Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase
sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? BTW, what is going on? (I have an idea, and wonder if it will match your explanations.) Cheers Mike Beacom |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 24/07/2017 5:25 PM, Michael Beacom wrote:
So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? BTW, what is going on? (I have an idea, and wonder if it will match your explanations.) Cheers Mike Beacom Waveforms randomly peaking at same instant and clipping ? You have checked the master level I assume ?Try lowering everything and see if it goes away. Or both vocals soooo close that they are sounding like flanging ? I had a vocalist once who was so exactly repeatable that doubled vocals usually sounded like that. had to get him to deliberately not try so hard. But I guess something like that could happen on a random basis. geoff |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 1:25:42 AM UTC-4, Michael Beacom wrote:
So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? BTW, what is going on? (I have an idea, and wonder if it will match your explanations.) Cheers Mike Beacom Maybe you can post a couple snippets for us to hear/mix? Jack |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 4:19:04 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 24/07/2017 5:25 PM, Michael Beacom wrote: So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. first step is to get our definitions in sync. The technical meaning of distortion would be non-linear harmonic and or inter-modulation, but "distortion" can also mean other things to other people. What do you mean by "distorted"? m |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
Michael Beacom wrote:
So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? Is there leakage between the two channels, or were they made in isolation? If you shift them by 1ms, does everything change? Or are you clipping the mix buss? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 7/24/2017 1:25 AM, Michael Beacom wrote:
So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? BTW, what is going on? (I have an idea, and wonder if it will match your explanations.) Cheers Mike Beacom I would bet on the mix buss being overdriven at the point where you hear the distortion. It could be frequency related; for example, the summed voices can sound "clean" individually and look like there's ample headroom when mixed, but clip at that one spot in the recording. Whatever... it should be easy to find and fix. -- best regards, Neil |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 2017-07-24 13:24:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
Michael Beacom wrote: So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? Is there leakage between the two channels, or were they made in isolation? If you shift them by 1ms, does everything change? Or are you clipping the mix buss? --scott My guess was that the two voices were beating against each other, so I tried shifting the voices by a few ms (5-10), and that helped. I did notice that if I shifted farther away from the sweet spot, it sounded much worse. Thanks for the help, Mike |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 5:06:19 PM UTC-4, Michael Beacom wrote:
On 2017-07-24 13:24:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Michael Beacom wrote: So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? Is there leakage between the two channels, or were they made in isolation? If you shift them by 1ms, does everything change? Or are you clipping the mix buss? --scott My guess was that the two voices were beating against each other, so I tried shifting the voices by a few ms (5-10), and that helped. I did notice that if I shifted farther away from the sweet spot, it sounded much worse. Thanks for the help, Mike Maybe your first recording? Jack |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 2017-07-24 08:18:47 +0000, geoff said:
On 24/07/2017 5:25 PM, Michael Beacom wrote: So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? BTW, what is going on? (I have an idea, and wonder if it will match your explanations.) Cheers Mike Beacom Waveforms randomly peaking at same instant and clipping ? You have checked the master level I assume ?Try lowering everything and see if it goes away. Or both vocals soooo close that they are sounding like flanging ? I had a vocalist once who was so exactly repeatable that doubled vocals usually sounded like that. had to get him to deliberately not try so hard. But I guess something like that could happen on a random basis. geoff It sounded like analog peak distortion, but the vocal levels and master buss were not clipping, and I was using conservative levels. My best guess that the voices were beating with each other, and generating the crunchy sounds. So, I shifted the backup vocal by a few milliseconds in my DAW (Reaper), and that fixed the problem. Thanks for all your comments, Mike |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
Michael Beacom wrote:
On 2017-07-24 13:24:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Michael Beacom wrote: So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? Is there leakage between the two channels, or were they made in isolation? If you shift them by 1ms, does everything change? Or are you clipping the mix buss? My guess was that the two voices were beating against each other, so I tried shifting the voices by a few ms (5-10), and that helped. I did notice that if I shifted farther away from the sweet spot, it sounded much worse. Maybe but.... is there leakage or were they made in isolation? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 2017-07-24 23:03:41 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
Michael Beacom wrote: On 2017-07-24 13:24:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Michael Beacom wrote: So, I'm mixing harmonizing lead & backup vocals. And only one phrase sounds distorted. So I listened to each track individualy, they sound clean. And I muted each voice, and they are clean. I lowered the backup vocal to make it less noticable. Is there a better fix? Is there leakage between the two channels, or were they made in isolation? If you shift them by 1ms, does everything change? Or are you clipping the mix buss? My guess was that the two voices were beating against each other, so I tried shifting the voices by a few ms (5-10), and that helped. I did notice that if I shifted farther away from the sweet spot, it sounded much worse. Maybe but.... is there leakage or were they made in isolation? --scott It was a live concert, and both were working their mic pretty closely. There some guitar, but no vocal bleed. I did a little more tinkering, and found a more probable explanation. Shifting one of the vocals offset the peaks, so they didn't add together, and distort. It's annoying that it wasn't enough to trigger the overload light. Cheers Mike |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 25/07/2017 4:49 PM, Michael Beacom wrote:
I did a little more tinkering, and found a more probable explanation. Shifting one of the vocals offset the peaks, so they didn't add together, and distort. It's annoying that it wasn't enough to trigger the overload light. Like I suggested then ;-) It may well have been something overloading (inside an FX chain, or a group) that because of chain/bus outpu,\t or overall master bus setting may not have shown on the main meters. geoff |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
Michael Beacom wrote:
On 2017-07-24 23:03:41 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Maybe but.... is there leakage or were they made in isolation? It was a live concert, and both were working their mic pretty closely. There some guitar, but no vocal bleed. No monitor bleed at all? I did a little more tinkering, and found a more probable explanation. Shifting one of the vocals offset the peaks, so they didn't add together, and distort. It's annoying that it wasn't enough to trigger the overload light. Could be. What happens if you knock the levels down 6dB at the multitrack, before mixing? What happens if you low pass both vocal tracks, say around 75 Hz? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 2017-07-25 12:05:13 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
Michael Beacom wrote: On 2017-07-24 23:03:41 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Maybe but.... is there leakage or were they made in isolation? It was a live concert, and both were working their mic pretty closely. There some guitar, but no vocal bleed. No monitor bleed at all? I did a little more tinkering, and found a more probable explanation. Shifting one of the vocals offset the peaks, so they didn't add together, and distort. It's annoying that it wasn't enough to trigger the overload light. Could be. What happens if you knock the levels down 6dB at the multitrack, before mixing? What happens if you low pass both vocal tracks, say around 75 Hz? --scott The problem is fixed, and now I can't recreate it. I tried a new workflow that added a gain plugin, and discovered something new to watch for. Thanks again for your help, Mike |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 26/07/2017 4:59 AM, Michael Beacom wrote:
The problem is fixed, and now I can't recreate it. I tried a new workflow that added a gain plugin, and discovered something new to watch for. Thanks again for your help, Mike Inside track FX chains watch out for individual plugin input and output levels, which may be hidden from general view. geoff |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
Geoff wrote:
On 26/07/2017 4:59 AM, Michael Beacom wrote: The problem is fixed, and now I can't recreate it. I tried a new workflow that added a gain plugin, and discovered something new to watch for. Inside track FX chains watch out for individual plugin input and output levels, which may be hidden from general view. Modern Protools makes this a lot easier with 32-bit internal floats. Sadly there is a lot of software out there with much less buss range. But... once you go through a plug-in interface, all bets are off. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 7:08:38 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
On 26/07/2017 4:59 AM, Michael Beacom wrote: The problem is fixed, and now I can't recreate it. I tried a new workflow that added a gain plugin, and discovered something new to watch for. Thanks again for your help, Mike Inside track FX chains watch out for individual plugin input and output levels, which may be hidden from general view. geoff Like I say, bells and whistles of fancy DAWs and people quickly get lost. Jack |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 26/07/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Geoff wrote: On 26/07/2017 4:59 AM, Michael Beacom wrote: The problem is fixed, and now I can't recreate it. I tried a new workflow that added a gain plugin, and discovered something new to watch for. Inside track FX chains watch out for individual plugin input and output levels, which may be hidden from general view. Modern Protools makes this a lot easier with 32-bit internal floats. Sadly there is a lot of software out there with much less buss range. But... once you go through a plug-in interface, all bets are off. --scott "Modern Protools" ? Jeepers. My software of choice, VegasPro, has handled internal audio processing at 32 bits internally since 2002 ! geoff |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 7:34:11 PM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
