Blackmagic Forum

Hi everyone,

I'd very appreciate some advice about building a 5.1 system for Resolve and Media Composer around the MiniMonitor 4K I already have.

As the station has to be Media Composer Compatible, there is no way to use different hardware for the Video and Audio, so the audio has to come from the MiniMonitor 4K as well as the video stream.

As far as I understand, it can output enough discret channels through SDI or HDMI port.

My first idea would be to use this :https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/miniconverters/techspecs/W-CONM-06
to de-embed 6 audio channels from the SDI.
But then what ?
Not sure I fully understand the difference between aes/ebu and analog (except the theory from wikipedia) and where to go from there.
What is the cable difference ?
What kind of mixer would I need to go to the speakers ? A mixer that can support 3 dual channels aes/ebu input and has 6 output... XLR output ?

If anyone could recommend some gear, I'd really appreciate.
And all advices are welcome.
I guess the channels order are another topic that I will discover later...

Cheers,
Alex

Hi Alex,
You can use any home video receiver with 5.1 (or more) audio, even a low-cost one. Feed the receiver HDMI input from the DeckLink Mini Monitor 4K HDMI out. Feed the loudspeakers from the outputs of the receiver. If you use the HDMI out of the Mini Monitor for video monitoring, you can loop-through the HDMI video signal from the receiver to your monitor, or from your monitor to the receiver.
The sound quality of such 5.1 audio system depends mostly on the quality of the speakers themselves, the room they are in, the speakers placement in the room and relative to the listener, and the acoustic treatment of the room. The sound quality of the receiver itself also plays a role, but only secondary to the above mentioned factors.

Hi Joshua,

Thanks for your input.
As much as possible I would like to stick on SDI for the sound output (due to my setup... the HDMI output already goes through a LUT box and the TV is pretty far so it wouldn't be convenient).
Hence, the idea to use the SDI to audio 4K de-embedder.

My main concern so far is :
If the output is 2 balanced channels through 1/4" jack aes/ebu (digital), can it be turned to analog in a regular analog mixer that would send it to monitoring speakers ?
I'd like the idea to have a small mixer on the editing table (more than a consumer home cinema receiver).

Hi Alexandre,
Welcome.
It looks to me that the simplest and lowest cost solution is to use an HDMI splitter close to the computer and split the output of the Mini Monitor, one route to the home theater receiver for audio and the second route the way it is now for video.
There are low cost HDMI splitters, like this one: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. ... -_-Product (only an example, I didn't test it). Choose one available in your country with an option to return it if it doesn't work properly on your setup.
All other solutions are way more costly, more complicated to operate, with zero contribution to the sound quality.

Why would you still want to convert 2 channels AES/EBU digital to stereo analogue? Anyhow, few examples are linked: https://audio-video-supply.markertek.co ... -Converter . I never used any of those, so I have no idea about their quality.

Alexandre Westphal wrote:My main concern so far is :
If the output is 2 balanced channels through 1/4" jack aes/ebu (digital), can it be turned to analog in a regular analog mixer that would send it to monitoring speakers ?

No. A "regular analog mixer" only deals with analog signals. AES/EBU is a digital format and needs a digital connection. There are probably mixers that accept AES/EBU and they will then convert those to analog.

But either way conversion needs to happen at some point.

Alexandre Westphal wrote:I'd like the idea to have a small mixer on the editing table (more than a consumer home cinema receiver).

Why?

I'm not asking to be contrarian or anything, but answering that question should help you find a good solution. In my opinion what Joshua said makes sense to me, and also revisiting using an additional device for audio specifically instead of taking the signal off of the SDI output. A dedicated device to me seems to be a better solution as long as the software (Resolve?) can handle it.

Hey Guys,
Thanks.

I'll definitely give a look at your options.
But,
First, I'll very likely use active monitoring speakers. I have a bunch of M Audio and Yamaha speakers that would be great to start. And they both have XLR and 1/4" jack inputs. Not sure I can connect them to a consumer amplifier like a Yamaha Home Cinema Amp with HDMI input, if that was your idea.

