Post by: Stefan Maerz on February 26, 2018, 09:28:33 PM
The summary is a company called Klang has taken stereo mixing (presumably using phase relationships) created a second dimension. The idea being that it opens up more space in personal IEM mixes. Video at that link is self explanatory and explains it better than I can.
Anyways, some people I know are looking to buy this IEM system at the advice of their systems integrator. Having never tried or even heard of Klang, them I don't know what to tell them. My gut it is that it seems gimmicky and attempting to solve a people problem (proper monitor engineering) with a bunch of new shiny gear. I feel like at this point any new personal IEM is a lateral move for them and the level of production they are at justifies proper monitor engineering.
I recommended that they try them in a live setting prior to buying them (and the additional expense of buying iPads for each musician).
I could see why having more space in a mix is good, however at the end of the day there is only so much frequency spectrum available. Further when people try to solve people problems with technology, it generally leaves a very negative taste in my mouth.
Anyone tried these? Anyone have any thoughts on how well they work?
Post by: Pete Erskine on February 26, 2018, 09:54:50 PM
Anyone tried these? Anyone have any thoughts on how well they work?
I think you are misunderstanding what this is. Bi-naural audio will allow monitor sources to seem to come from behind you, above you or in front of you as if the sound is actually moving around not just left to right. Download the app and listen to the demo... it's amazing.
Post by: Mac Kerr on February 26, 2018, 10:01:22 PM
Came across this today: https://www.klang.com/en/home Which I don't see any prior posts about when I search.
They used them on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon on SuperBowl Sunday. I think they may be using them in NY now. They seemed very happy with them. Instead of doing a dozen stereo ear mixes Kenny now mixes about 30 stems that go to the Klang and the Roots mix their own. I posted about this earlier this month. My guess is they are very expensive.
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,166219.msg1533213.html#msg1533213
Mac
Post by: Bob Leonard on February 26, 2018, 10:06:32 PM
Post by: Stefan Maerz on February 26, 2018, 10:23:36 PM
I think you are misunderstanding what this is. Bi-naural audio will allow monitor sources to seem to come from behind you, above you or in front of you as if the sound is actually moving around not just left to right. Download the app and listen to the demo... it's amazing.So while I very well could misunderstand it, I think I have the gist of it -- when I was shown the video above my first thought was the "virtual barber shop" mp3 that was floating around the internet about a decade ago. Essentially the people who made the virtual barber mp3 took a stereo pair spaced approximately the distance between your ears apart. They then took scissors and pretended to cut your hair. When you listen to it with headphones, the brain is subsequently able to differentiate arrival time differences, which has a really interesting sensation where you actually feel like your hair is being cut. Not an expert, and my understanding of this is certainly superficial however. :)
Thanks for the link Mac and the summary of your conversations -- the idea of head tracking is also intriguing and didn't cross my mind until I read your thread.
Post by: Luke Geis on February 26, 2018, 11:38:53 PM
To me it takes a regular un-enhanced stereo mix and gives it that mastered studio enhanced sound that, to many, is cool. The down side that they do not address is LATENCY. The effect ( which is what it is ) creates latency. I do not see how it solves the fundamental problems of stage monitoring. It is a parlor trick. I agree it may sound more pleasing to the ear, but it isn't actually fixing anything? At the tune of 1K per output mix, it is a hard pill to swallow when there is a cheaper and perhaps even better way of getting the same results.
Post by: Caleb Dueck on February 27, 2018, 05:34:40 AM
It is in essence an $8,000 stereo image enhancer with 8 user assignable output channels.
To me it takes a regular un-enhanced stereo mix and gives it that mastered studio enhanced sound that, to many, is cool. The down side that they do not address is LATENCY. The effect ( which is what it is ) creates latency. I do not see how it solves the fundamental problems of stage monitoring. It is a parlor trick. I agree it may sound more pleasing to the ear, but it isn't actually fixing anything? At the tune of 1K per output mix, it is a hard pill to swallow when there is a cheaper and perhaps even better way of getting the same results.
What cheaper and better way do you know of? Dante into a large DSP such as QSys with all the delays, shelving and LPF, and panning is possible. Building a GUI and knowing how to process each matrix crosspoint isn't trivial. It's much more than fancy panning.
The head tracking component is what makes this really cool, haven't seen when it will come.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Post by: Tim McCulloch on February 27, 2018, 12:16:11 PM
It is in essence an $8,000 stereo image enhancer with 8 user assignable output channels.
To me it takes a regular un-enhanced stereo mix and gives it that mastered studio enhanced sound that, to many, is cool. The down side that they do not address is LATENCY. The effect ( which is what it is ) creates latency. I do not see how it solves the fundamental problems of stage monitoring. It is a parlor trick. I agree it may sound more pleasing to the ear, but it isn't actually fixing anything? At the tune of 1K per output mix, it is a hard pill to swallow when there is a cheaper and perhaps even better way of getting the same results.
Arrrg. My browser ate my homework...
The distillation: monitoring the hearing of ones own performance and the contribution of others - has been a less than perfect thing since amplification was introduced and the influence of the conductor/band leader/music director has waned. In the Ye Olde Dayz® it took (in 1990 dollars) about $8K PER MIX to make a performer close to happy - a pair of big dog Name Brand or SoundCo proprietary wedges, power and processing, cases, cables and kak.
These days performers buy their own IEM buds, IEM transmitter/receive pairs are $1k-$4k; if $1k/mix makes the performers "mo' happy" it's money well spent even if there is a perception of parlour tricks on your part. What we think doesn't really matter if the client wants it and is willing to pay for it.
The trick to the Klang is giving the performers control of the aural sound stage and tracking (panning) that sound stage as the performer moves his head and body. It makes the visual and aural "line up" for them in real-ish time. There's been a huge push to do this for audiences on Broadway (performer tracking/panning) but the issue becomes loudspeaker system design... but there is very much a market for this kind of result.
Post by: Luke Geis on February 27, 2018, 12:43:10 PM
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice, neat package, but they are selling you something.......
I have a technique that I am not quite ready to disclose, that addresses many of the issues of IEM monitoring without adding any costs whatsoever. In fact, my technique thus far has shown to improve even multi thousand dollar earbuds. It is solid enough that even your basic $5 variety brand can be every bit as good as the multi thousand dollar units in terms of effectiveness.
Lets lay down the biggest complaints about IEM.
1. Too isolated from the band and crowd.
2. Cost of entry is high and the cost of equipment that actually makes it work is even higher.
3. The need for ambient mic's adds to the cost and the complexity.
4. Lack of skill and or understanding of how to make IEM's really work leads to an expensive unit that not all are usually happy with.
5. The true need for a stereo mix again adds cost and complexity to the system as a whole. You will now need a mixer that can support several stereo monitor mixes and an engineer good enough to run it.
What is the core of what an IEM is supposed to address?
1. Help reduce stage levels to improve quality of sound in the FOH mix by eliminating sources of high output sound.
2. Help the musician run at a lower stage volume which further enhances point #1.
3. By creating some isolation, a more controlled and personalized mix can be made for each individual.
4. Due to lower overall levels, the hope is that the volume presented to the musicians ear via the IEM is also lower, which helps protect their hearing.
The major issue that I have seen is that badly setup IEM systems are setup in such a way that they are just as loud in the musicians ear as a conventional system would be anyway. This means there is no hearing protection. The isolation created by the high dollar earbuds is so great that the artist feels like they are in their own world and no connection between them and the rest of the world occurs naturally. If the mix and the dynamics used are not spot on the artist will require almost constant adjustment. If the engineer is not privy to IEM mixing, the headroom available in the IEM will be used up and things will sound squashed, garbled, and un focused. Mono IEM mixes don't work very well....... Basically IEM systems have created a market where cost is the only thing that will improve it. An $8,000 gizmo that doesn't truly fix all the issues is just an expensive gizmo. I'm sure it works great, I am just saying there are cheaper ways that I think are better, or at the very least just as effective.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on February 27, 2018, 01:02:32 PM
Basically IEM systems have created a market where cost is the only thing that will improve it. An $8,000 gizmo that doesn't truly fix all the issues is just an expensive gizmo. I'm sure it works great, I am just saying there are cheaper ways that I think are better, or at the very least just as effective.
