Rear Channels Levels Wrong in AC3 5.1 Export #104190

Closed
opened 2023-01-27 21:55:55 +01:00 by Walt Talley · 14 comments

System Information
Operating system: Windows 10.0.19045 Build 19045
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeoForce RTX 3090

Blender Version
Broken: 3.3.1 b292cfe5a9
Worked: Don't Know

Short Description
When exporting to 5.1 surround sound, using AC3 it amplifies the rear channels compared to the front channels.
Happens same on both Video Exports or Render Audio.
Blender Audio Levels Issue.png

Steps
#104190.blend
Open file and render audio. Speakers at +/-30° have amplitude of about 0.4, speakers at +/-110° have amplitude of about 0.9. Seems, that it should be other way around.

**System Information** Operating system: Windows 10.0.19045 Build 19045 Graphics card: NVIDIA GeoForce RTX 3090 **Blender Version** Broken: 3.3.1 b292cfe5a936 Worked: Don't Know Short Description When exporting to 5.1 surround sound, using AC3 it amplifies the rear channels compared to the front channels. Happens same on both Video Exports or Render Audio. ![Blender Audio Levels Issue.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F14204545/Blender_Audio_Levels_Issue.png) Steps [#104190.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F14216472/T104190.blend) Open file and render audio. Speakers at +/-30° have amplitude of about 0.4, speakers at +/-110° have amplitude of about 0.9. Seems, that it should be other way around.
Author

Added subscriber: @walt.talley

Added subscriber: @walt.talley

Added subscriber: @iss

Added subscriber: @iss

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs User Info'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Needs User Info'

Please upload .blend file or provide pan levels for each strip.

Please upload .blend file or provide pan levels for each strip.

Actually I think, I was able to reproduce this, will upload sample files

Actually I think, I was able to reproduce this, will upload sample files

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Confirmed'

Changed status from 'Needs User Info' to: 'Confirmed'

Added subscriber: @neXyon

Added subscriber: @neXyon

@neXyon Can you check if this is correct?

@neXyon Can you check if this is correct?
Member

The sound file in your blend file is stereo. Stereo speakers are placed at +/-90° - so if you distribute the sound to +/-30° and +/-110° 5.1 speakers, then the 110 ones are clearly closer. You can even compute the amplitude: cos(110-90)^2 and cos(30-90)^2.

The screenshot in the report shows a 5.1 input file? Is that available somewhere?

The sound file in your blend file is stereo. Stereo speakers are placed at +/-90° - so if you distribute the sound to +/-30° and +/-110° 5.1 speakers, then the 110 ones are clearly closer. You can even compute the amplitude: cos(110-90)^2 and cos(30-90)^2. The screenshot in the report shows a 5.1 input file? Is that available somewhere?

In #104190#1482516, @neXyon wrote:
The sound file in your blend file is stereo. Stereo speakers are placed at +/-90°

I see. I assumed stereo speakers to be around +/-30° as well, as it's closer real world setups...

Would it be possible to map stereo speakers to front speakers in both playback and rendering? I would imagine this would represent actual hearing bit closer than current state. I haven't checked this in more detail though

The screenshot in the report shows a 5.1 input file? Is that available somewhere?

The file wasn't provided but amplitude ratio looked very similar, so I assumed this was same case.

> In #104190#1482516, @neXyon wrote: > The sound file in your blend file is stereo. Stereo speakers are placed at +/-90° I see. I assumed stereo speakers to be around +/-30° as well, as it's closer real world setups... Would it be possible to map stereo speakers to front speakers in both playback and rendering? I would imagine this would represent actual hearing bit closer than current state. I haven't checked this in more detail though > The screenshot in the report shows a 5.1 input file? Is that available somewhere? The file wasn't provided but amplitude ratio looked very similar, so I assumed this was same case.
Member

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Needs User Info'

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Needs User Info'
Joerg Mueller self-assigned this 2023-02-01 17:37:06 +01:00
Member

No this is not possible, for three main reasons: First, panning is linearly translated to the speaker angle by a factor of 90 °, i.e. -1 panning is full left, 1 is full right and anything in between or extrapolated gives you an expected panning. Second, I don't want to break the behavior when working with older files and backwards compatibility would be unnecessarily complex to implement. Third, the issue of remapping channels between different speaker setups is very difficult and there is no real standard. People actually have their speakers set up all over the place and the only way to get something accurate is using something like ambisonics. There is actually only one setup that is the pretty much the same for everyone: stereo headphones - and there we are pretty close to 90 degrees. ;)

We could let the user modify the speaker angles, but the UI would be quite complex there as well since at the very least you would have to specify speaker angles for all possible speaker counts. If the users really want full control, they should split their audio files into single channel files and manually pan them in Blender. That may sound tedious but is actually the most simple UI solution.

Now as for this bug, @walt.talley please provide a sample file with which this issue happens so that we can see if it's actually a bug and what is going on.

No this is not possible, for three main reasons: First, panning is linearly translated to the speaker angle by a factor of 90 °, i.e. -1 panning is full left, 1 is full right and anything in between or extrapolated gives you an expected panning. Second, I don't want to break the behavior when working with older files and backwards compatibility would be unnecessarily complex to implement. Third, the issue of remapping channels between different speaker setups is very difficult and there is no real standard. People actually have their speakers set up all over the place and the only way to get something accurate is using something like ambisonics. There is actually only one setup that is the pretty much the same for everyone: stereo headphones - and there we are pretty close to 90 degrees. ;) We could let the user modify the speaker angles, but the UI would be quite complex there as well since at the very least you would have to specify speaker angles for all possible speaker counts. If the users really want full control, they should split their audio files into single channel files and manually pan them in Blender. That may sound tedious but is actually the most simple UI solution. Now as for this bug, @walt.talley please provide a sample file with which this issue happens so that we can see if it's actually a bug and what is going on.
Bastien Montagne added this to the Core project 2023-02-09 15:43:53 +01:00
Bastien Montagne removed this from the Core project 2023-02-09 18:20:29 +01:00
Philipp Oeser removed the
Interest
VFX & Video
label 2023-02-10 09:31:27 +01:00
Philipp Oeser added the
Interest
Core
label 2023-02-10 11:09:20 +01:00
Member

@neXyon : seems there is a .blend file now, do we need anything else to get it out of the triaging queue? @iss : will move this to "Needs Developer Info" already, not sure if triaging can do more here (feel free to change back)

@neXyon : seems there is a .blend file now, do we need anything else to get it out of the triaging queue? @iss : will move this to "Needs Developer Info" already, not sure if triaging can do more here (feel free to change back)
Philipp Oeser added
Status
Needs Info from Developers
and removed
Status
Needs Information from User
labels 2023-02-20 12:52:46 +01:00

The file is added by me, but will close due to inactivity as for policy.
Also I think that what I have provided does represent the issue, and this is working as expected.

The file is added by me, but will close due to inactivity as for policy. Also I think that what I have provided does represent the issue, and this is working as expected.
Blender Bot added
Status
Archived
and removed
Status
Needs Info from Developers
labels 2023-02-20 14:09:01 +01:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#104190
No description provided.