2C Audio Precedence + CSS + CSB

[Jeast]

Hi all,

As all of us I have spent a lot of time and money on getting the soundstage right for mixed sample libraries. After a failed attempt of integrating VSS2 I gave up on this altogether and went with just a simple reverb setup. While this is suiting me quite fine, I got a little time on my hands and the relative new Precedence plugin was itching and luring me into giving this another try. Breeze already is the reverb for all my productions. I am quite interested at the results and keen to share this. I will save my conclusion for later, but I might purchase Precedence (I used the demo version for this test).

What I did:
I opened a soundtrack project I did for a WW2 Flight sim I wrote last year and took a dynamic part, applied Precedence and exported 2 versions. One with a medium hall and another one with a large hall. The original includes Breeze only applied to a mixed microphone setup on both CSS and CSB. For the Precedence setup I used the close mics summed to mono (as the close mics are in stereo and panned by default).

I am very curious to learn what you think! Let me know below.

Original:


Precedence and medium Breeze hall:


Precedence and large hall:

Click to read more...

 

[Joël Dollié]

I like precedence but I don't think that worked here. Everything feels closer and the space unnatural. The first example sounds bigger.

The problem probably comes from using the close mics summed to mono and also the Beta algorithm in precedence. I personally use the "U" one. (not sure how to write the greek letter)

 

[Jeast]

I like precedence but I don't think that worked here. Everything feels closer and the space unnatural. The first example sounds bigger.

The problem probably comes from using the close mics summed to mono and also the Beta algorithm in precedence. I personally use the "U" one. (not sure how to write the greek letter)

Fully agree. Just applying it makes the recording collapse. I do like Precedence for my dry VSL woodwinds though!

 

[I like music]

I'm a total amateur at this. All I can say is that I much preferred the original.

Also, loved the music!

Just the mixed mics, did I read that right?

 

[Phillip996]

I assume that since the CSS and CSB are already somewhat positioned already (due to the nature of how they are recorded), then adding prescedence would mess that up, and create a weird sound spacially. VSL woodwinds needs to be positioned since it is recorded dry dead center and needs the added early reflections and positioning to sound realistic, while CSS/CSB does not.

 

[Jeast]

I assume that since the CSS and CSB are already somewhat positioned already (due to the nature of how they are recorded), then adding prescedence would mess that up, and create a weird sound spacially. VSL woodwinds needs to be positioned since it is recorded dry dead center and needs the added early reflections and positioning to sound realistic, while CSS/CSB does not.

Exactly! But I find it very interesting to see if a tool like this could put the whole orchestra in the same space. That would be the holy grail, mixing wise, for me at least.

 

[Jeast]

I'm a total amateur at this. All I can say is that I much preferred the original.

Also, loved the music!

Just the mixed mics, did I read that right?

Yes sir, with a touch of Breeze reverb on top. I used a hall setting.

 

[Saxer]

Why did you pan the close mics to mono?

 

[Will Blackburn]

In the same boat, obsessed with tools like VSS. The precedence one has potential. I would actually prefer it but for the lost low end room ambience and brass sounds like it needs some cuts. Wondering if maybe a Bricasti impulse might work better. Can't get the middle one to work.

Im still striving for a mix with this kind of closeness and at the same time depth. Im yet to find a library that has this upfrontness to it.

 

[Jeast]

I got a little time on my hands and the relative new Precedence plugin was itching and luring me into givin

Why did you pan the close mics to mono?

Well I was trying to place both CSS and CSB in a unified single space. For that I need something with as less room sound as possible, hence the close mics. In CSS the close mics still have stereo information as they are panned into position.

 

[Dewdman42]

you can fix the panning of most close mics to position them where you want. If there are early reflections in the close mic though, then that is room sound. depends on how they were recorded.

 

[Jeast]

you can fix the panning of most close mics to position them where you want. If there are early reflections in the close mic though, then that is room sound. depends on how they were recorded.

Yes thats exactly what I did. I used close mics in CSS and CSB, made sure they were centered so that I could fully use the Precedence + Breeze workflow for panning and depth. The linked tracks are the result of this. I don't think it makes sense to use Precedence on Mix/Room tracks because your are placing a source with a room in it inside of another room.

 

[Beat Kaufmann]

As with any more complex reverb system, you can do a lot of things wrong. And doing something quickly is rarely good, because as you write "I have spent a lot of time and money on getting the soundstage right for mixed sample libraries".

A first killer here was probably "I used the close mics summed to mono...".
Of course we can't know what else could have been done better. So your "Breeze examples" are not really advertising for the product...

Beat

 

[Jeast]

As with any more complex reverb system, you can do a lot of things wrong. And doing something quickly is rarely good, because as you write "I have spent a lot of time and money on getting the soundstage right for mixed sample libraries".

A first killer here was probably "I used the close mics summed to mono...".
Of course we can't know what else could have been done better. So your "Breeze examples" are not really advertising for the product...

Beat

Hi Beat,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes I am aware that one can do a lot wrong with such an undertaking, and I probably did!
However, I did follow the complete manual and the suggestions from the forum. The plugins do suggest though that there isn't a whole lot you can do wrong, especially since there is only a few buttons to use. Yes I could shape the sounds more using EQ but I think Precedence claims to do this already, if not what sense does the tool make?

Why is it wrong to use the close mics and make them mono? Precendence advertises in the manual that its main functionality is to create a full soundstage in width and depth. If you feed it already panned stereo information with already included room reflections in it, does that not remove the whole purpose of precedence? Yes you can feed it what you like, of course, but imo then you are using Precedence a little different as what the manual describes. What I can hear Precedence doing is that it pans, adds early reflections and adds some EQ curves to the signal (remove lows, highs and probably a dip in the mids as well). This is only what I can hear and I assume it does a bit more than this (as Andrew is a wizzard in stuff like this ). With this in mind, why would you then feed it allready panned stereo signals that already has depth information in it as well? Especially since my aim was to make one unified soundstage where all my different sample libraries share exactly the same room but all have a different position (width + depth) in that room.

Curious to know what you think.

 

[Beat Kaufmann]

Hello Jeast
Although Breeze2 is my daily tool when it comes to reverb and tail, I have to admit that Precedence is not (yet) useful in my situation. I have found that it actually reproduces mono signals very nicely...

...Even in reality, a single instrument is actually a mono source. If you record this with a suitable stereo microphone method, you get a very natural and spatial signal from which you can hear the position of the instrument (L,R, depth).
Precedence + Breeze2 can simulate this (mono-) situation very well.

As soon as stereo signals are used in Precedence, it seems that the differences in time (between the microphones) of the recorded "stereo instrument" and those added by Precedence can lead to either good or then rather bad results. That's probably why you'll find the "mono" thing in the manual.

Although Precedence would be a nice thing, I can't use it with most VSL samples. The VSL samples lose much of their charm in mono . That's why I still stick to my well tried "panning-reverb-concept". Everything remains nice and airy and natural as I like it.

So it all depends on the starting position you have and where you want to go with it. It is therefore crucial that you use the tools that lead to the goal. In the end it's the result that counts and not the tools you use. In your case Precedence obviously can't offer the help you are looking for.

Beat

 

[Jeast]

Hello Jeast
Although Breeze2 is my daily tool when it comes to reverb and tail, I have to admit that Precedence is not (yet) useful in my situation. I have found that it actually reproduces mono signals very nicely...

...Even in reality, a single instrument is actually a mono source. If you record this with a suitable stereo microphone method, you get a very natural and spatial signal from which you can hear the position of the instrument (L,R, depth).
Precedence + Breeze2 can simulate this (mono-) situation very well.

As soon as stereo signals are used in Precedence, it seems that the differences in time (between the microphones) of the recorded "stereo instrument" and those added by Precedence can lead to either good or then rather bad results. That's probably why you'll find the "mono" thing in the manual.

Although Precedence would be a nice thing, I can't use it with most VSL samples. The VSL samples lose much of their charm in mono . That's why I still stick to my well tried "panning-reverb-concept". Everything remains nice and airy and natural as I like it.

So it all depends on the starting position you have and where you want to go with it. It is therefore crucial that you use the tools that lead to the goal. In the end it's the result that counts and not the tools you use. In your case Precedence obviously can't offer the help you are looking for.

Beat

Thank you Beat for the extensive answer! Much appreciated.

 

[averystemmler]

adds early reflections

A small point of order: I don't believe precedence actually adds any reflections. Precedence manipulates gain, frequency, and timing (and pitch?) differences between channels, but stops short of reverberation. With the precedence-breeze pair, breeze handles early and late reflections, while precedence just subtly changes the signal being fed to it.

I think it's a meaningful distinction, because adding early reflections to a wet library often causes problems that Precedence does not. I sometimes use it on my CSS bus, in stereo. Distance around 50, angle at 0, on the "Mu" configuration, with mod rate and depth turned way down. It pushes things back in a way that's challenging to accomplish with EQ alone.

 

[Jeast]

A small point of order: I don't believe precedence actually adds any reflections. Precedence manipulates gain, frequency, and timing (and pitch?) differences between channels, but stops short of reverberation. With the precedence-breeze pair, breeze handles early and late reflections, while precedence just subtly changes the signal being fed to it.

I think it's a meaningful distinction, because adding early reflections to a wet library often causes problems that Precedence does not. I sometimes use it on my CSS bus, in stereo. Distance around 50, angle at 0, on the "Mu" configuration, with mod rate and depth turned way down. It pushes things back in a way that's challenging to accomplish with EQ alone.

Great tips. Do you use the mix mic setting in CSS?