"Multistream/layered" digital recordings - EQ analogy

[pavuol]

[disclaimer: I never owned a DVD or blueray player, I am more into pure audio stuff than video/hometheater, being 95% of time on headphones]

I sometimes wonder, if this idea was already realized in some format, maybe I missed it due to forementioned.
Say you have a digital recording which was captured using separate mics for each "instrument" (including voice). Listener has ability to adjust volume level of each stream according to his preference (1) or in order to "analyze" it (2).
1. For example I enjoy very much cymbals - and consequently the "out of box" sound profile of many Beyer Dynamic headphones which tend to accentuate the frequency region cymbals reside (but of course in a headphone sound profile based simple on FR you get the "full package" of sounds from that frequency region).
2. Or I mentioned in another thread that I love songs featuring 3 guitars (in addition to bass guitar). Sometimes they are intentionally "positioned" in the mixing process to be distinguishable in regard to stereo channels but there are also titles in which they are so mixed up it is almost "mindf**k" In these cases I would appreciate to have a possibility to filter them "one by one" to have an easy analytic listen
Wouldn't it be beatiful if instead of pursuing huge sized "high-res" releases (with no real benefit for majority missing "bat genes") the possibility of current technology (streaming and storage of large files) is used for something more reasonable, like I outlined?

Imagine this interface you have accesible in your smartphone, in your DAP, in TV/video player, standardized and with a set of available "layers" depending on particular recording - all this embedded within a single data file, like "Lady Gaga - Audiophile anthem.msr":

[you may find a multi-mic setup for drum kit an "overkill", if so, just imagine another set of "layers".]

 

[Blumlein 88]

I sort of like the thinking, but with most modern music it really isn't workable that way. Even though I posted thoughts along similar lines previously.

Lady Gaga's a good example. Her albums are so heavily processed even if you had the various things to control levels, it would be pretty much hopeless for you to get a good result with it. And while some people like myself might make the effort and time, the overwhelming majority of the audience isn't going to be bothered.

Many modern studios would consider 9-11 microphones the minimum to do an okay job on the drum kit. So you are going to mix those after the fact. The production by the way will have processed those 11 channels extensively well before it gets into a final mix. It is just something you can't unravel and make better at the end.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Here is a Pro Tools screen for an early Lady Gaga song which is mostly about the vocal on that one song.
You can read about it here:
https://www.soundonsound.com/people/secrets-mix-engineers-robert-orton

This is the final mix btw. Which started with the rough mix which was done by another person over months. Most of the vocals here were layered and composed of 25 vocal tracks (this just for Gaga's part). I think the article mentions 122 total tracks made up this one song. Then you can read in the article the numerous other complex layers of processing done in this final mix of the rough mix. And this was 11 years ago. Don't think they've simplified doing these things in the mean time.

Your idea of selecting layers to suit is good, but a bit naive. By the time you get hold of something it is just hopeless.

Oh, and after this final mix someone will do some mastering.

I personally think much of this is not just useless, but rather detrimental to music. But what I think doesn't matter this is the sausage factory for modern recording and it isn't going back to a simpler direction.

 

[pavuol]

Yes, I am naive dreamer Lady Gaga was more like an "utopia" example for this feature to be "mainstream" available.
I have no wisdom about recording/mixing current pop music but I can imagine it is far from trivial.

So, maybe more like have it available for a niche audience like with high-res DSD/flac releases today... Say, for live acoustic sessions/gigs?

 

[Soniclife]

Here is a Pro Tools screen for an early Lady Gaga song which is mostly about the vocal on that one song.
You can read about it here:
https://www.soundonsound.com/people/secrets-mix-engineers-robert-orton
View attachment 89476

This is the final mix btw. Which started with the rough mix which was done by another person over months. Most of the vocals here were layered and composed of 25 vocal tracks (this just for Gaga's part). I think the article mentions 122 total tracks made up this one song. Then you can read in the article the numerous other complex layers of processing done in this final mix of the rough mix. And this was 11 years ago. Don't think they've simplified doing these things in the mean time.

Your idea of selecting layers to suit is good, but a bit naive. By the time you get hold of something it is just hopeless.

Oh, and after this final mix someone will do some mastering.

I personally think much of this is not just useless, but rather detrimental to music. But what I think doesn't matter this is the sausage factory for modern recording and it isn't going back to a simpler direction.

I love the idea of the full DAW project files being released so that other people could create new versions of popular music, if all you had to do was download some form of metadata that described the final mix from the raw tracks it would be fascinating to hear the results. Things like the following show how much is buried in the final result.

Not that any of this will ever happen.

 

[pavuol]

Not that any of this will ever happen.

I don't know what is the meaning of the lyrics as a whole but like she sings at 1:04 "And you've just had some kind of mushroom" ...yeah, I have to be careful with them next time

 

[Soniclife]

I don't know what is the meaning of the lyrics as a whole but like she sings at 1:04 "And you've just had some kind of mushroom" ...yeah, I have to be careful with them next time

My comment was about the release of DAW files, not the lyrics, but I've got the rest of my unbirthday to now.

 

[pavuol]

My comment was about the release of DAW files, not the lyrics, but I've got the rest of my unbirthday to now.

I understood, I just ripped part of the lyrics out of context to conclude the whole idea will probably remain in my/our imagination only.

 

[maverickronin]

I personally think much of this is not just useless, but rather detrimental to music. But what I think doesn't matter this is the sausage factory for modern recording and it isn't going back to a simpler direction.

I don't really understand this line of thought.

Not doing this is basically the equivalent of shooting a movie like a play.

 

[AnalogSteph]

I don't really understand this line of thought.

Not doing this is basically the equivalent of shooting a movie like a play.

But does it benefit the music and the listener in a meaningful way? Sometimes you want a movie, sometimes all you need is a vlog. Going all cinematic on a vlog won't make it better in any way, in fact just shooting it on an iPhone or a GoPro would make it feel substantially more authentic. Some music in the '70s did need strings slathered all over it, and some actually rather didn't...

I am sure all the studio trickery does have its purpose. But sometimes it's like taking the car when you could literally just walk over (a very American thing to do, apparently - creatures of habit and all), or gold-plating a turd. First you're adding tons of intricacies, and then the result is compressed to hell and back and turned to mush - "sausage factory" seems very fitting indeed.

I won't be one bit surprised if a lot of this work ultimately just serves to justify the expense. It's a bit like buying fancy DACs when you don't actually need one but have the money - you don't actually get any audible benefit but appreciate the engineering excellence. Or maybe just what you think it is based on a good story and fancy looks / materials, and then the thing turns out to measure thoroughly mediocre (though still likely transparent)...

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't really understand this line of thought.

Not doing this is basically the equivalent of shooting a movie like a play.

There are many ways to record from a nearly documentary style to something created in your imagination.

The great majority of music will be better enjoyed at home if a little tasteful compression and reverb is done. One can even do much more.

However, currently first off there way, way too much compression. To the point it ruins things. Ditto with over-processing which doesn't result in a better sound to me. I'd need pages to just begin on the types of processing in nearly all currently recorded music. It more often than not is too much.

Adele is a favorite example. Her voice is very nice and so are at least some number of her songs. Her last two or maybe even three albums are in my opinion a crime against humanity so disastrously processed you can't even try to enjoy her fine voice. The trend is to just process everything to the nth degree. Sometimes that can be creative, but often it isn't helping. Adele's voice is a case of it needing very little processing, and doing very much is not beneficial. They clutter up her arrangements because they can't stand to leave it alone with just a bit of processing, and then they have to process the heck out of her voice so you can hear it amongst the clutter.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

[disclaimer: I never owned a DVD or blueray player, I am more into pure audio stuff than video/hometheater, being 95% of time on headphones]

I sometimes wonder, if this idea was already realized in some format, maybe I missed it due to forementioned.
Say you have a digital recording which was captured using separate mics for each "instrument" (including voice). Listener has ability to adjust volume level of each stream according to his preference (1) or in order to "analyze" it (2).
1. For example I enjoy very much cymbals - and consequently the "out of box" sound profile of many Beyer Dynamic headphones which tend to accentuate the frequency region cymbals reside (but of course in a headphone sound profile based simple on FR you get the "full package" of sounds from that frequency region).
2. Or I mentioned in another thread that I love songs featuring 3 guitars (in addition to bass guitar). Sometimes they are intentionally "positioned" in the mixing process to be distinguishable in regard to stereo channels but there are also titles in which they are so mixed up it is almost "mindf**k" In these cases I would appreciate to have a possibility to filter them "one by one" to have an easy analytic listen
Wouldn't it be beatiful if instead of pursuing huge sized "high-res" releases (with no real benefit for majority missing "bat genes") the possibility of current technology (streaming and storage of large files) is used for something more reasonable, like I outlined?

Imagine this interface you have accesible in your smartphone, in your DAP, in TV/video player, standardized and with a set of available "layers" depending on particular recording - all this embedded within a single data file, like "Lady Gaga - Audiophile anthem.msr":
View attachment 89473
[you may find a multi-mic setup for drum kit an "overkill", if so, just imagine another set of "layers".]

I own a couple of Mch (jazz) that distributes instruments between 5 channels. Changing volumes of individual channels does what you want. You just need a way to down mix it to 2 channel. And for enhancing Cymbal you could use an EQ.

 

[pavuol]

And for enhancing Cymbal you could use an EQ.

Well, are you sure? 1 / 2 / 3 / 4

 

[bluefuzz]

The closest existing tech I know of is the 'stems' idea used in the dance/techno world as described in this old article on CDM : https://cdm.link/2015/08/now-can-get-hands-stems-djing-complete-guide/

Not sure how widespread it is and it's probably not usable directly in a home hifi situation..

It seems to me many of these 'interactive' features in consumer media die an early death. Remember 'interactive' CD-ROMS and alternative camera angles in early Blu-rays? People simply can't be bothered when it comes down to it ...

 

[JoachimStrobel]

Well, are you sure? 1 / 2 / 3 / 4

In another post I explain how I created EQ setting to compensate my aging hearing. One of my interesting observations is, that I hear a different tonal balance with this EQ. Some songs sound different because some instruments are balanced differently, most pronounces is this for cymbals. My EQ might be false and the song is meant to balance differently, this is difficult. Memorizing how a song sounded forty years ago is tough. Another huge difference is a full brass blast of a big band (4/4). With my EQ it seems overly bright. Or, I am not sure. A full blast sounds only good in the best halls. Either the NDR hall in Hannover or the Elbphilharmonie. Squeezing this into 50sqm has little to do with EQ.