Volume question.

[badgas]

I'm finally doing some recording.
I've read in my VS840 manual that the volume should be set to just below the peak.

Am I to understand that as I lay my drum, bass, rythme, lead, vocals, harp that my first basic tracks should be as loud as the recorder can go without the 'peak' light coming on?

The reason I'm asking this, it at the end of two verses, I want a low volume, far in the back harmonica playing.

Does the above make sense?
Then when I get to the mixing portion, I adjust the volume there for what I want?

Thanks for any replies on this. I've read some posts about this but they are talking about other things, not just one thing, 'harp' to be specific.

[Buffalo Bob]

The farther you get away from "nominal" levels in digital, the more "bits" you lose (resolution). Record everything as close to peak (without EVER clipping), then adjust relative volumes in the mix. As for the harp, record it hot as well, pan it to either side and add a bit of verb. This will place it further back in the mix.

Bob

[Gandalf]

Ooo a question I can answer If you were to record the harp at the level you wanted it in the final mix you would be wasting headroom (wow, I used a real recording word), loose resolution (as bob said) and also reduce your S/N ratio (I think). Do as bob says. Plus if you decided later that u wanted to bring it up louder in the mix, then u would end up amping any noise recorded as well as the harp.

[badgas]

Sorry Sonusman for cramming this in the wrong forum. I'm a cherry at recording and techie talk yet.

Thanks a bunch Buffalo. That's what I thought. I appreciate your time.

[badgas]

Ohh. I understand Grandalf.
Resolution means nothing to me. I have over forty Gigs of drive space.
I appreciate the 'lingo'. Headroom. Now I know what it means.

[badgas]

Here are two 'headroom' topics I found.
Enough to gather some idea of what it is.

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/sho...light=Headroom

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/sho...light=Headroom

If you get time, Sonusman, or if you find the thread you were talking about, it'd sure be helpful.

I'll take your advice and track the same guitar two times and check out the difference.

Thanks

[Gandalf]

Hmmm, I knew I had to be mistaken, thinking I new something

[TexRoadkill]

Ed- Do you really hear a noticeable differance in audio quality if you apply ANY volume change in DAW? I could understand boosting or normalizing the signal causing artifacts but to just lower the volume a little?

Not argueing with you here, just trying to make sure that is what I am reading. I would think if you lowered the volume it would also lower the perception of any artifacts. What type of changes do you notice in a lowered volume?

[wes480]

you've really got me thinking now on two points...

what I thought before (i was the one who "explained" the -10db average = 10db headroom thingy in the other thread) - was that recording at lower levels was all well and good if that was what you wanted..

my only concern with this was that I had heard that "cheaper" preamps...like XDRs, or my Aardvarks...for example....did not put out their best sound when recording at lower levels. That you really needed to drive a Mackie, to make it sound good.

So, I figure sure...record as loud as you can - and, i think that's the only sensible rule for this stuff. "can" being defined by how much headroom you need and such.

The two points I am now wondering about -

In terms of volume adjustment in the mix - you say that this degrades the quality? So, you mean just turning the level up or down...in say, Logic...will hurt the quality? (it makes sense..but, it sucks! heh). My question then is how do you mix? If something is too loud....it's going to be impossible to go retrack that...just becuase you feel it needs to come down 1 or 2 db. Whats the solution? You are telling me you should just eliminate level adjustment as part of your mixing process? Whoa, thats going to be a hard one for this cat. heh. Also..."DSP" in general...hurting the quality. Basically that would eliminate doing any EQ...or effects or anything else? Maybe I am misunderstanding this a bit...or misunderstanding the impact? Becuase if you can't use any DSP - you can't mix, essentially.

The other concern is on bit loss. I don't see the logic of why you lose bits of data on a quieter source? I mean...the only thing I can think of is "there isn't as much there". It's like, if I am recording a really quiet acoustic guitar....vs. a really loud one - yes I am going to have more 0's in the quiet one...but that isn't a *bad* thing? It just means it's a quieter passage...the quality of the instrument could still be as good fidelity wise as the loud one...

Or am I way off on that? I think "losing bits of resolution" sounds really scary...becuase...everyone is so concerned with "yes! I have 24 bits!" not knowing what that means really.

And I am not claiming that I do....all of this digital stuff is weirding me out . So, please explain those concerns further if you can...much appreciated.

Last week I was fretting about "summing", now this...sheesh. heh.

Thanks,
Wes

[dru]

I have a question that I think has something to do with this as well.
I've been programming drum parts in Logic and using velocity to give the hits the human feel. In Battery, I have modulation set; velocity-to-volume. I've been running all percussion sounds (except kicks) on one channel because I only have 16 tracks available. So when I am finished- many samples with volumes that were originally near 0db have been attenuated very much. And then I have to go back and crank the volume on the entire instrument track- and even add a gain plugin as well. Now I'm thinking that I must be really skrewing things up since I'm taking these sounds and attenuating the hell out of them and then turning around to crank the overall volume as well. Should I possibly reduce the range of velocity variation and crank all the note velocities until the hardest hit is at 127 so that I will not have to make up so much gain in the end result? Or maybe separate the louder sounds from the softer ones onto another channel? Looks like this whole situation is really just a give and take sort of thing. I guess I should just find a balance that sounds good. i dono.
I am producing dance music- would you suggest that this 'loss of resolution' even matters when much of it sounds synthetic anyway? Sometimes I wonder if by listening to you guys- I'm really trying to apply techniques that really benefit acoustic recordings of live instrumentalists much more. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[Gandalf]

24 bits gives u 2 to the power 24 discreate levels that can be recorded, that means that each little "jump" from one level to another is quite small. If u record the same signal at 1/2 the volume, then the jumps are effectively twice as big compared to the signal. I think this is what Eddie means by loosing bits. then again I could just be talking out of my arse again

[wes480]

Originally posted by dru

I am producing dance music- would you suggest that this 'loss of resolution' even matters when much of it sounds synthetic anyway? Sometimes I wonder if by listening to you guys- I'm really trying to apply techniques that really benefit acoustic recordings of live instrumentalists much more. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

If you are using soft synths...and the sound is being created digitally and stays in the digital domain the whole time - then no the output level you use for it INITIALLY is not going to degrade the sound quality. I am not sure on where that falls into acoustic recordings...yet. Though...like I said, I think the idea of "losing resolution" isn't like, "losing resolution" on an image. Where you are getting a worse looking picture...

To me the fact that you "lose" bits is obvious. If something is quieter,you will have more 0's - right? I think the whole "losing information/resolution/bits" idea is somewhat of a circular argument. Follow me here: "I am recording something at a lower volume...therefore I am losing bits" - would be the same as saying "I am recording something at a lower volume therefore my end result has a lower volume" .

I could be way off...but, I am not thinking *recording* at a low volume and losing bits that way is a bad thing for your sound. I think it should sound exactly like what you put in...

Judging by what Ed is saying though, adjusting the volume *after* you have the track done can really hurt the overall sound. And the more I think about it the more I agree.

I hate to think that the "digital revolution" will never quite be completed. Like, if we have to record to digital...mix in analog realm...and then send it back to digital....to get the absolute best sound, then that sucks to me. I guess there is always the point of looking into better DSPs - and I think I am going to post another topic about that in "the rack", since this has really spiked my interest.

[TexRoadkill]

Of all the cheaper DAW systems is one considered to be better than the others for sound quality? Is CoolEditPro's 32bit processing going to make it sound better overall than some of the others?

[atomictoyz]

I record everything as hot as I can possibly tolerate it without clipping and without compression if possible. Im a hard convert to digital, still riding the fence if you will with the MD8..analog mixing, digital storage and PC editing. I typically was trained with analog consoles and 1" 16 track setups. Its been about a year since delving into digital, Im still experimenting alot and really never thought about using a different approach other than how I tracked previously. The reason I used to track was to make sure I had the most signal I could get, bury the noise of the amps, and hope a cheap fader doesnt kill the track by an increase in volume, increasing the noise. With high end equip through and through, the noise is neglible, but Im at home now doing this.

The older I get, the more I forget that I forget. Soon Ill be a complete idiot!


Peace,
Dennis

[badgas]

Atomictoyz:

The older I get, the more I forget that I forget. Soon Ill be a complete idiot!

Peace,
Dennis
----------------------------

That's funny, Atomic. Just before that happens be sure to change your handle to atomicidiot.




That is some great info, guys. I've one question.
I've done some searches but didn't find the answer. I've looked in my Sonar/Roland manuals and didn't find it.
I even looked in the recording parlances I've collected.
Now, I just have to ask.

What is DSP?

[PapillonIrl]

Very interesting food for thought...

Giving this thread five...

pAp

[ausrock]

Ed,

I know this has surfaced through this thread but how much of an issue is this degradation in.....

1; a totally PC based recording setup

2; a digital console/hard drive based setup

3; an analogue console/hard drive based setup

In other words, is more relevant to one system over another.

Chris

PS. I'm hangin for a lotto win to buy that Quad2 off you.

[wes480]

heavy stuff ed....

all makes a lot of sense though. (still wondering about the Meridian DSP processors...i have heard big dollar digital studios are using them).

I have a few more big questions at this point

1.) Where do you draw the line in digital/analog. Say you have a 1,000 dollar Mackie Mixer....vs. a Delta 1010 system - are you going to be better off mixing in analog with something like that Mackie? (in terms of the final audio quality). Or is cheap digital better than cheap analog? That would be my assumption. I mean, no one is going to argue that a 500,000 dollar analog console can be outdone by a 1010

2.) Say you had the 500,000 dollar board...are you suggesting that you put everything on tape, and mix it like that? Or just have it running through the Analog console? It seems like just running your digital system into the analog gear, and tweaking/mixing it (at least levels) through that...and then outputting it back to digital would be the most lossless way. I hate the thought of putting pristine digital records onto tape - I don't mind running through a half a million dollar mixer though.

3.) So analog effects are intrisically better as well? Stuff like reverb and compression? Seems like digital would be perfect for that...since it is just math - and obviously there are a lot of good rackmount effect products that are digital. Does that just go back to the "more processing power needed" thing?

I guess the main thing I have taken from this thread so far is being more consiouss of recording things at the level they are intended to be mixed at. Unfortunately...that is impossible....you'll have to make a sacrifice somewhere....either in your mix quality...or in using the DSPs. Of course, that isn't realistic right now...becuase I have to use reverbs/compressors and such. Honestly I don't see how a digital reverb (or other effects) are going to degrade the sound....any more than your A/D did. Seems like since it is just a mathmatical process....a digital effect would sound better than running it out to analog, and doing an analog effect on the *same digital source wave*.

But, its good knowledge to have. Oh...if it does turn out that volume adjustments cause more distortion than reverbs/compressors....

Back to the Mackie mixer....what if you recorded digitally, and then decided where you needed all of your levels to be, ran out to the Mackie, adjusted all of the levels...and then ran back into digital. So, you'd end up with the digital tracks at the right level, with no DSP adjustments. Hell, I guess if you had an RNC and a reverb unit...and a sophisticated EQ as well...you could basically do your whole mic with no DSP (assuming you were working on something simple..like rock music). But - would you be better off just running it totally digital with your Aardvark Q10 or Delta 1010...in my ignorant opinion...you would be.

I'd say I wouldn't mess with analog stuff until you got into the big price ranges. And....for the most part for that price..you could build a digital system with top of the line DSP processors (assuming you could get it to all work together...and use anything *other* than protools..heh) that would work out better for you.

I now understand why ProTools is so used even more than I used to - I never didn't like it...always said I'd own it if I had the money. But...if it's DSP stuff is *that* much better...then, it is THAT much better. Oh, last thought - does that mean that the TDM version of Waves (to use your example) has higher quality algorithms than the native version?

[wes480]

oh - and just a glisten of "hope" for anyone is reading this thinking "man...i should just give up recording" - hehe.

I burned some mp3s (note, not even the real wave recordings) that "macle" did (he posted them in the mp3 mixing clinic...some of the best I have heard from here).

Went and played them monday night at my roommates parents showroom - they do high end home theater.

Played the burned disc through an $80,00 playback system all Meridian components. Meridian is *the* leading digital processing/playback company for stereo/home theater. Many regard the DSP8000 speakers to be the ultimate CD listening setup. Of course, a lot of audiophiles don't like their stuff...becuase it is so focused on digital...and, I am not saying that a 200,000 system by california audio labs or wilson doesn't sound amazing too. Meridian is somewhat regarded as a budget system. It is a $45,000 pair of speakers (DSP8000's), a $20,000 processor, a $10,000 DVD/CD player, hooked up with $7,000 worth of transparent audio cables.

Macles stuff sounded great on it...and I was enjoying it so much that I listened to all of the tracks through...

Keeping in mind that that stuff was made in his bedroom...on basically homerecer equipment (all digital)...and that what I was listening to were 128 or 160 mp3s...I think that's all the reason in the world to keep recording and be proud of our results.

If *that* sounds great on an 80,000 dollar system, I'm sure his real CD is going to sound at least twice as good. At the end of the day...thats what it's all about. Not what console you used, or what DSPs you used.

Thanks for all of the info Ed - learning *a lot*

( www.meridian-audio.com - if anyone is curious)

http://www.meridian-audio.com/p_8kmus2.htm

thing of beauty

-Wes

[wes480]

btw Ed

since you mentioned about 24 bit recording etc...

I am not sure if I ever heard your opinion on this...

do you feel that 24/44.1 is the optimal bit depth/sample rate for digital right now?

Or are you in favor of higher sampeling rates? (regardless of dithering and such)

[wes480]

very practical...I'm with ya.

by tracking things close to what they should be -

If I have to make an adjustment of 6db, is that going to degrade audio more than an adjustment of 1db? Or is the damage done when it's done?

Can't answer that one for myself...I could see it going either way.

[TexRoadkill]

I guess to sum it up then nothing has changed in 20yrs. Get the source tracks as good as possible and the less you do in the mix the better off you are.

Jeez, Ed, I could have saved you all that typing

[wes480]

true dat. I'm with ya.

Vocal compression....interesting subject. Is it an effect to make it sound studio....or is it just fixing the dynamics? I think most would agree that it is a certain studio "sound"

[wes480]

btw - how far away are we from widespread 32 bit recording? I know Cubase has that "true tape mode 32" thing....which, I heard worked well.

32 bits....even more room for minor adjustments

[mcr]

I think it's funny how Ed is sticking up for expensive gear while teaching everyone a lesson on the "quality" of budget preamps over at the "Rack" forum.