I am wrong. ITU and Dolby do not Highpass their front speakers, only the rear speakers need to be Highpassed for certain formats. The confusion comes from an alignment procedure I have witnessed where they did High-pass the front speakers to prevent comb filtering/hass effect and conflict with the LFE. But indeed, it isn’t standard practice. According the specs, front speakers are full range.
My bad.
Fredo
Ok. I really think you should adopt the 20/20k “standard” when talking about “full range”. Otherwise you’ll end up confusing people.
[/quote]
Would this be a similar type of confusion that might arise from discussion & inclusion of a “2.1” format that does not exist? Also, 20-20 has only recently been taken to mean full range. Until the late 70’s, vinyl used to peak at around 14,400Hz - I still have records stating proudly “ffss” - full frequency stereophonic spectrum" meaning around 60Hz to 14.4kHz - for their classical releases. The gods alone know how much the top end was cut back on pop releases to squeeze ever more content onto vinyl, which seems best at no more than 14-20 mins/side.
But that’s another thread altogether.
Re the HighPassed channels.
As Fredo pointed out, in film/cinema work the rear channels are often highpassed to 80Hz.
In music mixes, they never should be.
For a very good paper on all of this, I highly recommend this one:
http://www.grammy.org/files/pages/SurroundRecommendations.pdf
It has an awful lot to say about proper calibration of systems, as well as such gems like
The LFE channel should never be used to carry the bass content of the main speaker channels. (Section 4.6, page 4-7)
and
1.2 Subwoofer vs. LFE
It is important to understand the distinction between the subwoofer and the LFE: the subwoofer is a physical speaker, while the LFE (the “.1” in “5.1”) is a channel. One function of the subwoofer is to reproduce the information carried by the LFE channel. Another, optional, function is to also reproduce the low frequencies of the other channels. This latter application, called bass management, is described in detail in section 3.4.
Where a surround sound monitoring system consists of satellite speakers only (see section 3.2.1), a subwoofer is a necessary component, and bass management is required; without it, low frequencies will not be reproduced at all.
In a professional surround sound mixing environment, which almost always uses
P&E Wing Recommendations for Surround Sound Production
1 - 4
full range speakers, a subwoofer is not necessary for sonic purposes, but is nonetheless required to reproduce the LFE channel. Section 4.6 describes the usage of the LFE channel in various applications.
Bass Management plugins should be used in the Control Room to check a surround mix on one of these terrible setups, as sadly they are far too common to be completely ignored, but a mix system should never be set up to a non existent format. If a sub must be used, then use 2 - one per channel.
No, not really.
Yeah, only about 3.5 decades ago……
That’s not what he said. Re-read the exchange.
Ok. Let’s disregard people who do this. They’re wrong. You’re the boss. You win.
It’s easy to be cynical about this, but granted, it does look clever.
However, fact remains that the times that mixes need to be checked in cars, over broadcast systems, on crappy speakers, are over. The are over long time ago. A good mix on a good set of monitors, in a good acoustic environment translates perfectly -or at least should translate perfectly- to any system “out there”.
The same goes for crappy home-surround-systems.
And most of them don’t even deserve the label “crap”.
Fredo
You should email these guys and tell them they’re doing it all wrong…:
Yup. Hardly anyone recommends checking mixes on more than one very good system. Translates perfectly. Don’t see NS-10’s any more in studios…
Perhaps I just need to throw down some more Chimays before I “get it”…
Well, you are exactly supporting the point we are trying to make.
BlueSky is a company which makes speakers especially for this use. (And they are good at it)
Their speakers and subs are designed to perform correctly in a 5.1 and bass Management setup. From the very beginning I have said that -if you want to combine both- you need speaker sets that are designed for this kinda use.
In our own 5.1 studio, we also have a speaker set which offers both.
We have the JBL LSR6332’s with two matching LSR6312SP’s. The system is calibrated and we switch from LFE to Bass Management through a contact switch in the Sub’s.
