Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bill Mueller]

This question was posed in almost the same manner in another thread (headroom/digital recording).

I answered the question with "try to use as much of the recorder's capacity as possible" and then bring the faders down to a reasonable level in the mix to try to start with a fully 24bit recording if possible. I suggested tracking with peaks no lower than -12dbfs but low enough to avoid clipping.

I was roundly insulted by Otitis Media for being stupid. Rather than spitting back "Yo Momma, D*ckweed!", I thought a little about my twenty years of digital recording, Sony F1, Sony 1630, Sony 3324, DAT, Pro Tools, MX 2424, etc to see if I have been doing something wrong. I don't think so. The point here and in the other thread IMHO is that I want every bit (sorry) of resolution to begin with so that I can use all of that processing power in the console and still end up with the highest resolution mix master. Otitis said that it was stupidity to record hot and then bring down the levels. However, when you bring down the levels in a 32 bit mixer, you are still preserving the full resolution of the 24 bit multitrack recording. If I track at -20dbfs on the front end, I am throwing away resolution. And yes I know that 20bit resolution exceeds the dynamic range of most playback systems, however I am intent on creating a 24bit recording, not a 20bit recording played back through a 32
bit mixer.

Now for most of my career I have used digital multitracks interfaced with analog SSL consoles. In that setup, I could hit the (16 bit) 3324 right up to -1dbfs peak and the SSL liked it fine. My gain staging approach has always been to generate all of my gain with the mic pre and if my equalizer drove the level too high, to bring down the mic pre, not the fader. On an SSL, I always track with my little fader at 0db. On an analog console I like to run the master fader at 0db attenuation as well. This is the most accurate taper on the fader and insures that I am not adding noise through additional gain or allowing distortion on individual channels and correcting for too much gain with final stage attenuation.

I recognize that 32 bit digital consoles do not adhere to these same parameters. However I still contend (even though I don't seem to be argueing with either Eric or Nika) that attempting to retain the highest quality from the source and on through the chain is the best way to end up with a solid product.

Best Regards,

Bill

[Level]

Bill, you ran the 3324, I ran the 3348 for 7 years+.

I hit -1 all the time on it, no problem, no worries.

We are the big time using full sized desks and large scale digital multitracks. I think they are talking about some cheap stuff in the box or a small 2000 dollar workstation. As long as I have the goods and know how to use it, numbers mean nothing, translation and sonics rule here.

Some of those cheap toys, may have limitations.

[RobertRandolph]

Highly dependant on the amount of tracks being summed and the architecture of the mix engine. There's quite a few native programs out there  right now that are NOT even close to bit for bit when you start running more than 32 high-rms tracks summed at once.

Given, they are mostly lower end, but there are indeed people out there (in here) who think it's all the same. Indeed it's not. It's very easy to take perfectly good tech and make very bad things with it.

I simply think it's faulty to lead people to think it's so easy for developers to do things correctly when it's easily shown by many popular programs out there that indeed it's quite easy to make trash.

Though I will admit most professional-geared software would get slaughted by golden-ears if they were not at least close.


On the subject of reducing faders and what-not. What is the point again? I dont understand where the logic on this even begins eh?  Perhaps if one is extremely used to the analog world I could see confusing I guess...

[pipelineaudio]

"There's quite a few native programs out there right now that are NOT even close to bit for bit when you start running more than 32 high-rms tracks summed at once.
"

and which ones would those be?

[Wyn Davis]

Nika Aldrich wrote on Wed, 25 August 2004 13:48

Erik is right, though I only 50% agree with him. For half of the people I really wish they would take a "the stuff just works" approach. For the other half of the people I do believe that understanding the way in which this stuff actually works can be an important part of being an "engineer."   Nika.

Nika,

You are SO right. We have entered an era where anyone who can get a signal into their computer is considered an audio engineer. Since this is the new reality, I think anyone who passes along knowledge that incrementally increases the fundamental knowledge base provides a huge service to our community. Thanks for everything you do.

Wyn Davis
Total Access Recording Studios
Redondo Beach, Ca.

[Giovanni Speranza]

The problem is not in the converters, nor in the software. The problem is in the analogic components before the AD and after the DA.
Those components need to be respected, and if you record with high rms and full scale peaks, the converter can handle it, but not the analog components, which distort.
Doesn't it?

[Nika Aldrich]

Close.  For the sake of discussion we could certainly say that.  In reality, the D/A converter is a two-stage device.  This is a D/A converter: Convert to digital -> digital filter -> convert to analog -> analog filter.  Only the final filter stage is analog.  The clipping can happen at the first filter stage as well, while the signal is still completely digital.

Nika.

[Yiannis]

Well mates I don't use Protools but DP 3.11.
after reading this threat I did a mixdown.
my ordinary way was to put faders at 0db and then lower if needed but never push the faders above 0 db.
My problem was that my low end was  muddy with no character.If I soloed the bass it was ok but in the mix it was very cloudy with some notes louder and some others softer.Its not a matter of compressor technique or eq believe me!
What i did now its to put all faders at -6db and worked around there as my unity gain and I think that things are much better now!
My ad-da is a HEDD 192  recording at 24/48
Any comments?

Yiannis

[Albert]

I've noticed that as well in DP. I'm using 4.12 and routinely pull the faders down by -6db. My brother sends me tracks recorded *really* hot and pulling the faders down is guaranteed to get a better sounding mix. I'm mixing on Tascam DM-24's.

[Giovanni Speranza]

Nika, and if i have 3-4 plugins on each track, lowering every track by 20 dB could suffer more (due to less meat for math) than leaving the tracks as higher as possible level and lowering only the master fader?

[Erik]

RobertRandolph wrote on Thu, 26 August 2004 02:27

Highly dependant on the amount of tracks being summed and the architecture of the mix engine. There's quite a few native programs out there  right now that are NOT even close to bit for bit when you start running more than 32 high-rms tracks summed at once.

This is the exact kind of nonsense that I hate.

What is the setup?  How many tracks?  How loud?  What programs?
Why is RMS different than Peak?

And really, if you're summing 32 tracks to a 24 bit output, what exactly does "bit for bit" mean?

Are you saying that different applications produce different results mixing the same files?

Have you sorted out issues of panning, summing loss, etc?  Have you taken dither into consideration?

Lots of chimps make these sorts of accusations, but large scale tests done by higher level primates revealed that there's no mojo in the mixers... the shit just works.

--Erik

[Giovanni Speranza]

Erik,
it's known that at least pro tools 24 had the weird sound and if tracked at lower levels the sound was clearly better.

[Erik]

Not true at all.

--Erik

[Giovanni Speranza]

Sorry but your opinion has value 0 compared to hundreds of sound engineers claiming it because they heared it. I heared the obvious difference too.
No one knows what kind of architecture is behind all DAWs. But for sure there is too often a lot of speculation.

[Nika Aldrich]

Joe Speranza wrote on Thu, 26 August 2004 16:49

Nika, and if i have 3-4 plugins on each track, lowering every track by 20 dB could suffer more (due to less meat for math) than leaving the tracks as higher as possible level and lowering only the master fader?

This can go either way.  Lowering all tracks by 20dB could be a problem in some applications and not a problem in others.  Leaving them at FS could clip plugins if you don't manage your gain well going in to them and within them.  I really don't like giving rules of thumb, and this highlights why.

Nika.