My New Dubbing Stage

[Gary Eickmeier]

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?

Gary Eickmeier

[eth...@ethanwiner.com]

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.

--Ethan

[Soundhaspriority]

Gary,
Check out this site: http://ac3filter.net/ I use AC3 filter on my HT
computer.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e6prr.146415$275....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:zPOdnTYvzIwrQjPS...@giganews.com...

> Gary,
> Check out this site: http://ac3filter.net/ I use AC3 filter on my HT
> computer.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

Looks interesting! Will investigate.

Gary

[Soundhaspriority]

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" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:0mMrr.8324$Fz2....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

[Gary Eickmeier]

Thanks Ethan. But my questions go a little farther than that.

Gary Eickmeier

[John Williamson]

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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Soundhaspriority]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a1edtm...@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

[david gourley]

"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com>
said...news:k9adnfLOYeMBHS_S...@giganews.com:

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.

david

[Soundhaspriority]

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.

Bob Morein
(215) 646-4894

"Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

[Soundhaspriority]

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Soundhaspriority <soundhas...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro

For those who are not familiar with the situation, the above is a forgery by
Brian L. McCarty.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[Gary Eickmeier]

"david gourley" <davidg.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0549956FCB...@88.198.244.100...

> 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

[John Williamson]

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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:a1h9h3...@mid.individual.net...

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.

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson <johnwil...@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."

[John Williamson]

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]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:a1hv14...@mid.individual.net...

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[John Williamson]

John Williamson wrote:

...one of which...

That should, of course, have read "none of which". Bloomin' cheap laptop
keyboards... (retires, muttering)

[david gourley]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> said...news:PGGsr.25476
$up4....@unlimited.newshosting.com:

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).

david

[Soundhaspriority]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:a1ie64...@mid.individual.net...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
[snip]

>>
> 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.
>

He's not missing it.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:a1hv14...@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,

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?

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Some folks use a good monitoring setup for their editing work.
Apparently not you, though.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Gary Eickmeier]

"david gourley" <davidg.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA055A741E51...@88.198.244.100...

> 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

[david gourley]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> said...news:UC6tr.42404
$_d5.3...@unlimited.newshosting.com:

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.

david

[Steve King]

"david gourley" <davidg.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA0566A067D2...@88.198.244.100...

You do have a difficult situation. What you need at the end of the process
is very dependent on the theater's accoustics and playback system, which may
or may not bear any resemblance to the monitoring system at your editing
station at home no matter how good you make it. However, the better your
home system is... room accoustics and amplifier/speaker quality ... the
easier it will be for you to translate what you hear at home to what you
know you will hear in the theater. Having some familiarity with theater
economics I understand if you have some reluctance to spend a great deal of
money to improve your home monitoring system as a justifiable business
expense. I do believe that you will not regret gradually improving your
monitor speakers over time as you can afford it. I'm looking at a pair of
speakers that I purchased over 40 years ago that have been in constant use
ever since. They are one of several systems that I use to evaluate mixes
that are headed to a large variety of destinations from large halls to
laptops. As others have said in this newsgroup many times, upgrade your
monitoring system as a first priority; nothing is more important IMO.

Steve King

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:jp36gg$i0n$1...@news.albasani.net...

> You do have a difficult situation. What you need at the end of the
> process is very dependent on the theater's accoustics and playback system,
> which may or may not bear any resemblance to the monitoring system at your
> editing station at home no matter how good you make it. However, the
> better your home system is... room accoustics and amplifier/speaker
> quality ... the easier it will be for you to translate what you hear at
> home to what you know you will hear in the theater. Having some
> familiarity with theater economics I understand if you have some
> reluctance to spend a great deal of money to improve your home monitoring
> system as a justifiable business expense. I do believe that you will not
> regret gradually improving your monitor speakers over time as you can
> afford it. I'm looking at a pair of speakers that I purchased over 40
> years ago that have been in constant use ever since. They are one of
> several systems that I use to evaluate mixes that are headed to a large
> variety of destinations from large halls to laptops. As others have said
> in this newsgroup many times, upgrade your monitoring system as a first
> priority; nothing is more important IMO.
>
> Steve King

My theater is in the next room.

Gary Eickmeier

[Steve King]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:I79tr.29381$1B2....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

Well, why didn't you say so? (Grin) Laptop, 6-channel outboard DA and a
long enough snake to get from the sweet seat to the monitor amps????

Steve King

[Soundhaspriority]

"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message

news:jp37v4>

> Well, why didn't you say so? (Grin) Laptop, 6-channel outboard DA and a
> long enough snake to get from the sweet seat to the monitor amps????
>
> Steve King

I have done that; it's very feasible. Put an Echo Audiofire 4 (has 6 outs),
http://www.echoaudio.com//Products/FireWire/AudioFire4/index.php , on a 50
foot firewire cable, and it will work for you. Split the LCD monitor output
with an active splitter, and run an extension cable. Run usb cables with
active repeaters to a hub at the listening spot, where you'll put your
keyboard and mouse. You can listen, edit, and it'll feel just like home :)

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[Gary Eickmeier]

Now you're talkin! Brilliant - I might be able to actually sit in my home
theater and edit while viewing either the projector screen or the computer
screen on my 13 foot screen! My situation is that I have all of the
electronics, including computer editing and tuners, amps, the works for the
theater, in the room adjacent to the theater. Everything is controlled by
infrared relay, so all I have in my viewing theater is a bunch of remote
controls.

I guess basically all I have to do is figure out how to connect up my
computer output to my receiver. I actually do have an infrared controllable
switchbox that I could employ to switch between editing and home
entertainment sources.

So, like, all I need to do is connect the output of the surround sound
computer speaker system to my switchbox and run with it.

But first I need to figure out how to put out a surround signal from my
computer. I will study your suggestion above, plus all of my manuals on
Premiere and Audition and whatever else, and see how to do all this. Funny -
even some of the cheapest video editing programs claim you can make surround
sound tracks and even steer individual channels with a joystick and create
Dolby Digital surround, but I have not yet figured it out for my computer
and programs. This cheap little set of surround speakers is my entre into
that arena. Wish me luck.

Gary Eickmeier

[Soundhaspriority]

"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:3nstr.2764$qS6....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

There is an easy way to do this, with the output directly from your
workstation program, without encoding. In fact, you can mix in real time as
you listen to the tracks in your HT, as easily as at your primary DAW
position.

Rather than encode, directly feed your power amps from a firewire DAC. This
assumes, of course, that the power amp ins are accessible in your HT system.
Many of the higher end units had, or have, jumpers on the back that allow
direct connection to the power amps, bypassing all the other stuff in the
box. If you don't have that facility, I suggest putting your bucks in that
eventual direction of getting direct access to your power amps. But,
assuming you do have such access, this is how it plays out:

A six channel crossbar switch is required. I used two Radio Shack "video
switches" in tandem. Each has three channels: left, right, and video, which
is just a 3rd channel with nothing special about it except the color code on
the RCA jacks. With a six channel crossbar, the power amps can be connected
to either a firewire DAC, (my Echo Audiofire 4 or comparable), or two the HT
decoders. I don't see those cheap little video switches anymore. You might
have to make one out of relays. Use DC to power the coils.

With this setup, and the previously described monitor splitter, remote
keyboard, and mouse, you can sit in your sweet spot and mix just as easily
as in your office. There is no lag, no batch process like encoding to slow
you down. In terms of cabling, this is what you need:

1. VGA or DVI splitter and extension cables
2. USB active extension cables
3. USB hub for keyboard and mouse or trackball
4. Firewire cable, with active repeaters.
5. SP/DIF from the motherboard to the HT decoder.

With the above, you can mix, encode, and check both from your HT.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511