R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19   Go Down

Author Topic: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???  (Read 161787 times)

jetbase

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #240 on: May 20, 2009, 01:09:52 am »

I have external metering so a can't comment too much from experience with plugin meters, but it's worth mentioning Sonalksis FreeG, since it's free.

http://www.sonalksis.com/index.php?section_id=99
Logged
sleep is not an option

jwhynot: "There's a difference between thinking or acting dogmatically and drawing from experience."


Glenn Santry
http://www.myspace.com/glennsantry

CWHumphrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #241 on: May 20, 2009, 01:16:35 am »

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 May 2009 22:09

index.php/fa/12237/0/

http://www.colemanaudio.com/





I BIG VU meters, like 4X6 inches each.

Cheers,
Logged
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

organica

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2226
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #242 on: May 20, 2009, 09:28:02 am »

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 May 2009 01:03




As for the final mix, personally I would never normalise anything.



I have some mixes that are right where I want them , an ME is telling me that they sound fine in his room (  haven't heard them at his place ) and that if I feel no compression is needed then I don't need him for this and to since the volumes are a little low to go ahead and normalise the tracks .  Instinctively , I believe that there's something wrong with doing  that , however unless I do finish up in a  room other than mine it will best be done  ITB .   Still , comprehending the benefits to staging is beyond me .
Logged

Hank Alrich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #243 on: July 13, 2009, 03:08:42 pm »

a crowley wrote on Wed, 20 May 2009 06:28

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 May 2009 01:03




As for the final mix, personally I would never normalise anything.



I have some mixes that are right where I want them , an ME is telling me that they sound fine in his room (  haven't heard them at his place ) and that if I feel no compression is needed then I don't need him for this and to since the volumes are a little low to go ahead and normalise the tracks .  Instinctively , I believe that there's something wrong with doing  that , however unless I do finish up in a  room other than mine it will best be done  ITB .   Still , comprehending the benefits to staging is beyond me .



If these tracks constitute an "album", normalization is not likely to yield a balanced track-to-track equivalent listening level. I wouldn't do what that ME is suggesting.

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #244 on: July 14, 2009, 10:53:49 am »

Hank Alrich wrote on Mon, 13 July 2009 12:08

a crowley wrote on Wed, 20 May 2009 06:28

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 19 May 2009 01:03




As for the final mix, personally I would never normalise anything.



I have some mixes that are right where I want them , an ME is telling me that they sound fine in his room (  haven't heard them at his place ) and that if I feel no compression is needed then I don't need him for this and to since the volumes are a little low to go ahead and normalise the tracks .  Instinctively , I believe that there's something wrong with doing  that , however unless I do finish up in a  room other than mine it will best be done  ITB .   Still , comprehending the benefits to staging is beyond me .



If these tracks constitute an "album", normalization is not likely to yield a balanced track-to-track equivalent listening level. I wouldn't do what that ME is suggesting.
If you normalize the whole disc at once you will preserve the inter-track balance.  However I've found that normalizing right up to 0 dBFS may lead to playback distortion on cheap audio systems that can't handle the high analog level.  I use -1 dBFS as the ceiling when I don't have professional mastering.

oversampling

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #245 on: August 08, 2009, 07:48:35 am »

A great thread with many useful information about digital recording  Rolling Eyes

But i simply don't understand why would somebody use analog meters. Why not just using digital ones and set them up properly?

thedoc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1218
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #246 on: August 09, 2009, 04:36:58 pm »

I prefer analog meters because that is what I have been using for decades.  I know how to judge them.  I know what peaks that I can't see are doing and how they (the meters) relate to perceived volume.

For me, it is just easier.  

If I was younger and smarter, I might feel differently...
Logged
Doc

CWHumphrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #247 on: August 09, 2009, 09:08:25 pm »

oversampling wrote on Sat, 08 August 2009 04:48

A great thread with many useful information about digital recording  Rolling Eyes

But i simply don't understand why would somebody use analog meters. Why not just using digital ones and set them up properly?


I use digital meters all the time.  However, most digital meters are peak reading devices and I feel I get more out of RMS meters.  While, some digital meters read RMS, I started out with mechanical VU's.  Also, VU meters read differently depending on source material (eg. bass vs. hi hat).  In the end, it's whatever gets you over the finish line.

Cheers,  
Logged
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

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #248 on: August 11, 2009, 02:03:37 pm »

The radio folks figured this out in the late 1930s. The combination of BOTH an average meter and a peak light is mighty hard to beat.

tom eaton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3640
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #249 on: August 16, 2009, 07:16:02 pm »

Except by the Dorrough meters, which display moving peak AND average levels simultaneously, giving you information not only about when you're peaking but also the changing dynamic range of your program.  A VU meter won't tell you how far you are from peaking, and how that relates to your average level.  

I do love VU meters, though.  I think the Dorroughs are also really useful.

tom

KB_S1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 931
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #250 on: October 15, 2009, 07:17:30 am »

I recently attended a seminar type event hosted by Prism Sound in Edinburgh.
The company's founder Graham Boswell delivered a presentation about digital conversion that I found very interesting. There was also a demonstration of dither and noise shaping with a truncated sine wave that surprised me quite a bit.

Most of what he discussed was very much supportive of what is in this thread. The number of 'bits' you use is not of great importance.
There was follow up items from various people including Tony Platt who discussed an ITB vs Neve 8078 mix. He was also advocating the low levels at every stage in Pro Tools mantra.
Logged
<a href="http://www.parklanerecordingstudios.com/" class="link3">Park Lane Studio</a> Where to find me most of the time<br /><br />

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kb_s1/" class="link3">Flickr</a>where to see what I have been up to  <br /><br />

Geoff Emerick de Fake

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 348
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #251 on: December 26, 2009, 09:29:22 am »

KB_S1 wrote on Thu, 15 October 2009 06:17

I recently attended a seminar type event hosted by Prism Sound in Edinburgh.
Most of what he discussed was very much supportive of what is in this thread. The number of 'bits' you use is not of great importance.


What does it mean "of great importance"?
Does it mean 8 bit is as good as anything or that it doesn't matter as long as there are at least 16 significant bits?
It's hard for me to believe that Prism sound could dismiss the importance of operational resolution. An abstract of this communication would be helpful.
Logged

KB_S1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 931
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #252 on: December 26, 2009, 12:06:17 pm »

Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Sat, 26 December 2009 14:29

KB_S1 wrote on Thu, 15 October 2009 06:17

I recently attended a seminar type event hosted by Prism Sound in Edinburgh.
Most of what he discussed was very much supportive of what is in this thread. The number of 'bits' you use is not of great importance.


What does it mean "of great importance"?
Does it mean 8 bit is as good as anything or that it doesn't matter as long as there are at least 16 significant bits?
It's hard for me to believe that Prism sound could dismiss the importance of operational resolution. An abstract of this communication would be helpful.



The discussion at that stage was around the importance of 24 bit resolution and recording at levels to use every last drop of that information.
The point I think he was making was that very few convertors are truly 24bit and that there is a lot more to capturing a good signal than simply using every last piece of mathematical information.
The overall design of the convertor and the signal you put into it is of much greater importance. There was a theme throughout the evening of observing the good old fashioned 0VU (+4dbm) signal values.

It was a long evening and much was covered, I cannot remember verbatim what was said though. I am sure he would be open to communication on the subject however.
Logged
<a href="http://www.parklanerecordingstudios.com/" class="link3">Park Lane Studio</a> Where to find me most of the time<br /><br />

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kb_s1/" class="link3">Flickr</a>where to see what I have been up to  <br /><br />

cennay

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #253 on: July 09, 2010, 06:04:35 pm »


oh well, just one little question. i might sound dumb, but what do i know, i am a musician. i like to record myself. i was aware of the fact that tracking at low volume was better. As a musician, all i do is put a mic somewhere, see if it sounds good, record it without any compression directly to daw. the rest is made by a sound guy and a mastering guy.

Ok, i track a low volume. now, in my daw, should i keep it at that volume and put the speakers louder, and give everything to the sound guy at that low volume, or can i rise the level of that track in the daw directly. i know it might sound stupid, but what do i know?

thanks everyone.

Logged

tom eaton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3640
Re: Digital tracking with low levels = better...is this new???
« Reply #254 on: July 09, 2010, 11:05:49 pm »

If you have a sound guy you like to work with, don't touch the files after you record them.  You don't want to do something not un-do-able.  I've seen people record 24 bit files at home and then send me 16 bit consolidated files to mix from.  Sometimes it's not clear what a particular DAW is doing as it exports files.

Besides, you really don't know whether the next person will increase or decrease (or not touch) the level of the track you record (when determining how it fits in the mix), so you're better off just leaving things untouched.

tom
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19   Go Up