Recording level?

[Rocinante]

'Kay, I'm new to recording, so please forgive my naivety...

When recording digitally, what should the recording level average around? Is there an *ideal* level that a track should be recorded at so that there is enough room to play around with it when mixing? Then when mixing, do I try to get the whole mix to average between -1db and 0db?

Did any of this make sense?

Thanks for any advice..

[bantos]

with digital recording keep your levels as close to 0db as possible.

Brett

[bvaleria]

Well not necessarily... keep your levels somewhere between -6 and just under 0 -- but NEVER hit 0!!! You needn't worry about S/N ratio the same way as you would for analog.

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound

[drstawl]

The average level you see during a recording is more dependent on the content. What you're trying to get a handle on are the peak levels. For digital tracking of real performers -1dB is not too risky if the performers have consistent levels. You can get it right up to the digital wall recording a computer controlled synth because you can dial it in after playing it through once. You can't count on that level of reproducibility in a live performance.

[dobro]

Someone here recently said you don't have to be pushing 0 dB all the time if you're operating in 24-bit. I believed it, and ever since then I've been tracking with the average level pushing -3. Much more relaxed.

[bvaleria]

Dobro,

You don't have to push 0 at 16-bit either - the range for getting full resolution (at 16-bit) is from -6 to 0 on the meters.

Bruce

[El Barto]

What about analog cassette? My Tascam 688 says turn the trim till the levels average 0db and the OL light only flickers rarely...wouldn't that be too loud and cause distortion? Since it says 'averages', would it be OK if it goes into the red, ESPECIALLY with drums?

[bvaleria]

Analog is completely different -- you absolutely WANT to record as hot as you can without distortion (unless you want that distortion for effect!) to maximize your signal-to-noise ratio.

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound

[dobro]

Repeatedly, I learn something useful and then think about how I was pissing in the wind up till now. For example:

"You don't have to push 0 at 16-bit either - the range for getting full resolution (at 16-bit) is from -6 to 0 on the meters."

Okay, save me another 10 months of folly, Bruce. What's the range for full resolution at 24-bit? And what does it mean when a signal falls below that range? Quiet sounds = lower resolution?

[bvaleria]

At 24-bit, Dobro, you don't even have to worry about it - the scale of resolution is so much greater that you basically can put the meters ANYWHERE you want and have a great sound... but to more specifically answer your question, when you record more quietly, you are not using the full 24-bits to represent your signal - but the resolution is high enough that it needn't concern you. The specific meter ranges, though, I'll have to get back to you on (research!)....

In the meantime - here are a couple of (long!) articles from Bob Katz, related to this:

Aren't 20 bits good enough?

From: "Arksun" <arksun@arksun.co.uk>

Hiya Bob, Hows tings.

I was wondering whether you could settle a long running argument between myself and a producer friend of mine. My friend Andrew
Longhurst believes that for A/D conversion there is absolutely no need to go greater than a 20-bit convertor, as the noise level is significantly
high enough in an analog cable connection that a 24-bit convertor would offer no sound improvement what-so-ever.

Dear Laurence:

Things are great, very exciting, and very controversial. The future of the mastering industry keeps on shifting.

Anyway, to prove your point, you'd have to have an A/D converter with true 24 bit dynamic range, whose noise level is that low.
Most so-called "24 bit" A/Ds have only approximately 20 bit dynamic range in the first place! But arguably, may have resolution
below that number. The only A/D perporting to have true 24-bit dynamic range that I know of is the dB Technologies, which I have
not auditioned or tested. And then, you must conduct a controlled experiment. It's possible that your friend is right, but I leave no
stone unturned, and only a controlled listening experiment would settle the issue. In theory, your friend may be right, but it has to
be settled on the basis of masking theory, and masking theory demonstrates that you can hear signal quite far below the noise in
certain frequency ranges. Maybe 21 bits, maybe 22...it's hard to say, but I believe it is *marginally* greater than 20 in the case
cited above. But in the same vein, in theory, it seemed that a 16-bit converter should be adequate to record an analog 1/2" 2-track
tape as the noise level of the analog 1/2" is far greater than 16-bits, but in practice, it takes a high quality converter of at least 20
bits to do justice to an analog tape, so as far as I'm concerned, all bets are off until they have been proved by listening tests. That
goes for all assertions of theory versus practice, by the way!

I on the other hand am looking at it from the 'real-wave' representation point of view, and am arguing that it's precisely because of this
further wave form complication induced by noise that the highest possible bit conversion and sample rate are needed to 'capture' the
maximum amount of detail in the analog signal being fed, especially with a full bandwidth complex mix.

Your statement may also be true. And the resolution between the two statements boils down directly to masking theory! I
subscribe to the theory that there is inner detail in music or test signals which is audible below the noise floor of any system for a
considerable distance. Of course, it is not an infinite distance. At some point it becomes academic as your friend makes clear. For
example, in digital calculations, it has been shown that you can hear a 24 bit truncation below a 18-bit noise floor. Why? Because
the distortion has not been masked by the 18-bit noise. So--it boils down to how far down below the noise floor theory #1 is correct,
versus how far below the noise floor theory #2 is correct! Quite simple, eh? At what point the masking of the system noise covers
up the distortion caused by the reduced resolution. This can only be settled by psychoacoustic means, and ultimately by listening.
In the meantime, I suggest caution and conservativism, that is "the more bits, the better---probably".

So far, each time I increase the wordlength precision of my own work, I find an audible improvement. Yet at the same time, I have
not yet moved to a 24-bit A/D, because the sound of my custom-built 20-bit UltraAnalog A/D is superior to most any 24-bit A/D that
I've heard. There are currently a few 24-bit A/Ds which are a pinch better to my ears, but I am not certain if that is because they
are 24-bits or simply because their circuitry is more accurate, more euphonic, more detailed, less jitter, or any of the many other
possible influences for better sound where at that low level where it becomes impossible to separate out the reasons for "better".

And to repeat points I make elsewhere: this 20-bit question only comes up at the beginning and end of the chain, because when
you start processing (DSP calculations), more bits are definitely better.

Hope this helps,

Bob

------------------

Hi!

You're web site is a real gold mine of information. It can sound quite technical since I'm only starting out my little home DAW(on
a powerful Pentium II). I see I have a lot to learn and everything about mixing and especially mastering is great to read. I was
wondering what you thought about my plans (if you have the time to answer, even shortly). I see the new 24bits/96kHz
revolution and want to wait to have everything on my PC, from A/D to sound card, to internal processing (sequencer software
like Samplitude 2496 and also plugins) with this type of resolution. I have seen plugins frow Waves that use 56 bits internally
and dither down to 24 bits afterwards. I see that ADAT is creeping up slowly to 24bits, too. These are all the parts I want to
have on my DAW. What do you think about the quality level I could achieve on this setup? I know I'll have to research a lot for
each piece of equipment to be of very good quality but I have the time (about 2 or 3 years before final completion of what I
want) although not that much money (in the thousands but not tens of thousands...). Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks for your time and wonderful articles!

Hello. Thanks for your fine comments.

You know, it may seem funny coming from me, but my best advice here is don't get too hung up on the numbers...The engineers
who are most successful at using the toys you're describing....have put in many years of dues recording and mixing music the old
fashioned way. It's up to your ears and talent; weighs as much as the technical knowledge around here.

Yes, by all means follow as much of my continuing technical advice as possible. That advice is designed to keep you out of
trouble, but it's not a magic road to great sounding music. All those soundcards, and all that resolution and all those tracks don't
amount to a hill of beans unless you know how to put the tracks together to make a whole piece of coherent, beautiful-sounding
music.

In my opinion, the quality level someone can ultimately achieve by these numeric advancements will be more limited by talent and
ears than by the equipment. "24" is not some magic number that makes everything automatically better.

Now for a few technical comments: on the question of "24" it's also how the equipment works inside on its way to and from "24"
that will determine the quality of the sound. High internal precision is important, much greater than 24.

But let me clue you into a little secret. On the conversion end (A/D and D/A side), most so-called 24-bit converters contain 4-6 bits
or more of marketing hype. Mikes, preamps, converters, gain stages, and room noise contain enough energy to self-dither all but
the most pristine sources to less than 20 bits! "20" bits done right on the input and output ends of the entire process is more than
enough, as long as the processing in-between works with longer words.

24-bit signal to noise ratio on the input or output end, or just about anything greater than 19 bits, is equivalent to trying to detect a
candle that's a mile away, and in front of the sun, to boot. Most people have no idea how small a magnitude the LSB of 20 thru 24
bits is.

So, watch out for the marketing hype, use your talent, and go by the numbers as we talk about it here at Digital Domain. Sort of a
"More Bits Please" article with common sense attached!

Next point, the newer equipment you propose in your letter will actually present numerous challenges and problems, new ones
that I have barely touched on, from software bugs to ergonomic nightmares. "It won't be like this when we get the computer"---or
will it?

After you find the computer-based studio equipment that you think meets your dreams, expect to spend two-three more years
debugging it, and replacing half of it because the manufacturer didn't anticipate some of your situation. Your talent may find
workarounds for those problems, but can you wait that long? Consider working with the best you can now...make good music now
using traditional-based high-resolution tools, some of them computer based, but long established. There are plenty of examples of
"totally digitally mixed" albums currently released that sound absolutely horrid because someone "drove it all by the numbers"!

Best wishes,

Bob Katz

[dobro]

Cheers, Bruce. My life's better already because of your answer.

For me, the most useful part of Bob Katz' article was this bit:

"So far, each time I increase the wordlength precision of my own work, I find an audible improvement. Yet at the same time, I have not yet moved to a 24-bit A/D, because the sound of my custom-built 20-bit UltraAnalog A/D is superior to most any 24-bit A/D that I've heard. There are currently a few 24-bit A/Ds which are a pinch better to my ears, but I am not certain if that is because they are 24-bits or simply because their circuitry is more accurate, more euphonic,
more detailed, less jitter, or any of the many other possible influences for better sound where at that low level where it becomes impossible to separate out the reasons for "better"."

So, more bits is better, but quality circuitry is as important as bitdepth. Damn.

[bvaleria]

Dobro,

The scary part in those articles was he mentioned "bit count marketing hype". Made sense, but I didn't realize marketing guys knew enough about that sort of technical area to be able to exagerrate their claims and still stay beleiveable!!!

I wonder what gear REALLY IS 24-bit then!!!



Bruce

[T.J.Hooker]

Originally posted by bvaleria


You don't have to push 0 at 16-bit either - the range for getting full resolution (at 16-bit) is from -6 to 0 on the meters.

Bruce

Can't this be set on a compressor, and then not worry about it ? Thanx, T.

[bvaleria]

T.J. - yes, but you should only be compressing a signal if it's actually needed!

Bruce

[T.J.Hooker]

Originally posted by bvaleria
Well not necessarily... keep your levels somewhere between -6 and just under 0 -- but NEVER hit 0!!! You needn't worry about S/N ratio the same way as you would for analog.

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound

This is the quote I meant to ask about, Sorry Bruce.
Thanx, T

[T.J.Hooker]

I thought everything could benefit from compression if done correctly. I been compressin' everything. I don't get real bad results. My guitar I think is suffering from incorrect compression. But maybe now I won't compress it. I usually stick an SM-57 about one inch from the grill cloth on a 4-10 cab off to the side of one speaker ofcourse.
T.

[bvaleria]

Distorted guitar rarely needs compression - because the higher gain already compresses the sound quite a bit. Clean guitars usually require a bit to tame excessive dynamics. Vocals usually do require some compression to even things out a bit.

Unless you're going for a specific effect, compression is one of those outboard devices that should be seen and not heard!!! (ie, use in moderation...)

Bruce

[T.J.Hooker]

That's what I'm havin' trouble with is the distorted guitar. My clean guitar sounds just that "clean". Shouldn't drums have some compression on them ? or can post compress the drums in the mix.

[bvaleria]

Only some parts of the kit are really candidates for compression - snare, kick, and *sometimes* toms. The safest bet is to record straight (no compression) and apply any you need after the fact. (Depends also an whether you need to watch levels going to tape...)

[pglewis]

T.J.: Distortion chops off the wave peaks, naturally compressing quite a bit as a by-product. I'll use compression on distorted guitar to bring out the attack sometimes, but as the wise Bruce said, use it when you need it. Know exactly why you put it in the chain, even if the answer is "just to see what it sounds like". On drums, I tend to compress kick and snare quite a bit, but not usually anything else. Kick and snare drive a song, and they can't be ducking in and out of the mix. Check Shailat's and Ed's compression articles: http://www.geocities.com/shailat2000/ and http://www.echostarstudio.com/thecompressor.html

Rocinante: Back to one of your original questions: if your whole mix averages between 0 and -1 dB, then you have a mix with an average of 1dB of dynamic range. It seems like there is too much concern going around about digital levels lately. Get a healthy signal, hit record, and don't go over . Unless you're working with a bazillion tracks (well, more than 10 or 12) or you compress a whole lot, the levels can be "in the ballpark". You get a feel for it by doing it. If any mastering is going to be done, definitely leave some headroom in the final mix. EQ at the mastering stage, for example, might need the breathing room.

[Shailat]

It is commen thought to use compression only when needed.
How ever.... It tends to sound like from many posts on this BBS that compression is used only to save a take or when you messed up on the levels or you cant control your playing etc.....
I'm talking about compression on the tracking and not on the Mastering process.

It is rare to hear any popular music done with out compression. Engineers all over the world reach for the compressor to record for example - E. Bass, with out thinking twice.
They are carefull to use it corectly and many choose to compress lightly, but compress they do !!.
I don't remember were I read it but Roger Nichols said he almost always tracks vocals with light compression as a starter.
I think the "don't use it if you don't have to" is missing the point. You don't have to use ANY effect for that matter.
But I don't here people say "Hey don't use a reverb if you don't have to".
I'm sure some people dont know how much damage a reverb can do to your mix. I hear more messed up mix's done, due to abuse of a reverb then a compressor !.
From muddy, cloudy, dial up a preset that is wrong for the tune, overdone, wrong decay time, wrong predelay time,etc....

People worry about the color change a compressor will do but they have no problem flinging the EQ back and forth.

If you abuse a compressor then of course your doing more damage then good, but a compressor can make the difference between an pro sound to a amature sound.

If you use a crappy compressor don't expect to get results.
Would you get results from a cheap mic or a cheap reverb unit?.

For a home recordist with out the tecnique of a pro player,
compression can save his/her ass many a times. Most people sound better compressed then not.

In short what I'm saying is that people should not be so afraid of compression. Better to use one and learn how to do it corectly and listen to how it affects your sound.
I'm not saying go compress the hell out of every thing in sight, but it's no more problematic then any other processor or effect out there.
My small and humble opinion.

[bvaleria]

I agree with you Shailat... to a point! The problem is that in the hands of a rookie, compression *IS* more likely to do more harm than good!

You're right - compression is used during tracking on many instruments (bass/vocals), but it is used only for it's intended purpose, and used in a minimalist sense, with great awareness of exactly what it's doing to the track.

In general terms, minimum signal path will *always* result in cleaner signals than when it's muddied-up with devices. The last thing people should ever do is patch in compressors (or any other devices) into their chain simply because they have it there.... I guess you could sum it up as "if it's in the chain, make sure you know why you put it there!"

(hmmm... another sig file!!!)

Bruce

[T.J.Hooker]

Originally posted by bvaleria
I agree with you Shailat... to a point! The problem is that in the hands of a rookie, compression *IS* more likely to do more harm than good!

This is why I said in my earlier post "IF DONE CORRECTLY". I'm very careful when compressing, because even though I'm still kind of a "rookie", a"jeep", a "greenhorn", I know compression can either make it nice and punchy or if your not careful, choke the livin' shit out of it. I just like everything nice and punchy. I think I know why I'm puttin' it in there. I don't want levels climbin' all over the place. Does that sound dumb ? I just got up and the gears in my head have a hard time freein' up in the morning

[bvaleria]

TJ...

Somewhere between my "minimalist" attitude and Shailat's "don't worry about it" attitude is the answer you're looking for!!!

(go for minimalist, go for minimalist, go for minimalist!!!)



Bruce

[Shailat]

I didn't say "Don't worry about it".

What I said is that ANY processor can cause the same anout of damage in the hands of unskilled people.
Reverb is more problematic then a compressor, yet nobody seems to worry to much about applying it freely while compression seems to freak out some people.

I want to hear all these wonderfull singers and Bass players and drummers and brass players etc...etc. that don't seem to need compression at all.

I'll pay them double the union price to play for me. Just send me your email with a tape and you have a job lined up !!