The crux of the biscuit, so to speak, is 99.8% human factors. The thing most Lounge and HoW participants face is a lack of skilled & experienced technicians. Face if, would Aviom be ubiquitous if every contemporary service had a team of competent monitor engineers? Muddling ones way through a self-built monitor mix is apparently preferable to having none at all or or having a good ME for the 9am service and lousy ME for the 11am service.
There is a huge expectation that these technical solutions to acoustic problems have "appliance level" interfaces, as simple as an iPod or a toaster oven and that they automagically solve aural perception issues created by human actions or misapplication of technology. That's not where Klang is aiming this technology.
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on February 27, 2018, 01:36:56 PM
That's not where Klang is aiming this technology.Said another way: If you don't get it, it's probably not for you.
Post by: Stephen Kirby on February 27, 2018, 02:27:37 PM
So, anything that lets the performer more actively and naturally alter the mix they hear will improve their experience and playing. Audio latency in processing would obviously be a problem but tracking latency less so. Especially if the effect is not very pronounced. VR has issues with head tracking as you can move your head and dart your eyes much faster than a video refresh rate, so it feels unnatural. But I suspect head tracking for aural focus won't need to be as immediate.
The ultimate would be something like the Sensaphonics built in ambient mics feeding back into a processor that would adjust timing/phase/pan of the mix to track with what the mics hear at the performers ears.
Post by: Jack Kontney on January 29, 2019, 05:38:05 PM
...
The ultimate would be something like the Sensaphonics built in ambient mics feeding back into a processor that would adjust timing/phase/pan of the mix to track with what the mics hear at the performers ears.
Sorry about the Lazarus effect on this old thread, but it may be pertinent: The current Sensaphonics 3D AARO Active Ambient has a stereo output jack on the bodypack mixer (the "RO" for Record Out) that lets you send the ambient feed from the embedded binaural mics to a processor. Output can then be fed back into the monitor feed. Note that the 3D electronics are analog, so no latency issues.
Post by: Spenser Hamilton on January 29, 2019, 08:26:52 PM
You got that right Mac. The system base is $6500, and each 4 channel amp is $1850. $8350.00 to get up and going.
Plus you still need a console to feed it all the stems.
I remember attending a demo in Toronto a few years ago where they were really pushing the technology. Really cool trick, but not economical in the realm I operate in.
Post by: Christopher Irwin on January 30, 2019, 03:30:42 PM
When you add up the cost of a personal mixer system for 8 musicians (Aviom, A&H ME, etc) the KLANG system price is in the right ballpark, with a significant number of improved features some buyers need and others don't. It's UI is designed to be extremely flexible and powerful, but still able to "lock out" some features for users so that it can also be as simple as faders or even turning up down groups of channels at one time. And by nature of being software can be updated and improved unlike personal hardware mixers (I understand this also has its fair share of downsides).
It can take both MADI and Dante and also act as a converter between the two, so can be used with most any decent console these days. It has 8 stereo pairs of XLR outputs for the mixes that can be taken directly to wireless transmitters or headphone amps, and so it does not require the $1500 dante headphone amp made by the same company (though they looked really nice).
Of course it's biggest selling point is the "3D" mixing because that makes it unique and stands out from all other products currently. It seems to be a huge improvement for localization and adding space in the mix to hear things well, though I haven't used it in a real world setting. Even without this heavily marketed aspect, it appears to be a good solid product that I would definitely consider demo-ing and considering.
Post by: Erik Jerde on January 31, 2019, 08:58:58 AM
A few years ago I ran across it and thought that it was just a "parlor trick" as some have mentioned. However, I just spent some time at NAMM looking at this system and came to realize that it might actually be a good competitor in the personal monitoring market (particularly HOW). For those who don't know, this company was just bought by Digico (or their parent company, I don't recall), which right there should say something about the quality and potential.
When you add up the cost of a personal mixer system for 8 musicians (Aviom, A&H ME, etc) the KLANG system price is in the right ballpark, with a significant number of improved features some buyers need and others don't. It's UI is designed to be extremely flexible and powerful, but still able to "lock out" some features for users so that it can also be as simple as faders or even turning up down groups of channels at one time. And by nature of being software can be updated and improved unlike personal hardware mixers (I understand this also has its fair share of downsides).
It can take both MADI and Dante and also act as a converter between the two, so can be used with most any decent console these days. It has 8 stereo pairs of XLR outputs for the mixes that can be taken directly to wireless transmitters or headphone amps, and so it does not require the $1500 dante headphone amp made by the same company (though they looked really nice).
Of course it's biggest selling point is the "3D" mixing because that makes it unique and stands out from all other products currently. It seems to be a huge improvement for localization and adding space in the mix to hear things well, though I haven't used it in a real world setting. Even without this heavily marketed aspect, it appears to be a good solid product that I would definitely consider demo-ing and considering.
I first became familiar with the KLANG system through reading about it on the DiGiCo FB group. Guys doing national tours with it who really liked it. At first I was skeptical but the more I read about musicians really liking it the more I’m interested. I’ve contacted my dealer for a demo. I don’t have a quote yet but brief online searching has shown the KLANG fabrik being a little north of 5K. It can do up to 8 mixes with no additional gear. With additional output devices it can do up to 16 mixes. Available channels for mixing are reduced by the number of mixes in play. Multiple units can cascade and work seamlessly together to form one larger system. The ability to have an engineer monitoring mode as well as for one musician to mirror another is great. I’m excited to see the native integration with the DiGiCo SD platform.
For 8 mixes it costs less than our existing Roland M48 system even if you buy 8 new ipads. However since you can BYOD it’s potentially even cheaper. We’re already using IEMs so the loss of analog outputs isn’t a big deal. We’d need a couple of headphone amps but they don’t have to be expensive Dante ones.
It’ll be interesting to hear it once we get the demo in. I’m expecting to have to find the money for it next though.
Post by: Frederik Rosenkjær on February 01, 2019, 07:21:28 PM
Quite a lot of misunderstanding and only one post actually getting at least some of the essence of the idea behind Klang right so far: namely the “cocktail party effect.”
With regular IEM/headphones listening sound is presented the brain in a very unnatural way. We know we want to use stereo to get more space, but how often does our brain hear a sound at the same time in both ears but at different levels? Never.
Our psycho acoustic analysis system is super advanced and goes totally unnoticed every day. Its ability to pick sounds apart based on the spatial information our outer ears imbue it with is uncanny, but that system is rendered useless with regular IEM or headphones since all spatial clues have been removed. This is why IEM mixing has always been finicky and artists are always asking for things louder or quieter by miniscule dB-steps and often not being really happy with their mix at any time, whereas backline and wedges seems more forgiving - because the artist’s ears (or brain, rather) is able to do quite a lot of intuitive subconscious mixing for them, because it has spatial information to work with.
This spatial information is what the Klang system aims to give back to the artist, making for a more natural, more forgiving sound stage to play in.
Post by: brian maddox on February 01, 2019, 08:22:27 PM
Disclaimer: Klang dealer and user here.
Quite a lot of misunderstanding and only one post actually getting at least some of the essence of the idea behind Klang right so far: namely the “cocktail party effect.”
With regular IEM/headphones listening sound is presented the brain in a very unnatural way. We know we want to use stereo to get more space, but how often does our brain hear a sound at the same time in both ears but at different levels? Never.
Our psycho acoustic analysis system is super advanced and goes totally unnoticed every day. Its ability to pick sounds apart based on the spatial information our outer ears imbue it with is uncanny, but that system is rendered useless with regular IEM or headphones since all spatial clues have been removed. This is why IEM mixing has always been finicky and artists are always asking for things louder or quieter by miniscule dB-steps and often not being really happy with their mix at any time, whereas backline and wedges seems more forgiving - because the artist’s ears (or brain, rather) is able to do quite a lot of intuitive subconscious mixing for them, because it has spatial information to work with.
This spatial information is what the Klang system aims to give back to the artist, making for a more natural, more forgiving sound stage to play in.
^^this
I've been struggling as a performer with this for the last 20 years, for while i appreciate the advantages that IEMs offer, i have never been TRULY happy with the outcome. It became obvious to me some time ago that the sense of isolation i felt had nothing to do with needing "ambient mics" and everything to do with the stereo image in my head not matching the physical reality around me.
I'm not in a place where i'm likely to experience the Klang system right now, but i wish i was. I've worked on some very experimental Real-Time 3D Audio Spatial Imaging projects recently [NDA prevents me saying more] and i am a total convert to the concept. I'd LOVE to see how well Klang has been able to realize it.
Post by: Jason Glass on February 02, 2019, 04:00:29 PM
^^this
I've been struggling as a performer with this for the last 20 years, for while i appreciate the advantages that IEMs offer, i have never been TRULY happy with the outcome. It became obvious to me some time ago that the sense of isolation i felt had nothing to do with needing "ambient mics" and everything to do with the stereo image in my head not matching the physical reality around me.
I'm not in a place where i'm likely to experience the Klang system right now, but i wish i was. I've worked on some very experimental Real-Time 3D Audio Spatial Imaging projects recently [NDA prevents me saying more] and i am a total convert to the concept. I'd LOVE to see how well Klang has been able to realize it.
I also agree. When I was a touring MON engineer, one of the tricks I used, after digital consoles became the norm, was to send single head amp inputs to adjacent channels and manipulate panning, channel delay, and polarity to simulate spatial cues found in nature. It was extremely effective, although often times wireless IEM stereo multiplexing couldn't handle it and would generate audible artifacts.
Post by: Dennis Muller on February 03, 2019, 05:30:30 PM
I also agree. When I was a touring MON engineer, one of the tricks I used, after digital consoles became the norm, was to send single head amp inputs to adjacent channels and manipulate panning, channel delay, and polarity to simulate spatial cues found in nature. It was extremely effective, although often times wireless IEM stereo multiplexing couldn't handle it and would generate audible artifacts.
Jason,
I'd love to hear more about how you did this, if you're in the mood for sharing a few of your trade secrets!
Post by: Tim McCulloch on February 03, 2019, 06:51:22 PM
Jason,
I'd love to hear more about how you did this, if you're in the mood for sharing a few of your trade secrets!
Not Jason, but...
Most digital mixers allow the input strip to select the input signal source so input strips 1, 2, and 3 could get their audio from physical input 1. The strips could be panned L, C, R. You'd potentially have 3x the number of inputs doing this but you could build a mix for each performer where he'd always be in the center, and the sources to his/her L/R from the appropriate pre-panned strips. Think of it as a matrix mixer of panning. I'd add that some ambience mics carefully paned and blended will enhance the illusion.
The additional things Jason will have to address.
Post by: Jason Glass on February 03, 2019, 07:40:46 PM
Of course I'm happy to share, and I'm glad that you asked!
Rather than simply panning an input hard left or right, which places them into the left or right IEM, you can trick the mind into perceiving them as originating outside the soundfield by delaying the signal in the ear opposite your intended direction of origin. Having channel delay with 0.1 ms resolution allows some very fine tuning of perceived distance outside the field.
It's also useful for balancing L-R spectral content while presenting instruments in their appropriate space. For example, a bright, jangly acoustic guitar that dominates the whole right side of a mix can be spread to the left side while maintaining its spatial location by simply delaying it on the left.
Sent from my mobile phone using Tapatalk
Post by: brian maddox on February 03, 2019, 08:07:10 PM
Hi Dennis,
Of course I'm happy to share, and I'm glad that you asked!
Rather than simply panning an input hard left or right, which places them into the left or right IEM, you can trick the mind into perceiving them as originating outside the soundfield by delaying the signal in the ear opposite your intended direction of origin. Having channel delay with 0.1 ms resolution allows some very fine tuning of perceived distance outside the field.
It's also useful for balancing L-R spectral content while presenting instruments in their appropriate space. For example, a bright, jangly acoustic guitar that dominates the whole right side of a mix can be spread to the left side while maintaining its spatial location by simply delaying it on the left.
Sent from my mobile phone using Tapatalk
Brilliant. And a trick I’ve never tried.
Thank you Guy Smarter Than Me 😀
Post by: Russell Ault on February 03, 2019, 09:54:59 PM
Brilliant. And a trick I’ve never tried.
Thank you Guy Smarter Than Me 😀
Speaking of smarter than me, for anyone who's interested in some of the science behind this, the Wikipedia article on the Precedence Effect (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect) is a good starting point.
-Russ
Post by: Erik Jerde on February 04, 2019, 12:31:57 AM
Hi Dennis,
Of course I'm happy to share, and I'm glad that you asked!
