View Single Post
Old 07-12-2018, 04:17 PM   #193
junh1024
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlimbic View Post
OK. There's lots of ways you could do it.

I'm basically trying to get a series of outputs that is similar to PT dual panner. Because then people who are used to that panner will be able to adapt quickly. Also for hard panning with spot SFX or dialogue that method works great anyway. For music more soft panners are fine.
2 more things:

* I present yet another approach for making a surround panner. You can work internally in say, 5oA, and then decode to 5.1/71/w/e.

* Channel order is an important issue. For 5.1, there is no problem as
L R C LFE SL SR is standard for SMPTE, which

For 7.1, there is the issue of whether side or back comes 1st. I think you should use the SMPTE-MS order as that's what most VSTs (at least on windows) expect, or is one of the choices. You can also export 7.1 FLAC and the order will be correct. This order is:
L R C LFE BL BR SL SR

Or maybe have a choice of no more than a few output order options.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Travesty View Post
Circular panners make more sense to me.

My biggest issue is with panning more than one source at once. Panning a stereo source is a real pain, as it is treated as two discrete channels, meaning you get 4 envelopes. Also changing their relative distance is really difficult.

Maybe the solution is to allow a choice between cartesian or polar coordinate system, with separate parameters for each mode, and new combination sources for multichannel sources, which have their own parameters like spread
If you like Circular panners, you can use my 7.1 (6.0) mono/stereo panners here https://github.com/junh1024/Reaper-Surround , although most of my manipulators assume square. 2.0 > 3.0 upmix for center use. My ambisonics panners have width controls & i have a 7.1 (6.0) decoder. No radii control. For center ambisonics use, use the o3A & ambix suites.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Travesty View Post
Is the centre speaker delayed in this configuration, to correct for phase?

Please NEVER delay the center channel relative to sides, as you said, can generate phase artefacts, and I assume this rarely happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by plush2 View Post

Your summation of the problems using ambisonic methods with film mixing is great juhn1024. This is coming from a lover of all things ambisonic and I've never been able to articulate the details of it quite so well.
Thanks for your praises. Although I've only mixed 1/3 of a film in surround, & only 1% of my projects are semi- ambisonics native (but I have written a few tools). I just do a lot of surround music.



i was just pointing out there actually do exist detriments with ambisonics. The major difference when considering interop ambisonics & surround is the center channel, which is a major center of contention. It is a benefit, or a detriment, depending on your viewpoint. It is perfectly doable to mix a film in ambisonics , with a few tricks & provisos to make it sound acceptable in surround. In fact, those that have been using ambisonics in the past are reaping the rewards now since 3D surround is really taking off, and they can finally deliver in 3D, for speakers, using old projects.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice View Post
2 reasons some of us are pushing for a square option.

1 - Its closer to a typical movie theatre speaker arrangement than a circle. Every design and mix room I work in is also this "shape", perhaps to match the end-result theatre.
It's not about the tools you use. It's about how you use them. In this case, a square panner may be more representative of IRL speakers, but you can make just as good of a mix on both. 1 key difference is automation.

For square & circle, you can RECORD automation fine, but circle is easier to DRAW automation since you only need to automate angle (1) parameter, instead of X & Y (2) parameters.

Circle does also cope fine with a variety of scenarios. Eg, objects moving L<>R on screen, fine. characters moving from center of screen to running past you at the side, a single angle control covers all the 120* degrees of movement elegantly.

Yes I have done both with circular panners on my 1/3 film project.

Quote:
2 - When "mouse mixing/editing" corners are better UI for getting discreetly to the corner channels while keeping our eyes on the picture instead of the panner GUI.
This has nothing to do with shape. It's to do with each SPECIFIC implementation. E.g, PP panner is square, it has notches in the corner for discrete panning. A4+ panner has notches on the circle for discrete panning. Also, I prefer to use routing & channel parenting for discrete panning instead of fragile GUIs.

I guess with circular panners you can focus more on the position of the sound rather than speakers.

Be prepared for both approaches in DAWs. 3D surround is here. Dolby's Atmos panner uses a cubular ( square ) model, while the DTS:X panner is dome ( circular ).

Last edited by junh1024; 07-12-2018 at 07:26 PM.
junh1024 is offline   Reply With Quote