Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Bomb attacks in London England
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55773 is a reply to message #55772] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 17:58   |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
64;linux...
> > Chuck,
> >
> > Any news at all on this? Is it possible that any or all of these will
> > work,
> > even sorta'kinda'maybesometimes ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > DJ
> >
> >
>
>This Wormhole stuff is a question for Gene Lennon and/or Dimitrios. I've
never tried it. I do know a little about Lava Lamps though.
;o)
"W. Mark Wilson" <wmarkwilson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:43004a41$1@linux...
> Ask Deej; he'll know for sure. Hey, and while your at it, I think you
> should find some place in your loops to insert a nice warm sounding 70's
> lavalamp.... reddish orange would probably sound good.
>
> Global Master Out,
> Dubya
>
> (all written "tongue-in-cheek" I assure you).
>
>
> "Brandon" <brandon_goodwin@REMOVETHISsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:42ff5fda@linux...
> > Global Master Outs to the ADAT lightpipe outs
> > Hard Loop from ADAT lightpipe Out to ADAT lightpipe In
> > ADAT lightpipe In to Tacks 15 & 16 (L&R respectively)
> > Mute Tracks 15 &16 and Insert instance of Wormhole on each track
> > Open WaveLab and Or CoolEdit Pro and Insert Wormhole on two new tracks
> > (L&R)
> > Use VST/DX plugs from within and bounce inside the second app. Should
not
> > loose any PARIS sound since Digital transfer correct?
> > Then go SPDIF out to converter to XLR for my monitors
> >
> > This is all on one machine.
> >
> > Possible?????
> >
> > I don't know if wormhole works like this or if I can hard loop on ADAT
> > like that without clocking.
> >
> >
>
>Does *anything* in the Paris system operate in a 16 bit environment?
(Primarily in the software.) If it does, can I use the 64 bit processor?
Spappy14.6 mpg in the bmw is hurtin me...
I might have to 'upgrade' to one of those 250mpg modified prius' with the
extra batteriesAre mixers and effects ever going to get where the inputs are optical
and you just send optical from your guitar processor / effect processor
to the the mixer over fiber? Current technology seems so 80's.
John"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote:
>Jason, whose playing with you? I'm up in Albany but will try to make a trip
Myself-keys
Aaron heick-sax
Dominic Faranacci-trumpet
Josh Dion -Drums
Sherrod Barnes-Guitar
Jonathan Maron-Bass
DJ Logic-Turntables
Peace, JMthe only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
is there to help.
On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
wrote:
>"I do know a little about Lava Lamps though"
but isn't that an inhale deeply and forget thing???
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:13:53 -0600, "DJ"
<animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>This Wormhole stuff is a question for Gene Lennon and/or Dimitrios. I've
>never tried it. I do know a little about Lava Lamps though.
>
>;o)
>
>"W. Mark Wilson" <wmarkwilson@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:43004a41$Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55775 is a reply to message #55754] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:01 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
fda@linux..." target="_blank">42ff5fda@linux...
>> > Global Master Outs to the ADAT lightpipe outs
>> > Hard Loop from ADAT lightpipe Out to ADAT lightpipe In
>> > ADAT lightpipe In to Tacks 15 & 16 (L&R respectively)
>> > Mute Tracks 15 &16 and Insert instance of Wormhole on each track
>> > Open WaveLab and Or CoolEdit Pro and Insert Wormhole on two new tracks
>> > (L&R)
>> > Use VST/DX plugs from within and bounce inside the second app. Should
>not
>> > loose any PARIS sound since Digital transfer correct?
>> > Then go SPDIF out to converter to XLR for my monitors
>> >
>> > This is all on one machine.
>> >
>> > Possible?????
>> >
>> > I don't know if wormhole works like this or if I can hard loop on ADAT
>> > like that without clocking.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>huh?????
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iut1g15mjl6tq0j32fur8r5havd4kb72v9@4ax.com...
> "I do know a little about Lava Lamps though"
>
> but isn't that an inhale deeply and forget thing???
>
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:13:53 -0600, "DJ"
> <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>
> >This Wormhole stuff is a question for Gene Lennon and/or Dimitrios. I've
> >never tried it. I do know a little about Lava Lamps though.
> >
> >;o)
> >
> >"W. Mark Wilson" <wmarkwilson@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:43004a41$1@linux...
> >> Ask Deej; he'll know for sure. Hey, and while your at it, I think you
> >> should find some place in your loops to insert a nice warm sounding
70's
> >> lavalamp.... reddish orange would probably sound good.
> >>
> >> Global Master Out,
> >> Dubya
> >>
> >> (all written "tongue-in-cheek" I assure you).
> >>
> >>
> >> "Brandon" <brandon_goodwin@REMOVETHISsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:42ff5fda@linux...
> >> > Global Master Outs to the ADAT lightpipe outs
> >> > Hard Loop from ADAT lightpipe Out to ADAT lightpipe In
> >> > ADAT lightpipe In to Tacks 15 & 16 (L&R respectively)
> >> > Mute Tracks 15 &16 and Insert instance of Wormhole on each track
> >> > Open WaveLab and Or CoolEdit Pro and Insert Wormhole on two new
tracks
> >> > (L&R)
> >> > Use VST/DX plugs from within and bounce inside the second app. Should
> >not
> >> > loose any PARIS sound since Digital transfer correct?
> >> > Then go SPDIF out to converter to XLR for my monitors
> >> >
> >> > This is all on one machine.
> >> >
> >> > Possible?????
> >> >
> >> > I don't know if wormhole works like this or if I can hard loop on
ADAT
> >> > like that without clocking.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>I am thinking of putting together a new system with a magma chassis for Paris, and am looking at the following:
http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=S-presso&langs=09
Does anyone know if this board would work with Paris?
All my experience has been with AMD processors and Paris, so this is new territory.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Cheers,
TCNigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times that???
BULLSHIT
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
> the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
> problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
> them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
> is there to help.
>
> On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>Sure, but can the average Nigerian pay that? Or even afford a car? That's probably a
pretty small token gesture for what the oil companies get in return for the exploitation
of Nigeria.. although I am sure the government officials do well..
Cheers,
TC
justcron wrote:
> Nigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times that???
> BULLSHIT
> http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
>
> "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
>
>>the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
>>problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
>>them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
>>is there to help.
