Levels for recording guitar

[ibleedburgundy]

Yer problem, IBB, is socialized medicine. Clearly....

Nice to see you outside the Cave dude...

I've always lurked a lot of but I am just now reaching a point where I can actually help others (in a very limited capacity).

 

[Farview]

Really? why? I see absolutely no point in that. In fact, I find your whole post kind of weird, bu especially that last sentence.

That used to be a live sound technique, because a lot of boards used to get muddy at the bottomed of fade travel. Its not necessary anymore. (assuming it ever was)

 

[mixsit]

Some will say trim' the tracks to put the faders even at/near 0' (ITB
(I won't But some will

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Surely your guitar level should be set in relation to the rest of the mix, provided you have recorded other instruments first?

I like to get my input levels balanced with the rest of the instruments on input. If the peaks from your drums are hitting -12, etc, your guitars will not usually be that high since, in the case of distorted guitars, they generally have a lower crest factor. Clean guitars will have a higher crest factor and therefore will have more dynamic swing.

Anyway. That's how I approach it. Once the initial instruments have been tracked, like drums, (where I'll pay the most attention to input levels) I set subsequent instrument levels by ear because ultimately I want my faders as close to unity as possible come mix time. That is my goal.

Cheers

The faders are there to make creative level adjustments. The levels upstream of the faders should be technically correct so preamps are operating optimally and emulating plugins (or analog processors) respond correctly.

The one situation that calls for faders to be arbitrarily at 0 is theater sound when you need to accurately hit cues.

Back when I mixed in analog we had the benefit of gain controls that worked on the tape return as well as on the main input of the channel (inline board) so you could trim your levels coming back from tape. Even then I'd get my levels nominal into the board and use the faders to mix.

But if it works for you, what the heck.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

That used to be a live sound technique, because a lot of boards used to get muddy at the bottomed of fade travel. Its not necessary anymore. (assuming it ever was)

But in those days mixers were noisier, which is where the habit of setting gain so the signal was "just below clipping" came from. The faders at 0/mixing with input gain method would have allowed a lot more noise through.

 

[Jay C]

hi, OP here. thanks all for the awesome response to my question. i've decided to not worry about the db's so much now, i think i'm happy with any thing -12 and under. again thank you all for freeing my mind from the shackles of "rules".

 

[Bristol Posse]

I set up the guitar amp so that it sounds right, whether it be louder or quiter

Then I set up a mic to get the emphasis I want.

Then I play though and get the levels dancing around 0VU on my board by setting the Pres appropriately

Where that comes out on the computer will depend entirely on what converters I run the board into but it's never been anywhere near 0dBFS

I guess my feeling is, worry about the sound first, so long as you are sensible with the mics and pres, let the numbers in the daw fall where they may. Who cares what the DAW meters say so long as they don't go above zero

the whole fixation on -18dBFS is largely wrong IMO. It's only relevant if you're converters are calibrated to 0dbfs = +22dBu. Most of the home recording type interfaces I have seen aren't calibrated that way, and I bet most home users have no idea how their converters are calibrated, where line level is or know what most of that even means

 

[Farview]

But in those days mixers were noisier, which is where the habit of setting gain so the signal was "just below clipping" came from. The faders at 0/mixing with input gain method would have allowed a lot more noise through.

That depends on which problem you were more afraid of. You had your choice, a muddy mix with less hiss, or a clearer mix with more hiss.

Some of it was always an ocd thing. It never made much sense to crank the gain on a hi hat Mic to get proper signal level into the board, then back the fader off 25db and leave it there...

I can't defend the practice, since I always thought it was silly. I just know a lot of old live guys that used to do it that way. I don't know if there was really something to it, or if they were just lemmings.

 

[Mo Facta]

The faders are there to make creative level adjustments. The levels upstream of the faders should be technically correct so preamps are operating optimally and emulating plugins (or analog processors) respond correctly.

And your point is? I don't recall being confused about this issue. Define "technically correct".

The one situation that calls for faders to be arbitrarily at 0 is theater sound when you need to accurately hit cues.

Nothing calls for it besides personal taste. This happens to be my taste and it helps me mix better. And believe me, it's not arbitrary.

Have any of you guys ever mixed live before? If you have, you know what happens if you slam a guitar level on input only to pull the fader down for the mix. Monitors sends are now super touchy since most monitor sends are pre-fader. The gain structure is fucked. Also, any effect sends, even post fader sends, become touchy and are a nightmare to manage, particularly if you have to adjust gain later. Getting a good balance on input with faders at unity is the only way, in my opinion, to get a proper gain structure throughout your system. I apply this approach to my studio technique and it serves me well.

Back when I mixed in analog we had the benefit of gain controls that worked on the tape return as well as on the main input of the channel (inline board) so you could trim your levels coming back from tape. Even then I'd get my levels nominal into the board and use the faders to mix.

But if it works for you, what the heck.

Thank you. Analogue tape is a different story where you are having to manage signal to noise ratio. In that case setting your levels is a different ball game so I can understand why you'd have gain pots for the tape returns.

Honestly, though, I don't get what's so foreign about this technique to you guys. To me it just makes sense. We have so much dynamic range and noiseless headroom that we don't have to slam anything anywhere any more. To balance your input with the mix just makes for an easier time, in my opinion.

Cheers

 

[Jay C]

i think you guys were a huge help. i like the guidelines (-18 and all that ), but now after some advice i feel comfortable to let it stretch if i think it's what it needs. in the tune im working on now i just set it to what sounds good, and it turns out to be about -15 or so, not bad, lots of room, i did get a di box, and am using it for further padding. this might sound crazy but what i did was turn my interface fader to max and pad the signal going in. i'm now able to trun up my amp more to let the tubes do there thing and i feel like im' getting a more upfront sound. if i turn the fader of the interface down from max just a bit there's like a 50% decrease in signal, so i just feel like it should be max to allow free flow of the signal. does this make sense to you guys?

 

[Greg_L]

i think you guys were a huge help. i like the guidelines (-18 and all that ), but now after some advice i feel comfortable to let it stretch if i think it's what it needs. in the tune im working on now i just set it to what sounds good, and it turns out to be about -15 or so, not bad, lots of room, i did get a di box, and am using it for further padding. this might sound crazy but what i did was turn my interface fader to max and pad the signal going in. i'm now able to trun up my amp more to let the tubes do there thing and i feel like im' getting a more upfront sound. if i turn the fader of the interface down from max just a bit there's like a 50% decrease in signal, so i just feel like it should be max to allow free flow of the signal. does this make sense to you guys?

Eh, not really, but whatever works for you.

So let's backtrack....

You're using the speaker emulated output of your amp direct into an interface?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Define "technically correct".

About 0dBVU. Optimal in terms of noise and distortion.

Nothing calls for it besides personal taste. This happens to be my taste and it helps me mix better. And believe me, it's not arbitrary.

It's a valid technique. "Technically correct" can be considered just the starting point from which one can experiment and personalize. I'm all for intelligently "breaking the rules". Modern gear allows more creative use.

Have any of you guys ever mixed live before?

I've mixed thousands of acts.

If you have, you know what happens if you slam a guitar level on input only to pull the fader down for the mix. Monitors sends are now super touchy since most monitor sends are pre-fader. The gain structure is fucked. Also, any effect sends, even post fader sends, become touchy and are a nightmare to manage, particularly if you have to adjust gain later. Getting a good balance on input with faders at unity is the only way, in my opinion, to get a proper gain structure throughout your system. I apply this approach to my studio technique and it serves me well.

I started out trained to do it your way so I am not completely unaware or opposed. Sometimes I'd find that when I mixed on gains I wouldn't have enough level of some input to get it loud enough in the monitors. Just because I buried it in my mix didn't mean they didn't need it loud and clear in the monitors.

