Search found 12 matches

Return

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

I think (just my opinion) that there are two key concepts that are required to make stereo work, especially if you are 'mixing it up':

a) Musical weight - Where one channel has more going on in it, the things happening in the other must carry more 'weight' to balance things out.

The 'golden age' for unsymmetrical mixes that worked were the 1960s, when stereo was new and people were willing to try many things out, often just to differentiate themselves in the new paradigm. Many of Ray Charles' hits from then, especially with his lead female vocalist, highlights the right balancing of the constant with the incidental, with the latter managing to hold its own while being a lot less in actual time.
However, after all the experimentation, things retreated to mainly aural representations of the conventional stage positioning.

With this musical weight in mind, leaving things unbalanced for too long just highlights the absence in the sparse side.

b) Musical story - With the stereo mix you have an opportunity to map out your characters in your musical play. If they have something to say, they must be able to be clearly heard. Does the 'scenery' overwhelm them? If the scenery is meant to be important, it needs to occupy a good slice of the stage.

Some of the 60s stuff used stereo to great advantage in the story-telling. For example, Ray Charles' Hit the Road Jack , with the contrasting activities in each channel highlighting the adversarial tone of the song.

Things can be novel, but they need to relate to the musical story. Also, where you place things aurally, people will 'see' them there, so they must make sense to the listener for them to be there.

To the mixes
To cover several points in relation to what I describe above.

a) Musically, the performances were good. I liked them.

b) Left guitar goes too long to not have any even occasional counter-balancing in the right.

c) Lead male is too low in relation to the guitar. Personally, I would either:
__ i) duplicate the guitar (on our CD, I used Autotune to duplicate the left guitar with a copy of itself, detuned by a few cents, and panned right) to provide the drive for a stronger centred single male, or
__ ii) to better counterbalance the later solo female, have a two to four male choir mixed behind a central guitar.

d) Not sure how moving the male voice around enhances the story. If meant to represent multiple 'opinions', then perhaps use a choir, with individual (and different) male voices from different positions taking a solo (and louder) phrase or line at various times.

e) Too little going on in the right for too long. Putting the female protagonist with the scenery and the guys with nothing happening on the right is definitely unbalanced to the point of seeming faulty.

f) Balance is much better when things pick up, though there is still a lean to the left, and the moving male is still without a reason.

g) Once the major mix balance things are in place, then it is worth fine-tuning individual sounds. Otherwise it is like spell checking a document when the subject matter hasn't been finalised.

As I say, it is just my opinion. Hope it helps.
by Patanjali
Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:22 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Please drop the x32bit versions of all your new software

Same with legacy versions of Internet Explorer. I remember spending up to 70% of project time (!) making websites work in old versions of IE, just because people didn't care enough (or were too scared, mostly system administrators) of updating to new versions.
IE was a very special case because in its earlier days, there were really only two horses in the race, and only one was providing enough programming and management facilities for businesses to reliably build a lot of business infrastructure around, and well ahead of where any of the standards were at. That lead to a lot of B2B infrastructure also relying heavily upon IE.

The issue that most businesses have is that many of their processes have a lot of inter-dependencies. This means that to change any one of them requires a lot of careful design and consultation and regression testing against ALL dependent processing to make sure nothing will be broken when rolled into production.

The consequent deep embedding of IE6 in businesses was probably a major consideration why there was a lot of resistance to changing from XP, because that forced abandonment of a lot of the idiosyncrasies around which a lot of development had bound itself, with a very high cost to change.

It was a very small tail in its own right, but it wagged around most of the big dogs!


But even in today's climate of interoperability and standards, there is still a lot dependent upon a few key pieces of infrastructure. The last contract I did involved an organisation that was faced with an immanent end-of-life for a particular version of WebSphere. We had a lot of consultation with all the dependent app teams upon to which version to standardise, along with the other products in the web infrastructure stack. To cut it short, while the actual cost of the WebSphere upgrade was much less than $1M, the bill to update all the apps and other pieces of dependent infrastructure, including hardware as well as software, was not going to leave a lot of change from $50M, as well as take several years to complete. Everything in business is non-trivial, even to just think about, and consequences usually far outweigh the primary subject of focus.


The point I am making here is that while we are looking at it from our small sphere of association with the product, SB has to deal with ALL the inter-dependencies and consequences. An unenviable position to be in.
by Patanjali
Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:35 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Please drop the x32bit versions of all your new softwares.

Please drop the x32bit versions of all your new softwares.

All programmers can concentrate on making x64bit softwares only.
If you think about it "why they should end it", its not a bad idea! We have no need of any x32bit softwares anymore. ;)

You would get = less bugs + more time for the programmers apply new features instead of address backward and x32bit compatibility.


Best Regards
Freddie
by Freddie H
Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:11 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Still a maximum of 8 VSTs per channel?

This thought occurs.............

You really can't get it done with 8 plugin slots, especially considering some pretty solid channel strip plugins ?

For regular mixing and mastering I totally agree. You shouldn't even need 8.
However, for sound design work...
You could easily use more than 8 effects by the time you've achieved what you are going for.

But we now have a Render in Place !!
by fretthefret
Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:43 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Still no bezier curves in automation!!!!!

All joking aside, this -is- a drag. Like it or not, the world has gone EDM and if you do electronica of any kind you GOTTA be able to -easily- and -precisely- draw complex patterns.

I've been struggling (literally) for months with a vocoder effect in Reaktor where I want to modulate a formant filter to make various 'syllables' really POP on certain bars/beats.

What I -want- should be easy as pie: imagine a sine wave pattern that is itself modulated by a square wave.

Now... try -drawing- that in Cubase. Can it be done? Sure. You can also break out of Shawshank in 19 years.

Electronica lives and dies by creating complex automation like this and without precise drawing tools it's a total pain. You can have all the new synths in the world, but good automation is what makes it -interesting-.
by suntower
Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:55 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Still a maximum of 8 inserts per channel?

.
BTW...

Pro Tools has 10 (!) inserts - for all (!) FX (incl. Phase, Gain, Lo/HiCuts, EQ etc <= as separate insert plugins!
And no one has complained about that.
Nonetheless, a few years ago PT has only 5 (!!) inserts...

:!:

Strictly speaking, Cubase has 18 FX (Pre section Hi/LoCuts, Gain, Phase, + 8 Inserts, + Channel EQ, + Strips....) = per channel.

;)

There is a pretty huge difference between 6 (freezable) inserts and 10. Those 4 extra inserts would solve 80% of the issues I bump up against.

It's not unreasonable to have (brands of one's own choosing): console emulation, channel strip, peak-check-channel-limiter, virtual tape.

Now we only have two slots left.

It's not uncommon to use yet another compressor chain of an 1176 and la2a after the channel strip, so there's your "two more" with now all six freezable slots used up. So forget anything creative or crazy on top of just getting dynamics and EQ dialed in.

Oh, and forget trim controls between those plugins -- so hope the input drive modeling and gain staging works without intervention.

If I had 4 more inserts , in this example of six filled, that would effectively solve my issues (trim plugin gottchas aside).
by Jalcide
Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:41 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Freeze Files Missing

When you "save as..." ONLY the .cpr file is put in the new location. All of the other media such as audio, freeze, images, etc. remain in the designated "project folder".
If you want to start a completely new, independent version, use "backup project..." and it copies everything to the new specified location.
HTH
J.L.
by jaslan
Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:47 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Make all windows Dockable!

+1

+ hotkey to maximize/unmaximize the selected window
Image
by dek88
Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:12 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Yet Another Polish: Flanger

...as did I... and every other guy who wanted to wow his friends: MAN, YOU MADE A PLUG-IN? YOU'RE AMAZING, DUDE!!!!!

If your question is sincere, there is a simple answer: as with EVERY failed initiative, LACK OF EVANGELISM.

SB always threw LOTS of great code out there and for the first few years, all 3rd Parties just went along with the program. But after a while, as soon as other DAW companies adopted VST it turned into a real business for companies like NI and they realised: Hey, we can't do whatever SB wants without losing our other partners.

SB is always SHOCKED when 3rd Parties don't magically adopt whatever they put out. But they don't EVANGELISE. I am always astounded by how much work Microsoft and Adobe (and even Wordpress) do to make it EASY for devs to use their tools. Winners do that; they make it so that any idiot can make things with their tools. They don't -expect- people to do a ton of work 'just because we're so great'.

I recall vividly Alexey RAILING against VST3... "I will -never- write a VST3 version!" :D

SB doesn't -market- well. They didn't give devs -reasons- to put in the time to do VST3. It -is- hard. But IMHO, SB could've incentivised devs to do it and when users SAW THE BENEFITS, they woulda demanded it.

Same with Note Expression. It's such a wonderful idea, it's INSANE that no one supports it. If it had been -me- I woulda begged the investors for whatever money it took to get VSL or LA Audio -whoever- to do Note Expression versions of their libs. Hell, HSO wasn't half bad, they coulda re-jiggered -THAT- for Note Expression with some help.

Can any composer imagine how many problems it solves if you can NOTATE DIVISIS AND HAVE THEM PLAY BACK LIKE A REAL ORCHESTRA WITH INDEPENDENT DYNAMICS?) It makes me angry every time I think about it. They have all the tools to make something no one else has.

Or NI or Soundtoys or UA with sidechains. After 7-8 years the boat has now sailed... everybody is creating their own 'chainers' and making their own extra money for stuff that SHOULD BE IN THE CORE OF THE DAW.

You cannot expect people to get on board until you SHOW THEM THE MONEY. SB constantly puts out these tres cool ideas in the abstract and then they just go someplace warm to die. It's the classic thing where they don't budget what it takes to see a great idea all the way through. You have to pay people to have =partners= and SB does not do partners.


---JC


Flanger is one of those plugs that LOTS of guys used to cobble together 15 years ago... they'd learn how to do 'modulation' and immediately publish like -5- plugs that are all copies with slightly different GUIs: Chorus! Flanger! Phaser! Delay! Echos! I expect a bit more from SB... even with these 'standard' things. It can't be -that- hard to change the LFO rate to make the thing work like a -real- flanger.

ROFL, this is exactly how I learned the 2.x VST SDK. The odd part is when 3.x came out, I went back and tried to convert the same simple plugs to the 3 way of doing things. It was incomprehensible. Something that was super simple became ultra complex for no benefit. EXCEPT .. once I got them working, adding sidechain channels was incredibly trivial. So, again ... baffled why they don't add this stuff.
by suntower
Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:46 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Multi Freeze

would be great to freeze more then one track at a time.

select a few freeze make a coffee come back she done :)

one at a time is a pain with big projects.
by nick galea
Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:00 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Make all windows Dockable!

Big ommision in Cubase 8, even after multiple requests for Dockable windows. That for me is a huge oppertunity missed and a big disappointment as the roaming Transport bar is both needed and a nuisance in its current format. The new layout and Workspaces could have been so much more. Sort it out Steinberg as it isn't like it wasn't requested! Dockable windows should have been the Layout and Workspace update not the partial nonsense you have given us as a new feature!
by PsYAuM
Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:17 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic