Metering in digital domain

From my second post to this thread:



From my fourth post to this thread:



So it's not like I didn't explain this already, twice.



Sure, that's fine. But sometimes as you work on a mix you turn up the bass, then realize the rhythm guitar is too soft, and next thing you know all of the tracks together exceed digital zero. You could lower every track by 4 dB or whatever, but that's a nuisance when there are 50 tracks, especially if you have detailed volume automation that must also be adjusted. My point in this thread is not to tell people how to work. Only to explain that you don't have to worry about this stuff, even as others wrongly claim that you do have to worry.



I honestly don't understand your hostility. :confused:

I'm trying to help you! However, I absolutely support your desire to experiment for yourself. If only others would do that we'd have a lot less contention and less misinformation!



Actually, I'm still waiting for Mister Facta to list the hit records he's produced, or even post some of his music for us to listen to. I'm also waiting for him or anyone else to say which of those two mix files I posted were made from tracks recorded hot or not.

--Ethan

You sensing hostility is an obvious over examination again. Im still learning things regardless of the fact this thread has turned into an Ethan Winer workshop. I would also like to add that regardless of the files that you linked, nobody that has commented in this thread was there when you recorded it or how or what you did specifically. It is a pointless post with to many variables to be confirmed. That is not saying you could be lying but it does leave some room for skepticism, especially when you are trying so hard to prove so many people wrong. Every thread, blog, site, and professional that has this particular subject explained on the internet says the same thing as Mo Facta and the like. I surely didn't want to start this thread for debate, but like usual it ends in one. But the experienced opinion of the many outweigh the opinion of the few. Especially when it seems to be such a hard fought battle that seems borderline salesman.
I think that you must have a wealth of knowledge and experience but just like I would tell my kids, nobody likes a know it all. And i think that sometimes when someone researches and tests things to a point you will defend your findings no matter what findings someone else has discovered. And if you are saying that it doesn't matter if it is too hot of a signal or not why does it matter so much to you that you keep defending your findings? You get to your destination the same as everyone else so does it come down to the fact that your car is in better shape just because it is YOUR means of transportation?
 
I'll just say that Ethan means well here...and he certainly is an artist/musician himself, so don't think he's just crunching numbers. :D

I've had a few debates with Ethan about some things in the past, and I don't think he's ever had any ulterior motives...he just tries to disprove certain audio myths that have been around for a long time. He may not always convert everyone over...but he does alway make strong points and usually backs them with solid science.
That said...I got no problem with audio myths either...as long as they help get you where you want to go.

I still track at 24/88.2....yet I know that Ethan thinks that's just a waste of good hard drive space. In the end, I don't much worry about the HD space....so I keep recording at 88.2. :)

Anyway...I think in this thread there are two main points that are related, yet seem to be fighting with each other.

The tracking levels, yes, you can record them lower rather than higher, and it will work perfectly...and I do think Ethan agrees with that. The point he is making is that if the levels are on the higher end (and we don't need to always go from -18 dBFS all the way to 0 dBFS to call it the higher end)...stuff in the -8, -6 range...
...it will be just as fine as the -18.
The counterargument is not about those digital levels...but what was happening at the analog front end to get them.
Yes, some preamps could get more "fuzzy" when pushed harder to get you that -6 dBFS digital signal, and that's why some folks say, keep it lower, don't strain your analog front end just so you can get higher digital levels.
I said earlier that I pay NO attention to my digital input levels...only my analog front end levels.
I've got a few decent pres, and I can guarantee that a couple of them could easily push out enough analog level without distortion to bring the digital levels up into the red zone.
Sometimes THAT is where I want my analog level...not always though.
I have other preamps that certainly DO get "fuzzy" when pushed hard, and they too can kick out a pretty hot analog signal that will make the digital level high...and sometimes that's the sound I like.