Here’s some good reading: http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=1160
Any of those speaker specific sets (Blue Sky, JBL, Genelec, Mackie, …) have their own, build in hardware settings to swich flawless and accurate between LFE and Sub.
Fredo
At least, you will get in my line of thinking.
;o))
Fredo
No, I’m disputing EXACTLY what Neil said:
" a mix system should never be set up to a non existent format. If a sub must be used, then use 2 - one per channel."
Blue Sky are providing a stereo-with-ONE-sub-to-extend-the-lows system. He’s been saying for a while that it’s completely wrong, hasn’t he? I’m merely pointing out that not only do these systems exist with smaller cheaper brands for computer setups etc, but even larger and 100% trusted and accepted pro-brands do it. They wouldn’t do it had there not been a market for it. A professional market in this case.
If you want to argue that it’s ok to integrate a sub into a stereo system then you can argue that with Neil, not me, we’re then in agreement.
I support Neil that the ideal, and the only accurate, way of adding subs to a system is by adding two subs. One for each main speaker. However, I am not that radical that I support the idea that anything else is crap or not working. When a system is conceived, engineerd and designed for that purpose, I think it can’t be very wrong. Nevertheless, we are per definition drifting further and further away from the ideal setup, since adding a sub to a system is not ideal to start with. It’s a “trick” to extend the frequency range of speakers whicha re not designed to offer full range. So, where do you draw the line?
What I am totaly -and radically- opposed to is adding “a” sub to “a” system. The DYI technique. That is a recipy for failure, 100% of the time.
Fredo
Well… “duh”… Of course most of us agree that the “ideal” system is “full range” on all channels and also corresponds to whatever standardized format we wish to play back over it…
Where to draw the line? Well, I suppose that’s what we’re talking about. And it sort of leads me back to a question I had earlier. I’ll give you a hypothetical scenario:
A person buys two speakers and works in stereo. He then expands by buying another for C and two for surrounds, plus a sub. But since money runs out (just for arguments sake) he decides to bass manage this 5.1 system in software (because the fronts aren’t full range). So now he’s not only sending an LFE to to the subwoofer, he’s also sending the lows from the “satellites” to that same sub.
The question was - despite that being “not ideal” - how would it be any more difficult to do the same bass management (i.e x-overs etc) for stereo versus 5.1? If it can be done for 5.1 it surely can be done for stereo, or?
Because I’m betting that that’s what several people would like to do if they can’t afford a system with a hardware solution. So the question is if Nuendo would benefit from making this easier somehow.
As for the implied argument that this is a “bad idea”, well so are a lot of things. A lot of things the software is capable of doing is a “bad idea” if it’s done incorrectly. It’s a post app. What if you can adjust the timing of video sent out… So that audio/video is in sync on playback (because of a laggy video monitor/projector setup etc)?.. Surely that’s a recipe for errors by those who don’t know how to work it correctly, right? Yet we don’t have a problem promoting or including that functionality simply because it’s “needed”. Well that’s the whole thing about feature requests: They’re done by people who perceive a need for it.
So I guess the ball is back in your court: Where do you draw the line for how far away from the ideal is “ok” to go, and where do you draw the line for when to work against what some would like to see as a feature in the app!?
Because, for example, the Sub alignment for LFE requires that the Bass is lifted by 10dB versus the other speakers.
Fredo
And wouldn’t a simple preset in the bass management plug-in possibly accomodate for that? Seems awfully simple to load your “stereo template preset” with a 10dB dip then. Or?
You were talking about using them together, at the same time.
This means that the LFE output would have to be 10dB hotter than “normal”.
So, in control room, instead of having 2 outputs (L & R), you would need 3 (L, R and Sub)
And an optional 4th, for those who want to do it (ahum) “right” by adding two subs.
The L & R channel would have to be High-passed.
The L & R channel would need to be merged into a new track (or two), which needs to be Low-passed.
That channel (these channels) should be routed to the third output (and/or 4th), the one(s) that goes to the Sub.
However, the LFE channel of the 5.1 output, should also be routed to that 3th output (and maybe doubled to the 4th), though 10dB hotter than normal. But in the case of 2 subs, that would be slightly different, since adding a corrolated signal adds 6dB of gain and a non-corrolated signal 3dB. But -honestly- I don’t know if this applies for these low frequencies. But yes, it’s all a matter of a swith-able set of parameters that switch along with the output format of Control Room, and are specific for ech speaker set in Control Room.
Might work though … (not being sarcastic)
Fredo
Actually, I wasn’t. If that’s what the OP wished to do then that’s something I didn’t comprehend…
So this is where “semantics” come into play. What I read into the OP and his wishes corresponds “sort of” to what you hint at above. L/R high passed before sent out to the L/R outputs. The low passed L/R signal summed and sent to a third output which goes to the sub.
IF this is the same physical sub from the same physical DA output as in a 5.1 setup, then the “name” 2.1 would sort of make sense. Yes, it would be a misnomer as far as a delivery specification standard goes, but from the standpoint of routing it kind’a wouldn’t. For example:
5.1:
1 to front Left
2 to front Right
3 to front Center
4 to surround left
5 to surround right
.1 to subwoofer
2.1:
1 to front Left
2 to front Right
3 not used / doesn’t exist
4 not used / doesn’t exist
5 not used / doesn’t exist
.1 to subwoofer
So switching from one to the other would allow for the routing to be the same (obviously with L,C,R,LS,RS,LFE the same applies in different order), right?
Well, if the two setups are to “coexist simultaneously” then I certainly see an almost inevitable source of confusion. I do think however that the OPs request lies the closest though as many who invest in a 5.1 will end up with one sub, and not two, and this is just a “convenient” way of getting more use out of the sub without spending more money…
I think it can be made to work, and I think an intelligent set of options would gain use in the market. Having said that, it also seems that certain things may actually be easier in a “plain” stereo setup. Simply do bass management and route to a mono output (or stereo for two subs “the right way”
as one sees fit. That way one can mute that subwoofer extension easily and do most of the monitoring without it.
That is what is needed in terms of routing, but that is the least of the problems.
The difficult and confusing matrix/dynamic switching panel resides just before the DA.
The interface needs to be build inbetween the outputs of Nuendo’s control room and the DA converter.
Remember that the “sub-content” of a stereo signal needs to be extracted from the stereo output, while the “sub-content (LFE in this case)” from 5.1 output comes as a descrete channel, which by itself should be boosted by 10dB.
And these settings need to be dymanic, so that it switches along with the different speaker sets in Control room.
Fredo
Well, wouldn’t we have to figure out first what kind of work flow we’re looking at? Is the engineer doing first a 5.1 mix and then just checking automatic fold-down, or is he doing a separate mix within the same project, to stereo, or does he intend to do the 5.1 first, save-as, open up “new” project, and in that new project work with a “2.1” (sorry for the nomenclature…) setup?
Let me ask you this, because I think it’ll illuminate the problem:
If a person was to bass manage a speaker system in ONE setup only - 5.1 surround - where in the chain would he put that plug-in? (please show what comes before and after so we know).
It would be inbetween Control room and the DA converter.
Tracks => Output Buss => Control Room => Bass management Matrix => DA Converter.
In fact, it would have to be like that for each and every system config, because only Control Room offers you the downmix options from 5.1 to any other format and the selection of the different speaker sets.
Fredo
Sorry, I meant how is it done now by those who wish to do bass management in software using a plugin…
Well, per definition it is not done in software, so pretty much (AFAIK) nobody is doing it this way.
What is done, is “mimic-ing” the crappy home systems by the use of a Bass management plugin, which is something compeletely different than creating an accurate monitoring system.
So, in answer to your question, I don’t think it has been done. Or at least it is not common practice.
And as a personal reflection, the reason why is it doesn’t make a lot of sense in doing it through sofware is because it’s A DYI solution which will very probably end in disaster.
OK, there is always the exception to the rule …
But maybe I am old fashioned.
I also notice that people look at me as being an alien when I talk about proper room acoustics…
And proper tracking, and talented people, and … etc … etc …
Fredo