LCR Track outta 5.1 Output FRUSTRATION

[Stusti]

Can't do it! Why?

Can assign a 5.1 output to a mono or stereo track, but not an LCR.

I want to spread a bit of love from an LCR to the surrounds. I have a fair few so don't want to split them out to monos (tripling my track count). Any ideas?

Dear Mr. Avid. Can this be written into the software as an update??

Thanks

[Norad155]

Not in front of my rig... so not sure this is an option.... but try throwing a stereo send on the LCR that feeds just the Ls and Rs... ... adjust for varying levels of surround love.

Or you could make a little LCR-5.1 Matrix with mono auxes (all your LCRs going to it would be panned the same)

Just curious... in what situation is this happening for you? What LCR stuff do you have that you want to Pan it into the surround?

[M Baginski]

Just make a LCR subpath for your 5.1 output. Or use sends.

[Postman]

Can't do it! Why?

It could be done but then you'd have 3 (or more) surround panners per track, which then complicates choices about when/how to link the panners. More panners means more DSP mixers. I like things as they are now.

I'd probably break out those LCRs to mono and stereo tracks. Two faders, grouping them might make mixing easier, it depends.

[ggegan]

Norad's send solution is the most elegant because you can put a stereo send on all of your LCRs and set the individual send level on each track while still having an overall level control on the Aux return.

If you think about how the panning works for mono and stereo tracks, it will become obvious why it is impractical for LCR and higher order tracks. You would need a separate 5.1 pan and gain control on each leg, which would eat up a ton of DSP and also be unwieldy. The assumption is that the source tracks will be mono or stereo that you will pan as needed and that higher order tracks have already been panned the way you want them. If you want to re-pan or re-balance higher order recorded stems, you would generally either break them up into individual monos and stereos or else use sends to re-route the signal.

[Stusti]

Thanks All!

FYI I'm cutting some atmos that I had in LCR's. Long story short, the way and time we have to mix changed, so I wanted to bus everything out into 5.1's for ease (and reduce final mix time) as inputs to the desk are limited.

As suggested I made a Surround Aux for each group (room, wind, etc) of FX that I thought were surround worthy. Works well, but a little restrictive if I want to change anything on the fly.

Good lesson for me, was thinking that having LCR's would be an advantage (which it would've been), but now thinking next time I'll stick to monos and stereos.

Tracklay looks a bit messy, but with some VCA's and these new Aux's its working well. Thanks again

[Postman]

I don't get it, the aux approach works, but why prefer it over my suggestion? Break LCRs into a stereo pair with mono center. This gives you surround panpots on all three signals with two faders. The stereo track's panners can be linked to make panning toward the rear even easier, or unlinked to do anything you want. You may not want to pan center toward the rear at all, or you might want to pan ONLY center fully to the rear and leave the stereo pair fully front. Whatever sounds best. No aux faders, full control.

One other benefit is no extra latency to the rear channels that auxes introduce, and I believe dsp useage is the same either way.

[Stusti]

Yep sounds a better idea in terms of mix freedom. Just decided this way because of the types of sound in my LCR's and the way I've got them laid out.

I do have mono and stereos for those sounds that I want to play with independently (birds etc), so its more a combo.

Guess the beauty is that there is no right answer, just what sounds best! :)