Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does this exist yet?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 11:21:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of what goes
into a mix, attempting to understand what makes for great arrangements,
and to apply this knowledge to my own projects.
I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts, but I was
wondering if there's a device that takes the signal of a mixed
production and dissects it into its individual instrument parts for
isolated listening.
If not, is there any recommendation for improving my ability to hear
what's going on in complicated mixes?
Thanks,
Jeff

More about : exist

Anonymous
September 12, 2005 11:47:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

straightnut wrote:
> I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of what goes
> into a mix, attempting to understand what makes for great arrangements,
> and to apply this knowledge to my own projects.
> I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts, but I was
> wondering if there's a device that takes the signal of a mixed
> production and dissects it into its individual instrument parts for
> isolated listening.

Yes, it's called a multitrack recording. You might want to look up
something which I recently saw reviewed, a DVD produced by engineer
Russ Long, entitled Russ Long's Guide to Nashville Recording. It
contains two songs, which are split into tracking, where he discusses
arrangements and mic placement, and mixing, in which he discusses
processing and balancing. A full set of audio files for the songs is
included on a second disk so you can import them into your own DAW and
practice with the same sources that are professionally mixed. One of
the songs is recorded in a full blown pro studio, the other is recorded
using just SM57 mics and a Mackie mixer. The set only costs $50. I
haven't heard or seen it, but you won't get a bunch of professional
musicians to come into your studio and sit still for a while for that
little money.

Info at http://www.audioinstruction.com
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 11:54:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SSJVCmag wrote:

> http://www.moultonlabs.com/gold.htm

Dave Moulton's Golden Ears training course is definitely a good thing,
but it's genearl ear training - you get to recognize frequencies (for
booting or cutting) and processes (reverb, delay, compression,
distortion - wanted and unwanted) and so on.

This is great generic stuff and worth while, but it doesn't illustrate
what a good drum sound or guitar sound is, or how to make a vocal
better (or worse) with compression.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 1:36:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1126534898.870035.216350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"straightnut" <straightnut@aol.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of what goes
> into a mix, attempting to understand what makes for great arrangements,
> and to apply this knowledge to my own projects.
> I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts, but I was
> wondering if there's a device that takes the signal of a mixed
> production and dissects it into its individual instrument parts for
> isolated listening.
> If not, is there any recommendation for improving my ability to hear
> what's going on in complicated mixes?
> Thanks,
> Jeff

It seems like everyone is giving you advice on training your ear
frequency-wise, but if I understand your question correctly, you want to
know how things fit together arrangement-wise.

Here's an excerpt from my book "The Mixing Engineer's Handbook" that
hopefully will help.



----------------------------
The most basic element of a mix is Balance. A great mix must start here
first for without Balance, the other mix elements pale in importance.
There¹s more to Balance than just moving some faders though, as we¹ll
see.

The Arrangement - Where It All Begins
Good balance starts with good arrangement. It¹s important to
understand arrangement since so much of mixing is subtractive by nature.
This means that the arrangement, and therefore the balance, is changed
by the simple act of muting an instrument that doesn¹t fit well with
another. If the instruments fit well together and don¹t fight one
another, then the mixer¹s life becomes immensely easier. But what
exactly does ³fighting one another² mean?

When two instruments with essentially the same frequency band play at
the same volume at the same time, the result is a fight for attention.
Think of it this way; you don¹t usually hear a lead vocal and a guitar
solo at the same time, do you? That¹s because the human ear isn¹t able
to decide which to listen to and becomes confused and fatigued as a
result.

So how do you get around instrument ³fighting²? First and foremost is a
well written arrangement which keeps instruments out of each other¹s way
right from the beginning. The best writers and arrangers have an innate
feel for what will work arrangement-wise and the result is an
arrangement that automatically lays together without much help.

But it¹s not uncommon to work with an artist or band that isn¹t sure of
the arrangement, or is into experimenting and just allows an instrument
to play throughout the entire song, thereby creating numerous conflicts.
This is where the mixer gets a chance to rearrange the track by keeping
what works and muting the conflicting instrument or instruments. Not
only can the mixer influence the arrangement this way, but also the
dynamics and general development of the song as well.

In order to understand how arrangement influences balance, we have to
understand the mechanics of a well written arrangement first.

Most well conceived arrangements are limited in the number of elements
that occur at the same time. An element can be a single instrument like
a lead guitar or a vocal, or it can be a group of instruments like the
bass and drums, a doubled guitar line, a group of backing vocals, etc.
Generally, a group of instruments playing exactly the same rhythm is
considered an element. Examples: a doubled lead guitar or doubled
vocal is a single element, as is a lead vocal with two additional
harmonies. Two lead guitars playing different parts are two elements,
however. A lead and a rhythm guitar are two separate elements as well.





Arrangement Elements
Foundation - The Rhythm Section. The foundation is usually the bass and
drums, but can also include a rhythm guitar and/or keys if they¹re
playing the same rhythmic figure as the rhythm section. Occasionally,
as in the case of power trios, the Foundation element will only consist
of drums since the bass will play a different rhythm figure and become
it¹s own element.

Pad - A Pad is a long sustaining note or chord. In the days before
synthesizers, a Hammond Organ provided the best pad and was joined later
by the Fender Rhodes. Synthesizers now provide the majority of pads but
real strings or a guitar power chord can also suffice.

Rhythm - Rhythm is any instrument that plays counter to the Foundation
element. This can be a double time shaker or tambourine, a rhythm
guitar strumming on the backbeat, or congas playing a Latin feel. The
Rhythm element is used to add motion and excitement to the track.

Lead - A lead vocal, lead instrument or solo.

Fills - Fills generally occur in the spaces between Lead lines, or can
be a signature line. You can think of a Fill element as an answer to
the Lead.





Rules for Arrangements
There are a couple of easy to remember rules that will always make even
the most dense arrangement manageable.

Limit The Number Of Elements
Usually there should not be more than 4 elements playing at the same
time. Sometimes 3 elements can work very well. Very rarely will 5
elements simultaneously work.



Kevin Killen (excerpt from an interview): I had an experience about
three years ago on a Stevie Nicks record with Glyn Johns, who's been
making records since the 50s. We were mixing without automation and he
would just push the faders up and within a minute or two he would have
this great mix. Then he would just say that he didnt like it and pull
it back down again and push it back up. I relearned that the great art
of mixing is the fact that the track will gel almost by itself if it was
well performed and reasonably well recorded. I find that the stuff that
you really have to work a lot harder on is the stuff that has been
isolated and really worked on. The tracks all end up sounding like
disparate elements and you have to find a way to make them bleed
together.



Everything In Its Own Frequency Range.
The arrangement, and therefore the mix, will fit together better if all
instruments sit in their own frequency range. For instance, if a
synthesizer and rhythm guitar play the same thing in the same octave,
they will usually clash. The solution would to either change the sound
of one of the instruments so they fill different frequency ranges, have
one play in a different octave, or have them play at different times but
not together.

(the above is where the other posters suggestions come in handy).

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
http://www.surroundassociates.com
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 9/12/05 10:21 AM, in article
1126534898.870035.216350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "straightnut"
<straightnut@aol.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of what goes
> into a mix, attempting to understand what makes for great arrangements,
> and to apply this knowledge to my own projects.
> I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts, but I was
> wondering if there's a device that takes the signal of a mixed
> production and dissects it into its individual instrument parts for
> isolated listening.
> If not, is there any recommendation for improving my ability to hear
> what's going on in complicated mixes?
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>

Yes it exists.
It is here:

http://www.moultonlabs.com/gold.htm

You have naught to do now but buy it, use it and revel in it.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SSJVCmag wrote:

> Yes it exists.
> It is here:
>
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/gold.htm

I'd be very interested to read comments on that package from anyone
who's used it.

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 5:10:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm not going to give you an alternative like everyone else, but no,
it does not exist. Vocal removal is done by removing sound within a
certain frequency range shared equally between both tracks in a stereo
mix. We can understand that we are hearing a drum, or guitar, but the
computer only sees two long and varying sine waves (or at least a lot
of binary code representing them). You thus can resonably do the
following:
Notch filter specific notes
Remove "center" elements
Remove a whole side of the mix (but seldom are instruments mixed hard
to either side)
Try to find identical samples of an instrument and inverse-phase paste
them onto the right spot.
To do what you ask requires a program with extremely high artificial
intelegence and wold likely cost more than anyone would be willing to
pay for it. Even then it would be limited to sounds that it has been
programed to understand and re-produce minus the rest of it.

On 12 Sep 2005 07:21:38 -0700, "straightnut" <straightnut@aol.com>
wrote:

>I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of what goes
>into a mix, attempting to understand what makes for great arrangements,
>and to apply this knowledge to my own projects.
>I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts, but I was
>wondering if there's a device that takes the signal of a mixed
>production and dissects it into its individual instrument parts for
>isolated listening.
>If not, is there any recommendation for improving my ability to hear
>what's going on in complicated mixes?
>Thanks,
>Jeff
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 10:39:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Great stuff guys. Very helpful. Thanks.
Jeff
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 11:08:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> To do what you ask requires a program with extremely high artificial
> intelegence and wold likely cost more than anyone would be willing to
> pay for it. Even then it would be limited to sounds that it has been
> programed to understand and re-produce minus the rest of it.
>


I see what you mean. But in a mix, as a new instrument enters and
leaves the current wash of data, couldn't it be noticed by the "Magical
Mystery Isolator" as a new event if it adds very specific frequency
boosts when it comes in and further defines itself by the same or
similar frequency cuts when it leaves? And if it can be noticed by the
device couldn't it be isolated or at least sloppily reproduced?
Thanks,
Jeff
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 11:54:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"straightnut" <straightnut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1126534898.870035.216350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

> I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of
> what goes into a mix, attempting to understand what makes
> for great arrangements, and to apply this knowledge to my
> own projects.

BTW, have you read Bobby Owsinski's book about mixing? I've
read it once, and I figure that if I read it every few
months as I keep on mixing, it will be a good help.

> I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts,
> but I was wondering if there's a device that takes the
> signal of a mixed production and dissects it into its
> individual instrument parts for isolated listening.

