reasurround prerelease discussion

[jm duchenne]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

Plush2

It's set up this way so you can do parallel effects and it's definitely useful but need an additional way that can mute those pass through.

Yes, it has always been like this, both on tracks and on items, and it is a pain for multichannel routing :-(

See this post from 2013!
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...2&postcount=36

We need a 3 states box :
- send
- through
- block

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by jm duchenne

Yes, it has always been like this, both on tracks and on items, and it is a pain for multichannel routing :-(

See this post from 2013!
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...2&postcount=36

We need a 3 states box :
- send
- through
- block

Absolutely!

Not just for surround stuff either. It's great for sidechaining and other multichannel uses too.

[svijayrathinam]

Hi Justin And Schwa,


thank you again for constant reasurround 2 updates. I have made another video showing some issues and more smaller feature requests.

pls watch the video in the below link

https://youtu.be/w5qWC0SymZI


Thank you for all this

[schwa]

Regarding the positioning of the overhead speakers in 7.1.2 and 7.1.4, which has come up a couple of times. The Dolby standard has the overhead speakers more toward the center of the room, not against the wall. The question is whether that is a notional or an effective position.

If it's a notional position, the audio output would not be affected. If you have an input on the ceiling against the left wall, and start panning it slightly to the center, you would start to get some output from the right overhead speaker, even though the input is still to the left of the notional position of the left overhead speaker. So the only change is where the speakers are visually represented.

If it's an effective position, the audio output would be affected. If you have an input on the ceiling against the left wall, and start panning it slightly to the center, you would not get any output from the right overhead speaker until the input moves to the right of the left overhead speaker position. In other words, the pannable area on the ceiling would shrink to the space between the overhead speakers.

[plush2]

Originally Posted by jm duchenne

Yes, it has always been like this, both on tracks and on items, and it is a pain for multichannel routing :-(

See this post from 2013!
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...2&postcount=36

We need a 3 states box :
- send
- through
- block

The current behaviour enshrines channels 1 and 2 in a special class that is not only immutable but hidden from the user as well. It doesn't follow the convention of the design in which audio is routed to the selected pins.

I recall building a js for doing parallel processing with mid-side encode/decode to get that working now that I think of it. Many plugins now include both parallel and mid/side processing so I very rarely use that trick anymore.

I like your proposed three modes jm duchenne. Currently all the pins other than 12 work nearly as intended. Just make an option to have 12 channels block when not routed to output pins and we're most of the way there. After that a way to specifically mute pins would complete it.

[musicbynumbers]

Regarding overheads in ITU


I think it's intended to be an effective position but I'm leaning towards keeping the overheads where they are as I'm not convinced changing it to the inner positions.

Schwa - could you put in a temporary preset set up like this for us to try?

The more I think about atmos the more there's an irony as the whole point of it (well "objects") was to be speaker agnostic so we kind of should be mixing in a square box with no speakers but that only really works for cinemas or virtual atmos, not so much for home setups and a lot of mixdowns I know of (including marvel stuff) don't use or hardly use objects anyway and settle for a 7.1.2 bed or a 7.1.4 with 2 static objects.

The whole thing is a little bit wild west if you ask me!

One thing that I believe is wrong though is the overhead speakers in the 7.1.2 ITU setup. I'm sure this should be at the halfway point on the Y axis as they are basically the only overheads and should weighted towards the center.

[musicbynumbers]

Plush2

Unless I've gone mad too

What you're suggesting there will not allow proper split parallel processing and unless the devs are clever about it. Would break older projects.

Plus, routing mono and stereo objects always come in on either 1 or both 1 and 2. There's no current way to route in 1 or 2 to 3 or 4 using just pins. You'll always get an output still on 1 and 2 (either through the plugin or bypassing it).

This current system is needed so we can say have an effect on pins 1/2 (where the audio is coming in from) but then also have another effect that takes the input of the first effect but comes out of channels 3 and 4. Massively helpful set up for any effects stuff but especially for surround.

Having one additional pin state (for any out pin) that allows you to block that output completely at least allows us to route mono/stereo items to any higher number channel without also getting an output on 1 and 2 as well.

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by plush2

I like your proposed three modes jm duchenne. Currently all the pins other than 12 work nearly as intended. Just make an option to have 12 channels block when not routed to output pins and we're most of the way there. After that a way to specifically mute pins would complete it.