Secondly, I am monitoring the full screen on the SDI signal (flanders and LG monitors). I am afraid that if I goes to HDMI for the sound, through an amplifier that is meant for home cinema I might experience some delay or things like that....

Hence the idea to use the sound from te SDI signal, to split it into 6 channels with this :
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... /W-CONM-06

and to use it through what ? I don't know yet...
Maybe something like that ? https://www.thomann.de/fr/presonus_stud ... d=omacrofr
The big advantage would be to control the gain of each in/out and the order of the channels, in case the software doesn't act as expected on that side...

Cheers and thanks again

Alexandre Westphal wrote: First, I'll very likely use active monitoring speakers. I have a bunch of M Audio and Yamaha speakers that would be great to start. And they both have XLR and 1/4" jack inputs. Not sure I can connect them to a consumer amplifier like a Yamaha Home Cinema Amp with HDMI input, if that was your idea.

There's no problem since some Home Theater A/V (audio video) receivers have 5.1 or 7.1 analogue line level outputs. The analogue outputs of most A/V receivers are usually RCA, so all you'll need to add is 6 RCA to 1/4" adapters.

Alexandre Westphal wrote: Secondly, I am monitoring the full screen on the SDI signal (flanders and LG monitors). I am afraid that if I goes to HDMI for the sound, through an amplifier that is meant for home cinema I might experience some delay or things like that....

Ask BMD support if there is any delay between the SDI and HDMI outputs of the DeckLink. If there is no delay, please look at my initial suggestion. If there is any delay, come back here and I'll look for an alternative.

Alexandre Westphal wrote: Hence the idea to use the sound from te SDI signal, to split it into 6 channels with this :
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... /W-CONM-06

and to use it through what ? I don't know yet...

Using it you'll need 5 AES/EBU digital to analogue converters. Even so, I don't know if and how it's possible to route properly the different AES/EBU outputs to the proper and relevant audio channels.

Alexandre Westphal wrote: Maybe something like that ? https://www.thomann.de/fr/presonus_stud ... d=omacrofr

This mixer has ADAT optical digital input, but no AES/EBU inputs, so it will be useless for your purpose.

Alexandre Westphal wrote: The big advantage would be to control the gain of each in/out and the order of the channels, in case the software doesn't act as expected on that side...

That's a counterproductive idea, since the proper levels mix of the various channels should be done within Resolve (or another DAW) itself. When changing levels externally you aren't going to know how the balance of the various channels is going to be on the delivery.

Alexandre Westphal wrote:First, I'll very likely use active monitoring speakers. I have a bunch of M Audio and Yamaha speakers that would be great to start. And they both have XLR and 1/4" jack inputs. Not sure I can connect them to a consumer amplifier like a Yamaha Home Cinema Amp with HDMI input, if that was your idea.

Get a receiver with XLR outputs.

Alexandre Westphal wrote:Secondly, I am monitoring the full screen on the SDI signal (flanders and LG monitors). I am afraid that if I goes to HDMI for the sound, through an amplifier that is meant for home cinema I might experience some delay or things like that....

In at least pro audio software we can shift video in time in quarter frame increments or so. See if Resolve allows this.

Alexandre Westphal wrote:Maybe something like that ? https://www.thomann.de/fr/presonus_stud ... d=omacrofr

That's a device intended to e connected to a computer directly and convert signals to and from analog. The XLR inputs you see aren't digital AES/EBU, they're analog mic/line.

I'll just reiterate that if your NLE allows for it just getting a dedicated audio interface with conversion seems like the best option to me.

Alexandre Westphal wrote:The big advantage would be to control the gain of each in/out and the order of the channels, in case the software doesn't act as expected on that side...

Sure, being able to control the monitoring level outside of the NLE is not a bad a good idea, and possibly also channel order. I don't disagree with that.

Joshua_G wrote:That's a counterproductive idea, since the proper levels mix of the various channels should be done within Resolve (or another DAW) itself. When changing levels externally you aren't going to know how the balance of the various channels is going to be on the delivery.

