Home » R/E/P » Reason In Audio » DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk?
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66254 is a reply to message #66218 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 15:09   |
Paul Frindle
Messages: 368
Registered: May 2004 |
Active Member |
|
|
| zed wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 17:59 |
Well, the mix i've been using is a fairly standard pop song with no vocals, only drums, bass guitar and electric guitars, the plugins used are EQ and delay, no compression (does compression behaves differently when changing -6dB on signal input even with the same value applied to threshold?*). I repeated the test, this time i didn't even care if the mix sounded good at all, i tried to get the summing of tracks as hot as possible (on the mixdown with no trim plugin on every track the master fader even peaked once!).
Still, when checking the -6dB mixdown with the hot one the only difference between them was that evil peak on the hot mixdown, other than that, they were mathematically identical!
It's truth that i'm not using compression and the added HF on some of the tracks is rather moderate, but shouldn't this be enough to start getting some differences when comparing these mixdowns?
The recordings were all made with apogee converters not going any further than -5dB on input!
Paul, with this tests i'm not trying to prove you wrong, believe me on this, i'm only trying to understand your statement trough practice, for all our best interest it is very important for us to understand our tools as best as we can!
*- i did try this same experience using compression, in this case the difference was very noticeable, although it seemed more like a compression problem...
Best Regards
Zed
|
I understand that your are not trying to dispute anything out of hand and to be honest I am as interested in it as you are. Always willing to learn 
I am only quoting from what I have experienced, learned and measured over the years in kit I have designed and the (rather limited) mixing I have done. But still if you are not clipping anything or adding distortion (either intentionally or within plugs) you may still not produce a peak error of the kind I am talking about.
For example, I have a few discs that I take to work for tests cos they are variously clean, punchy or just manically loud and all of them exhibit the problem. One I have of Shania Twain (a particularly quiet track) is possibly the worst of them all exhibiting bursts of up to 3dB reconstruction overs, even though the peak value meters never reach max. Now this disc will (and in fact does) definitely sound different if you try to further process the track, depending on whether it has been re-recorded via an ADC or ripped directly into the system. The reason is that re-recording it via an ADC turns those overs into signal (albeit possibly flattened), whilst ripping the track preserves the original sample values. For instance, if I limit this track under these conditions the limiter behaves quite differently because it's side chain is driven primarily by sample value. It's a good example of programme that is changed by a converter and in fact would still be changed even if the converter were 'perfect'.
|
|
| |
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66284 is a reply to message #66274 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 16:11 |
Paul Frindle
Messages: 368
Registered: May 2004 |
Active Member |
|
|
| Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 21:44 |
What's the title? I'm also curious about what happens when it gets lossy coded.
|
Its called 'From This Moment On' from the 'Come On Over' album. I haven't ever tested what happens after lossy coding, but my guess it would have similar results unless the decoder clipped internally?
|
|
| |
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66304 is a reply to message #66124 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 18:27 |
 |
 bobkatz
Messages: 2926
Registered: June 2004
Location: Orlando |
Platinum Member |
|
|
| Eric Vincent wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 01:44 |
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 00:03 |
Very nicely stated, Paul. Thank you for the awesome detail.
Now everyone turn it all down a bit...
|
That means (among other things): Reductive EQing.
Yo?
|
Well, I'm sorry to say that sometimes an EQ reduction can produce overlevels! It sounds counterintuitive, but those intersample peaks are caused by filtering, regardless of whether it's a dip or a boost. Gerzon wrote a paper on this problem.
So don't count on your "subtractive EQ" to keep the level down if the input level is hot. As Paul pointed out, there are some expensive oversampled peak meters that can measure if you are getting into trouble, but it's a lot safer just to peak to, say, -3 dBFS (max, lower being better) on the final mix and be done with it.
BK
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66321 is a reply to message #60868 ] |
Mon, 16 May 2005 19:53 |
PaulyD
Messages: 734
Registered: August 2004 |
Gold Member |
|
|
| Eric Bridenbaker wrote on Sat, 14 May 2005 11:19 |
Thanks, Paul for clarifying this issue.
Recently I've found that running the mixes at lower overall levels has yielded far better results, a certin clarity and punchy transparency that is quite audible, compared to a "hotter" mixing approach.
Even though an analog VU meter is too slow to catch these overs, I find it to be a helpful tool, to have some form of metering OTB.
I have a question about ITB meters though: Is it not possible to get better metering of these anomalies ITB?
There is a plugin by Elemental Audio calle Inspector, for example which is supposed to show clipping instances.
http://www.elementalaudio.com/products/inspector/index.html
Is something like this of any use in getting a visual on this stuff ITB?
Cheers,
Eric
|
Eric, check out this old thread... The link is to my first-ever post to this board.
I have found that the pre-fader metering in Logic Pro does the exact same thing as Inspector. I think most DAWs offer pre-fader metering. It's good stuff. Since I started using pre-fader metering, I have been shocked to find that some plug-ins with absolutely no gain adjustment available will cause clipping all by themselves, no matter the level of the incoming signal. No kidding.
I have to say though, this thread is blowing my mind. I haven't been following it and just started reading it. Just this week I was mixing a project and noticed that pulling the faders down in my DAW really improved the sound. It's kind of funny because in my case it was a revelation born of frustration! I really felt like my eq was good. I'd soloed all my bus reverbs to make sure their darkness/brightness was appropriate for their track. So, I was concentrating on levels to get the mix sounding right. I would pull a fader down and notice something else now sounded out of balance. So I would pull another fader down and repeat the process. After enough rounds of this, I thought "OMG...Why is this happening?!" Then I thought "Oh well, I'm already frustrated with my confidence in the toilet. And it does sound better. Keep going..." Lo and behold, I finally got a mix I was happy with. And yes, I was surprised to see how low many of the faders were at the end. But I mix through a Folcrom and if the summing is a little soft, it's nothing a little tweak of the makeup gain device can't handle. After reading this board awhile now, I am wary of the ills of overly high digital levels, but I think that's what Paul Frindle was referring to when he said "And to get back to the original subject and my original reason for posting - be aware that by mixing OTB in analogue and encoding to digits via an ADC afterwards - you are removing the possibility of making reconstruction overs in your master. This is very significant within an industry environment where everyone is currently aiming for absolute max loudness and modulation."
I love this forum.
EDIT: And thank you, Paul Frindle. It is truly reassuring to have someone of your technical background affirm that mixing with softer levels is a good thing.
Paul
Sceptre - People In Music
|
|
| | |
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66398 is a reply to message #66304 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 03:04 |
Paul Frindle
Messages: 368
Registered: May 2004 |
Active Member |
|
|
| bobkatz wrote on Tue, 17 May 2005 00:27 |
| Eric Vincent wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 01:44 |
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 00:03 |
Very nicely stated, Paul. Thank you for the awesome detail.
Now everyone turn it all down a bit...
|
That means (among other things): Reductive EQing.
Yo?
|
Well, I'm sorry to say that sometimes an EQ reduction can produce overlevels! It sounds counterintuitive, but those intersample peaks are caused by filtering, regardless of whether it's a dip or a boost. Gerzon wrote a paper on this problem.
So don't count on your "subtractive EQ" to keep the level down if the input level is hot. As Paul pointed out, there are some expensive oversampled peak meters that can measure if you are getting into trouble, but it's a lot safer just to peak to, say, -3 dBFS (max, lower being better) on the final mix and be done with it.
BK
|
Yes indeed this is so - anything that 're-arranges' the phase and response can get you HIGHER peaks - in fact up 6dB higher for LF roll-off of an already totally clipped signal - the need for headroom isn't just intersample peaks, it's your whole freedom of artistic expression within your mix that's at risk.
For instance - if the mastering engineer decides to roll-off some excess LF from your programme he could well end up having to REDUCE it's level (and all-important loudness) to accomodate the extra peak values!!
In the experiment I described you can try this too by taking out the HF filtering and putting in LF filtering instead - and watch the levels rise 
Another interesting one is to get a squarewave from the genny at say 200Hz -6dB and then insert a filter set to cut off below 100Hz - the peak level will rise 6dB (or more if the filter is a high order). Ok this is an extreme example (not very musical) but if this was your programme at full level then it would have to be represented at 6dB (or more) lower than the original in order to avoid actual clipping!! Food for thought for those that like to clip the kick drum a teensy bit for that little bit extra attack and presence. And of course the same thing would apply at higher freqs (such as vocals) if you let it saturate a bit for effect then EQ it a bit to roll-of some of the 'raspy edges'.
This is not new stuff - and the same things happen in analogue processing as well - it's just that analogue systems have signal operating levels 10's of dB below signal clipping - and analogue tape recording methods were more tolerant cos they could accomodate significant overload at LF (as much as 10dB) and saturated softly at HF (i.e. produced that fuzzy splashy 'air' in the presence of HF overload - rather than hard and ear-grating clips).
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66472 is a reply to message #66398 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 10:46 |
Curve Dominant
Messages: 775
Registered: May 2004
Location: Downtown Philadelphia |
Gold Member |
|
|
| Paul Frindle wrote on Tue, 17 May 2005 09:04 |
| bobkatz wrote on Tue, 17 May 2005 00:27 |
| Eric Vincent wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 01:44 |
| compasspnt wrote on Mon, 16 May 2005 00:03 |
Very nicely stated, Paul. Thank you for the awesome detail.
Now everyone turn it all down a bit...
|
That means (among other things): Reductive EQing.
Yo?
|
Well, I'm sorry to say that sometimes an EQ reduction can produce overlevels! It sounds counterintuitive, but those intersample peaks are caused by filtering, regardless of whether it's a dip or a boost. Gerzon wrote a paper on this problem.
So don't count on your "subtractive EQ" to keep the level down if the input level is hot. As Paul pointed out, there are some expensive oversampled peak meters that can measure if you are getting into trouble, but it's a lot safer just to peak to, say, -3 dBFS (max, lower being better) on the final mix and be done with it.
BK
|
Yes indeed this is so - anything that 're-arranges' the phase and response can get you HIGHER peaks - in fact up 6dB higher for LF roll-off of an already totally clipped signal - the need for headroom isn't just intersample peaks, it's your whole freedom of artistic expression within your mix that's at risk.
For instance - if the mastering engineer decides to roll-off some excess LF from your programme he could well end up having to REDUCE it's level (and all-important loudness) to accomodate the extra peak values!!
In the experiment I described you can try this too by taking out the HF filtering and putting in LF filtering instead - and watch the levels rise
Another interesting one is to get a squarewave from the genny at say 200Hz -6dB and then insert a filter set to cut off below 100Hz - the peak level will rise 6dB (or more if the filter is a high order). Ok this is an extreme example (not very musical) but if this was your programme at full level then it would have to be represented at 6dB (or more) lower than the original in order to avoid actual clipping!! Food for thought for those that like to clip the kick drum a teensy bit for that little bit extra attack and presence. And of course the same thing would apply at higher freqs (such as vocals) if you let it saturate a bit for effect then EQ it a bit to roll-of some of the 'raspy edges'.
This is not new stuff - and the same things happen in analogue processing as well - it's just that analogue systems have signal operating levels 10's of dB below signal clipping - and analogue tape recording methods were more tolerant cos they could accomodate significant overload at LF (as much as 10dB) and saturated softly at HF (i.e. produced that fuzzy splashy 'air' in the presence of HF overload - rather than hard and ear-grating clips).
|
OK. But let's for a moment assume that my levels are not clipping, that I've kept my inupts and levels at a conservative position.
In that scenario, doesn't one get less risk of clipping by EQing subtractively, rather than additively?
http://www.curvedominant.com
http://www.myspace.com/studiocurvedominant
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66479 is a reply to message #66472 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 11:30 |
Extreme Mixing
Messages: 707
Registered: April 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA |
Gold Member |
|
|
I think you have to look at it this way, Eric. Any signal processing that you do in a mix requires some digital headroom to get the math done correctly. So leave a little room. You wouldn't want to use subtractive eqing because you HAVE TO in order to keep from clipping. Print at lower levels so you can do what you want in the mix. And give it to mastering the same way, so their options are open, as well. Make loud copies for the producer, the artist, and yourself, for reference listening, because we all know that you can't send clients out the door with music that's 12db lower than everything else they compare it to.
Steve
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66487 is a reply to message #66479 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 12:20 |
David Schober
Messages: 298
Registered: April 2004
Location: Brentwood TN |
Active Member |
|
|
| Extreme Mixing wrote on Tue, 17 May 2005 11:30 |
Make loud copies for the producer, the artist, and yourself, for reference listening, because we all know that you can't send clients out the door with music that's 12db lower than everything else they compare it to.
Steve
|
I'm with you there Steve. However my only fear about making a hot rough is that sometimes people can fall in love with a rough like that.
When turning a rough mix for a sales conference or A&R meeting I'd be a fool to turn in a soft, but good sounding mix, knowing that other mixes will be smashed and louder than mine.
However, my worry is that someone, the artist, record exec, or whoever, has tin ears, used to hearing smashed crap may prefer the rough over the master. Despite the fact that after a proper mastering the mix would sound better, it's hard to make people belive that will be true.
Any thoughts, comments?
David Schober
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66506 is a reply to message #60868 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 14:54 |
zed
Messages: 4
Registered: May 2005 |
Welcome |
|
|
Paul,
I know you have extensive experience in this matter, when do you think that digital dynamics (plugins) will start to compete with their analog counterparts?
Best Regards
Zed
|
|
|
| Re: DAW & Desks: Is ANYBODY actually still mixing on their desk? [message #66537 is a reply to message #66506 ] |
Tue, 17 May 2005 18:11 |
Paul Frindle
Messages: 368
Registered: May 2004 |
Active Member |
|
|
| zed wrote on Tue, 17 May 2005 20:54 |
Paul,
I know you have extensive experience in this matter, when do you think that digital dynamics (plugins) will start to compete with their analog counterparts?
Best Regards
Zed
|
O.K this is a difficult one to answer - not technically speaking - but since I now design S/W apps that have largely replaced (and completely surpassed) my previous analogue designs, there could be accusations of conflicts of interest But honesty is more important than anything else in this cynical world. And honesty and a deep desire to support the art I love is the only reason I stick my neck out and comment on anything in public - and probably the only reason I have spent decades in dark rooms, struggling with my somewhat limited brain, against technologies of various flavours of the day, trying to get sounds that reside in my head. So this is my honest personal opinion today - even though it may surpise people.
I have been making dynamics apps since 1968 in one form or another. I have employed everything and anything to achieve my goals, from vari-mu valves, opto-couplers, FETs and VCAs, latter examples of which are probably still around in daily use in certain well-respected high end analogue consoles in studios somewhere near you. And as far as I am concerned from a purely technical (and IMHO artistic) point of view the results we get from todays S/W compressors far and away outstrips anything I could have dreamed of in my previous analogue designs. And this is in spite of all the stuff regarding sampling, math precision etc, which for the most part can be tackled with some clever thought and brute processing - once you have sussed what indeed you actually need to tackle. This sentiment also applies equally to other apps I have helped to make in S/W including EQs and the like. At least one app I could only actually make work in the digital domain, despite having repeatedly tried in analogue since 1974 or so. There is simply no comparison IMVHO
Ok having said all that, I fully appreciate (more than most people!) that many of the much-loved 'foibles' surrounding older analogue compressor designs (mainly resulting from the various limitations of technologies used at the time) have become a rich part of people's artistic arsenals - and rightly so as we naturally learn to artistically employ the character of stuff we are given - this is a natural process of enrichment, thank goodness. At this moment some of those 'foibles' are very costly to emulate in the digital domain sufficiently well to pass muster (and don't believe those who say that convolution can do it either).
So when I say 'outstripping performance' it is in full appreciation of what indeed I was always aiming for in all MY analogue designs in the past, but was thwarted to some degree by the component 'characterisations'. Quite simply digits have finally allowed me to make what I always wanted to make and could never achieve in the past.
Also (sticking my neck out further) my personal feeling is that mostly ALL compressor designers from the year dot had similar kinds of aspirations to my own - despite what they may have actually ended up with at the time and despite how highly revered their efforts may have become in the fullness of time. If those guys were here right now using the technology we have at our command these days, I am certain they would be smiling big - and who knows what THEY would produce
It is so apt and frankly wierd that you pose me this question today!? Only this evening I left behind a guy at work who was gallantly trying to measure an old piece of kit he had got hold of that was made using my designs from 16 years ago. Despite being of high acclaim in it's day and passed for 'high end professional kit', compared to the stuff we work on together now it is quite pathetic, all I could feel (apart from reminisence for the old days) was deep embarrassment. I sure wasn't going to stick around and watch his reaction - he wasn't around me designing this stuff within the limitations of those days, so he'll probably be horrified and won't forgive me
If those designs were considered top end excellence 16 years ago - could it be that these days we don't seem to appreciate what indeed we have actually got right now? And when I whizzle at work that my latest efforts are 'not perfect - blah blah misery', looking at the performance of that old kit makes those comments seem like pure indulgence!
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Oct 6 17:05:56 CDT 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 1.22676 seconds |
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
.... I am surprised no one has mentioned the original reason I went to the time and expense of getting an analog mix setup working. It is fun to mix on a real board! I like to turn off the computer screen and simply listen to the speakers and pull up the faders/set eq/patch in outboard etc. I think it also leads me down different path creatively sometimes. Now back to regularly scheduled the ITB/OTB debate......
