Waves DTS Neural Surround Plugin

[peter5992]

Hey guys:

Have you seen this seen this:

http://www.waves.com/bundles/dts-neu...und-collection

Anyone tried it yet? How does it stack up to other surround encoders, e.g. the Neyrinck (other than that it 50% less expensive)? Or are they just different industry standards (see below), and depending on the delivery format, you may need either one or the other?

Sorry if this sounds ignorant, I'm fairly new to surround (other than as a consumer that is).

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-te...of-the-formats

[smurfyou]

This one isn't an encoder, it's an upmixer for creating multichannel content from mono or stereo sources.

[Cheesehead]

It is an encoder, one of the plugins will encode multichannel to LtRt.

I tried it up against the Neyrinck, 5.1 to LtRt and my feeling was that some of the punch and brightness was lost after the stereo encoding on the DTS.

Maybe because of the different limiters?

Anyhow I'm sticking with the Neyrinck, your mileage may vary.

I thought the upmixers did a good job, but are very center heavy.
Probably great for upmixing full program, but not so great for music & FX that have to sit behind dialogue.

I wish they would make a DTS Headphone plugin and the DTS loudness tools as plugs.

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by Cheesehead

It is an encoder, one of the plugins will encode multichannel to LtRt.

I tried it up against the Neyrinck, 5.1 to LtRt and my feeling was that some of the punch and brightness was lost after the stereo encoding on the DTS.

Maybe because of the different limiters?

Anyhow I'm sticking with the Neyrinck, your mileage may vary.

I thought the upmixers did a good job, but are very center heavy.
Probably great for upmixing full program, but not so great for music & FX that have to sit behind dialogue.

I wish they would make a DTS Headphone plugin and the DTS loudness tools as plugs.

It'd be more accurate to call it a downmixer rather than encoder as it won't encode to DTS formats.

[Leverson]

Where does it say it encodes into LtRt? Everything I've read looks like a downmix to stereo.

[smurfyou]

Well I meant it does not encode to any DTS formats.

But I don't see any mention of matrix encoding. Just downmixing.

[Mike Thornton]

Check out our review by Alan Sallabank http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home...und-collection

Mike.

[Postman]

Cheesehead is right. Take a look at pg 10 of the user manual for this 7.1/5.1 to stereo downmixer. One of the choices for output is called "Lt-Rt". Probably not the same as Dolby's term "LtRt" but I might guess very similar in overall concept. The manual implies phase/time manipulation, probably differently done than Dolby's, The description certainly sounds like a matrixing scheme to me but that is only my guess. I haven't auditioned it and have no plans to.

Cheesehead, is the "Lt-Rt" output listenable as stereo? The manual would seem to suggest it is, and it makes sense in the context of the suite of plugins.

PTE shows how well they could encode individual surround channels of sinetone into "Lt-Rt" and then restore them into the proper surround channels. I'd be more interested in how this Lt-Rt encode/decode process deals with complex surround sound. Dolby Pro Logic II has no trouble encoding/decoding 5.1 individual channels in the same way as PTE demonstrates here. Problems arise when a lot of channels are playing at once. With Dolby's systems you'll rarely get all the same material from all the same speakers and there are the infamous "steering" problems.

[TVPostSound]

Originally Posted by Cheesehead

I thought the upmixers did a good job, but are very center heavy.
Probably great for upmixing full program, but not so great for music & FX that have to sit behind dialogue.

The width button is actually divergence.

[8dB.co.uk]

The centre and lfe channels are the two most mis-used in my opinion.

To make a fold down comparable, you have to use the centre channel on music and FX. If their presence is clouding the dialogue on the centre channel, turn them ALL down.

If you only ride the centre level that way intelligibility complaints lie.

Remember that the centre channel is also an important front phase "anchor". To bed in ADR and Foley properly, you have to use centre Atmos, FX and most importantly reverbs. If you try to match stereo or 4.0 / 6.0 reverbs to mono dialogue, you will get a shifting dialogue image and "wrap round" of reverbs and FX that are meant to be bedding in.

Above all, NEVER rely on a phantom centre or dialogue divergence. Phantom centre only works in the listening sweet spot, which in a lot of home installations is very small, as it is in most big cinemas. We have a centre channel for a reason. It anchors dialogue, FX and even music to the centre. For 80% of the audience, ADR will never be believable if dialogue comes out of the centre but the Foley, FX and reverb that are supposed to be giving the illusion that it's the original sound, are coming out of the left and right, or even worse wrapping around the rear.

If you rely on dialogue divergence, then that same proportion of the audience who are outside the sweet spot, won't ever think that the dialogue is coming from the middle.

Just my tuppence worth as a mixer who's worked in surround for 26 years, and worked with DTS kit since '97 (I think).

DTS have always been great to work with. The other main player has always been very helpful too.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk