Home » R/E/P » Whatever Works » Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #235428 is a reply to message #211400 ] |
Wed, 04 April 2007 21:07   |
 daveseviltwin
Messages: 19
Registered: November 2006 |
Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well, either those artifacts are IN your recordings or your DAW is terrible. Gain should in no way increase "artifacts."
The entire argument in this thread is FOR recording at lower levels.
An average level of -20dBFS for a 24 bit input signal is fine.
-tom
|
I will definately take into consideration what you guys are saying. I was just stating what I like as far as consistency. I just recently (over the past 4 months) started tracking at higher levels. It just helped me mix everything better and more consistently when I got to that point.
My question for you is this. I've heard -6,-12, -18 and -20dBFS, what is the formula for this?| Quote: |
An average level of -20dBFS for a 24 bit input signal is fine.
|
I don't mean to be arrogant but why -20dBFS? Is that what works for you? Don't take me the wrong way. I would just like to know why this is the best level.
I promise I'm not trying to argue, I'm just interested in the facts. Thanks for the input
| Quote: |
Gain should in no way increase "artifacts."
|
By the way, in my experience gain always increases noise regardless of what type of audio you're dealing with. All I was saying is that when I put it in a DIGITAL limiter just to raise the gain a bit (not to master, I don't want to open that can of worms) it tends to be "noisier" and more harsh.
David S
Aspiring Recording Engineer/Working FOH, Monitor Engineer and Lighting Tech/Commercial Installation
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #235434 is a reply to message #211400 ] |
Wed, 04 April 2007 21:27 |
maxim
Messages: 5426
Registered: February 2005 |
Platinum Member |
|
|
david wrote:
"...DIGITAL limiter just to raise the gain a bit (not to master, I don't want to open that can of worms)"
i'm afraid the worms are out and crawling all over the floor...
why do you need a DIGITAL (or any) limiter just to raise the gain?
why not use the master fader?
cheers,
max
sydney, oz
http://www.asylumdreams.com
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #235458 is a reply to message #211400 ] |
Wed, 04 April 2007 23:34 |
 |
 tom eaton
Messages: 2591
Registered: May 2004
Location: Newburyport, MA |
Platinum Member |
|
|
Let's clarify our terms here:
noise is not an artifact of gain change.
there should be no significant noise CREATED by the gain change.
sounds like you're surprised that things get louder when you turn them up!
-20dBFS as an average level comes from the broadcast world and works very well. Like 83dBSPL, it has become somewhat of a standard in the world of interfacing gear, files and projects.
My Dorrough meters, for example, center on -20dBFS. Using 0VU= -20dBFS gives you 20dB of headroom over +4 from your console or preamp, and likewise gives your console or external gear a signal that can be handled realisitically in the analog world on the back end of the DAW during an analog mix or analog processing in a digital mix.
Some folks might say -18dB is a good average, that's fine, too.
But for simplicity sake, +4dBm=0VU=-20dBFS works, sounds good and is portable. No one will scream at you when they have to mix your clipping tracks, and no broadcaster will reject your tracks for level reasons (ABC/Primetime has let me know that they're not happy when I've submitted tracks that RMS at -12... they want -20, so I give it to them).
-tom
thomas eaton recording
acoustic music guy
http://www.thomaseaton.com
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #235562 is a reply to message #235458 ] |
Thu, 05 April 2007 10:42 |
RedStone
Messages: 18
Registered: March 2007 |
Member |
|
|
| tom eaton wrote on Wed, 04 April 2007 23:34 |
My Dorrough meters, for example, center on -20dBFS. Using 0VU= -20dBFS gives you 20dB of headroom over +4 from your console or preamp, and likewise gives your console or external gear a signal that can be handled realistically in the analog world on the back end of the DAW during an analog mix or analog processing in a digital mix.
Some folks might say -18dB is a good average, that's fine, too.
But for simplicity sake, +4dBm=0VU=-20dBFS works, sounds good and is portable. No one will scream at you when they have to mix your clipping tracks, and no broadcaster will reject your tracks for level reasons (ABC/Primetime has let me know that they're not happy when I've submitted tracks that RMS at -12... they want -20, so I give it to them).