Replied to your old post before you edited it but the idea above you mentioned might work.

I'll go and test the other pins to make sure that just 1 and 2 need to be blocked. It would probably be safer to have a state modifier (on a mouse click) to block any pins though.

[plush2]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

Replied to your old post before you edited it but the idea above you mentioned might work.

I'll go and test the other pins to make sure that just 1 and 2 need to be blocked. It would probably be safer to have a state modifier (on a mouse click) to block any pins though.

Yes, my apologies, I finally got it all up there and it occurred to me how very off topic I was getting.

I absolutely agree that this would need to be a new option to toggle as the ramifications for breaking old projects is immense.

I suppose having it be a specific mute action might be easiest. The current setup certainly eliminates the possibility of using the pins for any actual routing. It's a very weird setup the way it is. I can block whatever channels I want by simply inserting any plugin in to the signal path and then only selecting out pins on the channels I want muted.

[plush2]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

Plush2

This current system is needed so we can say have an effect on pins 1/2 (where the audio is coming in from) but then also have another effect that takes the input of the first effect but comes out of channels 3 and 4. Massively helpful set up for any effects stuff but especially for surround.

But is it? If the signal gets split/duplicated on an effect preceding the parallel processing 1,2 < 1,2:3,4 then one can have the audio processed on 1,2 on the one effect while being passed on 3,4 and then vice versa on the next. Basically the current system assumes you want to split and process in the same effect instance. It saves effects slots maybe but it creates a very weird patching system in my opinion. It may be that the universal wet/dry feature relies on this type of routing... Well being able to mute or manually defeat any channel would be great!

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by schwa

Regarding the positioning of the overhead speakers in 7.1.2 and 7.1.4, which has come up a couple of times. The Dolby standard has the overhead speakers more toward the center of the room, not against the wall. The question is whether that is a notional or an effective position.

If it's a notional position, the audio output would not be affected. If you have an input on the ceiling against the left wall, and start panning it slightly to the center, you would start to get some output from the right overhead speaker, even though the input is still to the left of the notional position of the left overhead speaker. So the only change is where the speakers are visually represented.

If it's an effective position, the audio output would be affected. If you have an input on the ceiling against the left wall, and start panning it slightly to the center, you would not get any output from the right overhead speaker until the input moves to the right of the left overhead speaker position. In other words, the pannable area on the ceiling would shrink to the space between the overhead speakers.

It not notional. Its an effective position.


Here is the Actual position in 7.1.4. I got this document from a dolby representative here in India.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m3V...w?usp=drivesdk

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by plush2

But is it? If the signal gets split/duplicated on an effect preceding the parallel processing 1,2 < 1,2:3,4 then one can have the audio processed on 1,2 on the one effect while being passed on 3,4 and then vice versa on the next. Basically the current system assumes you want to split and process in the same effect instance. It saves effects slots maybe but it creates a very weird patching system in my opinion. It may be that the universal wet/dry feature relies on this type of routing... Well being able to mute or manually defeat any channel would be great!

It's definitely needed to have it "as is" and it's not just for parallel processing in the traditional sense.

I've used the system as is for loads of different things in the past where I've got both serial and parallel paths in one track, using up say 10 channels of it to do complicated stuff and save it as an fx chain.

It's super flexible but just wish we had the option to block paths instead of just either it bypassing the fx (if unticked) or going through it (if it is ticked).

[sonictim]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

Hi Justin And Schwa,


thank you again for constant reasurround 2 updates. I have made another video showing some issues and more smaller feature requests.

pls watch the video in the below link

https://youtu.be/w5qWC0SymZI


Thank you for all this

This ANCHOR PUCK notion is very interesting to me...

What if the ANCHOR PUCK was not a part of reasurround, but rather part of the actual track panner? So there was a new Pan mode called "XY" which was just a simple single puck in an XY square... then, the user could have simple X and Y pan controls as BUILT IN (instead of pan and width, it could just be X and Y for envelopes). ReaSurround2, could see this Anchor puck position and adjust accordingly... The advantage being, the user could have his Reasurround set to any setting he/she wants (7.1.4, 5.1, mono, stereo, whatever) and this anchor puck could then adjust accordingly... it could be like a proxy I guess... I dunno... I'm just trying to think of a way to have ReaSurround be Built in to the Track, and not just a plugin... Perhaps I'm over complicating things, but thought it worth throwing out there!

[schwa]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

It not notional. Its an effective position.

To be totally clear on this: if an input is positioned exactly at the right front overhead speaker, it is only heard through that speaker? And if you then move that speaker left or forward toward the wall, the output does not change at all?

[plush2]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

It's super flexible but just wish we had the option to block paths instead of just either it bypassing the fx (if unticked) or going through it (if it is ticked).

Done, you've convinced me. That is all we need.

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by schwa

To be totally clear on this: if an input is positioned exactly at the right front overhead speaker, it is only heard through that speaker? And if you then move that speaker left or forward toward the wall, the output does not change at all?

I actually don't have a speaker in right front over head (in the same spot as reasurround 2) in the atmos room. The speaker positions in the atmos room that i have access to is exactly like how i showed in the dolby app in my video. With that said..if I send signal to the "right front overhead" (as per reasurround 2) I do hear sound on the atmos room right top middle speaker.

I would say to stop the confusion we should follow dolby terminology.

Dolby 7.1.2 Has Ltm and Rtm. (Left Top Middle, Right Top Middle)

Dolby 7.1.4 has Ltf, Rtf, Ltr, Rtr (Left Top Front, Right Top Front, Left Top Rear, Right Top Rear)


Reasurround has Lso And Rso in 7.1.2 (Left Side Over head, Right Side Over head)

Dolby actually doesn't have these speaker positions in their bed


Reasurround has Lfo, Rfo, Lro, Rro in 7.1.4 (Left front overhead, Right Front Overhead, Left rear overhead, Right Rear Overhead). In Dolby's Terminology these are known as Front Height and rear Height. These speaker are only used for objects and they are not part of 7.1..4 bed

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by sonictim

This ANCHOR PUCK notion is very interesting to me...

What if the ANCHOR PUCK was not a part of reasurround, but rather part of the actual track panner? So there was a new Pan mode called "XY" which was just a simple single puck in an XY square... then, the user could have simple X and Y pan controls as BUILT IN (instead of pan and width, it could just be X and Y for envelopes). ReaSurround2, could see this Anchor puck position and adjust accordingly... The advantage being, the user could have his Reasurround set to any setting he/she wants (7.1.4, 5.1, mono, stereo, whatever) and this anchor puck could then adjust accordingly... it could be like a proxy I guess... I dunno... I'm just trying to think of a way to have ReaSurround be Built in to the Track, and not just a plugin... Perhaps I'm over complicating things, but thought it worth throwing out there!

There is absolutely no doubt.. reasurround 2 as a track panner would be amazing in addition to having it as plugin ( it should be in plugin form also .. so we can use in take FX too if required) .. Reaper Gods !! Pls answer our prayers 😀🙏

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by plush2

But is it? If the signal gets split/duplicated on an effect preceding the parallel processing 1,2 < 1,2:3,4 then one can have the audio processed on 1,2 on the one effect while being passed on 3,4 and then vice versa on the next. Basically the current system assumes you want to split and process in the same effect instance. It saves effects slots maybe but it creates a very weird patching system in my opinion. It may be that the universal wet/dry feature relies on this type of routing... Well being able to mute or manually defeat any channel would be great!

I'm agree with all talks about pin connector!
Currently system made me confused many times!

I think, that it's no matter to save 2 slots in fx chain. (EDIT: only 1 slot!)
Because it's more clear to see splitter fx in chain and have ability to mix different threads in it.
That's what i mean:


For now i suggest to make output matrix for takes or for items.
So, this will not destroy old projects.

And for the future it may be useful to make compatible mode.
Because to make non-compatible and game change functions for succesfull evolution - inevitably.

[svijayrathinam]

Hi Schwa,

I would 2 black spots in 7.1.2 speaker set up

https://imgur.com/a/IQCgHfI


Pls Check this image. In these two pan positions I hear black spots. I think this is due to the current speaker positions. In those pan positions I would expect a bleed between Top Speakers and Front speakers or rear speakers (the appropriate ones depending on front or rear positions)

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by AZpercussion

I'm agree with all talks about pin connector!
Currently system made me confused many times!

