Any free/cheap surround encoders?

[Horde Prime]

I'm looking for a free or very cheap way to produce a surround-sound DVD/CD.

My audio host supports surround formats, and I have mixed the file so it's in 5 or 6 tracks; my question is how do I encode all these files together to put on DVD/CD?

Note: I am not looking to convert stereo to surround, I'm looking to convert 6 separate tracks into one file, and for that to play back properly on a Surround setup. (I'm thinking either 5.1 or 4.0 Quadro)

Thanks, all help is appreciated.

[Kurtnoise]

Aften == AC3 format if your target is DVD...
Nero Digital Encoder == AAC format if your target is CD...
MP3 Surround Encoder == MP3 format if your target is CD...
Note for the last one : there are only few players supporting mp3 surround.

Of course, all are free. ;)

[Blue_MiSfit]

I would suggest making an AC3, and just burning an audio DVD.

[Horde Prime]

Aften
Nero Digital Encoder
MP3 Surround Encoder

Can any of those encode to 4.0 (Quadro) format?
- Is there anything (free) that will?

Thanks.

[zambelli]

BeSweet will encode to AC3 for free, but its quality has been brought into question many times.

If you want quality AC3, you'll most likely have to get a commercial encoder, such as the old Soft Encode (now sold by Sony under some other name).

[Pookie]

I have no idea re quad stuff. Check on Christian's site for these two apps:


Quadropolis
With this plugin you can simulate a quadrophonic environment using simple headphones.

Quadrophonics
Some Matrix En-/Decoders for the SQ and QS Quadrophonic Sourround Format.


http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/?page_id=8

[boondocks]

Depending on what quality you're looking for, and what kind
of player you have:
Cirlinca DVDA will take either mono or interleaved files and write to DVDA,
but no MLP encoding. ($35)
Surcode DTS CD was around $100 (cd only) or Surcode DVD
(encodes either 44.1 or 48). around $400?
Either option sound quality wise is better than freeware ACS.
IMOO.
Of course when money is tight, one has to use what one has.

regards,
boondocks

[Horde Prime]

Thanks for everyone's help.

Does anyone else know any free software that can encode to 4.0?

[Skelsgard]

U can just create an AC3 4.0 audio track with Aften (high quality, free).
And if quality is something you don´t want to play around with, just use 448 kbps

Cheers.

[ursamtl]

U can just create an AC3 4.0 audio track with Aften (high quality, free).
And if quality is something you don´t want to play around with, just use 448 kbps

Cheers.

Exactly. Just do a 5.1 track with the Center and LFE channels blank. After all a lot of music pros leave the LFE blank and some even ignore the Center channel as well.

[Skelsgard]

Exactly. Just do a 5.1 track with the Center and LFE channels blank. After all a lot of music pros leave the LFE blank and some even ignore the Center channel as well.
Why a 5.1 with blank data instead of a simple 4.0 AC3 file? DVD-Video standards support AC3 from 1.0 up to 5.1 configurations.

Cheers

[ursamtl]

Unfortunately, not all players support video standards the way they should. Thus, the file would have a better chance of playing in more players if it was a 5.1 file.

[Horde Prime]

U can just create an AC3 4.0 audio track with Aften (high quality, free).

Ok, I've had a look at Aften. Looks good, but I'm always a bit wary of command line stuff.

Also, the documentation isn't great. - I could only find mention of converting 1 stereo file into surround formats. - I couldn't see any way of combining multiple WAV files into one surround format, which is what I want to do. - Can Aften do that?

If so, I would appreciate any help in setting it up to do so. If not, is there any other freebies that can convert 4 WAV files into one 4.0 Surround file?

Thanks.

[zambelli]

Unfortunately, not all players support video standards the way they should. Thus, the file would have a better chance of playing in more players if it was a 5.1 file.
I disagree. Dolby 4.0 is a perfectly legitimate format, just like 5.1, 2.0 or 1.0. Decoders aren't built with stereo and 5.1 configurations hardcoded into them. Do you have specific examples of 4.0 AC3 streams not decoding correctly?

[Skelsgard]

Ok, I've had a look at Aften. Looks good, but I'm always a bit wary of command line stuff.
Get AftenGUI, so you won´t have to deal with CLI.

I couldn't see any way of combining multiple WAV files into one surround format, which is what I want to do. - Can Aften do that?
Aften does not multiplex, but you can feed it with a multiplexing avisynth script (command line) as source.

