OK, so they have this neat little LG five-channel speaker kit in Best Buy for $79.95. It's actually a 5.1, because it has this little "sub" woofer too. I couldn't listen to it because the connections were all screwed up - as usual.
However, I bought it on the hope that my sound card could do 5.1. But I haven't a clue how to use such a system and calibrate it to use it as a mastering studio for good surround sound mixes. What info is out there on this? I'm not even sure that I have a program that can encode the surround sound that the system is supposed to play. For example, ss you know I can encode DTS surround sound on my computer, but I cannot play it back in surround on the computer.
Obviously, the amateurs who purchase such a thing expect to play back their movies with it on their computers - right? But I want to use it to master some surround recordings and get feedback on how it might sound on a bigger home theater system. Is there any great info out there on how to do all this?
On Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:24:20 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I want to use it to master some surround recordings
Does your current sound card display 6 discrete outputs in your audio software? And does it have three stereo 1/8-inch output jacks? If not, you'll need a sound card that has those.
> OK, so they have this neat little LG five-channel speaker kit in Best Buy > for $79.95. It's actually a 5.1, because it has this little "sub" woofer > too. I couldn't listen to it because the connections were all screwed up - > as usual.
> However, I bought it on the hope that my sound card could do 5.1. But I > haven't a clue how to use such a system and calibrate it to use it as a > mastering studio for good surround sound mixes. What info is out there on > this? I'm not even sure that I have a program that can encode the surround > sound that the system is supposed to play. For example, ss you know I can > encode DTS surround sound on my computer, but I cannot play it back in > surround on the computer.
> Obviously, the amateurs who purchase such a thing expect to play back > their movies with it on their computers - right? But I want to use it to > master some surround recordings and get feedback on how it might sound on > a bigger home theater system. Is there any great info out there on how to > do all this?
AC3 filter was written to the Microsoft Directshow filter framework. A suitable player would be one which supports Directshow. WMP does; I don't know about others.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
"Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
eth...@ethanwiner.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:24:20 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> I want to use it to master some surround recordings
> Does your current sound card display 6 discrete outputs in your audio
> software? And does it have three stereo 1/8-inch output jacks? If
> not, you'll need a sound card that has those.
Thanks Ethan. But my questions go a little farther than that.
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> eth...@ethanwiner.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:24:20 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> I want to use it to master some surround recordings
>> Does your current sound card display 6 discrete outputs in your audio
>> software? And does it have three stereo 1/8-inch output jacks? If
>> not, you'll need a sound card that has those.
> Thanks Ethan. But my questions go a little farther than that.
Ethan was just stating your *first* requirement. You need 6 independent outputs, all with independent amplification, each feeding a single speaker before you can even start thinking about the other things you need to do. If you can't do that, then it's no use enquiring further if you want to let others listen on their own equipment and like the result. The general rule is that the equipment producing the master must be better than the equipment used to listen to it.
If you're just doing it for your own enjoyment, then things like having a flat(tish) frequency response over the entire audio range and a treated room, with the speakers laid out according to the standard spacing are optional. If you're doing it to distribute the finished work, then they matter greatly, as you need to produce standards compliant output, which will sound good on top of the range setups as well as cheap and cheerful kit. You will find out quite quickly that the quality you want can't be built for $12.75 per speaker, even ignoring the amplifier. Move to ten times that, and you'll almost be at the bottom end of professional. Some of the posters here use headphones for checking there's a signal on the recording that cost much more than your entire speaker setup, but they won't use those for anything critical. Then they mix on good equipment in a room they know well, and verify that mix on a real grotbox, such as a cheap car radio system.
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> eth...@ethanwiner.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:24:20 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>> I want to use it to master some surround recordings
>>> Does your current sound card display 6 discrete outputs in your audio
>>> software? And does it have three stereo 1/8-inch output jacks? If
>>> not, you'll need a sound card that has those.
>> Thanks Ethan. But my questions go a little farther than that.
> Ethan was just stating your *first* requirement. You need 6 independent > outputs, all with independent amplification, each feeding a single speaker > before you can even start thinking about the other things you need to do.
