# What do I need for a Surround Set up?



## jononotbono (Sep 29, 2016)

So,

I'm starting to think about sorting out a Surround Sound Set up in my lab but before I start wading through an Ocean of online misinformation and nonsense by people that have no idea what they are talking about, I thought I would ask here for some basics.

I have never had a Surround Sound setup before and never mixed in Surround but we all start somewhere and quite frankly the thought of creating and mixing in Surround is beyond exciting. 

What do I need in order to achieve a Surround Sound Set up?

I use Cubase Pro 8.5 as my main DAW and use a pair of Adam A7X monitors. Love these monitors but never bought them with an intention of Surround. They were bought for when I only tracked and recorded bands. Are they suitable for Surround sound? Is 5.1 surround 5 Monitors plus a sub? Also are the monitors set up so you have 1 centre front, 2 x left and right (stereo), and then 2 x rear Left and Right?


Also, what is Quad? I'm guessing 4 monitors but would that also include a 5th so you have a sub?

Is 5.1 the standard or do people use 7.1 or higher?

I'm just wondering, no matter how many extra monitors I should get, should I buy identical Adams or should I buy smaller one's for the rear speakers? Or a totally different brand altogether? Also, should the Sub be of the same brand (does it need to be calibrated?) or does this not matter?

Is it still possible to only use Stereo when I just need to work in Stereo even if Surround monitors are set up? So I can use them when needed.

One last question... Why do so few actually work in Surround? This whole thread is HZ's fault for planting the seed the other day saying that the sound of HZ01 is Surround and 2/3rds of the Sound is missing and how he can't believe how few people work in Surround.

Any advice is appreciated before I start my long journey down the path of Google!

Jono


----------



## Smikes77 (Sep 29, 2016)

I want in on this too. Couldn`t have put those questions better myself.

*puts feet back while Jono does all the thinking...


----------



## jononotbono (Sep 29, 2016)

You are very welcome. I'm feeling overly generous today with my thoughts!


----------



## JoeBarlow (Sep 29, 2016)

A few months ago I was scoring a short film and their sound mixer dropped out so I (in my naivety) said I would mix the films audio into 5.1, so heres some things I found out. 
Getting my audio interface to play nice with 5.1 was a huge pain, I have a focusrite saffire pro 24 which has 6 outputs, but you need to use the internal software to control the extra monitors as the monitor control on the front only affects the level of my front 2 speakers (gross right?)! 
I was using a stereo pair (adam a7's), a back pair (KRK rokit 6's lent to me from a friend), a single centre monitor (m-audio bx5) and a cheap computer sub. A very rushed together and unbalanced job that would make 5.1 mix veterans cringe, BUT it worked for what I had to do. 

Basically, when you set up 5.1 set up and create a stereo track in the DAW, the signals only get sent to your stereo speakers. You need a specific surround audio track to get the information sent to your 5 speakers (sub has a separate send control), so you can just use them when you need them. 
I think quad is the main for music because the front centre speaker is almost exclusively used for dialogue in a film mix, and most sound mixers don't want much else coming through that speaker, and the sub is just an extension of your general mix normally. 

I had a massive amount of fun panning some heavy percussion in the quad field though, having taikos coming from every angle was awesome! 

I'm interested in seeing how some pro's mix in surround and how often, but that's just my brief experience with surround mixing and some of the mistakes I made. 

OH ALSO, as all the rear/sub/centre speaker information isn't coming through the stereo pair you have to create two mixes when you do surround, so you have a stereo version for general viewing with people without surround!


----------



## pixel (Sep 29, 2016)

I'm learning surround right now. Maybe I start from beginning: 
Mix: basic mixing looks like, when we recording we have to choose one of microphone surround techniques and then we pan each microphone to belonging speaker. In my project I have Correy/Martin technique which is easy to mix: I have Front, left, right, surround left and surround right mics. Very easy to assign them in typical 5.1 setup which is standard surround setup. For front speakers it's mostly hard pan left right and additional center mic (can be close mic) for center speaker. The rule is to mix instruments in the way how we can hear them in real life, not like half of head is in the middle of band/orchestra and other half is on last audience chair. Once was mentioned that tricks like auto-pan with sound banging from speaker to speaker should be avoided as it's not pleasant for listener and can make him confused. 
Monitoring: monitors should be set up in circle like this:





and should be on the same height. Sub in corners as opposite to standard stereo setup where you want to avoid mega ultra bass boost 

Monitors: I would go the easiest way and bought Surround monitors setup. Speakers will be matched and it helps to avoid pain with selecting compatible single speakers. It saves time, your mental health and probably even money 

It's what I learned right now but we just began this topic and it will continue till next 10 months so there must be much more to learn about surround.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Sep 29, 2016)

I'll try to answer as much as I can but feel free to PM me if you have any more questions or need any help.

It's not very difficult to set up. The acoustic design of a room for surround can be very tricky (so many first reflection points) but lets disregard that and just assume that there's a moderate amount of treatment optimized for stereo. 

Place the speakers as pixel mentioned (30 degrees of center for the stereo and 110 for the surrounds although those can vary). Plugging them in is typically 1/2 - L R 3/4 - C LFE 5/6 - Ls Rs. Then set your OS to 5.1 in the audio settings so that movies and other surround files play back properly.

