Surround Panning

[cyrano]

OT.

CoreSound has a new toy. Under 2.000$. The Octomic:

http://core-sound.com/OctoMic/1.php

It's the first commercial 2nd-order ambisonic mic. Eight capsules.

[mrlimbic]

Originally Posted by airon

In a video I found something very interesting. A preset selection for speaker isolation. That would make things a little quicker for ReaSurround. How to do that though...

So you mean speaker soloing & muting for auditioning while mixing? i.e. parameters that are not automatable at all but are stored anyway in a preset? I can't think of any situation that you'd want to automate soloing/muting of speakers/pucks.

I hadn't thought of that distinction before for my one yet but it actually does make some sense. My idea of soloing/muting was mostly useful while mixing, but yes, hidden parameters may make that quicker.

However, I reckon with good mouse modifiers, do you even need those presets? i.e if you could mute/solo any speaker with a click would you still want those presets?

[airon]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

So you mean speaker soloing & muting for auditioning while mixing? i.e. parameters that are not automatable at all but are stored anyway in a preset? I can't think of any situation that you'd want to automate soloing/muting of speakers/pucks.

I hadn't thought of that distinction before for my one yet but it actually does make some sense. My idea of soloing/muting was mostly useful while mixing, but yes, hidden parameters may make that quicker.

However, I reckon with good mouse modifiers, do you even need those presets? i.e if you could mute/solo any speaker with a click would you still want those presets?

It depends entirely on the speed advantage. ANd that should be proven before you invest any work.

ReaSurround has something like this already, but it's operated by hand, i.e. the mute buttons on the speaker outputs. I just thought the presets were kinda neat for fast choices.

Funny enough, this is actually really easy to do in Lemur. I can place a script on a button that sends out a stack of OSC commands, or changes available controls on the OSC surface that in turn send commands to Reaper. I do this with my surround control page. Buttons setup x/y for input pucks and configure some other controls. That kind of shortcut stuff saves time.

Doing this by hand with a mouse is fairly slow. First of all you can't do it to all the selected tracks, but just one by one. Limits of mouse control. Reaching for a button is always faster than retargeting the mouse.

If speaker output mute configs are useful, they need to be accessible via a parameter. Full, LR, LCR, LRLsRs, etc. At the end of that list is Custom, which just lets the user mute stuff by hand. In fact, if ReaSurround did this, muting a speaker by hand should switch such a 'speaker mute preset selection' parameter to Custom.

That actually reminds me. Reaper only has the simplest TOGGLE for midi/osc learn. As far as I am aware, there is no "step between 0, 0.25 , 0.5 , 0.75 and 1.0 cyclically" or similar stuff. This kind of parameter that would select a few values(like the RATIO in Rocket for example) needs a simple knob control at the moment for fastest access. Endless knobs are sloper than mouse access for that.

[Dannii]

Originally Posted by cyrano

OT.

CoreSound has a new toy. Under 2.000$. The Octomic:

http://core-sound.com/OctoMic/1.php

It's the first commercial 2nd-order ambisonic mic. Eight capsules.

VERY interesting! Sounds promising. I'll be chasing down reviews eagerly.

[jm duchenne]

Originally Posted by cyrano

OT.

CoreSound has a new toy. Under 2.000$. The Octomic:

http://core-sound.com/OctoMic/1.php

It's the first commercial 2nd-order ambisonic mic. Eight capsules.

Not totally : the Zylia can be used with up to 3rd order encoder.
Certainly not the same microphone capsules quality, but cheaper, and a Windows tablet with Reaper is enough to record its 19 channels...
http://www.zylia.co/

[Dannii]

Originally Posted by jm duchenne

Not totally : the Zylia can be used with up to 3rd order encoder.
Certainly not the same microphone capsules quality, but cheaper, and a Windows tablet with Reaper is enough to record its 19 channels...
http://www.zylia.co/

Good catch. I forgot about that one. I have been in communication with them since the crowd funding stages. I've followed the development of their Ambisonic tools but I'm not convinced it is what I'm after. It seems much more targeted towards bands and recording jam sessions and for songwriting rather than as a dedicated, high quality Ambisonic mic.

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by jm duchenne

Not totally : the Zylia can be used with up to 3rd order encoder.
Certainly not the same microphone capsules quality, but cheaper, and a Windows tablet with Reaper is enough to record its 19 channels...
http://www.zylia.co/

Yep, forgot about that one, sorry.

But it's not a "universal" ambi mic. It only works with their own software. And reversing that system looks next to impossible.

The Core Sound should work with any ambisonic decoder, AFAICT.

There's also a new Brahma and a Rode underway. Same principle.

[jm duchenne]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Yep, forgot about that one, sorry.
But it's not a "universal" ambi mic. It only works with their own software. And reversing that system looks next to impossible.
The Core Sound should work with any ambisonic decoder, AFAICT.
There's also a new Brahma and a Rode underway. Same principle.

Yes, it is standard ambisonics, FuMa or Ambix :
http://www.zylia.co/zylia-ambisonics-converter.html
Like any A-Format 1st order mic, you need to process the raw files, but then you have a regular 3rd order file you can process and decode with every ambisonics tool.
And the new 8 capsules 2nd order microphones are not truely 2nd order which would need 9 of them (and a 9 channels audio recorder !). OK, it is not a big deal since only the elevation is 1st order like...

[jm duchenne]

Originally Posted by ReaDave

Good catch. I forgot about that one. I have been in communication with them since the crowd funding stages. I've followed the development of their Ambisonic tools but I'm not convinced it is what I'm after. It seems much more targeted towards bands and recording jam sessions and for songwriting rather than as a dedicated, high quality Ambisonic mic.

Yes, that was there initial taget and purpose, but they are well aware of the potential interest of the audio and VR community for an affordable 3rd mic !
All there recent development efforts and communication goes in this way (I am currently testing the plugin version of the ambisonics converter).

The problem is that the input level is fixed with a rather low sensitivity, that may not be appropriate for some field recordings.
But from my experience, the noise floor is strangely lower than the Tetramic's ! (I had one that I have reselled because of this).
So, considering its current price, I would certainly recommand it ;-)

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by jm duchenne

Yes, it is standard ambisonics, FuMa or Ambix :
http://www.zylia.co/zylia-ambisonics-converter.html
Like any A-Format 1st order mic, you need to process the raw files, but then you have a regular 3rd order file you can process and decode with every ambisonics tool.
And the new 8 capsules 2nd order microphones are not truely 2nd order which would need 9 of them (and a 9 channels audio recorder !). OK, it is not a big deal since only the elevation is 1st order like...

Thanks, Jim. You obviously grok ambisonics. I still have problems wrapping my head around the math and the nomenclature.

There's not much documentation and a lot of secrecy around all those ambi mics. The advantage I saw in the Core sound and other 8 capsule mics is that I can record 8 channels in any device and process later. I figured the Zylia would always need a laptop/DAW/Zylia software.

So you're saying I can record 19 individual channels from the 19? mic capsules in the Zylia?

[Dannii]

Originally Posted by cyrano

There's also a new Brahma and a Rode underway. Same principle.

The Rode is the one I'm holding out for. I spoke to one of their Soundfield techs last year and he said they were aiming for late 2017 or early 2018 for the release.
Soundfield is now owned by Rode and the new Ambi mic will be the Rode Soundfield Video Mic. They are aiming to price it around $AU1000.

One of the big attractions for me about this Rode mic is that it outputs B format directly so there's no need for conversion. My 744T also has inbuilt B format monitoring on headphones.

[junh1024]

I made a 2ch to 7.1 (6.0) panner here. https://github.com/junh1024/Reaper-S...o%20panner.txt

Also a bunch of hacked-together surround tools here. https://github.com/junh1024/Reaper-Surround

ED: some brief documentation added.