So really it's all about the analog front end levels and sound you are going for...and IMHO...NOT about your digital level.
Yes, with most analog gear, if you are seeing -18 to -14 dBFS on your digital meters, it means the analog front end is probably running a healthy level that will work fine in most cases....but I certainly would not set my front end just by looking at my digital level and trying to keep it in the -18 to -14 dBFS range.
It certainly will fall there often...but I still think the best thing is to use the sound and level of the analog gear as you guide, and let the digital levels fall where they will.
Granted...lots of combination preamp/converter interfaces only give you the digital input level to view...so that is what it is.

You can play it safe, and most times it will be fine...but sometimes the best sounds come from pushing analog gear into the hot zone, and some pres certainly can kick out a high level, and your digital meters might be closer to -10...-8, especially on dynamic peaks.
Don't sweat that as long as your pre is working as it should and you like what you are hearing.

And that is mainly what Ethan is saying with his analytical views, and instead focus on the music.....as I read it.


The other main point is that once your audio is all digital...it's just numbers after that with most DAWs these days.
So as you edit/comp/process/mix...even if your original/raw signal was conservative, it's easy for it to creep up...but there's no need to keep pulling individual faders back if you have a nice mix going...just pull down the Master Fader.
It's the same thing....just number crunching.
AFA some plugs that directly work off the track levels...well, just adjust them as needed. IOW...you don't really have to keep your initial levels low just 'cuz you might at some point add a plug that needs less level.
Again...once it is all digital...just move the level where it needs to go...it's all the same.
When you get that final mix, and it's quite hot (but not clipping, thanks to 32 bit float-point math)...again, just drop your Master fader.
In this regard too, Ethan is right...he IS saying that you don't need to be all analytical about the level...just put it where it needs to go, and your audio signal will not suffer for the number chrunching...so you can just focus on the art. :)

Oh...you want to get Ethan going some more...talk about analog tape recording! ;)
I still track to tape...Ethan use to, but hasn't in many, many years.
It's all good....focus on the art.

Dont get me wrong, I really appreciate his views. I just dont see the point in the arguing when it comes down to making music. He is talented and knows quite a bit. I just think that the debates turn things in the wrong direction. No offense to anyone and we are all here for the love of making music. And i respect that from everyone. All that i am out for is more knowledge of the craft so i can make my music sound as good as possible. So Ethan please keep coming with advice because im listening. Like I said were all striving for something that i doubt most will ever agree on or fully understand. But we can still learn a great deal from eachother, debates or no debates.
 
I would also like to go out a limb here and comment on the audio clips that were posted even at the chance that im wrong. It sounds like clip a is softer sounding and less sharp in the high end. But im also listening through cheap headphones. And that is not an excuse but that is what im hearing. Wrong or not that is what i hear.
 
Sorry all. I deleted a whole heap of posts that were argument and nothing else. Thread was reported, which drew it to my attention.
 
That's cool. But it's weird that you deleted a post of mine saying that I agree with Offcenter, yet you kept one of his where he goes off on a rant after claiming that Ethan "sensing hostility" is just another over-analysis.

Either way. I take all this so much less seriously than anyone can even imagine. I can't believe people get as uptight as they do.

So that this doesn't get deleted, I'll j get back on topic and just repeat that I agree with OffCenter. I record way below 0db.
 
Normal 32-bit FP plug-ins do not do that, and they can accept a huge range of levels without sounding different.
--Ethan

Define normal :)

the plugs I use "Normally" are waves, UAD, sonimus emulations. I have16 plugs in my DAW library and only one of them (Delay) is not an analog emulation, so I guess I am working in an almost completely opposite situation to what you are calling "normal". When I started out with these it was a long voyage of discovery to find out what optimum levels were, what "good" distortion sounds like and when it is an is not appropriate

Perhaps unusually, I actually read all the manuals and did an awful lot of *subjective* listening to see which results I prefer when in use. So I know why my plugs do what they do. A lot of people, it would seem, do not bother with this, they buy (or crack) a plug because they have read it will add "Mojo" to their mix. slam it on a bunch of tracks get tons of distortion and the mix totallly falls apart.

