Look at this wave form and tell me if this is normal?

[mesaboogie5050]

This is an acoustic guitar I just recorded, as you can see, after I eq and compressed it, the levels reach about -12. Which is where I want it to go. Yet the wave form looks extremely small compared to everything else that's at -12. I don't want to normalize it because if I do that it'll go above -12.

Or do you usually normalize when a wave form looks like this? The track is loud. Even though it doesn't look like it on the wave form. You can see on the left side of the faders, only the acoustic track is playing and you can see the volume.

 

[miroslav]

Did you accidentally shrink the *viewing size* of the waveform (not the level)....?

 

[mesaboogie5050]

No, I can make it bigger, but this is small. I can show you by putting another track beside it. Acoustic tracks are always looking like that. If I record electric at the same exact volume the wave form is bigger and I can analyze it on the EQ.

 

[Farview]

First, I feel the need to say that it doesn't matter what sound looks like. It just doesn't.

To answer your question, an acoustic guitar that peaks at -12 will always be quieter and look smaller than a distorted electric guitar peaking at the same level. This is because the crest, or peak to sustain ratio, is very different between the two.

With an electric guitar, the peak volume and the sustained volume are nearly the same level, so the waveform will look more solid on your screen.

With an acoustic, the peaks are much higher than the sustain, so if you put the peaks at -12, the sustain will be substantially less, resulting in a waveform that looks more like what you have. Even with compression and EQ it will be like this. If you tried to compress it enough to look like an electric guitar waveform, it wouldn't sound like an acoustic anymore.

There is no need to keep the peaks down this low. You want to shoot for an average level that is in line with line level on your interface. Somewhere between -12 and -18dbfs normally. But this means the peaks can be much higher than that, and they will be on percussive instruments, like acoustic guitar, piano, etc... But on things that don't have transient peaks, like distorted electric guitars and violins, etc... the peak level will be much closer to the average level, so the peaks will be lower than the acoustic.

 

[mesaboogie5050]

First, I feel the need to say that it doesn't matter what sound looks like. It just doesn't.

To answer your question, an acoustic guitar that peaks at -12 will always be quieter and look smaller than a distorted electric guitar peaking at the same level. This is because the crest, or peak to sustain ratio, is very different between the two.

With an electric guitar, the peak volume and the sustained volume are nearly the same level, so the waveform will look more solid on your screen.

With an acoustic, the peaks are much higher than the sustain, so if you put the peaks at -12, the sustain will be substantially less, resulting in a waveform that looks more like what you have. Even with compression and EQ it will be like this. If you tried to compress it enough to look like an electric guitar waveform, it wouldn't sound like an acoustic anymore.

There is no need to keep the peaks down this low. You want to shoot for an average level that is in line with line level on your interface. Somewhere between -12 and -18dbfs normally. But this means the peaks can be much higher than that, and they will be on percussive instruments, like acoustic guitar, piano, etc... But on things that don't have transient peaks, like distorted electric guitars and violins, etc... the peak level will be much closer to the average level, so the peaks will be lower than the acoustic.

Thanks for the help. I was able to get it a little better.

The only reason I care about the wave form, is I am learning to EQ, and if the wave form is low, it doesn't show up the same way working with the wave form on the EQ in Logic.

It peaks in the yellow before compressor. But I've been keeping the levels at -12 after compressing.

 

[Farview]

Thanks for the help. I was able to get it a little better.

The only reason I care about the wave form, is I am learning to EQ, and if the wave form is low, it doesn't show up the same way working with the wave form on the EQ in Logic.

It peaks in the yellow before compressor. But I've been keeping the levels at -12 after compressing.

Peaking in the yellow is fine for an instrument like that.
Why do you need to look at the waveform when you are EQing?

 

[mesaboogie5050]

To see where the waves are hitting.

I am having a problem, when using two mic's, through two separate mono channels, recording acoustic guitar, if I play the tracks together and add a low cut filter to both tracks, it actually boost the bass. The tracks are in phase. Although if I leave low cut filter on just one track it works.

 

[Farview]

I have no idea why that would happen. But you could try sending them to a group channel and cutting the low end there.

 

[mixsit]

To see where the waves are hitting.

I am having a problem, when using two mic's, through two separate mono channels, recording acoustic guitar, if I play the tracks together and add a low cut filter to both tracks, it actually boost the bass. The tracks are in phase. Although if I leave low cut filter on just one track it works.

That's weird. What do you mean when you say they are in phase BTW?
I would guess to get long low freq waves to cancel when they're combined- one would have to be polarity inverted. And if that were the case (it could explain it perfectly) then you could likely also hear that swimmy' out of polarity/no solid image on the upper tones when they are hard panned.

Is there a dif or lessening in this low loss when they're panned 100% vs both centered? That might be a clue.

 

[mesaboogie5050]

What I mean, is they are closely aligned. When recording, I made sure they were as close as in phase I could get. If I hit the invert switch on the pre amp I just get the thin, no bass thing.

I have not tried panning them.

Even though the mic's are at correct placement and audio is reaching both mic's at the correct timing, at least really close, it seems mixing in certain frequencies cuts out others. It doesn't seem to make a difference on the high end. Just the low end.

 

[mixsit]

What I mean, is they are closely aligned. When recording, I made sure they were as close as in phase I could get. If I hit the invert switch on the pre amp I just get the thin, no bass thing.

I have not tried panning them.

Even though the mic's are at correct placement and audio is reaching both mic's at the correct timing, at least really close, it seems mixing in certain frequencies cuts out others. It doesn't seem to make a difference on the high end. Just the low end.

Man I'm not sure where to go with this then. The centered vs panned idea was just a quick test to see how the image together (panned).

if I play the tracks together and add a low cut filter to both tracks, it actually boost the bass.

A few of the low shelf cut modes on one eq gui I use does indicate a bumps' up above the shelf's cut range- and a bump like that could land on an acoustic guitar's boom' point. But you said low cut, presuming that means a HP filter, I don't know HP filter doing that.
Maybe we're missing something obvious or it's in the descriptions in what's really going on.

 

[Armistice]

A few of the low shelf cut modes on one eq gui I use does indicate a bumps' up above the shelf's cut range- and a bump like that could land on an acoustic guitar's boom' point. But you said low cut, presuming that means a HP filter, I don't know HP filter doing that.
Maybe we're missing something obvious or it's in the descriptions in what's really going on.

^^^

This - what is this "low cut filter" you're referring to, exactly?