Mixing latency (as opposed to recording)

Support and feedback for Acoustica's Mixcraft audio mixing software.

Moderators: Acoustica Greg, Acoustica Eric, Acoustica Dan, rsaintjohn

Post Reply
User avatar
msnickybee
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:40 am
Location: Chester, UK
Contact:

Mixing latency (as opposed to recording)

Post by msnickybee »

Hi kids

I had a situation yesterday with a vocal track upon which I had the following VSTs:
- Blockfish (compressor)
- Focusrite midnight EQ (this is very lovely)
- Spitfish (de-ess)
- Floorfish (gate)
- Acoustica pro reverb
- Gsnap (mild setting, I'm not crazy)

I couldn't figure out a scientific (I'm more into "emotional" but that wouldn't work here) way of testing it, but I *thought* that playing back the overall mixdown WAV showed a slight delay in the vocals, ie. lagging behind the other tracks.

So I bounced this vocal track down to its own track, then mixed it all down. It just *felt* right, listening back then.

Is this possible? Does Mixcraft calculate the processing time of these VSTs, then figure that into its mixing process? I mean, sure, I probably had quite a few here (I needed them, honest)...and maybe it's not surprising!? but I just wondered if Mixcraft *knows* this...
Nicky
Latest 2020 EP tracks Here And Now and Pick Up The Pieces
2019 EP Bittersweet is still available on Spotify
or check out my YouTube channel
User avatar
Mark Bliss
Posts: 7313
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Out there

Re: Mixing latency (as opposed to recording)

Post by Mark Bliss »

Nicky, your a sharp cookie. Keep paying attention and asking the right questions!

Yes effects take a little time to process and can add a very slight bit of latency to a track. Some effects are worse than others. To the best of my knowledge, and I might be wrong on this..... MC does not at this time have the capability for automatically compensating for this, while some higher end DAW's do.

Of the effects list you mention, I would suspect that the reverb processing is likely the biggest cause of this. But you are also effectively running 3 compressors there as well. (Blockfish, Spitfish and Floorfish) I dont know how much potential latency might be added by G-Snap. But all together it could easily become noticeable.

I suspect that running a single compressor plug in that was capable of doing all three (compression, de-essing and gating) at once might help. Also consider that the de-essing function might become less necessary by reducing it during the recording stage by adjusting your mic position to be less prone to capturing that sibelance. Try angling your mic sharply and "singing past" it, and maybe a touch of carefully pulled frequency in that "Ssss" areas specific range.

Stay in tune!
Mark
Stay in tune, Mark

My SOUNDCLOUD Page
User avatar
msnickybee
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:40 am
Location: Chester, UK
Contact:

Re: Mixing latency (as opposed to recording)

Post by msnickybee »

Wow, thanks Mark for the quick reply!
What you say makes sense about mic technique...something for me to try, all super advice!

(and I'm sure you said "cookie", so that's making me hungry too)
User avatar
aquataur
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:01 pm
Location: Innsbruck, Austria

Re: Mixing latency (as opposed to recording)

Post by aquataur »

Hi,

the fish fillets suite is prone to denormalization problems. I have written about it here: http://forums.acoustica.com/bbs/viewtop ... 78&p=45998

This might account for some delay.

-helmut
C# or Bb!
Post Reply