I think, that it's no matter to save 2 slots in fx chain.
Because it's more clear to see splitter fx in chain and have ability to mix different threads in it.
That's what i mean:

For now i suggest to make output matrix for takes or for items.
So, this will not destroy old projects.

And for the future it may be useful to make compatible mode.
Because to make non-compatible and game change functions for succesfull evolution - inevitably.

This is still missing a few ways that are useful to have (and are currently possible) which is why we just need a way to mute outputs

[musicbynumbers]

ARGH! what a mess dolby atmos height speakers can be!

Why is the 7.1.2 ITU have them where Schwa has them (at the front) which feels so wrong but the "normal" none ITU 7.1.2 has the height speakers where you would expect them be in the middle of the Y axis..

[musicbynumbers]

+ ReaSurround2: add support for axis linking (forcing edits to a particular shape on the z-axis)

Love this! It can be broken though. Still trying to work out a good reproduce for it

[musicbynumbers]

# ReaSurround2: manually entering parameter values affects all selected or linked inputs

Can't help but think a relative adjustment would be much more useful.

So if input 1 is at 0dB and input 2 is at -5 and then you link and turn input 1 down by 10dB. You will get:

-input 1 = -10dB
-input 2 = -15dB

That way you don't loose the relative relationship.

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

ARGH! what a mess dolby atmos height speakers can be!

Why is the 7.1.2 ITU have them where Schwa has them (at the front) which feels so wrong but the "normal" none ITU 7.1.2 has the height speakers where you would expect them be in the middle of the Y axis..

because at home its very difficult to mount speakers on ceiling. Most houses have chandelier lights or ceiling fan in that position and its not practical to have speakers there at home. But the Dolby renderer at home takes care of that. Whatever sounds that are placed for ceiling speakers in a Theatrical set up will be reproduced with phantom sources. Well at least in theory.

[svijayrathinam]

Schwa !! you are genius !! Thank you so much for this..


+ ReaSurround2: add support for axis linking (forcing edits to a particular shape on the z-axis)


There is one small issue there. Panning is a bit glitchy (Especially in 3D Theatrical views). And in triangle mode and inverted triangle mode any puck closer to the side walls doesn't get influenced by the shape (When you move it side to side). Only the front and rear wall seems to work as expected. But Dome Mode works perfectly as expected.


Thank you Thank you Thank you !!!

[musicbynumbers]

+ ReaSurround2: add support for axis linking (forcing edits to a particular shape on the z-axis)

Same issues as svijayrathinam but I also find dome mode to eventually get quite "sticky" too (around the sides) and gets out of sync quickly with the mouse when this happens.

It also seems though that even if you then disable these modes. The input will tend to stick to the sides (square or circle) and need pulling a lot to make the input "escape" the sides.

[musicbynumbers]

Also. I can see why this isn't controllable on a controller but I wish somehow it was

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

Also. I can see why this isn't controllable on a controller but I wish somehow it was

If you are on a mac try this with a track pad..Its great fun !

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

If you are on a mac try this with a track pad..Its great fun !

I use a wacom that is at least an absolute controller but still much more fun on an ipad or leap motion.

Hmm, I think you might mean "fun" in the sarcastic way right due to this bug?

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

I use a wacom that is at least an absolute controller but still much more fun on an ipad or leap motion.

Hmm, I think you might mean "fun" in the sarcastic way right due to this bug?

I know schwa will fix the bugs.. I actually meant it’s fun on track pad . Eventually I would love a web interface remote for reasurround for sure so that we can control it in phones or tablets.

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

I know schwa will fix the bugs.. I actually meant it’s fun on track pad . Eventually I would love a web interface remote for reasurround for sure so that we can control it in phones or tablets.

Yeah. That would be useful.

[plush2]

Originally Posted by musicbynumbers

I use a wacom that is at least an absolute controller but still much more fun on an ipad or leap motion.

Hmm, I think you might mean "fun" in the sarcastic way right due to this bug?

I'm finding it to feel quite good on the first top down view. Moving to the two 3d modes it definitely starts to feel sticky on the edges and my engaged input cursor drifts ever further off the plugin.

[sonictim]

I'm finding that the best results/work flow is to put an instance of reasurround2 on every track as well as the majority of my items. This gives me the freedom to adjust mono items to the center via a preset as well as keeping surround pan information with the item allowing me the freedom to move things elsewhere in my session if need be.

The biggest bummer with this is that everything has a GREEN FX light active. It does not allow me to know which tracks/items have actual FX on them as literally all of them have pan information now which is now being processed as part of the FX chain, and not as pan envelopes.

The second is that now every time I add new FX, I find it's much more complicated and requires a bit more time/attention to double check pin mappings/etc. However, it's actually the most straight forward/fastest if I make sure to add any new FX to the take/track BEFORE ReaSurround2.

Since I know I can't be the only one in this boat, I thought I'd share a little script I wrote that will add selected FX to either the selected items or tracks and will add the new FX immediately before reaSurround2. That way if you've taken the time to place something after it and adjusted all the pins correctly. That work won't be lost either...

I've attached a full complete script, but if you just want the basic code, here it is...

  if    reaper.GetSelectedMediaItem(0,0)
  then
        for i=0, reaper.CountSelectedMediaItems(0)-1
        do  
            local item = reaper.GetSelectedMediaItem(0,i)
            local take = reaper.GetActiveTake(item)
            local reasurr = reaper.TakeFX_AddByName(take, "ReaSurround2", 0)
            local position = reaper.TakeFX_AddByName( take, "FXADD:", -1000 - reasurr  )            
        end
  else
        for i=0, reaper.CountSelectedTracks(0)-1
        do
            local track = reaper.GetSelectedTrack(0,i)
            local reasurr = reaper.TrackFX_AddByName(track, "ReaSurround2", false, 0)
            local position = reaper.TrackFX_AddByName( track, "FXADD:", false, -1000 - reasurr  )       
        end  
  end

[musicbynumbers]

Thanks Tim.

I'm waiting to see what my workflow will be as hopefully we can get some changes to pins etc but this script looks like it might come in handy anyway Thanks

[svijayrathinam]

I am brave enough to try and mix a short film I have right now in Dolby atmos .. probably the first Dolby atmos in the world in reaper ? ��. Who knows ..


But I am sure while doing this I may face a lot of issues and I will report them here . Hoping to find solutions. This is a great community!! Thx everyone here who has been voicing their opinions and ideas and special thx to Justin and schwa for listening

[musicbynumbers]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

I am brave enough to try and mix a short film I have right now in Dolby atmos .. probably the first Dolby atmos in the world in reaper ? ��. Who knows ..


But I am sure while doing this I may face a lot of issues and I will report them here . Hoping to find solutions. This is a great community!! Thx everyone here who has been voicing their opinions and ideas and special thx to Justin and schwa for listening

Good luck and thanks for being brave and courageous by doing that!

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

Hi Schwa,

I would 2 black spots in 7.1.2 speaker set up

https://imgur.com/a/IQCgHfI


Pls Check this image. In these two pan positions I hear black spots. I think this is due to the current speaker positions. In those pan positions I would expect a bleed between Top Speakers and Front speakers or rear speakers (the appropriate ones depending on front or rear positions)

The only thing that is stopping me to mix in atmos is this bug . Hopefully it will get fixed 😀

[schwa]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

The only thing that is stopping me to mix in atmos is this bug . Hopefully it will get fixed 😀

Already fixed for the next build, thanks for the report. In 7.1.2 there can also be bleed to the center front speaker from an input on the ceiling, which is the same bug.

[AZpercussion]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

Schwa !! you are genius !! Thank you so much for this..


+ ReaSurround2: add support for axis linking (forcing edits to a particular shape on the z-axis)


There is one small issue there. Panning is a bit glitchy (Especially in 3D Theatrical views). And in triangle mode and inverted triangle mode any puck closer to the side walls doesn't get influenced by the shape (When you move it side to side). Only the front and rear wall seems to work as expected. But Dome Mode works perfectly as expected.


Thank you Thank you Thank you !!!

The similar issue!
I can't move puks in Y axis after using special shapes in 3D view.
Version +dev0201

UPDATE: all right after second launch reaper... so strange.

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by schwa

Already fixed for the next build, thanks for the report. In 7.1.2 there can also be bleed to the center front speaker from an input on the ceiling, which is the same bug.

Thank you..


Just one other request.. pls implement the anchor pucks pls ... .. it will really be useful.. pls ..

There is also one other parameter that the Dolby atmos panner and protools panner has . It’s called “size” . I will make a screenshot of how it works and post it shortly.