GUIDE: Stereo to 5-Channel Surround

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by ursamtl
<snip>
Have a nice weekend!
Steve

I started conversions back in 1999 and I learned a lot in all these years. When I "met" Kempfand, I finally had a partner who could code my sometimes weird ideas. My ideas, his coding and the discussions about how to improve our efforts, lead to the second guide for 2 channels to surround. (This thread). In all these years I loved working with Kempfand, as he is willing to take criticism from me, bad or good. We became good friends ! And..... very productive :-)

Steve, after re-reading everything you placed here, I can only come to the conclusion that you won't achieve this with any of us because of your attitude. You are still a newbie here and you are not the one to tell us how to handle things or how to behave. A bit more modesty would surely suit you.
I would also like to add, that it's pretty rude to answer postings here that are not addressed to you. We can speak for ourselves. We don't need you to answer things addressed to us. And also when you answer, please give a sensible answer and not rubbish, that's useless to the one with the question. (long filenames : 01.wav ???)

Now you are also harrassing Kempfand and I sure don't like it at all ! First throwing all kinds of nasty remarks on Ambisonics and now obviously you changed your mind. One or two tests and immediately the conclusion that our new bidules are not good. Every expert says to leave out the LFE in a conversion, according to you it's ridiculous. And I can go on like this for another 15 minutes........

If you don't get it by now : we don't need this behaviour here !
So I suggest the following :
a. keep this thread (FWIW : it's MY thread) clean of your negative attitude
b. or just leave to another forum

Thanks.

EoH

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
Steve: I think your comments are not appropriate. Asking that people use a search function or scroll a few pages up to see if a problem was reported before is a senesful request.

You might call this unfair, but that's how things are in life. Again read the title of this threat: "GUIDE: Stereo to 5-Channel Surround". Information I bring is mostly is on that topic. I repsect your helping hand to people's technical problems, but again: This should not the threat for it.

Andreas, you and EoH present this as a "guide" and give instructions on how to do something. Then if people have a problem and ask for help, or if someone else tries to help them, you tell them to post it in a different thread. This is a "guide" not just some theoretical discussion! If you feel my pointing that out is inappropriate, I'm sorry but I believe in free speech.

If you mention it here, partially quote it, and make your conclusions which you post here, I can comment on it, and I will do if I think it helps to clarify. If you don't like it, don't post it in a forum.
As I just said, I believe in free speech, but I don't believe in your telling me how I should think. That is what you were doing.

Seems pretty clear to me too. Again: That's exactly what Angelo Farina describes on his public server, and what is described in some of the guides here. So I don't see us (you and me) having a difference here.

The difference is that I have claimed that the first page of this guide presents something that is, in my analysis of the facts, in IMHO, not truly "Ambisonic." It applies the principles and methods of Ambisonics, but it is not complete. I feel the UpMix Studio (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=506996#post506996) bidule I uploaded provides a better result than the original guide, but I don't claim it to be true Ambisonics. Anyway, I don't care what we call it, if it sounds good, that's all that really matters.

The reason I've made such a point out of this is that the tone you used in responding to my posts seemed as if you consider any deviation from the actual layout angles or equations presented as some sort of heresy! All I'm saying is that, since it's not truly Ambisonic, the only thing that should matter is the sound..

My native language is not English, but [B]I think you turn around words here in a misleading way. Please stop this.That's a pretty strong accusation. Please provide me with examples if why you feel this way. I have a 12 years experience as a second language teacher, so perhaps I can explain these misunderstandings in a way you might understand. I have not written anything with the intention of misleading anyone. I've been trying to enjoy this whole process of experimentation. However, it seems that if I express an opinion that you don't happen to like, you immediately jump on me. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the feeling I get.

It should be clear that the 'devil' is not calling you or anyone devil (I would write that out if that was my intention, which it isn't). The :devil: is meant to express my non-understanding when you praise a method as "rating 4/5", and people here actually use this method for 2 years now.

Reread the message. I did not provide this rating, Angelo Farina did. I simply quoted it. He was rating his method of convolving using true B-format IRs. As I said last message, in the beginning, I didn't know people used this method for two years because the new "guide" that starts this program implies that it supercedes or replaces the old one. By the time I discovered this thread, it was huge. It took quite awhile to find the original guide. I'm not going to go back and requote all the text in the opening message of this thread, but it does say that since a "lot of new software and methods" have been developed, it was time to "to take advantage of these new methods and write a complete new guide." To a native speaker of English, this implies that you consider the old method to be outdated. If one reads deeply enough into the thread, he or she can understand this isn't the case, but to a newcomer to the thread, it seems like the guide at the beginning is the best way to go.

See my comment above. As this is not your personal web-page but a public forum, I feel free to comment, and I believe I have always done in an appropriate and helpful way. Asking that people take reasonable effort to use the Search function or read if problems were solved before doesn't seem wrong to me (maybe a Moderator can comment ?).

Of course you are free to comment, just as I am free to comment that I think it was inappropriate for you to tell people that technical details presented in this forum have nothing to do with this forum! You exact words were:

Originally posted by kempfand
as these technical problems have null and nothing to do with the discussion about the Audio Methods discussed in this threat (which reads "Stereo to 5-Channel Surround").


Could also be the other way round. You didn't seem to like the comments that many people are happy with a Pentagon decode, and that your modified Octagon2 decode has some compressions in the soundfield.

Where have I said that I didn't like comments that "many people are happy". All I ever said was that I wasn't happy with the results of the Pentagon when I tried it and then after doing some research, I explained why, that it compresses the soundfield by as much as 40-80% in the fronts. I found it surprising that as soon as I posted a bidule that produces a much larger soundfield, you immediately said that it was my bidule that compressed the soundfield. It made no sense. It looked more like you were just unhappy with a negative comment about a method you advocated. As an interesting aside to this whole discussion of decoding layouts, I find it interesting, by the way, that Angelo Farina, an expert, uses the Surrounrd layout on his web site.

http://www.ramsete.com/aurora/UHJ-Decoder-Bidule.gif


Anyway, perhaps this is a matter of English not being your first language, but this is the impression I get from your comments. When you misunderstand something I explain, such as why all eight virtual speakers in my Octagon layout do in fact get equal sound pressure, you claim it's not true and I have to re-explain again, but you still come back and tell me I'm wrong. Finally I give up because I start to conclude that perhaps you don't want to understand!

I'm sorry if you feel my saying so is inappropriate, but I felt your request that we stop talking about technical details was also inappropriate.

Regards,
Steve.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by trooper11
ok well your help did fix my problem. the only reason i posted ym quesiton here is becuase this is the thread about the guides that have been posted, so my question was about a problem whne using your guide, so that seems reasonable. and i had used the search function before i posted.

i wanted to ask about other bidules you mentioned, you said oyu had 3 new ones, and that they are updates to SADbidule5.1? or are they just other options? are these other bidules avialable on the ftp or on a site? thanks

I don't want to be a pain in the ..s, but this is also in this thread a few pages back ;)

Anyway : I answered your question about the Besweet problem immediately, but it seems like you didn't read that reply too.......

Not a big deal, but I wrote an almost complete page about these three new bidules together with a mini-guide and the locations where you can download the necessary files.
I don't mind answering questions at all when you have a problem with using them, or when unexpected problems occur. But.... about the new bidules..... you can find it if you try !

I guess you will understand yourself, that it's a bit annoying to have to provide a link everytime to something only a few pages back !

BUT......... don't stop asking when you have a valid question !
I will try to help where possible, but in future we assume you did search first. OK ?

kind regards,

EoH

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
You are still a newbie here and you are not the one to tell us how to handle things or how to behave. A bit more modesty would surely suit you.
So this is how you treat newbies?

I would also like to add, that it's pretty rude to answer postings here that are not addressed to you. We can speak for ourselves. We don't need you to answer things addressed to us. And also when you answer, please give a sensible answer and not rubbish, that's useless to the one with the question. (long filenames : 01.wav ???)
It's very rude to tell people who ask for help to go elsewhere. It's also rude to tell people on an open forum that they shouldn't try to help fellow forum members. I explained the long filename aspect as being related to Besweet's location.

Every expert says to leave out the LFE in a conversion, according to you it's ridiculous.Funny, I quoted an award-winning expert who uses the LFE channel. Obviously, it wouldn't exist if it weren't useful.

FWIW : it's MY thread
Oh perhaps you should tell you friend kempfand this, since he just told me it was not my personal web page but a public forum. That would mean it's not yours either!

Now if you have something constructive to say, by all means do so. Otherwise, please stop this inappropriate harrassment of a forum user just because he disagrees with you.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by ursamtl

So this is how you treat newbies?

[/B]
It's very rude to tell people who ask for help to go elsewhere. It's also rude to tell people on an open forum that they shouldn't try to help fellow forum members. I explained the long filename aspect as being related to Besweet's location.

[/B]Funny, I quoted an award-winning expert who uses the LFE channel. Obviously, it wouldn't exist if it weren't useful.


Oh perhaps you should tell you friend kempfand this, since he just told me it was not my personal web page but a public forum. That would mean it's not yours either!

Now if you have something constructive to say, by all means do so. Otherwise, please stop this inappropriate harrassment of a forum user just because he disagrees with you. [/B]

This is my last reply to you (everything else will be ignored from now on):

Perhaps you should read a guide about quoting !
Quoting only a part of a sentence and leaving out the rest, brings it out of context. And that's basically what you do with every response ! Every remark or sentence is manipulated by you in such a way that we will always be the bad guys and you are sooooo good.
Don't make me laugh.

Just leave..... !!

It's a pity we cannot add an ignorelist here. On Usenet I would say only one word to you : PLONK !!!


byyyyeeeee !

EoH

[kempfand]

My native language is not English, but [B]I think you turn around words here in a misleading way. Please stop this.That's a pretty strong accusation. Please provide me with examples if why you feel this way
For example your statement:
When you misunderstand something I explain, such as why all eight virtual speakers in my Octagon layout do in fact get equal sound pressure, you claim it's not true and I have to re-explain again, but you still come back and tell me I'm wrong. Finally I give up because I start to conclude that perhaps you don't want to understand! Fact is that the 5 speakers in your modified Octagon2 receive different sound pressures (not only the C), as I was outlining above. I was also saying that this doesn't imply that it would sounds better or worse than regular decodes, to make it a factual statement on not implay your modified Octoagon2 is bad.

You imply that I am wrong (which I am not), and that you had to "give up" bacause I was too stupid to understand you.

That is just tunrning words the wrong way. I am working for work in an international environment with >40'000 employees world-wide, and I see that kind of behaviour on a daily basis. We call it 'political' (in relation to company politics, not to governmental politics). Most people simply don't like it.

The same 'word-turning' also applies to the compressed sound-field for your decode. I clearly outlined my reasons (did you see how it plots using CATT ? What you get there is pretty much WYSIWYG) in terms of audio). The point that you, in addition, expand the Y to correct for that is not relevant, because I was comparing apples with apples^(i.e. decode 1 vs. decode 2, and not decode 1 vs. decode 2 + modifications).


You surely have excellent language skills, and I claim some scientific skills for my side. So even if you don't like to hear it, I say it again: The methods described here produce 100% Ambisonics. If you (and me and all others) don't feed it with the proper material (UHJ) but just "Stereo", that is a different pair of shoes and has nothing to do with the method used 'per se'.

I hope you see my points, and that we can bring this discussion to a closure, focus on improving the methods, and have some fun.

Regards,
Andreas

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
Quoting only a part of a sentence and leaving out the rest, brings it out of context. And that's basically what you do with every response ! Every remark or sentence is manipulated by you in such a way that we will always be the bad guys and you are sooooo good.

Quoting entire long messages in forum threads can make them ridiculously long and needlessly eat up bandwidth. the beauty of the forum format is that if anyone wants or needs to the context of a comment, they can always go back and read the original messages. Both you and kempfand have accused me of somehow manipulating every quote I make to somehow make myself look good and you guys look bad. I'll simply tell him what I told you, I invite you to provide proof of this and then I'd be happy to explain why it is a misunderstanding. I know English is not your first language in either case and I understand that comments can be misinterpreted. However, I repeat what I wrote the last time you and I had a disagreement, you seem to take everything much too personally, as if someone's criticism of a method you advocate is somehow a direct personal attack on you. I don't know you. I have nothing against you personally. I'm merely providing feedback on your bidules. If you can't take criticism, then perhaps you shouldn't post them in a forum but instead on a web page without any interactive messaging. Once more I apologize if you have felt offended by remarks I've made as it was not my intention to offend you. I don't feel I have anything to apologize for, but if it will make you feel better, fine! I continue to reserve the same right as any other participant in this forum to comment positively or negatively on anything you present publically in a forum. That's what it's all about, conversation!

[kempfand]

As an interesting aside to this whole discussion of decoding layouts, I find it interesting, by the way, that Angelo Farina, an expert, uses the Surrounrd layout on his web site.

Note that Anngelo Farina's layout is to illustrate the UHJ (or Stereo for us) to B transcode using convolution.

Speaking about experts, I can only tell you that the layout on the 1st version of that page had mistakes (as well as the bidules which go with it), and that the owner made the appropriate corrections based on my input.

In order to prevent another 'world-turnin', let me just add that the errors on the 1st version of that page were just because of things happened in a hurry.

The 5.1 decode (ITU) on that page is more for illustrative purposes, and this becomes immediately clear if you read some of Farina's papers or look at his decode using SoundWeb processor.

Regards,

Andreas

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
Fact is that the 5 speakers in your modified Octagon2 receive different sound pressures (not only the C), as I was outlining above. I was also saying that this doesn't imply that it would sounds better or worse than regular decodes, to make it a factual statement on not implay your modified Octoagon2 is bad.

Ok, let me try this one more time. Three are eight "virtual speaker positions" each of which receives the correct amount of sound pressure. Only five of these are real speakers, with the other three being "phantom speakers." To create those phantom speakers, I sent half of their allotment of sound pressure to each adjacent speaker.

So in a way, we're both right. I send the same amount to my virtual speakers, but not the same amount to the real speakers. There, case closed. :)

You imply that I am wrong (which I am not), and that you had to "give up" bacause I was too stupid to understand you.
No, I'm sorry but this is wrong. I did not use the word "stupid" nor did I imply it. I said that I concluded that you didn't "want" to understand. Meaning, (and excuse my horrible German :-) "Du müchst nicht versteihin." Maybe I am wrong, but that's the feeling I get.

The same 'word-turning' also applies to the compressed sound-field for your decode. I clearly outlined my reasons (did you see how it plots using CATT ? What you get there is pretty much WYSIWYG) in terms of audio). The point that you, in addition, expand the Y to correct for that is not relevant, because I was comparing apples with apples^(i.e. decode 1 vs. decode 2, and not decode 1 vs. decode 2 + modifications).
Ok, I understand, but I think the problem is as I've stated, our goals are "apples and oranges." Since I don't consider this to be "real" ambisonics, I don't care if comparing one layout to another results in a certain plotting on CATT. I plotted the layouts on an Adobe Illustrator file during my lunch break at work. Unfortunately, I didn't think to send the file home or I'd post more diagrams. The whole point is, it doesn't really matter what the plots look like, what matters is the sound! Obviously, I respect the work you guys have done because I took the time to dig a bit more on the Ambisonics side of things without rejecting it outright. I will explore the new bidules more, but as I said in my initial comments, they seemed disappointing to me. If others find them to be good, then great, but I don't feel I should be jumped on and told to shut up because I'm a newbie in this forum just because I might disagree. I may be a newbie here and I may not have a scientific background, but I've been a music fanatic for years and have been playing with various concoctions of homemade surround sound for 30 years. I know what sounds good to my ears, and that's all that matters to me. If you produce something that does sound good to me, I'll be the first one to congratulate you, but if there's a problem with it, I'll also say so. As I said in my postings after testing the new bidules, let's look at them to see if improvements can be made. I'm already working on some improvements and extensions to UpMix Studio and I hope you'll give it a critical listen once I post it. Now yes, let close this discussion and have fun!

Steve.

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
Note that Anngelo Farina's layout is to illustrate the UHJ (or Stereo for us) to B transcode using convolution.

Speaking about experts, I can only tell you that the layout on the 1st version of that page had mistakes (as well as the bidules which go with it), and that the owner made the appropriate corrections based on my input.

In order to prevent another 'world-turnin', let me just add that the errors on the 1st version of that page were just because of things happened in a hurry.

The 5.1 decode (ITU) on that page is more for illustrative purposes, and this becomes immediately clear if you read some of Farina's papers or look at his decode using SoundWeb processor.

Regards,

Andreas

That may be so, I don`t know. As a related aside, have you ever plotted Furse's positions for the "Surround1" layout? The surround speakers are at 60° angles behind the listening point instead of the 45° I've seen in diagrams for the actual IUT standard.

[jorel]

@ kempfand(Andreas),Eye of Horus(EOH cos i don't know your name) and all:
first: i can read but can't understand the last posts(and lots more).
second: in my simple(and newby)opinion,this thread in the one of the most importants threads in the whole world about audio.(if don't the best of all threads about audio).
--->Please, don't "fight"(i can't find better wordds)to turn this thread(i can call magnific thread)in a dangerous place to be "closed" by any mod!
ps: i'm not against anyone,i'm just "afraid" about this thread!
ah...and sorry for bore! :o
;) thanks but..please,this thread don't have "price",money can't buy!

[kempfand]

I don't care if comparing one layout to another results in a certain plotting on CATT. I plotted the layouts on an Adobe Illustrator file during my lunch break at work. Unfortunately, I didn't think to send the file home or I'd post more diagrams. The whole point is, it doesn't really matter what the plots look like, what matters is the sound! I really don't care too much about scientific plots myself, but after having done listening tested for dozens of decoding rigs and see how they plot in CATT, I came to the conclusion that CATT is a phantastic tool to work on Ambisonics (and other things), and that the plots you get there are most often WYSIWYG. In the end, I fully agree, the important thing is how things sound.

We tested the pre-set decoding rigs and custom made decodes from Emigrator, CATT, ambidec.exe, VVMix (exe & VST), signed filters (using impulse responses similar to the ones published by Angelo Farina), and the conclusion was always: Pentagon (even if people have a ITU 5.1 in their living room).

For fairness reasons, I clearly mentioned (a) that I do not exclude that there are better decoding set-ups, (b) that even amongst the experts, there is agreement that this is still 'subject to discussion' (cf. Farina's presentation at recent AES in Berlin), and (c) that people have 'stong feelings' about this, in that they put patent protection to specific Amisonic decoding schemes. For (c), the most prominent example is Gerzon's Vienna decoding scheme, which is available in the high-end "$$$" amps by Meridian (and they do very very well, at least according to the "Verdi" listening tests).