If you want to multiplex X mono streams into an interleaved multichannel WAV in a easy and fast way (as command line stuff make you wary, as you said), you can use Wavewizard (also free, also a great tool).
You´ll have to load the files in WAV multichannel order to feed it properly to Aften: L-R-C-LFE-Ls-Rs. As C and LFE are not in the picture in your desired config, just load them in L-R-Ls-Rs order.

Cheers.

[Horde Prime]

If you want to multiplex X mono streams into an interleaved multichannel WAV in a easy and fast way (as command line stuff make you wary, as you said), you can use Wavewizard (also free, also a great tool).
You´ll have to load the files in WAV multichannel order to feed it properly to Aften: L-R-C-LFE-Ls-Rs. As C and LFE are not in the picture in your desired config, just load them in L-R-Ls-Rs order.

Cheers.

Can someone tell me how exactly I would go about transforming five separate mono files into one 4.0 Surround sound format using Aften (and/or Wavewizard, if that's needed).

I can't find a simple guide on how to do it, and I'm afraid I'm somewhat ignorant on all this stuff.

Thanks.

[Skelsgard]

For Wavewizard, load the 4 mono WAVs in this order from top to bottom: L-R-Ls-Rs. Wavewizard takes the first stream as the first channel and so on.
Go to Edit --> Preferences. Enable "Ignore File Size Header: If filesize > 4 Gb", "Stream Manipulation: Merge Files", and "Output Format: Wave PCM" (for compatibility issues).
Disable anything else.
Ok.
Convert.

And that´s it.

For Aften:
using Bepipe to feed aften with a multiplexing script:
bepipe --script "L=WavSource(^L.wav^) R=WavSource(^R.wav^) Ls=WavSource(^Ls.wav^) Rs=WavSource(^Rs.wav^) muxed=MergeChannels(L,R,Ls,Rs) return muxed" | aften.exe -b 448 -acmod 6 - whatever.ac3
Don´t cut the string into two or more lines or it won't work.

You can also load this script into BeHappy and get Behappy to render the WAV for you:
L=WavSource("L.wav")
R=WavSource("R.wav")
Ls=WavSource("Ls.wav")
Rs=WavSource("Rs.wav")
muxed=MergeChannels(L,R,Ls,Rs)
return muxed
Then you load the WAV into Aften.

As you see, there are several ways to accomplish what you want. Hopefully, this is what you needed.

Cheers.

[Rockaria]

...My audio host supports surround formats, and I have mixed the file so it's in 5 or 6 tracks...
...I would go about transforming five separate mono files into one 4.0 Surround sound format ...
Maybe the source is missing the center or LFE...that is, I suppose the missing(as 5.1 is common these days) channel is already mixed into the related channels.
If you want it encoded in quad mode( as I remember the quad tape deck), you will have to mix one of the five channels to the related channels again.

That said, I'd prefer encoding to today's common 5.1 surround format, by rebuilding the center(if it is the missing channel) as blank or front mix(with a matrix like 0.7Lf + 0.7Rf). I don't think most surround receiver/decoder will try to rebuild the center if missing(4.x).
If the LFE is missing(4.0 or 5.0), I think most receivers will route the low frequencies to the subwoofer. In other words, if the LFE is to be included explicitly, I guess it's better having it seperated/rebuilt during the encoding stage.

By the way, the above good avisynth scripts will work on most avisynth based encoding tools(avs2wav, bepipe, behappy, sng, DAidioK, SoundOut(),...) introduced in this Audio section with some cautions or remarks :
. the wrapper based tools(behappy, DAudioK..) will be limited to 16bit int resolution atm.
. the avi interface based tools(except bepipe) will normally require an explicitly defined actual/blank video stream dubbed in the default/last clip.
. the avs2wav version I tested(not tested Ebobtron's updates yet) has an issue(pending) with 44.1k : ssrc(48000) or (last.)ssrc(48000).ssrc(44100) was my temporary fix.
. the last clip resulted/referenced will be the default clip identified as last in the main procedure.
. the SoundOut plugin which I didn't test yet will work by just dropping onto MPClassic. I might be wrong here.

[ursamtl]

If the LFE is missing(4.0 or 5.0), I think most receivers will route the low frequencies to the subwoofer. In other words, if the LFE is to be included explicitly, I guess it's better having it seperated/rebuilt during the encoding stage.