One issue is a surround monitor controller. Do you need it? Well technically no. You can adjust the levels in the computer but it's always a good idea to have something in case something malfunctions and you need to quickly turn the speakers down. I love the RME interfaces because I can use the knob to control all of the outputs. There are only a couple of interface brands that let you do that and then you don't need a separate controller. Most of the cheaper surround controllers do color the surround as Christian Henson has mentioned. In my case I never touch that one and have an analog stereo controller for my LR which I use when I'm listening to music and then turn all the way up when I'm working so it's calibrated. If you're using a separate controller for your LR then it has to be something that you can always set to the same level to be calibrated to the rest of your system (either turning a knob all the way up or having something with discrete values). 

I won't go into detail about calibrating it but don't go to 85dBSPL as a lot of places will tell you to! Something around 78dBSPL will be much more appropriate for your room. Calibrating the sub can be difficult. It's not a matter of simply making it 10dB louder! With an SPL meter I believe it's something like 4dB louder but you really should use an RTA for calibrating it. Another things about the physical placement - remember that the center is on the circle and not in a straight line between the LR. That can cause timing issues (although in a small room it might be negligible). 

The LCR ideally should be identical so that things can be panned between them properly. A lot of composers use a different C as they use it only for dialogue but really there should be music in too to a certain extent. I use a different monitor (but same brand) which isn't ideal but I usually have a different signal going to the C so it's not as bad. Surrounds can be something different. People usually use smaller monitors. I don't remember the Dolby specs but I believe they only need to go down to 80Hz (I know that the LCR need to go down to 40Hz and for Atmos everything is to 40Hz I believe). Sub can be different. If you're not using any sort of bass management system then it can be a different brand. 

Quad is just 4.0. As a composer you can probably get by with that. HZ mentions that they did that for a while because of a design flaw and then created the center after. Even if you don't you could probably get by having music only in 4.0. Junkie XL works in 4.0 in Cubase so I'm not sure if they create a center and LFE after or if the score stays in 4.0. You can also not have a sub as HZ doesn't in his room but if it's not going to someone else to mix then you probably should and also if you're watching movies you probably should to learn how they're doing. Just be careful with how you use it with your music. 

HZ frequently mentions on here that the industry has moved past 5.1 but I'm not sure how relevant that is to composers. I imagine 5.1 is where composers are at. I don't know of any composers working in 7.1. Even Alan Meyerson's room is 5.1. Also, Cubase can't do 7.1 so you'd need Nuendo. 

Of course you can use stereo but I don't know that you'd want to...

Another great thing is the control room in Cubase. You can do so much with that. Has the features of the best monitor controllers all there allowing you to solo different channels and downmix. Also has all the metering you'd need. 

I strongly recommend the 5" JBLs for surrounds. Not the 8" as I've heard they don't sound as good. The sort of horn tweeter gives a much better off axis sound. You could even get all 5 speakers without it being all that expensive (and then still keep the Adams for stereo work) which would give you matched LCR. Only issue is that I'd probably want a sub on the LR to extend the low end. So I'd probably suggest trying to get another Adam A7x for the center and then the JBLs for the surrounds. A 10" sub should do for the LFE.


----------



## jononotbono (Sep 30, 2016)

Excellent and thanks to everyone for taking the time out to explain all of this!


----------



## kurtvanzo (Oct 1, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I'll try to answer as much as I can but feel free to PM me if you have any more questions or need any help.
> 
> It's not very difficult to set up. The acoustic design of a room for surround can be very tricky (so many first reflection points) but lets disregard that and just assume that there's a moderate amount of treatment optimized for stereo.
> 
> ...



Gerhard is spot on with most of this, just a few additions. 7.1 was originally 5 speakers behind the screen (Left, Left Center, Center, Right Center, Right and the Surround Left/Right + sub) for cinemascope and huge screens. So it would be pointless for a mix room, but there are a few systems now with more surround speakers (including Atmos which has many) but more often than not your delivery will be 5.1 or 4.1, most mix stages can add it to the mix and create the center track (which traditionally has more dialog than music anyway) or mix for more outputs when needed. Stems of Rythm, melody, and solo tracks are sometimes also helpful.

The 2nd addition is mix set-ups. There are a few systems nowadays to set up a 5.1 mix and have one controller that mutes and adjust volume on the whole system, making control much easier. Traditionally you would have a mute on each speaker as well for pink-noise and level tests, but it's not essential. Here is one by SPL...
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SMC

The important part is getting speakers that match and if mixing for film theaters, thx certified. Also a controller like SPL that controls all the speakers. I'm sure there are a few more systems like this out there, hopefully with balanced ins and outs.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Oct 1, 2016)

kurtvanzo said:


> Gerhard is spot on with most of this, just a few additions. 7.1 was originally 5 speakers behind the screen (Left, Left Center, Center, Right Center, Right and the Surround Left/Right + sub) for cinemascope and huge screens. So it would be pointless for a mix room, but there are a few systems now with more surround speakers (including Atmos which has many) but more often than not your delivery will be 5.1 or 4.1, most mix stages can add it to the mix and create the center track (which traditionally has more dialog than music anyway) or mix for more outputs when needed. Stems of Rythm, melody, and solo tracks are sometimes also helpful.
> 
> The 2nd addition is mix set-ups. There are a few systems nowadays to set up a 5.1 mix and have one controller that mutes and adjust volume on the whole system, making control much easier. Traditionally you would have a mute on each speaker as well for pink-noise and level tests, but it's not essential. Here is one by blue sky...
> http://abluesky.com/products/mediadesk-5-1-mkii/
> ...



