| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make my mixes wider?
I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I
tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit. Toms are panned slightly. I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side. They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide". For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus. Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo effect. Such as delay or chorus. I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good. Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me get some of my sounds wider? Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown? Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger? Any help appreciated. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jacob Hansen wrote:
I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. Practice recording natural sound sources with two microphones only so as to learn how to deploy a stereo pair. Additives do not make multimono become stereo, think stereo pairs and stereo images that will combine well when you make the recording. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jacob Hansen wrote:
I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. Practice recording natural sound sources with two microphones only so as to learn how to deploy a stereo pair. Additives do not make multimono become stereo, think stereo pairs and stereo images that will combine well when you make the recording. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Try a tiny tiny bit of room or short reverb on the intire mix.
Shiloh "Jacob Hansen" wrote in message om... I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit. Toms are panned slightly. I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side. They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide". For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus. Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo effect. Such as delay or chorus. I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good. Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me get some of my sounds wider? Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown? Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger? Any help appreciated. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Try a tiny tiny bit of room or short reverb on the intire mix.
Shiloh "Jacob Hansen" wrote in message om... I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit. Toms are panned slightly. I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side. They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide". For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus. Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo effect. Such as delay or chorus. I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good. Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me get some of my sounds wider? Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown? Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger? Any help appreciated. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger? For a wider drum sound I have had success with ORTF or DIN or NOS-like configurations for overheads. MUCH wider image than XY. It would seem that you are doing TOO MUCH to try to get a wide image. Stereo processing all those mono tracks is a bad idea. In my opinion, in a pop/rock type mix, adding a bunch of stereo tracks just gives you a wide mono sounding mix. It depends on what you are recording, but I would do stereo OH on drums, and no stereo micing on anything else. Chorus and other manipulating when overused can hurt more than help. Keep most tracks mono, give them their own place in the stereo image (i.e. not EVERYWEHERE in the image). Use ambience to get some space around the instruments. Roomy reverbs (i.e. fair amound of early reflections) and delays can help here. The other poster recommendation for some light verb on the whole mix can also help, though this is a kind of mastering trick in my mind. Have fun |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger? For a wider drum sound I have had success with ORTF or DIN or NOS-like configurations for overheads. MUCH wider image than XY. It would seem that you are doing TOO MUCH to try to get a wide image. Stereo processing all those mono tracks is a bad idea. In my opinion, in a pop/rock type mix, adding a bunch of stereo tracks just gives you a wide mono sounding mix. It depends on what you are recording, but I would do stereo OH on drums, and no stereo micing on anything else. Chorus and other manipulating when overused can hurt more than help. Keep most tracks mono, give them their own place in the stereo image (i.e. not EVERYWEHERE in the image). Use ambience to get some space around the instruments. Roomy reverbs (i.e. fair amound of early reflections) and delays can help here. The other poster recommendation for some light verb on the whole mix can also help, though this is a kind of mastering trick in my mind. Have fun |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Jacob Hansen)
I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit. Toms are panned slightly. I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side. They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide". For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus. Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo effect. Such as delay or chorus. I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good. Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me get some of my sounds wider? Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown? Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger? Any help appreciated. First, buy this Chesky Records CD - "Chesky Records Jazz Sampler & Audiophile Test Compact Disc, Vol. 1 ~ Jazz Sampler" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...=pd_sim_music_ 3/103-3384776-6937410?v=glance&s=music There are a number of stereo tests on the CD that will demonstrate if you can even hear all the locational information possible with your monitor chain in your room. For example, you should be able to hear in a blumlein stereo recording an "at the speaker" position and an "outside the speaker" position. They also have an interesting test where you shoud hear a sound move in a clear arc up from one speaker and over to the other - vertical, up and down information. If you can't hear the effects, your space and speakers need tweaking. Next you can experiment in your studio space with how to get the biggest stereo spread possible. With a Blumlein Pair out on the floor, you can mark where each position in the room left and right shows up on your monitors, center, left mid, left speaker, outside left speaker, close, further back, way back etc. You can also experiment with an MS pair, by playing with the level of the sides you can control how wide the stereo spread appears to be artificially. For drums, if you are micing cymbals you might try a spaced pair of omnis, an MS pair, or a spaced pair of omnis AND an X/Y pair for a kit (on the same plane). I like the XY plus spaced omni effect a lot, sometimes you can hear the diffuse field stereo from the omnis at one distance from your monitors and when you move closer between them hear yourself moving into the free field. I like it on piano a lot, you get a lot of stereo localization of musical lines depending on the dynamics of the player. You can also use the stereo width control some consoles have on their stereo modules, sending your reverb returns into them and throwing them as far spread out in the stereo field as possible. This gives you more room for other stuff in between, you can do the same thing with a plug in. And if you use multiple stereo mics on a source you can adjust the spread of each pair as you wish with stereo effect plug ins, some plug ins like the Waves S1 let's you will let you play with vertical positioning virtually - I love the shuffler control too. Also if you give some of your mono stuff more weight - limiting or adding compressed and uncompressed busses of a snare or something together, that can make the stereo stuff sound more interesting by contrast. Have fun. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Jacob Hansen)
I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY sounds more nice, I think. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit. Toms are panned slightly. I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side. They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide". For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus. Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo effect. Such as delay or chorus. I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good. Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me get some of my sounds wider? Will any of these sound good on a buss/mixdown? Or are there some tips how to make things sound a little bit bigger? Any help appreciated. First, buy this Chesky Records CD - "Chesky Records Jazz Sampler & Audiophile Test Compact Disc, Vol. 1 ~ Jazz Sampler" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...=pd_sim_music_ 3/103-3384776-6937410?v=glance&s=music There are a number of stereo tests on the CD that will demonstrate if you can even hear all the locational information possible with your monitor chain in your room. For example, you should be able to hear in a blumlein stereo recording an "at the speaker" position and an "outside the speaker" position. They also have an interesting test where you shoud hear a sound move in a clear arc up from one speaker and over to the other - vertical, up and down information. If you can't hear the effects, your space and speakers need tweaking. Next you can experiment in your studio space with how to get the biggest stereo spread possible. With a Blumlein Pair out on the floor, you can mark where each position in the room left and right shows up on your monitors, center, left mid, left speaker, outside left speaker, close, further back, way back etc. You can also experiment with an MS pair, by playing with the level of the sides you can control how wide the stereo spread appears to be artificially. For drums, if you are micing cymbals you might try a spaced pair of omnis, an MS pair, or a spaced pair of omnis AND an X/Y pair for a kit (on the same plane). I like the XY plus spaced omni effect a lot, sometimes you can hear the diffuse field stereo from the omnis at one distance from your monitors and when you move closer between them hear yourself moving into the free field. I like it on piano a lot, you get a lot of stereo localization of musical lines depending on the dynamics of the player. You can also use the stereo width control some consoles have on their stereo modules, sending your reverb returns into them and throwing them as far spread out in the stereo field as possible. This gives you more room for other stuff in between, you can do the same thing with a plug in. And if you use multiple stereo mics on a source you can adjust the spread of each pair as you wish with stereo effect plug ins, some plug ins like the Waves S1 let's you will let you play with vertical positioning virtually - I love the shuffler control too. Also if you give some of your mono stuff more weight - limiting or adding compressed and uncompressed busses of a snare or something together, that can make the stereo stuff sound more interesting by contrast. Have fun. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Jacob Hansen) wrote: I have been recording and mixing for many years now, but sometimes I tend to think that my mixes sound - well, not as wide, stereowise, as some of the CDs I use as references. I track drum overheads as XY. I don't like the left/right thing. XY sounds more nice, I think. Well, XY is going to make your drums sound pretty narrow compared to any non coincident technique. Perhaps you like the sound of your drums soloed but not in the context of a full mix? The two situations are not the same, and I think this is the root of your problem. But, let's continue with particulars. Ambiance is tracked dual mono - I think it's called. 2 KM184 spaced 8 meters and placed 4 meters from the kit. This is a step in the 'wider' direction... Toms are panned slightly. This contributes to narrowness. I always dub guitars so that there are 2 of each guitar in each side. They're slightly different (2 different mics), and panned totally left&right, but still it doesn't seem that "wide". Let me clarify: you have a guitar cabinet miked with two mikes, each panned hard. You do two of those overdubs. Yes, this is nearly mono if the two mikes have nearly the same tone. If you'd use only one mike per guitar, you could hard pan it and the guitars would be ridiculously wide. Or, pan the extra mike close to the primary mike and you could get something between the two extremes. For vocals, I always give them a little bit of pitch shift or chorus. Just to widen it a bit. The same goes for bass and leads. Generally all the things that are mono will be treated slightly with a stereo effect. Such as delay or chorus. A good attempt, but your poor vocals are struggling to poke out of all that stuff panned center. A big, wide, smeary, phasy drum sound would leave a huge hole up the middle for your vocals. You wouldn't need as much effects on your vocals to hear them in that case either. I tried once to use a stereo expander, which sounded awful! I know it plays around with the phase, and what I heard did NOT sound any good. Yes, that's normal. Am I right that there are some PT plugs out there that will help me get some of my sounds wider? The Waves S1 will widen a mix in theory, but in practice, it rarely seems to help; in a narrow mix, the little bit of stereo information present is usually not too carefully crafted, and emphasising that usually leads to other problems. Basically, the issue is all in your ears, your miking and how you mix. Plugins are irrelevant - I bet your mixes sound the same on analog too. My main suggestion is to try to re-educate yourself about how a track should sound in isolation so that to makes a mix that sounds good. You'll have to take a more phasy, less coherent drum sound to get this center buildup to go away, and the trick there is re-educating your ears so that you don't automatically drift back into polite, coherent mono-land. Try panning the toms wider. Try using ORTF or spaced mikes over the kit, Try the three mike drum miking, and if you're worried it won't work, do it in addition to your normal miking (it's only three more tracks). Try to think about the arrangement of a song and the panning of each part and how that flows over time. Not answering that question just sticks everything up the middle when parts could have lived more happily somewhere else. Best of luck, Monte McGuire |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fewer elements in the mix will allow each element to be heard more clearly.
Try recording a simple arrangement and play with the panning. For imaging, less can be way more. Joe Egan EMP Colchester, VT www.eganmedia.com |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fewer elements in the mix will allow each element to be heard more clearly.
Try recording a simple arrangement and play with the panning. For imaging, less can be way more. Joe Egan EMP Colchester, VT www.eganmedia.com |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EganMedia" wrote in message
... Fewer elements in the mix will allow each element to be heard more clearly. Try recording a simple arrangement and play with the panning. For imaging, less can be way more. Hmmm... missed the beginning of this thread, too - that's happened a few times recently. Anyway, what he said ( less is more). Another thing is I noticed is that you (addressing the O.P. here) mentioned you've got your room mics 8 meters away from the kit... unless you need that much space & time between the original signal & the source of the ambience, IMO this can take away from the width you're looking for - IOW, you're getting a lot of room, but where's the point of reference with regard to the "center" of the kit? It's lost by the time the room mics are picking it up. Try moving those room mics in a bit, maybe halfway from where they're at now, and see what happens. If you've got a room that big you'll still pick up plenty of ambience,but you'll have a more defined stereo field. Finally, if you want to create a more defined perception of width on the whole mix, I would forsake the chorus/pitch shifting on the vocals (except for background vox maybe, if you want to thicken them up a bit) if your lead vocals are more centered, then that in itself gives you a sort of "anchor" or point of reference by which everything else that's being given a wider treatment can be perceived. If you need those EFX on the vocals to get a certain sound that you're going for (apart from the width thing) then try panning those EFX only very slightly - maybe start out no wider than 11:00 & 1:00 & see what happens). -- Neil Henderson Saqqara Records http://www.saqqararecords.com |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EganMedia" wrote in message
... Fewer elements in the mix will allow each element to be heard more clearly. Try recording a simple arrangement and play with the panning. For imaging, less can be way more. Hmmm... missed the beginning of this thread, too - that's happened a few times recently. Anyway, what he said ( less is more). Another thing is I noticed is that you (addressing the O.P. here) mentioned you've got your room mics 8 meters away from the kit... unless you need that much space & time between the original signal & the source of the ambience, IMO this can take away from the width you're looking for - IOW, you're getting a lot of room, but where's the point of reference with regard to the "center" of the kit? It's lost by the time the room mics are picking it up. Try moving those room mics in a bit, maybe halfway from where they're at now, and see what happens. If you've got a room that big you'll still pick up plenty of ambience,but you'll have a more defined stereo field. Finally, if you want to create a more defined perception of width on the whole mix, I would forsake the chorus/pitch shifting on the vocals (except for background vox maybe, if you want to thicken them up a bit) if your lead vocals are more centered, then that in itself gives you a sort of "anchor" or point of reference by which everything else that's being given a wider treatment can be perceived. If you need those EFX on the vocals to get a certain sound that you're going for (apart from the width thing) then try panning those EFX only very slightly - maybe start out no wider than 11:00 & 1:00 & see what happens). -- Neil Henderson Saqqara Records http://www.saqqararecords.com |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
collapsed the stereo image when summing. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols
collapsed the stereo image when summing. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Caffrey" wrote in message om... Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session. I plan to mix through an analogue desk to a separate stereo editor, but I'm sure the time will come soon when I get stuck mixing in PT and would love to know of any such drawbacks. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Caffrey" wrote in message om... Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session. I plan to mix through an analogue desk to a separate stereo editor, but I'm sure the time will come soon when I get stuck mixing in PT and would love to know of any such drawbacks. -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it´s nonsense, digital myth.
I tested it once, and the bounce sounded exactly like the recording of a new stereo track through two internal busses. I took out all random based FX and the two mixes phase-cancelled absolutely. David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: "Mike Caffrey" wrote in message om... Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session. I plan to mix through an analogue desk to a separate stereo editor, but I'm sure the time will come soon when I get stuck mixing in PT and would love to know of any such drawbacks. -- Peter --- http://www.merlinsound.de |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it´s nonsense, digital myth.
I tested it once, and the bounce sounded exactly like the recording of a new stereo track through two internal busses. I took out all random based FX and the two mixes phase-cancelled absolutely. David Morgan (MAMS) wrote: "Mike Caffrey" wrote in message om... Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session. I plan to mix through an analogue desk to a separate stereo editor, but I'm sure the time will come soon when I get stuck mixing in PT and would love to know of any such drawbacks. -- Peter --- http://www.merlinsound.de |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Mike Caffrey) wrote: Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. FWIW, I haven't noticed this ever, and I've mixed with some pretty fussy people using some pretty fussy monitors. I also use one DAC and a switcher for the whole room, so I'm not prone to making the mistake of comparing the same bits done analog through different boxes. I know I've heard about this before, but I've never been there personally to see how the conclusion was arrived at. In other words, I think something else is going on, as I've never seen it over the past 10 years through any version of PT, some of which were decidedly bad sounding on their own. In all cases, the same goodness or badness happened during the bounce as when we built the mix. Regards, Monte McGuire |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Mike Caffrey) wrote: Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. FWIW, I haven't noticed this ever, and I've mixed with some pretty fussy people using some pretty fussy monitors. I also use one DAC and a switcher for the whole room, so I'm not prone to making the mistake of comparing the same bits done analog through different boxes. I know I've heard about this before, but I've never been there personally to see how the conclusion was arrived at. In other words, I think something else is going on, as I've never seen it over the past 10 years through any version of PT, some of which were decidedly bad sounding on their own. In all cases, the same goodness or badness happened during the bounce as when we built the mix. Regards, Monte McGuire |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1094767795k@trad, (Mike Rivers)
wrote: In article W640d.8032$Q44.3937@trnddc09 writes: "Mike Caffrey" wrote in message Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session. This may be the case for earlier versions, but not true with current versions. I believe this is what caused the run on analog fixed-gain summing boxes, which hit the market about the time ProTools came out with a better mixer that even Monte likes. Even on the old versions that sounded bad, I never experienced any _difference_ between what the mix sounded like when I was building it and when it was finally run using the bounce to disk command. There are some people who feel that different things happen in the two situations, but i have been unable to detect that in the past 10 years. I honestly suspect it's a monitoring / clocking issue, and in that context, it's quite usual for the same bits to sound significantly different when played back through different DACs or even the same DAC but a different clock. You don't need ProTools to have those sorts of problems either. Today, that's a less common situation with DACs like the Benchmark DAC-1, but there are a lot of folks out there using Mix hardware and 888/24, which are most certainly sensitive to the clock source. As for the modern PT mixer, yes, I think the TDM mixer on HD systems actually sounds good, better than the Beta dithered mixer available for Mix systems. So do a handful of plugins, which is a few more than before. It is possible to mix inside of PT and have no sonic problems IMHO... Regards, Monte McGuire |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1094767795k@trad, (Mike Rivers)
wrote: In article W640d.8032$Q44.3937@trnddc09 writes: "Mike Caffrey" wrote in message Another way is to not use the bounce to disk function as ProTOols collapsed the stereo image when summing. Yo... !! I'm just getting into PT, and I'd really love to have some clarification on this before I run into an internal mixing session. This may be the case for earlier versions, but not true with current versions. I believe this is what caused the run on analog fixed-gain summing boxes, which hit the market about the time ProTools came out with a better mixer that even Monte likes. Even on the old versions that sounded bad, I never experienced any _difference_ between what the mix sounded like when I was building it and when it was finally run using the bounce to disk command. There are some people who feel that different things happen in the two situations, but i have been unable to detect that in the past 10 years. I honestly suspect it's a monitoring / clocking issue, and in that context, it's quite usual for the same bits to sound significantly different when played back through different DACs or even the same DAC but a different clock. You don't need ProTools to have those sorts of problems either. Today, that's a less common situation with DACs like the Benchmark DAC-1, but there are a lot of folks out there using Mix hardware and 888/24, which are most certainly sensitive to the clock source. As for the modern PT mixer, yes, I think the TDM mixer on HD systems actually sounds good, better than the Beta dithered mixer available for Mix systems. So do a handful of plugins, which is a few more than before. It is possible to mix inside of PT and have no sonic problems IMHO... Regards, Monte McGuire |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Soak them in water and they may expand a little bit.
"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Soak them in water and they may expand a little bit.
"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic
digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your choice, I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT. I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File pan it to the left about half way, listen to it. I bounce to disk Interleaved Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain level. I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going to affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not asking about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been altered, no? |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic
digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your choice, I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT. I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File pan it to the left about half way, listen to it. I bounce to disk Interleaved Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain level. I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going to affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not asking about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been altered, no? |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
aht (Mondoslug1) wrote: Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your choice, I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT. I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File This is a mono file... right? pan it to the left about half way, listen to it. ....which has been panned through a panpot to a new stereo bus into a new file... I bounce to disk Interleaved Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain level. Which part is different: the original files and the two new ones, or are the two new ones different from each other? If the latter, then what app are you using to determine 'peak level'. If that app treats interleaved stereo files differently than a collection of mono files, then you'll have a discrepancy even if the audio is the same for both stereo files. How about importing both files into a session, inverting one pair of channels and summing the result. If it's not zero, then you have a real problem. If it's the same, then the app that reports 'peak levels' treats interleaved files differently than multiple mono files. I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going to affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not asking about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been altered, no? Sure, the original file is mono and both new files are stereo, created via the panpot. The only issue would be if the split stereo and interleaved file had different bits (that are not attributable to dither). This is the part that I claim should not happen. If it does, then we need to document and report this ASAP, since it's highly broken behavior!! However, having created lots of almost full scale peak limited files both using stereo interleaved and split stereo output destinations and having never seen any overload problems, I know the possible 'gain error' is less than .2dB. In fact, I'd suspect zero gain error, but I know for a fact that red lights never went off, so there could have been no more than .2dB of gain applied to a mix or else I'd see the peak lights go off on downstream gear. Come to think of it, I've never seen a negative gain either - peak levels from files usually end up staying at -.2dBFS in my world (because I set L1/L2 to use that output headroom) and none of the resulting files I produce have anything but that output headroom. So, the possible gain error is much less than .1dB, if it exists at all. All the evidence I've seen points to zero problems that are so gross as to manifest themselves as a channel gain error. Most of what I have found to be legitimate complaints are resolution problems that affect signal quality in a way that would not be easily detectable with a standard level meter, issues such as how dither is handled internal to a mixer or plugin, something that has very little error power. Regards, Monte McGuire |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
aht (Mondoslug1) wrote: Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your choice, I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT. I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File This is a mono file... right? pan it to the left about half way, listen to it. ....which has been panned through a panpot to a new stereo bus into a new file... I bounce to disk Interleaved Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain level. Which part is different: the original files and the two new ones, or are the two new ones different from each other? If the latter, then what app are you using to determine 'peak level'. If that app treats interleaved stereo files differently than a collection of mono files, then you'll have a discrepancy even if the audio is the same for both stereo files. How about importing both files into a session, inverting one pair of channels and summing the result. If it's not