protools elastic audio isn't accurate?

[mattianlaseppia]

hello

i'm using elastic audio and i really like it, but i would like to understand a couple of things.

why if i look analysis i see the maker isn't exactly on the transient, is randomly before or after, i post a picture

i've tried on a in time bass track and it put it a little out of time

so, is that normal? there are preferences, settings, i should adjust?

another thing is about quality.. honestly i hear a lot the difference on drum room mics, acoustic guitar, piano, stuff like that.. i use the right algorithm (rhythmic for drums, monophonic for vocals, bass, polyphonic for guitar and piano), is there a way to improve the quality what am i mistaken?

i'm reading a lot of stuff about elastic audio and protools manual too, i just need to learn it very fast 'cause i need to complete a work in time, so any help is really appreciated!!

thanks

[vinylpimp]

Use Abelton. You'll save yourself time and sanity. Pro Tools elastic time is a joke. More of a nuisance than anything

[Mike Brown]

Originally Posted by mattianlaseppia

hello

i'm using elastic audio and i really like it, but i would like to understand a couple of things.

why if i look analysis i see the maker isn't exactly on the transient, is randomly before or after, i post a picture

i've tried on a in time bass track and it put it a little out of time

so, is that normal? there are preferences, settings, i should adjust?

another thing is about quality.. honestly i hear a lot the difference on drum room mics, acoustic guitar, piano, stuff like that.. i use the right algorithm (rhythmic for drums, monophonic for vocals, bass, polyphonic for guitar and piano), is there a way to improve the quality what am i mistaken?

i'm reading a lot of stuff about elastic audio and protools manual too, i just need to learn it very fast 'cause i need to complete a work in time, so any help is really appreciated!!

thanks

I personally use Polyphonic for everything.... I -ALWAYS- Render with X-Form though... it makes things sound much much better. I use the 4 modes (again pretty much always Polyphonic) just as a real time demo.

You can move the warp markers by hand later on.

Originally Posted by vinylpimp

Use Abelton. You'll save yourself time and sanity. Pro Tools elastic time is a joke. More of a nuisance than anything

Abelton's time stretching algorithm is not that great (and this is coming from a big Abelton fan). Elastic Audio is actually much better (especially when using X-From rendering).

This mostly comes from a lack of understanding what you are actually doing and what the controls exactly mean.

[mattianlaseppia]

ok so i need to move all makers by hand and that's what i'm doing, the strange thing is that it's a loop, so should be easier for protools..

i asked that because watching the kenny gioia tutorials seems all so easy and i don't understand why in his videos the maker are dead on the beat, but in mine not.

i've two loops almost identical, one filtered at 1k, if i quantize them with elastic audio i hear great phase problems and small delays, they are on the 5 to 15 ms, but are really audible with two almost identical tracks.

so now i'm moving the warp. which is the difference between the warp maker and the analysis maker? why when i move the warp maker i see the analysis maker on the background in the previews position? should i move also the analysis makers? or should i move only the analysis makers?

another thing, there is also a real drum, under the main loop beat, the main loop beat is more important for the song that the real drum, point is.. i don't want those delays between beat and drums, hearing double hits..etc

should i just quantize the drum very hard so fits the beat?

another thing.. the drum has kick, snare, and a couple of amb mics, one sub mic and one overhead.. they aren't very standard.. just putted the mics where sounds good (and not so much hearing the result, but i haven't done the tracking.. so..)

well.. i should quantize the grouped kick on the kick and snare, using the kick and snare tracks as reference, than should i quantize the amb/other mics to be exactly over the kick and snare hits?

because the amb tracks and overhead are sometimes earlier sometimes later (even the same track has some hit earlier and some later.. i don't know why, seems strange to me) so if i put everything in the grid i should do a good job..

but now another question.. when i move the maker i should move them in a way that looking the phase should be equal between each tracks.. but some hits has a very different wavesform so is hard to see where is the correct phase.. and doing that by hear can be very obsessing.. because i have to check every hit.. or at least every kick and snare hit ... for each mics..

[brian_delizza]

If you are quantizing a kit with multiple mics you should group all the tracks and elastic audio them together... If you start doing them individual you are going to have problems....

[sardi]

Originally Posted by vinylpimp

Use Abelton. You'll save yourself time and sanity. Pro Tools elastic time is a joke. More of a nuisance than anything

Hmmm.....

[sleeper1400]

i understand an occasional question here and there bro, but at this point, i only know you as " the elastic audio guy" on these forums.

why not just read the damn manual already?
if reading isnt your thing,there are good videos on youtube as well.

here, i did some more work for you....

YouTube - protools elastic audio

[mattianlaseppia]

hello sleeper, i already read the manual and watched the kenny gioia videos.. even the digi TV videos..

just i haven't found the elastic audio so accurate as they advertise.. if you look the kenny gioia videos the analysis maker are all on the transient. exactly.

on my projects not.

btw i've started moving and experimenting and i've found a good result, but not great.

so that's why i'm here on GS.. if you use it with good results tell me something.

anyway sorry for the amount of the questions.

isn't really clear to me the difference between analysis marker and warp marker and isn't explained really well on the manual to me.

[combfilter]

In my experience I always had to fix and move/remove a certain number of markers by hand when using elastic time.
Anyway it's not such a big deal (especially when compared to using beat detective ).

I always use polyphonic too.
Remember to group the drum tracks and analyze/edit them together.
Finally, when the tracks are ok, render with X-Form.
Makes everything sound MUCH better and smoother, even cymbals and room mics where the appearance of artifacts and other annoyances isn't uncommon.

[mattianlaseppia]

i'm doing in that way.

honestly i do all by hands.. because they are really not on the transient.. i mean 20/30/15 ms around.

i like the elastic audio concept, i mean i can figure it out better than beat detective.

but seems not an "automatic process" is all very manual.

what i haven't understood is.. i should move the analysis marker or the warp marker, or it's the same?

i should remove all the analysis marker which i don't put a wrap marker on them?

i mean you have the analysis marker ok? than you switch in warp view.. than you decide to quantize automatically or add the warp marker over the analysis marker. ok?

but a lot of analysis markers aren't used here with a warp marker over them.. so i just have to delete them?

[big crouton]

The analysis marker is telling you where Pro Tools thinks the transient is. If Pro Tools is off on the transient and you want to fix it, you do so by moving the analysis marker. Moving the analysis marker in and of itself does nothing to change the audio. That's where the warp markers come in. Moving the warp markers shifts the audio.

by the way, if you're adjusting the warp markers all by hand anyways, it might be easier for you to manually move the warp marker slightly ahead of or behind the grid when Pro Tools screws up the transients. For example, on bass tracks (the worst transient offenders I've found) if your warp marker is 15ms ahead of the transient, simply hold control and move the warp marker 15 ms behind the grid so that the transient lines up perfectly with the grid. It's quicker and easier than switching back and forth between warp and analysis view every time you have to line up a warp marker with a transient.

Hopefully that helps.

[mattianlaseppia]

yes this helps a lot, is what i thought but is really appreciate to hear someone that confirms this.

and why don't move directly the analysis marker before putting the warp marker?

because probably is just a my paranoid but to me seems that if the analysis marker is 15ms after the transient and i set the warp where should be.. sometimes seems it makes something strange on the transient.. some artifacts.

so i thought to move the analysis marker and than put the warp marker exactly on the analysis markers.

let me know what do you think about it

and welcome on GS!!

[big crouton]

Thanks for the welcome. I've been here for a bit, so I was surprised to see this was my first post.

anyways, I don't know enough about elastic audio to tell you why artifacts sometimes pop up, or where they're coming from, but I've never experienced any issues by simply putting the warp marker ahead of or behind the grid line. Especially if you're just working on single bass or guitar tracks, I wouldn't think you'd have issues. It's mostly drums that I end up hearing weird things go on, but switching to polyphonic has cleared up a lot of issues I've had.