I've seen that 7.1 setup but isn't it usually with the additional speakers being side speakers (like with 7.1 home theater systems)?


----------



## kurtvanzo (Oct 1, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I've seen that 7.1 setup but isn't it usually with the additional speakers being side speakers (like with 7.1 home theater systems)?



Not for a traditional movie theater, they were always 5 behind the screen, but now it seems Dolby is finally adding to the surround speakers with new 7.1 standards and Atmos...
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-surround-7-1.html

Atmos adds overhead speakers and more channels...
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/cinema/dolby-atmos.html


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Oct 1, 2016)

kurtvanzo said:


> Not for a traditional movie theater, they were always 5 behind the screen, but now it seems Dolby is finally adding to the surround speakers with new 7.1 standards and Atmos...
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-surround-7-1.html
> 
> Atmos adds overhead speakers and more channels...
> http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/cinema/dolby-atmos.html



Even with Atmos the additional screen channels are optional. I wonder if the 7.1 setup with side channels only exists for home playback and if it was never used for theater mixing. Wouldn't it be strange before there was Atmos to have those side channels if it wasn't something that was in the theater? Where would that additional content come from for the side channels?


----------



## kurtvanzo (Oct 1, 2016)

The dolby link is for theaters, so I assume it's installed in some theaters in major cities. Like with Atmos, it would have to be mixed for this format, but mixing for atmos also outputs 7.1 and 5.1 versions, so Atmos covers other formats. Although using 7.1 might be rare (especially in broadcast) I can see it becoming a new standard (in addition to 5.1) as mutliple formats can be added to bluerays and streaming.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 2, 2016)

usually when we mix in 7.1 we put the music surrounds at the side and fx ar the back. Works nicely.
I'm trying to get Alan Myerson to write a piece for this column...
And Nathaniel Kunkel, who's our in house Dolby Athmos expert (he works for Dolby, but has a mix room at our place.)

Personally, I use 5 selfpowered speakers (Questeds - not as expensiv as the Adamms, but still good with bass extension down to 40 Hz, but then we use a sub in the mix-room for non-pitched (!!!!!) elements like big drums.

We try to put a little something into the center (or vocals, if it's a song) just so the sides don't 'pull' into the center on a very large screen...
I run everything at a constant 85db, unless I find myself writing too quietly, and then I turn down to 80db, so that I hit my track a little harder...
-H-


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Oct 2, 2016)

Rctec said:


> Personally, I use 5 selfpowered speakers (Questeds - not as expensiv as the Adamms, but still good with bass extension down to 40 Hz, but then we use a sub in the mix-room for non-pitched (!!!!!) elements like big drums.



Are you also using the individual Quested subs for extension on your LCR or is that just in the mix rooms? I know Alan is big on extending the bass even on his giant ATCs.

I'm excited to see how you guys will play with Atmos.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 2, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Are you also using the individual Quested subs for extension on your LCR or is that just in the mix rooms? I know Alan is big on extending the bass even on his giant ATCs.
> 
> I'm excited to see how you guys will play with Atmos.


yes, the extra Quested bass extension. I don't really see it as a sub, more a way of extending the frequency range of the main speakers, so that the main drivers don't have to work so hard in an oversized room...


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 2, 2016)

I have often wondered about how you deal with monitoring in such a huge room and having the bass extension on each monitor makes sense. I bet that sounds amazing but unfortunately my Music Lab isn't physically big enough (until I relocate - whenever that may be) for individual Subs to go with each 5 Adams (when I buy the other 3) but I would certainly get 1 sub to begin with. I think anymore and I may run into problems (and not just with the Police). I've also just read the Sound on Sound review of the QuestedVS2108. I wish I hadn't. Not a bad word about them!


----------



## Baron Greuner (Oct 2, 2016)

I have used VS2108s for years. I don't know what model Hans has, but at a guess probably the same. They're not cheap but they're not super expensive in a crazy comparative way.

The other monitors for 5:1 I might look at would be smaller Focals.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 3, 2016)

Rctec said:


> I'm trying to get Alan Myerson to write a piece for this column...
> And Nathaniel Kunkel, who's our in house Dolby Athmos expert (he works for Dolby, but has a mix room at our place.)



That would be great and would love to read it if either of them do write anything! I maybe green with Surround (at the moment) but I'm a fast learner and learning anything from people at the top of the game is amazing! I watched an interview of Alan Myerson on Pensando's Place recently. So humble and such a master!


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 3, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> I have used VS2108s for years. I don't know what model Hans has, but at a guess probably the same. They're not cheap but they're not super expensive in a crazy comparative way.
> 
> The other monitors for 5:1 I might look at would be smaller Focals.



I would love to hear the Questeds but I am happy with my Adams for now. Sound on Sound also had nothing bad to say about them and they won best monitor for their price range 2 yrs straight. Of course, I bought them after actually hearing them in a friend's studio first, which although not as ideal as hearing them in my own Lab, it's better than buying blind (or deaf I should say) or listening on a shop floor. I also only wrote and mixed Pop and Rock on them when I bought them but things have changed (for the better) now especially considering when I saved the money for the Adams I worked on this really shitty Garlic Farm and had to clean over 23000 bulbs of Garlic to save up for them! Haha! The harder anyone worked, the price per bulb of Garlic went down (0.025 pence at one point). The odd things some of us do for music huh! Anyway, back to Surround...