Just to throw in a small point on the LFE for clarity, most receivers will route low frequencies to the subwoofer whether the LFE is present or not. In other words, a bass management/subwoofer system has nothing directly to do with the "Low Frequency Effects" channel in a 5.1 mix. A lot of people incorrectly equate the two and have a really difficult time understanding that they are two completely different things. They are.

Bass management circuits on receivers route all frequencies below the crossover frequency from all channels to the subwoofer. If the LFE channel contains only frequencies below the crossover limit, then they too will be routed to the subwoofer, but if frequencies above the crossover limit are included in the LFE channel these will not be routed to the subwoofer, they will either be routed to some or all of the full-range channels or completely lost.

In fact, a lot of music professionals recommend against putting anything in the LFE channel. It was designed during the days of analog movie soundtracks to move big boomy dinosaur footsteps to a separate channel. :) The LFE channel can be used to give a slight bass boost if done carefully but it should never be used to carry all the bass frequencies. This is because such material played back on a Dolby Pro Logic (I or II) system folds the channels down to a matrixed 2-channel version but during this process the LFE channel may be completely discarded.

[Rockaria]

Just to throw in a small point on the LFE for clarity, most receivers will route low frequencies to the subwoofer whether the LFE is present or not. I may have to change my view on this. It's based on my three 5.1ch receivers so far. I may have overlooked or need some more experieces/observations on this issue.
Actually the subwoofer I am using is designed to get from three exclusive sources : LFE, front-line-in, front speaker.
'Cause I am connecting the LFE only, it can be said totally dependant on the receiver crossover/route logic.

As for the rest, I(& probably most users in this forum) have no issue in agreeing again and thanks for bring it on in clear words.
The subwoofer location is still a headche to me though...

[ursamtl]

Yes the whole bass management/LFE/subwoofer issue can cause a lot of headaches. For example, what happens if one has the crossover frequency on the receiver set to 120Hz and the crossover frequency on the subwoofer set to 80Hz? All the frequencies between 80 and 120Hz are attenuated depending on the slope of the filters used for the crossovers.

From what I've read, the best solution is to turn the subwoofer crossover to the highest setting and let the receiver's bass management take care of it all.

Regards,
Steve.

[raquete]

From what I've read, the best solution is to turn the subwoofer crossover to the highest setting and let the receiver's bass management take care of it all.Steve,you mean that to DTS or AC3 just sum left and right,encode as LFE channel and let the receiver route low frequencies to the subwoofer/LFE?

[Rockaria]

@ursamtl, that's what I did, upto the 180hz max in the subwoofer crossover(&no explicit crossover option in the receiver).

My headache is such as : ;)
. why the earthquakes come from one direction mostly(front-left-floor in my case)
. why the thunders come from the front floor.
. having 5.0 setup with large fronts will be better?
. why they don't design the surround system having large eight speakers on each corner of the room to get full directional 3D
...
But as stereo is still good in my headphones, 5.1 is somewhat better with directions and DPL II is a bit interesting, I might be just get used to the environment considering the cost vs effect atm.

BTW, I will, in the near future, probably test the 'LFE crossover/route' in on of my systems and share the result here such as :
. will it crossover from all the the rest channels regardless of the speaker configurations(especially size)?
. if it does, what will be the ratio compared to the original imbeded LFE?
..

There appears to exist more variables to consider to me.

[ursamtl]

Steve,you mean that to DTS or AC3 just sum left and right,encode as LFE channel and let the receiver route low frequencies to the subwoofer/LFE?

No. You have to think of the LFE channel as existing only as an input to a receiver that supports 5.1. Once it's in there, the receiver decides what to do with it. If the subwoofer is switched off (assuming the receiver supports this) the LFE data would be rerouted to the front left anf right speakers. If the subwoofer is switched on, anything below the receiver's crossover frequency would be routed to the receiver's subwoofer out jack and anything above the xover should go 50-50 to the front left and right. Likewise, any frequencies below the xover present in the 5 full-range channels are summed and sent to the subwoofer output jack.

This summing can again pose a problem if there are phase differences between data in an LFE input and frequencies below the bass management xover present in the 5 full-range channels because certain frequencies could cancel each other out. The result is very poor bass response.

So it's best to think of the LFE as an input containing only low frequencies below one preset level (as defined by the Dolby Digital and DTS specs) and then the subwoofer channel as a completely different output that will contain all the bass frequencies below a completely different preset level and routed from from all input channels.

It's interesting to note that the LFE channel is only defined as carrying low frequencies by the format specs (Dolby Digital and DTS). There are some audio engineers and such who have advocated using the channel for different sound information such as height information for Ambisonics. Obviously you won't find releases with height information at your local video rental store, but it helps one realize that the LFE channel is just a carrier concept and has nothing directly to do with speaker outputs.

[raquete]

i asked for 2 reasons:
first: i have one decoder/receiver 6.1 and another sound with 6 discretes channels where the .1 channel have crossover, no decoders in this last.is used 3 pairs of stereo RCA cables and is needed to encode the LFE channel separately.if the output is 5.0 the .1(LFE) channel stay in complete silence.
second: i use 4 sub-woofers(2*12 and 2*8 sizes) and i need to care about the levels and quality of the .1 channel.

what is your recommendations for LFE to musics(only) from the same media(AC3)that can be played in both systems as i have 2 standalones with built in DD decoder?

thanks for your answers!

edit:
i have some DTS-CDS and they have too much basses routed to LFE channels and sound too bad,this is another reason of my questions!

[Skelsgard]

My headache is such as :
. why the earthquakes come from one direction mostly(front-left-floor in my case)
. why the thunders come from the front floor.
. having 5.0 setup with large fronts will be better?
. why they don't design the surround system having large eight speakers on each corner of the room to get full directional 3D

There´s a simple reason: CAUSE THERE ARE NO 5.1 OR 6.1 HT SYSTEMS.
5.1/6.1 means, as we all know full range/non-full range combination of discrete channels. As HT systems route the bass from the 5. part to the Subwoofer, which should never be called LFE as such a thing doesn´t exists in HT systms, the sound origin gets altered.
HT speakers lack the capacity to deal with low frequency sounds, therefore the routing, creating what is a 0.6 or 0.7 system (as no full range sepakers really exists at all).
- The earthquakes and thunders will come from wherever the Subwoofer is, explained from what I´ve said above.
It doesn´t matter if the thunder is printed on the Right channel, it will be routed to the Subwoofer nonetheless.
- Larger fronts won't do the trick as the routing is done no matter what. Besides, all speakers should be the same size to guarantee the sound is reproduced exactly as intended by the score engineers of the movie.
- They don't create real 5.1/6.1 systems because they´re as..... well, it doesn't matter :D

Cheers

[Rockaria]

I correct the mistyping(really, as you know) : all LFEs to SUBs
Actually the subwoofer I am using is designed to get from three exclusive sources : LFE, front-line-in, front speaker.
'Cause I am connecting the LFE only, it can be said totally dependant on the receiver crossover/route logic.

@Skelsgard, thanks! now I guess you agree that there are such existing stupidity of the current HT system. It does matter to me though.:D ;)
We all know that LFE(content) and SUB(device) are physically independant, but logically they are related.
I pointed out some factors that might affect the SUB crossover from all candidates that each HT system differs :
. the speaker configuration as 5.0 : I expect routing the LFE to any of the LARGE front speakers most effective.
:: you should feel the difference between 5.0 configuration compared to 5.1 with the SUB line disconnected
. the speakers have their capacity, so the size setting might affect the crossover frequency from front and rears.
. you will also feel the difference when the LFE is disabled dynamically(test it on ffdshow)
. etc,etc, etc..
My impression overall, is the HT systems are (poor) carry-ONs over existing investments on both contents and systems : mono->2.0->quad->DPL(II)->5.1->6.1->7.1..., another rule of cost vs. effects.

@ursamtl, I've a little heard of the 'height ambisonic', might be similar to the recent Creative EAX revisions, of course not discrete, maybe available at the rental store as games, onto existing DPL II or DD/DTS system. Thanks for the remind.

@Horde Prime, I am not sure if we are helping with this long side story.
As I said, "If the LFE is missing(4.0 or 5.0), I think most receivers will route the low frequencies to the subwoofer. In other words, if the LFE is to be included explicitly, I guess it's better having it seperated/rebuilt during the encoding stage", where includes the intellectual seperation/cancellation process.

