hexfix93 wrote on Fri, 14 October 2005 13:30 |
.. i am getting overages, so now i turn my master fade down more to make sure it never happens.. |
dave-G wrote on Fri, 14 October 2005 14:12 |
...in Pro Tools HD (TDM systems)...bringing down the master fader...is mathematically and sonically identical to lowering all the individual faders that feed the master. |
Zilla wrote on Fri, 14 October 2005 18:35 | ||
I performed quick test and can confirm that lowering a MF in PT does appear to be mathematically equivalent to lowering the channel faders. That is, it does avoid clipping. Thanks for pointing that out, Dave. However, I cannot confirm that it is sonically identical. Somehow the effect of a MF's coefficient acting upon PT signals does leave some sonic fingerprint. One I would prefer to be without, should I have an option (like removing the MF altogether and just lowering the channel faders). So, I still say that applying basic, good gain-structure methodology will provide for a higher fidelity product. |
hexfix93 wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 07:22 |
to my ears, yes... i've been working with cubase, and i think my mix sounds better when the mix is hot and i must turn down the master fader... |
Ronny wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 13:50 | ||
When things are operating correctly in 32 float, there is no sonic difference between the mixer faders and the master fader. |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 14 October 2005 19:31 |
At the risk of being repetitive, I will take this opportunity to say once again that recording from the first instance at lowered levels (speaking here only of the digital domain) will make everything sound better. There is no need to go near the red, or even the yellow. Don't even approach the problem area. With analogue tape machines, of course, it's another kettle of fish. |
Zilla wrote on Fri, 14 October 2005 18:35 |
However, I cannot confirm that it is sonically identical. Somehow the effect of a MF's coefficient acting upon PT signals does leave some sonic fingerprint. One I would prefer to be without, should I have an option (like removing the MF altogether and just lowering the channel faders). |
masterhse wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 21:10 |
Could this be due to some sort of quantization error? If it's truly mathematically equivalent how can it not sound the same? |
Denny W. wrote on Sat, 15 October 2005 20:40 | ||
Is how far under 0db a platform dependant decision or is there a good rule of thumb in your mind where you like to see the peaks fall? |
HansP wrote on Sun, 16 October 2005 09:26 |
let me mention that a wave editor (e,g, audition) will show intersample overs in the waveform display |
bobkatz wrote on Sun, 16 October 2005 09:39 | ||
Really? For this to happen the editor has to have considerably more intelligence than my SADiE... The waveforms are drawn from the true digital level. And even if a waveform is upsampled in your editor (that would be the only way to get intersample peaks in a waveform) how can you judge by the waveform if the intersample peak is +0.3 dB or +1.5 dB? In my opinion, only an oversampling meter can accurately judge those peaks, and furthermore, even that is open to interpretation, as the nature of the filtering that the meter uses may not produce the same degree of peaks as the filters in an MP3, broadcast, or outboarrd sample rate converter. In the end, it is an approximation of the intersample peaks that will be produced. BK |
hexfix93 wrote on Sun, 16 October 2005 07:14 |
and seriously, when i leave my channel faders alone, or turn em up a bit, and crop the main/master, it sounds louder, and more present, like there is more volume to the sounds, when i turn down all the channels, and turn the master up to 0 and mix that way, i think the sound sounds more distant.. more plastic like... just from my ears in cubase, it could be just cubase too.. i dunno how they do the math for their mixing pre master fader... |
chrisj wrote on Sun, 16 October 2005 12:47 |
You could be clipping in the channel faders, and liking it. Small amounts of clipping will add a sort of sparkliness to the sound and if you're stepping on peak levels relative to RMS the 'body' of the sound will seem more solid. There are better ways to do that, though. As far as I know Cubase is 32 bit float throughout so I really don't think you could be clipping channel faders- but I haven't seen the code, so I don't know what's up with it. Maybe you're clipping plugins? Are they pre-fader or post? I'd have thought they'd be pre-fader but what do I know? |
hexfix93 wrote on Sun, 16 October 2005 16:23 |
It doesn't sound like clipping at all to me.. It sounds more like the wavs are just louder and more present.. not distorting, its not sparkle. It sounds closer, as to where when i turn the channel strips down, it tends to sound more distant.. I honestly think its how cubase does its math... |
bobkatz wrote on Sun, 16 October 2005 15:39 | ||
Really? For this to happen the editor has to have considerably more intelligence than my SADiE... The waveforms are drawn from the true digital level. And even if a waveform is upsampled in your editor (that would be the only way to get intersample peaks in a waveform) how can you judge by the waveform if the intersample peak is +0.3 dB or +1.5 dB? In my opinion, only an oversampling meter can accurately judge those peaks, and furthermore, even that is open to interpretation, as the nature of the filtering that the meter uses may not produce the same degree of peaks as the filters in an MP3, broadcast, or outboarrd sample rate converter. In the end, it is an approximation of the intersample peaks that will be produced. BK |