Recording volume Ok. Playback volume too loud.

[MilkoNetherland]

That is the funny part about what he is doing...He is using a limiter to reduce the dynamic range of the signal, so that it uses all the bits, because he thinks that will get him more dynamic range.

It makes no sense, it makes it harder, and it adds needless things to the signal chain (which can only degrade the original signal)

True.. but not true..
Good limiters don't screw up the signal. They don't make the acoustic signal "ugly". Still they cause the signal to be slightly compressed. It causes a fully usable 24 bit of information. If you do this for all separate instruments in the mix you will hear that the end result is actually more dynamically sounding than a "safe -18db" signal.

We all like numbers like dynamic range of a recorder that is typically 103db or signal to noise -115db.
If we have low level signals it means you don't use the full dynamic range. At -18db signals the real dynamic range will be 85 db. Signal to noise 97 db. Manufacturers do their best to create very good hardware but we don't use it to the maximum capacity. Change your idea about limiters and maybe you start to understand why my method could work the opposite way of your expectations now ;-)

 

[Farview]

If you limit something, you are lowering that signals dynamic range. So you are cutting off the top of the signal, in order to raise the bottom of it. The bottom of it would be the self noise in the signal.

In other words, you are changing the natural rise of the transient in order to raise the level of the noise and garbage at the bottom of the signal.


Let's take all the noise, the recorder, preamps, etc... out of the equation for a second. Say you have a signal with 95db of dynamic range and you send it through a limiter with.2db of reduction happening. You now have a signal with 93db of dynamic range. It isn't more dynamic, it is exactly 2db less dynamic.

Now, add everything else back in. The mic preamps are working harder than they were designed to, so they are noisier and will start to distort the transients...adding more noise and deforming the signals transients.

If you like the sound of the limiters, because they will make things sound more powerful, by lengthening the note, that's fine. But don't fool yourself into thinking that using all the bits gives you more dynamic range. It would sound just as powerful if you used the limiters and set the ceiling to -6dbfs.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Good limiters don't screw up the signal. They don't make the acoustic signal "ugly". Still they cause the signal to be slightly compressed. It causes a fully usable 24 bit of information. If you do this for all separate instruments in the mix you will hear that the end result is actually more dynamically sounding than a "safe -18db" signal.

Let's assume for a moment you are getting some sort of sonic benefit. While I can't say what is causing it I can say what's not causing it: using "all the bits".

We all like numbers like dynamic range of a recorder that is typically 103db or signal to noise -115db.
If we have low level signals it means you don't use the full dynamic range. At -18db signals the real dynamic range will be 85 db. Signal to noise 97 db. Manufacturers do their best to create very good hardware but we don't use it to the maximum capacity. Change your idea about limiters and maybe you start to understand why my method could work the opposite way of your expectations now ;-)

There is far more signal to noise ratio available in 24 bit digital recording than there is in the signal you're recording. That's the point, to be able to record a dynamic signal's entire range and still have room above the peaks to prevent clipping and below the signal's own noise before you hit the 24 bit noise floor. With a normal signal you literally can't use the whole 24 bit dynamic range. If you limit your signal going in you're using even less of the 24 bit dynamic range. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

I guess that I and also many other people who only listen and don't know shit about recording just like the background noise. It gives you more space in the recording. Imagine if you use background noise like footsteps and people sneezing in the background you slightly compress the signal and these sounds get more clarity the entire recording might sound like there is more air because you hear more of the space around the instruments.. I believe you are all right but still I know how it sounds when I do is my own stubborn way. I think my mistakes that I inherited from a friend who makes awesome reference recordings and our way of thinking does amplify the softer acoustic background in the recordings. This must be the reason why it works.. At least in the recordings I have heared and made using this method.
Does this make sense? I mean I read all reactions and its all true.. so there must be an other reason Why I like the sound so much of my so called "hot" recordings.

