I am sorry to disappoint you but crosstalk feature of console emulations is a fake

[murnau]

I'm not disappointed, I'd be disappointed if it did work and people actually used it.

True..

[risome]

Crosstalk use to happen on ageing mixers it was a pita.Why the f%*k would you want to emulate it or worse still fake it and market it as a feature STFU

[Tj Shredder]

I guess its a placebo experiment from some sociological researchers anyway. We want that bad sounds back, from yestermillenium...

Nobody is disappointed yet...

[nIGhT-SoN]

Crosstalk use to happen on ageing mixers it was a pita.Why the f%*k would you want to emulate it or worse still fake it and market it as a feature STFU

Why do we want saturation from old gear? Why do we want less precise compressors, eq like old gear and not the digital ones which are better, cleaner?

My point is, if the end result sounds good, it doesn't matter how did you get there. If crosstalk helps you get what you want and it sounds good to majority of people, it doesn't matter what the guy above says or thinks.

I think you guys should watch this:

[Gamma-UT]

Sound on Sound did a quick Q&A on this last year: https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advi ... good-thing

I set up a little FX rack in Live to test out some of these and other assumptions. Rather than hipass the aggressor lines, I used Airwindows SlewOnly on the basis that electrical crosstalk is basically a dI/dt effect - transients will have the greatest effect. It's then a question of how an aggressor line hits the victim line. SoS worked on the basis that the stereo bus is where you will get the most interaction so it's just a matter of doing a slew-only/hipass and flip left and right before mixing back in. For parallel channels into a summing bus, you're going to have several potential victim lines, so it seems reasonable to assume that you will get a mixture of regular and flipped-channel crosstalk in the worst case.

If we assume linear summing in the DAW, there's no real need for the plugins to "communicate" – you can just mix the crosstalk effect into each channel individually. To a large extent, the voltage induced on a parallel channel simply adds to the stereo sum, unless you're going to take into account effects like voltage sag on big transients. Another way to simulate it is to simply route to two AUXes and apply the slew and channel-swapping on one of them and mix back in.

There is a question of whether the effect is primarily capacitive or inductive. IIRC, inductive crosstalk will be the opposite phase to capacitive. That would increase the spatialisation effect overall on a stereo signal. But in a real mixing desk, you're probably going to get a combination of both.

The net effect will be that the mix gets slightly louder and brighter (because the "crosstalk" is effectively hipassed). For hard-panned, transient-heavy signals, you might get a bit more spatialisation because the ear is now hearing a faint ghost on the other side.

Of course, you could simply enhance the transients on a regular mix and spatialise individual channels as you see fit and get far more pleasing results than trusting to the random interactions of what always used to be an inconvenience.

[Burillo]

i am sorry to disappoint but the OP is an incompetent moron who lacks reading comprehension. aside from SKNote StripBus, the "crosstalk" feature in all console emulations (when it's present - some don't have it) is referring to stereo crosstalk, not channel-to-channel crosstalk (where e.g. your kick would bleed into your vocals). it's not the fault of the developers if you can't be arsed to RTFM.

moreover, i would argue that the SKNote-style crosstalk (where each channel bleeds into every other channel) is highly unrealistic because you have to royally screw up the schematic to have this effect on every channel.

[kmonkey]

i am sorry to disappoint but the OP is an incompetent moron who lacks reading comprehension. aside from SKNote StripBus, the "crosstalk" feature in all console emulations (when it's present - some don't have it) is referring to stereo crosstalk, not channel-to-channel crosstalk (where e.g. your kick would bleed into your vocals). it's not the fault of the developers if you can't be arsed to RTFM.

moreover, i would argue that the SKNote-style crosstalk (where each channel bleeds into every other channel) is highly unrealistic because you have to royally screw up the schematic to have this effect on every channel.

Everything you said i actually pretty spot on. Good comment.

[Hink]

because instead of correcting someone calling them "an incompetent moron who lacks reading comprehension" completely unprovoked always works out so well here

[gas pump]

I am sorry to disappoint you but crosstalk feature of console emulations is a fake. I have checked the following ones: sonimus satson, mellowmuse csv1, klanghelm sdrr. But I am more than convinced that all others including the famous vcc behave the same way. In order to check if the feature is really implemented you need to solo the master track and one track with an instument. Put buss vst to both of them and enable crosstalk in them. Buss vst on the track with the instrument should be placed before volume fader which should be moved fully to the left to disable sound output. Start playback. And you won't hear anything accept silence! Though the programers assure you that you have a crosstalk feature which should provide low-volume bleed of sound between several copies of the buss vst. But this does not happen. At least mellowmuse admits that it makes crosstalk only within one copy of a vst thus mixing right ch with the left ch but actually it is more crossfeed than crosstalk while crosstalk should occur between tracks and not within channels of one track. Of course crosstalk can be imlemented but as we can see from a test there is no communication happening between several copies of the same vst. All this means that you have to arrange crosstalk manually without those vsts by creating an aux buss and routing from tracks to it. Modify sound on that bus by eqs and panning tools to get imitation of a real crosstalk.

Exactly the reason people shouldn't depend on applications, visual aids or any other crutch to mix with. You can clearly hear what crosstalk is doing with experienced ears. But most importantly, you want to feel the way the crosstalk or any other sort of harmonics, saturation and distortion module is imparting on the music.

Now a days kids think they can dubturbo their way to success through artificial intelligence and automation, like believers in the Izotope Kool-aid. The only way to get great at anything is to put in the hours and work. That means 10,000-30,000 real hours of focused, dedicated and passionate practice.

The truth is hard for the softies to swallow, they would rather you stroke their egos.

[Tj Shredder]

I think you guys should watch this:

Thanks for sharing this. It really grabbed me and I watched it from beginning to end...
Quintessence: Not the gear matters, its what comes out of the speakers!

I just wonder how something like emulating crosstalk, something any analog gear engineer would avoid as best she can, will go into a product??? The only explanation I would have for that, is, promoting that the gear is responsible for the music... Take some music the masses love, look at the gear used, oh its objectively crap, ok, lets emulate the crap, because we can sell it to those who believe the gear is responsible...

Crosstalk is crap - always, if you make something sound good with it, you got your skills, but you certainly don't need the crap to sound good...

Listen to the video, he does not care about specific gear...

[nIGhT-SoN]

Well my point was and I quote my post:

My point is, if the end result sounds good, it doesn't matter how did you get there. If crosstalk helps you get what you want and it sounds good to majority of people, it doesn't matter what the guy above says or thinks.

I'm not talking about crosstalk being good or bad, but how it helps you get what you want. That's the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter that you think it's bad if it helps someone get the sound they want. You can say it 1milion times that crosstalk is bad, you can come with 10million arguments that is bad, if for example crosstalk helps me get the sound I'm looking for, those arguments fall from the start. You probably can get the same effect, on your mix, other ways, but if you can just turn a knob and does what you expect why would you choose the harder way?

So in the end it doesn't matter that you or some other people think it's s**t or bullc**p as long as some people find it useful and it helps their mixes. Even if it would be just placebo, which I don't think it's the case, if it helps them gain more confidence in their material I'd say it's still a win. That's why lately I rarely rely on people's opinion and just test myself, see if it works for me. For me Studio One's crosstalk is something that I like, but in moderation (5-10%). I don't think it's bad to have the option of turning it on or off. Why not? If you don't like it you can just turn it off.

[Burillo]

because instead of correcting someone calling them "an incompetent moron who lacks reading comprehension" completely unprovoked always works out so well here

of course. and posting ignorant drivel and carrying heavily implied accusation of a lot of developers being frauds when it's clear from the first few sentences that the OP hasn't done his homework. yeah, that is totally fine and dandy. we're a polite society here, after all. just because it wasn't said with foul language doesn't mean it wasn't foul.

[original flipper]

Hi

Of course, 'crosstalk' or 'leakage' existed in tape based recorders as well.

Crosstalk was by default a feature (unwanted) of Reggae music - in particular dub (instrumental versions of a track with a vocal).

Reggae music (in part) relied on a mixing technique whereby tracks would be switched off, especially in dub to drop in/out the vocal or other parts of the track (guitar).

In many dub tracks you can actually hear the vocal ever so slightly in the background, and this is NOT because the channel fader was not fully turned down, but rather because of either mixer or tape machine track/Chanel leakage.

To minimize this effect engineers would often record prominent instruments (such as the bass guitar) well away from the vocal track - perhaps bass on track 1 with the vocal up at 7 or 8 (on an 8 track machine).

Often the effect was exacerbated by overloading the initial recording or mixing levels.

Incidentally some engineers would also stay clear of using the 'outside' tracks for really important components (lets say track 1 and 16 of a 2" 16 track tape) due to the potential for damage to those tracks being in proximity to the edge of the tape reel - mechanical tape machines were known to be uncaring at times and handling the reel could (especially in the initial lead in) also damage it.

If I wanted to emulate such a thing I would (for example) automate a vocal to drop in level so it was still barely audible.

At the end of the day if people find a use for such a thing good luck to them!

[mrcleats]

There's a whole lot of cross talk here

[Aleatoriac]