I will explore the new bidules more, but as I said in my initial comments, they seemed disappointing to me. If others find them to be good, then great, but I don't feel I should be jumped on and told to shut up because I'm a newbie in this forum just because I might disagree. No problem if you found them disappointing. As mentioned, I value your and anyone's feedback, and I think there is room for improvement. Given today means of Forums and commication across geographies and time zones, we can achieve things that were not possible 10 years back. Might sound 'generic', but I truely believe in this.


I may be a newbie here and I may not have a scientific background, but I've been a music fanatic for years and have been playing with various concoctions of homemade surround sound for 30 years. I think (hope so) I made it clear that your and everyone's feedback is welcome. I have also seen that you have a background with surround methods (otherwise I wouldn't have entered this discussion at all).


I know what sounds good to my ears, and that's all that matters to me. If you produce something that does sound good to me, I'll be the first one to congratulate you, but if there's a problem with it, I'll also say so. As I said in my postings after testing the new bidules, let's look at them to see if improvements can be made. I'm already working on some improvements and extensions to UpMix Studio and I hope you'll give it a critical listen once I post it. I believe in 'free markets' in this aspects, so let the readers & users of thses methods judge. As indicated, I am contributing here for competitive reasons (if I would, I should make my licing out of this). Off-topic remark: I'm not a believer in 'free markets' when it concerns certain social aspects, but this is a whole topic for itself and the wrong place to discuss (still couldn't resist making that statement).

Now yes, let close this discussion and have fun! Yes.

To quote member "Shayne": Peace.

Andreas

[kempfand]

@ jorel: Thanks for your remarks. I really value, especailly from someone who has >750 posts and therefore a proven tackrecord :)

We'll try so.

Kind regards,

Andreas

[trooper11]

@Eye of Horus

hey, yeah youve helped me out alot in the past and i really appreciate it, as far as looking back for info on the thre new bidules, i just kind of got overwhelmed that i would have to read 29 pages to search out info on it, but i guess ill just have to to get links to things, i just wish there was an easier way of finding things is all lol.

you and kemp have done a great job wiht this and i appreciate the work you guys have done, its really been a help for me, sorry if my questions annoyed you guys. keep up the good work.

hey maybe there should be a new sticky devoted just to updates to the method, like guides and bidules, since its so hard to sift them out from this huge thread. you think that would be a good idea?

oh and i just wanted to know what you guys ,EOH and Kemp, use to go to ac3 tracks? or maybe you dont do taht at all. i was thinking of just using besweet to go to ac3, i just wanted to know if im sacrificing quality by using besweet versus another app.

and alos, i read back through the thread and in your guide for hte new ones oyu state that you should set 16bit in the recorder when for the SAd method oyu said 32bit, is there a reason you changed this? also, should i be using 48000 sample when my wav source is 48000?

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by trooper11
hey maybe there should be a new sticky devoted just to updates to the method, like guides and bidules, since its so hard to sift them out from this huge thread. you think that would be a good idea?

Yes, I think this is needed. Daphy and Andy have done a great job putting everything together on the NeedfulThings server, but without some of the context, all the stuff on there can be overwhelming. There is a PDF with the thread discussions, but it still takes some detective work to locate the right information sometimes.

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
For fairness reasons, I clearly mentioned (a) that I do not exclude that there are better decoding set-ups, (b) that even amongst the experts, there is agreement that this is still 'subject to discussion' (cf. Farina's presentation at recent AES in Berlin), and (c) that people have 'stong feelings' about this, in that they put patent protection to specific Amisonic decoding schemes. For (c), the most prominent example is Gerzon's Vienna decoding scheme, which is available in the high-end "$$$" amps by Meridian (and they do very very well, at least according to the "Verdi" listening tests).

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, but you see as I mentioned earlier, because I don't see what we're doing as strict, true Ambisonics, it's hard to say that any one rid is the best. Your tests have led you to believe the Pentagon is best. I have tried rotated Pentagons, unrotated (with no center, just a huge, wide surround layout), modified them to widen the Y signals, pumped a stereo wide signal into the input--everything I could think of but both on my PC and my full surround systems, the result sounded small and boxy with some bad phasing happening. The ambiophonics front bidule you posted improved this somewhat (even with my speakers at +-30° instead of 10). then when I took Panorama and hooked it to Emigrator set to Octagon2 with phantom speakers for the three missing speakers, the sound really started to open up. Once I did the bidule groups with the actual formulas instead of the VSTs, it got better. Boosting the Y signal last weekend added even more. With UpMix Studio I am now close to the big, wide commercial sound I heard on true 5.1 mixes but without it sounding gimicky.

I'm listening to some instrumental music right now through your new instrumental bidule, some acoustic guitar. It sounds quite pleasant for this type of music although it's missing definition and accuracy on the individual notes, sort of like smearing them together. I tried it on music with bass and drums and the bottom was really missing. Perhaps crossing over and applying only to the mids might work because the highs get smeared and the lows just aren't there.

A little earlier I was testing the vocal center bidule. I find that I have to crank the Gain Center up to +10 to get a vocal that isn't overwhelmed by it's own reverb. I will say that once I did get the center level high enough, this bidule sounds better than the other two. I know I said the vocal non center one was my favorite initially, but once I got rid of the doubled percusion sounds by backing off the delays, the soundfield spread seemed quite unnatural with cymbals constantly playing behind my right shoulder. It was kind of weird.

My only concern about the vocal center is the same concern I had about my first MatrixMixerEmulator and the Gerzon bidules, that is putting so much dependancy on the fullrange sound of a center speaker. A lot of center speakers are not designed for solid bass for example, they're optimized for dialog. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that.

Anyway, que l'on continue...

[KpeX]

@ all

Please keep this discussion as professional and civil as possible. This is an audio processing thread unlike anything else on the web IMO, and I would hate to see it degrade. We have some excellent minds working on these bidules and 5.1 methods, and I ask that you respect each other's intelligence and to respect others' work when posting. As always, thinking before speaking will be greatly appreciated. Cheers,

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by trooper11
@Eye of Horus

hey, yeah youve helped me out alot in the past and i really appreciate it, as far as looking back for info on the thre new bidules, i just kind of got overwhelmed that i would have to read 29 pages to search out info on it, but i guess ill just have to to get links to things, i just wish there was an easier way of finding things is all lol.

I agree with you on the search aspect. The search routine used here is not the ideal one :-)


you and kemp have done a great job wiht this and i appreciate the work you guys have done, its really been a help for me, sorry if my questions annoyed you guys. keep up the good work.


Thanks !! We try :-) (that is : if we are not too much distracted by useless discussions :-))))


hey maybe there should be a new sticky devoted just to updates to the method, like guides and bidules, since its so hard to sift them out from this huge thread. you think that would be a good idea?


That's upto the moderators......... who BTW don't seem very active lately ! in the past I remeber that certain psots would have been deleted immedietely :-)


oh and i just wanted to know what you guys ,EOH and Kemp, use to go to ac3 tracks? or maybe you dont do taht at all. i was thinking of just using besweet to go to ac3, i just wanted to know if im sacrificing quality by using besweet versus another app.


Yes, you lose quality ! the freeware AC3 encode doesn't compete with a commercial one like softencode or the one in Scenarist. If you need advice about the settings of commercial products, please contact me privately. I don't think this is the place, but on the other hand : search :-) I know there are some topics about running Softencode in commandline mode and you can find settings there....


and alos, i read back through the thread and in your guide for hte new ones oyu state that you should set 16bit in the recorder when for the SAd method oyu said 32bit, is there a reason you changed this?


Yes...... the reason is that Surcode does internally the same (32 bits to 16 bits). 32 bits WAV's don't play on regular players (like MS Mediaplayer) and they take a lot of space. People with FAT32 file systems won't be able to convert long records in one go in 32 bits, but with 16 bits they can convert longer ones. (Actually 2048/3 = about 682 MB long stereo CD's). We thought this way the whole process would be easier for a lot !


also, should i be using 48000 sample when my wav source is 48000?

Yes ! (And don't forget to adjust Plogue Bidule to 48000 hz too !)

kind regards,

EoH

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by KpeX
@ all

Please keep this discussion as professional and civil as possible. This is an audio processing thread unlike anything else on the web IMO, and I would hate to see it degrade. We have some excellent minds working on these bidules and 5.1 methods, and I ask that you respect each other's intelligence and to respect others' work when posting. As always, thinking before speaking will be greatly appreciated. Cheers,

Thanks for the input KpeX !
I fully agree and only wished you'd come up earlier :-)

Anyway : are you still in the conversion "business" ?
Because we never heard any comment from you about our SAD51inBidule, which was based on your conversion method !


kind regards,

EoH

[kempfand]

Originally posted by trooper11
also, i read back through the thread and in your guide for hte new ones oyu state that you should set 16bit in the recorder when for the SAd method oyu said 32bit, is there a reason you changed this? also, should i be using 48000 sample when my wav source is 48000? and Originally posted by Eye of Horus
Yes...... the reason is that Surcode does internally the same (32 bits to 16 bits). 32 bits WAV's don't play on regular players (like MS Mediaplayer) and they take a lot of space. People with FAT32 file systems won't be able to convert long records in one go in 32 bits, but with 16 bits they can convert longer ones. (Actually 2048/3 = about 682 MB long stereo CD's). We thought this way the whole process would be easier for a lot !

Another important reason is, that the process for 3 new bidules includes a normalization on the L,R,C,SL,SR speakers. Note that it is not a normalizaion over the 6-channel WAV (output from Bidule), but a normalization on each of the speakers individually.