[ursamtl]

what is your recommendations for LFE to musics(only) from the same media(AC3)that can be played in both systems as i have 2 standalones with built in DD decoder?Most music professionals seem to recommend putting nothing in the LFE channel. There is no need for it and potentially a lot of problems. All the bass in a music recording will be transmitted in the appropriate full range channels and then routed to the appropriate speakers by the receiver's bass management system.

So why did I put an LFE in V.I? For one thing, people kept asking for it, so I put a switch on it for those who don't want to use it. Plus in V.I, I did not remove any frequencies from the full-range channels. I simply routed a very low-level version of frequencies below 50-60Hz to the LFE channel so that those who want to give a slight boost to the very lowest frequencies can use the LFE channel that way, especially for movies.

Anyway, I'd recommend not using the LFE at all for music.

[raquete]

Anyway, I'd recommend not using the LFE at all for music.you're very clear and it's ok for my decoder but the other 6 channels amplifier that i have(use RCA cables) need to have something in the LFE channel or the subwoofer stay in complete silence.
the built in DD dcoder from the standalones separate the channels and one LFE empty give me silence(nothing) in the .1 of this discrete channel, i have 5 channels full of meddles and highs.(short speakers)
using the LFE from VI the level of the sound in this discrete subwoofer is very low.
if i extract the LFE channel using VI and after amplify to round 50% of the level of the music is fine or too much? ( or deserve lots of tests? )

thanks again for your atention!

[zambelli]

To chime in a bit more on the 4.0 vs 5.1 (or 5.0) mixing... Remember that 5.1 mixing originated in movies, not in music. Music in the last decade or so has simply followed suit. I'm not sure why, perhaps because "5.1 surround" sells better than "4.0 surround"? More is better, right? :)

My main problem with 5.1 music mixes today is that they all seem to be done by movie audio engineers. :) "Let's throw everything into the front left and right speakers, isolate the vocals in the center speaker, and add a bit of reverb and applause to the rear speakers". I find such mixes completely and utterly boring. If you actually compare that to the quadraphonic mixes of the 1970s (an excellent comparison would be the "Dark Side of the Moon" 5.1 SACD to the 4.0 quad issue - search torrent sites for a DVD version of the latter), you'll find that 4.0 mixes were clearly designed with music in mind. Many audio engineers considered the 4 speakers to be equally important and the idea was to create an enveloping audio experience, not a "front - rear" experience. Instruments were frequently assigned to distinct channels, creating a sort of "sitting in the orchestra pit" experience.

Artifically creating a center channel in a 5.1/5.0 mix by merging front left and right channels seems completely unnecessary to me. Isn't that what your ears do anyway when you sit between front left and right speakers? :)

[raquete]

well,i have one 6.1 channel and i don't want empty channels in the front and in LFE.
Artifically creating a center channel in a 5.1/5.0 mix by merging front left and right channels seems completely unnecessary to me.for me too but i don't know how you extract and do your 5.1 musics. lol,seems that you don't know how to deal with surround music in 5.1.
i don't follow the engineers way and i can host one ac3 that i do from cds or all 6 channels separated in waves if you want!
you'll know how i do my 5.1 musics!

[Skelsgard]

@Skelsgard, thanks! now I guess you agree that there are such existing stupidity of the current HT system. It does matter to me though.
I totally agree. Yeah, what I meant was that it doesn't matter what they are (a..holes), but it does definitely matters to me too the characteristics of the speaker and equipment configuration I´m using to listen to surround sound.
I personally don't like HT systems.

. the speaker configuration as 5.0 : I expect routing the LFE to any of the LARGE front speakers most effective.
:: you should feel the difference between 5.0 configuration compared to 5.1 with the SUB line disconnected
As I said before, considering that all low frequencies from all channels are routed to the Subwoofer, there's will be much bass info lost with it disconnected (except of course with those big-ass speaker systems with 10 inches cones in each speaker and a 15 inches cone in the subwoofer :D , I do would like to have one of these)

Artifically creating a center channel in a 5.1/5.0 mix by merging front left and right channels seems completely unnecessary to me.
I agree with this. Bogus center channels don't really add anything to the overall sound experience, let alone a simple L+R mix.

Cheers.

[raquete]

I agree with thisme too.now think in 'hard center' and not in L+R.
this is what i use.:)

[Rockaria]

Well, thanks people, these links seem to include all the different viewes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subwoofer

The fundamental principle of bass management in surround sound replay systems is that bass content in the incoming signal, irrespective of channel, should be directed only to loudspeakers capable of handling it, whether the latter are the main system loudspeakers or one or more special low-frequency speakers (subwoofers)[1]. There are notation differences between the pre-bass-managed signal and once it has passed through bass manager. For example, in 5.1, the transmitted channels are referred to as L(eft), R(ight), C(enter), L(ow )F(requency)E(effects), S(urround)L(eft), and S(urround)R(ight). However, once passing through the bass manager, they are referred to as L(eft), R(ight), C(enter), Sub(woofer), S(urround)L(eft), and S(urround)R(ight). The bass management system may direct bass to one or more subwoofers (if present) from any channel, not simply the content of the LFE: the LFE is not the "subwoofer channel".
I take the 'may' as 'not necessarily'.

subwoofer location :

Stereo separation (or five-channel separation) cannot be heard in very low-frequency sound coming from a speaker like a subwoofer; hence most audio systems feature only one subwoofer. The subwoofer can be placed off-center without affecting the perceived sound stage, since the sounds it makes are perceived as omnidirectional.

This omnidirectionality is often misdescribed as an inability of human hearing to perceive stereo separation at low frequencies. Actually, human ears and brain can perceive stereo separation at any audible frequency, provided the two ears receive differently strengthed soundwaves at that frequency. In practice however, typical subwoofer frequencies can be delivered differently to each ear only via headphones or earphones because of their wavelengths. When emanating from speakers or other relatively distant sources, low-frequency (large wavelength) soundwaves tend to flow smoothly around the human head, reaching both ears with equal strength at the same time regardless of the direction in which the wave is propagating. Higher frequency (small wavelength) soundwaves are physically blocked by the size of the human head, thus allowing one ear to receive the wave more strongly than the otherMy issue is that the room is not large enough and can't place the subwoofer under the center.

[ursamtl]

@Rockaria:
Your quote on bass management sums it up perfectly. The receiver has to determine what signals to send to which speakers. Depending on the receiver settings for crossover, speaker size, subwoofer on/off, etc. these may be a mixture.

As for your subwoofer location problem, I understand completely. I had a similar problem at my previous apartment. There was simply no place for the subwoofer near the center. In fact, I had to place it to the left of the front left speaker, and depending on the source material, the overall sound was unbalanced and "lopsided." I have seen recommendations to keep the subwoofer somewhere between the front left and right speakers. Can you at least do this with your room? Also, keep your crossovers as low as possible. The higher the frequency, the closer it becomes to being directional. Keep the subwoofer output to as low a frequency range as possible does the best job of taking advantage of reduced directionality.


@raquete:
I would check the settings on your other 6-channel system because the subwoofer should not be completely silent just because there's nothing in the LFE channel. The bass frequencies below the receiver's bass management crossover frequency should definitely be routed to the subwoofer.

@zambelli:
You brought up a good point about the movie origins of 5.1, I've read this before and agree. This is also one reason why a lot of audio pros I've read suggest leaving the LFE channel blank.

As for what's in the remaining channels, it's a matter of personal taste. I personally don't care for surround music programs where instruments, vocals or effects are mixed entirely to the surround channels. It sounds "gimicky" to me or more like an effect than music. On the other hand, I also find just throwing some reverb in the rear to be potentially boring as well. However, my preference is closer to the latter. I want all the surround channels to work together to provide as close to real "you are there" sound as possible. For example, I'm a big fan of Led Zeppelin, and when I was doing the experiments that led to my V.I plugin, I frequently used some of their songs for testing. One of them is The Crunge from their House of the Holy album. This starts with a very well recorded drum intro. When I got the surround version to sound as if the drum kit was sitting in the room in front of me instead of some flat recording in front of me, I felt the sound was perfect. Another test song was Pink Floyd's High Hopes. When I got the ringing bell to sound as if I were standing in a room hearing it ring through a nearby open window, I was happy. A third example was the acoustic intro to Rush's A Farewell To Kings (the song, not the whole album). The classical guitar tends to move in the mix, and around the 23 second mark or so, there's a slight sound of birds chirping. I got the surround to sound as if the guitar was moving across and back, almost as if Alex Lifeson were walking around me as he played. The bird chirping sounded like I was sitting in a garden and the birds were up in a tree not too far from me but not too close either.

