Gear / Technical Help > Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity
Matrixing questions
Gutbucket:
--- Quote from: heathen on February 22, 2023, 11:48:33 PM ---Too many variables to give a concrete answer. [snip]..no way to know in advance, and it's better to NOT have numbers in mind because that could influence a decision that should be made solely by your ears. Also you may want to EQ the mics and sbd to complement each other...again that will involve too many variables to make hard-and-fast rules.
--- End quote ---
^ This 100%.
Whatever sounds right. Some mixes will benefit from mostly SBD, others mostly AUD, others an even contribution. And the very best AUDs and SBDs will stand on their own without any need of the other.
If EQing, the approach I like is to get each source (AUD, SBD) sounding best on its own in isolation first (by ear), then determine a good combination of the two (by ear), then just leave it at that.. or go further and fine tune the the resulting combination with master bus EQ, or go deeper still with fine-tuning the EQ of each source and balance between them so as to optimize the "each source best complementing the other" thing. At that point each source is no longer EQ'd to sound best on its own, but getting them to sound as good as possible in isolation first makes usually makes for the best starting point.
Since modern FOH boards and recording chains are now digital and introduce different amount of latency, accurate sync of sources can be somewhat different than a straight time of travel distance calculation from the PA speakers to recording position. Usually that contribution is small, but can be significant. Typically the SBD will need delay to sync with the AUD pair, requiring more delay the farther back the recording position is. The location of the soundboard won't have any effect on this.
The Mixpre and F series Zooms provide 30ms of input delay. I never use that because I'm going to dial it in more precisely later, but that choice would be different if I were streaming or trying to eliminate as much post processing as possible.
capnhook:
--- Quote from: Gutbucket on February 23, 2023, 10:17:01 AM ---
The Mixpre and F series Zooms provide 30ms of input delay. I never use that because I'm going to dial it in more precisely later, but that choice would be different if I were streaming or trying to eliminate as much post processing as possible.
--- End quote ---
I think it might be feasible to get past the 30ms delay limit by adding one of these to the input chain, then use the recorder's control for finer steps..
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1721381-REG/vanco_pa_ads1_audio_delay_synchronizer.html/overview
20-340mS delay in 20mS steps, maybe optimal for our use. Portable, 5V
opsopcopolis:
--- Quote from: Gutbucket on February 23, 2023, 10:17:01 AM ---go deeper still with fine-tuning the EQ of each source and balance between them so as to optimize the "each source best complementing the other" thing. At that point each source is no longer EQ'd to sound best on its own, but getting them to sound as good as possible in isolation first makes usually makes for the best starting point.
--- End quote ---
This is my preferred process. I usually find that sources EQ'd to sound best on their own will not make the best sounding matrix. Sources used to complement each other sound better when joined.
If the SBD sounds good (big "if"), I'll usually remove some center and mid/low mid from the AUD and use it mostly to add ambiance. If the SBD sounds like shit, I'm more likely to do the opposite, and just use the board for added definition.
Gutbucket:
Yes agreed.
The recommendation to EQ each first so as to sound good in isolation makes for a good starting point because it serves to correct any obvious problems each individual source may have before going further and complicating things with both sources interacting with each other. For those doing minimal post work, this is likely to represent the minimal amount of work required beyond simply deciding on whatever mix of raw AUD and raw SBD sounds best. And doing that will help folks who don't have much experience with this to more clearly hear what is happening when the two sources get mixed without having to sort of "hear around" any frequency response problems either raw source may have.
However, if EQing at all, the next question becomes how far one wants to take it. Totally agreed that the most optimal approach is to make a mix that draws from whatever is better supplied by each source, such that one contributes more in some areas than the other and vice versa. This is a much more complex approach though, takes patience, a good ear, and is something that becomes faster and easier with experience. Experienced folks might shortcut the process and not fully EQ each separately to the same extent first due to having a combination they've learned works best in mind.
With my own recordings, I most often consider my own microphone array as the primary source and rely on that as much as possible. With a great recording I might not use any SBD even if I have it available. More often, using some SBD helps with overall definition as you say, or with specific things such as vocal clarity/presence, sometimes bass depth and tightness, maybe some instrument that was insufficiently represented in the room, or whatever. In those cases I tend to EQ the SBD to really only contribute significantly in those areas and stay out of the way of the AUD elsewhere. The following step is then to play around with introducing some cut to the AUD in those regions where the SBD is now contributing more, which may allow for a bit more SBD contribution in those places than I could otherwise use without it becoming too much, bringing everything back in to good overall balance again. That part of it becomes a back-and-forth iterative effort of listening and adjusting, to home in on what works best. In a way its like setting the general overall level balance between AUD and SBD in a more granular way, addressing specific areas of interest that will benefit from more SBD or more AUD than other regions.
May be opposite for other cases where the AUD isn't great but helps provide life (audience) and context (room) to an otherwise overly dry and sterile SBD, or to reinforce stuff that might be loud on-stage and in the room but not loud enough in the SBD.
goodcooker:
I'm same as some here - I start with the SBD feed solo and gauge what merits it has on it's own. I tape a lot of loud music so often the feed is mostly vocals, keys and drums since the stage volume is loud if it's a club sized show. If it's kinda balanced I'll add in room mics to add ambiance until it sounds "live".
Sometimes I do the opposite and start with the mic source and add SBD feed to lend clarity to vocals and drum overheads if the room source sounds muddy.
I don't EQ the individual sources before mixing unless there's something very obvious in need of repair. Sometimes I'll add a little compression to the SBD to even it out.
If you have a phase scope plugin for your DAW - use it! It's one of the valuable things included in Wavelab that is sorely lacking in other DAWs. It really helps me get in the ballpark of lining up sources. I use the 1ms per foot rule and go by ear from there. Comb filtering in the bass registers is the most obvious sign of being out of time alignment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version