recording level
- Thread starter B1n4ry
- Start date
Steenamaroo
...
It does not matter.
Pay attention to the meters on the way in, the sound of your recordings, and the meters on the way out.
Do not pay attention to how anything looks on your computer screen.
If you want the wav to be bigger for editing convenience, the zoom tool is what you're looking for.
I would not normalise for this reason.
Pay attention to the meters on the way in, the sound of your recordings, and the meters on the way out.
Do not pay attention to how anything looks on your computer screen.
If you want the wav to be bigger for editing convenience, the zoom tool is what you're looking for.
I would not normalise for this reason.
Last edited:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Right.
If you're going to normalize, it should be after the mixing is done, and you're at the mastering stage....and then, only if needed relative to the other songs.
There's no need to always have every waveform hit the ceiling....that in itself is not a goal.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
(1) No they don't. Unless they're just tweaking for the screen.
(2) You'd do very well to stop using your eyes unless you're looking at the VU meter on a mic preamp or something that's actually relevant.
But if you really need to for some reason (I suppose there is definitely a visual plus when editing), then:
is easily your best bet.
Ack!
Of course that would be vertical zoom
Sorry if I happened to drag you into that one
Perception in reguards to the sense of hearing is so varied.
The human ear drum cannot accurately make loudness judgments on any sound shorter than 200ms. You will need some type of imaging(other than pre's vu) to get consistent results other than dumb luck. Then there is loudness in relation to pitch.
If any of you claim to be able to do this. We all should know, you are now full of it. I cant believe people are just throwing all that away. Don't take my word for it, google it. Research it. Especially the 200 ms thing. These DAW are so awesome, you get the ability to visualize the sound you create in a graphical user interface. But , do NOT look at it. Pffftt.
Use your ears, whatever. These are probably people with studios already set up, and they are playing in their comfort zone.
Document everything. Be eager to learn. One of the best things that happened to me is setting up the mic's for church choir. There is a actual way to do it. It has so much room for error in mic placement. You could , move the mic this way or that, and have no effect of the sound. Forgiving, more than you think. The basics have to be covered. KNow the paths of sound. then screw around with what sounds good to your ears.
Use tools like a room decibel meter, o scope, yes the vu, etc. I think you will get more enjoyment out it. The piece of mind that you can verify something should be worth it alone. I got this signal here at this location, how can I get it here.
If you are only using your ears, place one mic 10 ft back and hit play and record. Sounds fine.
The human ear drum cannot accurately make loudness judgments on any sound shorter than 200ms. You will need some type of imaging(other than pre's vu) to get consistent results other than dumb luck. Then there is loudness in relation to pitch.
If any of you claim to be able to do this. We all should know, you are now full of it. I cant believe people are just throwing all that away. Don't take my word for it, google it. Research it. Especially the 200 ms thing. These DAW are so awesome, you get the ability to visualize the sound you create in a graphical user interface. But , do NOT look at it. Pffftt.
Use your ears, whatever. These are probably people with studios already set up, and they are playing in their comfort zone.
Document everything. Be eager to learn. One of the best things that happened to me is setting up the mic's for church choir. There is a actual way to do it. It has so much room for error in mic placement. You could , move the mic this way or that, and have no effect of the sound. Forgiving, more than you think. The basics have to be covered. KNow the paths of sound. then screw around with what sounds good to your ears.
Use tools like a room decibel meter, o scope, yes the vu, etc. I think you will get more enjoyment out it. The piece of mind that you can verify something should be worth it alone. I got this signal here at this location, how can I get it here.
If you are only using your ears, place one mic 10 ft back and hit play and record. Sounds fine.
Last edited:
Synthzizer
New member
Full of what? Baloni? sounds shorter than 200ms can actually fall into delays and clutter so can actually be heard and seen in wave form. Pitch loudness is subjetcive to each and every one of us. To technical will sound that way anyway so i prefer to un-claim away.
Joe, gift day sand hot. Blow wow on the open yellow. Hello knock button address.
Now were communicating.
Sorry , could not resist. I cant tell if your agreeing , making a statement, or taking your own position. And you better check what parts of the signal are 200 ms or less. It is important. Not necessarily necessary. Like that one?
Not like we all "have to have to have" , the same sound. Like that one?
Bologna, is the correct word. Haven't you ever been to prison? Bolo G n A.
Last edited:
Steenamaroo
...
Seriously Mark, going on how things look is not a good idea.
The weakest signal can be made to look like it's clipping just by having your zoom settings messed up.
Normalising all the tracks to make them look the same is bad advice too, in my opinion.
With everything normalised the master will clip, so you gota pull the faders down
What if you go on to boost something with an eq? That track now clips.
I'm not even sure what that's meant to mean.
Last edited:
Farview
Well-known member
What something looks like on the screen is irrelevant, especially at the track level because getting everything he same volume, or looking he same, is going to be undone by the mix. You certainly don't want your hi hats as loud as your vocals, (or louder, as they would seem if you just made them look the same) so you would turn them down in the mix...which would render the "look" of the track pointless.
Are you , reproducing the sound somebody is making in a room? Maybe you have a batcave. Your amps and room is all miced, and you are finding your style. You could then, artistically use your ears.
If you are reproducing the sound of a group, in different locations, with different equipment. You better have some tools , beside your ears. The people you are working with expect it to sound like what they had before too.
It is funny that I am the one sharing clips and photos, and giving examples. Please show me one pic of this clipped master from normalization. I don't think it can cause it setting the top and bottom based on the average.
You are honestly claiming to still have hearing superpowers?
Greg, listen to your sample clips, then listen to someothers' here. You should start taking notes, BIG TIME.
Steen, do you use the crossfading (one of many like features) ? How do you set the fader without looking? If you wanted less stress on a ending consonant, or coming in on the mic too high level. You look at the track image, then drag the fader to cover the bump in the DAW track picture.
I am trying to share honest open experience. You treated me in kind, when I didn't know the difference from wav, mp3, vorg orbis or whatever that is.. Yesterday for the first time I got to 19 tracks deep in a project. I would have had to chain 4 of my fostex A8 to attempt, what mess. This is Awesome. On tape I cannot see it other than a needle bounce or jolt. DAW is picture perfect, and I like it.
If you are reproducing the sound of a group, in different locations, with different equipment. You better have some tools , beside your ears. The people you are working with expect it to sound like what they had before too.
It is funny that I am the one sharing clips and photos, and giving examples. Please show me one pic of this clipped master from normalization. I don't think it can cause it setting the top and bottom based on the average.
You are honestly claiming to still have hearing superpowers?
Greg, listen to your sample clips, then listen to someothers' here. You should start taking notes, BIG TIME.
Steen, do you use the crossfading (one of many like features) ? How do you set the fader without looking? If you wanted less stress on a ending consonant, or coming in on the mic too high level. You look at the track image, then drag the fader to cover the bump in the DAW track picture.
I am trying to share honest open experience. You treated me in kind, when I didn't know the difference from wav, mp3, vorg orbis or whatever that is.. Yesterday for the first time I got to 19 tracks deep in a project. I would have had to chain 4 of my fostex A8 to attempt, what mess. This is Awesome. On tape I cannot see it other than a needle bounce or jolt. DAW is picture perfect, and I like it.
Last edited:
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
When mixing multiple tracks you'll get a level increase of about 3dB on average for each doubling of the track count. If you have 16 tracks the mix level will be about 12dB higher than any single track. If you start with tracks normalized for 0dB peaks you will clip the mix bus.
Making the tracks all look the same after the fact accomplishes nothing. If they all look the same because you recorded them at the correct levels then it's merely confirmation of what you already know. If they all look a bit different but none of them are clipping it's just as good as if they all looked the same.
Making the tracks all look the same after the fact accomplishes nothing. If they all look the same because you recorded them at the correct levels then it's merely confirmation of what you already know. If they all look a bit different but none of them are clipping it's just as good as if they all looked the same.
Steenamaroo
...
Of course you're right; If you want to do some DAW editing, you have to be able to see what's going on.
I mentioned that in my first reply.
This is pedantry, though. When I said watch the meters rather than the waveform, I mean that a visual waveform on a screen usually tells you nothing about the actual level of the audio.
The meters will give you numbers that mean something.
If the OP wants his waves to be the same level as eachother, he should use the gain knob on the way in to adjust that.
If he wants them to look the same, he should use the zoom tool.
I'm not trying to cut you down Mark; I just don't think there's a place for normalising here, that's all.