Metering in digital domain

This is the kind of thing that renders online learning tools useless. I have watched Ethan's YouTube video and there are some interesting points that seem to founded on solid science but in my opinion I really feel that extreme analyzation of these things kill creativity. That is not meant as an insult to Ethan at all but at some point someone recording onto tape said wow if I push the gain into this certain piece of equipment it sounds better. I started this thread for insight not debate. As well thought out and presented as it was, Ethan's advice has not helped me much. It kind of made me want to read and read and read when instead i should have been recording.

Please don't take this as insult because you do have valid points and some fact to back it up. Its just not what everyday recording enthusiasts want to hear. I read your article also and was lost. I just asked a simple question about gain staging and wanted a straight forward answer. Your contribution to music seems to be a very analytical one and i just want to make better sounding music without a microscope. I will give you credit because its obviously a passion to you but i think you and I are seeing things from a Doctor, patient standpoint. You will explain why antibiotics work and how they do, I just want to take the medicine and get better without becoming a Doctor.

Please, if you have more info to help I would love the contribution but at least keep it to where it makes sense on a creative level and not a scientific one. Again, no disrespect.

And I will watch and read these again for a better understanding of things, and it will help when I can understand it better.
 
I don't know what converters you have so I don't have any idea what the correct settings would be. I take it you're going from an A&H mixer into an interface, perhaps the ADA800 on the gear list in your sig line? Are you using the TRS line inputs? If so then +4 is probably where you want to set the knob (since presumably you're sending it a +4dBu signal). If you're using the mic inputs there may be too much gain even with the knob all the way down.

I have the Behringer ADA800s. They are not the greatest by a long shot but at home when recording I track and program everything and my chain of equipment is POD XT to the A&H mx 16:2 to whichever channel, then run the direct out of that channel to my converter then to the daw. Im showing a that my RMS is at between -18 to -12 using the sonalksis free g plugin before any other plugins. After that a run that plugin again after my effects chain to see if im still matching that -18 to -12.

Is there anything that you would say im doing wrong? Other than the obvious fact im not using a miced amp or drums? I use EZDrummer for drum tracks so would ther be anything that i should watch out for with the levels of those kind of vst instruments?
 
Please, if you have more info to help I would love the contribution but at least keep it to where it makes sense on a creative level and not a scientific one.

I agree totally about making music, which is the real goal. But gainstaging, and input and output levels, are scientific issues that require scientific explanations. Not everyone wants to understand at a deep level, and that's fine! Indeed, my entire point is actually what you want to hear - that it's not necessary to obsess over these things because they don't matter. It's others who are telling you to worry about levels within your plug-ins, and signal levels in and out of sound cards. So there's your antibiotics, and you don't have to worry about why they work. :D

--Ethan
 
Yes, unless you're happy to remain ignorant about how the tools you use actually work. The same applies to outboard gear too. Push it and see what happens. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't, but at least you'll know which end is up.



Ah, another hater intent on discrediting Ethan. Nice. Didn't you hear the war is over? Regardless, maybe 1.5 Million views on YouTube and elsewhere doesn't count for much these days, but I'd call that a hit. Most views:

A Cello Rondo

Newer render with much better quality:

A Cello Rondo - HD Version

I was designing audio gear and producing music for national jingles and soundtracks while you were still in diapers:

Ethan's Audio and Music Bio Page

And the list of your hit records can be found where? Not that how many "hit records" one has produced affects the validity of their arguments. But you brought it up.



No kidding. As it happens, I am a programmer. Look, whoever you are, if you don't have anything to offer but insults and accusations, you could avoid embarrassing yourself by just staying out of it. The people I "piss off" are those who hold strong opinions, but lack the knowledge and foundation to understand the science or express themselves intelligently. So all they have left is insults. Sound familiar?

You would do well to read the article I linked to previously, and try to understand it. For extra credit, read and understand my Perception article, and watch my hour-long AES Audio Myths video which proves these points. You'll come out knowing a lot more than you know now. And if you really want to understand audio and hearing, buy my book The Audio Expert and read it all the way through.

--Ethan

As usual, those who disagree with you are ignorant haters. Like I said, my opinions are somewhere in the middle. I've been following this "war" of yours since it started with Mixerman a couple years ago and I too am tired of it.

But regardless, you have had A LOT of opposition to your views by many top professionals and I just thought I would point that out.

Do you disagree with that?

Cheers :)
 
Well, I'm not Ethan but I think you might be stretching thing a bit to say there's "A LOT" of opposition to his views.

I think that, in reality, probably 90% of what he says is incontrovertable. Once you do true blind testing and filter out the placebo effect, an awful lot of perceived differences go away.

On the last 10%, there is sometimes some room for "yes, but..." questions or "but have you considered..." comments but these don't nullify the vast majority of what Ethan says.

As an example, here's DAVE RAT'S COMMENTS ON ETHAN'S AES PRESENTATION. As usual, it makes good reading.

On the original question about analogue vs. digital metering and levels, I think the only true answer is "it depends on the hardware or the plug in design". Beyond that, there's too much variety to make any sweeping generalisations--other than, perhaps, you're usually better not to press everything almost to clipping. Leave your tracks and mixes with some head room/breathing space.
 
What if I don't believe in blind testing?

Does that make me wrong? Are blind tests, fft, and null tests the only way to make a decision on what source is superior? Imagine on how long it would take to mix even one song!

I believe a lot of the problem is that we can't quantify subjectivity and psychoacoustic effects. I appreciate the scientific method but in this case I tend to lean more towards the opinions of people who work with this stuff on a daily basis year round and have set their own benchmarks than scientific analysis. In "benchmarks", I mean hit records and records that I believe sound great.

Cheers :)
 
When deciding on technology, yes, blind tests ARE the only way to evaluate things. As the other guy (not Ethan) describes on that AES video, it's not just easy to delude yourself when you know what the sources are supposed to be--it's inevitable. I'm sure everybody here has fooled themselves (or others) with preconceptions and the placebo effect.

The trouble with that is that not everybody has the same preconceptions--and this is dangerous when producing music for others to listen to.

Does this mean that human ears have no place in the chain? Of course not. I do a lot of live work and know that the best way to make a PA system sound like rubbish is to make it completely flat on SMAART or similar. Accurate and good aren't necessarily synonyms when dealing with music. The trick is separating the reality from the preconceptions--and the audiophool bullshit from what really does sound good.

I have to say though that most audio professionals I know may have strong feelings about what they think sounds good--but have equally strong feelings about the many pseudo scientific rip offs out there trying to persuade people to spend money on expensive mains cables, wooden knobs and jars of rocks.
 
As usual, those who disagree with you are ignorant haters.

You are a hater not because you disagree - how could anyone disagree with provable science such as distortion versus signal level? - but because of off-topic insults like this:

Just so everyone knows, Ethan prides himself on being an audio myth debunker. To my knowledge he's never made a hit record and the things he says pisses off a lot of the the people that do, because they vehemently disagree with him on much of his "debunking". I can list at least 5 or 6 of them off the top of my head, and these are people ranging from having 50 years in the business, to top 10 hit maker engineer/producers. There are epic threads all over the internet forums where Ethan and his adversaries battle out these points of contention.

The only reason there are "epic threads" is when people who are too immature to have an adult discussion can't back up their beliefs with fact, so all that's left is personal attacks. Please look in the mirror. Then read this thread from the start and see where it went off track.

you have had A LOT of opposition to your views by many top professionals and I just thought I would point that out.

In fact, the people who disagree with me because they don't understand the science are a loud minority. My book, which explores all of this stuff, was accepted by Focal Press, one of the premier publishers of audio science. These are the same folks who publish Bob Katz's Mastering Audio, Philip Newell's Recording Studio Design, and many other highly scientific references. The publisher hired leading audio experts such as Floyd Toole to review my book proposal. Then, based on those expert opinions they agreed to publish my book. Of course, facts like this don't matter to you because your agenda is to discredit me no matter what. You and Glenn Beck have a lot in common.

Just so everyone understands where Mister Facta is coming from, he's one of Mixerman's pals, part of the brigade of ignorance behind the forum "wars" you are seeing here. My Mixerman Exposed page explains the history.

This thread was doing fine before you started in with insults. Regardless, science and truth are not decided by how many people agree. If you don't understand that, then you are truly hopeless.

BTW, I'm still waiting to see your list of hit records, so we can know how valuable your opinions are.

--Ethan
 
When deciding on technology, yes, blind tests ARE the only way to evaluate things. As the other guy (not Ethan) describes on that AES video, it's not just easy to delude yourself when you know what the sources are supposed to be--it's inevitable. I'm sure everybody here has fooled themselves (or others) with preconceptions and the placebo effect.

Exactly. Further, many people confuse subjective preference and physical science. You can't "measure" why people like hearing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, but you can absolutely measure the quality of the audio system used to play a recording of that symphony. I see a similar confusion in Dave Rat's otherwise thoughtful article you linked above:

Dave Rat said:
The pure skeptic can no more prove a certain type of music is beautiful than a pure believer can construct a cell phone that actually functions.