zero, then you have a real problem. If it's the same, then the app that reports 'peak levels' treats interleaved files differently than multiple mono files. I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going to affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not asking about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been altered, no? Sure, the original file is mono and both new files are stereo, created via the panpot. The only issue would be if the split stereo and interleaved file had different bits (that are not attributable to dither). This is the part that I claim should not happen. If it does, then we need to document and report this ASAP, since it's highly broken behavior!! However, having created lots of almost full scale peak limited files both using stereo interleaved and split stereo output destinations and having never seen any overload problems, I know the possible 'gain error' is less than .2dB. In fact, I'd suspect zero gain error, but I know for a fact that red lights never went off, so there could have been no more than .2dB of gain applied to a mix or else I'd see the peak lights go off on downstream gear. Come to think of it, I've never seen a negative gain either - peak levels from files usually end up staying at -.2dBFS in my world (because I set L1/L2 to use that output headroom) and none of the resulting files I produce have anything but that output headroom. So, the possible gain error is much less than .1dB, if it exists at all. All the evidence I've seen points to zero problems that are so gross as to manifest themselves as a channel gain error. Most of what I have found to be legitimate complaints are resolution problems that affect signal quality in a way that would not be easily detectable with a standard level meter, issues such as how dither is handled internal to a mixer or plugin, something that has very little error power. Regards, Monte McGuire |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Monte McGuire wrote:
Hey someone explain this to me. It's an old story & I'm sure it's a basic digital audio concept that still confuses somewhat. I'm sure it's probably operator error. I'm not putting the blame on PT - insert a DAW of your choice, I'm just conducting my own "tests" with PT. I open up a session, import about a 30 second 48/24k BCW Guitar Audio File This is a mono file... right? Correct. pan it to the left about half way, listen to it. ...which has been panned through a panpot to a new stereo bus into a new file... I dunno, okay. I'm just listening to it in a PT Session with no master fader or any of that stuff. I import to Track 1 & leave it there just move it to the left about half. I bounce to disk Interleaved Stereo & also Split Mono. The files come back with a different peak gain level. Which part is different: the original files and the two new ones, or are the two new ones different from each other? The 2 new ones are the same but different from the original. If the latter, then what app are you using to determine 'peak level'. The Audiosuite Gain Plug which has Check Peak on it but...I've done this before using Nuendo & Sound Forge to Check. This time I just kept it in PT. If that app treats interleaved stereo files differently than a collection of mono files, then you'll have a discrepancy even if the audio is the same for both stereo files. How about importing both files into a session, inverting one pair of channels and summing the result. If it's not zero, then you have a real problem. If it's the same, then the app that reports 'peak levels' treats interleaved files differently than multiple mono files. I understand the summing law thing sorta. Somebody explain to me why the bounced file is NOT going to sound different than listening to the original file in PT played in real time. Seems to me the difference in gain is going to affect what you're hearing, including your perception of WIDTH. I'm not asking about the 3db law & all that. I'm saying the file has physically been altered, no? Sure, the original file is mono and both new files are stereo, created via the panpot. The only issue would be if the split stereo and interleaved file had different bits (that are not attributable to dither). This is the part that I claim should not happen. If it does, then we need to document and report this ASAP, since it's highly broken behavior!! However, having created lots of almost full scale peak limited files both using stereo interleaved and split stereo output destinations and having never seen any overload problems, I know the possible 'gain error' is less than .2dB. In fact, I'd suspect zero gain error, but I know for a fact that red lights never went off, so there could have been no more than .2dB of gain applied to a mix or else I'd see the peak lights go off on downstream gear. Come to think of it, I've never seen a negative gain either - peak levels from files usually end up staying at -.2dBFS in my world (because I set L1/L2 to use that output headroom) and none of the resulting files I produce have anything but that output headroom. So, the possible gain error is much less than .1dB, if it exists at all. All the evidence I've seen points to zero problems that are so gross as to manifest themselves as a channel gain error. Most of what I have found to be legitimate complaints are resolution problems that affect signal quality in a way that would not be easily detectable with a standard level meter, issues such as how dither is handled internal to a mixer or plugin, something that has very little error power. Regards, Monte McGuire I guess. I'm just curious why this happens. To my feeble mind it seems when you do sum in there ....something happens. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
