Topic: Wavelab workflow question on matrix

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I think I have the basics of the wavelab post matrix.  But I hit a snag on a show that I have been wanting to get out for a long time..

I have two sources, a soundboard from a microtrack that is split into two parts and an aud source from a 722.

I stretched one half of the sbd as necessary to sync the start and end.  But there is still too much skew at certain points.

So I need to break this into smaller pieces and further match. I am willing to do that grunt work. But I am wondering if there isn't a better way.  Especially if I decide I want to redo it with less/more sbd, etc.

Is there a better way to do this in wavelab?

[dmonterisi]

break the sbd song into single song chunks and line each of them up with the aud in the wavelab montage feature.  it's time consuming for sure, but you have to break them into small chunks or they will drift.

[Chuck]

Is this still the generally accepted best way to do a Matrix? Like Mike B's tutorial...
Instead of trying to mix it on the fly with headphones...
Use a separate SBD source and the audience source and mix them together later?

If setting up microphones onstage is an option I would think having audience mics pointed out into the crowd from the stage would be a good option? Assuming the SBD feed is balanced and sounds good?

Any advice on how best to do this would be appreciated.

[Scooter]

Much much easier to do it in post compared to on the fly.  If the sources (mics and SBD or whatever) are far apart, there will be a delay between the two signals.  It's hard to deal w/ that on the fly.  If the sources are from two diff recorders, as stated above, the best way is to chop the SBD up (or one of the two sources that you have) and align the tracks on a song-by-song basis.

[RebelRebel]

Spark E mentioned a good idea. He took one source, and rerecorded into the other recorder via line in. He also took note of the venue's temperature and tried to maintain that during the rerecording process.

[Chuck]

Spark E mentioned a good idea. He took one source, and rerecorded into the other recorder via line in. He also took note of the venue's temperature and tried to maintain that during the rerecording process.

Not quite sure I follow...
Temp control to minimize digital drift. I get that...

[RebelRebel]

out from one recorder into the other recorder. I will see if hell chime in on the thread. Genius, that guy.

Spark E mentioned a good idea. He took one source, and rerecorded into the other recorder via line in. He also took note of the venue's temperature and tried to maintain that during the rerecording process.

Not quite sure I follow...
Temp control to minimize digital drift. I get that...

[Chuck]

out from one recorder into the other recorder. I will see if hell chime in on the thread. Genius, that guy.

Spark E mentioned a good idea. He took one source, and rerecorded into the other recorder via line in. He also took note of the venue's temperature and tried to maintain that during the rerecording process.

Not quite sure I follow...
Temp control to minimize digital drift. I get that...

Sounds interesting...

[SparkE!]

Yeah, I haven't read the whole thread here, but I think I've got a solution for you (as mentioned by Teddy).

Here's what you do when you record:

SBD > Recorder 1
Mics > Recorder 2

I'm assuming that you are starting off with full batteries.

Later, you re-record one of the recordings onto the other device, taking care to start off again with full batteries and especially taking care to re-create the same thermal environment that you had when making the original recordings.  (Crystal oscillators change their frequency of operation very slightly over temperature.  It's not much, but the amount of temperature related drift over an hour's time can be significant.)  So you set your recorders up exactly like they were, in the same bags, in the same orientation, with the same amount of charge on the batteries, etc... so that you get as close a possible to the original recording conditions.  However, instead of recording a live source, you re-record one of the recordings.

Recorder 1 (playing the original SBD recording)  > Recorder 2 (recording)

Recorder 1 will play back the SBD recording at exactly the rate that it was originally recorded.  Recorder 2 records that signal as if it were live.  The net effect is that you have recorded both the mic source AND the SBD source on the same recorder.  My experience has been that you can hold a 2 ms/hour skew between the two sources when you process it this way.  Yes, it's an additional a/d to d/a process on one of the recordings, but it's still better than trying to stretch a whole bunch of small sections of one of the recordings to keep it in synch with the other recording.   If you're careful, you shouldn't hurt the S/N by more than about 1 dB or so.  (I'm assuming that you paid attention to your levels and were careful to use the whole input dynamic range.  If you do this with a quiet recording, you'll lose more S/N, so be sure to keep your levels up when doing your original recording.)

One time (before I started re-recording one source like I've described above), I synchronized two sources by stretching 2 second chunks of one source every 6 seconds of the recording.  That's 600 edits per hour.  The show was over 2 hours long.  It took me hours and hours of editing to accomplish the alignment and I had to design a spreadsheet to calculate all of the edit points, working from the end of the show towards the beginning.  I thought I was never going to get that thing done.  Actually that show will be posted on Archive.org sometime in the next month or so.  It was the Hank III/Assjack show from Carbondale, Illinois a few years ago.  I've sent the flacs to a buddy of mine who has promised to upload it to the archive.  Anyway, that method worked but it was waaaayyyy too time consuming.  Ever since then, I've just re-recorded one source onto the other device, mixed and tracked.  Easy. Quick.  Done!  And it doesn't produce any noticeable degradation in the sound quality if you're careful with your levels.

If you don't like the idea of re-recording, you can always get a multitrack recorder.  My next project is to share the master clock between two UA-5's, essentially giving me a poor man's R4 or 744.