In this example, the logical error is thinking that skeptics even try to prove that a piece of music is beautiful. No skeptic I know tries to prove beauty. I certainly don't. Another logical error is thinking that people who believe in magic are unable to design a cell phone. I'm imagine some of them can.

Dave Rat said:
The credibility of science comes into question when we are told that something can't be heard yet we do hear something.

I'm sure you can see the error here, since you obviously understand the importance of blind testing. This is a perfect example of the failings of Mixerman and those who think like him. They don't even understand how their own hearing works well enough to realize they are not immune from bias and the placebo effect.

Dave Rat said:
has anyone ever heard a recording played back where you tried to search around the room to find where the live band was hiding? How come we can know there is a garage band rehearsing a block away and when you sit dead center in front of the best sound systems money can buy and close your eyes, the best we can get is a descriptive range of similarities to live?

This is another logical error I see often from those who don't fully understand audio and acoustics. The reason a loudspeaker playback of music recorded with microphones doesn't sound live has little to do with the fidelity of the playback system!

--Ethan
 
No argument from me. If you can genuinely hear something, you can also measure it. However, don't confuse things you "hear" when you have a preconception with reality.

I'm a great fan of Dave Rat and most of his posting, but I took issue with some of the one I linked to. I disagreed with him confusing a subjective concept like beauty with an objective one like the technology of recording. By all means like "analogue warmth" or "tape saturation effects" or anything else--lots of good recordings use such things. But don't try to make the jump to pseudo science to justify it--just say "I like that sound".
 
Ok. Since we have completely lost track can we start talking about how these threads become like a living thing that spreads like cancer? WHO GIVES A SHIT! You guys are obviously knowledgeable but how about talking like normal people and not freaking robots. I dont follow anything on people who try to disprove others recording theories. To actually be creative and make things sound good does it have to be this complex? I bet all of you have a ton of useful advice individually but get you in the same thread and it turns to dick swinging. Entertaining but not educational. No offense to any of you. Can we get back on track and talk about what this was about to begin with?
 
By all means like "analogue warmth" or "tape saturation effects" or anything else--lots of good recordings use such things. But don't try to make the jump to pseudo science to justify it--just say "I like that sound".

You totally get it.

--Ethan
 
Yes, but understand that the concept of RMS and average levels derives from the need to know how loud something sounds.

I'm using RMS level as a measure of whether my equipment is getting 1.228 volts RMS where it will operate at it's most linear and optimally in terms of S/N ratio (or not as the case may be if I am looking for distortion). On my converters that could equate to -14dBFS RMS or -9dBFS RMS depending on how I have them calibrated but I still shoot for around -18dBFS RMS out of convenience just so I don't have to pull the gain down on all my tracks since I will use mostly emulation plugs in the mix

If I'm using an analog emualtion plugin then I'm looking for a level that will emulate the level where the plugin will operate at it's most linear and optimally in terms of emulated S/N ration (or not as the case may be if I am looking for emulated distortion)

I believe this is why it's important to understand every part of the signal chain, both analog and digital, so you don't unintentionally add unwanted noise and distortion to your recordings and mixes.

If your signal chain is comprised of an interface whose preamps and coverters are calibrated to be clean up to 0dBFS and all non emulation plugins then yes so long as nothing goes above 0dBFS you can record at pretty much any level you choose

If you are using any analog gear in the signal chain that will begin to add distortion the further you go above +4dBU (0VU) or any emulation plugs that will add emulated distortion the further you go above an emulated 0VU. Then being aware of appropriate levels becomes important

Since many people use more than just an interface and plugins that have no level dependent distortion built in, it is very important to understand the implications of gain staging and levels can have and how and why to control those implications to get the result you want in your final mix.

If I run a +22dBU signal out of a preamp into a compressor expecting an input level of +4 dBU I will get a great deal of distortion. If I run that into a converter, so long as I stay below 0dBFS I'll get no clipping and a great digital representation of a very distorted signal. Is that what I want? maybe maybe not but I need to understand my signal flow to get the result I need

If I run a -0.1dBFS signal out of a track into a plug in compressor emulating analog gear's response to hot signals that is expecting an input level of -18dBFS, I will get a great deal of distortion. So long as I stay below 0dBFS I'll get no clipping and a great digital representation of a very distorted signal. Is that what I want? maybe maybe not but once again I need to understand my signal flow to get the result I need

I think that is really the point of this thread and why in 24 bit recording, many people use the -18dBFS RMS as a "sweet spot" as you say. You're covered if you use emulation plugs or other analog gear, you don't have pull the gain down radically on your tracks to avoid clipping the master when mixing and you leave your self plenty of headroom for any sudden enthusiastic note, hard struck string etc that might clip a hotter recording.
 
Last edited:
^^^ I agree with all of that. The only thing I'll mention is that I record most things at 16 bits because the Wave files are then 2/3 the size of 24 bits, and in turn I can run more tracks for the same CPU usage. Even with "only" 16 bits you can still record softer than -10 and be well above any noise from the medium. But really, setting record levels isn't that complicated. :D

--Ethan
 
^^^ Indeed. This is one of the "problems" with the democratization of recording gear. Years ago when it cost $10k and up for even a modest home recording setup, people were serious about that much commitment and learned enough to really understand the process. Today, anyone with a home computer and $200 for a sound card and microphone, and basic software, can own a recording studio. This is great! Hence the usefulness and need for audio forums like this one.

--Ethan
 
Ive just come to the conclusion that Ethan is a thread jacker. You took over a thread that you selfishly used to promote yourself. Get over your self indulgent agenda! You seem to do this to promote yourself and in the process make the art of record ing seem like the myth. I want to soak up information but it first has to interest me. I cant imagine being a musician that would have to analyze things to the point that it becomes a laboratory study and not an art form. It all just seems a bit too obsessive. Even if a song SOUNDS fantastic and sucks, it still sucks. All this for a gain staging question and by the time I waited to have a conversation about it Ive read 100 other posts that actually helped me. Also there have been albums in the last ten years that have been major successes on very limited studio setups. I also think that to spend so much time running numbers in ones head will destroy inspiration. I did get the answers that i was looking for. But it could have taken less time and also have taken this thread to more interesting places than it did. I give you respect because its due for the work you put into something you love. But you interjecting on numerous threads I have read leads me to believe you are trying to sell something.
 
I didn't insult anyone.

I just stated that you have opposition.

I'll say for the third time now that my views are somewhere in the middle which means I agree with some of your arguments and disagree with others.

I'm a fair guy, but I thought people on here should know that you DO have opposition to your views and the opposition comes from respected pros, not just forum pedants.

For me, I'm sick of science and the soul destroying MINUTIA that we obsess about on these forums and would rather get on with the pleasurable experience of making music and making decisions on what I HEAR. Forest for the trees on here, as usual. God, are we getting to the point where we don't use a plugin until we null test it? I really don't care that much to take the time. My ears are good enough for me.

Excuse me while I go mix a record.

Cheers :)
 
I'm really surprised - and a bit disappointed - to have my posts called thread jacking. In fact, everything I've said here applies directly to the topic at hand. I have more to offer below which I hope you'll consider. I really hate making enemies, especially in a forum discussion with one of my customers, but this myth is so prevalent that it really needs to be busted and stopped from being repeated. Don't we all want to know the truth?

This has come in handy a few (hundred thousand) times:
Proper Audio Recording Levels | Rants, Articles

John, in that article you suggest that people prove for themselves that recording at lower levels sounds better by using a splitter to record the same microphone to two tracks at once at different levels for every track in a song. Have you ever actually done that? I did, and the results confirm what I've been saying in this thread. Since it's not practical for me to record an entire band just to test this, I did the next best thing: I played each track of an existing song one by one and re-amped them into one microphone and recorded at two levels. Whether this captures the same sound as a microphone on a singer or drum set is irrelevant. The source simply is what it is, and a re-amp source is as valid as any other to disprove this myth. I used the 8-track "master" of an old Motown hit that made the rounds a few years ago.

The photo below shows the setup with my large JBL 4430 loudspeaker and a precision DPA 4090 microphone 18 inches from the center of the horn's throat. I set the levels so that one track of each recording peaked at least higher than -6 dBFS, and the other was about 20 dB below that. I didn't change the record levels as I recorded each existing track to the new pair of tracks. I even recorded at 16 bits instead of 24, to make this a worse-case test.

I rendered only 25 seconds of the tune, but the files are still too large for this forum to accept. So I put them in a temp folder on my own web site:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/levels-mixa.wav
http://www.ethanwiner.com/levels-mixb.wav

Your mission is to identity which mix was made from files recorded so they peak near 0 dB, and which mix came from the files that were recorded around -20. To me they sound exactly the same, but maybe others here have better (and younger) ears than me. I will mention that when I nulled the two mix files, the residual (difference) was down around -50 dB.

A few years ago someone rightly criticized my Dither Report article because the comparisons were for different parts of the song. So I re-did the examples and re-wrote the article. This is how science is supposed to work when new information is learned.

--Ethan

Levels Test Setup.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top