Search found 26 matches

Return

Re: A couple of questions about VariAudio.

Hiya Brock,

1. Make sure that your control room is set up in VST connections as auditioning come through that bus, an easy way to test this is to select a file in the import audio file dialogue, if you can't here anything in that window then the control room setup is most likely your problem.

2. Try splitting the segments into individual pitches before you straighten them, also try shifting the whole segment into tune first, this can often sound more natural and you mightn't need to straighten the pitch as much.

Cheers,

PC
by Paul Coyle
Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:49 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: A couple of questions about VariAudio.

There is a lot more to variaudio than just quantize and straighten. You can also:

1. Rotate the entire segment around a center point by holding in option and dragging on the top corners..
2. Lock a rotation point and only change the section before the anchor point.

If gotten much better result by manually straightening rather dan using the straightening function.
by Rudi007
Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:46 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: A couple of questions about VariAudio.

the way i get good natural results in variaudio is by cuttin the begining an the end of a note to only straighten the middle part ... its annoying and i've been requesting a feature to make transitions natural for a while ... you guys should request that as well ... the more request they have the more likely they'll do it!
Use tab to switch between pitch and segment mode, thats way faster.
by trashdinner
Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:17 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: A couple of questions about VariAudio.

Brock wrote:Can anyone tell me how I can hear both the click and audition audio without having to switch back and forth from using the main output and the Control Room?


Enable click In the Control Room, set the click level, and you should be able to audition both through Control Room
by Ian s
Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:09 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.1 Issues

I forgot to add...and this one is huge to me:

8. Audio quantization and Musical Mode can't co-exist. This video demonstrates the text that follows. https://www.dropbox.com/s/47w20wbswbqazvh/quantizedaudio.mov

I have posted several times on this same issue and have yet to find the answer. The end result I'm trying to achieve is having quantized audio that is responsive to tempo changes (e.g., I record a part at 100 and I want to quantize it and then play it back at 120).

Quantizing audio (Q) works (sort of) - for this point, let's say it works perfectly. As soon as Musical Mode is activated (in the Audio Pool), all the warp markers from the quantization are effectively undone and replaced with regular intervallic warp markers. Quantizing after Musical Mode is activated has no effect.

Adjusting the audio to the project tempo (p. 628) after quantizing the audio undoes the quantization. Trying to quantize after adjusting the audio to the project tempo, like quantizing after activating musical mode, has no effect.

Help!!

Bounce or flatten the quantized audio prior to converting to musical mode.
by vespesian
Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:57 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.1 Voxengo Curve EQ no longer works?

Hi Brock,

I just tested it on 10.9.1 and it works. Have you tried "Safe start"?
https://www.steinberg.net/en/support/kn ... ences.html

Regards
by Luis Dongo
Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:43 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.1 Voxengo Curve EQ no longer works?

@brock. Try creating a new user account and see if it's related to your overall user account. Another thing you could try is by going under your user library/ preferences and remove or rename the folder "Cubase 7.5" and restart cubase. It will create a new cubase settings folder.
by sambosun
Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:04 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.1 Voxengo Curve EQ no longer works?

I have no such problem.
I am on Cubase 7.5.1, OsX 10.9.1, latest version of CurveEQ.

Try trashing prefs of Cubase and Curve Eq.
Try deleting and re-installing CurveEQ.
by vanhaze3000
Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:01 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Mastering

I do my regular mix. I have 2 speaker out channels configured in the Control Room. One (Speaker Main) is straight out. The other (Speaker Master) is configured with my general mastering tools (in my case IK Multimedia's TRackS-Grand). This allows me to hear what the project will generally sound like in the "mastered" environment. As a result, I can quickly go back and get that snare part or whatever may or may not be popping out before I export it out. Additionally when I export the project out, it is unaltered by the the Control Room channel.

I export out to get a more isolated mastering environment so I can focus on the sound and levels relative to the other projects that may be included in my collection as I am no longer thinking about the mix. Sort of simplifies things a bit by getting rid of all the channels and tracks.
by tlbergman
Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:55 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

You guys are talking a lot about mono mixes and I'm not sure why. I don't listen in mono. Ever. I have two speakers on my stereo system. My headphones have an earcup for each ear. My car has I don't know how many speakers, but it's running in some sort of redundant stereo. My TV runs in stereo. Hell, I think even my Mac Mini might have onboard stereo speakers.

Am I missing something?

Clubs and live gigs / venues etc are always mono because it's impossible for the audience to all be in the centre. Overly wide mixes with phase issues suffer in these situations.

Back to the topic, pan law has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the width of mixes - it simply governs the level of the signal as it moves between the speakers. Set the pan law to whatever you like, there isn't anything going on that can't be adjusted by simply moving the tracks fader up or down.
by Vinylizor
Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:44 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

You guys are talking a lot about mono mixes and I'm not sure why. I don't listen in mono. Ever. I have two speakers on my stereo system. My headphones have an earcup for each ear. My car has I don't know how many speakers, but it's running in some sort of redundant stereo. My TV runs in stereo. Hell, I think even my Mac Mini might have onboard stereo speakers.
Yes, there are very few situations where one might be listening to mono these days, with perhaps most listening being done with earphones with stereo by default. However, when listening to sound without such isolation, in 'free air', the further from the speakers, the more mono the sound becomes.

Testing in mono is required to ensure that components of one channel are not detrimentally out of phase with those in the other channel. Those out of phase instruments or vocals will sound unnaturally diffuse, instead of being focused and clear, even with earphones.

Stereo enhancers typically work by making the 'sides' -- components more in one channel than the other -- more out of phase. However, in mono, some components of the results may subtract too much and appear low in the mix.

The typical culprit for out-of-phase signals is incorrect mic placement when using several near each other, even if they are not recording the same instrument/vocal. Sometimes toggling one or more channel's phase switch will produce a less objectionable result.


Human hearing is actually using two mechanisms to tell the direction from which sounds come, with the transition point being the frequencies with wavelengths around the distance between the ears, centred about 1.5kHz. The mechanisms are:
a) Lower frequencies - primarily by the phase relationship between the sounds in each ear.
b) Higher frequencies - phase relationships become harder to discern, so the relative levels at each ear.

Basically, panning in audio devices is done by adjusting levels as in the latter method above, but for ALL frequencies, and it seems to work, or at least we are fooled enough that complex phase-processing algorithms are not required for low-frequency mixing.
by Patanjali
Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:10 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

Constructive feedback on the mix is appreciated. Thanks, guys!

Overall I'm digging it.

Personally I like to remain centered while listening to a track. If something happens on the left side I want something to be balancing it on the right side. The male voice that comes in on the left without a counterweight on the right is jarring to me. Over the course of the song there feels like a general inclination to the left side. I also like counterweights to be balanced in how far away they sound. There is a point where the male voice is counter weighted by the female voice, but the female voice is closer and has more "vertical" dimension. It makes my brain skew.

There is a point where it sounds like the snare starts on the left and suddenly moves to the center. This is jarring to me.

I really dig spacious, 3D mixes, but I also like something to anchor the center and something that has a solid quality to it to contrast with the sounds that have been given a more spacious treatment. Otherwise I start to feel like I'm in some sort of ghost realm.

The demos on the 8dio home page for instance are great examples of often wide and very 3D sounding mixes that don't come off as fuzzy or ephemeral.

But again, other than some things I found a little quirky I enjoyed the song. With the loudness wars you don't often get to enjoy spacious mixes though on that subject I was impressed with the latest Beck album, Morning Phase. It is pretty spacious and without making my brain feel like a mushy cloud.
by Greg Houston
Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:25 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

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: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

A good place to start for big sounding mixes is Phil Spector. But he wouldn't know about pan law as he always worked in mono.
I guess all the advice given points to "if your mix still sounds big in mono it is actually that big." VERY fine attention to detail of voice balancing and the least amount of compression you can get away with while still recording a strong fundamental signal from the instrument in the first place.
Basically, and I'll probably be proved wrong, if you record a mouse squeaking you'll have a lot on your plate making it sound like a lion. There are many ways of making it sound like a big mouse though.
Pan your strongest voices (usually the mid range; boning up on orchestral instrument typical pitching, if you work with "normal" instruments would be a good idea) in the material towards the centre, and the listener, and group all other weaker material out of it's way, either more centred or more out to the edges. I wouldn't worry too much about pan law unless, like the other contributors here, you are aiming for a specific purpose like broadcast, games or movies where the listener might have less than optimum speakers but that signal needs to get thru without artifacts or distortions being introduced at their end.
And first always ask yourself what you would do if you wanted something to sound small. Then do the opposite. :mrgreen:

And this:
And also a good arrangement. :) The "space" in a great big and wide mix is partially the arrangement. There's engineering, songwriting, and arranging (as in tonal arrangement, parts not stepping all over each other, but supplementing each other) and if you get that part wrong it will hamper everything else.

You can usually tell a relatively "poor" musical arrangement because it needs a ton of EQ to separate tracks. You can always tell a great musical arrangement because you push all the tracks up to mix and you can distinctly hear everything before you even start to mix it.
by Buchanan
Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:46 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

Just got my UAD-2 today. See if you can hear the difference.

Here are the mixes:

NO UAD-2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/py7ykhi2a72jvo0/Edge%20of%20a%20New%20Forever%20OLD.mp3

WITH UAD-2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uc4rlypweu11cwu/Edge%20of%20a%20New%20Forever%20NEW.mp3

Constructive feedback on the mix is appreciated. Thanks, guys!


0:00 - Guitar sounds good, just a few dB too loud. Vocal is boxy and doesn't cut thru the mix (cut mud and boost 1.5-4k ; not the entire range, just where the 'power lies'. might need to SC and/or scoop the same feq. the acous. rrhythm guitar for the vocal to have a spot
0:30 - Flat vocal note
0:40 - The bass sounds out of tune? Or is it the guitar. The kick needs a little 'weight' to it. A little roominess on the drums might help the vibe
0:58 - Same thing about the male vocal applies to the female lead vocal. I think a short reverb and/or delay would really help here too
1:59: Great drummer, but those toms are up a little too much.
~2:15: Something in that acoustic guitar is causing my ears to fatigue. Attenuating that freq. will probably help bring out the vocals. Add some space too it too, to give it some more texture if you find that attenuating the hi-freq takes away some of the 'prettiness'

all IMO, obvious. You already did the majority of the work, as the rhythm section and the guitar are mostly there.
by MrSmith
Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:33 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

I just gave it a quick listen, can probably check it out again later. The acoustic guitar up to 36 seconds seems too loud to me. Strum attacks later in the mix are scratchy on my ears. Really liking the female vocals. If you try to match forward/backward positioning of the vocals I would try to match the male with the female rather than vice versa.
by Greg Houston
Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:14 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

@Patanjali and anyone else who's interested in providing constructive feedback, I updated the mix.
First thing ---> Fan-bloody-tastic. Night and day. Sounds like you have the story worked out and pretty much the shape you want it in. What an immersive experience! Congrats! :D :D :D

Now to some specifics:

a) Vocals are not clear, and sound smeared in with the rest so much that it is hard to make out the words.
For vocals, if you want them to be understood, you do need to leave some space around them, typically by:

__ i) Sculpturing other things around them. If you want guitar up loud to be driving things along, you need to use ducking or automation to drop the notes down, including the one immediately before a vocal line starts, and fading back in at the tail of vocal lines. Guitar notes during significant vocal pauses in the line can be brought back up.

I typically set the vocal level and sculpt everything else around them. But then, our music is sparse. Your mileage many vary!

__ ii) Don't apply the same effects to them that you are using heavily for everything else. Perhaps use a different reverb (plate) just for them so the quality of their space stands out from the rest.

b) My opinion, but the first time the female vocal appears, I suggest starting at the centre, just so we know that she is important. Then you can move her around to show her confusion.

c) I feel the male and female vocals are meant to be equal, but the male is more out from the centre and mixed back. Sort of takes a bit away from the beautiful blending of their short duo lines.


Again, beautiful! You are close, and may not need much more to be getting something out the door. I am impressed with your creative producing skills. They will carry you into areas others could only dream of going!


Regarding notes out of tune, I'm singing a D on an Asus2/4 down to a C# on a F#min11/A chord - the notes might sound weird to you, but the pitches are correct.
One thing I learnt from tech writing. If a reviewer mentioning difficultly with something, it usually meant something wasn't quite flowing right, so I would usually make a change, mostly minor, but it improved the flow.

Just because the notes may be right, does not mean they sound right. Here, it is not the overall note pitch, but the flow of the pitch during the note. It sounds like the note pitch is wavering a bit too much in the wrong way.

Cubase has some neat stuff to change tuning. You can chop the note up and flatten variation in a section, or change the slope of the pitch variation. Might be time to learn a couple of Cubase tricks?
by Patanjali
Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:41 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

Some people on here have given me very specific feedback, so much so I've been able to review the exact spot in the mix to which they referred, "hear" what they're hearing, then choose whether to make a change or not. That's been incredibly helpful.

Others have spoken in platitudes - making vague, broad statements "teaching me" the importance of arrangement, composition skills, etc., and even given very beginner-level advice. I kind of wonder about this group. If it's not clear from the song I have a solid sense of arrangement and composition, as well that I am at least decent at recording and mixing...I question the finger-pointer's sensibilities. These are the responses I've basically disregarded as to me, not only do they not offer anything useful, they hint that the author, may not really know what he's talking about. (Or maybe we're just coming from really different places.) For me, the specifics are far more useful.

That said - even if you feel lumped you in the latter category - I'm truly grateful to those whose responses come from a genuine desire to help others grow. Thank you!

True. Specifics are sometimes kinda implied. :)

I mean, if you're digging into your mix and you're having trouble dialing in midrange clarity because of a lot of midrange frequency masking the solution to that may not be using extreme EQ, it may be going back to the arrangement and using more open chord voicings, especially if VI's are involved and that can be easily adjusted. You can voice the equivalent of a minor 11th chord multiple ways so if it serves the song better tonally, open it up to leave some space.

That's what i kinda meant by arrangement and tonal clashing, masking, problems, assuming musicians would figure out the rest, being musicians. :) it's not a matter of experience or talent, more just a matter of using common sense to solve issues like... does this chord "really" have to be all in this particular octave? What will it sound like when all the lead and backing vox and guitars go down? Can i spread this out and make more room in the midrange? Stuff like that.

Not that I'm a good composer, I'm not. :) But I can hear the differences.

Anyway, that's what really great "music producers" (people hired to produce) do, care for all that in the production stage, which makes the mixing stage easier.
by Audiocave
Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:09 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Proper Gain Staging

I have not the time to give a lenghty qualified answer right now (I'll try tomorrow).

But for a starter, I suggest you read up on the good old VU meter, and learn how to use it.
Why the standard is set to, 0VU = +4 dBu = 1.23 Volt in pro audio equipment (often set -18 dBFS in the digital domain), and so on......

I suspect the cleaner portion of your recording, is first and foremost that you are not driving your analog chain (pre-amp) to hard.

0VU is there for a reason. That level (1.23 Volt) is a standard were the most pro audio manufacturers calibrate their equipment to have the best S/N Ratio (Signal to Noise). The best middle ground between noise (lower han 0VU) and distortion (higher than 0VU) added to the signal. That's why 0VU is a standard.

The same goes for the newer quality analog emulating plugins (Sonnox, Slate, Softube etc.). See my comment in the 24 vs 32 bit thread.

If you then add that you don't ever have to worry about missing headroom, what's not to like.

Most people tend to forget the analog chain, pre converters. This is the most important part, as once you have captured a signal in your DAW you can't take away whats already there (Whether added noise or distortion).

Not that lenghty, but I think you got all my reasons as well. For the most part anyway ;)
by iBM
Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:54 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Proper Gain Staging

IBM, yeah those are the exact things to which my friend was making references. It's so great to have access to such knowledgable folk here! So, your point, distilled, is 0VU (analog) = -18dBFS (digital) and the optimal level for input as far as plugins are concerned. Is that correct?

I look forward to your fuller explanation. Thanks!
One more before bed time ;-).

