Backing tracks. Shadows minus Hank.

[rhando]

Does anyone know if there are any "Shadows minus Hank" tracks available. I have tried to do it myself with poor results.

Is it even legal to do so??

I would like to try "Peace Pipe" and "Wonderful Land" if they are available.

I do have the UB Hank tracks so I am not just on the lookout for "freebies".

I am interested to hear the difference!!

Thanks.

Ray.

[didier]

Jun 10, 2009 15:16:06 GMT rhando said:

Does anyone know if there are any "Shadows minus Hank" tracks available. I have tried to do it myself with poor results.

There are many softwares which can extract the solist from a stereo recording, but it works well only with suitable recording and mix.
It works on some Shadows' recordings, but not all of them.

Is it even legal to do so??

As long as it's used for private use, who could care ?

I am interested to hear the difference!!

Hear the difference here : Gégé's site
All titles under "ambiance de l'original" (in the original mood) were recorded by Gégé using BTs made from original Shadows' recordings.
He has also been working for years to emulate as accuratly as possible Hank's lead guitar sound...

Didier

[rhando]

Thanks for that Didier.

I have heard a number of Gege's (sorry I don't know how to put the accent on the e's) sound files but never realized he used BT's from the Shadows recordings.

I will check out his site again.

Ray.

[JohnG]

Hi All.
What are the different SoftWare?

Cheers....

JohnG....

[didier]

Jun 11, 2009 20:27:45 GMT rhando said:

Thanks for that Didier.

I have heard a number of Gege's (sorry I don't know how to put the accent on the e's) sound files but never realized he used BT's from the Shadows recordings.

I will check out his site again.

Ray.

That's the case only for the titles in the "Ambiance de l'original" page, his other sound files (you get when clicking on "Go") are made with traditional BTs (UB Hank and others).

Didier

[didier]

Jun 12, 2009 2:03:07 GMT JohnG said:

Hi All.
What are the different SoftWare?

Cheers....

JohnG....

Make some Google researches with "karaoke vocal remover", and you'll find some of these softwares.
It's also part of the Adobe Audition software.

Didier.

[garyallen]

Hi Ray..Did you get the pm last week..

[rhando]

Hi garyallen,

So sorry for the delay. Have PM'd you.

Many thanks.

Ray.

[chinga]

Gidday Ray.

Audacity will also remove Vocals/Lead from Stereo recording. . .& it's free!

audacity.sourceforge.net

Chinga

[Deleted]

Hi,

The new beta version of Audacity (v1.3) simplifies the process and it takes just one click.

Ian

[rhando]

Thanks guys,

I will definitely try out " Audacity".

Ray.

[Mark Burton]

any tips on the parameters for vocal removal - i.e. what frequency bands etc ?

thanks
Mark.

[Charlie Hall]

Hi Mark,
I don't know the Audacity program, but if a frequency can be specified, try something around 100Hz to stop bass frequencies from being lost. Vocal range isn't usually much below 150Hz. Guitar range is a bit lower than that.
Regards,
Charlie

[Len]

Hi All

Charlie: I assumed at first like anyone probably would, that vocal removal works by some sort of frequency analysis. However, after reading the Wiki article (see below), I'm now not really sure how much frequency has to do with it, at least in the first step. You may well be right though in that there may be some lower bass frequency loss as a consequence of the procedure. I don't know about that. Some frequencies can be removed in what I have dubbed the "Tricky Track" procedure (see below).

I am just looking at Audacity 1.3 at the moment. I'm doing a bit of experimentation for personal use with practice. I think there will probably be too much "bleed" from one track to another, especially using early recordings, to make the process effective for any recording.

From my understanding, the way Audacity works is that it subtracts (or 'Inverts') voices (or part/s) common to both stereo channels. 'Quatermassters Stores' represents a good example. The lead is directly in the centre (both channels). The rhythm comes from left and right only. It doesn't matter here whether the drums, bass or rhythm guitar is on the left or right, only that they are on one channel or the other and not both channels.

Procedure (simplified):
You select the second or lower channel (lower on the interface), apply the 'Invert' command and then convert both channels successively to 'Mono'. Save your project and it's done. The procedures are described in the following link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqXiKYG3J7M. This link from YouTube shows in detail how it's done. The process is even easier when using the one step process with Audacity version 1.3.

This video also describes another step that can be used to 'amplify' the tracks to enhance the effect even further. I haven't tried that properly yet. The procedures are more tricky where the lead comes from left, right or a mixture of both (multitracks). In 'The Boys' for example, the lead comes from the right channel. 'Dance On' has the main lead coming from one channel and the second guitar part from the middle. However, the good news is that most early Shadows tracks have the lead part right in the centre. The procedure won't entirely remove the lead part though. You would probably need to use the second step described in the video to do that. For those interested, more details about this "Tricky Track" (complex track arrangement) procedure can be found in this link from Wiki: audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Vocal_Removal. The Amplitude (Sound Forge) link actually refers to the Wiki link.

I hope this might help explain how it all works in a little more detail.

Regards
Len

[Charlie Hall]

Hi Len,
My assumption was that removal is done by reversing phase of one channel and summing both to mono. By selecting a frequency whereby anything below that frequency is not cancelled, bass can be retained, assuming that too is in the centre to begin with, otherwise there would be no need to worry about losing bass. This could also be done manually by boosting the bass on one channel while reducing it on the other.
I have experimented with a stereo imaging plugin and found that I could swap around the positions of instruments in a stereo mix!
I have heard a backing track with Hank removed that remained in stereo, I haven't a clue how that was done.
Regards,
Charlie

[Len]

Hi Charlie

Your assumption was closer to the mark than I understood at the time. You are right about the phase reversal and summation to mono. That seems to be how it works as I read more. I've modified my post a little while your post was on its way. I might have to modify it again but you've just explained about the bass loss. I may investigate that further down the track. That is partly what I was referring to when I talked about "track bleed" in my post mod.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you about the frequenciy implications. I was referring to the auto process from within Audacity itself. You were right on the mark, as you usually are. I also perhaps took your statement about not knowing "the Audacity program" a little too literally. You obviously understood a lot more about how it should work than I did at the time. That is interesting about the backing track with Hank removed while it still remained in stereo.

Just a word of explanation here. I modified my post when I discovered that with Version 1.3, you can modify frequencies as a second step. This mini project is a work in progress for me, a voyage of discovery so to speak. I had also suspected that frequencies would necessarily be affected in some way with such a radical process. There were, by the way, stereo plugins available from the link I downloaded version 1.3 from this morning (Aus. time), but I haven't got to looking at those yet.

By the way Charlie, I hope you get some sleep or have had some before you read this. It must be getting on towards 4.00 a.m. in the UK. It's OK though - I'm a bit of a night owl at times too.

Thanks for your help in correcting my partial knowledge in these matters. Through these discussions, I am learning more each day about Audacity and other matters to do with "that sound." At this stage though, as I said in the edit, I only want to have a basic backing track for personal practice. There are other ways to achieve a good recording as others have demonstrated. I will evaluate the program further before posting again (unless more questions come) and let everyone know how I go, if any are interested in hearing about that.

Regards
Len

[Len]

Hi Charlie

I said I wouldn't post again just yet but something just occured. As if to prove your point entirely, on the 'The Rise and Fall...', the bass came directly from the centre and I lost it completely (hardly surprising) when I applied Audacity. I guess it does work just the way it should.

That would also be just great if we had any bass players in our group; perhaps we would have to start a "Backing tracks. Shadows minus Jet Harris/Liquorice Locking/John Rostill/Alan Jones/Alan Tarney/Mark Griffiths and others" thread.

Regards
Len

[Charlie Hall]

Hi Len,
I have never used Audacity, but knowing the general principle of removing centre information I assumed that was how Audacity is set up to do it.
Regards,
Charlie

[Len]

Hi Charlie

I did suggest that there might be more questions. I didn't expect to have to ask them so soon though. Firstly, however, you might be interested to know the following with Audacity 1.3. The options for 'Removal Choice' are:

Simple Entire Spectrum OR
Remove: 500 2000 (can reset to anything between 0 and 20000) OR
Retain: 500 2000 (can reset to anything between 0 and 20000)

What do you think would be a good choice as a starting point here Charlie? I don't fully understand the EQ thing yet, especially as it applies to phase inversion. What you seem to be suggesting is some sort of boost for the bass. What should I lose here and what do I need to ensure that I retain given that this probably will vary from track to track?

What do you suggest I should try, when you have a moment?

Regards
Len

[Charlie Hall]

Hi Len,

I'm not sure. 500Hz seems a little high to me. I think you should try them all to see what happens. Doing is learning!

If I were doing it to a stereo track I think I would convert it to 2 separate mono tracks, reverse the phase of one of them (if that can be done in Audacity) and add bass (maybe about 6db) below 100Hz on one track and cut bass by the same amount on the other. You might also need to reduce the track level so it doesn't overload.
It is difficult to say without knowing what Audacity is capable of.

Regards,
Charlie

[Len]

Hi Charlie

Thanks for that. The '500 2000' is just the default for the two other options in the program itself. It is not clear whether it applies to the 'Simple Entire Spectrum' option though it does appear in the range box as the default option contains the word 'entire'. The procedure should logically only apply when you choose the Remove Or Retain options and can easily be changed. I haven't and wouldn't try the 500Hz. Just to be sure, I have been changing it to about 100-120Hz as you suggested that this range would be appropriate for the guitar. I'm concerned however that I will chop out too much of the rhythm guitar, bass or drums. I guess the only thing remains is to experiment until I get it right if that is possible.

It's all good ear training, I guess. I have just become aware that I am entering a steep learning curve. This will help though when I come to recording something I am sure.

The results have not been good so far. The tracks can only be removed on some Shads numbers and not very well. Even when I remove the lead part, there is this swishing sound that is in time with the basic rhythm but sounds awful.

Re the stereo track conversion to separate mono tracks: I will try that after a while. Thanks for your help and patience.

Regards
Len

[Charlie Hall]

Hi Len,
Without being sure of what the facility is actually doing, I don't know how to advise on it. If it is possible to split a stereo to two mono tracks and if it is possible to reverese phase of one of them, and EQ them separately, then I think you might have more control over what can be done.
Regards,
Charlie

[garyallen]

I ve just been informed that jamvox works very well with this process but as I have nt even googled it somebody else might know more....gary

[Len]

Hi Charlie, Gary and All

One thing I have found out since last night is that there are several plug-ins available that operate in different ways. Jamvox may be one that is available. I will check it out along with some of the others. Thanks for that Gary.

Another thing I found out is that Reverb and Echo can play havoc with the inversion process according to the Audacity article for Wiki (see link given earlier). It look like I will need to play around with the EQ a bit. I can also work on sections at a time. This will probably help with some numbers and not others. For 'Wonderful Land' and 'Man of Mystery' for example, it would be easy to remove the introductory and concluding high parts without destroying the rest. I have a note frequency chart that should assist with that.

Anyway that is where I'm at for the moment. I will keep you posted with any major developments. I think a few of the guys would be interested in the results of this mini project. I have backing tracks from Goran and another book called 'Jam with Hank Marvin' in a "Total Accuracy" series (but the latter is far from totally accurate). I'm trying to get a little closer to the original. But I won't bore you with any more of this.

Regards
Len

[Charlie Hall]

Hi Len,
I don't know that Jamvox is available as a plugin. It could be interesting if it is.
Echo on Shadows tunes is almost always panned at the same point as the lead guitar so if the guitar can be cancelled the echo will be too. Reverb was mostly if not always panned differently so it would remain.
I wouldn't get too hung up with frequencies to try to work out the best EQ. I would just do it by ear. 100Hz would be my starting point. Bass does have higher frequencies, probably up to 300Hz for the main part of the bass spectrum, but you can't have everything. If you can get a successful cancellation, then you can still adjust the EQ of the final mono result.
If the sound to be cancelled is not in the exact centre of the mix it would be necessary to adjust the left/right balance a little until it is, otherwise complete cancellation won't happen.
Regards,
Charlie

[Len]

Hi Charlie

I knew nothing about Jambox yesterday. I was responding to what Gary was asking. I now know that it is not a plug-in but a program. I have downloaded a couple of YouTube videos to look at later.

Thanks for the tips on the lead track removal. I will need to spend a lot of time playing around with various options. I have 2 weeks off with School Holidays to do that. I'm a relief teacher. I haven't gone back to school, in case anyone is wondering about that.

It seems that with Audacity, you can't use two processes at once. I tried to do that. I removed the "vocal" track, then alternatively tried to EQ that and apply bass as separate processes. Both times the original "vocal" track had returned. You can however, save a file as an MP3 then drop the MP3 back into the program and process it again, hopefully with the lead track removed permanently. That should work I think, though I haven't actually tried it yet. Then I should be able to EQ or apply bass boost as options through creating a second track for stereo, remembering that the original track became a mono one through the porcess.

I don't want to get too cute with all this though. The old acronym KISS applies here. I would just end up with a mess if I overused EQ. I think that is what you were saying Charlie about not getting too hung up over the EQ issue. I also don't see how I can re-create stereo tracks from this program. I would have to use a different process, apply a plug-in or use a completely different program to do all that I would like to be able to do.

I have managed to remove some of the lead part for Wonderful Land and other tracks but it is always there in the background. In the end, just a little EQ on some Shads numbers (where the lead is in the high ranges for example and where there is also no orchestral accompaniment as with Wonderful Land) and a boosted bass image on a second track might have to do.

Regards
Len

[olemuso]

I tried this years ago with a little success, using hardware and software but was always left with the remnant of Hank`s echo, which is why I gave up. It made it too much like miming to Hank, and I`d rather use my own echo.
That`s why there are backing tracks available, most of them (UBHank, McCutcheon, Robbo)extremely good.
Don`t get me wrong, I found it very interesting and educational to do it, but wouldn`t dream of it now unless I could get perfection.
Just my opinion

[Charlie Hall]

The added reverb by the studio will always remain on Wonderful Land because it is not panned to centre, in fact it is probably stereo reverb. If there is a stereo version of Wonderful Land without the orchestra and added reverb (I think there is a version), it might work better.
There is a free VST plugin called C_SuperStereo that could probably do a lot of useful things in this area. Worth a try if Audacity's feature has shortcomings.
Regards,
Charlie

[Len]

Hi Ian

After spending quite a deal of time today testing various options, I am coming to the same conclusions as you. Most of the plug-ins are not free and leave you with only mono tracks anyway. Not even the commercial ones claim they will remove everything. Goran's backing tracks sound a lot better to me. They are different but clean sounding. I've heard of the others and seen the links but don't know what they are like. I'm going to try removing the lead part by using a wave file (better quality to start with). I might try one or two plug-ins. The Audacity program degrades the sound considerably even if the lead part is partially removed. It's simply not worth the effort I think.

Hi Charlie

I've just about given up on this project (see above on what I said in reply to Ian's input). The processed sound files sound awful. I can send you a sample if you wish. But I wouldn't bother, if I were you. They sound quite "swishy" rather like the worse sounding phase effect you could imagine (probably due to the inversion process I would think). There are two other VST plug-ins that are supposed to work with Audacity. I may give one of those a try. The other is a commercial one (except for the scaled down trial edition which doesn't promise a lot). About the VST plug-in you mentioned called C_SuperStereo: I was just wondering what program it works with. I think it is a Windows program if it's VST (that's my understanding of VST anyway). I searched for info on the web but couldn't find anything useful on it. I did find a download link but no explanation. I'm sorry to sound so negative but I am getting to the end point with this.

Perhaps I could give C_SuperStereo a try first (along with a couple of other plug-ins) before I give it away. I would appreciate knowing what it plugs into, when you have a moment. Is it Windows Media Player or another program?

Regards
Len

[Charlie Hall]

Hi Len,
C-SuperStereo is a VST plugin and works with any VST based recording program. As I understand it, if your computer is Windows then any plugin also has to be for Windows, and same if you have a Mac, the plugin must be available for the Mac.
I use Sonar 2 which is a DX based program, in Windows XP. VST plugins will not work with DX based programs unless a VST wrapper program is used, then almost all VST plugins can work with Sonar and other DX based recording programs. I do not know if Macs have DX based programs.
Regards,
Charlie