brconflict


I recommend just pulling down each sub-mix fader until the Master buss shows no overs. Solo each submix buss and find the one that kicks the overs in the Master buss. Leave the Master Fader at zero.

Typically this is what I might have done, but I didn't like what the mastering was doing because of 3 somewhat odd peaks...


I addressed a number of issues that have moved those and gained another 1.5 db of headroom and a smooth mix to use for masking now... I'm getting close. This has been a tough critter for me in a number of ways and finding satisfaction with the mix/mastering swells with the completion's approach... In a few minutes I will listen to my last work from last night/this morning's session... I may be there!   .....?


;-)


Keni

Keni

Jay Tee 4303


Flanged vocals take a powder in mono? Hmmm.

Overs on the same track?

I'm using an extreme situation with no original vocal. 100% flange... So I was guessing that it might be phase cancellation of some kind...


Funny, as I reduce the width, the vocal level needs to come up quite a bit to be as apparent. So again I'm guessing some issues... But as most of my critiques of the current mixes for this song a that the vocals a too low... This seems to change the situation as I felt they needed to be louder as their width was reduced...?


The overs I was having was when I applied then CL to this piece's master... Something I rarely do.... And I'm not doing it here... I've already solved the peak issues in another way and removed the master's limiter....

Keni

Not just cancellation...summation too... perhaps quick enough to get past the attack of your dynamics pro...just a thought. Understand you fixed it, but sup w CL is still a q, right?

Jay Tee 4303

Keni

Jay Tee 4303


Flanged vocals take a powder in mono? Hmmm.

Overs on the same track?

I'm using an extreme situation with no original vocal. 100% flange... So I was guessing that it might be phase cancellation of some kind...


Funny, as I reduce the width, the vocal level needs to come up quite a bit to be as apparent. So again I'm guessing some issues... But as most of my critiques of the current mixes for this song a that the vocals a too low... This seems to change the situation as I felt they needed to be louder as their width was reduced...?


The overs I was having was when I applied then CL to this piece's master... Something I rarely do.... And I'm not doing it here... I've already solved the peak issues in another way and removed the master's limiter....

Keni

Not just cancellation...summation too... perhaps quick enough to get past the attack of your dynamics pro...just a thought. Understand you fixed it, but sup w CL is still a q, right?

Hi Jay Tee 4303...

Thanks and yes... You nailed it!

I knew when I posted that I'd fix the issues one way or another... I've been doing this a long time and I always "find a way"... ;-)

But the issue with CL not catching the peaks as a brickwall is expected to? That remains an issue that I don't understand. I use it to successfully do this in mastering, so why in this other situation is it not catching those peaks? I may never know...? ;-)

...and then there's my confusion as to why it should behave differently pre/post an empty fx bin? I see that others have confirmed this but so far here I had the same problem either way.... and rightfully so. The empty fx bin should be no more than an insert point with line level at each end....

Keni

"No original vocal...100% flange" could be taken more than one way.

At one extreme, simple time domain alterations, stretching and shortening the original signal, discarding all original so there's no audible phase interaction, just the time domain element.

Other extreme, 100% wet output, with comb filtering, cancellation and summation.

Either way, if any two samples purely sum...the potential over could be as short as the sample rate.

There's a limit to what popular spec A's can show, but it is theoretically possible you have the waveform that will tell us all what the effective attack in CL is, or at least one endpoint on the spectrum of possibility.

Before you dig into any of that...this also may have absolutely nothing to do with your overs or CLs attack. It's also possible the release rate is the culprit but flanging and modelling being what they are, my guess is "attack" or "other".
 
(Typo)

Hi JT...

Yes... I'm thinking that as the CL has set attack parameters (probably not quite "auto", eh?) and thus can miss signals that exhibit this...?

it's interesting that I haven't had any problems using it in mastering.... yet? ;-)

As to the flange? 100% wet is the reality and probably a better way of describing it. I have directed the output of these 4 vocal tracks to a bus as summation point and there I've inserted the flanger 100% wet... Followed by a CA2a, QuadEQ rolling off some bottom and enunciating some mids for lyric clarity... and lastly to a (bus) Console Emulator...

This signal is then passed to my Vocal bus where it sums with my background vocals and vocal reverb return (harmonies are actually being processed with the Octave lead vocal to make them as prominent as lead)...

Keni