Also pulling down the fader will not impact this since the effects are usually defaulted in DAWs to be pre fader so pulling the fader down will not reduce the distortion effect. you need a pre effect gain plug to effect the next emulation plug in the chain

Sure I can track hot and then put gain plugs on every track to bring the levels down (I'd need to do this to not overdrive the hardware I use for mixing too), but in the real world that is an additional layer of useless VST processing and quite frankly a pain in the a$$.
I'd rather keep things simple so If I know my plugs and my hardware will be happy, linear and non distorting at around -18dBFS then why not track around there. It's easier to push one or two tracks with a gain plug to get a little "mojo" than it is t have to add a gain plug and pull all the levels down on every single track due to hot tracking

Given that Waves, UAD, Slate Digital, Bootsy, IK, Sonimus, SKnote, and pretty much all of the main plugin guys now have emulation plugs with simulated distortion and non-linear behaviour above some emulated 0VU point, I bet it's pretty "normal" for a lot of mixes to have at least one or two instances in there somewhere.
Given a lot of the questions on various forums about *why don't my mixes sound any good* and the total lack of knowledge about what plugs are actually doing, I'd also bet a lot of people are using these plugs with no idea they will react differently to different levels

I don't know if I actually made a point there or not but it was fun to type. I guess it would be that I don't think you can just ignore emulation plugins because they don't fit one definition of the "Normal" way to work and don't fit the model you are proposing. Thousands of people use them and they are very distinctly effected by levels.
 
Last edited:
That's cool. But it's weird that you deleted a post of mine saying that I agree with Offcenter, yet you kept one of his where he goes off on a rant after claiming that Ethan "sensing hostility" is just another over-analysis.

Either way. I take all this so much less seriously than anyone can even imagine. I can't believe people get as uptight as they do.

So that this doesn't get deleted, I'll j get back on topic and just repeat that I agree with OffCenter. I record way below 0db.

I appreciate that. We had a few words here and there but i don't really take it that seriously either. I do take my music seriously because if it weren't for this outlet who knows where i could have ended up. Your an artist and I support and respect you on that level no matter if we have differences or not. Im not out to insult anyone and i truly mean that. I just think that sometimes when people are set in their ways any diversion from their views are taken as insults. I want to get info and trade some of what i know to you guys also. We need to support art and not divide ourselves over petty stuff. I apologize for anything that may have come out derogatory. I am interested in what you guys know, i will also give my opinion but also help if i can.
 
Okay. Let me try to sum up what comes out of all 9 pages in a few bullet points:

1. As long as you avoid clipping, there is no audio difference in digital recordings whether they're made at -20dBFS or at levels just under clipping.

2. A caveat to point 1 is that you must always be aware of what high digital levels will do in the analogue domain (either when recording or when playing back) because the metering in the analogue world tends to be calibrated for dBu or dBVU and the amount of headroom above the analogue zero level is variable. High digital levels can cause clipping or at least distortion if you're not careful in your lineup.

3. Some plug ins, especially those emulating analogue effects are coded so the digital levels matter and they can sound bad/distorted at high levels.

4. Notwithstanding point 3, some plug ins are also just badly coded and can't handle levels approaching 0dBFS. If you must use such a plug in then levels might be an issue.

Frankly, for me it just shows the need for everyone--even beginners--to take the time to understand a bit of the theory and to learn how to handle gain staging. Telling them to simply "record everything at -18" might be expedient but it's glossing over lots of issues--and the "loudness war" on commercial recordings doesn't help any because they're used to hearing mastered mixes at--guess what--0dBFS!
 
Okay. Let me try to sum up what comes out of all 9 pages in a few bullet points:

1. As long as you avoid clipping, there is no audio difference in digital recordings whether they're made at -20dBFS or at levels just under clipping.