Rather than simply panning an input hard left or right, which places them into the left or right IEM, you can trick the mind into perceiving them as originating outside the soundfield by delaying the signal in the ear opposite your intended direction of origin. Having channel delay with 0.1 ms resolution allows some very fine tuning of perceived distance outside the field.
It's also useful for balancing L-R spectral content while presenting instruments in their appropriate space. For example, a bright, jangly acoustic guitar that dominates the whole right side of a mix can be spread to the left side while maintaining its spatial location by simply delaying it on the left.
Sent from my mobile phone using Tapatalk
I’ve used this same trick in FOH mixing to spread sources into a more stereo feel while maintaining coverage in the entire room. Usually only on BGVs and in really wide rooms. It’s worked very well to present a feeling of stereo panning to those more in the middle without loosing the content for those on the sides.
Post by: Andrew Hollis on February 04, 2019, 09:28:51 PM
Brilliant. And a trick I’ve never tried.
It’s the Haas effect.
Put same source into left and right. Add delay to the right. It will sound like the source is coming from the left. So ‘panning’ but a bit more sophisticated and perhaps ‘easier on the ears!’
Post by: Nathan Salt on February 07, 2019, 12:41:06 AM
4 PA hangs spread out down the room with stage in between the 2 middle ones.
Client complained when they were off to the sides it sounded like it was coming from the PA (well duh) and not from the stage.
So we slowly added delay to the outside hangs and it pulled the image to the stage. Crazy to hear it happen in front of you like that.
Seems counter intuitive as now the PA hangs weren't "aligned" in there overlap area.
Knowing about something but then to actually use it in a really practical way. Will definitely be keeping that trick in my back pocket.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on February 07, 2019, 01:26:32 AM
Have used the precedence effect on out fill hangs in a very wide room.
4 PA hangs spread out down the room with stage in between the 2 middle ones.
Client complained when they were off to the sides it sounded like it was coming from the PA (well duh) and not from the stage.
So we slowly added delay to the outside hangs and it pulled the image to the stage. Crazy to hear it happen in front of you like that.
Seems counter intuitive as now the PA hangs weren't "aligned" in there overlap area.
Knowing about something but then to actually use it in a really practical way. Will definitely be keeping that trick in my back pocket.
Hearing the image come together is one of those "light bulb over the head" moments. I've used it a bunch to demonstrate "why" we get all excited about the time thingy.
As for being counter intuitive... no, it wasn't. From a straight forward mathematics standpoint you did right. What you didn't do is optimize for where the most important person would evaluate your work, or know for sure what their standard was.
Quick story - took a Complete FOH Engineer class taught by Robert Scovil. He spends a lot of time on the topic of time so there is a bit of discussion about *where* to optimize, since there's only 1 small bit of real estate in the Golden Triangle. Students had a number of replies but the winner was "8 feet to my right, and six feet forward." Why? "Because that's where the band manager and wives listen to the show."
Now you know what's important to that client. What you need to do is check to see if you made a new problem somewhere else while "fixing" the alignment for the client in that spot.
Post by: brian maddox on February 07, 2019, 08:13:47 AM
...
As for being counter intuitive... no, it wasn't. From a straight forward mathematics standpoint you did right. What you didn't do is optimize for where the most important person would evaluate your work, or know for sure what their standard was.
Quick story - took a Complete FOH Engineer class taught by Robert Scovil. He spends a lot of time on the topic of time so there is a bit of discussion about *where* to optimize, since there's only 1 small bit of real estate in the Golden Triangle. Students had a number of replies but the winner was "8 feet to my right, and six feet forward." Why? "Because that's where the band manager and wives listen to the show."
Now you know what's important to that client. What you need to do is check to see if you made a new problem somewhere else while "fixing" the alignment for the client in that spot.
^^this. times a zillion.
I see a lot of guys with their sampling mics all over the room spending hours getting everything "time aligned perfectly" and i'm always curious as to WHERE it's "perfect". Knowing where the WHERE should be is FAR more important than getting that WHERE to something approaching "perfect".
Post by: Scott Helmke on February 07, 2019, 10:30:40 AM
So we slowly added delay to the outside hangs and it pulled the image to the stage. Crazy to hear it happen in front of you like that.
Seems counter intuitive as now the PA hangs weren't "aligned" in there overlap area.
Just watch out for comb filtering where the hangs overlap, because adding delay can produce a lot of combing.