Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: matrix delay  (Read 9247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nickgregory

  • Admitted Jeter Homer
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 22376
  • Gender: Male
    • Hurricanes Insider
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2003, 10:03:04 AM »
I have used Cool Edit Pro with very good results.

Nick
« Last Edit: May 13, 2003, 10:03:49 AM by nickgregory »

Offline Marc Nutter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
    • Sonic Sense, Inc.
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2003, 02:33:15 PM »
Marc,

A question since you have so much knowledge on the subject.  which would be prefferable to the ear:

1.  A matrix made with a very high end digital delay in a 2 mic/sbd mix (nothing terribly fancy)

or

2. A "matrix" made with an aud recording and a patch off the board post mixed through software?  Would doing this negate the fq issue faced without the digidelay unit?

Jonny

Hi Jonny and All,

I prefer to be able to keep the recordings separate (ie. at least in archived form).  Then, when you combine them, you can always undo your steps.

With an inline delay making a single two channel recording, you only get one shot and without a audio measurement system (SmaartLive, SIM II, others...), you will not be able to set the delay with great accuracy nor make changes as the show goes on.

By having two discrete recordings and mixing them with software, you can stop, re-align, and continue as much as necessary.  Since the speed of sound in air changes with temperature and humidity, delay times do need to be changed (usually only about 1-2mS per hour of audio).  

While there are varying methods for signal alignment, in software, you can make a cut in the space between a couple songs (on the board recording since its speed is constant) as compared to the changing ambient recording and moving that segment until it aligns nicely with the other recording.  This is more visual or graphic in nature.  The other way is to add delay through an effects send or insert in the software mixer.  The latter does not provide the visual benefit of the first.

With software, you can align visually by looking for impulses like a kick or snare drum which causes a dynamic peak above the majority of the recording.  Everything will seem perfect for three of four songs, and after a while, kick drums will start sounding mushy and impulses will no longer be visibly aligned.  This is where it becomes necessary to make further offsets.

Happy Recording,

Marc

Offline nickgregory

  • Admitted Jeter Homer
  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 22376
  • Gender: Male
    • Hurricanes Insider
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2003, 02:38:11 PM »
Not sure how "precise" this method is, but what I do is take my AUD .wav as my master, cut up the SBD feed into tracks, and align them in Cool Edit as seperate tracks, finally mixing them all together.  In my experience this helps to get rid of the delay issues that would occur in just mixing 2 long wav's together.

Nick

Offline Marc Nutter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
    • Sonic Sense, Inc.
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2003, 02:41:34 PM »
Marc-
Another ?  When you say "good software package", which would you consider a good enough package to matrix in the post without the dealing with such cancellations?  I realize that my question isn't necessarily fair, so here is another go:  Most people on the hobby level use programs such as Sound Forge 6.0, Wave Lab, and Cool Edit Pro.  Will these commonly used programs produce desirable results?  Thanks for your insight!

-William

Hi William (and All),

I really like Wavelab.  While it is not designed to track more than two channels simultaneously, I believe the Audio Montage section could be utilized to do exactly what we are discussing.  Since I have Nuendo (WARNING: Expensive), I typically use it for multi-channel projects.  However, in looking at the Audio Montage in Wavelab, it seems that you can move tracks around like any other multitrack software and at does have an effect called "echo" which can be used as a delay if you like this approach better.

Otherwise, Samplitude, as already mentioned is great.  ProTools works but is once again, painfully expensive.  I think Sonic Foundry Vegas 4.0 will support similar editing as well.  It sounds like Cool Edit will too.

Any others???

Happy Recording Everybody,

Marc

Offline wboswell

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't call what you're wearing an outfit
    • Trey Woodruff on guitar
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2003, 04:33:49 PM »
I have been using Sound Forge 6.0 exclusively.  Maybe its time for me to demo a new program.  However, I have had success using the 'mix' feature by copying one track and pasting it to the other as Nick mentioned he did with CE Pro.  I haven't had any luck matching long wave files, which I have learned is due to varying word clocks in different A>D's.  I have enjoyed the results, though it truely is a labor of love.  Many hours are required to match the files.

What is your preferred 'mix'?  I try to run the sbd source somewhere between 12 and 15 dbs louder than the aud source.  This, of course, is subject to the genre of music.  A Tim O'brien show that I did needed more much more sbd than aud because of the crowd response to each song.  I have since edited the crowd reactions by decreasing the response volume before the matrix is applied.

Cool topic.  I would love to find a program that was a little more user friendly.  Maybe not even user friendly, just less time consuming!

Have fun!
-William  

Offline Marc Nutter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Gender: Male
    • Sonic Sense, Inc.
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2003, 10:15:34 AM »
Hi William and All,

Just like so many other aspects of recording, I've never found that there is a one specific way that works best all the time.  I like to take the audience recording (as I generally like them better than SBD recordings) and EQ it to taste (usually reducing bottom end that I find excessive).  Then, I take the SBD recording and mix it in until I find the overall clarity/presence/detail that I'm looking for.  

Another approach may be to start with the SBD recording (especially if you like how it sounds) and add enough of the audience recording to give it the mix the richness and feel for the room that you are looking for.

Remember, the faders may be deceptive, since levels may be different on the recordings.  Instead of seeking a percentage or ratio, I really like to go by ear.
You may even find it fun to add a touch of compression on one or both recordings, EQ them separately and then as a mix, or even add some reverb to the SBD or the mix.  

Since we are deviating from the leave it as it is approach, go deep, make mistakes and figure out what you like best.  Sounds familiar, huh?

Happy Recording,

Marc



Offline wboswell

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't call what you're wearing an outfit
    • Trey Woodruff on guitar
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2003, 12:29:56 PM »
I just got through doing that for a buddy's band.  Thank goodness it was only an hour long set!  Not exactly my favorite flavor of music, but its done now so no worries.

I went based on my ear for the mix.  The SBD source was pretty miserable.  The vocals were to high in the mix, drowning out the rest of the instruments.  However, the AUD source was a good representation of what it sounded like.  

I ran cards further back than I normally do to pick more of the room, which I think helped out the in the mix process, but not necessarily on the AUD recording.

Given the problems with the SBD mix, I had to leave the AUD source much louder than I normally do.  Instead of leaving the SBD source at 100% and decreasing the AUD source by ~12dbs like I normally do, I left the SBD source at 100% and decreased the AUD source by only 2dbs.  There is a little more chatter than I would have liked, but the end result is a very full sounding recording.

If I was really motivated, I might have played with the EQ settings a little, but I have already put more time into than I needed...  afterall, this is charity work for a friend.  I even paid my way into the show!

Later, William

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2003, 02:38:23 AM »
charity work........i do WAY TOO much of that.......sometimes, it just gets under your skin tho, to see how good you can make a buddys band sound.... ;) you know what i'm talking about...... ;)

bean
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline wboswell

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3411
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't call what you're wearing an outfit
    • Trey Woodruff on guitar
Re:matrix delay
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2003, 12:05:57 PM »
charity work........i do WAY TOO much of that.......sometimes, it just gets under your skin tho, to see how good you can make a buddys band sound.... ;) you know what i'm talking about...... ;)

bean

Yeah.  No matter how hard you try to make them sound better, they still sound like your buddy's band.  Like I have been told before, you can polish a turd, but its not going to make it any better!

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.072 seconds with 37 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF