Topic: MATRIX WITH THE UA-5

[jctibbitts]

can you do a matrix with the ua-5?

i am currently going :

SBD > JB3  
or
NT4 > JB3

can i do:

SBD
        >UA-5  > JB3
NT4



couldn't i use the xlr l/r right inputs for the mic and the rca/1/4" inputs for the SBD and do a toslink to miniplug into the JB3?

or am i kidding myself?

[jctibbitts]

or would i have to record into two devices and matrix after the fact.  i don't know shit about the matrix, but when i record my band thru the soundboard sometime the sound guy will take our bassist right out of the mix due to his stage volume.  we try to have him turn it down, but then he's all fucked up.

so if i just do a mic feed i get WAY too much crowd noise (our crowd isn't at the quiet listening point yet).  

what's the best way to matrix this?  we don't have DAT or a ua5, but are gettting a ua5 right now.  

we do have:

sony md
jb3
denon rack cd burner
pre amps
compressor
eq

i really just want to go sbd > ua-5 (wmod) > jb3, but for those rooms where the stage volume fucks i everything up i need to matrix

[Brian]

no need for seperate devices unless you want to.

run RCA's in from soundboard and XLR in for the  mics. once you get the hang of setting the levels it's all gravy mon!

Good Luck!

Brian

[jctibbitts]

Really...it's that easy with a ua5?  that'll solve my problems?  sick, now i just need 500 to buy the ua5 with w mod huh?

[Sean Gallemore]

caymanreview did matrixing with the UA-5 for a while

[Brian]

W-MOD ua5 is definitely what you need. I have made 1 <self fluff> sick matrix </self fluff> at my usual venue before their board feed went the way of the dodo.

[pfife]

The stage volume thing scares me when using the soundboard at a show at a smaller venue, as the soundguy is mixing for the room, not the recording...

I, personally, would record on two different devices so if SB is shitty, you can lose it and still have the room mics on their own...  problem being that if you want to use the MD, and use the converters on the UA-5, then you need a C02 coax/optical converter... as your JB3 will be using the optical out... DO any of those other devices have a coax in?

Also might want to make sure, if you go this route, that you can run out the coax and optical at the same time with the UA-5.   There is a switch where you can select between them, which makes me think you may not be able to run them both simultaneously...

My .02...

HTH.
Pfife

[Brian Skalinder]

make sure, if you go this route, that you can run out the coax and optical at the same time with the UA-5.   There is a switch where you can select between them

The coax/optical switch is for input.  Both the coax and optical outputs on a digi-modded UA-5 are active simultaneously.

[Phil]

can you do a matrix with the ua-5?

i am currently going :

SBD > JB3  
or
NT4 > JB3

can i do:

SBD
        >UA-5  > JB3
NT4



couldn't i use the xlr l/r right inputs for the mic and the rca/1/4" inputs for the SBD and do a toslink to miniplug into the JB3?

or am i kidding myself?

That's how I record my band all the time.  We suck so we only play at crapy bars and if I were to set my mics in the crowd i'd get too much talking so I put them on stage (XY) and matrix rca from the sound board.  Like STL-Taper said, once you get a hang of the levels it's sweet.  

[Ed.]

wow, i think i may give this a try...seems easy enuf.

ed

[caymanreview]

it is very easy

i havent done any board matrixes yet

but i was doing a 3 mic mix, basically the same thing, i was runnign the 3rd mic into the rcas and adjusting it on the fly

easy, once you get the hang of it

one bad thing i saw, when running rcas into the back, and running optical out, the adjustment knob for the rca input is sandwiched in beetween them, and a little hard to get to in the dark untill you get used to it

i would suggest the little "mod" someone suggested for the rca input knob, adding a "extension" to it to make it easier to adjust on the fly

[dklein]

I've done the matrix exactly as you described it and it worked out well.  (NT-4 into the front XLRs, board in the rear RCAs).  

Only catch is your kinda guessing at the relative levels b/w the 2 sources.  And don't think you *need* the $500 w-mod UA-5.  $250 gets you the stock unit and you can do the digi-mod.

I wouldn't recommend this approach if you're mics are going to be much more than 20-25 ft from the stage or the delay issues will muck up the sound.  You'll need to record the sources separately and post-mix.  Chances are you'll need to do some work to line things up as most a>d converters don't perfectly synch.

[Simp-Dawg]

The stage volume thing scares me when using the soundboard at a show at a smaller venue, as the soundguy is mixing for the room, not the recording...

I, personally, would record on two different devices so if SB is shitty, you can lose it and still have the room mics on their own...  problem being that if you want to use the MD, and use the converters on the UA-5, then you need a C02 coax/optical converter... as your JB3 will be using the optical out... DO any of those other devices have a coax in?