This is currently not possibly in a "one go" commandline in BeSweet, so you have to first demux, and then normalize each of the channels.


More on the same topic:
Originally posted by ursamtl
I'm listening to some instrumental music right now through your new instrumental bidule, some acoustic guitar. It sounds quite pleasant for this type of music although it's missing definition and accuracy on the individual notes, sort of like smearing them together. I tried it on music with bass and drums and the bottom was really missing. Perhaps crossing over and applying only to the mids might work because the highs get smeared and the lows just aren't there.

A little earlier I was testing the vocal center bidule. I find that I have to crank the Gain Center up to +10 to get a vocal that isn't overwhelmed by it's own reverb. I will say that once I did get the center level high enough, this bidule sounds better than the other two. I know I said the vocal non center one was my favorite initially, but once I got rid of the doubled percusion sounds by backing off the delays, the soundfield spread seemed quite unnatural with cymbals constantly playing behind my right shoulder. It was kind of weird. I guess you just took the bidules and listened via the ASIO device on the speakers of the PC. That will give bad results. The bidules, as published, are intended to work reasonably well if you follow up with the normalization step, and then listen to the output.

This might sound over-complicated, but we found that you can tweak the gains for the speakers (L+R, C, SL+SR) to work well for one piece of music, whereas it would not work well for the next piece of music.

Normalization seemed a good compromise also for publishing here.

Originally posted by ursamtl
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point(of how to best decode), but you see as I mentioned earlier, because I don't see what we're doing as strict, true Ambisonics, it's hard to say that any one rid is the best. Your tests have led you to believe the Pentagon is best. I have tried rotated Pentagons, unrotated (with no center, just a huge, wide surround layout), modified them to widen the Y signals, pumped a stereo wide signal into the input--everything I could think of but both on my PC and my full surround systems, the result sounded small and boxy with some bad phasing happening. The ambiophonics front bidule you posted improved this somewhat (even with my speakers at +-30° instead of 10). then when I took Panorama and hooked it to Emigrator set to Octagon2 with phantom speakers for the three missing speakers, the sound really started to open up. Once I did the bidule groups with the actual formulas instead of the VSTs, it got better.

Emigrator has some shortcomings, which I understand are significantly improved with the commercial version (DecoPro (http://www.gerzonic.net/?prod=24&rub=2)). The standard decodes by Richard Furse, as done by AmbiDec (http://www.muse.demon.co.uk/utils/ambidec.html) have other shortcomings (as one example, they use no shelf filters). I personally had my best decodes with using signed filters. In practical terms, one can either use CATT, or 2 parallel instances of Voxengo's pristine space since you need 15 concurrent convolutions (3 for each of W,X,Y times 5 speakers).

The newest research (driven by Farina, Malham, and others) even explores using one of the 5 speakers for vertical information (Z-axis). Even if the feeding source is 'just' stereo, information for the 3rd dimension (Z-axis) might be re-created by convolution with the a B-Format pulse. This is still in the research status, but I think we will see a whole range of new decoding options over the next couple of years. Lot's of things to play with and have fun :)

Regards,
Andreas

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
I guess you just took the bidules and listened via the ASIO device on the speakers of the PC. That will give bad results. The bidules, as published, are intended to work reasonably well if you follow up with the normalization step, and then listen to the output.That's an excellent point and yes I have overlooked it. Before I take the time to burn the CD, I like to tweak the sound as much as possible first. I just found it strange that the center required such a boost in the bidule to begin with.

As I mentioned last night in a message, one concern I have with these new bidules as with the LCR upmix bidules is that the front and rear left and right signals are getting all midrange and high frequencies and one speaker, the center, gets almost all the bass info. Most surround systems don't have a center speaker with as good a bass response as the front left and rights. The center speaker is traditionally designed for dialog. Yes, a high-end system should have a center speaker with good frequency response, but not everyone doing these decodes has a high-end system! If one has a subwoofer and bass management on the amp, this certainly improves things, but it's a waste of the range capabilities of the left and right speakers. Normalization won't change the frequency content of the left and right channels in a bidule, it will only increase or decrease levels as required. Anyway, just a thought.

By the way, try the following for an experiment: take a stereo difference signal and run it through an instance of Stereo Touch. Connect that to the fronts. Do the same with a second instance of Stereo touch and connect it to the rears. Take a stereo sum signal, reduce it by 3dB and connect it to the center. The result should sound familiar. Let's call it "Mr. Hafler's Repurposing Bidule" ;)

The newest research (driven by Farina, Malham, and others) even explores using one of the 5 speakers for vertical information (Z-axis). Even if the feeding source is 'just' stereo, information for the 3rd dimension (Z-axis) might be re-created by convolution with the a B-Format pulse. This is still in the research status, but I think we will see a whole range of new decoding options over the next couple of years. Lot's of things to play with and have fun :) Yes that does sound interesting. The only problem I have with this is like with the Ambiophonics +-10° bidule, having to move speakers from their usual positions. I regularly rent or purchase movies on DVD and enjoy 5.1 surround sound immensely. My TV room has a somewhat challenging shape and it took me awhile to get close to a proper ITU-5.1 setup fit in there. I don't want to start moving stuff around! However, if the Z info is implemented in the surrounds, well that could be interesting, since mine are about a meter above ear level.

Tchuss
Steve.

[trooper11]

@EOH

thanks, i sent you a pm btw

[ursamtl]

Just a note for those using SIR, Christian Knufinke released a new version yesterday.

The web site says v 1.007, but the download is actually v1.008.

http://www.knufinke.de/sir/index_en.html


Regards,
Steve.

[ursamtl]

For those experimenting with designing new surround bidules, I'm posting a couple of links to useful articles I've found while surfing. Although these both relate to mixing or programming for surround sound, they contain information that can help and considerations to keep in mind when designing surround sound bidules or plugins.

This first one has some interesting points regarding use of the LFE and center channels, two things that have come up in this thread:


5.1-channel Sound: From the studio to your home theater (http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/ISEO-rgbtcspd/reviews/20030923/5_1_sound.html) by Leslie Shapiro


While this second article is more programming related and deals with DPL, it's still interesting and provides some discussion of sound cancellation.


Dolby Pro-Logic Encoding (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/sound_and_music/19981218/surround_03.htm) by Robert Basler


Anyone else with useful links to practical surround-related information?

Regards,
Steve.

[LAYLA1970]

Hello everybody:

Through a friend of mine, I can heard the post over "Rebuild The Wall".
'Till now, I still surprise with the overall sound. I think it is a forward step to right direction. Here are dinamics with no distortion, well focused any instrumentals, tonnaly very well balanced and all of this produces a typical sense of happiness. God job, guys.

Only I want make a question. IMHO, the conversion lacks of voice definition. It seems to me that the voices are ONE STEP BACKWARD over the other instrumentals. This causes an effect of opacity over all the voices. But, if we are hearding only voices (there are a piece so), these voices sounding really great. If we go to ear the instrumentals (not the voices), that's the same: they are great. But if two of the worlds are joined, this a dissapointment. I can't ear clearly the voices. This effect can make resolve with the new values of the gains? I will say, if the values of center are aumented, the voices are more presents?

Thanks and Good Luck.

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by LAYLA1970
Only I want make a question. IMHO, the conversion lacks of voice definition. It seems to me that the voices are ONE STEP BACKWARD over the other instrumentals. This causes an effect of opacity over all the voices. But, if we are hearding only voices (there are a piece so), these voices sounding really great. If we go to ear the instrumentals (not the voices), that's the same: they are great. But if two of the worlds are joined, this a dissapointment. I can't ear clearly the voices. This effect can make resolve with the new values of the gains? I will say, if the values of center are aumented, the voices are more presents?Hi Layla,

I had the same problem. Kempfand pointed out that I wasn't doing the normalize step. Did you try that? This did help my results a bit. I also modified the center feed to the standard -3dB L+R signal. To accomplish this, Ctrl+click on the "Preservation_3_x_2" group in the center and change the multiplier from 0.4511 to 0.7071. This number produces a -3dB gain, whereas 0.4511 is close to -7dB.

While you are in the group, you can also remove the the unused left and right multiplier, constant, and connection objects, since they are not hooked up to anything but still seem to use CPU resources. After I got rid of them, my CPU usage dropped by an average of 2-3%. I know that is not a big drop, but every little bit helps!:)

Regards,
Steve.

[trooper11]

@EOH i sent you a couple pm's



right now im experimenting with the 3 new bidules and the SAD method. right now though, the SAD mehtod is giving better results, but i think thats my fualt. using hte instrumental bidule, the result was lower in sound then in the SAD method. I think it may be becuase before i loaded the file into the bidule, i had already normalized it, converting it to 32bit as well. As i followed the guide, i know it was normalized again by besweet, so could this cuase the sound to seem lower, dropping out?

ok and my other question for you guys, which of these bidules do you think would work well with audio tracks? By audio i mean movie audio that i want to take to 5.1. Or maybe none of these are suited for that.

[Shayne]

Originally posted by kempfand
and

Another important reason is, that the process for 3 new bidules includes a normalization on the L,R,C,SL,SR speakers. Note that it is not a normalizaion over the 6-channel WAV (output from Bidule), but a normalization on each of the speakers individually.

Regards,
Andreas

normalizing left and right individually would loose the initial stereo would it not? I feel the l and r whether it be front or rear should be grouped. Its the F R C LFE groups that would be nice to be able to normalize independant on the fly but then i would be Happy to just isolate the lfe.