Actually, that is not true. AC3Filter can route the undecoded DTS signal to an SP/DIF jack, a frequently found feature on modern motherboards. This can be routed to an external SP/DIF decoder, such as a modern surround receiver. This is how I do it. While many motherboards have multichannel DACs, they tend to be less than mediocre. And running digital, particularly optical, lessens hum problems.
Having interacted with Gary, I understand why he feels the advice was a bit too elementary. Gary is probably in the midst of figuring out the DirectShow filter jungle.
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:a1edtmFt1gU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> eth...@ethanwiner.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 4:24:20 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>>> I want to use it to master some surround recordings
>>>> Does your current sound card display 6 discrete outputs in your audio
>>>> software? And does it have three stereo 1/8-inch output jacks? If
>>>> not, you'll need a sound card that has those.
>>> Thanks Ethan. But my questions go a little farther than that.
>> Ethan was just stating your *first* requirement. You need 6 independent >> outputs, all with independent amplification, each feeding a single speaker >> before you can even start thinking about the other things you need to do.
> Actually, that is not true. AC3Filter can route the undecoded DTS signal to > an SP/DIF jack, a frequently found feature on modern motherboards. This can > be routed to an external SP/DIF decoder, such as a modern surround receiver. > This is how I do it. While many motherboards have multichannel DACs, they > tend to be less than mediocre. And running digital, particularly optical, > lessens hum problems.
> Having interacted with Gary, I understand why he feels the advice was a bit > too elementary. Gary is probably in the midst of figuring out the DirectShow > filter jungle.
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
Thanks for that follow-up and SP/DIF clarification, Bob. I wasn't aware of that as a possiblity, so found it very useful.
I've been considering a similar setup, but the thought of taking audio directly off of the MB gives me the willies.
AC3 filter was written to the Microsoft Directshow filter framework.
A
suitable player would be one which supports Directshow. WMP does; I
don't
know about others. In fact I don't know much about anything, being a
60 year old man
that has never had a job in my pathetic life. Daddy will be dead
soon, and hopefully he left
money for me and not my siblings.
> I've been considering a similar setup, but the thought of taking audio
> directly off of the MB gives me the willies.
I don't expect that any authoring program (such as Audition) is taking the sound directly off the MB - I would be using the cheap little speakers just to get an idea about balances, not sound quality. The actual sound on the resultant CD or DVD comes from the digital files that the program creates and transfers directly to the disc during the writing.
>> I've been considering a similar setup, but the thought of taking audio
>> directly off of the MB gives me the willies.
> I don't expect that any authoring program (such as Audition) is taking the > sound directly off the MB - I would be using the cheap little speakers just > to get an idea about balances, not sound quality. The actual sound on the > resultant CD or DVD comes from the digital files that the program creates > and transfers directly to the disc during the writing.
> Or am I getting too basic now?
The weak links in any playback audio chain are the speakers, then the analogue amplifiers, then the digital to analogue converters. DACs on PC motherboards suffer from many problems related to audio quality, mainly due to their proximity to digital circuitry and bad earth layouts. Laptops are particularly bad, but desktop motherboard sound is often of "It makes a noise, what more do you want?" quality. It's way down the list of priorities of the motherboard designer.
>>> I've been considering a similar setup, but the thought of taking audio
>>> directly off of the MB gives me the willies.
>> I don't expect that any authoring program (such as Audition) is taking >> the sound directly off the MB - I would be using the cheap little >> speakers just to get an idea about balances, not sound quality. The >> actual sound on the resultant CD or DVD comes from the digital files that >> the program creates and transfers directly to the disc during the >> writing.
>> Or am I getting too basic now?
> The weak links in any playback audio chain are the speakers, then the > analogue amplifiers, then the digital to analogue converters. DACs on PC > motherboards suffer from many problems related to audio quality, mainly > due to their proximity to digital circuitry and bad earth layouts. Laptops > are particularly bad, but desktop motherboard sound is often of "It makes > a noise, what more do you want?" quality. It's way down the list of > priorities of the motherboard designer.
As I said, I am not taking the sound off the MB, I am taking the digital tracks directly from the editing probram. No DAC involved.
John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The weak links in any playback audio chain are the speakers, then the >analogue amplifiers, then the digital to analogue converters. DACs on PC >motherboards suffer from many problems related to audio quality, mainly >due to their proximity to digital circuitry and bad earth layouts.