----------



## Smikes77 (Oct 3, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> I would love to hear the Questeds but I am happy with my Adams for now. Sound on Sound also had nothing bad to say about them and they won best monitor for their price range 2 yrs straight. Of course, I bought them after actually hearing them in a friend's studio first, which although not as ideal as hearing them in my own Lab, it's better than buying blind (or deaf I should say) or listening on a shop floor. I also only wrote and mixed Pop and Rock on them when I bought them but things have changed (for the better) now especially considering when I saved the money for the Adams I worked on this really shitty Garlic Farm and had to clean over 23000 bulbs of Garlic to save up for them! Haha! The harder anyone worked, the price per bulb of Garlic went down (0.025 pence at one point). The odd things some of us do for music huh! Anyway, back to Surround...



At least we know you`re not a vampire, a crrrrrreature of the night.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 3, 2016)

If you don't have one already, you will want a sound level meter (also sometimes called an SPL) and a pink noise sound to set your room at a consistent listening level. Hans mentioned 85 or 80 dBs, some people go much lower than that.

The sound level meter is not expensive (less than $100). I prefer an analogue one with a VU meter rather than digital, but "what-ever" as they say here in Los Angeles. Pink noise is undoubtedly available in your DAW or protools rig.


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 3, 2016)

85 db is what I use John.

You can also find a pretty good level meter app for your iphone for next to nothing.

Dynaudio BM15AmkI mains here and my old BM12AmkI for rears.



JohnG said:


> If you don't have one already, you will want a sound level meter (also sometimes called an SPL) and a pink noise sound to set your room at a consistent listening level. Hans mentioned 85 or 80 dBs, some people go much lower than that.
> 
> The sound level meter is not expensive (less than $100). I prefer an analogue one with a VU meter rather than digital, but "what-ever" as they say here in Los Angeles. Pink noise is undoubtedly available in your DAW or protools rig.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 3, 2016)

Great information! Thank you!


----------



## Baron Greuner (Oct 4, 2016)

The Quested VS2108s, although built to withstand a nuclear blast, are supposedly deigned to be Nearfield monitors. But I would think that unless you have a fairly good sized studio, for 5:1 something smaller, like e.g. small, good Focals would be something to try out.

One of the guys in Brighton tried out the VS2108s and a bunch of other monitors just recently actually when revamping his studio where it's mainly all about mastering library tracks as they come in. In the end after much too-ing and fro-ing he went for a pair of Focals that were reduced down to around just over 3 grand I think.


----------



## AR (Oct 6, 2016)

Rctec said:


> ...
> I'm trying to get Alan Myerson to write a piece for this column...
> -H-


That would be sooo great.


----------



## tack (Oct 7, 2016)

Rctec said:


> I run everything at a constant 85db


Is that 85dB SPL with a 0dBFS output? Or at -20dBFS?

At -20dBFS I find 85dB SPL uncomfortably loud. Also as an apartment dweller I would probably get myself evicted.

I find about 80dB SPL for those occasional fortissimo moments to lie in the comfort zone.

Even if I didn't have to be considerate to neighbors, I'm hard pressed to imagine I'd want to go about 85 dB SPL at fortissimo.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 7, 2016)

tack said:


> Is that 85dB SPL with a 0dBFS output? Or at -20dBFS?
> 
> At -20dBFS I find 85dB SPL uncomfortably loud. Also as an apartment dweller I would probably get myself evicted.
> 
> ...




I think the point is that your master volume is to be kept as a constant. Something absolute to help your brain have a reliable anchor point in all the musical madness. And probably helps for consistency when working on huge amounts of music! But maybe not? I could be completely wrong. After watching HZ live in Wembley it's probably just because he's the loudest rock band on the planet haha!

Perhaps it's something to do with calibration and the need to compensate for having such a massive Control Room. What do I know? I started this thread to learn about such stuff!


----------



## tack (Oct 7, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> ust because he's the loudest rock band on the planet


But not quite in the galaxy.


----------



## brett (Oct 7, 2016)

85 in a *large* control room is achievable. In a small room is insanity

Remember, the 85 standard is for cinemas after all


----------



## brett (Oct 7, 2016)

I found this a helpful discussion on reference levels

http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=40062#368980


----------



## dgburns (Oct 7, 2016)

brett said:


> 85 in a *large* control room is achievable. In a small room is insanity
> 
> Remember, the 85 standard is for cinemas after all



So what you're missing here is the logic behind the "WHY" of 85 db. Ultimately, the reason for the spec is based on the loudness value for the audio delivered. This is all about post audio work.

To achieve the desired dialnorm of -31(film), a monitoring level of 85 db makes the dialog level sound natural in a theatre. To achieve the desired dialnorm of -26 (tv), we need to set our reference level somewhere near 76 db. That's quieter, and will encourage you to turn up the dialog proportionately, so it sounds like it would if you were referencing 85 db (and trying to hit -31 dialnorm). The change means the audio itself is at a different level in the delivery, but it sounds the same to you all the time, you set your monitors based on what the delivery specs demand, but you mix with the same sound pressure level in your room no matter what your project is currently, a film(85db)or a tv show(76db). That's it.