Peace

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by Shayne
normalizing left and right individually would loose the initial stereo would it not? I feel the l and r whether it be front or rear should be grouped. Its the F R C LFE groups that would be nice to be able to normalize independant on the fly but then i would be Happy to just isolate the lfe.

Peace To my understanding, all normalizing does is scan a file for the highest peak level and then either boosts or attenuates the entire file in a linear fashion so that this highest peak reaches a target level.

In the case of the 3 bidules, the "instrumental" bidule has the same signal going to both fronts, and the same signal going to both backs. To check this, set up a binary operator in the bidule as a minus and then hook both signals up to the operator's input and connect the output to one channel of your sound card. If nothing comes out, the signals are the same. Therefore, normalizing these channels independantly will give balanced results for the front between the left and right and the same for the rear.

For the "vocal-center" bidule, the same signal (L-R) is sent to Voxengo to generate a pseudo stereo signal. (Yes, one is a R-L, but if you invert it, you get the same as L-R. You can check this the same way as above). In this bidule, the front left and rear right channels get the same signal. The front right and rear left get the same signal. Since these signals are all generated from duplicate Stereo Touch instances, the levels are basically the same and thus normalizing all these channels independantly should keep things balanced.

The "vocal-non center and instrumental" bidule is a bit more sophisticated in that the improvement groups contain filters as well as sum and difference combinations to create four different channels, but these are all at about the same level. If you try the channel subtracting test I mentioned above on all combinations of these channels, you'll always still hear something (indicating that there is some difference), but the difference levels are low and consistent, so normalizing these individually shouldn't be an issue. I haven't dug into this bidule any further to analyse what's going on because I don't like what it does to music with percussive sounds and I'm busy developing something else I find more interesting.

In the end, follow the bidule author's advice. Andreas said that he got the best results by normalizing the channels individually, so try it like that. Then if you don't like the results, try something else. Half the fun is in the trying!

Have a good weekend!
Steve.

[Shayne]

Originally posted by ursamtl
To my understanding, all normalizing does is scan a file for the highest peak level and then either boosts or attenuates the entire file in a linear fashion so that this highest peak reaches a target level.

In the case of the 3 bidules, the "instrumental" bidule has the same signal going to both fronts, and the same signal going to both backs.

Steve.
Your understanding of normalization would be correct. It finds the highs peak and increases all data points by the same amount(dbs).

If the 3 new bidules merge the original left and right and loose all stereo i would have to stand by my post above and wonder if this is right?

Peace

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by Shayne
Your understanding of normalization would be correct. It finds the highs peak and increases all data points by the same amount(dbs).Just a quick point...it can also work to attenuate as well. For example, if the highest peak is at -1dB and the target normalization level is -3dB, then the process will reduce the entire track level by 2dB.

If the 3 new bidules merge the original left and right and loose all stereo i would have to stand by my post above and wonder if this is right?It's not quite that simple. I'll give a technical explanation because I don't want my comments to cause a misunderstanding and start another flame war!;)

We all tend to think of stereo as two completely different channels of sound. However, if you change the two channels to M (for "Mid" or L+R) and S (for "Side" or L-R) then things can get quite interesting. Adding the two signals together without changing levels gives one composite stereo channel back, while inverting the phase of the S signal before combining the two will give the opposite composite stereo channel.

If you start changing something about either of these before recombining, you get different results. "Stereo wide" effects basically increase the ratio of the S signal to the M before recombining (the better ones do frequency filtering because without it, this effect can kill bass response).

To relate this to the bidules, when I wrote that the same signal is going to both fronts and the same to both rears, I meant that the same "difference" or S signal is going to each front and to each rear. If you then add an M signal to one of these, you can recover some sort of stereo channel. What gives the sense of difference is that the S signal is manipulated by the Stereo Touch plugin to produce two signals that are somewhat different from each other. If you then add the same sum signal to each, you get composite channels that are also somewhat different from each other. However, in the case of the vocal-center bidule for example, no composite channel is created. Instead the M signal is fed to the center channel. Thus, any recombining takes places acoustically through soundwave phase cancellation and addition.

This definitely gives interesting surround effects, but it can vary depending on where the listener sits, and especially on the type of music. The research Andreas translated into his original LCR bidules is quite right in saying that these can provide a wider sweet spot for a stereo image, but if this image is transformed or modified, so is the sweet spot and the results.

Since Stereo Touch does much of its work using delays, any music with percussive, rhythmic sounds could get messy. In fact, if you read the description of Stereo Touch on the Voxengo free VSTs page, (http://www.voxengo.com/freevst/), it says that the plug-in is "most effective on mono pad sounds and alike." I don't know if you're familiar with this term, but a "pad" is usually a synthesizer patch or a real recorded sound that is smooth and continuous in nature, without any sharp percussion or rhythm. So running a complete recording through Stereo Touch can sound bad (especially one with a rhythm section).

Shayne, to get back to your normalizing question, given that the same difference signal is fed through the same effects plugins with the same settings, there should not be any problems at all. If you're in doubt, the best thing for you to do is to find a way to measure the "average RMS level" of each channel. Programs such as Sound Forge or Wavelab allow you to measure this. If the numbers for each channel are close, normalizing should not upset the balance. If, however, one channel has a sound somewhere that's louder than any others then it might end up sounding louder than the others. But, as I wrote, that's unlikely given the construction of these bidules.

Regards,
Steve.

[MaroonMike]

I finally tested out the new bidules (the voice-non center_or_instrumental one) and unless I am doing something wrong, it has way to much reverb for my taste. I felt like the music was "bouncing" all over the place. Sorry...

I still think my Ambisonics bidule (basicly the one from the guide with a little extra reverb added to the rear channels) sounds much better. I tried this on two seperate sound samples tonight.

On a separate note, in a standard 6 speaker setup, are there any benefits going to the 3rd level in ambisonics?

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by MaroonMike
I finally tested out the new bidules (the voice-non center_or_instrumental one) and unless I am doing something wrong, it has way to much reverb for my taste. I felt like the music was "bouncing" all over the place. Sorry...

Try setting the Voxengo Stereo Touch to "stage" , and give the Center some extra gain. This will get rid of the reverb.
(The default setting we used in Voxengo was "pretty wide" , because that one gave good results on our testmaterial.)

kind regards,

Eye of Horus

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by LAYLA1970
Hello everybody:

Through a friend of mine, I can heard the post over "Rebuild The Wall".
'Till now, I still surprise with the overall sound. I think it is a forward step to right direction. Here are dinamics with no distortion, well focused any instrumentals, tonnaly very well balanced and all of this produces a typical sense of happiness. God job, guys.

Only I want make a question. IMHO, the conversion lacks of voice definition. It seems to me that the voices are ONE STEP BACKWARD over the other instrumentals. This causes an effect of opacity over all the voices. But, if we are hearding only voices (there are a piece so), these voices sounding really great. If we go to ear the instrumentals (not the voices), that's the same: they are great. But if two of the worlds are joined, this a dissapointment. I can't ear clearly the voices. This effect can make resolve with the new values of the gains? I will say, if the values of center are aumented, the voices are more presents?

Thanks and Good Luck.

The CD you mentioned was done with the pretty wide setting in Voxengo . Replace that setting with "Stage", add extra gain to the Center and the results will be far better.
There is also another goodie we found and are using, but you have to contact me or kempfand by PM !
We cannot publish all our secrets here ;)

And a bit of a warning : I wouldn't suggest you to mess in the groups (as someone "advices"). For more gain use the gain settings. They are in the bidule with a purpose, not just as a gimmick !

kind reagrds,

EoH

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
The CD you mentioned was done with the pretty wide setting in Voxengo . Replace that setting with "Stage", add extra gain to the Center and the results will be far better.
There is also another goodie we found and are using, but you have to contact me or kempfand by PM !
We cannot publish all our secrets here ;)

And a bit of a warning : I wouldn't suggest you to mess in the groups (as someone "advices"). For more gain use the gain settings. They are in the bidule with a purpose, not just as a gimmick !

kind reagrds,

EoH I'm sorry EoH but I disagree that the results will be "far better." I just tested this and I was still disappointed with the results.

Changing to the "Stage" setting didn't do anything for the percussive doubling problem I've mentioned. Both the voice-center and intrumental bidules still smear rhythmic or percussive sounds. For anyone who wants to hear this, do the following:

[list=1]
Take a song with some well-definied repetitive rhythmic sounds. For example, I just used Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb." If you don't have it, any song with well-defined drums (especially cymbals), strummed acoustic guitar, sharp rhythm guitar strums, slow harp plucks, etc.
Load in the Voice-Center bidule and load your song in the Audio File Player.
Replace the Audio File Recorder in bidule with Microsoft Sound Mapper output device. To do this Right-click the Audio File Player, and choose Replace > Audio Devices > Output > MME > Microsoft Sound Mapper.
Load your file into Audio File Player and listen carefully.
[/list=1]
What you hear is the sound that will be in the front speakers of your surrounds after you burn your surround CD with this bidule. Yes I know the two channels still aren't normalized as suggested in the method, but all normalizing will do is vary the volume level of the channel. It won't change the nature of the sounds in the channel. If there's a problem with the sound information contained in a channel, normalization will not erase it, but only change the volume level of the channel.

Back to Comfortably Numb. Listen to the door knocks and the guy saying "Time to go...." at the beginning. In the original stereo recording, both are panned to the left as the artists originally intended. Through the bidule, however, both come from the center. Ok so that's not the end of the world, this is surround sound, right? Things may get moved.

However, listen carefully to those door knocks. In the original recording they were so sharp and well defined, if you closed your eyes, you would almost jump up to go and answer your own door! Yet through the bidule, the realism is diminished. That's because the original audio waveform's transients have been mangled and delays echo the sound in both speakers. It still doesn't sound bad, but the sharp focus of the original recording is lost. Surround sound shouldn't do that.

Listen to the cymbals in the verses and the strummed acoustic guitar in the chorus. They no longer sound real and well-definied. Surround sound shouldn't do that.

The tight locked-in bass and kick drum notes are also smeared. It's also harder to hear these because most of their sound energy is contained in the sum of the original stereo signals that is sent to the center channel.

This brings up another point I've mentioned in recent posts. If you've got a monster center speaker with great bass and treble response, you'll be ok. Most 5.1 systems have a center speaker that's optimized for dialog. Bass response in these is rolled off. Since there's sound going to your LFE in this bidule, the only deep, solid bass you'll get is if your center speaker can produce it.

As for increasing the front center gain to make the vocals more balanced and less reverberated, to do that, you have to bring the center gain up to +10dB. This is if one has a monitoring system hooked up to listen to the adjustments. On most songs, this causes digital clipping and distortion. Yes, you're going to normalize the files afterwards, but once the distortion is introduced, it can't be removed.

Look both EoH and Andreas, I've got nothing against either of you personally, but the more I explore these "exciting new bidules", the more disappointed I get. The logic of spreading the sounds out among the four speakers is good, but the execution mangles the original soundstage too much. If you can find a way to restore the soundstage and position of the instruments as the original artists intended, then these might be a better tool for upmixing. You'd also have to ensure the bass frequencies at least go to the front left and right speakers and/or the LFE. I know, I know, many experts don't believe in using the LFE channel, but others do. Any 5.1 receiver with bass management will direct the bass energy where it belongs anyway, so that point is moot.

Finally, as for "warning" people not to mess with the groups, why not? If the result is better, it makes sense to change the groups. After all the "improvement groups" in these bidules take Gerzon's method for spreading a stereo L and R signal among LCR and apply it to only the stereo difference signal, and route the signals to front and back speakers. That's "messing" with an expert's original intent. If you can do it, why can't we do it with yours?

Now if you choose to take this as a personal attack, I'm sorry but it is not intended that way. If, instead, you take it as it's intended--a critique of the results of your method as it has been presented so far--then let's discuss it. I've already said to Andreas that we should all be working together and contributing here as is the general intent of a forum. Instead of doing this mysterious "we can't reveal all our secrets" routine and telling people to private message you for more, why not share these secrets with the world in a spirit of cooperation?

Regards,
Steve.

[kempfand]

Steve,

No problem for me if the 3 new bidules don't match your expectation. In fact, I see this positive, as it will allow for improvement. Some people are quite happy with them, some are disappointed.

I imply that we all care for music and howto get the best out of it, and improving current methods is not easy or else ther wouldn't be a sometimes heated discussion on this :) or there would be a straight-forward solution.

The "original artist's intend" is of a big theme by itself, and highly disputed even amongst the best know names in academia and industry. We probably could open a separate threat on this, which would become hugegly complex due to all the variables involved (performance, recording, distribution media, reproduction at end users room and equipemt used, and so one). Adding to that is the change over time (20 years back: most performances aimed for live delivers, today: many performances aimed at CD-distribution). IMHO a very interesting topic, and one I've not come to a clear opinion yet.

Back to the bidules: As you correctly noted, we used Gerzon's method for spreading the signal not only to the front, but also to the rears. I would be very keen on your opinion for the 2->5 groups which I published (Gerzon 1997 Groups & Bidules (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=508560#post508560) ). More concrete on 2 setups:
a) Using the "Improvement_5_x_2" Group, and feeding output pins L7/R7 to L/R, feeding L6/R6 to SL/SR, and C5 to C. Or
b) Using groups "Preservation_3_x_2" -> "Preservation_4_x_3" -> "Preservation_5_x_4", and feeding as with (a) the five output pins to the ASIO audio device.
Reason I'm asking is to get feedback on on this modified original intent (of Gerzon), and keep out other complications such as voice removal and mono_2_stereo alternatives.

Regards,
Andreas

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
Steve,

No problem for me if the 3 new bidules don't match your expectation. In fact, I see this positive, as it will allow for improvement. Some people are quite happy with them, some are disappointed.

I imply that we all care for music and howto get the best out of it, and improving current methods is not easy or else ther wouldn't be a sometimes heated discussion on this :) or there would be a straight-forward solution.

The "original artist's intend" is of a big theme by itself, and highly disputed even amongst the best know names in academia and industry. We probably could open a separate threat on this, which would become hugegly complex due to all the variables involved (performance, recording, distribution media, reproduction at end users room and equipemt used, and so one). Adding to that is the change over time (20 years back: most performances aimed for live delivers, today: many performances aimed at CD-distribution). IMHO a very interesting topic, and one I've not come to a clear opinion yet.

Back to the bidules: As you correctly noted, we used Gerzon's method for spreading the signal not only to the front, but also to the rears. I would be very keen on your opinion for the 2->5 groups which I published (Gerzon 1997 Groups & Bidules (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=508560#post508560) ). More concrete on 2 setups:
a) Using the "Improvement_5_x_2" Group, and feeding output pins L7/R7 to L/R, feeding L6/R6 to SL/SR, and C5 to C. Or
b) Using groups "Preservation_3_x_2" -> "Preservation_4_x_3" -> "Preservation_5_x_4", and feeding as with (a) the five output pins to the ASIO audio device.
Reason I'm asking is to get feedback on on this modified original intent (of Gerzon), and keep out other complications such as voice removal and mono_2_stereo alternatives.

Regards,
Andreas Good Andreas, that's exactly the spirit I'm talking about. By sharing info and techniques, bouncing them back and forth, getting feedback, etc., we all benefit.

I agree that the "original artist's intent" is a very complex subject. All I was getting at by mentioning that was that Pink Floyd's music by nature was quite detailed and meticulous, so if they mixed a door knock over to the left, it was probably intentional and not due to track limitations. By 1979, multitrack studio technology had advanced enough that it wasn't like old mid-60s recordings where the tracks were limited to 4 or 8 tracks.

I'd be glad to give the groups you mentioned a closer look. Unfortunately, the ftp server is down right now and I can't find them on the needfulthings server. I thought they were included in the original download with the 3 bidules but I can't find the actual group files anywhere. I've checked the bidules and I don't see pins L7/R7, etc. so, I'll give them a look this week.

I'm also working on another bidule that spreads out the front soundfield quite well but still preserves the imaging and seems complemented and reinforced by Ambisonic surrounds. I stumbled upon it by accident when playing around with some hookups. Once I finish testing and implementing some ideas, I'll write a guide and post it.

Have a good week!
Steve.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by ursamtl
I'm sorry EoH but I disagree that the results will be "far better." I just tested this and I was still disappointed with the results.

Changing to the "Stage" setting didn't do anything for the percussive doubling problem I've mentioned. Both the voice-center and intrumental bidules still smear rhythmic or percussive sounds. For anyone who wants to hear this, do the following:

[list=1]
Take a song with some well-definied repetitive rhythmic sounds. For example, I just used Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb." If you don't have it, any song with well-defined drums (especially cymbals), strummed acoustic guitar, sharp rhythm guitar strums, slow harp plucks, etc.
Load in the Voice-Center bidule and load your song in the Audio File Player.
Replace the Audio File Recorder in bidule with Microsoft Sound Mapper output device. To do this Right-click the Audio File Player, and choose Replace > Audio Devices > Output > MME > Microsoft Sound Mapper.
Load your file into Audio File Player and listen carefully.
[/list=1]
What you hear is the sound that will be in the front speakers of your surrounds after you burn your surround CD with this bidule. Yes I know the two channels still aren't normalized as suggested in the method, but all normalizing will do is vary the volume level of the channel. It won't change the nature of the sounds in the channel. If there's a problem with the sound information contained in a channel, normalization will not erase it, but only change the volume level of the channel.

Back to Comfortably Numb. Listen to the door knocks and the guy saying "Time to go...." at the beginning. In the original stereo recording, both are panned to the left as the artists originally intended. Through the bidule, however, both come from the center. Ok so that's not the end of the world, this is surround sound, right? Things may get moved.

However, listen carefully to those door knocks. In the original recording they were so sharp and well defined, if you closed your eyes, you would almost jump up to go and answer your own door! Yet through the bidule, the realism is diminished. That's because the original audio waveform's transients have been mangled and delays echo the sound in both speakers. It still doesn't sound bad, but the sharp focus of the original recording is lost. Surround sound shouldn't do that.

Although I said not to reply anymore. I will, because there are again a few lines in your post I am not pleased with. And no, this has nothing to do with a personal attack......

How many times did we say you have to chose a song that suits the bidule ? If one song doesn't give you the result you want, you are immediately disappointed with the method ! You should criticize your choice of music ! What gives good results on one song, doesn't necessarily give good results on another !


Listen to the cymbals in the verses and the strummed acoustic guitar in the chorus. They no longer sound real and well-definied. Surround sound shouldn't do that.

