The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 01-09-2022, 06:49 PM
Chipotle Chipotle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
I'm not sure what the state of DAWs like Audacity and Reaper are when it comes to stuff like this, either. Maybe still an issue?
Can't speak to Audacity but Reaper certainly does have plugin latency compensation.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-09-2022, 07:06 PM
Bob Womack's Avatar
Bob Womack Bob Womack is online now
Guitar Gourmet
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Between Clever and Stupid
Posts: 24,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
Yeah, I should have said "most modern" DAWs. It's pretty amazing to think back on how many features we take for granted today didn't exist not that long ago. That may be where some of these warnings Victor's reading about come from, "historical" (as in a few years ago) issues. I'm not sure what the state of DAWs like Audacity and Reaper are when it comes to stuff like this, either. Maybe still an issue?
Oh, I didn't mean it as a correction. I was just musing and thinking of the history of that feature. I don't know which of the Pro-sumer DAWs have it.

Bob
__________________
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' "
Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring

THE MUSICIAN'S ROOM
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2022, 09:39 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 16,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack View Post
Believe it or not, this was not always the case. My company got in on the ground floor of DAWs. At that time, only one DAW of all of them, Neundo, had built latency compensation into their architecture. ProTools went YEARS without that, and the panning of stereo mixes "in the box" would "fold up" and become more and more mono as you added processing due to phase issues. Pros ran multiple outputs to a console and mixed with the automation on the console, as if ProTools was just a big, complicated multitrack. Eventually, ProTools chose a point to re-tool from the ground up, include latency compensation, and declare that they would no longer be backwards compatible.

And that is why my company chose to go with Nuendo way back in 2001, as I remember. That and superior video handling at the time when we invested. Of course, ProTools grew up and became the largest pro platform on the planet.

Bob
Interesting, early on in 2003, I took a Pro Tools workshop offered by one of the designers of the Digi 002 (a PT proprietary - mini console if you will, 8 channels )
He said that the former Apple employees who founded the company that would become DigiDesign and Pro Tools had also been recording engineers and designed it, as you say to function as a digital version of a multi track tape machine, and then eventually formatted the PT mixer GUI to approximate a generic large format console
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/user/KevWind1/videos

System :
Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2021.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,,128GB 2666MHz DDR4 RAM,,2TB SSD storage,Radeon Pro 5700 XT16GB Catalina 10.15.7
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-10-2022, 01:05 PM
Knives&Guitars Knives&Guitars is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post

#3 in a parallel processing configuration,, the signal coming from the outputs of the audio tracks are 100% dry going to the main outs and retain all the transient attack of the dry recorded signal ,, which is then added to (and is in addition to) the processed signal coming from the output of the parallel track (and from which the transients will be more diffuse because of the processing ). Which is why many engineers prefer parallel especially for time domain processing like Reverb,,and do not put reverb directly on the audio track's especially with multi track productions.
Most Excellent explanation KevWind. It is not always that easy to describe functions via the written word. You have done well.
Thanks to you, I almost have my head wrapped around this concept. I was confused because in the final mix, you are still blending the two signals together either way.
But Now I am starting to see that One is Blended side by side aka, Parallel? And the other is blended by Running it through in succession, aka Series?
And that is the reason for loss of transients. In series you are running it through it and thus weakening the transients? " A series circuit comprises a path along which the whole current flows through each component..
Ah, it is becoming clear now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
The difference became readily apparent when I was talking on line classes at Berklee. We had a 35 to 40 raw recorded tracks of a rock production we were supposed to mix. And for time domain FX (both reverb and delay) we were instructed to experiment with both directly on the tracks and in parallel. What was a stark contrast was that all (everybody in the class) the sessions with directly on the tracks all sounded like mush , compared to the sessions where we used parallel
And this supports your Statement about losing transients. Quite fascinating.
Yes, previously to my Daw, I only knew of the send and return methods via consoles. In the send and return method you are running it through the channel via series? Right?
And now you are actually having me think more on this subject matter as to Why I like some of the reverb on Vocals so much from back in the day. Maybe on Vocals loosing some transients with Plates, may not be such a bad thing? Never would want to loose transients on Acoustic Guitar though...no, no...love my transients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack View Post
We are blending some concepts and terms here and it can cause confusion.