-tom
|
Go tom!
+4dBm=0VU=-20dBFS
perfect
click.listen.enjoy
Ryan McGuire
http://www.myspace.com/levityproject
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #237364 is a reply to message #211400 ] |
Thu, 12 April 2007 19:28 |
jburtner
Messages: 6
Registered: April 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA |
Member |
|
|
The way I have always aimed to track to 2" and into a DAW is as follows:
INITIAL TRACKING:
-1-
Set record levels so that the return channels are able to stay at unity and panned accordingly, and mix to the stereo bus such that your mix is basically there at the desired mix bus level (ie, -16, -18, or -20 dbfs).
-2-
If there is a compelling reason to not endeavour to follow the above (or below) and set either a hotter or softer record level then do it. Rules were made to be broken.
-3-
This means that you do not record "all the bits" at (or even near) 0 dbfs unless you have a compelling reason. When you need to transfer to/from an analog format for some reason this will help greatly by allowing you to not modify the original audio and to transfer @ unity. You never when you may have to go back and forth a number of times for some reason.
Also, if you have to pull back all of your faders to hit the stereo bus at a nice level you are losing bits by pulling them back and the audio is then not what was originally recorded. If you record with less level in the first place, you do not have to pull your channel faders back to get a good mix that is not too hot and the audio will be more representative of what you actually have recorded o each discrete channel.
-4-
Another benefit is that if you track with this mentality then all you have to do on an overdub session is to put the return faders at 0 and make slight adjustments instead of spending a couple hours every time getting your mix back every time you need to do an overdub session. It just helps workflow which helps creativity and inspiration. The same holds true in a DAW.
-5-
When tracking or overdubing I commit the punches and edits to a contiguous file/track unless item #2 comes into play. This keeps all tracks as contiguous files and changing between DAW platforms is quite quick and easy. No mucking with the session and cleaning up later.
-6-
When you set up for more involved rough's or a final mix you can throw out the attempt to keep all channels at unity and just make it sound like it needs to. The idea though is that the tracks were recorded initially in such a way that the mix should be somewhat close with the faders just up.
-7-
When you start pushing gain on channels and pulling back channels to compensate for a track that was not initially recorded "properly" (whatever that is anyway) you are also redoing the math, losing bits, and adding bits that were never there in the first place. That may be needed in some cases and that's fine. But the endeavour from the get-go is to not have that be the case.
-8-
Make a 'faders up' stereo rough after each session and burn it to disk or post it somewhere so all interested parties can have a record of what actually happened during that session.
Make sure to spend time working on and printing more involved roughs and stems throughout a project so that those can be used when appropriate for overdubs in place of a "faders up".
-- It's quite fun to go through several projects with that mentality and see how close you can get when tracking in the beginning and ending up mixing after many hours/days/weeks.. or even months. You do get better at it and it does help the end product.
-- I also subscribe to throwing all of those suggestions out the window and taking a totally different approach each time you undertake a project so that you also gain different and varied experiences.
Cheers,
-JoBu
|
|
| | |
 Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new ??? [message #239484 is a reply to message #237880 ] |
Fri, 20 April 2007 20:37 |
Hitmaker
Messages: 11
Registered: March 2007
Location: Christchurch , New Zealan... |
Member |
|
|
Hi guys ,
At risk of a monstrous flame , I wish to offer a different point of view ...
I recall the early days of 16-bit digital ... and to my ear , and those of engineers I respected , a lower level signal did have a certain 'graininess' to it ... Perhaps this has to do with encoding the noise floor ..
Example ... Let's consider a signal with a noise-floor of -78 dB ... in 16-bit that equates to occupying 3 bits .... It seems to me that there is more chance of quantising error attempting to squeeze this broadband , aperiodic signal into a small number of bits ... That's purely personal surmise ... but MIGHT explain the sonic effect noted ....
Obviously , at 24-bit , the situation is much improved ... that same noise-floor now occupies 9 bits ..... but is still potentially exposed to more quantising error than at full-scale .. as a theory ...
To my ear , a lower channel setting at 24-bit ( volume -matched ) does sound not quite as full as when at full-scale .... but ... don't ask me why .....