===========

Originally Posted by The Byre

Here are some suggestions for 5.1, 7.1 and 3D audio GUIs

The PROBLEM with square panners is that you generally need to change TWO controls (X & Y position) to move things (can be annoying for precise automation).

Audition implements panning well, having a circular panner. You can probably change the angle only to move things. (which is what i've done in my above 7.1 panner)



For more control, there's a radius knob, too.

[jm duchenne]

Originally Posted by junh1024

Also a bunch of hacked-together surround tools here. https://github.com/junh1024/Reaper-Surround

NO documentation & no public launch yet, you'll need to figure it out for yourself.

Woah : impressive works !
I will test with great interest...

[ChristopherT]

Another promising set of tools.
Hopefully soon, Reaper will finally get panning between speakers properly working, and as far as speaker set ups, it encompasses much more than 5.1
(up to 16) and allows speakers to be placed anywhere in a 3D space.

I the meantime - I'm doing all of my multichannel speaker panning outside of Reaper.

[junh1024]

Originally Posted by ChristopherT

Another promising set of tools.
Hopefully soon, Reaper will finally get panning between speakers properly working, and as far as speaker set ups, it encompasses much more than 5.1
(up to 16) and allows speakers to be placed anywhere in a 3D space.

I the meantime - I'm doing all of my multichannel speaker panning outside of Reaper.

Thanks. I've JUST added some example workflows to guide you, including a 15.1 3D workflow.

https://github.com/junh1024/Reaper-S...mple-workflows

[RobinGShore]

Bumping this with the hope that schwa and/or mrlimbic will chime in again.

Schwa, the updates to Reasurround a few months ago were great, any chance we'll see more soon to get it behaving more like some of us were asking about in this thread?

Mrlimbic, what's happening with the panning plugin you teased here? Are you still working on it? Any chance there will be something we can actually play around with soon?

[mrlimbic]

Originally Posted by RobinGShore

Mrlimbic, what's happening with the panning plugin you teased here? Are you still working on it? Any chance there will be something we can actually play around with soon?

Sorry it's taking so long. A bunch of other jobs got in the way again. Current state is corner speakers, divergence & LFE now working for 5.1 (center speakers still to come when I get a chance). Can already output 2.0 simultaneously. 7.1 should be easy once 5.1 center is done. It will be same algo just more center speakers. Here's a screenshot of testing divergence & LFE which wasn't working for a while but now does.

I realised that center is very weird recently. It is actually best done negatively by stealing from sides based on center percentage & proximity to center. 100% means with puck spot on center means steal all of it. It's not as simple as send based on proximity. It's basically a quad mix (what I have so far) but next step is stealing some of the quad mix for the center. With center at 0% it is basically exactly a quad mix.

GUI is still rough drawn but I can give it to some private testers once center channel algos are done. Mostly concerned about getting sensible dB levels for all possible settings at the moment. That's involves a lot of trial and error unfortunately. Others can be testing usage while I smarten up the GUI etc. So once I think center is correct you can start testing.

[junh1024]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

7.1 should be easy once 5.1 center is done. It will be same algo just more center speakers.

Just make sure your "centers" are at the sides.

It's basically a quad mix (what I have so far) but next step is stealing some of the quad mix for the center. With center at 0% it is basically exactly a quad mix.

For my 7.1 (6.0) panner https://github.com/junh1024/Reaper-S...ndlib1.txt#L67 (functions here) I opted to base mine on a hexagon within a circle philosophy so you can have smooth pans if you arrange your speakers in a circle. If you have your speakers in a rectangle, yours may have smoother pans if you have circular-corner compensation.

Also, I hope you have pan-law compensation. I did. That's why i bothered with tricky trigonometry.

I realised that center is very weird recently. It is actually best done negatively by stealing from sides based on center percentage & proximity to center.

For center usage, you can theoretically have an alternate philosophy, making a 12.0 circular intermediary , then downmixing to 5.1/7.1. It's elegant, but harder to pull off since you have tricky trigonometry , and I had subtle bugs in my 7.1 panner for years until i figured it out. Or you could be more efficient and have piecemeal functions for each section of the field but again, even more trickier.

Originally Posted by ReaDave

I personally find mixing in Ambisonics and decoding to discreet surround provides a better mix than discreet mixing precisely because it works with a sound field rather than isolated speakers.

It is my hope that the results will demonstrate how much BETTER than discreet mixing this is. Sound localization in higher order Ambisonics is more convincing between physical speaker locations than the phantom images created by regular mixing methods (pan and level based) and the experience is much more enveloping.

Ambisonics workflow is much more elegant, but sometimes delivery & certain aspects can be tricky. The standard ITU 5.1 decoder assumes speakers at 110* so surrounds are overloaded when you do pans. (free) Decoders for consumer 3D surround are scarce. Troubleshooting projects can be tricky, and even detecting problems. E.g, it can be tricky telling the difference between a fuma or ambix mix with no labelling.

Also, you can never have a truly discrete center with 3oa since the resolution is 45*, but 5.1 LCR is 30*.

You can also not say "much more enveloping", because it depends on the mix. I could make terrible surround mixes. I could also make terrible ambisonics mixes.

I'm not saying ambisonics is all bad, but it's important to realize the benefits & detriments of both methods.

========

CHRIS T & JM DUCHENNE: I've done a major code cleanup & there's some overview - docs now.

https://github.com/junh1024/Reaper-Surround/

[mrlimbic]

Originally Posted by junh1024

There are actually several variations of 7.1. The most common for 90s was 7.1f/SDDS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_D..._Digital_Sound which has 2 more centers. The most common today for BD is 7.1b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.1_surround_sound which has surround side & back. You did the former which is INCORRECT for tailoring for modern productions.

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.

As far as standards go, I did sound design & had to create a DCP for a cinema ad the other day. I was recommended to use advertising audio standards but seemed really low to me when monitoring. So I spoke to someone who made some of their ads. They didn't even know what the standard was and told me to just make it around -20db. Even then it was still a bit quiet in theatre compared to other ads when I heard it (maybe -18 would be fine). Nobody seems to actually follow any standards in practice. This is a loudness wars thing I think. The cinema turns ads down to 3.6 on their dial. The standards assume more. So all the advertisers just make their ads louder.

[junh1024]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

Also for hard panning with spot SFX or dialogue that method works great anyway. For music more soft panners are fine.

Apart from dedicated surround panners, I also use RPR panning + channel parenting.

As far as standards go, I did sound design & had to create a DCP for a cinema ad the other day. I was recommended to use advertising audio standards but seemed really low to me when monitoring. So I spoke to someone who made some of their ads. They didn't even know what the standard was and told me to just make it around -20db. Even then it was still a bit quiet in theatre compared to other ads when I heard it (maybe -18 would be fine). Nobody seems to actually follow any standards in practice. This is a loudness wars thing I think. The cinema turns ads down to 3.6 on their dial. The standards assume more. So all the advertisers just make their ads louder.

For FILM, the target is -23LUFS. For TV, it's approx. -17 LUFS. But I don't see how this has to do with surround panners.

[RobinGShore]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

GUI is still rough drawn but I can give it to some private testers once center channel algos are done. Mostly concerned about getting sensible dB levels for all possible settings at the moment. That's involves a lot of trial and error unfortunately. Others can be testing usage while I smarten up the GUI etc. So once I think center is correct you can start testing.

Looking good! Thanks for the update. I'd love to give it test once the you've got the center sorted out. Let me know

Originally Posted by junh1024

For FILM, the target is -23LUFS. For TV, it's approx. -17 LUFS. But I don't see how this has to do with surround panners.