 

[Greg_L]

there must be an other reason Why I like the sound so muck of my so called "hot" recordings.

Funny appropriate typo.

It's because you're not objective. You've already made up your mind that your against-all-logic method works, so it sounds great to you. And that's fine if you think that. You're the only one that has to hear it.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

Funny appropriate typo.

It's because you're not objective. You've already made up your mind that your against-all-logic method works, so it sounds great to you. And that's fine if you think that. You're the only one that has to hear it.

Its not my mind... Maybe my ears.. I actually came in contact with a recording technician many years ago. He had a very simple mobile setup. And the end results of his recordings sounded superbly hifi and very dynamic. I asked him how he does it. This guy has no education and came from the tape recorders time era. But he has good ears. I had no clue how he did it and just ask if he would reveal his magic tricks. And this is his magic trick.. Somehow his setup didn't have problems with hot signals because the direct and playback function had adjustable volumes. I need some time to contact the musicians and ask if they allow me to post some of their recordings just to let you hear how the end results are.. Ill come back to this when I have holidays next week.

Cheers..

 

[Greg_L]

That record-as-hot-as-possible old school analog method was great when loading up tape. It might have even been good in the prehistoric digital days. Nowadays, with what we know and how things work, that method is dated and foolish. We know better. You don't need to use "every bit". Seriously, that's like mid 90s digital thinking. It's better if you don't try to use "every bit". I used to be like you and tracked real hot because that's just how I knew to do it. Well, I didn't brickwall limit things on the way in because that's just idiotic, but I did track hot. My mixes were okay. I made it work. I had to ride the faders like cowboy on a bull, but I made it work. But I know better now and my mixes are better.

Instead of trying to convince us otherwise when we already know better, why don't you just try it yourself? Record something using more intelligent modern tracking methods with lots of actual headroom. No limiting on the way in. Give it a few tries because surely you will fuck it up at first. But then if your ears and senses work at all, you'll probably eventually see the light.

 

[Farview]

I think one of the problems you are having is you might be using the word "dynamic" to mean "exciting", when we are all talking about dynamic range. Two completely different things.

Limiters can make things more exciting sounding, but by the definition of what a limiter does, it lowers the dynamic range of the signal.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing with you that your recording doesn't sound better to you when recorded hot. We are arguing that the reason you say you think it sounds better doesn't make any sense.

With you and the people you are learning from having no recording education, it's going to be pretty easy for you to confuse other people's superstition and misunderstanding as fact. There are plenty of people who make good recordings without actually knowing why they end up good. (Much like many people know how to operate a car, without knowing how a car operates)

What you are doing might be the perfect method for accomplishing your recording goals, but perhaps, if you were recording a different style of music, these methods would doom the project.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

I took the time to talk to my recording mentor and musician Thys. He allowed me to post his recordings to support our theory. I will post 3 songs. All are recorded very hot.(limited at almost 0 db in the recorder) All used the same limiters and recorder. The only difference with my current setup is that I use the alesis hd24 that has no adjustable output.. So in the end its too hot for my mixer. The sound is definitely "exciting" and I believe it is because the disadvantage of using limiters is smaller than the win of using the Full 24 bit dynamic range of the recorder. I uploaded the songs as WAV files lossless directly ripped from the master CD.(Yes after mixing its scaled back to 16 bit CD signal) I added info about the tracks in the soundcloud.
I don't do this to win a discussion. I only like to share different views on recording techniques. Whatever we theoretically think. Now its time to let our ears do the final judgement and i' m happy to hear what you all think of the results. In best case share your opinion and post even better recordings (if you can)with short info about how it was recorded. Would be fun if we create a set of reference recordings this way. And please avoid replies with inferior or compressed formats with low bitrates.
Thanx for sharing ideas and opinions so far.

Cheers.