All that aside ..... I look more holistically at the entire production chain ... taking particular note of the much-despised practice of hyper compression .....
Both compression , and limiting will have an impact-robbing ( through reduced speaker excursion ) effect ... Their 'loudness' effects are due to altering dynamic relationships .... both relatively , and absolutely .... Relatively , there is the psychoacoustic effect of sounding louder because low level transients , and higher overtones , occupy more of the ( lessened ) dynamic range ...... Like a dynamic 'smiley-face' eq ....
Absolutely , in that by compressing dynamic range , more gain without clipping can be achieved ...
As the only way to raise absolute average RMS is to compress/limit in some manner , and that is a thinning , harshening , life-sucking process , it seems logical to keep the need for it to a minimum .....
So , to return to the topic , I look to the start of the chain .....
It occurs to me , one explanation for the reported sonic improvement from running your pres lower is nothing more than a reflection of their reducing fidelity at higher gains ... and , I guess , if you considered your mix channels to sound better near unity gain than your pres ... there is a certain logic to that arrangement .... ( and no ... I don't won't to be beaten about the head with a set of Apogees !!!!!! )
BUT ... by so doing , you are either increasing the total amount of compression/limiting that will be needed to achieve 'commercial' average RMS levels within mix/mastering ; or if the ME is able to achieve agreement that less limiting is better-sounding , a lower average RMS at market ...
To my mind , another issue is potential buss distortion ... If , as some advice , you set your 'mix' on your pres , and leave your channel faders near unity ... the risk of overloading your master buss is increased ( 32-bit float aside ) ....
The time-honoured method to insure against buss overload has been to have your faders set such that the highest of your channel faders is lower than the lowest of your sub faders .... the highest of which is below the master .... As I understand it , this practice creates headroom on your busses .
The arrangement , as suggested , would seem not to allow this ....
I see an intriguing irony in all this . On one hand , decrying 'hypercompression'; but on the other , ensuring ( from the get-go in the big picture ) more will be needed later down the track .
I'm suggesting , if you want to lessen the need for later limiting , which will flatten your dynamics ( and your image too ... if you haven't noticed ... ) , and lessen the risk of buss distortion , start off as hot as you can get ... obviously with as little degradation as possible in the circumstances .....
Anyhows .... another view-point .
Cheers ,
Evan .
The man
http://www.myspace.com/hitzone_productions
The music
http://www.myspace.com/hitzoneproductions
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #239485 is a reply to message #211400 ] |
Fri, 20 April 2007 20:52 |
|
tom eaton
Messages: 2591
Registered: May 2004
Location: Newburyport, MA |
Platinum Member |
|
|
You seem to think that the only way to turn something up is to compress or limit it. You can, actually, just turn it up.
Tracking and mixing at lower average levels results in tracks that respond BETTER to compression and limiting in mastering should you decide that those processes are appropriate to the job at hand. If you print a mix which peaks at -8dBFS, for example, the ME can increase the level of the track by 8dB before needing any kind of dynamic modification, and that dynamic modification, if needed, can be done while referencing the tracks that make up the remainder of the record.
If you provide the ME with pre-compressed tracks that peak at-1, the ME must limit or compress the tracks if more volume is needed to get the track to sit well with other tracks on the record. If the track in question is too loud relative to the other tracks, the ME must turn it down, giving up peak level that would have been there if the track had not been mashed in the mix process.
Leaving the final level adjustments to your mastering engineer is safe, smart, and assuming a competent ME, provides more room to decide where the record, and its component tracks, should "sit."
And... comparing 16 bit recording to 24 bit recording at the tracking level is simply useless. A 17 bit recording represents TWICE as much data as a 16 bit recording.
-tom
thomas eaton recording
acoustic music guy
http://www.thomaseaton.com
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #239616 is a reply to message #239485 ] |
Sat, 21 April 2007 17:45 |
Hitmaker
Messages: 11
Registered: March 2007
Location: Christchurch , New Zealan... |
Member |
|
|
Hi Tom ,
Yes ... the consumer can turn it up , but , as an ME , my function is to achieve the average RMS requested/negotiated ...
If , for example , a track comes in peaking at -0.1dB ( and they all do ) , with an average RMS of say -12dB ( which would be typical of rock mixes ) ,a typical release level would be say -9 dB average RMS .... so 3 dB of compression/limiting WILL be needed ... at mastering .
I suspect your imaginings of that process are somewhat romantic ... Tracks are NEVER turned down .... IMO , the only reason mix engineers use a ME is because they can't achieve the type of controlled level gain , using the tools , experience , and monitoring environment that the ME can .... I have a number of home studio clients , who've tried for themselves ... but now prefer the results of specialist attention ... Even the bigger record companies out-source their mastering ....
Surprisingly , a very dynamic track can be more difficult to get to commercial levels than a more compressed one . Recent case-in-point ...a very dynamic track ( initial average RMS .. ~-25 dB )... who's release RMS was considered to be tasteful at -13 dB ( which is commercially low ) ... This represents a needed gain raise of 12 dB . It could not be raised to those levels without being VERY smashed ... in fact , in that case , I chose a RMS of ~ -15.5dB , to retain some semblance of quality ...
The attachment may be of help to you ... From top to bottom there is the same track at average RMS of approximately -17.5 dB , -14 dB , and -15.4 dB , respectively ....
Anyhow , my rationale in this diatribe is to point out to mix engineers that they are part of a system , between tracking , and mastering , and mixes that are too soft may require more undesired artefact than they imagine ...
Cheers ,
Evan .
The man
http://www.myspace.com/hitzone_productions
The music
http://www.myspace.com/hitzoneproductions
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #239634 is a reply to message #239616 ] |
Sat, 21 April 2007 19:57 |
CWHumphrey
Messages: 572
Registered: August 2004
Location: Los Angeles |
Gold Member |
|
|
| Hitmaker wrote on Sat, 21 April 2007 15:45 |
Surprisingly , a very dynamic track can be more difficult to get to commercial levels than a more compressed one . Recent case-in-point ...a very dynamic track ( initial average RMS .. ~-25 dB )...
|
I'd call an RMS level of -25dB low. If you're working with a -20dBfs nominal level, you're swinging at -5 on VU meters. At a nominal operating level of -18dBfs, you're at -7 on VU meters. I don't think anybody is advocating levels THAT low.
Cheers,
Carter William Humphrey
"Indeed...oh three named one!" -Terry Manning
"Or you can just have Carter do the recording, because he's Humphrey."-J.J. Blair
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #239652 is a reply to message #239616 ] |
Sat, 21 April 2007 23:09 |
|
tom eaton
Messages: 2591
Registered: May 2004
Location: Newburyport, MA |
Platinum Member |
|
|
| Hitmaker wrote on Sat, 21 April 2007 18:45 |
I suspect your imaginings of that process are somewhat romantic ... Tracks are NEVER turned down .... IMO , the only reason mix engineers use a ME is because they can't achieve the type of controlled level gain , using the tools , experience , and monitoring environment that the ME can ....
Anyhow , my rationale in this diatribe is to point out to mix engineers that they are part of a system , between tracking , and mastering , and mixes that are too soft may require more undesired artefact than they imagine ...
|
Excuse me? If a track shows up HERE (in my studio where I do and have mastered records for years) with an RMS of -8 and the record WANTS to be quieter, I will turn the song down. Working practice.
I send out mixes to be mastered when I want Jonathan Wyner at M-Works to work on them. Or if I've spent too long mixing a record, or am too close to it for some other reason. And I like him and what he does. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the level of loudness he can achieve. I have considered sending things to Doug Sax because he makes great sounding quiet records. So maybe you're right on that count, but not the way you meant it.
My ears, tools and monitors are quite sufficient for the task, but collaboration is valuable, productive and fun.
Can you explain to me how a mix that is "too soft" may require more "artefact" than one that is already pinned? Not being argumentative, but I simply don't see the logic there.
The fact that a track has 25dB of dynamic range has absolutely no relation to its tracking levels, or mix print level, which is what this thread is about. And the picture doesn't tell me anything about which file sounds better.
If you read this thread, or any of the many level threads here at PSW you'll note that we've been discussing -20/-18dBFS=0VU=+4dBm, and peaks in the -6dBFS range. You can probably see the implied target dynamic range. It's not 25dB.
tom
thomas eaton recording
acoustic music guy
http://www.thomaseaton.com
|
|
| |
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #239760 is a reply to message #239663 ] |
Sun, 22 April 2007 12:55 |
CWHumphrey
Messages: 572
Registered: August 2004
Location: Los Angeles |
Gold Member |
|
|
| Hitmaker wrote on Sun, 22 April 2007 00:33 |
Hi ,
I'd call an RMS level of -25dB low.
So would I .... but it still peaked near full-scale ... Very , very dynamic .... and calling for more fairly intense compression/limiting .... because of this ...
Cheers ....
|
Interesting. While I am a big proponent of 0VU, it doesn't mean that I don't like compression. In fact, a mix can land at 0VU RMS and still be heavily compressed. I guess it's all about how you use the tools. If I feel the drums, for example, need to hang right up front and stay there, I'm going to come real hard with compressors on the kick, Snare, and Toms. However, having done more Standards records than I care to remember the last few years, I feel I have a good sense of when to leave the sledge hammer at home.
Hitmaker, you said something really insightful in an earlier post. I agree that many engineers fail to see themselves as part of a system, or process. Each phase of production works with the others. As a mixer, I've taken that to heart and in some cases decided against doing something because I felt it would only serve to paint the mastering engineer in a corner.
Carter William Humphrey
"Indeed...oh three named one!" -Terry Manning
"Or you can just have Carter do the recording, because he's Humphrey."-J.J. Blair
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #239839 is a reply to message #239760 ] |
Sun, 22 April 2007 18:36 |
Hitmaker
Messages: 11
Registered: March 2007
Location: Christchurch , New Zealan... |
Member |
|
|
Hi ,
On drums , I have an association with a mixer who's a drummer ... He used to rave about limiting this and that , 'New York' compression ... all the good stuff ...
Then I sent him a mix which used no compression .... anywhere ... and had a kik that moved your gut ....
Here's the secret ... Real impact comes from speaker excursion ... moving air ... something compression lessens , in a direct fashion ....
Personally , I abhor the sound of most compression .... To have a sound take on the sonic signature of coming from a greater distance ( most people are fooled by the higher RMS ... and don't hear the tonal changes ) ... but pushed more forward is neither natural , or within my mix objectives ... often ...
And cheers for the comps .... As Don Henley would say "My work around here is done"
The man
http://www.myspace.com/hitzone_productions
The music
http://www.myspace.com/hitzoneproductions
|
|
|
| Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new??? [message #239851 is a reply to message #239652 ] |
Sun, 22 April 2007 20:37 |
Hitmaker
Messages: 11
Registered: March 2007
Location: Christchurch , New Zealan... |
Member |
|
|
Hi Tom ,
If a track shows up HERE (in my studio where I do and have mastered records for years) with an RMS of -8
I noticed the 'if' ... In reality that's around Greenday/Ultraslave mastered levels ...
If I were to encounter such a case , I put it to the client that he'd be wasting his time , unless I could get the mix without the ( ??? SSL +/- L2 ?? ) master buss compression ... else I wouldn't accept the brief ...
. So maybe you're right on that count, but not the way you meant it.
Sure ... Interesting though that your semi-unconscious preference is for the 'louder' masterer ... It is a basic human lust that the record companies are feeding ...
Can you explain to me how a mix that is "too soft" may require more "artefact" than one that is already pinned?
Sure ... By too soft , I was refering to low-end average RMS levels ... The outcome of those initially in the chain will be , at the other end , to more force a dilemma between lack of dynamics ( and other compression artefacts ) .. or lowered release volume ... It diminishes the odds of the end result both retaining some dynamics ... and being 'loud'... by forcing more 'one-or-the-other' ....
And the picture doesn't tell me anything about which file sounds better
You can figure that yourself ... hint ... most people don't like too much clipping ... that was more to illustrate the amount of increased clipping deriving from a ~ 2dB RMS increase ...
Cheers ,
Evan .
The man
http://www.myspace.com/hitzone_productions
The music
http://www.myspace.com/hitzoneproductions
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Dec 5 09:51:12 CST 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03353 seconds |
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