You forgot the room. The room is even worse than the speakers in most
cases.
>Laptops are particularly bad, but desktop motherboard sound is often of > "It makes a noise, what more do you want?" quality. It's way down the >list of priorities of the motherboard designer.
Yes, sadly true.
--scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> As I said, I am not taking the sound off the MB, I am taking the digital > tracks directly from the editing probram. No DAC involved.
Somewhere between the speakers and the digital info on the HD, there is a DAC. It may be on the motherboard, or it may be a dedicated outboard DAC. If you're using a USB, firewire or SP-DIF connection from the computer, it's outboard and you've got half a chance of decent quality, and I apologise. You mentioned a soundcard, so I took it that you were using an analogue connection from the computer to the speakers.
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> As I said, I am not taking the sound off the MB, I am taking the digital >> tracks directly from the editing probram. No DAC involved.
> Somewhere between the speakers and the digital info on the HD, there is a > DAC. It may be on the motherboard, or it may be a dedicated outboard DAC. > If you're using a USB, firewire or SP-DIF connection from the computer, > it's outboard and you've got half a chance of decent quality, and I > apologise. You mentioned a soundcard, so I took it that you were using an > analogue connection from the computer to the speakers.
Come on John - you know as well as anyone that the speakers are just used for monitoring while editing. I am not taking the output from by computer card or speakers.
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:a1hv14FuntU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> As I said, I am not taking the sound off the MB, I am taking the digital >>> tracks directly from the editing probram. No DAC involved.
>> Somewhere between the speakers and the digital info on the HD, there is a >> DAC. It may be on the motherboard, or it may be a dedicated outboard DAC. >> If you're using a USB, firewire or SP-DIF connection from the computer, >> it's outboard and you've got half a chance of decent quality, and I >> apologise. You mentioned a soundcard, so I took it that you were using an >> analogue connection from the computer to the speakers.
> Come on John - you know as well as anyone that the speakers are just used > for monitoring while editing. I am not taking the output from by computer > card or speakers.
My point, which you seem to be missing, is that to monitor effectively, you need good quality reproduction of the sounds that you want to listen to.
If others are to listen to it, the quality of your reproduction chain needs to be at least as good as theirs, as the BBC found out when broadcasting the Proms from the Albert Hall in the 1930s using headphones to monitor the output to the transmitter. They had letters from listeners complaining about the feet of the people in the box above the microphone position thumping on the floor and being shuffled, one of which had been heard by the engineer. It wasn't long before they built their first OB unit, which had extremely good monitoring.
>> I've been considering a similar setup, but the thought of taking audio
>> directly off of the MB gives me the willies.
> I don't expect that any authoring program (such as Audition) is taking the > sound directly off the MB - I would be using the cheap little speakers just > to get an idea about balances, not sound quality. The actual sound on the > resultant CD or DVD comes from the digital files that the program creates > and transfers directly to the disc during the writing.
> Or am I getting too basic now?
> Gary Eickmeier
I was only speaking of taking the analog audio outputs directly off of the
motherboard, which I personally would not want to do. I would prefer to handle that with a higher quality path that excludes the MB audio.
Speakers have to be fed by something, and it will either be the MB or an external DAC as John is saying. I'd prefer all of that to be handled outside of a computer (ie decoding SP/DIF).
> My point, which you seem to be missing, is that to monitor effectively, > you need good quality reproduction of the sounds that you want to listen > to.
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> As I said, I am not taking the sound off the MB, I am taking the digital >> tracks directly from the editing probram. No DAC involved.
> Somewhere between the speakers and the digital info on the HD, there is a > DAC. It may be on the motherboard, or it may be a dedicated outboard DAC. > If you're using a USB, firewire or SP-DIF connection from the computer, > it's outboard and you've got half a chance of decent quality,
Or any of the decent internal sound cards which can be just as good, (despite claims to the contrary) even if some motherboards or old soundblasters are not.
> and I apologise. You mentioned a soundcard, so I took it that you were > using an analogue connection from the computer to the speakers.
Perhaps he needs to get sound INTO the computer, not just rip CD's?
Gary Eickmeier <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:a1hv14FuntU1@mid.individual.net...
> > Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> As I said, I am not taking the sound off the MB, I am taking the digital
> >> tracks directly from the editing probram. No DAC involved.