What shouldn't surround sound do ?
Did you ever listen to DSOTM in DTS (the Alan Parsons mix from quad) ? or the latest on SACD ?
Did they intend this in their original stereo mix ???
Changing the nature of the sound is indeed not the intention but again : it also has to do with the choice of music. Some will do better on this bidule while other do better with SAD5.1inBidule or Ambisonics.


The tight locked-in bass and kick drum notes are also smeared. It's also harder to hear these because most of their sound energy is contained in the sum of the original stereo signals that is sent to the center channel.


We do have a solution for this ! see more below !


This brings up another point I've mentioned in recent posts. If you've got a monster center speaker with great bass and treble response, you'll be ok. Most 5.1 systems have a center speaker that's optimized for dialog. Bass response in these is rolled off. Since there's sound going to your LFE in this bidule, the only deep, solid bass you'll get is if your center speaker can produce it.


?? The LFE is empty, so this statement is simply not true ! or worded incorrectly !
yes, there is too much in the center, but NOTHING is steered to the LFE by the bidule ! The LFE is steered by your receiver only !


As for increasing the front center gain to make the vocals more balanced and less reverberated, to do that, you have to bring the center gain up to +10dB. This is if one has a monitoring system hooked up to listen to the adjustments. On most songs, this causes digital clipping and distortion. Yes, you're going to normalize the files afterwards, but once the distortion is introduced, it can't be removed.

Why do you think we added the gains AND the normalisation ??
In the bidule you need to find a good balance between L+R and C with the gains. And then normalize ! If you don't do that, yes, you can get some clipping !
So : increase the gain on the C, decrese the gain on the L+R and then normalize ! THIS WILL GET RID OF THE REVERB !


Look both EoH and Andreas, I've got nothing against either of you personally, but the more I explore these "exciting new bidules", the more disappointed I get. The logic of spreading the sounds out among the four speakers is good, but the execution mangles the original soundstage too much. If you can find a way to restore the soundstage and position of the instruments as the original artists intended, then these might be a better tool for upmixing. You'd also have to ensure the bass frequencies at least go to the front left and right speakers and/or the LFE. I know, I know, many experts don't believe in using the LFE channel, but others do. Any 5.1 receiver with bass management will direct the bass energy where it belongs anyway, so that point is moot.


I have no problem with your disappointment. Just go ahead and say it everytime here with everything we come up with.... I am more interested in the people that are satisfied ;)


Finally, as for "warning" people not to mess with the groups, why not? If the result is better, it makes sense to change the groups. After all the "improvement groups" in these bidules take Gerzon's method for spreading a stereo L and R signal among LCR and apply it to only the stereo difference signal, and route the signals to front and back speakers. That's "messing" with an expert's original intent. If you can do it, why can't we do it with yours?


Did I say you can't do it ? (another example of giving a bad explanation to my words > what we called twisting !) I just gave a warning ! There are also a lot of newbies here who are only interested in input a stereo and output surround. When they start playing with adjusting groups, no problem. But will you answer the emails when they get lost somewhere ?
Not all people have those skills ! And answering between 10 and 20 emails every day about the (in your and our eyes) most simple things, is enough for me. Don't need more !


Now if you choose to take this as a personal attack, I'm sorry but it is not intended that way. If, instead, you take it as it's intended--a critique of the results of your method as it has been presented so far--then let's discuss it. I've already said to Andreas that we should all be working together and contributing here as is the general intent of a forum. Instead of doing this mysterious "we can't reveal all our secrets" routine and telling people to private message you for more, why not share these secrets with the world in a spirit of cooperation?


Two points : I (I don't speak for Kempfand) don't feel any intend to share some things when the outcome is everytime a burning down of what we invented. Positive criticism on how to improve things : EXCELLENT. But this constant : I am so disappointed, doesn't invite me to share anything, let alone work together. That will need some changes first ! A good start for you would be : take a song and find the right bidule to convert it , instead of taking a song and take a random bidule and expect perfect sound. It's the combination that does the trick. Perhaps it will remove a lot of your disappointment. There is no "one method fits all" !! And I said that a lot of times.
I also don't want to sound negative only : try the bidule with for instance "Breakdown" from the Alan Parsons Project. A song with a singer and a huge choir with men and women. With the voice-center bidule the singer comes from the Center only and the choir falls in from all speakers (except the center) with even some separation between the male and female singers (front, rears). An overwhelming effect ! There is also almost no percussion in this song, so that problem is solved too ;)

Second : about the private message : we try to keep up with the spirit of this forum and don't publish links to or cracks for commercial software on the forum. But sometimes you find a program that does exactly what you need (for the voice-center bidule). If any people will give that a shot too, I won't publish it here in public ! But give the link in a PM ! (Is that so hard to understand ? Why that immediate accusation about "not sharing" ?)

Oh, also a third point : "why not share these secrets with the world in a spirit of cooperation" > personally I am insulted by this !
Our work is always shared ! This whole thread and previous ones is sharing of our work. A ridiculous statement from you IMHO !
As long as you make this kind of remarks, I will go back into silent mode again and find other ways to publish our work . (as we already did, BTW)
We shared everything and then someone comes up with such a remark ?
What we don't share is in the spirit of this forum !

You see, it's still not about what you say, but how you say it !
Every invention or improvement came from positive criticism and suggestions to improve things. Negative ones lead to nowhere !
And to me you're still sounding too negative for my taste.

So I wonder : if you cannot find positive things in what we produce : why the heck do you want to work with us ??


Regards,
Steve.

EoH

[jorel]

from EOH (great) explanations:
"What gives good results on one song, doesn't necessarily give good results on another !" this is the resume.
and i'm a witness of his words: ..."I am more interested in the people that are satisfied" cos he is posting "the road" to this results! thanks EOH and Andreas for this magical thread! ;) (EOH my friend, take it easy! :) )

[kempfand]

Originally posted by ursamtl I'd be glad to give the groups you mentioned a closer look. Unfortunately, the ftp server is down right now and I can't find them on the needfulthings server. I thought they were included in the original download with the 3 bidules but I can't find the actual group files anywhere. I've checked the bidules and I don't see pins L7/R7, etc. so, I'll give them a look this week. Daphy now put them to the Needful Things host (http://needfulthings.webhop.org/) (\latest-layouts-temp\gerzon_1997_bidule.rar).

No need to hurry with feedback, [off-topic mode on] as things are pretty busy here with the European championship :) Adding only 2 more teams would make it a real world-championship: Argentina and Brazil :cool: [off-topic mode off]

Andreas

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by jorel
from EOH (great) explanations:
"What gives good results on one song, doesn't necessarily give good results on another !" this is the resume.
and i'm a witness of his words: ..."I am more interested in the people that are satisfied" cos he is posting "the road" to this results! thanks EOH and Andreas for this magical thread! ;) (EOH my friend, take it easy! :) )

Hi Jorel,

Thanks for the kind words !!

Yes, I take it easy ;)

BTW I send you a PM !

EoH

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
Although I said not to reply anymore. I will, because there are again a few lines in your post I am not pleased with. And no, this has nothing to do with a personal attack......

I don’t see the point in quoting your messages back in my response because you’ll only accuse me of twisting your words.

Ironically, I could accuse you of something similar when you stated that I chose one song and then immediately expressed disappointment. I never said or implied that I used just one song to test your bidules. I gave one example with Pink Floyd’s Comfortably Numb because it provides both percussive and non-percussive sound effects at the beginning plus both percussive and non-percussive music throughout. For testing surround bidules, I actually use about 20 musical recordings in various styles.

I will make one correction to my previous message to you. I apologize because I forgot to type the word “no” in the following: “Since there's no sound going to your LFE in this bidule, the only deep, solid bass you'll get is if your center speaker can produce it.” However, you completely ignored the essential point that all deep bass energy is going to the center speaker instead of the left and rights. Since most center speakers roll off the lows, either someone is going to need a good subwoofer and bass management on the amp to redirect the sound, or else he or she is out of luck! Even with these, the separation of the bass frequencies in the front speakers will be compromised because the center speaker is by nature mono.

Anyway, I could go on, but I don’t see the point--my other posts have adequately expressed my technical answers on these issues for anyone who reads them with attention.

Before I joined this forum, I spent some time reading the threads and I’m sorry to say I developed a negative impression of you and especially how you handle criticism. This is one reason I avoided joining for awhile. I thought perhaps that would change once I got into discussing with you the surround technology covered here. However, every comment I made, you seemed to take as a personal attack of you. This has degenerated to the point where I have zero respect for anything you have to say, and I get the impression the feeling is likewise.

Therefore, if I have comments or questions concerning your bidules, etc., I will address them to Andreas. If I see something you write about the bidules and I disagree with it, I’ll ask him about it. I will continue to contribute to this thread because it is still presented by Doom9 at a public Sticky thread on ways to upmix from stereo to surround and not just your personal thread. I hope Doom9 eventually reorganizes the threads so that everyone who creates an upmix guide in a separate thread is given equal treatment (surroundboy, kpex, bleo, et al) because it seems unfair to newbies coming along that these other methods—all every bit as valid in their own right as yours—scroll off the front pages of the forum. These people are also posting 'roads' to results and contributing to the community.

For now, however, it seems that this thread has evolved into a general forum for discussion of upmixing to surround. Although you may have started it--and I do congratulate you for doing so--it is now a forum for discussion of various methods by various people. As such, it is a valuable resource and everyone who contributes to it deserves praise, just as the people I mentioned above and others deserve praise for taking the time to contribute their ideas.

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
Daphy now put them to the Needful Things host (http://needfulthings.webhop.org/) (\latest-layouts-temp\gerzon_1997_bidule.rar).

