Avid LoRo Downmixer

[KingTor]

Originally Posted by smurfyou

I do wish the downmixer covered all formats. (Or that PT could act like a mixer and do downmixing without a plugin...).

I would think the consoles have a built in plug-in to do that. One of the powers of Pro Tools' architecture is it lets us design our own consoles (to a point). I can (and have, still often do) set up my own downmixing chain, but I've been working with control surfaces for so long that I'm not up on what real consoles do differently. Downmixer was such a simple and big step forward when it was launched that I didn't really mind it being so limited, and I have yet to feel the need to buy the latest Dolby Surround Tools (or whatever it's called now) which does have the functionality you describe.

Originally Posted by smurfyou

Also I always thought it would be nice to have a built in filter for the LFE. Set it in Preferences and forget it, or turn it off if you don't like it.

Yes! I never would have fallen down this rabbit hole were it for that simple setting. Its relatively easily accomplished using a master fader for each stem and a multimono 1 band EQ (which also lets me put some dynamics in the sub to give it more punch), but that was the kind of extra routing that took up too much DSP and voices is our early days.

sent from a stupid phone using Tapatalk

[Frank Kruse]

Originally Posted by KingTor

I would think the consoles have a built in plug-in to do that. One of the powers of Pro Tools' architecture is it lets us design our own consoles (to a point).

Consoles can do that easily. It's actually one of the weak points of ProTools that there's no easy way to insert a low-pass on just a single leg of a multi-channel track (or any other single-leg manipulation of multi-channel signals). Luckily there are plugins like StemCell for exactly that purpose.

F.

[BScout]

Originally Posted by Frank Kruse

It's actually one of the weak points of ProTools that there's no easy way to insert a low-pass on just a single leg of a multi-channel track (or any other single-leg manipulation of multi-channel signals). Luckily there are plugins like StemCell for exactly that purpose.

F.

Unlink multi-mono plugins dropped on multichannel tracks and do what you want (bypass multi-channel legs you don't want affected)

(StemCell has other purposes still though -- like redirecting between legs. Much like I prefer Spanner for downmix rather than the built in Avid plugin)

[critictalk]

What is the usual routing within a 5.1/7.1 project for Stereo Downmix using Avid Downmixer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Cargo Cult]

Originally Posted by BScout

Unlink multi-mono plugins dropped on multichannel tracks and do what you want

Multi-mono can be awkward and buggy - part of the reason Stemcell was created.

Re: downmixing
Spanner gives you pretty much any format to any other and you have full control over every channel. Or there are presets if you're in a hurry or just need something as a starting point.

But it's worth pointing out that's really not really one "correct" approach to any particular downmix - the content and context should drive the decision making and different parts of the mix need different settings to feel right.

[KingTor]

Originally Posted by The Cargo Cult

not really one "correct" approach to any particular downmix - the content and context should drive the decision making and different parts of the mix need different settings to feel right.

Amen. If the project is going anywhere but theaters, a large percentage of your audience won't hear your 5.1, so the downmix should not be an afterthought.



sent from a stupid phone using Tapatalk

[V5V]

Originally Posted by minister

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

I think I misunderstood what you wrote, because it reads to me like you're saying moving a signal from one speaker to a pair of identical ones will affect the spectral balance. That doesn't compute for me.

Would you please elaborate/clarify?

[minister]

Originally Posted by V5V

I think I misunderstood what you wrote, because it reads to me like you're saying moving a signal from one speaker to a pair of identical ones will affect the spectral balance. That doesn't compute for me.

Would you please elaborate/clarify?

Sorry, had a short torrent of work to contend with.

It has to do with rooms and their imperfect acoustical summing (unless you are in an amazing Mastering Suite) and HRTF and other things. With stereo giving a phantom center, the Left speaker is delayed getting to the Right ear by about 200ms from the Right speaker along with the wrap around defraction of the head. This leads to a strong drop at 2kHz which also ripples up into higher frequencies. A dedicated center avoids this.

Then there is something called the Law of the First Wavefront. As you move, the Wavefront is not as clear across the frequency spectrum especially in the upper mids in a phantom center image. A dedicated center avoids this.

[MatzeHD]

Use Dolby tools for a good downmix, this is IMO the best way!
I think, if the native 5.1 Surroundmix sounds good and is mastered perfect, then make it like Dolby for a 2.0 Surround Mode, SL+SR=Mono Surround and this inverted mixing to FL and FR with -3 or -6db?, Center was mixed too with -3 or -6db to FL and FR?
The other way was to mix SR to FR and SL to FL,like with the Waves Downmixtools, but you have no Dolby Surround 2.0 compatibility and a bad Downmix in the most cases! Sub i dont know at the moment! :)
We had for a year here a discussion:
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=393697

[KingTor]

I hadn't realized Dolby had (finally) come out with an AAF plugin. FWIW, the Neyrinck stuff blows doors off the old (TDM) Dolby Surround Tools.

sent from a stupid phone using Tapatalk