> > Somewhere between the speakers and the digital info on the HD, there is a
> > DAC. It may be on the motherboard, or it may be a dedicated outboard DAC.
> > If you're using a USB, firewire or SP-DIF connection from the computer,
> > it's outboard and you've got half a chance of decent quality, and I
> > apologise. You mentioned a soundcard, so I took it that you were using an
> > analogue connection from the computer to the speakers.
> Come on John - you know as well as anyone that the speakers are just used
> for monitoring while editing. I am not taking the output from by computer
> card or speakers.
Some folks use a good monitoring setup for their editing work.
Apparently not you, though.
> I was only speaking of taking the analog audio outputs directly off of the
> motherboard, which I personally would not want to do. I would prefer to
> handle that with a higher quality path that excludes the MB audio.
> Speakers have to be fed by something, and it will either be the MB or an
> external DAC as John is saying. I'd prefer all of that to be handled
> outside of a computer (ie decoding SP/DIF).
To all and sundry:
I don't know if I have miscommunicated or if you have just misread or what, but let me restate.
I am recording in surround sound with - whatever high quality recording system you want to insert here - in digital audio files. These files are transferred directly to the computer for editing in Audition. Still in digital domain, no DAC involved. Up to now I have been monitoring with just my stereo desktop speakers, just to hear where I am at in the recording and to edit and do fades and such.
However, for judging sound quality I do not use the desktop speakers; I make a CD and take the disc out to the theater to listen, and make judgements about EQ and levels. In making the CD, there is no DAC involved. The digital files that live in the computer and have been edited into a master file have never undergone a digital to analog conversion on their way to the disc. The soundboard and the desktop speakers have nothing to do with the resultant sound quality I am getting to disc; only the adjustments that I make in Audition, all in the digital domain.
I have had to wait until I get the surround sound mixes out to the theater before I could hear anything about the balances between front and rear, and I am not able to do any "steering" of individual channels, as with movie sound editing, with the stereo setup, so I bought some cheap little surround sound computer speakers to see just how to do all this and get more immediate feedback on the result of different balances to the mix. But I would not judge frequency balance, loudness, dynamics, compression (much) with just computer speakers. I would make a disc with current methods and take it out and play it on the big system, make judgements, and adjust as necessary for the next go.
>> I was only speaking of taking the analog audio outputs directly off of the
>> motherboard, which I personally would not want to do. I would prefer to
>> handle that with a higher quality path that excludes the MB audio.
>> Speakers have to be fed by something, and it will either be the MB or an
>> external DAC as John is saying. I'd prefer all of that to be handled
>> outside of a computer (ie decoding SP/DIF).
> To all and sundry:
> I don't know if I have miscommunicated or if you have just misread or what, > but let me restate.
> I am recording in surround sound with - whatever high quality recording > system you want to insert here - in digital audio files. These files are > transferred directly to the computer for editing in Audition. Still in > digital domain, no DAC involved. Up to now I have been monitoring with just > my stereo desktop speakers, just to hear where I am at in the recording and > to edit and do fades and such.
> However, for judging sound quality I do not use the desktop speakers; I make > a CD and take the disc out to the theater to listen, and make judgements > about EQ and levels. In making the CD, there is no DAC involved. The digital > files that live in the computer and have been edited into a master file have > never undergone a digital to analog conversion on their way to the disc. The > soundboard and the desktop speakers have nothing to do with the resultant > sound quality I am getting to disc; only the adjustments that I make in > Audition, all in the digital domain.
> I have had to wait until I get the surround sound mixes out to the theater > before I could hear anything about the balances between front and rear, and > I am not able to do any "steering" of individual channels, as with movie > sound editing, with the stereo setup, so I bought some cheap little surround > sound computer speakers to see just how to do all this and get more > immediate feedback on the result of different balances to the mix. But I > would not judge frequency balance, loudness, dynamics, compression (much) > with just computer speakers. I would make a disc with current methods and > take it out and play it on the big system, make judgements, and adjust as > necessary for the next go.
> See?
> Gary Eickmeier
Yes, I see.
So why don't you just get a good monitor system in the first place (fix the room first) and save all of those trips to the theatre? That doesn't sound like an efficient workflow.