Having control over playback level isn't a bad thing and should be thought of as separate from the "mix" or "master". I'm assuming he meant controlling the total level of all channels together going to the speakers rather than adjust levels as way to actually "mix" everything.

In addition it is actually quite convenient to have a central place where adjustments to the playback environment can be done, be they level matching channels (not mix) when calibrating, EQing or delaying signals.

Mattias Murhagen wrote: Having control over playback level isn't a bad thing and should be thought of as separate from the "mix" or "master". I'm assuming he meant controlling the total level of all channels together going to the speakers rather than adjust levels as way to actually "mix" everything.

In addition it is actually quite convenient to have a central place where adjustments to the playback environment can be done, be they level matching channels (not mix) when calibrating, EQing or delaying signals.

Have you ever done 5.1 audio mix on a pro level, or do you speak out of what seems 'logical' to you?
Adjusting separately the level of the different audio channels on the fly is much like playing with the brightness and contrast controls of the reference video monitor while doing color grades.
Attaining proper balance between the different audio channels should be done once, in the computer, when making the setup. It can be redone if the speakers, or their location, is changed. The overall volume of all the channels is also done within the computer and can be changed on the fly.
BTW, I'm a retired sound engineer.

Joshua_G wrote:

Mattias Murhagen wrote: Having control over playback level isn't a bad thing and should be thought of as separate from the "mix" or "master". I'm assuming he meant controlling the total level of all channels together going to the speakers rather than adjust levels as way to actually "mix" everything.

In addition it is actually quite convenient to have a central place where adjustments to the playback environment can be done, be they level matching channels (not mix) when calibrating, EQing or delaying signals.

Have you ever done 5.1 audio mix on a pro level, or do you speak out of what seems 'logical' to you?

I'm speaking as a professional re-recording engineer that has done and is doing 5.1 work as well as stereo.

Joshua_G wrote:Adjusting separately the level of the different audio channels on the fly is much like playing with the brightness and contrast controls of the reference video monitor while doing color grades.

* edit; not "on the fly" for "the different audio channels". Static for relative levels and every now and then for all.

I think "much like" is too strong a word. I don't disagree that monitoring at soft versus loud gives a different impression on various systems, but we should think about this practically. If the person is spending part of the time dealing with picture then it isn't really necessary to play back at whatever we consider to be maximum playback level all the time. And if it isn't necessary all the time it's better to save ones ears and therefore lower the playback volume and save ears for later. In addition to that even when mixing - especially depending on workflow - it's often good to monitor on a level that is lower than final level.

I've worked on plenty of shows, mostly sports, where the loudness is pretty consistent throughout the show and the people reviewing it want the mix played back loud in the room. To save my ears I'll do most work at below that final monitoring level and bump it up when I review myself and finally when I review with the producer.

All these changes in monitoring playback level is and should be done after the mix as far as signal flow goes. At home on Nuendo I use the built in monitoring section to do this as it is non-destructive for the mix. In studios we typically have a monitor controller by Dangerous or StudioConn or similar and those controllers provide, well, 'control' over playback levels.

Joshua_G wrote:Attaining proper balance between the different audio channels should be done once, in the computer, when making the setup. It can be redone if the speakers, or their location, is changed. The overall volume of all the channels is also done within the computer and can be changed on the fly.
BTW, I'm a retired sound engineer.

If this cannot be done within Resolve then obviously doing it outside is necessary.
If overall volume isn't easily changed within Resolve then doing it outside is necessary.
If both is possible within Resolve it might still be more convenient to do it outside the box;

- it gives you some "protection" against someone messing with the settings without you knowing it, which could be more likely since more people might be working on that same system, and that software might be upgraded more frequently.

- it might be more convenient to simply extend your arm real quick and turn a real knob to change the level.

Mattias Murhagen wrote:… Get a receiver with XLR outputs. …

AFAIK, there is no Home Theater receiver with XLR outputs. Do you know of any such receiver?

Mattias Murhagen wrote:…
* edit; not "on the fly" for "the different audio channels". Static for relative levels and every now and then for all.
…
All these changes in monitoring playback level is and should be done after the mix as far as signal flow goes. ... In studios we typically have a monitor controller by Dangerous or StudioConn or similar and those controllers provide, well, 'control' over playback levels.

There's no argument between us about the need to change the overall monitoring volume during the edit and/or the mix. The OP wrote:

Alexandre Westphal wrote:…
The big advantage would be to control the gain of each in/out and the order of the channels, in case the software doesn't act as expected on that side...
…

To which I replied it isn't advised.

Mattias Murhagen wrote:…
If this cannot be done within Resolve then obviously doing it outside is necessary.
If overall volume isn't easily changed within Resolve then doing it outside is necessary.
If both is possible within Resolve it might still be more convenient to do it outside the box;

- it gives you some "protection" against someone messing with the settings without you knowing it, which could be more likely since more people might be working on that same system, and that software might be upgraded more frequently.

- it might be more convenient to simply extend your arm real quick and turn a real knob to change the level.

First, it can be easily done within Resolve. See the attached screenshot:

Second, It can be done easily and quickly with either the volume control or the remote control of the receiver.

Having on the editing/mixing table a mixer with control over the relative volume of each of the 6 channels is inviting troubles by accidently changing the mix between the various channels. It has no advantage over A/V receiver.

Joshua_G wrote:

Mattias Murhagen wrote:… Get a receiver with XLR outputs. …

AFAIK, there is no Home Theater receiver with XLR outputs. Do you know of any such receiver?

At least Denon and Emotiva used to make them. I honestly didn't google this to stay up to date. If anyone cares I'm assuming they'll peruse the power of the google.

Joshua_G wrote:

Mattias Murhagen wrote:…
* edit; not "on the fly" for "the different audio channels". Static for relative levels and every now and then for all.
…
All these changes in monitoring playback level is and should be done after the mix as far as signal flow goes. ... In studios we typically have a monitor controller by Dangerous or StudioConn or similar and those controllers provide, well, 'control' over playback levels.

There's no argument between us about the need to change the overall monitoring volume during the edit and/or the mix. The OP wrote:

Alexandre Westphal wrote:…
The big advantage would be to control the gain of each in/out and the order of the channels, in case the software doesn't act as expected on that side...
…

To which I replied it isn't advised.

I guess we read the op differently then. I took that to mean doing things on the monitoring side of things for the purpose of setting up monitoring, not doing things to the mix 'on the fly'.

Joshua_G wrote:First, it can be easily done within Resolve. See the attached screenshot:

Second, It can be done easily and quickly with either the volume control or the remote control of the receiver.

Having on the editing/mixing table a mixer with control over the relative volume of each of the 6 channels is inviting troubles by accidently changing the mix between the various channels. It has no advantage over A/V receiver.

I wasn't pointing specifically to using a mixer sitting on a desk to do this, I was addressing what looked like a blanket dismissal on your part. I agree that it'd probably be just as easy and probably "safer" to do it on a receiver than on a mixer sitting next to people on a desk. I simply thought you meant that nothing should be adjusted after it leaves Resolve, which I disagreed with.

Hi Alexandre,
Please let me back off my suggestion of using Home Theater A/V receiver for extracting 5.1 audio out of DeckLink Mini Monitor 4K. Apparently there are simpler and cheaper solutions.
Look at the following thread on BMD DaVinci Resolve forum:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=87082 .
It turns out that the 5.1 audio channels embedded in the HDMI out are assignable.
Browsing eBay I found few solutions, like this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/HDMI-Analog-Au ... SwRrlZ8Gy7 .
I didn't try it, so I cannot vouch for its' quality, however, for US $40.37 it looks like worth trying, at least for the initial setting up of 5.1 audio setup.
If you are concerned about possible delay between the SDI and HDMI out of the DeckLink, you can use an SDI to HDMI converter, like this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Blackmagic-Desig ... way&sr=8-4
However, prior to purchasing ask BMD support about possible delay between the SDI in and HDMI out of the converter.