2. A caveat to point 1 is that you must always be aware of what high digital levels will do in the analogue domain (either when recording or when playing back) because the metering in the analogue world tends to be calibrated for dBu or dBVU and the amount of headroom above the analogue zero level is variable. High digital levels can cause clipping or at least distortion if you're not careful in your lineup.

3. Some plug ins, especially those emulating analogue effects are coded so the digital levels matter and they can sound bad/distorted at high levels.

4. Notwithstanding point 3, some plug ins are also just badly coded and can't handle levels approaching 0dBFS. If you must use such a plug in then levels might be an issue.

Frankly, for me it just shows the need for everyone--even beginners--to take the time to understand a bit of the theory and to learn how to handle gain staging. Telling them to simply "record everything at -18" might be expedient but it's glossing over lots of issues--and the "loudness war" on commercial recordings doesn't help any because they're used to hearing mastered mixes at--guess what--0dBFS!

It is very funny that a thread ends up like this. I know everything that you just pointed out from the first two pages of this thread, and others that i have read. Im not a beginner when it comes to recording but analog and digital are extremely different. Some times when a thread is started it is also meant to go into an actual discussion that seems to never happen. Maybe there can be to many people on forums that want to look for the newb to unleash some ego driven tirade that really doesn't have much to do with anything but cause issues. Thanks for summing up the 9 page thread that should have been explained in one and then turned into discussion about topics pertaining to the subject matter. Its not science its art, plain and simple. There is science involved but shouldn't be to the point of over examination. Just my opinion and obviously others have theirs that like to add information that really shouldn't be brought up. Some of the members of this forum and others that im sure most know wait for their chance to upstage someone intellectually just to boost their own ego. Thanks for the help all. Just a little time consuming. Back to making music ASAP!
 
First off, I've enjoyed the read and have learned a few valuable things from this thread so I'd like to thank the contributors and the thread starter. I'm impressed with the level of knowledge found within, despite the opposing views.

Its not science its art, plain and simple.

OffCenter, you originally asked a question completely based around science, not art, and after receiving scientific answers, you conclude with it being a matter of art. If anything, I would argue it's the other way around. Making MUSIC is art, not science. However, recording that music is science with art thrown in. Even the most "artistic" of engineers still follow principle rules governed by the science of acoustics and electronics. If it were predominantly art, it would imply that all rules could be thrown out the window and magic could still happen. Unless we're posting tracks here for musically creative input regarding the song, this forum exists due to the need to understand the science behind recording, not the art.

If everyone here ignored the science of recording, you'd have ended up with, "who cares about levels, man, just boost 200hz +15db on each track and throw an auto-wah on your master.... sounds killer!" :)

No offence intended by this, btw, for the record.
 
First off, I've enjoyed the read and have learned a few valuable things from this thread so I'd like to thank the contributors and the thread starter. I'm impressed with the level of knowledge found within, despite the opposing views.



OffCenter, you originally asked a question completely based around science, not art, and after receiving scientific answers, you conclude with it being a matter of art. If anything, I would argue it's the other way around. Making MUSIC is art, not science. However, recording that music is science with art thrown in. Even the most "artistic" of engineers still follow principle rules governed by the science of acoustics and electronics. If it were predominantly art, it would imply that all rules could be thrown out the window and magic could still happen. Unless we're posting tracks here for musically creative input regarding the song, this forum exists due to the need to understand the science behind recording, not the art.

If everyone here ignored the science of recording, you'd have ended up with, "who cares about levels, man, just boost 200hz +15db on each track and throw an auto-wah on your master.... sounds killer!" :)

