How do you cheat?

[andrushkiwt]

I use automixing functions and AI algorithms for EQ matching.

Matching to what, a reference track?

 

[JimmyS1969]

I am also curious what that means.??? Eq matching? What kind of shit would that be? How can you compare a sound to another via 'eq' and expect the same sound?

I call shenanigans there. There just is no way to make one anything sound exactly like another. If you try to do that, you have already lost the point...

Sorry JK, but I think you must have mis-spoken.

Not even sure how that made sense but I think you were just getting at maybe using presets on a plugin for a random track that worked well with a random client? That happens...

 

[Coquet-Shack]

I am also curious what that means.??? Eq matching? What kind of shit would that be? How can you compare a sound to another via 'eq' and expect the same sound?
Sorry JK, but I think you must have mis-spoken.

Depends what you use it for. The go to example would be when you've done a session (let's say guitar) on day one, come back and do another on day two and the micing means the sound is slightly different.
That's when these gizmos say you can play the first session sound and match it to the second session sound with eq making it sound as though the comped version is all one session.

Other than that, it's bells and whistles on some VSTs which I cannot think of how to use. Over to you JK (PS, JK :glad your studio survived the locks attack and the hurricane).

 

[jkuehlin]

I am also curious what that means.??? Eq matching? What kind of shit would that be? How can you compare a sound to another via 'eq' and expect the same sound?

I don't use this feature for music, but its a tremendous time saver when field recording. Say you have 3 mics on an actor. A boom, a lapel, and an ambience mic. He reads two lines. You use the first line from the lapel and it sounds fine. But during the second line his clothing rubbed against the capsule of the lapel. So you have to use the audio captured from the boom mic instead. However when you mix it, you need it to sound like one continuous line. The EQ match feature automatically reconciles the two eq curves so it sounds similar in post.

I call shenanigans there. There just is no way to make one anything sound exactly like another. If you try to do that, you have already lost the point...

It isn't to get the two mics to sound identical. Since its the same person recording the same spoken line. Or say you're doing post editing on a preacher for a religious broadcast network. Lets say there's a blast of RF interference that causes his headworn mic to bug out so you have to pull a couple lines from a nearby pulpit mic. The automated software AI can match the EQ curves of the same person speaking the same line a lot faster than a human can by hear. It won't get it to sound identical but the EQ matching can make more similar than not doing anything at all.

 

[andrushkiwt]

hmm, I don't think there are many "rules of thumb" in that type of audio recording... but still pretty cool

 

[jkuehlin]

Other than that, it's bells and whistles on some VSTs which I cannot think of how to use. Over to you JK (PS, JK :glad your studio survived the locks attack and the hurricane).

Thanks man. We did ok here

Here's another 'cheater' tool from Waves. Its their 'automixer'. Literally mixes an entire session for you. Its expensive, but its ridiculously fast and efficient. It has a several second 'lookahead' and adjusts itself according to a priority hierarchy you define at the beginning of the session. So say you want the lead vocal to be x amount of db infront of your background singers. It'll use any Waves plugin to you tell it to in order to try and contain the source to the place you tell it to. Its real popular with newscasters dealing with multiple panels of people. For a show like Jerry Springer or 'the view' where a panel of people get into unscripted shouting matches, the thing can compensate for db flux a lot faster than a human can react to the mic faders.