Mattias Murhagen wrote:

Joshua_G wrote:

Mattias Murhagen wrote:… Get a receiver with XLR outputs. …

AFAIK, there is no Home Theater receiver with XLR outputs. Do you know of any such receiver?

At least Denon and Emotiva used to make them. I honestly didn't google this to stay up to date. If anyone cares I'm assuming they'll peruse the power of the google.

Marantz and Denon are very similar nowadays since they're owned by the same company. The higher end Marantz pre processors have always had XLR outputs. I'm using the AV8802A in my home theatre, but they have more affordable options as well. Used devices from the older AV7700 series would be an excellent alternative since you don't need the Atmos decoder in post.

Joshua_G wrote:However, prior to purchasing ask BMD support about possible delay between the SDI in and HDMI out of the converter.

Luckily the latency in BMD SDI to HDMI converters should be virtually nonexistent: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3689#p22843

roger.magnusson wrote:Marantz and Denon are very similar nowadays since they're owned by the same company. The higher end Marantz pre processors have always had XLR outputs. I'm using the AV8802A in my home theatre, but they have more affordable options as well. Used devices from the older AV7700 series would be an excellent alternative since you don't need the Atmos decoder in post.

Marantz AV7701 (the cheapest of the series) costs US $1,699.00 new, vs. US $40.37 for HDMI Analog Audio Extractor. It's up to the OP to choose.

How do you delay and level compensate channels in the monitoring path in Resolve? Is that in the manual?

As a rule, all options in all operations are contained in DaVinci Resolve Reference Manual.
I haven't done yet pro-level mixing on Resolve. Right now I'm doing fairly basic editing and color work with Resolve at home, with only 2 channels mixing and monitoring.
To my understanding, aside the main outputs, different 'busses' can be assigned to the 'Control Room' (multi-channel) and 'Studio' (2 channels) outputs with individual channels level control, but no delay separate from the delay of the main outputs.
The Fairlight page in Resolve isn't yet a full-featured DAW, yet, in the light of Blackmagic Design engineers listening to users feedback and constantly improving Resolve, it may become soon a better DAW.

It might make the case for dealing with that outside of the NLE then, expensive as it may be.

Of course it depends on room setup etc.

Joshua_G wrote:

Mattias Murhagen wrote:… Get a receiver with XLR outputs. …

AFAIK, there is no Home Theater receiver with XLR outputs. Do you know of any such receiver?

I have owned a bunch of these home theater receivers. For audio quality, I rank anything by mass market manufacturers as basically horrible. The sound of everything I tried that wasn't high end was really bad. Sound was very thin and weak. Surprising, because I didn't think I could hear the difference. But, I could. As a result of trying a bunch of things and learning that the DAC in the processor really makes a huge difference, I found I really liked the sound quality of the Anthem AVM-60. It has a dozen XLR outputs. I paid $2399 for it. It sounds excellent. For fewer channels and at a lower cost, the Emotiva MC-700 also sounded excellent to my ears. For $700, it honestly sounded better than the mass market stuff that I listened to at twice the price. If you only need 5.1 or 7.1, that's the one to get. If you want/need 7.1.4 (Atmos), then I would recommend the Anthem AVM-60.

That said, is it even possible to get 5.1, 7.1, or 7.1.4 out of Fairlight using the HDMI output of the Mini Converter? I don't know. I would like to find out if anyone can answer that question or not. Thanks.

pictureandsound wrote: ...
That said, is it even possible to get 5.1, 7.1, or 7.1.4 out of Fairlight using the HDMI output of the Mini Converter? I don't know. I would like to find out if anyone can answer that question or not. Thanks.

It’s possible. There are very cheap 5.1 and 7.1 HDMI audio extractors, though with RCA outputs:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/5-1CH-4K-3D-HD ... ctupt=true
https://www.ebay.com/itm/HDMI-7-1-PCM-A ... Sw0NRbt-Oc

See the following thread for a possible solution:

https://creativecow.net/forums/thread/a ... ink-extre/