Problems editing a classical violin recording

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Classical editing can be done very well but it is up the player and the recording engineer to work in tandem and make the editors job easier. One thing to remember is that, depending on the space, you have to have some pre hall sound to work with. The violinist cannot just simply start on the part where she wants the edit to occur. A good editing program like the ones mentioned can make your job a lot easier. We use WaveLab and Samplitude for most of our classical editing jobs and they work fine.

One other thing to remember is that just because the musician wants to make an edit at a certain point it is up to you to help her make the correct choices by pointing out where the best places to edit might be. I did a piano recording and did the editing and mastering and the performer was GREAT to work with. She and I came up with an EDL that addressed all her concerns and at the same time made my task a bit easier to do.

As to hearing splices. You or the violinist should NOT be able to hear any splices if the job is done correctly. I worked with a producer who also edited his own productions and he sometimes would take an hour to do one splice because he knew some classically trained musician would hear the splice some time down the road and he did not want that to happen.

Best of luck and let us hear the final result.

[dtf]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

I worked with a producer who also edited his own productions and he sometimes would take an hour to do one splice because he knew some classically trained musician would hear the splice some time down the road and he did not want that to happen

With all due respect, to work an hour on one split is plain ridiculous. It's quite common that editors don't spend too much time per edit, as we all know how you can loose perspective of how much difference the changes really make in context of the entire performance.

Having said that, of course one should not be able to hear an edit - though, in my experience, the problem lies in which way the edit is audible. Generally, every edit will be perceived as a change in performance: when the edit is "short", the performance may sound rushed, or in case of a "long" edit the performer(s) take more time than they actually did.

Therefore, it is important not to pay *too* much attention to the technical edit as such, but to focus on the musical result, because that is what most people hear.

Best,
Dirk

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by dtf

With all due respect, to work an hour on one split is plain ridiculous. It's quite common that editors don't spend too much time per edit, as we all know how you can loose perspective of how much difference the changes really make in context of the entire performance.

Having said that, of course one should not be able to hear an edit - though, in my experience, the problem lies in which way the edit is audible. Generally, every edit will be perceived as a change in performance: when the edit is "short", the performance may sound rushed, or in case of a "long" edit the performer(s) take more time than they actually did.

Therefore, it is important not to pay *too* much attention to the technical edit as such, but to focus on the musical result, because that is what most people hear.

Best,
Dirk

Point well taken BUT he was a perfectionist and was doing all this on his own time. His wife will verify my account. The producer passed away of cancer a couple of years ago. As to audible edits you are right on the money and sometimes someone, a reviewer perhaps, will pick up on something that is not an edit and criticize the recording's editing for that reason. Been there done that.

[BrianHanke]

For a program that will allow you to do cross-fades with ease, check out REAPER: http://www.reaper.fm/download.php . It's a wonderful piece of software and only costs $60 if you decide to buy a license.

[Matti]

You were using Cubase

Matti

[rossmaninov]

my cubase is an old version, maybe an upgrade would be give me better options for editing. Can I ask MATTI, do you hear obvious edits in my audio file?

thanks

[fifthcircle]

With all due respect, part of the problem here is with the way the project was recording at the start... Let's put aside the technical edits for a moment. A number of folks have heard glitches and your violinist has heard glitches which means you have a problem.

As Roland said- working in classical music becomes much more doable with a good DAW that can handle the type of editing needed. Sure, other DAWs get used- a colleague of mine uses Pro Tools and has several classical grammys. But the choices in edits become more limited and the speed in which you can work slows down.

Anyways, the problem at hand is the session- when you break stuff up into such small pieces, you will loose the musical continuity of a piece. Even the best musicians will have difficulties with that. When I'm producing a session, I usually insist on a couple full runthroughs. At that point, you can then decide which places need technical fixes. Most good musicians won't make mistakes in the same places twice so a couple runthroughs solves a multiple of sins. When doing pickups, I try to get players to think musically- full phrases or multiple phrases. Also, all pickups need to have a couple bars on either side of it of play in and play out... This makes sure that sound and ambience is maintained throughtout the take and edits can happen wherever they are needed.