In short, it's all about spatial realism. If a sound is to be mixed to the rears then its ambience needs to be in the fronts to some degree. Complete discrete isolation sounds unnatural to me. A good example was last night when I compared the song Love In Vain from DSD remastered CD of the Stones' Let It Bleed to the vinyl LP release. On the CD (and presumably SACD, which I can't find anymore :( ) the guitar is hard mixed to the left channel with the vocals dead center and neither has any ambience. It sounded very clear but also incomplete, as if some of the mix was missing and as if the two performances were recorded separately in a very dead sounding room. Yet, the exact same track on the LP sounded complete, partially because by nature, the crosstalk between the stereo channels puts a tiny bit of guitar in the right channel. This moves the guitar towards the center very slightly in the stereo mix and makes it sound as if it were recorded at the same time as the vocal. The two sounds complemented each other and reinforced the sense of realism. That's what I look for in a good surround mix.

Regards,
Steve.

[raquete]

@raquete:
I would check the settings on your other 6-channel system because the subwoofer should not be completely silent just because there's nothing in the LFE channel. The bass frequencies below the receiver's bass management crossover frequency should definitely be routed to the subwoofer.maybe i was unclear Steve.
my six discrete amplifiers don't have decoder,they are independents channels plugged in the outputs(L,R,C,LFE,SL,SR) of the standalone player with DD decoder built in via RCA cables.
if the encoded .1 channel is empty,the subwoofer(discrete channel)amplifier stay in complete silence because it's not one decoder!!!

[ursamtl]

Ah that chances everything! It's unfortunate but you have no bass management on the system. The only way around this would be if you had a disc player with built-in bass management.

You can always make your own custom discs but commercial discs will be a problem because many put bass in the regular channels either instead of the LFE (music) or in addition (movies).

[Rockaria]

..except of course with those big-ass speaker systems with 10 inches cones in each speaker and a 15 inches cone in the subwoofer , I do would like to have one of these
Wow, that'd be my dream system in a house livingroom! :)
When I was young, my family had a business with a huge floor shaking 20~30 inches large boxes on each of four corners.
I don't remember if it was a quad system, but really great in the center of the icy floor...

**deleted**

[raquete]

Steve,
now we're talking the same language...lol
You can always make your own custom discs...this is the idea.
thanks so much,you remains very gentle! :)

[Horde Prime]

For Wavewizard, load the 4 mono WAVs in this order from top to bottom: L-R-Ls-Rs. Wavewizard takes the first stream as the first channel and so on.
Go to Edit --> Preferences. Enable "Ignore File Size Header: If filesize > 4 Gb", "Stream Manipulation: Merge Files", and "Output Format: Wave PCM" (for compatibility issues).
Disable anything else.
Ok.
Convert.

And that´s it.

For Aften:
using Bepipe to feed aften with a multiplexing script:
bepipe --script "L=WavSource(^L.wav^) R=WavSource(^R.wav^) Ls=WavSource(^Ls.wav^) Rs=WavSource(^Rs.wav^) muxed=MergeChannels(L,R,Ls,Rs) return muxed" | aften.exe -b 448 -acmod 6 - whatever.ac3
Don´t cut the string into two or more lines or it won't work.

You can also load this script into BeHappy and get Behappy to render the WAV for you:
L=WavSource("L.wav")
R=WavSource("R.wav")
Ls=WavSource("Ls.wav")
Rs=WavSource("Rs.wav")
muxed=MergeChannels(L,R,Ls,Rs)
return muxed
Then you load the WAV into Aften.

As you see, there are several ways to accomplish what you want. Hopefully, this is what you needed.

Cheers.

Thanks for all that, that's great.

What is Bepipe? - Is that a seperate application or part of the inside of a Mac that I can access with Terminal?
(Same with Behappy, what is that?)

So, is this right:
1) Download and install Aften
2) Name my 4 WAV files L.wav, R.wav, Ls.wav, and Rs.wav
3) Type that line exactly into Terminal
4) Then, whatever.ac3 will be my Surround file??

Do I need to understand what the 'return muxed -b 448 -acmod 6' stuff is, or do I just need to know that it will work if I type it? :)

Thanks again, you're very helpful.
(And apologies for my ignorance!)

