editing

[thug lord]

can anyone tell me if there is a program out there that can take the vocals out of the songs r mute the curse words without delete the music. for example make an edited version of a cd that have curse words.

[tourettes5139]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
















Sorry about that, it seems like I have answered this question five times in the last week. Just in case you didn't get it, no.

Well there is something that "supposedly" removes them, but it just tries to cancel out everything that is center panned, but it just makes everything sound horrible, and that would not work if you just did it for a few words here and there. It would physically hurt.

[modson]

YES! If you're using a digital system then you could just automate it! i.e. drop the volume for the sweasring to zero and back up again immediately afterwards - Very easy to do on Pro tools not sure about other DAW's

[Blue Bear Sound]

Uh... no....

You can't UNMIX a song any more than you can separate a cake back into flour, eggs, water, and milk after it's been baked......

[LRosario]

Great, the cake speech again.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Blue Bear Sound

Uh... no....

You can't UNMIX a song any more than you can separate a cake back into flour, eggs, water, and milk after it's been baked......

I was speaking to a producer who mentioned that there's a physicist who created software that will allow you to separate tracks from a stereo mix. Sorry but I don't have the details on this. He mentioned that it took several computers (tons of processing power) and his proprietary software to do it. He also wouldn't let anyone use it or even look at it :-)

I suppose anything is possible. But for us mortals I would just select the offending words and either reverse the audio, or bleep it. Beyond that remix a "clean" and "unclean" version. Using those vocal eliminating tools will more than likely cause more damage to the audio than it's worth.

[corban]

The answer to your question primarily depends on whether you have access to the original tracks.

[modson]

Originally Posted by corban

The answer to your question primarily depends on whether you have access to the original tracks.

Sorry, i think i misunderstood! i thought you had the masters!

[Blue Bear Sound]

Originally Posted by LRosario

Great, the cake speech again.

And your point is?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

I was speaking to a producer who mentioned that there's a physicist who created software that will allow you to separate tracks from a stereo mix.

Just for the sake of conversation, I find this story this guy gave you a bit on the dubious side. I could be wrong, but I get the impression that asking the computer to dissemble a final mix is similar in complexity to asking a computer to look at the position of the balls on a billiard table and then construct a movie that plays backwards to roll the balls back into their original position. Without knowledge of the actual original position, it's impossible.

Even with knowlede of the original position it's still impossible in the case of the pool balls. In the music mix problem, knowledge of the original tracks makes the problem entirely unnecessary.

G.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Just for the sake of conversation, I find this story this guy gave you a bit on the dubious side. I could be wrong, but I get the impression that asking the computer to dissemble a final mix is similar in complexity to asking a computer to look at the position of the balls on a billiard table and then construct a movie that plays backwards to roll the balls back into their original position. Without knowledge of the actual original position, it's impossible.

Even with knowlede of the original position it's still impossible in the case of the pool balls. In the music mix problem, knowledge of the original tracks makes the problem entirely unnecessary.

G.

G., by "separate the tracks" I'm sure he meant separate the instruments, vocals, etc. not recreate the original virgin tracks.

[peopleperson]

No, it's totally possible. You can do it with an Alesis 3630 compressor, USB to midi converter, and a snickers bar.

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

G., by "separate the tracks" I'm sure he meant separate the instruments, vocals, etc. not recreate the original virgin tracks.

Yeah, I suppose it comes down to the working definition of "separate". If there were 100% seperation, then one would be talking about the original tracks (including whatever individual processing like EQ or verb were added to them, of course.).

I guess the question is if the amount of seperation is less than 100%, then what is the "magic number" where one would call them "seperated" or not. If you wind up with a "track" that contains the electric guitar, but still consists of 25% "distortion" (i.e. information not part of the original track) caused by intermodulation with the piano, are those instruments "seperated"?

Not arguing anything here, just find it an interesting topic to consider.

G.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Yeah, I suppose it comes down to the working definition of "separate". If there were 100% seperation, then one would be talking about the original tracks (including whatever individual processing like EQ or verb were added to them, of course.).

Not arguing anything here, just find it an interesting topic to consider.

G.

G. no arguing here either.

I would assume that there is always going to be some sort of distortion when extracting a track from a two track mix over the original, and "in theory" might only be used if a remix was impossible and having the individual tracks from an extraction/remixing is going to be better than working from the stereo mix.

This might also be a good argument for saving mixes as stems along with a stereo mix.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

This might also be a good argument for saving mixes as stems along with a stereo mix.

I'd take that even further. In these digital days where expense and size of tapes is not the issue that it was, I see little reason not to keep all files from original trackings (optionally including alternate takes) to the DAW software project/session mix files. When you can store a typical 3-minute, 20-track song on a single CD or full tracking and mix files for 200 songs on a single 120GB HD (and that's all before losless Zip-style compression for storage purposes), I see no non-rights-related reason not to hold on to everything for a sufficient period of time.

G.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

I'd take that even further. In these digital days where expense and size of tapes is not the issue that it was, I see little reason not to keep all files from original trackings (optionally including alternate takes) to the DAW software project/session mix files. When you can store a typical 3-minute, 20-track song on a single CD or full tracking and mix files for 200 songs on a single 120GB HD (and that's all before losless Zip-style compression for storage purposes), I see no non-rights-related reason not to hold on to everything for a sufficient period of time.

G.

True Glen. The cost of a 120GB HD is about the cost of one 2" reel. Clients should consider buying a drive before the session in order to keep it for archival and possible remixes.

The only issue I see is different session formats. If recording using say SAW or Nuendo, it becomes difficult to later import these sessions into Pro Tools or other software.

If you want to bounce all of the tracks down so that they are one continuous file for import later, that's probably a cost the client doesn't want to go through. Also you have issues with incompatible plug-ins, automation, etc.

Having stems takes care of the above if effects are printed along with the track.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

The only issue I see is different session formats. If recording using say SAW or Nuendo, it becomes difficult to later import these sessions into Pro Tools or other software.

Also you have issues with incompatible plug-ins, automation, etc.

Having stems takes care of the above if effects are printed along with the track.

Yeah, that's a good point.

I should have included stems in my description of "all files". You include 3 3-minute stereo stems, that's only another ~180MB or so (or less than 20% additional) you're adding to the non-compressed archive size. A not-insignifigant amount, but certainly worthwhile.

G.