The two basic methods of effect feeding are insert or send/return.
The Insert method inserts effects into a channel or bus via an insert point that contains an insert out that breaks out the channel's signal and allows it to be sent to the effect and then allows the effect's output to be inserted into the channel at the same point in the channel. Blending of the effect and clean signals happens within the effect module (aka plugin).
The Send/Return method designates a effects bus and a return channel. The channel signal is sent to the effects bus and that bus feeds the effects device (aka plugin). The output of the effects device's unmixed effect is returned to the mix via a return channel and blended into the mix via a fader.

Where the heck did all this come from? Originally, all effects had no ability to blend clean and effected signal within them. Chambers, tape delays, plates, gold foils, and the original digital delays (such as the Lexicon Delta T) had no blending capability and were extremely expensive. As a result, a send/return scheme on the console was necessary to blend them with a clean signal.

Notes: If you decide to send/return to an effect (plugin) you need to set the effects module's master blend control to 100% effected or sending will alter the channel's level in the mix. Surprises will ensue.
Parallel effects such as parallel compression can only be accomplished via a send/return scheme BUT that scheme can be accomplished via the console OR, if the effects device (plugin) has facilities for it, within the effects device itself as an insert.
Bob
Bob you have such a great wealth of knowledge in all areas recording, However I especially enjoy your historical recording knowledge.
Can you tell me what years did the practice of Actual Bussing in consoles come into play? Where it became common practice to buss -Parallel a reverb?
I have an old console from the 80's,(that I do not use..just sitting around) It has Pre Send & Returns, and Post Send & Returns for each channel. I suppose it was possible to send out from either the pre or post fader send to another channel Pre fader in for bussing of reverb?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack View Post
At that time, only one DAW of all of them, Neundo, had built latency compensation into their architecture. ProTools went YEARS without that, and the panning of stereo mixes "in the box" would "fold up" and become more and more mono as you added processing due to phase issues. Pros ran multiple outputs to a console and mixed with the automation on the console, as if ProTools was just a big, complicated multitrack. Eventually, ProTools chose a point to re-tool from the ground up, include latency compensation, and declare that they would no longer be backwards compatible.
Bob
You have me thinking on this one...as I am hearing an issue in my DAW right now. Probably not related. But my Daw is a very Old Version of Logix ProX.
When ( what years) did the DAWS becomes savvy in this area of latency with bussing?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-10-2022, 02:31 PM
Bob Womack's Avatar
Bob Womack Bob Womack is online now
Guitar Gourmet
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Between Clever and Stupid
Posts: 24,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars View Post
Bob you have such a great wealth of knowledge in all areas recording, However I especially enjoy your historical recording knowledge.
Can you tell me what years did the practice of Actual Bussing in consoles come into play? Where it became common practice to buss -Parallel a reverb?
The busing business got started much earlier on a small scale but in the early '70s we started to get into extensive multitrack busing. Old API consoles were split, with mic inputs on one side and multitrack return monitor channels on the other. There was a separate return section for reverb, etc as well. By the mid '70s Neve had integrated that into inline channels. They were using their auxiliary channels as multitrack buses but had direct outs that could go to and be patched to the multitrack.
Quote:
I have an old console from the 80's,(that I do not use..just sitting around) It has Pre Send & Returns, and Post Send & Returns for each channel. I suppose it was possible to send out from either the pre or post fader send to another channel Pre fader in for bussing of reverb?
The 1980 Tascam Model 3 I bought for my small studio business had inserts plus aux sends on each channel that could be switched pre or post fader. It also had four bus sends and directs as well. It also had a separate reverb return.
Quote:
You have me thinking on this one...as I am hearing an issue in my DAW right now. Probably not related. But my Daw is a very Old Version of Logix ProX. When ( what years) did the DAWS becomes savvy in this area of latency with bussing?
Nuendo had it from the beginning in 2000. I seem to remember ProTools adding it in 2007? Prosumer followed a few years later.

Bob
__________________
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' "
Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring

THE MUSICIAN'S ROOM
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=