On 26/07/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Geoff wrote: On 26/07/2017 4:59 AM, Michael Beacom wrote: The problem is fixed, and now I can't recreate it. I tried a new workflow that added a gain plugin, and discovered something new to watch for. Inside track FX chains watch out for individual plugin input and output levels, which may be hidden from general view. Modern Protools makes this a lot easier with 32-bit internal floats. Sadly there is a lot of software out there with much less buss range. But... once you go through a plug-in interface, all bets are off. --scott "Modern Protools" ? Jeepers. My software of choice, VegasPro, has handled internal audio processing at 32 bits internally since 2002 ! geoff A bit is equal to one eighth of a dollar or 12 12 cents. Doesn't say much for your fancy software. Jack |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 7/25/2017 7:33 PM, Geoff wrote:
"Modern Protools" ? Jeepers. My software of choice, VegasPro, has handled internal audio processing at 32 bits internally since 2002 ! Well, it did take Pro Tools a while to come around. I think that Cakewalk was also one of the early adopters of 32-bit internal data processing. And I was really impressed when I could sum 24 channels of sine wave with all running at less than 1 bit under 0 dBFS in a PreSonus StudioLive mixer with the master meter turning all sorts of shades of red. Just backing down the master fader until the meter got off the virtual pin resulted in an output with nearly unmeasurable distortion. But there are lots of places in a DAW's signal chain where, if you're not careful, particularly with plug-ins, you can push something up into clipping. And if you don't take care of it, what goes further on down the chain is still clipped. In Michael's case, though, it's not clear if he was hearing clipping or intermodulation. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 26/07/2017 9:33 AM, Geoff wrote:
On 26/07/2017 11:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Modern Protools makes this a lot easier with 32-bit internal floats. Sadly there is a lot of software out there with much less buss range. "Modern Protools" ? Jeepers. My software of choice, VegasPro, has handled internal audio processing at 32 bits internally since 2002 ! Was thinking the same, and not just Vegas by a long shot. Trevor. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
Geoff wrote:
"Modern Protools" ? Jeepers. My software of choice, VegasPro, has handled internal audio processing at 32 bits internally since 2002 ! 32 bit ints or floats? Integer is easy... easier than doing a 24 bit integer. Float... takes a little more CPU.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
In Michael's case, though, it's not clear if he was hearing clipping or intermodulation. Or an artifact of comb filtering, which I am still not going to rule out. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 07/26/2017 06:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Geoff wrote: "Modern Protools" ? Jeepers. My software of choice, VegasPro, has handled internal audio processing at 32 bits internally since 2002 ! 32 bit ints or floats? Integer is easy... easier than doing a 24 bit integer. Float... takes a little more CPU.... --scott I'm pretty sure it's floats. Reaper uses 64bit floats internally. I'm not sure about the CPU part. Probably a bit more work, but processors have dedicated facilities for handling floats. I don't imagine that it's a difference worth consideration given the application. I remember programming a space game on a 386 machine. I later bought a math co-processor chip for that board and the game ran like lightning in comparison. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:11:46 -0700, Tobiah wrote:
On 07/26/2017 06:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Geoff wrote: "Modern Protools" ? Jeepers. My software of choice, VegasPro, has handled internal audio processing at 32 bits internally since 2002 ! 32 bit ints or floats? Integer is easy... easier than doing a 24 bit integer. Float... takes a little more CPU.... --scott I'm pretty sure it's floats. Reaper uses 64bit floats internally. I'm not sure about the CPU part. Probably a bit more work, but processors have dedicated facilities for handling floats. I don't imagine that it's a difference worth consideration given the application. I remember programming a space game on a 386 machine. I later bought a math co-processor chip for that board and the game ran like lightning in comparison. Really maths-intensive stuff these days uses the graphics processor. That is where all the real speed of a PC lies.. d --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Here's a weird one...
On 28/07/2017 3:17 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
Really maths-intensive stuff these days uses the graphics processor. That is where all the real speed of a PC lies.. MAY! Sure a top graphics card can cost as much as the rest of the computer and will have more processing power than the CPU. OTOH many computers do just fine with the on board graphics part of any modern Intel CPU, but will gain little there for non graphics purposes. Trevor. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Weird Looking mic..... | Pro Audio | |||
weird headphones | Pro Audio | |||
My Digimax LT is all weird! | Tech | |||
Weird AMP issues, again! | Car Audio | |||
Here's a weird one... | Vacuum Tubes |