You are here
Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
42 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
Have I successfully scared everyone into stupefaction?! :lol:
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
We're cogitating...
Or waiting until we're at a screen where we can zoom in enough on the screen shots to see what's actually going on! :)
Or waiting until we're at a screen where we can zoom in enough on the screen shots to see what's actually going on! :)
-
blinddrew - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 8448
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
- Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
As clear as Brexit so far.
-
Wonks - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 10100
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Reading, UK
Correcting mistakes on the internet since 1853
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
Possibly because you've posted two pictures of a low pass filter, when you wanted one low pass, one band pass and one high-pass filter.
-
Wonks - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 10100
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Reading, UK
Correcting mistakes on the internet since 1853
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
And without being able to see where the outputs of the channels are being sent to (I can see where aux sends are going) it's impossible to work out the full routing path.
-
Wonks - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 10100
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Reading, UK
Correcting mistakes on the internet since 1853
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
Nope - it's correct as shown. It's all about polarity and routing. Take another look!Wonks wrote:Possibly because you've posted two pictures of a low pass filter, when you wanted one low pass, one band pass and one high-pass filter.
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
It's all there - top of the channels.Wonks wrote:And without being able to see where the outputs of the channels are being sent to (I can see where aux sends are going) it's impossible to work out the full routing path.
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
No, not getting it. And the second photo shows the audio has already come from a high pass filter, so it is effectively a band-pass filter for the mids.
I know you know what you're doing, but it's not as easy to let us know what you are doing.
I know you know what you're doing, but it's not as easy to let us know what you are doing.
-
Wonks - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 10100
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Reading, UK
Correcting mistakes on the internet since 1853
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
The Elf wrote:It's all there - top of the channels.Wonks wrote:And without being able to see where the outputs of the channels are being sent to (I can see where aux sends are going) it's impossible to work out the full routing path.
:thumbup: missed that - all rather small.
-
Wonks - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 10100
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Reading, UK
Correcting mistakes on the internet since 1853
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
OK...
What is happening is this:
The original audio is split, using sends, to three 'Mult' channels, each containing a filter. The original channel has no output destination (though it could be routed to its inversion channel, I suppose - more on that later).
'Mult Lo' gets a LPF that limits it to frequencies below 200Hz.
'Mult Md' gets a LPF that limits it to frequencies below 2kHz.
'Mult Hi' gets a instance of the same filter, but I don't switch on any processing in there - it's simply to ensure that any oddities of the plug-in (delays, distortions, etc) are present in each band. Strictly speaking it needn't be there.
'Mult Lo' is sent to a channel where it is inverted in polarity and this inverted version sent to 'Mult Md' and 'Mult Hi'. This cleanly removes anything below that set 200Hz frequency from both the 'Mult Hi' and Mult Md' channels.
'Mult Md' is sent to a channel where it is inverted in polarity and this inverted version sent to 'Mult Hi'. This cleanly removes anything below that set 2kHz frequency from the 'Mult Hi' channel.
(The inverted channels are not routed to an output, as I only need them for their sends).
Essentially the splitting job is now done. I now route the three 'Mult' channels to corresponding 'Process' channels, where I can do whatever I want to each band - trim, compress, expand... anything.
The last channel on the right is simply an inverted version of the original source. Un-muting this should give an absolute null at the stereo output - proving that no artefacts are being created by the splitting process - and it does do just that.
The whole point of this is to avoid using LPF, Band and HPF filters, since these create anomalies at their cross-overs. My method nulls all such anomalies.
Hope that begins to make sense! :)
What is happening is this:
The original audio is split, using sends, to three 'Mult' channels, each containing a filter. The original channel has no output destination (though it could be routed to its inversion channel, I suppose - more on that later).
'Mult Lo' gets a LPF that limits it to frequencies below 200Hz.
'Mult Md' gets a LPF that limits it to frequencies below 2kHz.
'Mult Hi' gets a instance of the same filter, but I don't switch on any processing in there - it's simply to ensure that any oddities of the plug-in (delays, distortions, etc) are present in each band. Strictly speaking it needn't be there.
'Mult Lo' is sent to a channel where it is inverted in polarity and this inverted version sent to 'Mult Md' and 'Mult Hi'. This cleanly removes anything below that set 200Hz frequency from both the 'Mult Hi' and Mult Md' channels.
'Mult Md' is sent to a channel where it is inverted in polarity and this inverted version sent to 'Mult Hi'. This cleanly removes anything below that set 2kHz frequency from the 'Mult Hi' channel.
(The inverted channels are not routed to an output, as I only need them for their sends).
Essentially the splitting job is now done. I now route the three 'Mult' channels to corresponding 'Process' channels, where I can do whatever I want to each band - trim, compress, expand... anything.
The last channel on the right is simply an inverted version of the original source. Un-muting this should give an absolute null at the stereo output - proving that no artefacts are being created by the splitting process - and it does do just that.
The whole point of this is to avoid using LPF, Band and HPF filters, since these create anomalies at their cross-overs. My method nulls all such anomalies.
Hope that begins to make sense! :)
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
Aha, it all makes sense now. :)
-
blinddrew - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 8448
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
- Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
I've done a block diagram which might be helpful to reveal what's going on:
-
Hugh Robjohns - Moderator
- Posts: 24977
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
I obviously need to quit my day job.
-
Watchmaker - Frequent Poster
- Posts: 649
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:00 am
- Location: Upstate NY, USA
Take my advice, I'm not using it.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
...which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Hugh is far cleverer than me! :lol:Hugh Robjohns wrote:I've done a block diagram which might be helpful to reveal what's going on...
Nicely summed up! :thumbup: :clap:
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
:blush: It's only a diagram! I think seeing the signal flow is often easier to understand than the words...
The hard part was trying to work out what was going on from your Cubase screen-grab. I should have waited until you'd written your description! :D
This idea of subtractive filtering is actually used more commonly than it might seem, and does have useful benefits when it comes to seamless integration through the cross-over regions, as you have explained.
H
The hard part was trying to work out what was going on from your Cubase screen-grab. I should have waited until you'd written your description! :D
This idea of subtractive filtering is actually used more commonly than it might seem, and does have useful benefits when it comes to seamless integration through the cross-over regions, as you have explained.
H
-
Hugh Robjohns - Moderator
- Posts: 24977
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Worcestershire, UK
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
OK, Ive worked out what's going on but:
This system uses two LPFs. These will still impart their 'artefacts' to the resulting audio signals around the crossover point.
With no extra processing, the artefacts from the LPF cancel out because of the various inversions and recombinations once the three signals are re-combined. But they are still there within in the three process mults. It's only when recombined without further processing that everything cancels out.
But any signal boosting or cutting that affects the 200Hz and 2000Hz areas on one of the mult tracks will not allow full cancellation, so those artefacts then come through; albeit at the level of the boost/cut. So any level alteration would let some artefacts through that could cause slight interaction with the mult above or below once the three mults are recombined.
So with processing on the mults, then filter interaction caused by the band splitting is then significantly minimised (rather than completely eradicated), and it only occurs at two points in the audio spectrum (rather than at the four points that would exist if a LP filter, BP filter and HP filter were used instead to create the mults).
And relax.
The Elf wrote:The whole point of this is to avoid using LPF, Band and HPF filters, since these create anomalies at their cross-overs. My method nulls all such anomalies.
This system uses two LPFs. These will still impart their 'artefacts' to the resulting audio signals around the crossover point.
With no extra processing, the artefacts from the LPF cancel out because of the various inversions and recombinations once the three signals are re-combined. But they are still there within in the three process mults. It's only when recombined without further processing that everything cancels out.
But any signal boosting or cutting that affects the 200Hz and 2000Hz areas on one of the mult tracks will not allow full cancellation, so those artefacts then come through; albeit at the level of the boost/cut. So any level alteration would let some artefacts through that could cause slight interaction with the mult above or below once the three mults are recombined.
So with processing on the mults, then filter interaction caused by the band splitting is then significantly minimised (rather than completely eradicated), and it only occurs at two points in the audio spectrum (rather than at the four points that would exist if a LP filter, BP filter and HP filter were used instead to create the mults).
And relax.
-
Wonks - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 10100
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Reading, UK
Correcting mistakes on the internet since 1853
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
Any artefacts will have *some* effect as soon as you move away from the unity/zero processing position, but better that than have the audio compromised before you've even moved a control. I'd argue that this is better!
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
I didn't say it wasn't! I was just trying to get a fuller understanding of how it worked.
-
Wonks - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 10100
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
- Location: Reading, UK
Correcting mistakes on the internet since 1853
Re: Giving vocals a consistent volume through the mix
There's no reason why this technique can't be expanded into more frequency bands. You can use whatever filters that take your fancy, change slopes, crossover frequencies, etc. You effectively have your own completely customisable multi-band processor.
Another advantage I hadn't considered until now is that by un-muting the 'Inverted Original' channel you get a hint at what your processing is doing, since anything you hear is the difference between the original audio and your processing.
When I use this for 'mastering' I hide all of the mult and inversion channels to allow me to concentrate on the important stuff.
I've found polarity tricks quite useful in many situations. Recently I used some keyboard parts in opposite polarity to remove the same parts from a mix file where the original tracks without keyboard were not available.
Just realising that this hijack should probably have its own thread! Admins, feel free...
Another advantage I hadn't considered until now is that by un-muting the 'Inverted Original' channel you get a hint at what your processing is doing, since anything you hear is the difference between the original audio and your processing.
When I use this for 'mastering' I hide all of the mult and inversion channels to allow me to concentrate on the important stuff.
I've found polarity tricks quite useful in many situations. Recently I used some keyboard parts in opposite polarity to remove the same parts from a mix file where the original tracks without keyboard were not available.
Just realising that this hijack should probably have its own thread! Admins, feel free...
-
The Elf - Jedi Poster
- Posts: 13033
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Kwackman