Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
28th May 2004, 14:38 | #501 | Link | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 326
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
LOL !!! How recognizable !!! Even some of my friends in the USA (for over 8 years now) still have problems in a discussion with me :-) They always think I'm angry or too sharp. Have a good (productive !) weekend too ! kind regards, EoH |
|||
28th May 2004, 15:19 | #502 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
Ursa: Regarding the Stereo Dipole method I was posting here, I wrote it is a prototype, as the 2 "only" speakers for the Ambisonics (placed in the back) are probably not enough to make it a full AmbioPhonics by the books. Do do things correctly, there are at least 4 speakers (square) or even more, as well as convolution with real space impulse responses. Also, the dipole spreads the image in the front onyl (ideally over 180 deg), but there are methods which use a 2nd dipole in the back.
I have also read from two sources (Farina being one of them) that a frontal dipole works best if it comes from above (i.e. two closely spaced speakers at the ceiling to produce a dipole). I can't really report any personal experience on this, as my other half would probably get a nervous breakdown if I changed the living room too much ... ... but maybe one day ... On the 32 bit conversion of the feeding Stereo-in, I quote here a Farina post from April 2002 from SurSound, which you/all might find interesting. Quote:
Andreas |
|
29th May 2004, 00:10 | #503 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
|
SIR delay compensation groups added to FTP
Hi,
I've just added a zip file containing three SIR delay compensation groups to the FTP server and to my web page at www.geocities.com/ursamtl. This zip file contains three Plogue Bidule groups I've created as alternatives to loading dummy instances of SIR in your bidules to compensate for its sample delay of 8960 (in SIR v.1005). The savings in CPU usage can be significant, ranging from 5-10% SIRDelComp2 provides 2 channels in and out with a 8960-sample delay on each. This replaces one dummy instance of SIR SIRDelComp4 provides 4 channels in and out with a 8960-sample delay on each. This replaces two dummy instances of SIR SIRDelComp4+2 also provides 4 channels in and out with a 8960-sample delay on each, plus 2 channels directly through (pins 5 & 6) for those who want 5.1 channels on one neat bar. For example, L, R, C, LFE, might have delay compensation with channels 5&6 connected to one instance of SIR elsewhere in the bidule. When I conducted tests on my PC (Athlon Thunderbird 1.1GHz), the results were as follows: Average CPU usage ----------------- 1 SIR with stereo impulse + 1 dummy SIR: 28% 1 SIR with stereo impulse + 2 dummy SIRs: 32% 1 SIR with stereo impulse + SIRDelComp2: 20% 1 SIR with stereo impulse + SIRDelComp4: 22% 1 SIR with stereo impulse + SIRDelComp4+2: 22% 2 SIRs with stereo impulse + SIRDelComp2: 27% 2 SIRs with stereo impulse + 1 dummy SIR: 33% Although I did no testing of memory usage, obviously there should be some saving given that SIR is 1.6MB and the groups are a few KB! Enjoy, UrsaMtl |
29th May 2004, 00:50 | #504 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: northern canada
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
I have checked pin outs and this release seems to be consistent with besweet (all is well). I did find myself dropping the gains on lfe down to -6.5 db but we are batching again. Weird being a forced beta tester. But free is good. Peace |
|
30th May 2004, 23:24 | #505 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
Quote:
The FIReverb Suite is a superbe package IMHO (as well as the small version CATT-Acoustic Cheers, Andreas |
|
30th May 2004, 23:31 | #506 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
Quote:
I'm not a fan of advertising, but I'll be in what will hopefully be a line when the free-version changes to "fee-version". Cheers and peace, Andreas |
|
31st May 2004, 02:43 | #508 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 76
|
Quote:
Plogue wasn't even developed with this sort of music manipulation in mind. I may be wrong, but I think it was mostly meant for midi or homegrown electronic music. It would be nice if they took out the midi part and sold a "mini-Plogue" to those of us who like to fool with music conversions such as those we are doing over here. |
|
1st June 2004, 21:12 | #509 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
Quote:
Guess it's just a small wrong routing somewhere, and would appreciate if you could re-check. Kind regards, Andreas |
|
6th June 2004, 06:09 | #510 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 34
|
SAD5.1 with impulse response
Well,finally I got around to experimenting with Bidules. I decided to add the "ambient hall" impulse from NoiseVault to SIRs on the SAD5.1 bidule. At that time I also decided to spring for a better center speaker and a powered subwoofer. This gave me a chance to try out my "SIR" SAD5.1 adaptation in a decent listening room. Honestly, I was blown away! My cramped living room never did justice to surround sound. Anyway, I felt the soudscape fill the room and the Impulse Response gave enough ambience that when I shut my eyes I could actually imagine being in a concert hall. My impression is that at least with orchestral music one can get a sense of "broader-than-room-size" with a decent speaker setup. Although, at times I felt that I was just bathed in the music rather than sensing the music orginated from the front as in a concert hall, I was very satisfied. Just as mentioned earlier in the thread, the salesman wanted to know how this was done and called others in the store to hear the disc.
Also, as Kempfand noted, there are discs that capture the ambience of the enviroment where they are recorded in stereo and I found with these recordings I get an added benefit of nice localization of instruments. Ambience was augmented without the need for using impulse responses. I guess the results of encoding into 5.1 ultimately depends on the orginal recording process, the speaker setup, the room acoustics and the bidule used. Once again, hats off Kempfand; my receiver has DPLII, DTS, and Neo6 settings. None of them come close to the bidules produced in this forum. At best I get some broading of music and tighter vocals in the center channel with TV or CD's. Anyway, that's my two cents! Finally, please, please, could somebody explain what the AmpIn and AmpOut settings in the HNM filter does? I looked through the whole thread I can only find references to settings but not their meaning. Also, some recordings tend to be too bassy and no amount of changing the low pass control on the subwoofer corrects this. I know I can add a gain control but can this be adjusted with the HNM filters connected to LFE? A less timid but greatful, Scott Last edited by Tantulus; 6th June 2004 at 06:31. |
7th June 2004, 01:35 | #511 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
|
Ursa's UpMix Studio
Learning to like Ambisonics
This forum has several guides or suggestions for converting 2-channel stereo to some variation of surround sound, usually 5.1. Each method is fun to experiment with, and each presents something different. I’ve been playing around with them and trying different combinations for a few weeks now. What follows is the result of my experiments so far. I’m quite pleased with the sound it provides and I hope you’ll enjoy it too. Basically, I took the equations on Angelo Farina’s web site and created a bidule group that converts 2-channel stereo (UHJ) to B format (WXY, the Z is null because no height info is available). This group is a basic Ambisonic encoder with no controls for azimuth, elevation, distance, or anything. It just creates the basic signals. Then I used different combinations of the equations on Richard Furse’s web site to put together a similar basic bidule group to serve as an Ambisonic decoder. I tried the calculations for the “Surround” speaker layout, but the sound wasn’t that impressive, and Furse’s site points out that this results in symmetry distortion. I then considered the Pentagon suggested by EoH and kempfand, but when I looked at Furse’s suggested equations, I discovered that they do not form a truly equilateral pentagon. Thus, rotating this by 36° to provide three front channels and two back results in a sort of lopsided listening field. To lay out one's speakers to match the calculated points of the rotated Pentagon, one would have to place the center speaker roughly three degrees to the left of center, the left speaker at 74° from center and right speaker at 71° from center. Even then, the center of the rotation would not be centered between the left and right speakers. I got better results from the Octagon 2 layout. Since it calls for 8 speakers, and there are only five available in my target 5.1 system, I created phantom speakers by splitting the signals for each of the side left, side right, and center surround speakers and feeding them through the two speakers on either side of each phantom. I tried the equations for both the strict spherical harmonics layouts and the controller opposites. As Furse points out, the latter results in a more diffuse image. I found the spherical harmonics layout sounded better. When I put this all together and tested it, the sound was quite good, much more expansive than any other Ambisonics I’d heard to date, yet still providing that sometimes uncanny sense of realism that simple Dolby Surround upmixes just can't convey. I then played around with various enhancements to the input stereo signal, such stereo widening, brightening the stereo edges with EQ, etc. These provided some interesting results, but it got complicated and CPU intensive. Then I thought about the nature of the signals, if the Y signal consists of the spherical harmonics representing the width of the soundfield, then boosting it with respect to the others should spread the sound out. I tried it, and it worked! More importantly, nothing else in the sound suffered. Stereo wide effects generally kill tight, accurate bass response, but this widened Ambisonic image did not. I also tried the same trick on the X channel to see if a similar improvement would occur in the depth of the soundfield, but it didn’t provide such a spectacular result. However, applying reverb to the X channel--even simple mono reverb--does provide some amazing results. So, I put it all together in a bidule consisting of nested groups, and learned how to put together some controls in a bidule. This resulted in the following controls, which are available from a control panel when you double-click on the UpMix Studio group in the center of the bidule: Input Level A standard bidule Gain. The standard setting is at 0dB. LFE? Checking this box causes all really deep bass centered around 32Hz or so to be redirected to the LFE channel. If the box is unchecked, the channel will be null. If you have monitoring capabilities with a subwoofer on your PC, try disconnecting all other outputs but the fourth from the left, and you'll hear exactly what's going through the LFE channel. By the way, the LFE channel is not affected by the Bass Boost controls below. Enable Soundfield and Bass Boost? I put this control there for the purists. If you don’t want any width control or bass boost, and wish to just upmix to 5.1 using the basic Ambisonic implementation in this bidule, uncheck this box. If you do want the enhancements, check it! Soundfield Width Gives you the chance to boost the Y or width channel, thus spreading out the sound. This also tends to make the highs a little crisper, but there is no EQ involved. This one control provides an incredibly spacious yet accurate soundfield. Of course, it all depends on the source file. Try, some Floyd or Roxy Music's Avalon. Bass Boost Level Adjusts how much boost there is to the bass frequencies below the crossover frequency. Bass Boost Crossover Frequency Moves the upper limit of the bass boost. If you’d like a more solid bottom but without much more bass, Move this all the way to zero and use the Bass Boost Level to boost the deepest bottom end a bit. This puts a nice bottom on drums without overpowering anything. And if you really like the sound of the grand canyon….. If you have a fairly dry piece of music wish to add some reverb, try adding it only to the X channel. I was astounded by the huge, professional sound image I got when I did this. I also tried running both the X and the Y channels through the two channels on a SIR VST. It was pretty massive, but almost too much so. Have fun, play a bit. Monitoring To get the most out of this system, it’s best to monitor the sound while you make the adjustments. If you don’t have a surround sound system on your PC, just hook up the standard 2-channel output. I’ve found that this gives you a really clear idea of what the sound of the final mix will be. Do not hook up the surrounds, the center or the LFE to this, however, as the sound will be inaccurate. It amazes me just how nice even a 2-channel mix sounds through this bidule. I think I'll use it to do some new mexies for listening in the car. Note: You’ll have to remove this monitoring sound output device if you want to process in Plogue Bidule’s offline mode. Of course, if you have a surround system and a multichannel ASIO setup, you can monitor the whole mix. So, have fun. As I said, this provided me with some very nice surround mixes. Unless you add some reverb, the natural ambience of the original recordings is all you have, and most of the time, that’s all you need. <b>You can download the resulting bidule from My website on Geocities, another link here or an offline processing mode version from the Projects\Ursa's UpMix Studio folder on the NeedfulThings server. Thanks to daphy for doing the mod for offline processing and linking the player and recorder! As for what to do with the multichannel wave file, that’s been covered extensively in this thread and others. If you’re encoding to AC3 using SoftEncode, just load the file in and launch the encoder. Otherwise, use Besweet to split the 6-channel file and then encode using your preferred AC3 or DTS encoder. By the way, as mentioned earlier in this thread, converting your input wave files to 32 bits does indeed make a difference. The sound difference may be subtle, but you will notice more detailed high frequencies, etc. For more reading, check out the following: This whole fascinating thread! Thanks to EoH, kempfand, kpex, species, daphy, andy and all the others, you’ve started something very, very cool. Conversion between UHJ and B-format by Angelo Farina. First and Second Order Ambisonic Decoding Equations by Richard Furse. UrsaMtl, June 6, 2004 Moderator Edit: Fixed Image links per request of ursamtl Last edited by KpeX; 14th May 2005 at 14:14. |
7th June 2004, 22:07 | #512 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
ursamtl: Thanks for sharing your work. It's always good to see what others do, and playing with the various possible schemes in Bidule is so much fun, as you also mention. A few remarks:
1) In the current uploaded bidule (June 6), I believe that the decoding maatrix for C is broken (in "B-Octo2SH-to-5.1"). It should be C = 0.1768xW + 0.2500xY (but currently is C = 0.1768 x W + 0.1768 x X). The "0.2500"-box is there but not linked, so it probably is just broken. 2) It is true that "Spherical Harmonics" decodes result in a (slightly) loss of directional information, but it should be added that "Controlled Opposites" produce a larger listening area, and guarantee that speakers will never generate an `anti-phase' signal. I did many tests some time back and personally prefer the "controlled opposites", but it's a question of taste (not right or wrong). 3) I analyzed your modified Octagon2 decode, and it clearly produces a slightly more narrow soundfield as compared to the Pentagon decode. This is also expected, as the different speakers receive different W's, i.e. you would expect some 'distortions' for the soundfield (in the case of the modified Octagon2 some kind of squeezing along the x-axis, especially in the FL and FR areas of the soundfield). I would suggest you still give the Pentagon decode a try, as it produces a perfectly equilateral pentagon (72 deg between each speaker). You can use 2 options: i) Using BFprocEdit (rotate the soundfield by 36 deg) and then Emigrator (decode to the Pentagon), as on the guide on the 1st page of this threat or ii) Modify the decoding matrices and use a bidule scheme similar to the one you did: For Spherical Harmonics: speaker________________Weights __________x_______y_________W_______X_______Y C ___1.0000__0.0000____0.2828__0.4000__0.0000 FL___0.3090__0.9511____0.2828__0.1236__0.3804 SL__-0.8090__0.5878____0.2828_-0.3236__0.2351 SR__-0.8090_-0.5878____0.2828_-0.3236_-0.2351 FR___0.3090_-0.9511____0.2828__0.1236_-0.3804 For Controlled Opposites: speaker________________Weights __________x_______y_________W_______X_______Y C____1.0000__0.0000____0.2828__0.2000__0.0000 FL___0.3090__0.9511____0.2828__0.0618__0.1902 SL__-0.8090__0.5878____0.2828_-0.1618__0.1176 FR___0.3090_-0.9511____0.2828__0.0618_-0.1902 SR__-0.8090_-0.5878____0.2828_-0.1618_-0.1176 In summary, I think you did a great job, and I'm sure it was great fun an a good deal of deep understanding of how Ambisonics works, and what it does and does not. Kind regards, Andreas |
7th June 2004, 22:18 | #513 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
Re: SAD5.1 with impulse response
Quote:
As to the AmpIn and AmpOut settings with the HNM filter, I am sorry I cannot really help, as I never use an LFE, and if it is part of a bidules, I just rely on the settings published. I simply think there is too much danger of "things going wrong", unless of course one knows exactly what one does. To quote from recent posting from the QuadrophonicQuad forum, from a guy I highly respect for his knowledge: Quote:
Andreas |
||
8th June 2004, 00:01 | #514 | Link | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
|
@kempfand,
Thanks for the feedback. Just a couple of brief comments for now as I have some balcony gardening to take care of. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Even if the rotation is centered on the 0,0 listening position, there is still a problem with playing back a file with harmonics calculated for a wide soundfield, but on sound systems with real speakers placed differently. The ideal position for the front left speaker in the rotated Pentagon is at 74° from center, a full 29-44° from the suggested placement in a typical 5.1 system. the Right speaker is at 71°, or 26-41° from the typical position. Therefore, if you play back a file decoded through the Pentagon, the width of your soundfield is being compressed between 45-85°!! No wonder I found the Pentagon bidules lacking in width! I'm really surprised that you actually ended up making such a conclusion about the Octagon 2 layout. Sit down and draw it out, you'll see. I prepared some graphics for my post last night but there were some problems with linking to my geocities site. I'm going to place them on another site and edit my post. I think if you look at them and consider the geometry of it all, there's no way you can conclude that the Octagon 2 soundfield is compressed , certainly nowhere nearly as much as the rotated Pentagon. Anyway, time to tackle the garden. By the way, did you try the effect of widening the soundfield with the slider I implemented? It sounds amazing! Regards, Steve. Last edited by ursamtl; 8th June 2004 at 15:27. |