Track 1:
https://soundcloud.com/milko-lippe/blues-s-1
Track 2:
https://soundcloud.com/milko-lippe/hypnoclan-elephant-talk-02-19-06-2002-01
Track 3:
https://soundcloud.com/milko-lippe/hypnoclan-elephant-talk-06-03-05-2001

The last one was just a jamm session. Some instruments did not even have their own mic. like the electric guitar. So we tried to squeeze him out of other microphones. Its funny but still usable and pretty impressive to me.

 

[Greg_L]

Some of it sounds real good....some of it sounds like ass because you murdered the transients and squashed the shit out of it. Like in the last song...what is that, a direct acoustic guitar or something? Sounds like shit. But overall they don't sound bad to me. Some parts of it sound great. You can tell they're very hot though and they sound harsh to me. The quieter elements sound good, then it picks up and it's harsh and distorted. Maybe that's mastering, maybe that's your illogical way of tracking. I don't know.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

Some of it sounds real good....some of it sounds like ass because you murdered the transients and squashed the shit out of it. Like in the last song...what is that, a direct acoustic guitar or something? Sounds like shit. But overall they don't sound bad to me. Some parts of it sound great. You can tell they're very hot though and they sound harsh to me. The quieter elements sound good, then it picks up and it's harsh and distorted. Maybe that's mastering, maybe that's your illogical way of tracking. I don't know.

Acoustic guitar in the last song? Do you mean the electric guitar in the background? Hahaha.. he came later after the setup was made. You actually hear him pushed through the overheads of other instruments. Its totally gone wrong At the stage that day so you cant take that guitar serious.. Its a simple jamm session. It was never meant to be a serious recording. Still the end effect is pretty cool. I dot like the keyboard samples too. But love the frettless solo..Maybe its not a good example as the situation was not ideal but its all recorded super hot and i find it still very dynamic and airy..

 

[Greg_L]

Whatever that is, it sounds so bad I can't even tell what it is!

Don't start making excuses now.

I think you're being fooled a little bit. The music itself is dynamic. The performances are dynamic. That's a dynamic style of music, so maybe your ridiculous method of squashing everything to death on the way in doesn't totally ruin the mix because the performances are on point. Maybe. I'm just guessing. But overall I admit it's not nearly as bad sounding as I expected it to be. The skeptic in me is telling me that yall had to massage that mix to death to make it work.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

Whatever that is, it sounds so bad I can't even tell what it is!

Don't start making excuses now.

I think you're being fooled a little bit. The music itself is dynamic. The performances are dynamic. That's a dynamic style of music, so maybe your ridiculous method of squashing everything to death on the way in doesn't totally ruin the mix because the performances are on point. Maybe. I'm just guessing. But overall I admit it's not nearly as bad sounding as I expected it to be. The skeptic in me is telling me that yall had to massage that mix to death to make it work.

Nope. No massaging here.
The good news is that the tracks all come practically normalized. All instruments are in the front so all you need to do is some IQ and LR positioning. In this case some delay on sax and overall Reverb is used. Thats it. Mixing times are reduced due to pre-normalized tracks. This recording is dynamic not only because of the musicians. Also because of the recording technique. The last track is not the best example as it was a fuzzy unorganized jamm session. Still I have never heared a jamm session that sounds that awesome. And still its used as demonstrator by some audio experts. Cant be bad if that is the case. So what exactly make you think its massaged or squashed? Can you upload something better? And if you ignore the 3rd track.. What is your honest feedback on the first 2?

 

[Greg_L]

I've conceded that surprisingly I think some of it sounds good. Some of it is shit. I'm not gonna dissect all of it. Maybe someone else will.

My question to you is, where are your recordings using this method? You've demonstrated that someone else, 15 years ago, with professional musicians, could pull this off reasonably well. But your initial posts in this thread clearly show that you are having trouble recording this way. It seems that you saw one guy do this forever ago so you just have to do it now. It's not working for you, and it's not the gear's fault. So why are you still trying to defend it? I'm all for thinking outside the box, but only when it makes sense to do so. If you'd record your tracks in a more sensible manner you'd have no problems at all.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

I've conceded that surprisingly I think some of it sounds good. Some of it is shit. I'm not gonna dissect all of it. Maybe someone else will.