Now, with the image that was posted- don't use automation. Use crossfades for edits. Do not butt-splice your clips either.

i've attached an image of a typical edit. This one is a rather long crossfade because of the program material- in this case editing of a symphonic performance. You'll see that once the edit point was found, there is an equal power curve to allow for the fade without any change in volume. In the Sequoia crossfade editor, I can easily change length and shape of the fade and I can easily move the location of the fade by dragging the audio or the fade around. SADiE and Pyramix have similar functionality.

[David Spearritt]

Wavelab (montage) is also an excellent and very fast 4 point editor.

[faramita]

Originally Posted by rossmaninov

Many thanks for all the comments here.

I am going to look at a couple of the programs that have been mentioned. I did look at the website for Sequioa and read about the audio editing/crossfade feature that it has. I have to say that Cubase's audio editing feature looks similar although I am now keen to try Sequioa to see for sure. I have attached an image of the audio editing I am doing for this recording within Cubase. As you will see from this image, I am not doing crossfades, but after reading comments here then I think I need to be doing crossfades maybe on all the edits, and see what my violin player thinks of the result.

Unless you have lots of time and cash to spare stick with the program you have for now. Main problem is you cannot hear the glitches. Try different monitoring, headphones and hi fi speakers. You will not get rid of the glitches if you do not hear them.
With all respect to other posters, I'd say your DAW is ok. All the DAWs now have very similar functions, just different names for them. And if you are used to it you will work fast enough. If you have lots of editing of classical music lined up, by all means investigate other daws if you must.
Going on information you gave, monitoring is your main stumbling block at the moment. Often you hear those technical details better on headphones.

I know i might get flamed for this, but when tracking I always listen on headphones, it lets me concentrate on the details. I do not have quite the old style studio environment where in control room was a religious silence when tracking or doing anything. I noticed it is unusual nowadays, so headphones are your friend.

[faramita]

I have read a few more posts. Do not despair, you do not have a big problem.
You need to hear the glitches that is all. If I hear them on my laptop speakers, you probably need to listen on something that cuts the lower frequencies or accentuates the higher ones. Once you hear it and get rid of one, rest is plain sailing.
As for the feeling of pieces constructed from different takes, that is a different subject. In your case it is not your problem, as your client requested it. If the client wants it all in one take he/she has to come to your studio properly prepared. I am afraid that is rare these days, everybody seems to think you'll fix their lack of preparation for them.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by faramita

Going on information you gave, monitoring is your main stumbling block at the moment. Often you hear those technical details better on headphones.

I know i might get flamed for this, but when tracking I always listen on headphones, it lets me concentrate on the details. (...) I noticed it is unusual nowadays, so headphones are your friend.

Quite true, there's nothing like listening on headphones to hear fine detail, esp. when editing.

On the other hand, I sometimes find that an edit will be inaudible on phones, but will almost jump at you when listening with speakers...

You really need both...

[faramita]

absolutely.

[mathieujm]

Originally Posted by rossmaninov

Thanks JMM
Can you listen to the file as well please and tell me if you hear obvious edits?

thanks

Nothing obvious, but just at 00:30 the silence is too short and don't let the music enough breath. And yes your manual fade can be heard on silences. Crossfades should solve easily this problem.

JMM

[Hannes_F]

Originally Posted by rossmaninov

image attached

It is very easy to hear such edits. Just crank the volume up and listen to the noise floor.

[rossmaninov]

Faramita, you may have gone some way to solving this for me.

