Topic: More SBD/AUD Topics - Matching sound characteristics, etc

[vantheman]

Some of you were very generous with your help in another thread helping me to understand the principles of a sbd/aud matrix. The shows happened over the weekend and I got both of them with mostly just a few problems. First night I was able to get dedicated vocal lines off the soundboard, and the second night I was only able to get the output mix - vocal heavy, but containing everything.

I was expecting to have a harder time doing the time alignment. I had to use two decks because there weren’t enough available lines off the board for my stage mics. Below is a track from later in the show, and I’m not hearing alignment issues. It’s just a first pass, and I’ll take a more careful look later. It seems odd that between two decks from two different companies that one of them wouldn’t need to be stretched a little. But this isn’t necessarily the question…

What can I do to make the vocal heavy sbd mix sound more like the stage mix? I tried using RX7 EQ Match, but I’m not sure how well it worked. Here’s an example mix down -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DGM-mEZfqHthkDias5ju3LHfDCRXRmKn/view?usp=drivesdk

And a similar question from night 1. I was able to get two discrete channels for lead vocal and backing vocal. The vocal tracks have a fair amount of bleed from the amps and drums on the small stage, and I think this is why the vocals sound muddy. De-bleed in RX7 doesn’t seem to be working at all in this case:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/104RTdqtrFUFyTuqElAtFfARCij12DNWU/view?usp=sharing

Both examples above are selected from later in the set where alignment problems, if any, may be more obvious. Here’s a pic from night 2, my CM4s are lower right:

[morst]

I was expecting to have a harder time doing the time alignment. I had to use two decks because there weren’t enough available lines off the board for my stage mics. Below is a track from later in the show, and I’m not hearing alignment issues. It’s just a first pass, and I’ll take a more careful look later. It seems odd that between two decks from two different companies that one of them wouldn’t need to be stretched a little. But this isn’t necessarily the question…

It can happen!?! You got a lucky pair of decks.
Ideally, they would ALL match up, because the length of 1 second should not be debatable, yet here we are!

[relefunt]

I don’t think there is a good reason to try to match the sonic qualities of the two sources.

In fact, I believe it is counterproductive.

Imagine if you could get the two sources to sound exactly the same. Why would you need two sources then?

Instead, if anything, consider making them sound more different. Then decide what percentage mix sounds the best. Then consider using mastering tools to finish up after the mix is created.

My two cents — now more valuable because of the coin shortage.

[opsopcopolis]

^ agreed. Some of my most successful matrices have been two wildly different sounding sources, either in frequency content or instrument balance.

[unidentified]

^ agreed. Some of my most successful matrices have been two wildly different sounding sources, either in frequency content or instrument balance.

Absolutely concur, based on my experience. 

[Gutbucket]

The example links in the original post are dead, just going on general recommendation here..

I find it useful to start by listening to each source individually, getting each to sound good and natural on its own first - balance, EQ, clean up, whatever.  Do that before trying to combine things.  Determine which will be the foundation of the recording.  I tend to go with the basic acoustic room basis of the recording and build from that.  For AUD pair + SBD feeds that will usually be the AUD pair as foundation.  Listen to that for a while on its own after basic balance, EQ and clean up and ask yourself what might make it better.  Determine if the other sources can provide that missing element or elements.  Bring that other stuff in and up slowly and play with timing, balance, panning.  Determine if the addition(s) is really making things better or not based primarily on what the foundation on its own was missing.. rather than listening primarily to the attributes of the new addition.  This is something of a mental listening trick.  Your brain will naturally be hyper focused on identifying and hearing the addition most clearly, almost ignoring the foundation to do so.  Resist that and keep the foundation as the primary focus of attention, with the addition subtlety modifying it.  If you decide the addition really isn't helping with what the foundation needs, leave it out.  Don't feel bad about not using everything. 

If the addition is helping, now go back and work on how the addition fits with the foundation.  Alter things like EQ from each part being "good and natural on its own" to whatever works so that things fit together most beneficially.  Mute the extra stuff regularly while listening, in various combinations if there is more than one additional source, to make sure the additions are doing what is needed. Double check how much level you really need from each so as not to over-compensate or try to pull out what just isn't there.

Difference between sources is good.  That's the only way one of them might add what might be missing in the foundation, and the addition generally works best when each element can stand on its own in isolation first, prior to any special tailoring.  Rather than trying to brute-force match the average spectrum of one to the other, its best to work to get them both sounding decent by ear as a starting point, then carefully work the combination from there.