Now what does that mean to you, the composer? Well really nothing, as you deliver the music as it was produced at whatever reference level you worked at, and the re-recording mixer will pull it all up at the mix reference level and decide (very quickly) what he/she needs to do about the level.

But if you reference to the same db level as you expect the mix is at, you will likely be listening at the same volume everyone else will be listening at, and your stuff will translate to the stage as you heard it while working. Obviously, you can work at 85 and blow your ears out, but the whole point of it is you should make the music sound "right", which means turning things down to the appropriate level. The upshot of working at a louder level is you end up giving yourself more headroom, and your levels in the daw should be coming down.

While we can't always have a clean dialog track to work with, it's understandable why people get this wrong- the production sound coming from the video editor is usually pretty rough and not levelled correctly, if at all. Knowing how to treat the dialog on your end so that it sits roughly where you imagine it will be in the end gives you a starting point to work your music to. You now have the benefit of being able to work "into" that dialog, and make level and arrangement decisions based on how it will marry with the stuff onscreen. Obviously you won't know how to hit the dialog specs, but you can ask for a reference clip from the mixer and set the guides you have to be in line with that. Because your working at 85, it should all begin to make sense.

Now if you're writing with no video, it can still help to maintain a constant volume because without a solid reference level that you know well, it's impossible to know quiet from loud.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Oct 7, 2016)

dgburns said:


> To achieve the desired dialnorm of -31(film), a monitoring level of 85 db makes the dialog level sound natural in a theatre. To achieve the desired dialnorm of -26 (tv), we need to set our reference level somewhere near 76 db. That's quieter, and will encourage you to turn up the dialog proportionately, so it sounds like it would if you were referencing 85 db (and trying to hit -31 dialnorm). The change means the audio itself is at a different level in the delivery, but it sounds the same to you all the time, you set your monitors based on what the delivery specs demand, but you mix with the same sound pressure level in your room no matter what your project is currently, a film(85db)or a tv show(76db). That's it.



That's not really it. If you reference the same dBSPL level as the mix at the stage then you'll be listening to it at a completely different level. What @brett is talking about isn't the different specs to which things are mixed at. It's the fact that the perceived loudness depends on the size of the room and the distance to the speakers. As brett mentions 85dB in a typical composer's studio would be insanely loud because of how small the room is. Something like 78dB would end up translating far better for a film being mixed at 85dB because it would sound the same. If you're doing TV where it's mixed at 76dB then you'd want something even quieter. I believe the 85dB Dolby spec is for speakers at least 13.4' away.


----------



## dgburns (Oct 7, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> That's not really it. If you reference the same dBSPL level as the mix at the stage then you'll be listening to it at a completely different level. What @brett is talking about isn't the different specs to which things are mixed at. It's the fact that the perceived loudness depends on the size of the room and the distance to the speakers. As brett mentions 85dB in a typical composer's studio would be insanely loud because of how small the room is. Something like 78dB would end up translating far better for a film being mixed at 85dB because it would sound the same. If you're doing TV where it's mixed at 76dB then you'd want something even quieter. I believe the 85dB Dolby spec is for speakers at least 13.4' away.



Why can 85 db be any different being measured correctly in any given size room???

To achieve 85 in a larger room requires more volume, that's it. The sound pressure level is supposed to be the same, that's the whole point. A smaller room will require less volume to achieve the 85 db sound pressure level. Why is this so difficult to understand.

I work in a dolby approved room btw.

-edit-

And you didn't read my post thoroughly, go back and re-read svp.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Oct 7, 2016)

dgburns said:


> Why can 85 db be any different being measured correctly in any given size room???
> 
> To achieve 85 in a larger room requires more volume, that's it. The sound pressure level is supposed to be the same, that's the whole point. A smaller room will require less volume to achieve the 85 db sound pressure level. Why is this so difficult to understand.
> 
> ...



On an SPL meter if it measures 85dB the same in both rooms it'll sound a lot louder in a smaller room. The volume on an identical speaker would obviously be turned down so that it has the same SPL at the closer listening position. The sound pressure is still the same. It has to do with psychoacoustics and the reflections off the walls being so close. Unfortunately I don't know enough about acoustics and psychoacoustics to properly understand why. I just know that it's the case.

I have a moderately big room and work at 79dB for films which is higher than the suggested level for my room. Consequently, things sound quieter when I go into large rooms at 85dB even though my SPL was technically lower. Before I knew all of this I tried setting my level at 85dB and it was unbearable. I probably could've blown one of my monitors. 

I've read your post several times and it seems like you're suggesting to reference the level that it'll me mixed at (in sound pressure, not perceived level) but that would make everything seem really loud when at the actual dub stage it would be a lot quieter.

In this article you can find some info and the suggested level for different room volumes which would be perceived to be the same as 83dB SPL (some sort of new suggested working level) in a large room:

http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/monitor-wizard


"This 85dB SPL Dolby standard has been widely adopted in other professional audio circles too, and there are references to it from numerous audio standards bodies (for example, the SMPTE's RP200 and the ATSC's A/85). Confusingly, though, it was subsequently discovered that the way in which Dolby measured the pink noise was slightly inaccurate, and so the reference level has been tweaked slightly, and the revised standard is now 83dB SPL (as measured on a full‑bandwidth SPL meter with C‑weighting and slow averaging from a ‑20dBFS RMS pink noise source).

This 83dB SPL reference level (with 103dB peaks) is perfectly acceptable if you're listening in a big space, like a cinema or a film dubbing theatre, or even a very large and well‑treated commercial studio control room. Unfortunately, it will be completely overwhelming in a smaller space, because the listener is inevitably sitting much closer to both the speakers and the room boundaries. The very different nature of early reflections makes the level seem, psychoacoustically, much higher than it would be in a larger room.

Consequently, the optimum reference level for smaller rooms needs to be lower, on a scale which is dependent on the enclosed volume of the room in question. You can work out the volume of a room simply by multiplying together its length, width and height, of course, so a home studio which is four metres wide, six metres long and 2.5 metres high has a volume of 60m³. If you prefer to work in imperial measurements, the example above would be roughly 13 x 19.5 x 8 feet, and 2028 cubic feet in volume."


----------



## brett (Oct 8, 2016)

Good post GW


----------



## dgburns (Oct 8, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> On an SPL meter if it measures 85dB the same in both rooms it'll sound a lot louder in a smaller room. The volume on an identical speaker would obviously be turned down so that it has the same SPL at the closer listening position. The sound pressure is still the same. It has to do with psychoacoustics and the reflections off the walls being so close. Unfortunately I don't know enough about acoustics and psychoacoustics to properly understand why. I just know that it's the case.
> 
> I have a moderately big room and work at 79dB for films which is higher than the suggested level for my room. Consequently, things sound quieter when I go into large rooms at 85dB even though my SPL was technically lower. Before I knew all of this I tried setting my level at 85dB and it was unbearable. I probably could've blown one of my monitors.
> 
> ...



It's true that for a dolby approved room, you need a certain size or it is not gonna work. For the reasons you mention above, yes, a small room is a problem. But the point I'm making is that the reason for the reference in the first place is to get dialog sounding as it would in a normal conversation, so 85 as dolby measure for it is about creating a volume reference that matches real world levels so the film can be mixed so that it translates in any room that is also dolby approved for playback.
I get the whole idea of an inappropriately small room will require a rethinking about levels, but I'm concerned that many people are missing the important point as to why the reference was set in the first place.
I know many a re-recording mixer that frequently mixes at much lower then 85,some closer to 81 even in a large space because it can be fatiguing to the ears even when hitting the "numbers" on the output spec. And by the way, while alot of mixers mix trying to hit the "numbers" on the meters that provide the lufs spec they are aiming for, you need to remember that the spec is for infinite, or the whole show, so it is possible to get within spec even though your volume levels can vary widely across the show. Just another reason why you have to use your ears even when mixing to specs as it is too easy to get caught up in the specs and miss the reason they are there in the first place.
But again, if you monitor more loudly, the levels in the daw come down, and if you monitor more quietly, the levels in the daw will come up. Specs for tv are a bit aggressive right now with a -24 dialog level, which is hotter then real life when your monitors are set for the appropriate level (given your room is set up right by a dolby technician). I also think many a producer gets freaked out about the volume, and I would personally lower the volume ALOT when doing approvals because it has a way of skewing balance levels between dialog, sfx, and music. I find it is usually the case that in a mix room where the producer is overwhelmed by level, they tend to lower the music and the mix ends up being all dialog and some sfx witht the music far behind. This I see by having hundreds of episodes of television coming back on tv and listening to the balance. My personal take is that for some reason, the dialog and sfx always come out loud, and the music is hit and miss, sometimes it is present and sometimes it gets pushed down by a nervous producer.

But your point about very small rooms is appreciated. The thing to take away is if your room is THAT small, don't try hitting the dolby spec, and you are likely going to have major issues with low end freq response due to the fact that low end takes distance to be reproduced and those walls are likely not treated anywhere near what would be required. Turn down the volume and move as far away from the speakers as is reasonable.

-edit-

@Gerhard Westphalen , the only reason I went in a little hard on this topic is because I sensed ( maybe incorrectly) that you are putting forward theories based on google searches and anecdotal concepts others have put forward, I think you show great interest in all these audio concepts, and I want to encourage you to push further. But I come from having a bit of experience and just wanted to post some thoughts based on time in the trenches, and I must make sure that my opinions are just that, opinions based on my experiences having grappled with all these audio issues in the course of making music for tv and film-and dealing with the real life issues that come up in the course of just trying to get ahead in life and improving my own knowledge and skill set. 
I think "in practice" becomes very different then theory when you are thrust into the real life situation and need to sort through all the noise that can get thrown about in forums. If anyone is really interested in these concepts, they should take the initiative and reach out to a Dolby certified tech and either pay for their time and get educated on the issues and solutions. That's what we ended up doing a few years back and it was eye opening to say the least.

And contrary to what others might say here, 5_1 music is still lagging behind in tv score, and many a mixer would still prefer stereo stems as there is a bias against composers knowing how to really do 5_1 right. That's been my experience anyhow. The whole 5_1 thing can get tricky because up until the mix, stereo makes more sense in terms of sending approval QT's over the internet and through the whole video editor/ temp music stage. Many a video editor just does not want to deal with 5_1 audio as well. Consider that they are sometimes getting hoards of tracks from the field recorders that they need to sort through as well. it's gotten to the point where they can have up to 32 tracks of field records per take in some cases. I think that's why it makes sense to pay for someone to mix your music in 5_1 if you have the time/budget and they can interface with the mix stage and create the proper dialog for everyone to get on page. Just some thoughts.


----------



## AR (Oct 13, 2016)

Hey guys! I stumbled upon this acticle...
https://film-mixing.com/2016/07/28/film-score-mixing-with-alan-meyerson/

...let the maestro speak for himself 'bout how he manages THA mix


----------



## willf_music (Dec 18, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> So,
> 
> I'm starting to think about sorting out a Surround Sound Set up in my lab but before I start wading through an Ocean of online misinformation and nonsense by people that have no idea what they are talking about, I thought I would ask here for some basics.



I worked with surround systems and room acoustics in my Masters so perhaps I may have some information.



jononotbono said:


> I have never had a Surround Sound setup before and never mixed in Surround but we all start somewhere and quite frankly the thought of creating and mixing in Surround is beyond exciting.
> 
> What do I need in order to achieve a Surround Sound Set up?



To work in surround you need to choose what format you want. I would assume you want the Dolby 5.1 standard. That is the most translatable format and is fairly common.



jononotbono said:


> I use Cubase Pro 8.5 as my main DAW and use a pair of Adam A7X monitors. Love these monitors but never bought them with an intention of Surround. They were bought for when I only tracked and recorded bands. Are they suitable for Surround sound? Is 5.1 surround 5 Monitors plus a sub? Also are the monitors set up so you have 1 centre front, 2 x left and right (stereo), and then 2 x rear Left and Right?



Any decent monitor can be used for surround. Depending on how large your array is, you will want to consider the physical volume of your speakers. Adam A7X will work well for a 5.1 system. If you go 11.1 then you may want to consider some of the smaller genelecs considering you would have to mount and hang so many.



jononotbono said:


> Also, what is Quad? I'm guessing 4 monitors but would that also include a 5th so you have a sub?
> 
> Is 5.1 the standard or do people use 7.1 or higher?



Quad (quadrophonic) is another type of surround format. As are: ambisonics, binaural, and dolby atmos.
However, dolby 5.1, 7.1 are still the most common. Higher order extensions to that format also include 10.2, 11.1, 22.2.

The first number refers to the number of discrete channels. The second number refers to the number of low frequency channels. You will probably be fine with 5.1 or 7.1 depending on what you are doing.



jononotbono said:


> I'm just wondering, no matter how many extra monitors I should get, should I buy identical Adams or should I buy smaller one's for the rear speakers? Or a totally different brand altogether? Also, should the Sub be of the same brand (does it need to be calibrated?) or does this not matter?



I would highly suggest using the same speaker model for every discrete channel and a matching sub for the low frequency channel. The speaker array needs to be tuned for your room. Also if you are using a 5.1 or 7.1 system you need a room of at least 20 m^2. For higher order surround it gets even larger. The only way you can get away with this is if you use a semi-anechoic chamber.



jononotbono said:


> Is it still possible to only use Stereo when I just need to work in Stereo even if Surround monitors are set up? So I can use them when needed.



Surround systems have a left and right just like stereo so you can simply switch off the surround channels.



jononotbono said:


> One last question... Why do so few actually work in Surround? This whole thread is HZ's fault for planting the seed the other day saying that the sound of HZ01 is Surround and 2/3rds of the Sound is missing and how he can't believe how few people work in Surround.



Surround is simply expensive when you think of the speakers, subs and corrective eqs. Also the acoustic requirements are pretty great. No studio has been designed to be perfect for surround. Meaning that there are no room designs that are purpose built for surround. (The reasons for this are pretty complicated). Also that 20m^2 is something Hans has but not many people have access to. And there is a reason why the higher order arrays are really only found in large dubbing theatres.




jononotbono said:


> Any advice is appreciated before I start my long journey down the path of Google!
> Jono



Good luck.


----------



## jcrosby (Dec 18, 2016)

brett said:


> 85 in a *large* control room is achievable. In a small room is insanity
> 
> Remember, the 85 standard is for cinemas after all



Exactly, 85 SPL is really for a larger room. If your working out of a smaller space aim for mid to high 70s. In a typical control room with proper treatment 83 or so is ideal because your hearing is flattest at that level... But in a smaller room (assuming yours is) more volume equals more air pressure equals increased room resonance... (Nothing compares to treating a room properly, but lower levels do help minimize some issues... And depending on how big a project it is, or if you plan on doing more of this, I'd think about putting up some proper treatment if you don't already have any in place. You'll thank yourself you did... I can't ever go back to mixing in a mediocre room again...) And re: room size. I have a fairly small room as well, fully treated. 85 is exhausting, 78 or os is ideal in mine. 85 if I'm in the mood to have my hair blown back.

As Jononotbono mentioned it's really about having a consistent level you're comfortable working with... And as mentioned above, having the same speaker in all channels is essential. Having mismatched speakers causes all kinds of phase issues that will effect impact your mix. Even the slightest head movements can be noticeable with mismatched speakers...