No need to hurry with feedback, [off-topic mode on] as things are pretty busy here with the European championship :) Adding only 2 more teams would make it a real world-championship: Argentina and Brazil :cool: [off-topic mode off]

Andreas

Ok, well I can give you my initial impressions of one bidule, the Preservation_5_Speaker_v2_REC_.bidule. Personally, I think this is the best, most realistic sounding upmixing bidule I've heard since I discovered this forum! It is light years ahead of both the 3 bidules you posted recently, the ambisonics one that starts this thread, etc. I still have to test bleo's DPLII upmix but for sheer simplicity and results, this definitely rocks! I'm also surprised in that its fronts sound almost exactly like the new bidule I was working on. They both tend to spread the stereo soundfield out beyond the front speakers without leaving a hole. My only negative comment would be that the surrounds are a little strong for my taste. Personally I don't like surrounds that present part of the music information directionally. Neither do I want them to be simple reverb of the front channels, but I like them to create a realistic sound space. I added a gain object to the rears of Prev5v2 and at about -4dB it definitely produces nice sounding surround without the cheap, gimicky sound. To be honest, those last three bidules reminded me of a cheap Radio Shack analog delay box I had for my guitar 20 years ago! This new one sounds like something out of a recording studio! In addition, for those with slower PCs, this might be a great solution since it runs at about only 5% CPU. There's some work to do on the surrounds but it's a minor detail.

So, although I have some testing to do with the others and exploration of the guts, I'd say this is a winner. I ran about a dozen songs through it quickly on the PC ASIO out. I've been doing this so much now that I'm able to anticipate how things will sound through the big 5.1 system and I have a good feeling about this.

Regards,
Steve.

[Eye of Horus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ursamtl
I don’t see the point in quoting your messages back in my response because you’ll only accuse me of twisting your words.
{/quote]


Of course, why should you react to what I say ??
No, you don't, you only post another tirade about how bad I am.
Here in Holland we call someone like you a guy with an incredible plate before his head !

This was a nice forum......

EoH

[DSP8000]

@ ursamtl,

I can't find Preservation_5_Speaker_v2_REC_.bidule on the needfull things server, can you give me link for it.
Personally, I follow this thread every day and to be honest there is a lot of improvement since the original CoolEdit-Aurora method.
However there is some "fuss" in the air that I don't like and turns this thread in "unneeded" discussion.

Keep up the good work ursamtl,andreas....

DSP8000

[kempfand]

@ Steve: Thanks for your feedback (BTW having the same experience here that running things through the ASIO gives a good anticipation on how it will come out on the big 5.1 system). I also was impressed when I first listened to the Groups and bidules using the Gerzon 1997 approach, and my mental note was a simple statement saying: "Prooven Gerzon Technology". Changing/adding a gain element for the Rears (as you did), or even a gentle reverb (using one instance of SIR) gives so much space for creativity and personal preference.


Originally posted by DSP8000 I can't find Preservation_5_Speaker_v2_REC_.bidule on the needfull things server, can you give me link for it.It's on the host Needful Things host (http://needfulthings.webhop.org/) in \latest-layouts-temp\gerzon_1997_bidule.rar.

When you use them, just make sure you feed the output-pins the right way (the one in the center goes to the C-speaker, the ones at the outmost left & right will go to the Surround, and the ones in the 'middle' go to the front L & R). I've added bidules in the RAR for illustrative purpose.


Originally posted by DSP8000 Personally, I follow this thread every day and to be honest there is a lot of improvement since the original CoolEdit-Aurora method.I think I know what you mean by improvement (i.e. easy of use, speed). I personally prefer to call it variation, as we have so much more choices today than 2 years back. The CoolEdit (Ambisonics) method has it's merits, and so do all the other methods described here and in the Audio section of this forum.

But I also would like to point out that EoH started it all with the original CoolEdit threat here (the Ambisonics method), and that his initial threat was my personal starting point for what I call a wonderful hobby that I wouldn't want to miss.

Regards,

Andreas

[DSP8000]

Thanks Andreas, found it.
Exactly, easy of use, speed...
The original idea it is probably the same(you guys should know), but there is always room for improvement.
With instr.music maybe it's better to experiment, as voice based tracks are a bit different to handle.
All I'm aiming to achieve is complete separation of diff. channels,frequencies,to preserve the original recording sound across 5.1 encoded file without using too much reverberation.
My Creative ZS Pro does nice job with the DTS NEO update driver but, for my taste the rears sounded "plastic"

Thanks again & enjoy the sounds

DSP8000

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by DSP8000
@ ursamtl,

I can't find Preservation_5_Speaker_v2_REC_.bidule on the needfull things server, can you give me link for it.
Personally, I follow this thread every day and to be honest there is a lot of improvement since the original CoolEdit-Aurora method.
However there is some "fuss" in the air that I don't like and turns this thread in "unneeded" discussion.

Keep up the good work ursamtl,andreas....

DSP8000
Andreas has given you the link, so enjoy the bidules! Thanks for the encouragement DSP. Yes, the thread was getting bogged down with unnecessary discussions, but hopefully things will improve now. You're right that there has been a lot of improvement in the bidules. I think you'll find that the the Gerzon 1997 bidules Andreas posted are quite good, at least the one I tried was. If you find the rears a little too loud, be sure to add a gain object and turn it down slightly to balance them. Then if you listen to the fronts you'll hear lots of detail.

Another important point that's been made here several times is to convert the input wave files to 32-bit floating point format before the input. The difference may be subtle, but details on high frequencies, the overall sense of transparency in the music, etc., is improved. If you don't have a commercial program to do this, I've found an excellent freeware DOS utility that converts a file quickly. It's available from the Telecommunications & Signal Processing Laboratory at McGill University here in Montreal and is called CopyAudio. You can download it at ftp://ftp.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/TSP/AFsp/ and read more about the whole package at http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/MMSP/Documents/Software/Packages/AFsp/AFsp.html.
The actualy CopyAudio.exe is in the MSVC\bin folder of the extracted files. Simply add -D "float32" plus the input and output filenames to the command line and it converts your file very rapidly. It doesn't provide any onscreen feedback while working. Just wait until the command prompt returns and you'll find your finished file is converted.

There are some other interesting utilities in the AFsp package for comparing audio files, resampling, processing multichannel files, etc. Too bad these aren't VST plugins!

By the way, I noticed you're using a ZS Pro. How do you like it? I'm planning to upgrade my old Live 5.1 later this year and the ZS Pro looks like a good target. Have you tried the kX Project drivers on it? Apparently, they work fine on the ZS Pro and offer improved performance when compared to the Creative drivers. You can check the forums at www.kxproject.com for more. One other question, are you able in Plogue to add a multichannel ASIO out using the Creative drivers? Since Creative never supported ASIO in their official Live drivers, I've completely ditched anything from Creative and use kX exclusively. (Sorry to everyone else for bringing this questions into this thread, but since DSP doesn't accept PMs I have no choice :)

Regards,
Steve.

[ursamtl]

Originally posted by kempfand
@ Steve: Thanks for your feedback (BTW having the same experience here that running things through the ASIO gives a good anticipation on how it will come out on the big 5.1 system). I also was impressed when I first listened to the Groups and bidules using the Gerzon 1997 approach, and my mental note was a simple statement saying: "Prooven Gerzon Technology". Changing/adding a gain element for the Rears (as you did), or even a gentle reverb (using one instance of SIR) gives so much space for creativity and personal preference.Yes, actually I tried a quick run with the free Classic Reverb VST on the rears (find out more about it at http://www.kvr-vst.com/get/717.html). With its "Drum Rooms" preset at about 50%wet-dry, the whole surround mix came alive without actually sounding like added reverb. With the right impulse files SIR can be great too. I just like Classic for quick simple stuff.

One thing I did like about the 3 previous bidules you posted was that you added dithering to the outputs. I never felt we resolved this issue when we discussed it before. I know Surcode (for example) accepts 32-bit input files, but I was never able to find out whether it 1. dithered to 16-bit output, 2. truncated to 16-bit output, or 3. left the output at 32 bits. I seem to recall reading something that led me to believe that the digital DTS wave file is seen by a DVD player as a 16-bit file. I know from experience that the input file has to be at 44.1K for the DVD player to recognize the DTS wave file as a music track, so I assume it recognizes it as 16 bit as well. Therefore, I think dithering the outputs makes sense as one is sure that proper dithering will be done instead of hoping it's done by Surcode or whatever AC3 encoder one uses. What are your thoughts on this?

Regards,
Steve.

[DSP8000]

@ursamtl,

From the kxProject FAQ
"Audigy2 ZS series aren't fully supported at the moment, due to the fact that we do not have an Audigy2 ZS card for testing. However, as soon as we have enough money to buy one, support will be implemented."
I'm happy with the Creative drivers and my PC setup so there's no need to change anything, maybe if they have enough good features in their drivers i'll give it a go.

About CopyAudio, I'll definetely have a look(on the weekend) at the moment I'm using Audition.

Yes, Creative ZS PRO is my choice, I used to have M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 and that is another very good sound card, but not suitable for my needs.
Actualy this is one of the very first semi-pro multimedia/multichannel based cards that performs a bit better at 44.1 kHz. Native 48 kHz is excellent!!! All in one it is very good package.

I do accept PM's just my bigpond email is bugged so I have to use this one ivancosax@hotmail.com ,geez you can tell that I play sax from the email.

Regards,
Ivan