Topic: 4 channel mono matrix ?

[BobbyHurley]

Borrowed a R-44 last night and ran the following at 24/48 mono x 4 recording:

Channel 1 - AKG 481 Left
Channel 2 - AKG 481 Right
Channel 3 - SBD Left
Channel 4 - SBD Right

In WaveLab,  starting a new audio montage, I add the 4 channels in (delete the 1st default track as it will only allow you to add a stereo track), but I only see the 1st mono track that I added. When I click PLAY, that's all that will play (Left aud).

Major assuption on my part, but shouldn't all 4 channels be synched, or will I need to mix the 2 aud channels, mix the 2 sbd channels, and then do an audio montage as normal (chop sbd file into tracks and then synch up the big aud file with the sbd tracks)?

Any help or point in the right direction? I read the matrix FAQ's but didn't see anything on point.

Thanks

[admkrk]

just a thought as i've never tried working with mono channels.

open all 4 tracks like regular. create a montage. c&p channel 1 then channel 2 on top of it. create another stereo track. repeat with channels 3&4.

[BobbyHurley]

Good suggestion. Funny how you take the time to pose a question and then something occurs to you thta may indeed work.

I may be overdoing things, but what's working so far is ... Opened the 2 audience mono channels (L&R), mixed them, render into 1 audience stereo file ... opened the 2 sbd mono channels (L&R), mixed them, render into 1 sbd stereo file ... now I am hoping I can matrix as usual, hopefully without much synching.

I'll update when I'm done.

[BobbyHurley]

Yep, this worked:

Aud (L) + Aud (R) > Mix > Render > Save as "stereo aud"

Sbd (L) + Sbd (R) > Mix > Render > save as "stereo sbd"

Stereo Aud + Stereo Sbd > Mix > tweak gain on each to get mix right > Render > save as finished product

[chrisdavis]

you can also do all 4 channels in one window.  add all 4 files as mono tracks,  tweek levels and render.  so damn easy.

[admkrk]

yea, you didn't need to render the aud and sbd separately first. i'm not sure how to assign the mono tracks to l or r other than like i said above?

[bhtoque]

Hope I'm not telling you something you already know, but next time set it for stereo x2 and you'll make less work for yourself.

JAson

[chrisdavis]

I disagree with stereo x2. run mono x4 and you can better control each channel.

eta: i know stereo x2 is preffered by most.  but mono x 4 gives better control on each channel, and it does not add more to the processing workload.  plus, getting into the mono x4 mindset makes it easier to consider "outside" of the box technique...ie. 2 mics onstage, 1 room mic, and 1 mono sbd channel.  it can be fun...

[admkrk]

dam, i really gotta get a job so i can get back out and tape something. you guys are making me want to experiment.   

[page]

you can also do all 4 channels in one window.  add all 4 files as mono tracks,  tweek levels and render.  so damn easy.

qft

don't forget to compensate for delay between the board and the room mics. Everything is clocked correctly cause it sounds like it was all run into a single unit, but you may need to shuffle stuff around by a few milliseconds to get the sync correct depending on how far back you are.

[kirk97132]

So as I try to understand WL did I read right that you can only add stereo tracks to a montage?

[baustin]

I disagree with stereo x2. run mono x4 and you can better control each channel.

eta: i know stereo x2 is preffered by most.  but mono x 4 gives better control on each channel, and it does not add more to the processing workload.  plus, getting into the mono x4 mindset makes it easier to consider "outside" of the box technique...ie. 2 mics onstage, 1 room mic, and 1 mono sbd channel.  it can be fun...

ahhhh.... so the student has become the master

[chrisdavis]

ahhhh.... so the student has become the master

and yet ALWAYS your patowan learner

[SmokinJoe]

FWIW I believe 4xmono is a lot more disk (or card) I/O than 2xstereo.  Quite simply, it's less work for a computer to write 2 files to disk than 4, even if the 2 have twice as much data, and I think the same will still apply with flash cards.  I realize SD cards don't have a moving head, but I still think it's relevant.  If you have a card that will keep up without erroring, and you like 4xMono for some logical reason, that's fine, but if you have problems, I would suggest you switch to 2xstereo.

Case in point #1... R4's with the original slow hard would frequently get "slow disk" errors at 4xmono, but not with 2xstereo.
Case in point #2... R44 will allow you to run at 24/96 in 2xStereo, but only 24/48 in 4xMono... I expect it's because they know the card can't keep up (same spec for R4 too).

On the flip side of the coin, your 2GB splits will come at 4 hours instead of 2 hours.

[chrisdavis]

interesting points joe.  definelty something to think about in the future..

[kirk97132]

So where does the 4channel X1 setting fall?  Wouldn't it be writing 4 channels at once then?  BUt you do bring up interesting points regarding the R-44. 

[SmokinJoe]

So where does the 4channel X1 setting fall?  Wouldn't it be writing 4 channels at once then?  BUt you do bring up interesting points regarding the R-44. 

I've never done it, so this is speculation... 4 channels into 1 file... easier on the hard drive, 24/48 would split at 1:02 when it hits 2gb.  I believe I saw a post from someone who did this, and was struggling to find an editor to read it because his favorite editor didn't like it.  I decided after reading that post "don't do that".  That's all I remember.

[kirk97132]

I use Adobe and don't have a problem opening the 1x4 file.  But i have pretty much given up on 96 recording and do everything @ 48.  Personally I like the mono x 4 setting to load things into multitrack that way I can control pan on each track or set it to be two stereo tracks.  If I were to use stereo x 2 I'd have to split the stereo tracks to do that which would involve an extra step.  I do a lot of on stage matrix's and find that it sometimes is better to not pan something full L/R as in a stereo track.  Of course everyone has different tastes and different reasons/applications.   It would seem to me that the 4 channels into one would still be a huge amount of data, comparable to monox4.