Phasing audio

[zerbaman]

I know that this only works efficiently if the files you're using were mastered together. But my question is why it only works this way?

[3za]

Why what works???

[zerbaman]

Why you can't take any copy of the original instrumental and phase the audio to the vocal version.

[Sine69]

Are you talking about trying to remove everything except for the vocals in a song?

[3za]

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

[Toric]

I've only ever phased audio to remove vocals to either sing to, or get better samples.

From what I understand, it's because the song is mastered in stereo, and the vocals are generally in the center, where as the rest of the audio is panned. When you phase invert a track and lay it on top of itself, it will cancel out anything in the middle, in turn, cutting everything that is panned center.

I hope this helps a bit!

-T

[Toric]

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

Values? This is pretty intriguing to me. Care to elaborate?

-T

[efence]

picture an instumental and the same track with vocal(doesnt really matter if its been stereo mixed or not)
if the instrumaental with the vocal on top were mastered/compressed/anything then when you invert the insrumental your left with the vocal and all the compression efx that were on the master

[zerbaman]

What I want is to end with an acapella of the track, using the instrumental and the full version to phase eachother out.

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

Yeah, but why is it that on some files it doesn't work out this way? Nothing changes, they just play as normal

[efence]

What I want is to end with an acapella of the track, using the instrumental and the full version to phase eachother out.

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

Yeah, but why is it that on some files it doesn't work out this way? Nothing changes, they just play as normal

the invert needs to line up perfect bit to bit

[Toric]

picture an instumental and the same track with vocal(doesnt really matter if its been stereo mixed or not)
if the instrumaental with the vocal on top were mastered/compressed/anything then when you invert the insrumental your left with the vocal and all the compression efx that were on the master

This makes perfect sense.

Hmm, I guess I'm talking about something different.

So you have to have an instrumental and the track with vocals to be able to do it?

Edit: Figured out what I was missing from this thread. Didn't read something the right way.

What I want is to end with an acapella of the track, using the instrumental and the full version to phase eachother out.

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

Yeah, but why is it that on some files it doesn't work out this way? Nothing changes, they just play as normal

the invert needs to line up perfect bit to bit

Okay I understand now. Awesome! Thanks!

-T

[3za]

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

Values? This is pretty intriguing to me. Care to elaborate?

A waveform has a positive, or negative Value at any point. If you took a sinewave, and picked a point above the zero-crossing it will have a positive value, vise versa.

If you was to make all the positive points negative points, vise versa. When you sum them together, they would cancel out.
E.g. 1 + -1 + = 0

If there was a difference, you would be left what what the difference.
E.g. 2 + -1 = 1

That 1 you got is part of the vocal

[zerbaman]

What I want is to end with an acapella of the track, using the instrumental and the full version to phase eachother out.

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

Yeah, but why is it that on some files it doesn't work out this way? Nothing changes, they just play as normal

the invert needs to line up perfect bit to bit

Self explanatory isn't it?

[Toric]

Because all the values are the same apart from the vocal, so when you invert one of them it now has the opposite values of the instrumental track. So when you sum them together, you are left with the difference (the vocal)

Values? This is pretty intriguing to me. Care to elaborate?

A waveform has a positive, or negative Value at any point. If you took a sinewave, and picked a point above the zero-crossing it will have a positive value, vise versa.

If you was to make all you the positive points negative points, vise versa. When you sum them together, they would cancel out.
E.g. 1 + -1 + = 0

If there was a difference, you would be left what what the difference.
E.g. 2 + -1 = 1

That 1 you got is part of the vocal

Stuff Eric knows, most likely. Thanks for the explanation! Why do vocals have a greater value? Just curious and I think may be relevant to the thread?

Edit: is it because you are using an instrumental and then an instrumental + vocal track and that's what makes the vocal track have a higher number? Or does it just cancel everything out but the vocals?

-T

[3za]

Why do vocals have a greater value? Just curious and I think may be relevant to the thread?

That was just in my example, they will have negative values too.

I was just talking about the value of a waveform at just one point, in your audio file their are billions, depending on your sample rate, and lengtth of the file.

[Toric]

Why do vocals have a greater value? Just curious and I think may be relevant to the thread?

That was just in my example, they will have negative values too.

I was just talking about the value of a waveform at just one point, in your audio file their are billions, depending on your sample rate, and lengtth of the file.

Yea. I think I've gotcha. It's really hard to communicate this stuff the way you want to via text.

Which is why I have music theory textbooks.

Thanks!

Also, thanks Zerbaman, for lending me your thread for a second!

-T

[Depone]

Forget the vocals supposed number, that doesnt make sense. Irs just straight up phase inversion. Ty it yourself with 2 copies of the same audio. Put them both in your daw, invert one and you are left with silence. If one had a vocal or another element, it would stay as theres nothing to 'counter phase' it, and your left with just that part

[3za]

Forget the vocals supposed number, that doesnt make sense.

I am sure everything I posted in this thread makes sense.

[-[2]DAY_-]

Why do vocals have a greater value?

naw, its not literally an arithmetic problem.. if you invert phase of the instrumental and layer with the full track, only the instrumental part of the waveform will cancel out, leaving the vocal left behind by itself (hopefully).


lol i'm sure plenty people have tried explaining it. Doesn't even work too well usually, afaik

[Toric]

Why do vocals have a greater value?

naw, its not literally an arithmetic problem.. if you invert phase of the instrumental and layer with the full track, only the instrumental part of the waveform will cancel out, leaving the vocal left behind by itself (hopefully).


lol i'm sure plenty people have tried explaining it. Doesn't even work too well usually, afaik

Yea! I know. I was a bit blitzed out of my mind when I was on here. I was actually looking for some info and found this thread (completely irrelivant) and I confused myself by taking things literally and not having a better DAW & Electronic music vocabulary.