stereo and surround levels - Gearslutz.com

Gearslutz.com

All Advertisers
Go Back   Gearslutz.com > The Forums > Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording


Tags: , , , ,

stereo and surround levels

New Reply New Reply Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 3rd August 2007   #1
Lives for gear
 
huub's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 1,208

Thread Starter
Talking stereo and surround levels

Hi all,
sorry if this has been asked before, but a search did not get me an answer to my specific question..
Normally i mix for television broadcast, but i'm mixing a concert for dvd release right now,
in surround..
I have noticed that most stereo music dvd's just use the mix for broadcast (european broadcast, so mixed to -9dbfs, which is what I normally mix to)..
Levels of dvd's go all over the place anyway, I notice...
In mastering, what levels/rules are there for stereo and surround music, especially if there are both stereo and surround mixes on a dvd?
I suppose the surround and stereo mix should be somewhat the same level right?
And I don't want to hear about dynamics , I just want to know where to set my limiter in case there's no budget for mastering (quite likely sadly)..
huub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2007   #2
Gear addict
 
Sunbreak Music's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 497

Are you mixing from stems, tracks, or upmixing?

How much information is going to the rears? Are you using the LFE?

There's really no standard for DVD as you've noticed, and a lot has to do w/ bass management, center channel usage, and ultimately the anticipated audience, etc. It's not like broadcast where you have a -9 or -6 standard.

Can you tell me a little more about the project? You could pm me if you'd prefer.
__________________
Cass Anawaty, Chief Engineer
Sunbreak Music, LLC
High Resolution Stereo Mastering
www.sunbreakmusic.com
Sunbreak Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2007   #3
Gear maniac
 
imgoinmad's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 211

Send a message via Yahoo to imgoinmad
I think there's more than one person who'd love to see more detailed response on this. There's lots of us who read this forum to learn more about the trade. If you do take this to PM, if you wouldn't mind posting what you learn, it'd be beneficial to others who are here. Thanks!
__________________
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3043964/
http://www.productionhousemedia.com

Currently working on:
Untethered (TV Pilot)

Just Completed:
Fearless Episode Hunters (short)

Recently Screened at SIFF:
Plain Face (Animated Short)
Howard From Ohio (Short)
imgoinmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2007   #4
Lives for gear
 
huub's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 1,208

Thread Starter
Hi cass, thanks for replying.
I'm mixing tracks from pyramix, either in pyramix or through lawo mc66/2 console, haven't decided yet (I'm just setting up now, our pyramix system arrived last week)..
Most likely the center and surrounds will only contain ambi mics (in between songs) and I see no need to use the lfe channel..
the stereo mix will be broadcast on national tv, and the dvd will end up in the stores for home use most likely.
The concert is more than 2 hours long though, so i'm not sure surround and pcm stereo wil fit on dvd without the video looking like vhs...
Also: limiting will be either from system 6000, or plug ins..

Last edited by huub; 3rd August 2007 at 05:36 PM.. Reason: typo
huub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2007   #5
Lives for gear
 
finetuner's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 872

Hi Huub,
I recommend not to lower the headroom as you would for broadcast.
The thing is, something like that will happen at the dvd authoring stage.

In dvd authoring applications, there's an audio setting called reference level or something like that (default -28 and max -31 ? not sure). Being a reference it acts like a threshold, so lowering the value wil raise output level . Anyway it's set for ample headroom normally for movie dynamics.
I think that's why most DVD's sound softer than cd's - thank God.

However, that threshold may be changed for louder music DVD's.
Be sure to discuss that with your authoring facility, they will take care of it.

That leaves you to mix/master comfortably with limiter set near zero. That's how i mastered for a few DVD's and had no complaints from the authoring house. For the sake of the medium, it wouldn't hurt to at least keep the dynamics a bit conservative - oops, did i start about dynamics?

As for the surround vs. stereo versions: The sum of surround channels are percieved louder by the ear than a mix of only two channels with similar peak levels. So yes, mixing the 5.1 softer seems a wise thing to do. Preferably by dynamics, not just lowering the limiter threshold. If you're given the time/budget of cause.

Best,
Peter
finetuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2007   #6
Gear Head
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by finetuner View Post
Hi Huub,
In dvd authoring applications, there's an audio setting called reference level or something like that (default -28 and max -31 ? not sure).
Best,
Peter
Hi, this is indeed called dialnorm and has a level from 0 to -31 whereas -27 is the standard for some authoring software. The lower you go, the louder it will be, but if the consumer has dynamic range compression on, it will go nuts with music with low dynamics! Most commercial DVD's that I see are set to -31 though (just wanting to be the loudest)!

Robin
Robin Reumers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2007   #7
Gear addict
 
Sunbreak Music's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 497

There aren't any rules, so that's somewhat comforting In fact, some are starting to question the basic ITU standard and changing the angles on their own, but that's another thread.

I haven't done any broadcast 5.1, but in the DVD audio realm, I do not lower the levels at all vs. a two channel mix.

I give them L, R, PLUS the other channels. They want it.

Trying to match perceived volume of stereo vs. 5.1 doesn't sound like fun, and they're going to turn it up anyway to "hear it from the back speakers". Sure, it's psychoacoustics, but isn't that what surround is?

Since you're only directing ambience anyway, it's probably not a big deal. I think you're safe no matter what, and good call to keep the LFE clear.

In the end, everyone's home theater system is out of whack anyway

Have fun w/ it.
Sunbreak Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2007   #8
Lives for gear
 
finetuner's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 872

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Reumers View Post
...this is indeed called dialnorm
yes that was it, thanks. Stands for Dialog Normalisation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbreak Music View Post
...good call to keep the LFE clear
Good advice!

thumbsup
finetuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2007   #9
Lives for gear
 
huub's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 1,208

Thread Starter
thanks all!
huub is offline   Reply With Quote
New Reply New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread starter Forum Replies Last Post
cables for surround stereo systems... what type are you using and why? Jason Poulin High end 1 11th January 2007 06:12 PM
Console Channel levels vs stereo bus levels? Redsandblu So much gear, so little time! 6 4th May 2005 08:12 PM
Surround Panning in Stereo vaesion So much gear, so little time! 10 1st April 2005 11:36 AM
Pro levels vs. Amateur levels tunesmith So much gear, so little time! 9 20th July 2004 06:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 PM.

Home - Search Forum - Contact Us - Terms Of Use - Advertise on Gearslutz - All Advertisers - Archive - Top
 
 
Powered by vBulletin®
Gearslutz.com LTD - UK Company Number 7597610.
Registered Office - 35 Ballards Lane, London, N3 1XW.
Hosted by Nimbus Hosting.

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.