Print

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

[compasspnt]

Hi Yngve.

I think those are excellent points.

That is very much they way I do things, only I probably don't sum as many subgroups, preferring to go out with as many individual tracks as I reasonably can.

There is something good happening with the highs when summing through a big analogue desk.

Best regards.

[ruffrecords]

Not an issue for me - I have an AKAI DPS24 - a DAW with built in motorized faders.

Ian

[djui5]

yngve hoeyland wrote on Sat, 23 September 2006 17:13

Morale of the day? Stop looking at what you're hearing.

This is brilliant, I'm borrowing it for my signature if you don't mind

[jdvmi00]

Ok, After spending days reading all of this I've attached an image from cubase with some annotation to see if I'm grasping the concepts.  Thank you everyone for your help and for sharing your knowledge.  Please let me know if I've got my head wrapped around this correctly.  Thanks!

[compasspnt]

Hi Jim,

Not knowing Cubase, I would say that it appears you are doing things better than many who track and mix ITB.

The only real change I would make to your annotation would be to input the initial tracking levels about 6 dB lower than you now show.  This may mean running your final analogue stage a bit lower, or calibrating your A>D a bit lower, or both.

Once this is accomplished, the rest is virtually automatic, and little will "go wrong," level-wise.

As for adding a limiter at the final stage, if not sending out to Mastering, yes, that is where you would do so.

Bringing up level properly is a bit of an art, however, and in some cases you might be better actually doing so within two separate plug-ins, rather than one alone, depending, of course, upon the quality of the software (or upon how pretty the GUI looks).



Ignore the GUI comment.

[jdvmi00]

compasspnt wrote on Fri, 25 May 2007 15:24

Hi Jim, Not knowing Cubase, I would say that it appears you are doing things better than many who track and mix ITB. The only real change I would make to your annotation would be to input the initial tracking levels about 6 dB lower than you now show.  This may mean running your final analogue stage a bit lower, or calibrating your A>D a bit lower, or both. Once this is accomplished, the rest is virtually automatic, and little will "go wrong," level-wise. As for adding a limiter at the final stage, if not sending out to Mastering, yes, that is where you would do so. Bringing up level properly is a bit of an art, however, and in some cases you might be better actually doing so within two separate plug-ins, rather than one alone, depending, of course, upon the quality of the software (or upon how pretty the GUI looks). Ignore the GUI comment.

Thanks!  So basically I should record at -12 to -15 peak instead of -6?  I'm guessing that's because it will give me enough headroom to add in the plugs and stay within the -6 range for the entire track?

[compasspnt]

Yes.

But you should experiment, and find out how the individual levels do when summing one of your "normal" sessions (I know the sessions will vary quite a bit, of course).

I have found that the -12 area gives a good balance of things, but I have no problem with tracking even lower, if need be.

[right]

Wow. Just wanted to chime in and say thanks for this incredibly informative thread, especially to Paul.

So many things that I've been frustrated by for years suddenly make so much more sense.

I started recording at lower levels a few years ago just because I realized it made life easier when I didn't have to worry about overs on input, and became convinced that overall sound quality improved even though common wisdom seemed to suggest there should be no difference. A similar thing happened when I began to informally use a sort of loose K-metering system after reading Bob K's excellent book.

Frankly I began to feel like my digital work was starting to have more of the natural clarity of analog when I worked at lower levels. I thought there was something with my monitors or output signal chain or something.

Anyway, thanks again for this eye-opener. This is some of the best information I've seen anywhere.

[Mike P]

jdvmi00 wrote on Fri, 25 May 2007 16:06

Thanks!  So basically I should record at -12 to -15 peak instead of -6?  I'm guessing that's because it will give me enough headroom to add in the plugs and stay within the -6 range for the entire track?

In Nuendo (or Cubase) preferences, you can set the colors to correspond to the two available indicators.  Since first reading about Terry's excellent advice on levels last year, I set my meters in Nuendo to show the color Green up to around -9db and the color Red from that point up to Zero.  This has really helped from a visual standpoint.

[compasspnt]

Excellent idea, Mike!

[rankus]

Yes Mike,  I have had my Nuendo meters set up like this since the ver 3 upgrade.  Really helps keep things in check.... Even my clients will give me heads up when things go into the red.. at which point I have to explain the whole "lower is better" to them... Spreading the word.

[viewmaster]

I wanted to add a thank-you to all who have participated in this forum too, it's been one of the most helpful and informative resources I've ever read.

I totally agree that by implementing the lower levels in tracking and subsequent mixing within Cubase SX, recordings sound truer to my original intention - easier to mix, as some have said more "analog" - I would even go so far as to say that the imaging is spot on here when levels aren't clipping the Master output in Cubase.

This would compare to a session where levels have been poorly set, and the best way I can describe trying to mix a session like this is:

"It's a fight between me, the clip light, and the computer."

If I did need extra level, I'd also now be approaching it from the POV that I know that the levels prior to the Limiter (in my case the Oxford Limiter) were safe, giving me the confidence and flexibility to do some "faux" mastering to it - prior to sending the un "faux" mastered mix to the ME for the professional result.

Anyway - thanks again, much appreciated.

[djchris73]

I use my computer like a multi-track tape machine: it records and plays it back for me.
I mix on my 32.8 Mackie board. That's the way I was taught, so that's the way I do it. The only thing I cheat and have the computer (software actually) do is the automation. Other than that, EQ'ing my tracks, compression, limiting, final mix recording and effects is down in the real world. Less stress on my computer.
Maybe a little antiquated but it works for me.

[Jason Lord]

All thing being equal, I would still prefer to mix on my API 7800 mixer in conjunction with my DAW.  One converter to each channel on the mixer.

There are just tricks & sounds I still love from my analog gear.  Yes, outboard boxes can be used as hardware inserts in PT TDM, and I do that.  But I still prefer the punch from the API and being able to hit the mix bus and get that sound.

Have I done computer mixes? yes.  Do they also sound good? yes.
Although I always insert my favorite boxes on hardware inserts when I have to mix in PT.

Cheers,
Jason Lord

[audio2u]

Wow!
I haven't posted around these parts in... yikes, probably 18 months or so... but I just wanted to echo all of those comments about:

* Thanks Paul F., Bob K., Bob O. et al who have shared so much valuable information in this thread, and

* Most informative thread I've read on an audio forum EVER. This has shed a lot of light on a whole bunch of things for me.

And for what it's worth, my professional audio career has just passed the 20 year mark (celebrated that on July 1, 2007).
When I started as a "carting guy" in my first radio station, the production studio was running on an Otari MX80 1" 8 track, into a Dynamix 3000 analogue desk (not a very brilliant example of the breed, unfortunately. A google search finds a lot of people who speak very highly of this desk).
So, that was where I cut my teeth. 1" tape and good ol' fashioned automation-less analogue mixing down to 1/4".
Then, around '96, I moved to Sydney and started mixing ITB on a variety of different systems that existed then (Session 8, PT, Soundscape, TimeLine StudioFrame, Sadie, AMS Audiofile).
These days I use almost exclusively (and I know some of you are gonna laugh, but you really shouldn't!) Adobe Audition. I'm also a beta tester of same. It's an amazing piece of gear, and IMHO, better than PT. Yeah yeah, go ahead... laugh all you like. I'm used to it.
Seriously though, the reason I tell you all this is to highlight the fact that I was fortunate enough to learn my craft in the days of analogue (sorry, "analog" for the US readers!), and spent almost 10 years mixing that way.
And now I've had 10 years of mixing ITB, so I've seen both sides of the fence.
And Paul, I absolutely concur with your analogy of playing an instrument. Despite the AMAZING flexibility you get with automation onscreen, there just isn't the same tactile response as having both hands spread out across a dozen faders on a desk, or as yngve hoeyland sad...

Quote:

a) The hands-on approach. I like doing two or three things at once, say autoing levels on lead vocals and bv's simultaneously.

... being able to pull 2 or 3 vocals into line in the one pass.
Now, for the guys who mix ITB WITH the benefit of a control surface (unfortunately, that's not me at present), I'd be keen to hear how flexible those devices are at peforming those kinds of moves.
And even if they handle it, can you instinctivley reach for the mid band frequency pot of the bass guitar without having to call it into focus first?
That's what worries me about control surfaces.
Unless you've got megabucks to drop on a large format control surface (where you've got a dedicated channel strip for every input), you've still got to spend time bringing a parameter to the fore before you can tweak it. Technology getting in the way of the art.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti mixing-with-a-mouse... I've learned to do it quite well (IMHO!), but it's just not the same (a la Paul's music analogy).
Just my 2 cents worth.
Thanks again for a great read, guys. Much appreciated.