I think that what you are looking for is a mix in the form
of tracks that you can put together for yourself. There's
small one on the web. The full form can be purchased on a
CD.

However, what about your own work? Some place along the line
you're going to have to start getting experience making and
mixing your own tracks.

Wandering around looking for this resource, I found the
following:

http://www.looperman.com/tutorials.php

http://wiki.ehow.com/Remix

Never did find what I was looking for.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 11:55:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

straightnut wrote:

> In a mix, as a new instrument enters and
> leaves the current wash of data, couldn't it be noticed by the "Magical
> Mystery Isolator" as a new event if it adds very specific frequency
> boosts when it comes in and further defines itself by the same or
> similar frequency cuts when it leaves?

It's not all about frequencies. That would be too easy. You could at
least partially isolate a bass without too much difficulty, but when
you have guitars and trumpets and keyboards and saxes playing that all
occupy about the same fundamental frequency range, it gets a little
harder. You have to start looking at the overtones to tell one
instrument from the other (which is what we do with our ears and
brains).

There actualy is (or at least has been - not sure if it still exists) a
program called Pandora that did a better job than most of isolating
individual parts in a mix, but it was very expensive and had limited
capability and application.

> And if it can be noticed by the
> device couldn't it be isolated or at least sloppily reproduced?

I guess I don't get your application. Why reproduce something sloppily?
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 3:20:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bobby Owsinski" <polymedia@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p olymedia-9C31AC.09363512092005@nntp.charter.net...
> In article <1126534898.870035.216350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "straightnut" <straightnut@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of what goes
> > into a mix, attempting to understand what makes for great arrangements,
> > and to apply this knowledge to my own projects.
> > I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts, but I was
> > wondering if there's a device that takes the signal of a mixed
> > production and dissects it into its individual instrument parts for
> > isolated listening.
> > If not, is there any recommendation for improving my ability to hear
> > what's going on in complicated mixes?
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff
>
> It seems like everyone is giving you advice on training your ear
> frequency-wise, but if I understand your question correctly, you want to
> know how things fit together arrangement-wise.
>
> Here's an excerpt from my book "The Mixing Engineer's Handbook" that
> hopefully will help.

<snip>

Thanks, Bobby. With all this tech talk, it never hurts if one's attention is
refocused to the essential aspects of production.

Predrag
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 5:36:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> straightnut wrote:
>
> > In a mix, as a new instrument enters and
> > leaves the current wash of data, couldn't it be noticed by the "Magical
> > Mystery Isolator" as a new event if it adds very specific frequency
> > boosts when it comes in and further defines itself by the same or
> > similar frequency cuts when it leaves?
>
> It's not all about frequencies. That would be too easy. You could at
> least partially isolate a bass without too much difficulty, but when
> you have guitars and trumpets and keyboards and saxes playing that all
> occupy about the same fundamental frequency range, it gets a little
> harder. You have to start looking at the overtones to tell one
> instrument from the other (which is what we do with our ears and
> brains).
>
> There actualy is (or at least has been - not sure if it still exists) a
> program called Pandora that did a better job than most of isolating
> individual parts in a mix, but it was very expensive and had limited
> capability and application.
>
> > And if it can be noticed by the
> > device couldn't it be isolated or at least sloppily reproduced?
>
> I guess I don't get your application. Why reproduce something sloppily?

I think I get it now. As for reproducing sloppily, it was just to see
if the task could be done, and then perhaps improved upon in the years
to come. Thanks,
Jeff
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

straightnut wrote:

> But in a mix, as a new instrument enters and
> leaves the current wash of data, couldn't it be noticed by the "Magical
> Mystery Isolator" as a new event if it adds very specific frequency
> boosts when it comes in and further defines itself by the same or
> similar frequency cuts when it leaves?

If it was a burst of sound whose spectral content didn't change, i.e.
the instrument only plays one note and doesn't have any starting
transient or decay....

You really wouldn't gain any useful for your purpose by attempting to
refine this approach further. The ear training suggestions look far more
useful. (I'm tempted myself)

Anahata
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:34:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

there are some novel techniques that can separate sources to a reasonable
extent,
for example the techniques described here
http://www.csp-audio.com/vocalremoval_article.htm


"straightnut" <straightnut@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:1126534898.870035.216350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to train my ear to hear as much as possible of what goes
> into a mix, attempting to understand what makes for great arrangements,
> and to apply this knowledge to my own projects.
> I've seen devices that remove vocals and guitar parts, but I was
> wondering if there's a device that takes the signal of a mixed
> production and dissects it into its individual instrument parts for
> isolated listening.
> If not, is there any recommendation for improving my ability to hear
> what's going on in complicated mixes?
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:21:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Z4WdneeinILoI7veRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> "straightnut" <straightnut@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1126534898.870035.216350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>
> I think that what you are looking for is a mix in the form
> of tracks that you can put together for yourself. There's
> small one on the web. The full form can be purchased on a
> CD.

Hey Arny-

Any clue on a source for this, it sounds interesting. A name, perhaps, or a
website? I'm imagining if you had it you would have referenced it in the
original post, but I thought I'd ask.

Kendall
!