My violin player listens to the mixes I send her on a laptop with headphones! She did mention this to me previously so I did try listening with headphones as well as speakers for monitoring. But even with headphones I have not been able to hear the cuts. So I am now thinking that maybe her laptop sound really boosts high frequencies and this means she is hearing the cuts more easily (if cuts are more noticeable in higher frequencies). I hadn’t thought of this previously.
So I will now try listening back with a boost to the high frequencies to see if I can hear the cuts/glitches that way.

[pkautzsch]

As others have pointed out, you really need to cross-fade your edits - especially when editing in "silence" parts (as "silence" never is silence, but room tone and noise. Fading one out and then fading the other one in won't cut it. (Pun intended)
I've found most edits to work better when not (!) done in a pause, but somewhere in the middle of a phrase. Preferrably at a quicker part, as here the listener will concentrate on hearing all notes. It has to be done really well, though.

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

In the Sequoia crossfade editor, I can easily change length and shape of the fade and I can easily move the location of the fade by dragging the audio or the fade around. SADiE and Pyramix have similar functionality.

This is what my 2004 Nuendo 2 can do as well. Its fade editor is a basic Wavelab, actually...Surely, newer Cubases will have the same feature?
The great thing about Samplitude/Sequoia/etc is the "source-destination" feature.

[Matti]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Wavelab (montage) is also an excellent and very fast 4 point editor.

You can do this in your prehistoric Cubase also, use 2 tracks and fades

Matti

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

I've found most edits to work better when not (!) done in a pause, but somewhere in the middle of a phrase. Preferrably at a quicker part, as here the listener will concentrate on hearing all notes. It has to be done really well, though.

Having made my first experiences with computer based editing with recordings of Indian Classical Music (with plucked strings and percussion etc.), I've developed a habit of editing at the beginning of a phrase. Not easy in slow movements, but it's usually where I start with crossfades.

To the OP: Could you identify the edit points in the clip you've posted?

[Thomas W. Bethe]

The the OP

A lot of really GREAT information here.

Any classical recordings I have done of solo performer has always been with the cooperation of the performer both in the recording and the editing. Sometimes just having the performer in the room when you are doing the final edits can go a long way towards making it a perfect CD. Sometimes the performer gets so fixated on a particular note or phrase (either because it is difficult to play or comes in at a time when the piece is changing tempo or dynamics) that they want JUST THAT NOTE or PHRASE to be perfect and are not hearing what is coming before or after.

I did the some recording of the New Hungarian Quartet for VOX and the producer was great to work with but she had problems in editing because they never played the pickups the same way they played them in the overall recording. She did a magnificent job on the editing and producing and the New Hungarian did a GREAT job on the over all project but it was a nightmare because the energy level was never the same for the pickups. They were use to performing live and in a live situation you go with the ebb and flow to make the piece work but with playing two or three measures it was hard for them to get into "the groove".

It is hard for some musicians to do little pieces of a piece since they have to get into the rhythm and "sound" of the piece and sometimes that is hard to do when you are doing only one or two measure phrases. Fithcircle was right on the money with his suggestions.

I cannot wait to hear this when you get all done. Best of luck and just remember what you are doing could last forever so make it the best you can.

[fifthcircle]

Just as a quick point of clarification- in the editors that I mentioned earlier (Sequoia, SADiE, Pyramix), you are not having to fashion a solution using 2 tracks. You are editing 2 clips of audio on one or multiple tracks (the same paradigm works in a multitrack enviornment- if you look at the screen shot I posted, you'll see it was an 8 track edit. The number of tracks is listed in the editor window.

I certainly understand that you can crossfade in other programs. Heck, I've done editing for a release on an audiophile label using Sound Forge at my client's house. I made perfect edits that nobody would ever hear.

The question is more about the ease and speed in which you can edit *all* types of music whether across 2 tracks or multiple tracks. This is where the big name programs shine. It is all about the workflow when you don't have time to mess with it because of production deadlines etc...