Anyways, I'd say try the way I described, because it is a lot quicker and less hassle than constantly switching back and forth between analysis and warp view. If you hear anything wrong with it, then fix the analysis markers first and then quantize to the grid. See what works best for you.

[mattianlaseppia]

yes i'll do in that way.. i've already done in that way.. maybe i think i can improve something moving some analysis marker before the transients..

honestly i think i have to use a bit less of quantization .. my brain is a bit boiled so now i can't judge very well before and after.. but maybe i've lost a bit of performance.. but maybe the performance wasn't so good.. so in some way, considering is electronic with an acoustic guitar, piano, and bass.. probably is better timing than performance..

but i don't know.. maybe tomorrow i will do a less quantized version..

honestly i like elastic audio very much.. but is really exhausting.. i need to mix that stuff.. i don't want to move marker for all my life! :P

[TML]

I find that Elastic messes up cymbals ... sound like there being cut off and hit again.... maybe it's before I render them. Does anyone find artifacts that are fixed after rendering or is rendering just there to only save horsepower.
Tim

[big crouton]

^are you using Rhythmic, Polyphonic, or X-Form? I had all kinds of artifacts and issues with cymbals cutting off when I was using Rhythmic. Polyphonic seems to do a better job, but I just used X-Form for the first time the other day, and while it takes a damn long time to render the files, it did a nearly perfect job. The only problem I had was on some really fast snare rolls, one of the hits would get screwed up, but I grabbed the rolls from the unedited playlist and was good to go.

[psycho_monkey]

Tried to use EA for acoustic chopping yesterday. Destroyed the sound - x-form was better, but still unacceptable artifacts. It's on it's way, but not perfect yet by any means.

[ProFool]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Tried to use EA for acoustic chopping yesterday. Destroyed the sound - x-form was better, but still unacceptable artifacts. It's on it's way, but not perfect yet by any means.

EA is awfull on acoustic guitars, especialy strums. I also noticed so far that it can be very time consuming . Also x-form is not 100% accurate compared to the original EA'd track. Do the test, before using x-form duplicate the track and use x-form on one of them and compare.

[tamasdragon]

I don't know, ea is working for me. Of course not on everything always, but mostly.
Even Bob Olhsson mentioned that he successfully used it on acoustic guitar.
Tamas Dragon

[narcoman]

same here. I retimed a mix for a movie that had a subtle re-edit - worked perfectly... Did it a track at a time...

Like Ableton too - but VERY artifacty... but that's cool in genre!!

[mattianlaseppia]

Originally Posted by tamasdragon

I don't know, ea is working for me. Of course not on everything always, but mostly.
Even Bob Olhsson mentioned that he successfully used it on acoustic guitar.
Tamas Dragon

explain how do you use it

[tamasdragon]

If drums needs correction, first group the drums, than analyze them, and after it is done, start working with sections like 4-16bars.
Never gave me phase problems, some misdetection, but no software is 100% accurate.
I adjust ea parameters on channels (snare, hats, oh's, etc) until it's fine sounding. When ready with the correction, use x-form.
I have tried it on acoustic stuff, and till you work with reasonably small changes, it'll work. But it won't work as a magic tool, adjusting huge things.
Tamas Dragon

[mattianlaseppia]

Originally Posted by tamasdragon

If drums needs correction, first group the drums, than analyze them, and after it is done, start working with sections like 4-16bars.
Never gave me phase problems, some misdetection, but no software is 100% accurate.
I adjust ea parameters on channels (snare, hats, oh's, etc) until it's fine sounding. When ready with the correction, use x-form.
I have tried it on acoustic stuff, and till you work with reasonably small changes, it'll work. But it won't work as a magic tool, adjusting huge things.
Tamas Dragon

honestly i have almost all misdetection, no one are exactly on the transient.
and i haven't noticed any different working with 4/16 beats or analyzing all the tracks the same time (yes i group the drum, so all the drum tracks for all the lenght)