Eventually I found that if I got it "correct" at the input everything else was easier. Using headphones to hear the monitor mix as I set it up may help me overcome any "touchiness".

Thank you. Analogue tape is a different story where you are having to manage signal to noise ratio. In that case setting your levels is a different ball game so I can understand why you'd have gain pots for the tape returns.

Now that I think back to those days I realize I was still somewhat mixing on gains at the time. It made it easier to hit cues because I was using the sweet spot of the fader, but my inserted compressors were harder to use because I was not using the sweet spot of the threshold controls.

 

[Jay C]

Eh, not really, but whatever works for you.

So let's backtrack....

You're using the speaker emulated output of your amp direct into an interface?

yes, i'm using the emulated output into the DI box then into the interface after padding. still 2 of the 5 tubes are active in this mode. so that's why i feel like i should be able to turn up the amp more b/c i'm under the impression that tube amps sound best when turned up loud.
god im so confused. LOL.

 

[Greg_L]

yes, i'm using the emulated output into the DI box then into the interface after padding. still 2 of the 5 tubes are active in this mode. so that's why i feel like i should be able to turn up the amp more b/c i'm under the impression that tube amps sound best when turned up loud.
god im so confused. LOL.

Well that depends on the circuitry in the amp. Tube amps typically sound best when loud because the power tubes start to add their oh so pleasing distortion. Add that to the speakers breaking up and the cab resonating and you've got tonal goodness. If you get power tube action with the emulated out, then good. If not, then it doesn't really matter how loud you have it.

So what happens if you run the amp straight to the interface without the DI box?

 

[Jay C]

Well that depends on the circuitry in the amp. Tube amps typically sound best when loud because the power tubes start to add their oh so pleasing distortion. Add that to the speakers breaking up and the cab resonating and you've got tonal goodness. If you get power tube action with the emulated out, then good. If not, then it doesn't really matter how loud you have it.

So what happens if you run the amp straight to the interface without the DI box?

without the di box i can only turn up the amp about 2/10 and that's with the interface pad on. the di adds 2 more padding options.-20 -40. i can turn the amp up to about 5 or 6 and get good levels. i still need to take a break from it and come back with fresh ears. ['m goin nuts. lol.

thanks again greg

 

[Greg_L]

I see. So the emulated output is clipping the interface, right? That's strange. What kind of amp is it?

 

[grimtraveller]

and I bet most home users have no idea how their converters are calibrated, where line level is or know what most of that even means

You're damned right about that ! If ignorance isn't exactly bliss, it is at least prevalent.

 

[Jay C]

it's a blackstar ht 60

 

[Greg_L]

it's a blackstar ht 60

I checked out the manual online and it didn't go into detail about the emulated out. It just says to leave the amp on standby. My Marshall JVM410 has an emulated out but I never use it. I'm going to try it today and see what it does with my interface. I find it odd that there's not some easier way to do what you're trying to do.

 

[Rbt M]

Just following up from what the guys are saying about -18dbfs. When working at 24 bit resolution, there's 144dB of dynamic range to play with - and at 16bit resolution, 96dB. That's some difference - and it's a difference which can be taken advantage of. You really can afford to record your tracks at a lower level particularly when using 24 bit because of the dynamics advantage which presents itself through having all the signals reach either a submix buss (first) and then on to the master buss at a manageable level. The problem with 'slamming' the signal (in the way we used to do with magnetic tape) is that in the digital world we lose a lot of ability to control the dynamics to and get a good well-balanced and engaging mix at the master mix buss. A mix needs some room to breathe (i.e., headroom) so that the relevant processors at the back end [master buss] can do their thing. They tend to be less able to do their job when the signal is too hot for them. Recording at -18dbfs does make rather good sense. As long as you have a nice clean signal path when recording, -18dBfs is no problem. Try it some time - just as a technical exercise.