This is veering way way off topic, but -23LUFS is the loudness target for European (here in the US it's -24) TV/Broadcast, not film. Film don't have a mandated LUFS target. The "loudness standard" for film is to mix in a room with speakers calibrated to 85 dbSPL using pink noise and just make the mix sound good at that monitoring level. Cinematic ads like mrlimbic was talking about do have loudness metering standards, but they use LEQ metering which is an entirely different beast.

[plush2]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

As far as standards go, I did sound design & had to create a DCP for a cinema ad the other day. I was recommended to use advertising audio standards but seemed really low to me when monitoring. So I spoke to someone who made some of their ads. They didn't even know what the standard was and told me to just make it around -20db. Even then it was still a bit quiet in theatre compared to other ads when I heard it (maybe -18 would be fine). Nobody seems to actually follow any standards in practice. This is a loudness wars thing I think. The cinema turns ads down to 3.6 on their dial. The standards assume more. So all the advertisers just make their ads louder.

Originally Posted by junh1024

For FILM, the target is -23LUFS. For TV, it's approx. -17 LUFS. But I don't see how this has to do with surround panners.

In North America film trailers and commercial levels are governed by TASA and they have a (semi-)published standard called leq(m). It's 82dB for ads and 85 db for trailers. I have the audio for ads I mix QC'd by the post house doing the layback so I definitely can't ignore that leq(m) meter. The dpmeter implementation is a pretty good one, at least when compared to the waves lm which is what most would be using anyway. I have not noticed my ads to be quieter in the theaters here but that's just my experience. What did you use for metering mrlimbic? What was the requested standard?

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.

[Travesty]

I don't get square panners, the speakers aren't equidistant from the centre. If you have your speakers in this configuration, you get phase issues as you pan a cross the centre. If you don't have them in square configuration, then why use a square panner? It doesnt represent your actual configuration.

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.

I would like to see more macro like controls, which have their own envelopes.

For instance could we have a new type of source which is a stereo source? This could have polar style parameters such as angle, distance from centre and stereo spread. Similar to the audition example posted earlier. This would make dealing with stereo sources much easier. You could extend this to quad sources too. I think anymix allows you to pan a 5.1 source in one movement.

We already have macro controls on the plugin, but these can't be automated, as they are not parameters themselves.
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

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Travesty

I don't get square panners, the speakers aren't equidistant from the centre. If you have your speakers in this configuration, you get phase issues as you pan a cross the centre. If you don't have them in square configuration, then why use a square panner? It doesnt represent your actual configuration.

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.

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.

[Travesty]

Is the centre speaker delayed in this configuration, to correct for phase?

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Travesty

Is the centre speaker delayed in this configuration, to correct for phase?

If you're asking about movie theatre speakers, typically no. There is no way to phase align for every seat in the house. The same would be true no matter the speaker configuration though.

However when working in near fields, a lot of studios I work in do time-align speakers in the monitoring chain since the single target spot is the mix position.

[airon]

The surrounds in a theater at least used to be aligned, so the sound would hit the middle of the room at about the same time from all speakers. For that reason sound on film(the little Dolby Digital block codes and the side block codes for SDDS) was placed... 21 frames ahead of the picture iirc.


Nobody needs that any longer, but every room is calibrated to have the sound hit the listener at about the same time in the mid-centre position. I just don't know if they still do that.



For near-fields setup like a living room, you're looking at 1-2 ms of different(34-68 cm different in distance of some speakers at most). Not sure it's worth the worry. The HAAS effects only kick in at 10-20 ms.

[junh1024]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

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.

Originally Posted by Travesty

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.

Originally Posted by Travesty

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.

Originally Posted by plush2

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.

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

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 ).

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by junh1024

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

If the speakers are in a square formation then the centre is closer to the listener than the other speakers, this causes a phase discrepancy unless the centre is delayed

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by junh1024

2 more things:


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.

Also, I prefer to use routing & channel parenting for discrete panning instead of fragile GUIs.

True, angle is a far simpler way to automate. Xy requires you to always perform your automation.

I agree, if I need to pan something hard left I leave it stereo and pan it left, or I solo the channel on reasurround.

[philper]

Hey MrLimbic--I would pay for a copy your panner plug in when you finish it! Please let us know. I know your current graphics might be considered unsexy by some but I find them very clear and concise, and not needing to take my whole monitor screen! I have no issue with the diffs between squareness vs roundness of the panner mechanism--that kind of thing comes out in the wash when you cal your room.

[junh1024]

Originally Posted by philper

and not needing to take my whole monitor screen!

If you like small GUIs, Have you tried Anomaly's V1 surround panner?

[svijayrathinam]

Please can we have more development on reasurround? I still can't figure out an easier way to pan things in a typical film/theatre style mix. A simple preset for 5.1 film, 7.1 film can go a long way. Can we pls have that?

[mrlimbic]

Originally Posted by philper

Hey MrLimbic--I would pay for a copy your panner plug in when you finish it! Please let us know. I know your current graphics might be considered unsexy by some but I find them very clear and concise, and not needing to take my whole monitor screen! I have no issue with the diffs between squareness vs roundness of the panner mechanism--that kind of thing comes out in the wash when you cal your room.

Oh damn. Yeah very sorry. I know it's been way longer than I said but I've had to work on different things again recently for money reasons. I'll try to fit in a push again on the panner soon if I can. Apart from the UI being crap, the engine is not very far off from being testable. If I can fit in a few days somewhere it should be private beta-able.

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

Oh damn. Yeah very sorry. I know it's been way longer than I said but I've had to work on different things again recently for money reasons. I'll try to fit in a push again on the panner soon if I can. Apart from the UI being crap, the engine is not very far off from being testable. If I can fit in a few days somewhere it should be private beta-able.

That's great news... But I also want to urge the developers to make some more improvement on reasurround. The square box feature was in the right direction of development. Just when I thought we are going to get some development on it... They have seemed to have stopped it and moved on to Other things.

https://youtu.be/4kQarbUNWyU

Look at the video for example. This is a video i posted on another thread. That's a simple issue I am not able to solve. If the developers can address that... It will really help many film post users who are dependent on Reaper for their day to day work. I really hope the developers are reading this thread.

[RobinGShore]

Another bump for the new year. Hoping MrLimbic can give us an update on his panner plugin, or that Schwa might chime in about about the possibility of implementing some of the ReaSurrround requests that were discussed here and in the pre-release threads.

[mrlimbic]

Originally Posted by RobinGShore

Another bump for the new year. Hoping MrLimbic can give us an update on his panner plugin, or that Schwa might chime in about about the possibility of implementing some of the ReaSurrround requests that were discussed here and in the pre-release threads.

I've been waiting for iPlug2 to be ready which I am told it now very nearly is.

My panner is built ontop of the iPlug framework (so can build for multiple platforms and plugin formats easily from same code).

I didn't want to have to rewrite it again and iPlug2 has some features I want to use (plus way better graphics and controls).

So yes I should be able to resume very soon. Apologies again for the delay but it seemed better to work on Vordio 6 until iPlug2 is ready rather than do same thing twice.

[svijayrathinam]

It's about time. Schwa ...can you pls do something about surround planner pls...

[mrlimbic]

Originally Posted by svijayrathinam

It's about time. Schwa ...can you pls do something about surround planner pls...

Oh. Just checked and iPlug2 repo is now open to public. I'll take a look now at what I need to change to use it.

https://github.com/iPlug2/iPlug2

[svijayrathinam]

Originally Posted by mrlimbic

Oh. Just checked and iPlug2 repo is now open to public. I'll take a look now at what I need to change to use it.

https://github.com/iPlug2/iPlug2

Awesome!! Pls do..