||||
9th June 2004, 01:17 | #515 | Link | ||||||||
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
@ursamtl/Steve:
Thanks for the explanations. Few comments from my side. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now: This is just a factual statement (i.e. observation) I made, i.e. not saying 'right' or 'wrong'. In fact, I have seen unpublished decodes from well respecetd experts in this area who also apply different pressures to the decodings to the speakers. Quote:
But same remark as above: Just an observation As a side-remark, it's interesting to see how people have have & are putting patent protection to 'their' decoding specs (IMhO one of the reasons why Ambisonics never really made it to the masses). My personal opinion is summarized well in Anegelo Farina's presentation from May 2004 (at the Berlin AES convention): "We are still learning what is the best way to render ... over a standard 5.0 (or 5.1) setup". Quote:
Quote:
a) decoding for a specific speaker configurarion. If this was the only criteria, we should all go for the Surround-decoce (= ITU-5.1), which is what we actually do not. b) actual speaker-set-up in our listening room, which delivers the created output. I other words: A decode for a specific speaker configuration (be it Pentagon or Octagon2_MOD or xyz) CAN sound give good results, as a function of listener's preference and actual speaker set-up (which most often is not the standard ITU-5.1). Hope the gardeing was a succes. Time to get some sleep here. Regards, Andreas Last edited by kempfand; 9th June 2004 at 08:35. |
||||||||
9th June 2004, 19:24 | #516 | Link | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 34
|
LFE & speaker placement
Thanks Kemfand for your reply:
Part of my problem with the LFE channel is that I have too damn many controls on my AV receiver (Onkyo TX-DS797) not to mention my subwoofer. Since I use my system for DVD's and music I decided to take the bidules as is and do the adjustments on the receiver so that I can switch from one to the other. Quote:
I have a dial that allows my to adjust the low pass from 200htz to 60. The manual for the subwoofer recommends setting the low pass at 200hts because I'm using the decoder's SUB OUT jack. However, this takes on to much of the bass and results in the bass heavy problem. Although its a pain to keep changing the Lowpass it does allow me the flexibity of how much bass I want to capture from the other speakers depending on the format. Quote:
Quote:
I feel I do need the LFE. It brings out the lower register instuments such as cellos, bass's and bassons. I'm curious why you do not use the LFE. Do you have speakers with good bass response or do you use the receiver? Anyway, your respones has spurred my on to find the ideal settings. Thanks again. Now to Ursmtl: I noticed in your diagramns that you have the listener placed in a central location relative to the speakers. However the manuals suggest that the surround speakers should be placed in line with the listener about 3 feet above the ears. Are you implying there is a sweet spot for ambisonic 5.1? Also, I recently purchased surround speakers that can switch from dipole to monople to bipole. Would any of these settings be better for the surround effect or do I need back surround speakers? Thanks everyone for your assistance! Scott Last edited by Tantulus; 9th June 2004 at 19:27. |
|||
9th June 2004, 19:37 | #517 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 34
|
Batch Files
Sorry I forgot one more thing. For those of you with Windows 2000 Pro or XP. I'm trying to write a script using Windows Script Host to automate the encodeing process. However, it's going to take some time. Is anybody trying to do this?
|
9th June 2004, 19:46 | #518 | Link |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 326
|
3 new exciting bidules !!