Also might want to make sure, if you go this route, that you can run out the coax and optical at the same time with the UA-5.   There is a switch where you can select between them, which makes me think you may not be able to run them both simultaneously...

My .02...

HTH.
Pfife

if i read this right it sounds like you're talking about having two devices (jb3 and md) coming out of the ua-5...but you aren't going to be able to separate the sources between the 2 recorders, it's going to be the same signal going to each recorder even if it's on different outputs.  so you can't do sbd on md and mics on jb3 if they are both going through the ua-5.

[Salsa Brava]

I have thought about this for a while and had  the opportunity to try it but ended up bagging the idea and running seperate sources (I.E. SBD and AUD) and doing the matrix later.  We were worried about delays on either source causing an offset.  Has anyone had this problem or should I not worry about it?

[caymanreview]

u should definantly worry about it. a small delay could ruin your whole recording. it depends on the room, distance from the source and alot of other factors. i would personally do the matrix after the fact

[jctibbitts]

Wow,

Sorry i didn't get back to this thread quickly...was in boston for some band !

anyway, thanks all for the advice.  my only problem with recording onto two devices and matrixing after the fact is i hate recording with the MD, can't afford a DAT or another JB3.

what if i had the NT4 as a stage mic per say, and also did the board feed into the UA5?  would i get delay there?  i guess i just have to test it out, but i wanted to see if anyone has done it.

PS.  how do you do a matrix after the fact?  with soundforge/other program?  

[Simp-Dawg]

Wow,

Sorry i didn't get back to this thread quickly...was in boston for some band !

anyway, thanks all for the advice.  my only problem with recording onto two devices and matrixing after the fact is i hate recording with the MD, can't afford a DAT or another JB3.

what if i had the NT4 as a stage mic per say, and also did the board feed into the UA5?  would i get delay there?  i guess i just have to test it out, but i wanted to see if anyone has done it.

PS.  how do you do a matrix after the fact?  with soundforge/other program?  

if you had the nt4 on stage you would not have to worry about delay issues with the board feed.  you'd just have to worry about all that cable getting from the sound board to your ua-5 (or mics to ua-5 depending where you put the rig!)

and post matrix can be done in wavelab montage or cool edit pro i think, probably others too.

so did you tape phish last night??  if so how did it come out?

[jctibbitts]

Didn't tape phish.  i just tape for my band.  i am still learning and would feel like a retard taping phish.  plus, i would be worrying about my gear the whole time rather than air guitaring and getting out of control.

i recommend everyone check out the rnr > groove>tweeprise>frank>kunk>frank

sick

[jctibbitts]

I guess my last question would be:

would matrixing before the fact (source i mentioned earlier) fix the stage volume problem i have with some boards?

i never put my mics on the stage because i would get no vocals.  then i tried just straight soundboard and at most venues i get too much vocals and no bass (stage volumes differ).  i just want a perfect clear mixed recording and want to know if it's possible with what i have:

nt4
jb3
ua5 wmod (will be buying very soon)

[Simp-Dawg]

think about what you just said...onstage lacks vocals...sbd has too much vocals...mix them together and voila!  you could do a post matrix but if you don't have to worry about time delay (by being on stage) and you have enough cabling to do it, i say go for the matrix with the ua5.
ka-bling.

[Brian]

shlading...what simp-dawg said. +t running the matrix on the fly is the best bet because once you get the levels down, you will be able to make some great tapes and save lots of time in post-production.

wassup josh get a chance to listen to that BE tape yet? little bassy eh? good ol cicero's FOH will do that i guess even with XY. need to get them hyper caps NOW!

Brian

[Simp-Dawg]

yeah bri, i gave it a little listen, even transferred it to my hd but still need to track it and all....yeah it was a bit bassy, i think maybe the wmod ua-5 contributed to that but i'm not sure, would like to hear a pmod in the same situation.  also, i have discovered i really do not care much for running the oktavas in xy, gives a pretty narrow stereo image IMHO.  i really like din and have yet to try ortf but i will give that a go one of these days.
i think i will have a chance to run the oktavas through an mp-2 this friday at jeff austin and friends in denver, i'm interested to hear it.

[Brian]

bill burge said he liked his oktava>mp2 recordings. as for stereo image, there pretty much is none at cicero's cause it's a mono PA and a narrow room.  and any other config just has waaay too much bass.  once i get some XLR>transformers>rcas i will be able to do matrixes again there. i think the hypers will help out a  lot in that room too.

Brian

[dklein]

hey - if you're with the band, cabling shouldn't be a problem.  Just use the snake.  I've set up a stage mic, run it through the snake and conveniently pick up my signal back at the board where I'm plugging in.  Beautiful!