No offence intended by this, btw, for the record.
The science was explained very clearly but then others disagree, where is the science in that? Is it theoretical science or proven? Conflicting views tend to show that there are obviously no rules and magic can happen with out rules and always have. I did get answers that many others debated and were more argumentative than me. And not knowing who Ethan Winer is led me to believe that he was spamming the forum. After reading his site and watching his videos all the way through ill add, he has valid points but if tracks will end up sounding the same if recorded lower or not why worry about it and try to disprove others? Why is it that when I have an opinion I turn into the bad guy? Im not hacking on anyone's ideas, I'm just trying to stay objective while sorting out what is going to work for me. That should not be a problem! Then some of my older thread battle buddies show up and its a show down. Stop the BS, I'm in this for the same reason that you are, better sounding recordings and to learn. The one thing that really bothers me is being treated like an idiot when I have good enough ears to know when things don't sound right, so i ask what others are doing and get a thread that turns this route. Tracking and mixing IS an art in itself. But like usual you have to put together these threads like a puzzle to get to the wisdom. I get what you are saying but it is hard to determine what is right and what is just a matter of personal opinion.
 
Don't sweat that as long as your pre is working as it should and you like what you are hearing. And that is mainly what Ethan is saying with his analytical views, and instead focus on the music.....as I read it.

Exactly. As I said to the OP earlier in this thread, I'm the one providing the "antibiotics" he mentioned, and he doesn't really have to learn how or why they work unless he wants to. It's others who are trying to turn setting record levels into voodoo by introducing unnecessary and incorrect complications.

In this regard too, Ethan is right...he IS saying that you don't need to be all analytical about the level...just put it where it needs to go, and your audio signal will not suffer for the number chrunching...so you can just focus on the art. :)

Bingo.

--Ethan
 
regardless of the files that you linked, nobody that has commented in this thread was there when you recorded it or how or what you did specifically. It is a pointless post with to many variables to be confirmed. That is not saying you could be lying but it does leave some room for skepticism, especially when you are trying so hard to prove so many people wrong.

I'm glad you brought this up. If anyone would like the entire SONAR project to verify the files and their record levels, I'll be glad to upload it to an FTP site. And anyone who would like to see what I did is most welcome to visit me in person. I live in western Connecticut, just north of Danbury. I've suggested many times that this test is so simple anyone else can duplicate it to get the same result. If only the nay-sayers would actually do this test instead of parroting the words of so-called experts, this thread could have ended back on Page 2!

Every thread, blog, site, and professional that has this particular subject explained on the internet says the same thing as Mo Facta and the like.

That's why it's such an important myth to debunk. There are many other such myths too. As I said earlier, truth is important for truth's sake, but it's also important to avoid wasting time and money on things that will not affect the quality of your productions. This is why I am so adamant about refuting the misinformation spread by others.

All that i am out for is more knowledge of the craft so i can make my music sound as good as possible. So Ethan please keep coming with advice because im listening.

There you go!

--Ethan
 
Actually if that was the case why are there so many different views on the same subject?

There are always going to be several views, even on things purely scientific. It comes down to understanding. The fact remains that usually, there is correct and incorrect views. I'm not going to say that this applies for everything, but for most. Just because the mass opinion is one thing, doesn't make it fact either. Years ago people lost their heads or were imprisoned for believing outside the normal accepted view regarding things like the earth being round not flat, the earth revolving around the sun and not the other way around, etc....

I get not wanting to dive in too deep into the science of recording to allow it NOT get in the way of the art, (which is the music), but I think it is the science that will get you better at recording the source. Once we enter the mix realm, we're back into art, yes.
 
I thought I'd made my last post but find the "art vs. science" twist to be too interesting to ignore!

Yeah, you can go too far with the "science" (actually, more engineering but that's not important). However, I'm not convinced you can totally ignore it either.

Just as when you're learning to be a musician you need to spend time learning the basics--fingerings for chords, playing scales on the piano, etc.--it's also worth spending the time and effort learning some of the technicalities. As much as it would be nice (and put me out of work) there's still no automatic "make it sound good" button you can push. A basic knowledge of gain staging, of the differences in meter scales, of microphone types, patterns and positioning, etc. etc. will pay big dividends in the long run. Conversely, while "use your ears and make music" sounds like good advice, you can waste a lot of time trying to figure out what's wrong when your recordings and mixes don't live up to what you want. In a professional studio, the musicians and the producer have benefit of an engineer (or several of them) to do the boring stuff. At home you have to do it yourself.

So, no, don't get overly preoccupied with the technicalities. But do take some time to learn the basics just like you did when you took up music. It'll pay dividends.
 
There are always going to be several views, even on things purely scientific. It comes down to understanding. The fact remains that usually, there is correct and incorrect views. I'm not going to say that this applies for everything, but for most. Just because the mass opinion is one thing, doesn't make it fact either. Years ago people lost their heads or were imprisoned for believing outside the normal accepted view regarding things like the earth being round not flat, the earth revolving around the sun and not the other way around, etc...

I get not wanting to dive in too deep into the science of recording to allow it NOT get in the way of the art, (which is the music), but I think it is the science that will get you better at recording the source. Once we enter the mix realm, we're back into art, yes.


That is the only reason that I question things, to try and weed out what is good info and what is bad.

I am a person who would rather read a user manual than a book. I want to know as much as possible about everything that I can. I do want to get into the deeper side of digital recording but I think to do that one must go through tremendous amounts of trial and error.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd made my last post but find the "art vs. science" twist to be too interesting to ignore!

Yeah, you can go too far with the "science" (actually, more engineering but that's not important). However, I'm not convinced you can totally ignore it either.

Just as when you're learning to be a musician you need to spend time learning the basics--fingerings for chords, playing scales on the piano, etc.--it's also worth spending the time and effort learning some of the technicalities. As much as it would be nice (and put me out of work) there's still no automatic "make it sound good" button you can push. A basic knowledge of gain staging, of the differences in meter scales, of microphone types, patterns and positioning, etc. etc. will pay big dividends in the long run. Conversely, while "use your ears and make music" sounds like good advice, you can waste a lot of time trying to figure out what's wrong when your recordings and mixes don't live up to what you want. In a professional studio, the musicians and the producer have benefit of an engineer (or several of them) to do the boring stuff. At home you have to do it yourself.

So, no, don't get overly preoccupied with the technicalities. But do take some time to learn the basics just like you did when you took up music. It'll pay dividends.

I absolutely agree with that. I read every manual and all the info i can find on the internet. I Google the hell out of everything that i can to get the answers im looking for. I love the technical side of recording as much as the art in it. People I know that are musicians hate doing things like, setting up a PA system or reading the help menus in software. I love it! Like i said earlier in this post you cant overlook the technical side of recording because it is a huge part of getting the sounds you are wanting. I have been recording for a long time but always want to learn how to get things better sounding.
 
Please Note:
There is no proof in the pudding.
(Well maybe some underproof rum BUT...)
the proof is in the eating of the pudding.
It's an oft made mistake & paraphrasing of an old axiom.
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
where the "proof" refers to the quality of said pudding,
which has been rendered to
"The proof is in the pudding."
thus rendering the analogy illogical and redundant.
One may as well say "the sixpences are in the pudding"
But one would have to PROVE it by cutting into it.
Were the pudding to remain uneaten it would remain an enigma.
That's from an evolving science that is open and subject to constatnt scrutiny and argument: English.
 
I think saying "the proof is in the pudding" assumes/suggests that one must eat it to taste the proof. :D
 
Please Note:
There is no proof in the pudding.
(Well maybe some underproof rum BUT...)
the proof is in the eating of the pudding.
It's an oft made mistake & paraphrasing of an old axiom.
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
where the "proof" refers to the quality of said pudding,
which has been rendered to
"The proof is in the pudding."
thus rendering the analogy illogical and redundant.
One may as well say "the sixpences are in the pudding"
But one would have to PROVE it by cutting into it.
Were the pudding to remain uneaten it would remain an enigma.
That's from an evolving science that is open and subject to constatnt scrutiny and argument: English.

Yeah, what you said. :facepalm: I have no idea what that means but as long as you do thats all that matters.
 
Back
Top