[Skelsgard]

What is Bepipe? - Is that a seperate application or part of the inside of a Mac that I can access with Terminal?
(Same with Behappy, what is that?)
I´m using Windows XP, didn´t know you wanted it for Mac, as you didn't specified that. I don´t know/I´m not sure that there are ports of these apps for Macs.
Bepipe is a wrapper for avisynth to send thru std-out to std-in enabled apps (like Aften for example).
BeHappy is an avisynth based audio transcoding tool.

So, is this right:
1) Download and install Aften
2) Name my 4 WAV files L.wav, R.wav, Ls.wav, and Rs.wav
3) Type that line exactly into Terminal
4) Then, whatever.ac3 will be my Surround file??

Do I need to understand what the 'return muxed -b 448 -acmod 6' stuff is, or do I just need to know that it will work if I type it?
Again, speaking only in WXP environment (as I don´t work with Mac).
If you choose to use the Bepipe way, then yes, all 4 steps you typed will do as you say (whatever.ac3 will be the name of your outputted AC3 file).
Aften doesn´t need installation, is a basically "unzip and use" app.
"return muxed" basically means that "muxed" will be the output of the script (muxed is just a name I chose for the example, and is the result of the command lines before it).
It comes from this script:
L=WavSource("L.wav") # L is a "thing" that represents the function Wavsource (a wav file loader) where the WAV file to be load is "L.wav".
R=WavSource("R.wav") #same as L
Ls=WavSource("Ls.wav") #same as L
Rs=WavSource("Rs.wav") #same as L
muxed=MergeChannels(L,R,Ls,Rs) # "muxed" is a random name that represents the function Mergechannels (wich takes all the channels from a WAV source o sources, and muxes them into one WAV file) with the parameters L, R, Ls and Rs as the WAV files whose channels are to be muxed.
return muxed # this means give me "muxed" as output.

The only difference between this script and the Bepipe way, is that this script is "vertical" while the Bepipe script is "horizontal", and that's about it.

"-b 448" is a command line that tells aften to encode at CBR 448kbps, while "-acmod 6" tells aften to encode in 4.0 configuration.

Cheers

[boondocks]

Getting back to the LFE channel / Sub.
I never encode an LFE track.
In the absence of bass management on the receiver,
one can run wiring from the fronts to the sub; IF the sub allows
high level (speaker) inputs, and moreso if the sub has a physical
adjustment for the crossover frequency, and independent
(physical) volume adjustment on the sub.
If this was covered, my apologies.

boondocks

[ursamtl]

Actually no, boondocks that wasn't mentioned but it's a very good idea. Raquete, this could solve your problem assuming your sub supports speaker inputs. Another option if you sub supports line-level stereo inputs would be to set up a sort of hook-up with a switch that would choose between the subwoofer channel output and the summed LR output for the subwoofer.

[raquete]

cool idea.
i can do one stereo to mono pre-amplifier to use in the input of the discrete LFE channel.
regards Steve! :thanks:

[Rockaria]

I read there are lots of discussions about Center & LFE/SUB.
My point is that the more options(channels in this case) provided, the more devices/configurations & user-tastes can be fulfilled when properly tuned.

<center>
. some do not want to distinguish between the phantom center and explicit center. even the simple L+R mix has the difference to me.
. my tastes on the explicit (large) center gives me the feeling of 'inside/center of the band', as a player/singer than an audience.
. the ideal/default positions of the speakers would be the mic positions recoded. but I believe we can also reconstruct the performance by the speaker locations, mixes, volumes and device-configurations, than the suggested replay-configurations for the mastered channels.
...

<LFE/SUB>
. When the bass management is not considered at all in the receivers, the subwoofer crossover on the front line-in/speaker or direct LFE-connection to the active-subwoofer would be the proper option for the bass management.
. when the LFE is not considered at all, we may have only to rely on the receiver/subwoofer's bass management system.
. the silent LFE channel will give less overall volume & options to control than the explicit shared LFE.
. as for the Discarding-LFE of the dolby-certified DPL II downmix decoding/play, the front/center/rear embeded low frequences can be said proper to be maintained, which we can apply for the DPL II emulations for the 5.1ch by mixing LFE to such channels before the final Lt & Rt phase encoded, differently effective by the bass management.

Unless best optimized/considered for each unique content + HT system configuration + taste conciously, I guess we are living with the potential stupidity, more or less, but certainly no a**holes I see in them, @ the costs.