[jctibbitts]

yeah that's what i was planning on doing...thanks all

now just need $500 for the oade w mod UA5 (im not screwing with doing the mod myself, i'll fck it up)

[joemango]

I did a matrix of Deep Banana Blackout with my UA-5(wmod) at Toad's place a couple weeks ago and it came out great, thanks to E (their sound man).  If the board sounded crappy, I would have had to live with it.  Lucky he knew what he was doing.

Another time I tried it with 2 separate sources and decks, and was never able to get the tracks to match up (I'm using SoundForge 6).  One track was about 2 seconds longer than the other due to differences in the A/D converter clocks.  I imagine that unless you have a digital mixer  that synchs this would always be a problem.

Does anyone know of a program that will reliably time-shift a wav file?

[blu666z]

Hey Alex.  I did a matrix in CEP a few weeks back.  

Lay both tracks in.  Played them together.  When I could start hearing an echo, I would stop the playback.  Split the SBD track, realign it(right side of the split) with the Aud track.  Mainly just looked for snare hits/peaks to use as a refrence.  Once I have it lined back up, lock the new region of the SBD track and start the process over againing listening for the 'echo.'  Really impressed with the results.  Granted I put about 8 hours into a 1hour becasue I went back and listened to the whole show several times before I was completely happy.  

-Kevin

[dklein]

I've probably done 15 or so over the last 6 months and have settled on a method.  My 2 devices drift too much for cutting between tracks to match sources (drift is ~10 ms/minute).

To my ear, once you're out by a few milliseconds, phasey things start happening.   It's easiest to hear in the vocals.  I tried a bunch of different stretch applications and found the one in Wavelab to sound excellent.  It took a little number crunching the first time around but I now know the stretch factor for the 2 devices and it's always the same (either 100.018 or 99.982 depending on which one I'm matching).

In wavelab, go process, timestretch, set to high quality and preserve pitch.  Then play with the ratio setting - you can use the other settings but I've discovered that the only accurate predictor of the file length comes from the ratio setting (up to 3 decimals).  Because of that, it's not worth trying to set it anywhere else.  

I have wavelab set to use 32 bit temp files - this may help the sound quality.

So you can either start by determining the gap between 2 points and calculating your desired stretch, or just zero in by trial and error.  If you go the latter way, setting the different stretches up in multitrack is a good way to look at them to guess where to go next.

When I do a matrix I usually have one 16 bit source (soundboard>jb3) and one 24 bit source (mics>laptop).  I've stretched each one to match the other.  I'm not sure which is best to leave and which should be stretched.  You could argue doing it tothe 24 bit source because it may provide more accurate data to work with.  At the same time, why touch the better source?  In any case, to my ears, the wavelab stretch sounds good.

Then I save it in 24 bit format and load the tracks in Cool Edit Pro multitrack.  Line 'em up, adjust amplitude, do any eq (often a bass rolloff) and mixdown to 32 bit.  Fades.  Save in 32 bit fp.  Back to wavelab for UV22HR dithering.

So there are many methods and software.  This is one stretch approach.  The other more common one is to edit between each track to realign the waves.  You delete during the gaps between songs where the edit will not be noticeable.  You want to get smooth edits (I know CEP has an auto smoothing feature that will blend smoothly with nearby samples).

Either way, it's guaranteed to be a time consuming process... but the results can be great if you get it right!

[joemango]

I'm gonna give it a go with SONAR 3.  I'll post results and techniques in a new thread, probably after the weekend.

[spearheadtaper]

its seems almost all sbd  > aud matrix that have been attemped ....has some serious echo from the sbd...whats the best way to remedy the ecoey sbd

[NJFunk]

I have done on the fly matrices with the UA-5 with great results.  Here's one of the best:

http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=33830

If possible, I try to set up the mics at stage lip (where I would expect a great stereo image of the on-stage amps and have no delay issues but little or no vocals) and mix that with the PA feed (which are normally vocal-heavy in small bars).

[easy jim]

its seems almost all sbd  > aud matrix that have been attemped ....has some serious echo from the sbd...whats the best way to remedy the ecoey sbd

I have done a bunch of on the fly matrices with my P-Mod UA-5.  Delay issues really only come in to play when the mics are ~20-25' or more from the sound source (PA stacks, etc.)  In one club here in San Diego, I clamp my mics to a railing above the SBD which is just about 20' back from the PA.  I like to use the -75hz bass roll off setting on the mics at the back end of the delay-range so the low end does not sound muddy.  If you are any futher, it is better to mix the sources later.  I've never had a delay issue with stage micing + a SBD feed; however, it may be possible if the stage is very large and the mics are far enough from the amps/drums, etc.