Avid LoRo Downmixer

[antonis]

I had a chat with the a friend that works on a big film facility and he mentioned that the Avid Downmixer is all they use for their stereo deliverables.

I decided to use it on a project I just finished. For verbs I only used Revibe and Space. The Dx in particular sounded quite bad with some phase issues. Before I decided to make a dedicated 2.0 mix, I automated the rear channels on the Revibe all the way down, same on Space and I made sure that any stereo reverbs, going to 5.0 subs were locked in LR with no panning automation. The new downmix version was immediately audibly better. Still the quality of the dialogue was not the same as what was on the C. I had some Dx LCR tracks, with some panning automation, and these sounded no better or worse.

Could anyone please comment on the Avid Downmixer? Do please generally use it/ like it?

[Pete Gates]

The Dx in particular sounded quite bad with some phase issues

There can only be phase issues with down mixed dialog(ue) if it wasn't mono - ie there was some phase information to mess up in the first place. What is your source material and what is your DX chain? And yes, a lot of people in the UK (all I know about) use the Avid down mixer, some use the Neyrinck Soundcode LtRt tools.

Cheers,
Pete

[RecRoom]

The biggest issue I have with the downmixer is it only downmixes 5.1. It's not available as a 5.0 plugin.

[antonis]

Originally Posted by Pete Gates

There can only be phase issues with down mixed dialog(ue) if it wasn't mono - ie there was some phase information to mess up in the first place. What is your source material and what is your DX chain? And yes, a lot of people in the UK (all I know about) use the Avid down mixer, some use the Neyrinck Soundcode LtRt tools.

Cheers,
Pete

Hey Pete,

Thanks for chipping in. All mono dialogue, nothing fancy in the inserts (FF Pro-Q2, McDSP SA-2, no dynamics on this one - all one the fader/ clip gain, on the fades, post-fader to the verbs (the latter multi-channel), I didn't have a DNS One at my disposal for this one but I own a couple of DNS2000s and one of them was bussed on a Dx bus and THAT bus fed the normal Dx one.

[KingTor]

Originally Posted by antonis

Still the quality of the dialogue was not the same as what was on the C.

I don't know your room, but the above sentence makes me think a phantom center doesn't sound as good as a center speaker. Our first mix stage didn't have proper acoustical treatments to the left and right of the screen so the left and right speakers had much more room reverb than the center and I never liked my stereo mix-downs. Have you listened to the 5.1 mix with a phantom center just for comparison sake?

Other than that, I agree that phase issues are likely inherent in your tracks and showing themselves in the downmix.



Sent from my LM-X210CMR using Tapatalk

[KingTor]

I just saw your reply to Pete. Any boom and lav tracks being mixed and causing phasing issues in the mixdown?

Sent from my LM-X210CMR using Tapatalk

[antonis]

Originally Posted by RecRoom

The biggest issue I have with the downmixer is it only downmixes 5.1. It's not available as a 5.0 plugin.

Isn't the 0.1 rejected right off the bat? I am only jumping to that assumption based on the manual way to make an LoRo, where anything that is being sent in LFE is rejected.

[minister]

L+R phantom has less high-mids than a straight up C channel.

If you are getting phasing, check your reverbs and/or delays.

Many LoRo downmixers as a default dump the LFE. But, if you are truly using it as a Low Frequency Effect channel, why dump it? Why not blend it in? It's not duplicating anything. Try -12, or -9 or -6 and see if it makes a difference to you.

[KingTor]

FWIW, I often send full bandwidth to the Lfe track for a DCP, but low pass it at 120Hz for mixdown and, yes, use that effect.

sent from a stupid phone using Tapatalk

[Pete Gates]

Was assuming your monitoring is good (other posts have queried that), failing that it must be reverbs/delays or some effect that is introducing a phase element. A lot of people I know (appeal to nebulous authority here!) use surround treatment of dialogs very sparingly, if at all. Not mainly for this reason actually but this is an added concern.

Cheers,
Pete