Hi all,
After 2 months of hard work, discussions all over, listening, rewriting, discussions again, adjustments, etc. etc., Kempfand and EoH proudly present our new bidules. These bidules are completely different from everything published till now and in our opinion so are the results. Our goal was to come as close as possible to the HardWare Repurpose guys and..... in our opinion on some tracks we even did better. If you agree with us remains the question We would love to hear your feedback ! NEEDED -------- 1. Besweet b28 2. MDA VST 3. Voxengo stereo VST (freeware !) 4. SSRC.exe 5. bidules and groups DOWNLOAD --------- The whole package can be downloaded here : www.app.demon.nl/Kempfand-EoH-06-09-2004.rar or on Needfull Things...... SETUP ------ 1. Install Besweet, start.bat and SSRC.exe in the same folder 2. Install MDA and Voxengo Stereo into the VST folder of Plogue 3. Install the 3 bidules in the layout folder of Plogue 4. Start Plogue Bidule and rescan for plugins and groups 5. Make sure the filerecorder is saying : 16 bits !!!! USAGE ------ There are 3 bidules which handle different kind of music. 1. Voice-Center.bidule This bidule handles music with a singer in the center of the stereo. This is checked quite easily by putting your receiver into DPL mode and listen very carefully to the voice. If it's coming from the Center speaker only, then you should use this one. After conversion, the voice comes out of the Center only. 2. Voice-Non Center_or_instrumental.bidule This one is useful for songs where the voice in not (or not only) in the center and for instrumentals. After the conversion you will hear the voice from all speakers, but the accent is on the Center 3. Instrumental.bidule Use this one or the previous for tracks without voice. 4. For a first run, don't change a thing in the bidules, but do make sure the filerecorder is using 16 bits. Of course your source need to be converted to 32 bits floating first for the best results !! 5. Save your output to the Besweet folder 6. Run start.bat, but first edit (right-click and chose "edit") it to suit your settings. Here is the batch routine : BeSweet.exe -core( -input 01.wav -output f:\01- -6ch ) ssrc.exe --twopass --normalize f:\01-FL.wav f:\01-New-FL.wav del f:\01-FL.wav ssrc.exe --twopass --normalize f:\01-FR.wav f:\01-New-FR.wav del f:\01-FR.wav ssrc.exe --twopass --normalize f:\01-C.wav f:\01-New-C.wav del f:\01-C.wav ssrc.exe --twopass --normalize f:\01-SL.wav f:\01-New-SL.wav del f:\01-SL.wav ssrc.exe --twopass --normalize f:\01-SR.wav f:\01-New-SR.wav del f:\01-SR.wav copy f:\01-LFE.wav f:\01-New-LFE.wav del f:\01-LFE.wav As you see I use 01.wav as name for the 6channel WAV file in the Besweet folder (in my case on e and I do the processing to drive f:\ . Change these values to the ones you wish to use. (Don't use spaces in the filename !) If you want the input WAV in the same directory, leave out the harddisc letter , but make sure it has another name after "-output" in the Besweet line ! In my case it will output 6 mono 16 bits 44.1 Khz WAV's to harddisc f: . As usual you can use these to make a DTS cd...... EXTRA INFORMATION -------------------- Voxengo stereo VST uses presets and we got a very good result with a preset of "pretty wide" . If you wish to experiment with these settings, it's very easy. Just doubleclick on the VST in Plogue and adjust to another preset or make your own. However : our results are all based on the "pretty wide" setting and we don't take responsibility for a worse conversion when using other settings The same goes for the normalize routine. With these bidules we found that making all 5 mono files at the same peak level, gives the best result. It can be that you wish to have less sound in the rears. Just edit the batch and replace the setting for SSRC to your own preferences. Regarding the messages about the LFE : all three routines don't have a separate LFE output ! The LFE file you see in the routines is empty ! Well, this is about it..... happy testing and please share your thoughts here ! kind regards, Kempfand and Eye of Horus Last edited by Eye of Horus; 9th June 2004 at 20:47. |
9th June 2004, 21:38 | #520 | Link |
HDTV Nerd
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beerland
Posts: 63
|
once i start the "start.bat" i get following error:
Error 58: Error : Unknown Input-File Format : "01.wav". Quiting... i named my wave file also 01.wav i also tryed to fix the wave file using besliced but still getting the same error |
|
|