Crosstalk - what's the good of it?

I see there are now plugins like Klanghelm SDRR and Sknote Stripbus 3 which emulate the cross-talk byproduct of mixing on hardware consoles. I thought this was something that engineers didn't like and used to try to minimize.....

Why is it now considered musical to have this? What does it add to the mix?

When in doubt, just ask Steven Slate.  

"....with that special cross-talk glue, you'll be crafting mixes that are richer, more 3D and with more weight and feeling. The panorama glues together in a way you just can't get with your DAW's summing engine. Give your mixes that bright-yet-warm vibe with real depth and color!"

"....with that special cross-talk glue, you'll be crafting mixes that are richer, more 3D and with more weight and feeling. The panorama glues together in a way you just can't get with your DAW's summing engine. Give your mixes that bright-yet-warm vibe with real depth and color!"

 

By the way, I read up a bit online regarding your question. This is just a guess on my part, but, it would appear that cross-talk is purposely 'written in' to virtual console algorithms for the simple reason of 'realism'. To make 'perfect' emulations of the consoles...regardless of whether cross-talk is, or was, desirable or not. 

Edited June 30, 2017 by deckard1

Cookies need salt too.

Cookies need salt too.

meh.

most of the "analog" stuff is us being used to a certain sound. fact is, engineers were trying to get rid of these, they just don't like how it sounds without it.

 

frankly without imperfections in recording process, musical imperfections are stripped and on display even more. pitch imperfections, ...

Must admit it dumbfounded me a little bit a while back, and then Presonus released the Console Shaper, which is a MixFX plugin for Studio One.  And it is fantastic.

 

Due to how the MixFX works within Studio One it works very well (i.e. it is not just a plugin on the master, it is able to process each channel within a mix), and the results are great.

 

As to what it brings to the sound?, well, very much how when you mic up a live instrument from different angles you want the blend of those mics to bring the sound out of not only the instrument, but also the environment which you can mix together, For me cross talk is very much a great way of simulating a live band playing together, even when the elements have been recorded separately.

 

Why it's becoming popular now, is probably due to that home recording/solo artist, and the ease of ability to track individuals rather than bands playing as a whole.  I know many bands coming through right now who will only use recording studios where they can play as a band, for example.  So this follows that trend, and it if offers some kind of 'magic' to keep the creativity alive then let's embrace it.

 

You can apply a range of post processing to your mix to meld everything together of course, but an amount of crosstalk between channels works wonders and, of course is a naturally occurring phenomena when you see a band play live. 

 

Not for everyone of course, but if you grew up listening to the Beatles, or a lot of 60/70's records then for me crosstalk between channels/instruments is as important to the final sound as the type EQ, Compressor or limiters used.  'if' you really want to simulate that sound, obviously.

 

Being british, i would definitely go for a less clean sound than a US artist/studio would also (although this isn't as evident as it once was), and so for me any way for natural imperfections to remain in a mix is always good to hear.  So as to whether you get the whole concept or not can differ on your tastes in music, and even what part of the world (or in fact state) you are from.  And that's what makes us all wonderful.

Edited June 30, 2017 by skijumptoes

Cookies need salt too.

meh.

Are you saying cookies don't need salt?

But yeah, I am not buying into this "flat earth we never landed on the moon chemtrails" kind of conspiratory conviction/belief that "analog sounds warmer". I'm pretty sure I (and you, and anyone who knows his/her DAW) can set up a double blind test, using some simple "analog emulation" plugins on purely digital material proving the opposite.

Well, it's a lot like vinyl in that the physicalities of vinyl didn't allow engineers to put out highly compressed recordings like they could with CD's or it would cost a fortune with the wear and tear on the production plants and home equipment.

 

So, people say that vinyl sounds better, when in truth it's the boundaries/limitations that make it sound better.

 

Analog is very much like that, it sits *within* the boundaries of high end digital, so it can be emulated, no doubt.  But digital offers such a wide expanse and headroom, yet it's no surprise that everyone will utilise that.   Clean recordings, separate channels, clinical processing.  Wow, sounds amazing, of course.

 

Therefore, i always envisage 'analog' in the audio realm as being this rounded space within the outer square/boundary of digital, and you may chose to live there, or you may chose not to.  Many of course choice to create within that analog space, and then expand it out into digital mixing/mastering to create masterpieces.

 

Bottom line is, no matter how 'analog' something is, you can guarantee by the time anyone gets to listen to it it's gone through at least 3 procedures of AD/DA's etc.

 

Maybe i'm being a little over-romantic here, but that's how the whole analog thing sits in my mind.  And it's more of an artistry/creative mindset than a technical truth.

Back in the dark ages of multi track tape recording..  'crosstalk' was a nasty thing.  You had to invest in 16, 24 tracks of noise gates on every track,  

 

We've had'vinyl samples of clicks, pops to make our sound authentic for quite a while..  Now we need a tape noise plug-in    oh yeah there was nothing more appeasing than 16 tracks of tape hiss on your tune.  Dolby and DBX were the kings of the day, and oh yeah,  expensive..  

 

I don't mind when they do the 'old scratched up 16 mm film process on video, but personally don't like the 'old vinyl/tape artifacts on audio..  But I suppose for some it does lend an air of authenticity..  

meh.

Are you saying cookies don't need salt?

But yeah, I am not buying into this "flat earth we never landed on the moon chemtrails" kind of conspiratory conviction/belief that "analog sounds warmer". I'm pretty sure I (and you, and anyone who knows his/her DAW) can set up a double blind test, using some simple "analog emulation" plugins on purely digital material proving the opposite.

I'm saying SOME cookies need salt, and that salt also causes heart diseases. 

Analog does sound warmer though, quite in a literal sense, as in, "less detailed high frequencies due to physical limitations of analog media and imperfections in analog circuits"

Back in the dark ages of multi track tape recording..  'crosstalk' was a nasty thing.  You had to invest in 16, 24 tracks of noise gates on every track,  

 

We've had'vinyl samples of clicks, pops to make our sound authentic for quite a while..  Now we need a tape noise plug-in    oh yeah there was nothing more appeasing than 16 tracks of tape hiss on your tune.  Dolby and DBX were the kings of the day, and oh yeah,  expensive..  

 

I don't mind when they do the 'old scratched up 16 mm film process on video, but personally don't like the 'old vinyl/tape artifacts on audio..  But I suppose for some it does lend an air of authenticity..  

well, good tapes and good vinyls do not crack/pop and crackle tbh. at all.

Well, it's a lot like vinyl in that the physicalities of vinyl didn't allow engineers to put out highly compressed recordings like they could with CD's or it would cost a fortune with the wear and tear on the production plants and home equipment.

That and high frequency content. vinyls are prebiased, so you always end up with some phasing distortion, and you always end up with a botched high end due to phyisical limitations. It sounds warmer alright, rolls off at 16khz.

Thanks for the info Ploki. My own searches didn't turn up much in terms of its esthetic value. Seems that the higher the frequency, up to about 6k where it starts to drop off, the more crosstalk you get. Ok, but this is all happening more or less instantaneously, unlike the situation skijumptoes refers to....

 

 "skijumptoes

As to what it brings to the sound?, well, very much how when you mic up a live instrument from different angles you want the blend of those mics to bring the sound out of not only the instrument, but also the environment which you can mix together, For me cross talk is very much a great way of simulating a live band playing together, even when the elements have been recorded separately."

 

For sure, multi-mic situations can impart extra depth to a live performance, especially in an acoustic ensemble. But here there are delays built into the mic spill and the sound of the room itself and often, low end stuff reaching across the room because of it's lack of directionality,  whereas with crosstalk, (I'm assuming this, if anyone knows otherwise, please weigh in...) the "spill" is happening simultaneously, without delay and with a different blending of frequencies. In other words, a very different phenomenon. I'm not sure they really equate. My understanding is that crosstalk actually mucks up the imaging whereas spill can enhance it in the right circumstance. So in a mix with crosstalk happening, I'm getting stuff from adjacent channels, stuff which may be very different in frequency content and which will have nothing to do with my preferred panning for those frequencies/tones and which happens instantaneously without any of the delays and spacial cues that come from multiple mics.

 

So I'm still puzzling here... what is the good of crosstalk, such that devs are now putting it into their plugs? I get that console emus provide useful colour and drive effects - all good stuff - but that is outside of the crosstalk effect and crosstalk is not neccesary for those kind of console effects to occur.

Well, taking your point in regards to the imaging, i think it's very much like that indeed, if you overdo crosstalk you actually increase the chances of making the mix sound narrower.  i.e. purely as you're pulling from left to right, and vice versa.

 

See, the only example i've ever heard done right is with the Studio One MixFX 'Console Shaper/CTC-1'.  And i've not tried any of the slate stuff so can't comment on that.  But whatever method Presonus have employed i think it really does sound good and is actually working as an embedded effect within the summing engine of the DAW itself.  'What' it's doing, i really don't know - i.e. is it pre-fader/pre-insert/pre-sends?!  I've not experimented.  But as per multi-mic setups, i've presumed it is doing something similar there in that a certain amount of bleed is making it through to the busses it sits on, and the effects/post processing within is carrying that along the chain too.

 

For simple folk like me, it's pleasing.  It definitely melds things together in a simple, subtle manner.

 

Can you get the same result with other plugins? Probably, but then you could also use that same mentality to ask why a flanger plugin exists, for example, when you could just modulate your own delay to get the required result. It's ease of use and utilising a team of experts knowledge to provide you with a tool that you can reliably use session after session.

 

You want the sound of an old analog mixing desk warts'n'all - it's there, and that's the 'good' of it.

 

I'm a big believer that with music you just have to drop that technical head, and let your heart and ears be the ruler, once you wave goodbye to the romance it's very hard to get back.  It's all tangerine trees and marmalade skies, right?

Yup. Well, guess I'll just have to buy SDRR and find out what all the xtalk fuss is about!

Ok, bought SDRR and honestly, I am hard pressed to even hear the crosstalk effect (on stereo out) with or without headphones. Might give the Sknote channel a run-through at some point. Otherwise, SDRR is a pretty nice saturation plug.