>>
>>On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>
>We're paying around AUS$1.20 / ltr wich translates to AUS$4.80 / gallon or
US$3.70 a gallon.
Don't complain too much, you guys.
--
Martin Harrington
www.lendanear-sound.com
"TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
news:43012e4a@linux...
> Sure, but can the average Nigerian pay that? Or even afford a car? That's
> probably a
> pretty small token gesture for what the oil companies get in return for
> the exploitation
> of Nigeria.. although I am sure the government officials do well..
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
> justcron wrote:
>> Nigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times
>> that??? BULLSHIT
>> http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
>>
>> "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
>>
>>>the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
>>>problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
>>>them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
>>>is there to help.
>>>
>>>On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>Amigo, but how does that actually explain the low price of gas there?
"TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
news:43012e4a@linux...
> Sure, but can the average Nigerian pay that? Or even afford a car? That's
> probably a
> pretty small token gesture for what the oil companies get in return for
> the exploitation
> of Nigeria.. although I am sure the government officials do well..
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
> justcron wrote:
>> Nigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times
>> that??? BULLSHIT
>> http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
>>
>> "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
>>
>>>the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
>>>problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
>>>them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
>>>is there to help.
>>>
>>>On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000,
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55776 is a reply to message #55769] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:04 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>In otherwise the energy companies jack it to exactly the level that the
civilians can afford?
Man, thats exploitation accross the globe.
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:43013501@linux...
> Amigo, but how does that actually explain the low price of gas there?
>
> "TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
> news:43012e4a@linux...
>> Sure, but can the average Nigerian pay that? Or even afford a car? That's
>> probably a
>> pretty small token gesture for what the oil companies get in return for
>> the exploitation
>> of Nigeria.. although I am sure the government officials do well..
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> TC
>>
>> justcron wrote:
>>> Nigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times
>>> that??? BULLSHIT
>>> http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
>>>
>>> "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
>>>>problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
>>>>them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
>>>>is there to help.
>>>>
>>>>On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>There are lots of *possible* explanations.............such as the fact that
Nigeria is an oil *exporting* country. It may
have an actual surplus of oil, per capita and it's also possible that there
are subsidized or artificial price controls on domestic production due to
the royalty structuring of the operating agreements with the corporations
who are producing the oil, in other words, Nigeria's royalties may be taken
*in kind* rather than *in cash* or a combination of both, which could, given
very productive wells, create an actual oil surplus within it's borders. I
have4n't studied this so it's pure speculation on my part and may be woron,
but the above scenarios are definitely possible. If we were producing more
oil than we could use here, it would be cheap too.
Deej
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:43013501@linux...
> Amigo, but how does that actually explain the low price of gas there?<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55779 is a reply to message #55776] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:21 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
tcron wrote:
> In otherwise the energy companies jack it to exactly the level that the
> civilians can afford?
>
> Man, thats exploitation accross the globe.OK thats the only reasonable explaination. Didn't realize they were a huge
oil exporter. That's reasonable to have cheap oil.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43013742@linux...
> There are lots of *possible* explanations.............such as the fact
> that
> Nigeria is an oil *exporting* country. It may
> have an actual surplus of oil, per capita and it's also possible that
> there
> are subsidized or artificial price controls on domestic production due to
> the royalty structuring of the operating agreements with the corporations
> who are producing the oil, in other words, Nigeria's royalties may be
> taken
> *in kind* rather than *in cash* or a combination of both, which could,
> given
> very productive wells, create an actual oil surplus within it's borders. I
> have4n't studied this so it's pure speculation on my part and may be
> woron,
> but the above scenarios are definitely possible. If we were producing more
> oil than we could use here, it would be cheap too.
>
> Deej
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:43013501@linux...
>> Amigo, but how does that actually explain the low price of gas there?
>>
>> "TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
>> news:43012e4a@linux...
>> > Sure, but can the average Nigerian pay that? Or even afford a car?
> That's
>> > probably a
>> > pretty small token gesture for what the oil companies get in return for
>> > the exploitation
>> > of Nigeria.. although I am sure the government officials do well..
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > TC
>> >
>> > justcron wrote:
>> >> Nigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times
>> >> that??? BULLSHIT
>> >> http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
>> >>
>> >> "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >>>the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
>> >>>problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
>> >>>them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
>> >>>is there to help.
>> >>>
>> >>>On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>Amy Goodman is my hero.
Thanks
"TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
news:43013955$1@linux...
> Here's some interesting reading and listening.
>
> Cheers,
>
> TC
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4066.htm
> http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440232004?open&am p;of=ENG-NGA
>
> justcron wrote:
>> In otherwise the energy companies jack it to exactly the level that the
>> civilians can afford?
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55781 is a reply to message #55767] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:30 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
are lots of *possible* explanations.............such as the fact that
> Nigeria is an oil *exporting* country. It may
> have an actual surplus of oil, per capita and it's also possible that there
> are subsidized or artificial price controls on domestic production due to
> the royalty structuring of the operating agreements with the corporations
> who are producing the oil, in other words, Nigeria's royalties may be taken
> *in kind* rather than *in cash* or a combination of both, which could, given
> very productive wells, create an actual oil surplus within it's borders. I
> have4n't studied this so it's pure speculation on my part and may be woron,
> but the above scenarios are definitely possible. If we were producing more
> oil than we could use here, it would be cheap too.
>
> Deej
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:43013501@linux...
>
>>Amigo, but how does that actually explain the low price of gas there?
>>
>>"TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
>>news:43012e4a@linux...
>>
>>>Sure, but can the average Nigerian pay that? Or even afford a car?
>
> That's
>
>>>probably a
>>>pretty small token gesture for what the oil companies get in return for
>>>the exploitation
>>>of Nigeria.. although I am sure the government officials do well..
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>TC
>>>
>>>justcron wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times
>>>>that??? BULLSHIT
>>>>http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
>>>>
>>>>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
>>>>>problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
>>>>>them out during these record profit times...thank god...our government
>>>>>is there to help.
>>>>>
>>>>>On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>I'm needing to get pretty anal retentive with this stuff these days. I'm in
a very small market and I am starting to carve out a niche for myself. The
engineers in the other studios around here have many more years behind the
board than I do (average of around 30 years of full-time *earning a living
at it* kind of experience so I'm a comparative newbie)
I've learned a few things over the years of turd polishing and doing small
demo projects and I'm starting to actually get some small labels sniffing
around my door so I must be doing something right in spite of myself and the
rather limited and haphazard education and experience I've managed to
accumulate.
I'm really feelin' the need to get my head around the finer points of this
craft if I'm going to make a go of this. A huge part of this is soundstaging
and needing to spend the time to do much more than just pan a reverb send
here and there to create a semblance of realism. To that end I've been doing
a bit of research and I'm beginning some more in depth experimentation with
this. I just want to make sure that my methodology is somewhat sound and
that I'm not tilting at windmills here. I've got a full plate so though I'd
like to be able to spend the next 6 months floundering around learning by
making mistakes (my normal MO), but I don't seem to have that luxury right
now.
I figure that if I've got a group of musicians on a stage 50' wide, then
each panning increment in the 100-100 L/R spread equals 0.25' so for every
4 increments, I'm moving the performer to the left or right by 1'. For
example, if I wanted to position the band members within a space 30' across,
then from the center, to place the guitarist 15' to stage left, I would pan
him left to 60.
This would theoretically put him 10' from the closest wall and 35' from the
farthest wall.
Now a few questions about early reflections and predelay and soundstaging in
general, as follows:
1. If I'm using a stereo reverb, since the performer is stage left at pan
position 60, I would pan the reverb return to stage right 60 and set the
ER's for the right side to around 35ms and the ER's to the left to around
10ms with the levels about 2/3 to 3/4 (or less) of the strength of the
original signal. This woulld theoretically give me a basic two dimensional
(L/R) location of the musician in an ambient space, right?
Also, do you pan the reverb send to m
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55784 is a reply to message #55743] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 18:27 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e room, that the
front makes sense, but music travels all directions and it seems it would
make smoe sense to at least take the back wall into consideration.
Also, I'm thinking that using actual short (2-3 ms delays) between the
instruments/performers themselves would help to create some sense of
relative front-to-back relational spatiality.
I'm working mostly with acoustic musicians, some drums, but very little in
the way of special FX like phaser/chorus/synth stuff,..........just trying
to create a realistic optimal and dimensionally realistic space for the
performance.
How big a soundstage is generally used for commercial studio projects? I
know it's all relative, but if there is some sxort of *go-by* here that is
an accepted standard, I'd like to know.
Thanks for indulging my ignorance and enlightening me..Also, I've got an MP3
of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of your opinions
on. It's a very talented bluegrass band-5 pieces. It's about 2.5 MB and
the soundstage I created for it is small.......around 30' wide. I was trying
to get an intimate, realistic feeling to this as it was tracked live in my
studio with 10 open mics.
I'd be glad to e-mail it to those here who would be willing to critique it.
TIA for the enlightenment.
;o)
Deej
DeejGeezzzz.........some of my calculations were way off in the description of
the location of the performer relative to the walls of the room I described,
but the principal is the same.
Also when I'm talking about the front-to-back walls, by front, I mean the
farthest wall from the front, facing the stage and the players and the back
wall would be the wall behind the musicians. Is this the correct terminology
to use?
;oP
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:430146c7@linux...
> I'm needing to get pretty anal retentive with this stuff these days. I'm
in
> a very small market and I am starting to carve out a niche for myself. The
> engineers in the other studios around here have many more years behind the
> board than I do (average of around 30 years of full-time *earning a living
> at it* kind of experience so I'm a comparative newbie)
>
> I've learned a few things over the years of turd polishing and doing small
> demo projects and I'm starting to actually get some small labels sniffing
> around my door so I must be doing something right in
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55786 is a reply to message #55780] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 19:02 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
s. I just want to make sure that my methodology is somewhat sound and
> that I'm not tilting at windmills here. I've got a full plate so though
I'd
> like to be able to spend the next 6 months floundering around learning by
> making mistakes (my normal MO), but I don't seem to have that luxury right
> now.
>
> I figure that if I've got a group of musicians on a stage 50' wide, then
> each panning increment in the 100-100 L/R spread equals 0.25' so for
every
> 4 increments, I'm moving the performer to the left or right by 1'. For
> example, if I wanted to position the band members within a space 30'
across,
> then from the center, to place the guitarist 15' to stage left, I would
pan
> him left to 60.
>
> This would theoretically put him 10' from the closest wall and 35' from
the
> farthest wall.
>
> Now a few questions about early reflections and predelay and soundstaging
in
> general, as follows:
>
> 1. If I'm using a stereo reverb, since the performer is stage left at pan
> position 60, I would pan the reverb return to stage right 60 and set the
> ER's for the right side to around 35ms and the ER's to the left to around
> 10ms with the levels about 2/3 to 3/4 (or less) of the strength of the
> original signal. This woulld theoretically give me a basic two dimensional
> (L/R) location of the musician in an ambient space, right?
>
> Also, do you pan the reverb send to mirror the return? I'm just not
getting
> this for some reason. Seems that panning the send does nothing. Maybe I'm
> just too overwhelmed at the moment to notice.
>
> 2. In order to get the front/back positioning of the musician relative to
> the other band members and the front/back of the room, using predealy
would
> provide some dimensional space........right? what I'm not clear about is
> whether the predelay should be set for positioning the performers relative
> to the fall of the space that is farthest from them or from the wall that
is
> behind them. I know that since they are broadcasting into the room, that
the
> front makes sense, but music travels all directions and it seems it would
> make smoe sense to at least take the back wall into consideration.
>
> Also, I'm thinking that using actual short (2-3 ms delays) between the
> instruments/performers themselves would help to create some sense of
> relative front-to-back relational spatiality.
>
> I'm working mostly with acoustic musicians, some drums, but very little in
> the way of special FX like phaser/chorus/synth stuff,..........just trying
> to create a realistic optimal and dimensionally realistic space for the
> performance.
>
> How big a soundstage is generally used for commercial studio projects? I
> know it's all relative, but if there is some sxort of *go-by* here that is
> an accepted standard, I'd like to know.
>
> Thanks for indulging my ignorance and enlightening me..Also, I've got an
MP3
> of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55788 is a reply to message #55784] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 19:07 |
derek
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2005
|
Member |
|
|
>
First, the ONLY time I would ever bother with detailed sound
stage is if I were doing a live concert locked to video
(which I do), and even then I would only bother with making
sure that the sound source is panned to the picture
location. The big problem with that is when you get a
close-up shot the instrument should, in theory, become
center panned and louder than the rest... it's closer...
right? Too much work.
>
> I figure that if I've got a group of musicians on a stage 50' wide, then
> each panning increment in the 100-100 L/R spread equals 0.25' so for every
> 4 increments, I'm moving the performer to the left or right by 1'. For
> example, if I wanted to position the band members within a space 30' across,
> then from the center, to place the guitarist 15' to stage left, I would pan
> him left to 60.
That would depend on the viewing angle... are you in the
front row, or center of the hall?
>
> This would theoretically put him 10' from the closest wall and 35' from the
> farthest wall.
>
> Now a few questions about early reflections and predelay and soundstaging in
> general, as follows:
>
> 1. If I'm using a stereo reverb, since the performer is stage left at pan
> position 60, I would pan the reverb return to stage right 60 and set the
> ER's for the right side to around 35ms and the ER's to the left to around
> 10ms with the levels about 2/3 to 3/4 (or less) of the strength of the
> original signal. This woulld theoretically give me a basic two dimensional
> (L/R) location of the musician in an ambient space, right?
The delay would not be necessary and would actually
"clutter" the mix. Longer reverb pre-delays will simulate a
larger overall "space". You would be better off "thinning
out" the sound slightly to make it seem to come from a
distance. You would have to combine this with reduced
bandwidth on the reverb return to simulate greater distance
as highs and are acoustically rolled off naturally over
distance.
>
> Also, do you pan the reverb send to mirror the return? I'm just not getting
> this for some reason. Seems that panning the send does nothing. Maybe I'm
> just too overwhelmed at the moment to notice.
Panning the return and reducing the reverb width would be a
better way to accomplish this as most reverbs are not
"discrete" stereo.
>
> 2. In order to get the front/back positioning of the musician relative to
> the other band members and the front/back of the room, using predealy would
> provide some dimensional space........right? what I'm not clear about is
> whether the predelay should be set for positioning the performers relative
> to the fall of the space that is farthest from them or from the wall that is
> behind them. I know that since they are broadcasting into the room, that the
> front makes sense, but music travels all directions and it seems it would
> make smoe sense to at least take the back wall into consideration.
>
> Also, I'm thinking that using actual short (2-3 ms delays) between the
> instruments/performers themselves would help to create some sense of
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55789 is a reply to message #55786] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 19:19 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
r />
> relative front-to-back relational spatiality.
Too much trouble for not enough benefit... try thinning for
distance instead. Leave the arrival time intact, it will
help to maintain the "impact" of the piece..
>
> I'm working mostly with acoustic musicians, some drums, but very little in
> the way of special FX like phaser/chorus/synth stuff,..........just trying
> to create a realistic optimal and dimensionally realistic space for the
> performance.
>
> How big a soundstage is generally used for commercial studio projects? I
> know it's all relative, but if there is some sxort of *go-by* here that is
> an accepted standard, I'd like to know.
I think only classical people would get really fussy about
this stuff... Don??? I think for your type of projects, you
won't have to get too crazy with sound stage. The two
things you have going for you in a stereo mix are position
and timbre. Make sonic "holes" for different instruments to
sit in. What sounds killer in a mix will often sound weak
or stale soloed. Don't make your EQ decisions in solo
mode... always tweak it with other instruments going. Make
it louder than it's surroundings to make EQ judgments, then
pull it way down in the mix and bring up slowly to taste.
You should find that the instrument is more audible at a
lower volume or fader level. If you are struggling to hear
it and the meters are pegged, your tone is off.
>
> Thanks for indulging my ignorance and enlightening me..Also, I've got an MP3
> of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of your opinions
> on. It's a very talented bluegrass band-5 pieces. It's about 2.5 MB and
> the soundstage I created for it is small.......around 30' wide. I was trying
> to get an intimate, realistic feeling to this as it was tracked live in my
> studio with 10 open mics.
Keep in mind, intimate means CLOSE... this means full sounds
and WIDE panning as they would be literally right in front
of you. I really think you are overANALizing things too
far... Can you hear all the instruments clearly? Do they
sound pleasing in the mix? Is there some "space or air"
around the instruments (not piled on top of each other
acoustically). Is there some "ear-candy" present (subtle,
but not instantly audible).
I may be way off base to what others do, so take this with a
truck-load of salt! ;-)
My $.02
David.
>
> I'd be glad to e-mail it to those here who would be willing to critique it.
>
> TIA for the enlightenment.
>
> ;o)
>
> DeejI hear ya'. I live on the northern edge of the second largest natural gas
basin in North America. I heat this house with natural gas and since were at
high altitude, it gets pretty cold here in the winter. My gas bills are
enormous in the winter (but non-existent from late April through
September/early October so that's something at least)
;oP
"Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:43014575@linux...
> Well... between the tar sands project and the millions of
> holes in the ground around this province, Alberta is in that
> boat. Record profits here for the oil patch. Our regular
> gas here in Calgary is at $0.99 Can/Litre which equals
> $3.11951 US/US Gallon.
>
> We also produce WAY more Natural Gas than our Country can
> use so we sell at *least* half to the US. My
> "locked-in-as-of-two-years-ago" gas rate is $6.85 Can/GJ.
> The funny part about that is that my gas "cost" for last
> month (middle of summer) was $6.64, but they charged me
> $15.98 in assorted fees (Fixed charge, Variable charge,
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55790 is a reply to message #55788] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 19:17 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> Production Rider, Storage Rider and Franchise fee). These
> fees go up with the gas bill, so they aren't fixed.
>
> The oil companies have us by the "short and curlies"... and
> they know it. :-\
>
> David.
>
>
>
> DJ wrote:
> > There are lots of *possible* explanations.............such as the fact
that
> > Nigeria is an oil *exporting* country. It may
> > have an actual surplus of oil, per capita and it's also possible that
there
> > are subsidized or artificial price controls on domestic production due
to
> > the royalty structuring of the operating agreements with the
corporations
> > who are producing the oil, in other words, Nigeria's royalties may be
taken
> > *in kind* rather than *in cash* or a combination of both, which could,
given
> > very productive wells, create an actual oil surplus within it's borders.
I
> > have4n't studied this so it's pure speculation on my part and may be
woron,
> > but the above scenarios are definitely possible. If we were producing
more
> > oil than we could use here, it would be cheap too.
> >
> > Deej
> >
> > "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> > news:43013501@linux...
> >
> >>Amigo, but how does that actually explain the low price of gas there?
> >>
> >>"TC" <tc@spammetodeathyoubastards.org> wrote in message
> >>news:43012e4a@linux...
> >>
> >>>Sure, but can the average Nigerian pay that? Or even afford a car?
> >
> > That's
> >
> >>>probably a
> >>>pretty small token gesture for what the oil companies get in return for
> >>>the exploitation
> >>>of Nigeria.. although I am sure the government officials do well..
> >>>
> >>>Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>TC
> >>>
> >>>justcron wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Nigeria can get gas for 38 cents a gallon, but we gotta pay 10 times
> >>>>that??? BULLSHIT
> >>>>http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
> >>>>
> >>>>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:dot1g1l42vkrb7l298ddn399lpbl55gro3@4ax.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>the only thing that comforts me is that all our refineries are having
> >>>>>problems at the same time and are getting a huge tax break to help
> >>>>>them out during these record profit times...thank god...our
government
> >>>>>is there to help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On 15 Aug 2005 22:23:42 +1000, "mike claytor" <claytor@nospam.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >Thanks Dave,
I do have 3 x discrete stereo reverbs, plus, I thought the Paris reverbs
were *true* stereo. So your thinking is more along the lines of the not
screwing around with the L/R early reflections? (your reply referred to
predealys but i think you may have meant ER's)
Rolling off the HF of the return makes sense to me. I get your drift on this
one........and also carving out the space with EQ, of course.
I appreciate your feedback on this. The devil's always in the details, but
Mr. Simplicity can *always* make things harder and more complicated than
they need to be.
;o)
"Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:43014e3c$1@linux...
> OK, a few thoughts... below.
>
> DJ wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> First, the ONLY time I would ever bother with detailed sound
> stage is if I were doing a live concert locked to video
> (which I do), and even then I would only bother with making
> sure that the sound source is panned to the picture
> location. The big problem with that is when you get a
> close-up shot the instrument should, in theory, become
> center panned and louder than the rest... it's closer...
> right? Too much work.
>
> >
> > I figure that if I've got a group of musicians on a stage 50' wide, then
> > each panning increment in the 100-100 L/R spread equals 0.25' so for
every
> > 4 increments, I'm moving the performer to the left or right by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55794 is a reply to message #55775] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 20:31 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t since they are broadcasting into the room, that
the
> > front makes sense, but music travels all directions and it seems it
would
> > make smoe sense to at least take the back wall into consideration.
> >
> > Also, I'm thinking that using actual short (2-3 ms delays) between the
> > instruments/performers themselves would help to create some sense of
> > relative front-to-back relational spatiality.
>
> Too much trouble for not enough benefit... try thinning for
> distance instead. Leave the arrival time intact, it will
> help to maintain the "impact" of the piece..
>
> >
> > I'm working mostly with acoustic musicians, some drums, but very little
in
> > the way of special FX like phaser/chorus/synth stuff,..........just
trying
> > to create a realistic optimal and dimensionally realistic space for the
> > performance.
> >
> > How big a soundstage is generally used for commercial studio projects? I
> > know it's all relative, but if there is some sxort of *go-by* here that
is
> > an accepted standard, I'd like to know.
>
> I think only classical people would get really fussy about
> this stuff... Don??? I think for your type of projects, you
> won't have to get too crazy with sound stage. The two
> things you have going for you in a stereo mix are position
> and timbre. Make sonic "holes" for different instruments to
> sit in. What sounds killer in a mix will often sound weak
> or stale soloed. Don't make your EQ decisions in solo
> mode... always tweak it with other instruments going. Make
> it louder than it's surroundings to make EQ judgments, then
> pull it way down in the mix and bring up slowly to taste.
> You should find that the instrument is more audible at a
> lower volume or fader level. If you are struggling to hear
> it and the meters are pegged, your tone is off.
>
> >
> > Thanks for indulging my ignorance and enlightening me..Also, I've got an
MP3
> > of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of your
opinions
> > on. It's a very talented bluegrass band-5 pieces. It's about 2.5 MB and
> > the soundstage I created for it is small.......around 30' wide. I was
trying
> > to get an intimate, realistic feeling to this as it was tracked live in
my
> > studio with 10 open mics.
>
> Keep in mind, intimate means CLOSE... this means full sounds
> and WIDE panning as they would be literally right in front
> of you. I really think you are overANALizing things too
> far... Can you hear all the instruments clearly? Do they
> sound pleasing in the mix? Is there some "space or air"
> around the instruments (not piled on top of each other
> acoustically). Is there some "ear-candy" present (subtle,
> but not instantly audible).
>
> I may be way off base to what others do, so take this with a
> truck-load of salt! ;-)
>
> My $.02
>
> David.
>
> >
> > I'd be glad to e-mail it to those here who would be willing to critique
it.
> >
> > TIA for the enlightenment.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> > DeejDeej, you are waaaay out in left field as far as I am concerned. I'm not
sure if you're missing the point entirely, or simply much, much smarter than
me. But I'm an artist, not an engineer, so what do I know? Nothing, I
suppose.
To me, that's the thing about being an engineer that would scare the shit
out of me: the idea that I've got to do anything more complicated than push
a few faders up, or tweak one band of EQ on a few channels, lordy! I
wouldn't know what to do as an engineer if the band I was recording didn't
make it sound magical mostly all by themselves. To me, an engineer shouldn't
have to worry about much besides mic placement and gain staging.
But I don't engineer for a living, so I should probably shut up.
Jimmy
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:4301580a$1@linux...
> Thanks Dave,
>
> I do have 3 x discrete stereo reverbs, plus, I thought the Paris reverbs
> were *true* stereo. So your thinking is more along the lines of the not
> screwing around with the L/R early reflections? (your reply referred to
> predealys but i think you may have meant ER's)
>
> Rolling off the HF of the return makes sense to me. I get your drift on
this
> one........and also carving out the space with EQ, of course.
>
> I appreciate your feedback on this. The devil's always in the details, but
> Mr. Simplicity can *always* make things harder and more complicated than
> they need to be.
>
> ;o)
>
> "Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:43014e3c$1@linux...
> > OK, a few thoughts... below.
> >
> > DJ wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > First, the ONLY time I would ever bother with detailed sound
> > stage is if I were doing a live concert locked to video
> > (which I do), and even then I would only bother with making
> > sure that the sound source is panned to the picture
> > location. The big problem with that is when you get a
> > close-up shot the instrument should, in theory, become
> > center panned and louder than the rest... it's closer...
> > right? Too much work.
> >
> > >
> > > I figure that if I've got a group of musicians on a stage 50' wide,
then
> > > each panning increment in the 100-100 L/R spread equals 0.25' so for
> every
> > > 4 increments, I'm moving the performer to the left or right by 1'. For
> > > example, if I wanted to position the band members within a space 30'
> across,
> > > then from the center, to place the guitarist 15' to stage left, I
would
> pan
> > > him left to 60.
> >
> > That would depend on the viewing angle... are you in the
> > front row, or center of the hall?
> >
> > >
> > > This would theoretically put him 10' from the closest wall and 35'
from
> the
> > > farthest wall.
> > >
> > > Now a few questions about early reflections and predelay and
> soundstaging in
> > > general, as follows:
> > >
> > > 1. If I'm using a stereo reverb, since the performer is stage left at
> pan
> > > position 60, I would pan the reverb return to stage right 60 and set
the
> > > ER's for the right side to around 35ms and the ER's to the left to
> around
> > > 10ms with the levels about 2/3 to 3/4 (or less) of the strength of the
> > > original signal. This woulld theoretically give me a basic two
> dimensional
> > > (L/R) location of the musician in an ambient space, right?
> >
> > The delay would not be necessary and would actually
> > "clutter" the mix. Longer reverb pre-delays will simulate a
> > larger overall "space". You would be better off "thinning
> > out" the sound slightly to make it seem to come from a
> > distance. You would have to combine this with reduced
> > bandwidth on the reverb return to simulate greater distance
> > as highs and are acoustically rolled off naturally over
> > distance.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, do you pan the reverb send to mirror the return? I'm just not
> getting
> > > this for some reason. Seems that panning the send does nothing. Maybe
> I'm
> > > just too overwhelmed at the moment to notice.
> >
> > Panning the return and reducing the reverb width would be a
> > better way to accomplish this as most reverbs are not
> > "discrete" stereo.
> >
> > >
> > > 2. In order to get the front/back positioning of the musician relative
> to
> > > the other band members and the front/back of the room, using predealy
> would
> > > provide some dimensional space........right? what I'm not clear about
is
> > > whether the predelay should be set for positioning the performers
> relative
> > > to the fall of the space that is farthest from them or from the wall
> that is
> > > behind them. I know that since they are broadcasting into the room,
that
> the
> > > front makes sense, but music travels all directions and it seems it
> would
> > > make smoe sense to at least take the back wall into consideration.
> > >
> > > Also, I'm thinking that using actual short (2-3 ms delays) between the
> > > instruments/performers themselves would help to create some sense of
> > > relative front-to-back relational spatiality.
> >
> > Too much trouble for not enough benefit... try thinning for
> > distance instead. Leave the arrival time intact, it will
> > help to maintain the "impact" of the piece..
> >
> > >
> > > I'm working mostly with acoustic musicians, some drums, but very
little
> in
> > > the way of special FX like phaser/chorus/synth stuff,..........just
> trying
> > > to create a realistic optimal and dimensionally realistic space for
the
> > > performance.
> > >
> > > How big a soundstage is generally used for commercial studio projects?
I
> > > know it's all relative, but if there is some sxort of *go-by* here
that
> is
> > > an accepted standard, I'd like to know.
> >
> > I think only classical people would get really fussy about
> > this stuff... Don??? I think for your type of projects, you
> > won't have to get too crazy with sound stage. The two
> > things you have going for you in a stereo mix are position
> > and timbre. Make sonic "holes" for different instruments to
> > sit in. What sounds killer in a mix will often sound weak
> > or stale soloed. Don't make your EQ decisions in solo
> > mode... always tweak it with other instruments going. Make
> > it louder than it's surroundings to make EQ judgments, then
> > pull it way down in the mix and bring up slowly to taste.
> > You should find that the instrument is more audible at a
> > lower volume or fader level. If you are struggling to hear
> > it and the meters are pegged, your tone is off.
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for indulging my ignorance and enlightening me..Also, I've got
an
> MP3
> > > of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of your
> opinions
> > > on. It's a very talented bluegrass band-5 pieces. It's about 2.5 MB
and
> > > the soundstage I created for it is small.......around 30' wide. I was
> trying
> > > to get an intimate, realistic feeling to this as it was tracked live
in
> my
> > > studio with 10 open mics.
> >
> > Keep in mind, intimate means CLOSE... this means full sounds
> > and WIDE panning as they would be literally right in front
> > of you. I really think you are overANALizing things too
> > far... Can you hear all the instruments clearly? Do they
> > sound pleasing in the mix? Is there some "space or air"
> > around the instruments (not piled on top of each other
> > acoustically). Is there some "ear-candy" present (subtle,
> > but not instantly audible).
> >
> > I may be way off base to what others do, so take this with a
> > truck-load of salt! ;-)
> >
> > My $.02
> >
> > David.
> >
> > >
> > > I'd be glad to e-mail it to those here who would be willing to
critique
> it.
> > >
> > > TIA for the enlightenment.
> > >
> > > ;o)
> > >
> > > Deej
>
>I don't believe that getting this analytical about something
will necessarly make it sound better. Why do you feel you have
to create a specific space (unless you're trying to match it to
an existing specific space like in Foley work, ADR, replacment
tracks for a live multitrack performance, etc).
How about this... Imagine what kind of space you'd like to hear
that particular song in, pick one that's close to that in one of
your verb units, then tweak as necessary to your heart's
content - and that's the key, use your heart (emotional
response), not your brain.
Neil
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I'm needing to get pretty anal retentive with this stuff these days. I'm
in
>a very small market and I am starting to carve out a niche for myself. The
>engineers in the other studios around here have many more years behind the
>board than I do (average of around 30 years of full-time *earning a living
>at it* kind of experience so I'm a comparative newbie)
>
>I've learned a few things over the years of turd polishing and doing small
>demo projects and I'm starting to actually get some small labels sniffing
>around my door so I must be doing something right in spite of myself and
the
>rather limited and haphazard education and experience I've managed to
>accumulate.
>
>I'm really feelin
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55796 is a reply to message #55779] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 20:36 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
.Also, I've got an
MP3
>of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of your opinions
>on. It's a very talented bluegrass band-5 pieces. It's about 2.5 MB and
>the soundstage I created for it is small.......around 30' wide. I was trying
>to get an intimate, realistic feeling to this as it was tracked live in
my
>studio with 10 open mics.
>
>I'd be glad to e-mail it to those here who would be willing to critique
it.
>
>TIA for the enlightenment.
>
>;o)
>
>Deej
>
>Deej
>
>Increasing ER levels simulates proximity to surfaces,
whereas adjusting predelay gives a sense as to the size of
space, or distance to source... but not in the way you would
think it would. Longer predelay times (time to first
reflection) will actually make it seem like you are closer
to the sound source in a larger room, and no predelay makes
it seem like you are farther away from the source. This
would of course have to be combined with appropriate level
and EQ of the source signal and verb return to complete the
illusion. Loud bright early reflections give the impression
of being close to a hard surface. By altering the L/R
balance of the ER's, you will make it sound like you are
standing next to a surface on one side. As for the arrival
time delay, there would actually be more delay between
sources (proportionally) if you were close up rather than if
you were farther away. The farther away from the stage you
get, the arrival time curve flattens out making the time
differences less noticeable. Your sound stage also narrows
with distance.
If you mixed dialog and FX for feature films, this stuff
would become second nature, but it is not necessary for
music IMHO. Sorry to make your life "simpler" ;-)
David.
DJ wrote:
> Thanks Dave,
>
> I do have 3 x discrete stereo reverbs, plus, I thought the Paris reverbs
> were *true* stereo. So yo
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55798 is a reply to message #55796] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 20:45 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
EQ, of course.
>
> I appreciate your feedback on this. The devil's always in the details, but
> Mr. Simplicity can *always* make things harder and more complicated than
> they need to be.
>
> ;o)
>
> "Dave(EK Sound)" <audioguy_nospam_@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:43014e3c$1@linux...
>
>>OK, a few thoughts... below.
>>
>>DJ wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>First, the ONLY time I would ever bother with detailed sound
>>stage is if I were doing a live concert locked to video
>>(which I do), and even then I would only bother with making
>>sure that the sound source is panned to the picture
>>location. The big problem with that is when you get a
>>close-up shot the instrument should, in theory, become
>>center panned and louder than the rest... it's closer...
>>right? Too much work.
>>
>>
>>>I figure that if I've got a group of musicians on a stage 50' wide, then
>>>each panning increment in the 100-100 L/R spread equals 0.25' so for
>
> every
>
>>>4 increments, I'm moving the performer to the left or right by 1'. For
>>>example,
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anyone feel like we might have made some progress with the [message #55799 is a reply to message #55792] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:12 |
Tony
Messages: 7
Registered: July 2005
|
Junior Member |
|
|
if I wanted to position the band members within a space 30'
>
> across,
>
>>>then from the center, to place the guitarist 15' to stage left, I would
>
> pan
>
>>>him left to 60.
>>
>>That would depend on the viewing angle... are you in the
>>front row, or center of the hall?
>>
>>
>>>This would theoretically put him 10' from the closest wall and 35' from
>
> the
>
>>>farthest wall.
>>>
>>>Now a few questions about early reflections and predelay and
>
> soundstaging in
>
>>>general, as follows:
>>>
>>>1. If I'm using a stereo reverb, since the performer is stage left at
>
> pan
>
>>>position 60, I would pan the reverb return to stage right 60 and set the
>>>ER's for the right side to around 35ms and the ER's to the left to
>
> around
>
>>>10ms with the levels about 2/3 to 3/4 (or less) of the strength of the
>>>original signal. This woulld theoretically give me a basic two
>
> dimensional
>
>>>(L/R) location of the musician in an ambient space, right?
>>
>>The delay would not be necessary and would actually
>>"clutter" the mix. Longer reverb pre-delays will simulate a
>>larger overall "space". You would be better off "thinning
>>out" the sound slightly to make it seem to come from a
>>distance. You would have to combine this with reduced
>>bandwidth on the reverb return to simulate greater distance
>>as highs and are acoustically rolled off naturally over
>>distance.
>>
>>
>>>Also, do you pan the reverb send to mirror the return? I'm just not
>
> getting
>
>>>this for some reason. Seems that panning the send does nothing. Maybe
>
> I'm
>
>>>just too overwhelmed at the moment to notice.
>>
>>Panning the return and reducing the reverb width would be a
>>better way to accomplish this as most reverbs are not
>&
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55800 is a reply to message #55796] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:09 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;"discrete" stereo.
>>
>>
>>>2. In order to get the front/back positioning of the musician relative
>
> to
>
>>>the other band members and the front/back of the room, using predealy
>
> would
>
>>>provide some dimensional space........right? what I'm not clear about is
>>>whether the predelay should be set for positioning the performers
>
> relative
>
>>>to the fall of the space that is farthest from them or from the wall
>
> that is
>
>>>behind them. I know that since they are broadcasting into the room, that
>
> the
>
>>>front makes sense, but music travels all directions and it seems it
>
> would
>
>>>make smoe sense to at least take the back wall into consideration.
>>>
>>>Also, I'm thinking that using actual short (2-3 ms delays) between the
>>>instruments/performers themselves would help to create some sense of
>>>relative front-to-back relational spatiality.
>>
>>Too much trouble for not enough benefit... try thinning for
>>distance instead. Leave the arrival time intact, it will
>>help to maintain the "impact" of the piece..
>>
>>
>>>I'm working mostly with acoustic musicians, some drums, but very little
>
> in
>
>>>the way of special FX like phaser/chorus/synth stuff,..........just
>
> trying
>
>>>to create a realistic optimal and dimensionally realistic space for the
>>>performance.
>>>
>>>How big a soundstage is generally used for commercial studio projects? I
>>>know it's all relative, but if there is some sxort of *go-by* here that
>
> is
>
>>>an accepted standard, I'd like to know.
>>
>>I think only classical people would get really fussy about
>>this stuff... Don??? I think for your type of projects, you
>>won't have to get too crazy with sound stage. The two
>>things you have going for you in a stereo mix are position
>>and timbre. Make sonic "holes" for different instruments to
>>sit in. What sounds killer in a mix will often sound weak
>>or stale soloed. Don't make your EQ decisions in solo
>>mode... always tweak it with other instruments going. Make
>>it louder than it's surroundings to make EQ judgments, then
>>pull it way down in the mix
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55801 is a reply to message #55800] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:37 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
and bring up slowly to taste.
>>You should find that the instrument is more audible at a
>>lower volume or fader level. If you are struggling to hear
>>it and the meters are pegged, your tone is off.
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for indulging my ignorance and enlightening me..Also, I've got an
>
> MP3
>
>>>of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of your
>
> opinions
>
>>>on. It's a very talented bluegrass band-5 pieces. It's about 2.5 MB and
>>>the soundstage I created for it is small.......around 30' wide. I was
>
> trying
>
>>>to get an intimate, realistic feeling to this as it was tracked live in
>
> my
>
>>>studio with 10 open mics.
>>
>>Keep in mind, intimate means CLOSE... this means full sounds
>>and WIDE panning as they would be literally right in front
>>of you. I really think you are overANALizing things too
>>far... Can you hear all the instruments clearly? Do they
>>sound pleasing in the mix? Is there some "space or air"
>>around the instruments (not piled on top of each other
>>acoustically). Is there some "ear-candy" present (subtle,
>>but not instantly audible).
>>
>>I may be way off base to what others do, so take this with a
>>truck-load of salt! ;-)
>>
>>My $.02
>>
>>David.
>>
>>
>>>I'd be glad to e-mail it to those here who would be willing to critique
>
> it.
>
>>>TIA for the enlightenment.
>>>
>>>;o)
>>>
>>>Deej
>
>
>To start with, panpots are nearly useless in precisely placing things.
They have three positions that actually do anything.
Hard left, hard right, and center. And *maybe* in between center
and hard pan on each side of center.
Everything else is useless.
Human beings determine positioning by a combination of volume
(which speaker is louder) and delay. Delay is more important.
Sort this out before you use any reverb at all.
Try this: Copy a track in Paris in the editor window. (use the time-locked
tool) Pan them hard left and right.
Now, slide one of the tracks backward in time, use small
increments, and listen to how precisely you can place things.
(just listen to the two tracks at first, and mute everything else)
Sound staging can be done much more precisely this way than
with pan pots alone. It can, of course, also be done in the mixer
with aux sends and FX returns, but it is easier to see in the editor
window.
When you use delay and panning creatively to setup a soundstage,
you then use reverb to complement it, not create it, and you will
probably need less reverb than otherwise. a good thing IMO
Oh, and always work on the soundstage of the drums and bass
first. If they aren't happy, ain't nobody happy.
Leave space, leave space,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (No subject) [message #55805 is a reply to message #55801] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 21:36 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
notice.
>
>2. In order to get the front/back positioning of the musician relative to
>the other band members and the front/back of the room, using predealy would
>provide some dimensional space........right? what I'm not clear about is
>whether the predelay should be set for positioning the performers relative
>to the fall of the space that is farthest from them or from the wall that
is
>behind them. I know that since they are broadcasting into the room, that
the
>front makes sense, but music travels all directions and it seems it would
>make smoe sense to at least take the back wall into consideration.
>
>Also, I'm thinking that using actual short (2-3 ms delays) between the
>instruments/performers themselves would help to create some sense of
>relative front-to-back relational spatiality.
>
>I'm working mostly with acoustic musicians, some drums, but very little
in
>the way of special FX like phaser/chorus/synth stuff,..........just trying
>to create a realistic optimal and dimensionally realistic space for the
>performance.
>
>How big a soundstage is generally used for commercial studio projects? I
>know it's all relative, but if there is some sxort of *go-by* here that
is
>an accepted standard, I'd like to know.
>
>Thanks for indulging my ignorance and enlightening me..Also, I've got an
MP3
>of a mix that I did last night that I'd like to get some of your opinions
>on. It's a very talented bluegrass band-5 pieces. It's about 2.5 MB and
>the soundstage I created for it is small.......around 30' wide. I was trying
>to get an intimate, realistic feeling to this as it was tracked live in
my
>studio with 10 open mics.
>
>I'd be glad to e-mail it to those here who would be willing to critique
it.
>
>TIA for the enlightenment.
>
>;o)
>
>Deej
>
>Deej
>
>Anyone see anything here that would be a problem for Paris 3.0?
Either:
Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2 GHz 512KB cache
or
Athlon 64 4000+ 2.4 GHz 1MB cache
Asus A8N-SLI mobo w/ 800+ MHz FSB
1 GB RAM 400 MHz
GeForce 256MB dual head vid card
(2) 200 GB Maxtor 7200 RPM ATA-133 hd
Plextor SATA DVD-RW
MS Win XP Pro
450watt power supply
dual 17" Flat panels
Spappy"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>I'm needing to get pretty anal retentive with this stuff these days...
>Deej
>
Well…
I have worked with many producers and mix engineers over the years that do
sweat the details, including sound stage.
M/S.
Binaural.
X/Y.
These exist because people consider the stereo imaging and sound stage important.
Obviously this is not the most critical issue in typical, modern, radio driven
productions, but that does not equate to being meaningless.
I love recording in true stereo (primarily M/S) whenever it seems appropriate.
Trying to control the sound stage “after the fact” is a completely different
animal but again, the details do add up.
I have been playing around a little with GigaPulse, the convolution reverb
that comes with Giga3, and now available separately. With multiple instances,
you can create a very controlled and convincing 3D soundstages that you actually
can adjust during mixdown. This reminds me a little of using the Calrec Soundfield
(the ultimate mic for post recording control of sound stage.)
The new generation of hardware and software phase correction systems also
opens up new possibilities. As an example: If you record a small acoustic
ensemble with M/S, you should be able to add spot mics and “correct” the
phase relationship after the fa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 06 20:02:24 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01787 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