There have been a lot of great suggestions here. If you don't have a monitoring setup that is good enough to hear the smallest details you need to hear in an edit, get a good set of headphones. Often things that sound fine on speakers will have glaring problems on the headphones. And crossfade, crossfade, crossfade... Do that right and you'll find that edits can happen anywhere- not just on spaces.

--Ben

[rossmaninov]

I must say how grateful I am to everyone for their comments. There is such a lot of relevant info here and it is a big help for me.

I have been editing the piece again today. I have emailed it to the musician and I am going to wait for her comments before posting it here.
As suggested, I have put the audio files onto different tracks in Cubase. Previously I was always butt-slicing one audio file next to another just on one track. So now I fade out an audio file on one track while the next file fades in on another track.
I have also noticed that some breathing sound is still audible in an audio file although it is not clearly displayed on the audio waveform. One of the edit places that the violinist had chosen is in the middle of the breathe sound so I have suggested to her that we do not edit at that point.
I will be interested to know her opinion of my re editing and hopefully she will be satisfied. I will be very pleased if it all sounds fine because it has been a very involved process and I think so many edits in a recording has been a challenge.
To answer d fu: I was never able to hear the edit points in the clip I had posted. I knew there was a couple of moments that seemed a little odd but they didn’t sound like obvious ‘cuts’ and it is a contemporary violin piece so it has a slightly odd feel to it. It is fascinating for me how opinions can vary as I have let two other musicians hear this piece and they said they cannot hear any edits whatsoever. Listening on different sound equipment – laptops, stereos, headphones etc must reveal different things I think.

I would like to ask Thomas W. Bethel about the recordings you did for Vox? When was this – recently or many years ago? (I was given a lot of old classical records and there are so many Vox). Can you tell me how many microphones you used for recording the string quartet? Also, do you know roughly how many edits there were in 1 movement of a string quartet recording?

Many thanks

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by rossmaninov

I must say how grateful I am to everyone for their comments. There is such a lot of relevant info here and it is a big help for me.

I have been editing the piece again today. I have emailed it to the musician and I am going to wait for her comments before posting it here.
As suggested, I have put the audio files onto different tracks in Cubase. Previously I was always butt-slicing one audio file next to another just on one track. So now I fade out an audio file on one track while the next file fades in on another track.
I have also noticed that some breathing sound is still audible in an audio file although it is not clearly displayed on the audio waveform. One of the edit places that the violinist had chosen is in the middle of the breathe sound so I have suggested to her that we do not edit at that point.
I will be interested to know her opinion of my re editing and hopefully she will be satisfied. I will be very pleased if it all sounds fine because it has been a very involved process and I think so many edits in a recording has been a challenge.
To answer d fu: I was never able to hear the edit points in the clip I had posted. I knew there was a couple of moments that seemed a little odd but they didn’t sound like obvious ‘cuts’ and it is a contemporary violin piece so it has a slightly odd feel to it. It is fascinating for me how opinions can vary as I have let two other musicians hear this piece and they said they cannot hear any edits whatsoever. Listening on different sound equipment – laptops, stereos, headphones etc must reveal different things I think.

I would like to ask Thomas W. Bethel about the recordings you did for Vox? When was this – recently or many years ago? (I was given a lot of old classical records and there are so many Vox). Can you tell me how many microphones you used for recording the string quartet? Also, do you know roughly how many edits there were in 1 movement of a string quartet recording?

Many thanks

The recording was done a long time ago in 1976 and was originally released as a VOX box and then subsequently released on CD in 1988 by Pantheon <D19149>. The recording was done on Ampex AG-440B tape decks, using Dolby 361s, an ADM audio console and the producer's Neumann microphones. If memory serves it was about 200 spices per side but that was an average and they were all done as tape edits by the producer. The transfer to CD was done from the original tapes and the transfer was very well done. The producer was Joanna Nickrenz who passed away in 2002. The mastering was done by Elite Recording in New York.

Here is some additional information New Hungarian Quartet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and The 6 string quartets [sound recording]. - SearchWorks (SULAIR)