My question to you is, where are your recordings using this method? You've demonstrated that someone else, 15 years ago, with professional musicians, could pull this off reasonably well. But your initial posts in this thread clearly show that you are having trouble recording this way. It seems that you saw one guy do this forever ago so you just have to do it now. It's not working for you, and it's not the gear's fault. So why are you still trying to defend it? I'm all for thinking outside the box, but only when it makes sense to do so. If you'd record your tracks in a more sensible manner you'd have no problems at all.

Im having some recordings but non of them is done the "HOT" way how I want it. That is due to my mixer incompatibility with "HOT" Signals and that is why I started this discussion. I have produced the latest Livin' Blues Alive and Kickin. (can download in Itunes store or Amazon) CD with my gear without the limiters and the traditional -18db way but I was not at liberty to choose or use my own microphones and preferred setup. Also the distributor remartered it and now I dont like the sound anymore. It became a bit painfull to my ears after he did the mastering. I practically just tapped the signal out of the monitor mixer.. I want to record HOT but first I will need to build my attenuators and get my studio done. I'm currently building a new house with 25m2 recording space and 10m2 seperate monitoring room. I hope by then I can do it the way I want and try to get in to business for real. I am experimenting with "Hot"recordings now but I can not use my mixer so I need to directly transfer the tracks into my computer. Monitoring while recording "Hot" is also out of the question right now for the same reasons.. As soon I can work the way I want I will get back to this but it might take me a year to finish the real studio and adjust the gear the way I want it to work. In case you are interested in more of my and my friends music there is some more in my soundcloud(oude manne kunne dansen) including my own productions that I made for other reasons than sound quality. I have some jamms with myself that i did while multitracking in my living room. The sound is not nice and also not "HOT"recorded.. Its more as a way to store my own compositions.
Cheers

 

[Greg_L]

So you can't make a usable recording unless you're slamming the shit out of the signal on the way in? You have to fucking build attenuators just to record tracks? You don't see how utterly absurd all of this is? Sorry man, you need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

So you can't make a usable recording unless you're slamming the shit out of the signal on the way in? You have to fucking build attenuators just to record tracks? You don't see how utterly absurd all of this is? Sorry man, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Haha.. Lets say I love the sound of the demo recordings i just posted. And Yes If you ask me I want to copy this way of recording becourse obviously it works for me.. And Yes I will setup my system the way that I will have the choice how I want to record. Now I can technically already do it but then I can not monitor while recording.. Ill start to do some practice recordings as soon I have time.. Maybe its utterly rediculous to you but I think we should ask some more people to at least evaluate the first 2 tracks i have posted.. see if they also think it sounds shit.. I think its not the result you are hoping for if we ask more people. And still im waiting for other recordings of people here that sound better..

 

[Greg_L]

Haha.. Lets say I love the sound of the demo recordings i just posted. And Yes If you ask me I want to copy this way of recording becourse obviously it works for me.. And Yes I will setup my system the way that I will have the choice how I want to record. Now I can technically already do it but then I can not monitor while recording.. Ill start to do some practice recordings as soon I have time.. Maybe its utterly rediculous to you but I think we should ask some more people to at least evaluate the first 2 tracks i have posted.. see if they also think it sounds shit.. I think its not the result you are hoping for if we ask more people. And still im waiting for other recordings of people here that sound better..

I have no hope for results either way. I don't care what other people think of it. For the third time, I've said I think it's surprisingly good considering how fucking asinine the tracking methods were.