Once other thing you may want to look into as a sort of "reality check" with multiple 'virtual spaces' is this: http://www.newaudiotechnology.com/en/products/spatial-sound-card/ (Assuming you're on a compatible OS.)
I use it if composing on my laptop, it's quite a fantastic little piece of software.


----------



## Dietz (Dec 18, 2016)

As a follow-up to William Fehlhaber's posting: It might be worth emphasising once more that the LFE in a surround setup is really meant to be used for low-frequency "effects" (or "unpitched sounds", like Hans Zimmer / rctec put it earlier in this thread). The LFE is _not_ the bass extension of the monitoring system itself. It is a discrete channel which has to be addressed individually and must not be used to amplify content that's already present in the full range monitors.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 18, 2016)

Some excellent posts. Thank you. The only thing holding me back at the minute is money but I plan to go 5,1 next year. This thread is a gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## dgburns (Dec 18, 2016)

You know, another thing bugs me about this discussion. And HZ mentions it quite a few times and no one seems to be picking up on it. The phenomenon of listening in the dubber stage at full volume is gonna change the way you set your balances, but it will also change your thoughts about the quality of the sound sources, so the low end on some vsti synths being the sticking point with Hans, but it applies to everything else as well. Too harsh high end, big 250 hz, too much of one instrument or too strong pans on close mic's. I just don't see how anyone can try and get a mix for playback in a large space by mixing in a small space, and 5.1 in a small space is just gonna suck, for me. Unless you have the ability to adjust based on what you anticipate will happen in that bigger space (the final delivery accoustic space).

There was a time for me I used to record music, just music for bands etc. We would always adjust the volume, as the conventional wisdom was "how does it translate at different volumes". In music for tv/film, this is wrong because the playback volume is regulated. Playing back in IMAX? better listen back to it there and adjust.

For me, and this is personal, I mix completely differently if my listening volume is low or loud, and the bass balance is very different. The balance of sound is totally dependant on volume.

This might all be academic, because if you deliver stems, a good re-recording dubber will have a fighing chance at correcting all this. But it should be awesome going into the dub stage, no?


----------



## Sekkle (Jan 17, 2017)

Hi guys,

This has been a great thread and thanks to everyone involved. 

I recently finished a 5.1 score for a 20min short and the sound mixer pulled down my LFE channel by 8db overall. I had just set my LFE in my small studio with an iPhone spl app around the same level as all the other speakers, and now I'm really keen to have everything calibrated as best as possible for both film and HD-TV/DVD. 

Do you guys use different calibrated setups for mixing 5.1 music for film and HD-TV/DVD. I'm trying to work out whether I can just have one calibrated system set up that would work for both or do I need two different calibrated setups and switch between them. The main thing I can't really get my head around it how to calibrate the LFE.

I've read through a heap of info and this was the most straight forward answer I found although from reading other documents I can't seem to find a definitive answer across the board (many don't mention a difference in the LFE level between film/TV - https://www.gearslutz.com/board/pos...mix-surround-but-dont-encode.html#post1998542

_*For TV, the monitors are equal, for film, the surrounds are 3dB down (their sum adds up to one film channel).

Best to use an RTA for the sub, but, you can use an SPL.

Sub is 3 dB in-band (20Hz to 120Hz) above the center channel for DVD, DVD-A and HD-TV.

Sub is +10 dB in-band (20 Hz to 120 Hz) for FEATURE FILMS above the baseline center channel. (89-91 on your SPL for a dBC 85 LCR cal.)*
_
Sorry if it's really obvious but would this mean that if I'm composing for film I need to have the LFE level +10db (filtered and measured with and RTA), while for TV I would need to set it at +3db?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 17, 2017)

Sekkleman said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> This has been a great thread and thanks to everyone involved.
> 
> ...



I've never heard of the sub calibration level being changed. What does change is the level of the surrounds depending on if it's for theaters or DVD. As long as you know what you're delivering for, you can either adjust your system or just adjust the files afterwards to compensate. 

Most of the time people calibrate the sub incorrectly resulting in having it way too loud. I was once watching Interstellar on a system where in the beginning the low rumble was way louder than dialogue so we had to stop and turn it down. If it's too loud in your system then you would end up routing less to it so the mixer would bring it up on a properly calibrated system. What may be more likely is that they turned it down because you were using it way too much. I would search up HZ's posts on here about using the sub and look at Alan Meyerson interviews. 

I normally use files from the Blue Sky website for calibrating systems. They have a nice chart that shows the various levels for different uses and provide the band limited noise for the mains and the sub. You really should be using an RTA for it and then get +10dB for the bands on the RTA.


----------



## Sekkle (Jan 17, 2017)

Thanks a lot Gerhard. 

I'm glad to hear that you don't change the LFE level as that is what has been causing me the most confusion. I was under the impression that you may need to change LFE calibration depending on the deliverables. The sound mixer mentioned that they do boost up the LFE by approximately 10db when outputting for DVD. It leads me to think that it's probably best practise to calibrate the LFE for film (+10db for the bands on the RTA) and then let the sound mixer make the various adjustments required for the different deliverables. I'll definitely dig up HZ's posts and Alan Meyerson's interviews - thanks for the tip. I've also just grabbed the blue sky files.

I'll get the LFE calibrated properly at +10db and then use the 5.1 mixes I did as a reference (with the LFE dropped by 8db). Hopefully this will get me in the ballpark..


----------