My point destilled (liked that ;-)) is:

0VU is the most optimal level for the most pro analog gear (pre-amps, compressors, eq's etc.).
Most digital DAW's and plugins are calibrated to 0VU = -18dBFS, and therefore many plugins that emulates analog gear has been calibrated the exact same way.

We are obviously talking about RMS levels, not peaking. Hover your signal around 0VU and you are good to go.

The easisest "translation" (my rules of thumb when teaching) if you do not use a VU meter (you really should) are these:
For percussive sounds (drums/sharp transients) is to use a peak level at -6dB .

For Signals like distorted guitars, long sustaining organ parts etc, use peak levels at -12 to -18 dBFS.

This is due to the nature that:
Long sustaining (and compressed) signals will (and should) have a lower peak level while reading the same 0VU as short transient full signals.

Added bonus: Following the above "rules" you will be able to have you faders closer to 0 in your DAW, providing you a much better resolution (more precise fader moves) than lower down the scale (due to the Logarithmic dB scale).

There are excellent VU meter plugins out there (will provide tomorrow).

By for now, it's soon midnight in Norway. Good night.
by iBM
Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:35 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Proper Gain Staging

Getting a grip of the signal flow:

1. preamps (interface or external) have a sweet spot, probably met around -18 dbFS in Cubase (see documentation of preamps/interface)

2. recording to 24 bit or 32 bitFP (32 just makes sense when recording with plugins or extended usage of offline processing but also doesn't hurt much, see other thread) offers lots of headroom indeed

3. the internal headroom of the Cubase mixer is around +1500 db (of course your converters' headroom isn't) so internally nothing can clip, but...

4. ...plugins have a sweet spot regarding leveling just as the preamps and converters - this is different from plugin to plugin. Serious emulations of vintage equipment certainly have a standard they're calibrated to (see documentation) - good idea to make wise decisions of input and output levels here (= not abusing plugins, unless it's a consciously made artistic decision)

5. due to the internal 32 bitFP processing the Cubase' channels can exceed 0 dbFS without damage to the signal but as there are a lot of them summed it makes sense to keep everything far below just like on an analog desk (ok, analog sounds 'hotter' when driven hotter, digital doesn't without extra efforts like saturation tools/console emus etc.)

6. of course the master out(s) should never exceed 0 dbFS as the master level hits the hardwares' converters

That's all the magic: keeping things in the sweet spots of whatever hard- or software (plugins) used. Otherwise the master out becomes sort of a bottleneck, with everything hitting against the brickwall.

I go around -12 to -10 dbFS on the way in. This has proofed to be a well working leveling on my hardware. It happens that some signals might be hotter but also lower. As long as the pure file sounds good, everything is good that far. For the mix, the channel gain can be lowered or raised to get to whatever your idea of an ideal level is (-18 to -10 db seems like a good range...).

When mixing I'll do some gain staging anyway, almost always using Slate's VCC usually as the first plugin - I set the gain of every channel to hit 0 dbVU on VCC's meter. If I don't use it, it depends on the plugins I use. Most 'formal' EQs are pretty forgiving (probably working in 32 bitFP internally), 'vintage' EQs might produce different colorations when driven more or less hot. Dynamics need proper gain staging (input levels) anyway - technically. 'Non-proper gain staging' can be the method of choice as well if the result is what you're after.

About busses: same story, usually below 0 dbFS, also depending on the potential bus plugins. If the channels feeding the bus have a good relation but are too hot/too low for whatever reason - that's what the group channels' input gain is for. Same thing for the master, which is just another bus.


Oh - I was late to game, iBM already said some wise words ;)
by marQs
Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:45 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: TECH SUPPORT, HELP!! 7.5.1 Crashing on Startup

The proper place for this is in a Support Request from My Steinberg.
HTH
J.L.
by jaslan
Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:18 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Folder tracks in the mixer window?

It would be nice if folders would have this feature..

For now, you might have to create groups for your folders and remove the visibility of individual tracks...
by ggc
Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:57 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Folder tracks in the mixer window?

If you put the group of tracks you want in a folder - the folder shows in the visibility pane. Clicking the dot to the left of this folder will hide or show all the tracks at once.
by HughH
Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:50 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic