCode, and a 5.1 mix. Encode to DTS-WAV, and you get a file that looks like a standard 16/44.1 Stereo WAV file that can be burned to CD-R using any CD-Audio creation tool you have. When played back through a DTS decoder, what you get is genuine discrete 5.1 surround without breaking the bank.

kkissinger wrote:
As far as computer hardware I must choose between a PC and MAC.

Currently, I am running Cubase on my Falcon and am VERY happy with it. Should I stick with a later version of Cubase or should I consider ProTools?


Don't waste the cash on PooTools. The way it is in such a state of flux right now with the MacOS, you will be asking for trouble as every OS update requires a complete update & rewrite of all apps & plugins, unless you go for the very expensive TDM system.
Try running either CubaseSX or Nuendo (These are the ONLY multi-platform apps left) and both have very good surround support.
Sonar is also supposed to be good, but I have never used it.
PC is IMHO better than Mac because of all the OS/Architecture shenanigans, plus PC is far cheaper.

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kkissinger



Joined: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1221
Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 29

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses.

Indeed, I am leaning towards Cubase on a PC platform.

So, the hurdle will be to decide what method to choose for taking the surround sound mixes out of the studio and into live performance.

I suppose another method would be to use a laptop computer with an interface that delivers discreet output channels. Might be more economical (though perhaps not as convenient) as encoding to CDs or DVDs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neilwilkes



Joined: Mar 31, 2006
Posts: 28
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

kkissinger wrote:

So, the hurdle will be to decide what method to choose for taking the surround sound mixes out of the studio and into live performance.

I suppose another method would be to use a laptop computer with an interface that delivers discreet output channels. Might be more economical (though perhaps not as convenient) as encoding to CDs or DVDs.


Several options.
1 - Discrete multichannel streaming from a laptop.
Can be done via digital out to external DAC, then fed to PA system.
OR, can be donve using something like the RME Fireface, which uses a PCMCIA card to external converters, again needing to be DI'd into the main PA.
24/48 would be the best you could reliably stream through an ADAT type TOSlink connection, as going up to 96KHz will halve the track count. 48KHz will be enough for a live environment anyway.

2 - Digital output from an encoded DTS or DD file to an outboard hardware decoder. Something like the CAD5 from DTS would do the job.
Expensive

3 - Create your backing to DVD, author it to a folder & play off the laptop via SP-DIF into an external decoder/amplifier and input at line level into the PA.

Your best & easiest option though would be to hook up your converters to the PA, and simply arrange your DAW software to play the songs in order. Cubase SX/Nuendo has a playlist function that would do the job.
You'd still need the correct output hardware though.

_________________
www.opusproductions.com
Multichannel Audio Specialists
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kkissinger



Joined: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1221
Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 29

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Thank you very much for the information.

Based on the responses in this thread and on some of my own research, I decided to go with a laptop PC and a Presonus Firepod interface (which accepts eight channels in and delivers 8 channels out). Also, will be running Cubase SX.

The laptop has a P4, 3.2Ghz, and I am upgrading to 2Gig Ram.

As you can imagine, I'm like a kid on Christmas eve -- the box with the Firepod and Cubase SX just arrived... so time to sign out and have some fun!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 17620
Location: Allentown, PA
Audio files: 125
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Sounds like good choices. Have fun and let us know how it works out for you... Cool
_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
kkissinger



Joined: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1221
Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 29

PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Good to hear from you Howard. Thanks.

The laptop computer, Firepod, and Cubase SX is working very well.

There are many features that I have yet to try.

Included with Cubase SX3 is a demo version of a program that can render surround sound cd's (you get three tries before it says -- that's it, time to ante up!). I have not tried it yet however will be interesting to check it out.

At the moment, checking out surround sound encoding is around step 59 and I'm at step 3 or 4.

I arranged my equipment rack so that equipment that needs to be removable is on shelves or otherwise easily removable. Since the firepod can deliver up to eight channels of 24bit, 96khz sound, I should be in good shape to deliver multi-channel sound in a live setting.

As I mentioned before, the premium to purchase the laptop (compared to a desktop) was more economical than purchasing encoding software and decoding hardware for playback.

Apparently Cubase SX3 fully supports the Windows 5.1 format and it will be fun to experiment with that, too.

Thanks to all who have posted to this thread before and after my post. Much great info on working in surround sound.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kkissinger



Joined: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1221
Location: Kansas City, Mo USA
Audio files: 29

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:56 am    Post subject: Built-in Firewire port and excessive CPU utilization
Subject description: Looking for suggestions
Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I am hoping someone may be able to make some suggestions regarding the firewire port on my Toshiba laptop.

I am having poor results when attempting to chain a second Firepod unit -- namely the firepod units loose sync and the result is digital noise and distortion.

When running with two firepods, my CPU utilization jumps from about 1% up to 10% (this is without running Cubase). When running Cubase, CPU utilization peaks at a whopping 60% ! (with one Firepod, the peaks are around 12% for the same material).

I have checked all my firmware, drivers, and patches and I am entirely up to date. I am running with 2gig of ram.

The Toshiba P35's motherboard includes a single IEEE 1394a Firewire port. I suspect that this port requires too many CPU cycles for the demands of the multiple (chained) Firepods.

It is possible for me to purchase an PCMCIA card for my laptop that supports 1394a and 13954b and I am curious if anyone else is running their IEEE 1394 (firewire) ports via a PCMCIA card.

I am curious to know if 1394b and an 800mbps transfer rate would be an advantage over 1394a and 400mbps for this application?

I just checked this... the Firepod does not work with a combined 800/400 card. Must use a 400 card only.

Also, it appears that the video chipset on my Laptop is not compatable with the Presonus Firepod. Amazingly, I have been running with this. None-the-less, this is distressing. I may have to replace my laptop. Sad



Any comments/suggestions appreciated. In the meantime, I may try some different cards and will share the results with you.

-- Kevin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21977
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I am looking at an RME FW800 on my desk right now. Very Happy
It is great!

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: diatonis, mosc
Page 1 of 2 [45 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » How-tos » Surround and Sound Reinforcement
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
e-m mkii

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from
our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.


Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use