But also....and this is important.....you didn't actually do it and you can't do it yourself, so preaching the virtues of this hot tracking method that anyone with common sense knows is flawed is insincere. Saying "it works for you" is a lie because you can't do it! If you could, this thread wouldn't exist. And you say you've tried and failed to track at more conventional levels, so I have to just assume you have no idea what you're actually doing and this hot tracking mess shit is just a crutch that doesn't work for you either. Just because some other guy did it 15 years ago, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. The "use every bit" way of thinking is a very early digital way of thinking and it's very dated now. It makes sense that these recordings you love are from 2001 because that's about when people started getting away from that super hot tracking method as they got smarter about digital. People used to smoke a lot too. We know better now.

As for people posting better recordings...better by who's standards? Who's the decider here? Better is not even a measurable standard. I think my own recordings are better than that hot squashed stuff you posted, but that's just my opinion. You'd probably think differently. Would you actually admit it if someone posted something that was just clearly better than those mixes you posted? I bet not.

 

[MilkoNetherland]

I have no hope for results either way. I don't care what other people think of it. For the third time, I've said I think it's surprisingly good considering how fucking asinine the tracking methods were.

But also....and this is important.....you didn't actually do it and you can't do it yourself, so preaching the virtues of this hot tracking method that anyone with common sense knows is flawed is insincere. Saying "it works for you" is a lie because you can't do it! If you could, this thread wouldn't exist. And you say you've tried and failed to track at more conventional levels, so I have to just assume you have no idea what you're actually doing and this hot tracking mess shit is just a crutch that doesn't work for you either. Just because some other guy did it 15 years ago, doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. The "use every bit" way of thinking is a very early digital way of thinking and it's very dated now. It makes sense that these recordings you love are from 2001 because that's about when people started getting away from that super hot tracking method as they got smarter about digital. People used to smoke a lot too. We know better now.

As for people posting better recordings...better by who's standards? Who's the decider here? Better is not even a measurable standard. I think my own recordings are better than that hot squashed stuff you posted, but that's just my opinion. You'd probably think differently. Would you actually admit it if someone posted something that was just clearly better than those mixes you posted? I bet not.

Well I have seen it working. I was there as assistant sound engineer in the first example and my friend who did record it is still around. When I asked him how hot the Hypnoclan was recorded he replied it was at least as hot as the blues s.
I remember when we recorded the Blues s. I asked him if it was actually appropriate to use the limiters that extensively. The leds were continuously blinking red.. So i'm pretty darn sure about how it was recorded. And how hot it came in. The point to show was that HOT recordings can sound very good. And I have already explained why i cant do it how I want.. So I can say recording Hot would be my preferable method as this is how I have seen and heard the posted results. Its a matter of time for me to do it myself.. Im very happy if someone can post better recordings and i would love to hear how its done.. Like I actually wrote already some posts ago. I was just as surprized as you to hear the final results of this recordings in 2002 but is kept me asking how its possible. The explanation is that you use the full information but you just wont believe that.. I am a technical man and build tube amplifiers myself. I have always preached that numbers and methods are all nice but the final verdict has to follow after listening to the end result for an extensive time. No matter how illogical it sounds to you.. I know already that it works. After talking to the man who recorded my posted tracks he confirmed that his recorders had adjustable output. This is how he could work with the mixer. This answered my main question why my mixer distorted and thats why i will build in the attenuators. Problem solved.. Cheers..

 

[Steenamaroo]

Hey man,
With modern technology there are no real arguments for tracking hot, but there are plenty of solid arguments against.
If you get away with it or don't find any problems then cool, but you're playing with fire and it is an outdated approach. There's no reason for it these days unless you're using old-school analog gear.


Incidentally, you can heavily compress or even limit on the way in without tracking hot.
The two are not the same thing.

I see all the talk of hotter/louder/etc but the few posts where you get descriptive sound like you're actually describing recording with compression.
That, as you described, can bring forward background noises and/or ambience (whether done on the way in or ITB) and there's certainly an argument for that as a technique.

Tracking hot for tracking hot's sake...not so much.