recording level

[Greg_L]

Greg, listen to your sample clips, then listen to someothers' here. You should start taking notes, BIG TIME.

There it is. The classic desperation retort from someone in way over their head.

The fact is you're completely full of shit. Everything you've posted since you got here has been a screwed up cryptic complete lack of understanding. Read more, post less.

 

[miroslav]

I think anyone who gets into DAWs for the first time....especially if they have been recording in the analog world for quite awhile and are not both recording newbs and DAW newbs....will be somewhat both overwhelmed and happily excited by the amount of new/visual info they all of a sudden have about "sound".

There is a period where you feel like you're finally "seeing" sound for the first time, and that somehow there's much more to it than what your ears were giving you alone....not to mention the gazillion tools a DAW provides at your fingertips....so it's not unnatural for you to initially embrace that visual approach to editing/mixing and at times almost ignore what your ears are telling you.
After awhile you will come back down from that DAW-high, and realize that it's the same exact sound you were dealing with in the analog world, and your ears ARE the final judge of how things should sound....so the visuals will become a little less important, though certainly still valuable tools.
In my DAW manual, they make a point to state several times that the visuals are just "graphic representations" of the sound, and NOT the actual sound, so that newbs don't mistake them...so, use your ears as the real judge for anything you do...but I know, we're all "looking" at our audio constantly in a DAW, so the graphics become the sound to us.

The very young guys who started their recording path only with DAWs, may not feel that same initial visual rush, since they most likely were already "numb" to computers/graphics , though certainly, some of them do end up permanently stuck in visual-sound mode...you see them on the forums always asking how can they make their audio look like someone else's.......

 

[mark1971a]

Full Of shit?

About what?

Hearing 200 ms amplitude with human ears? The normalization function made no clipping on 8 trk DAW projects.

Im gonna find a link to back that up, please wait. I have a text book or two to copy.

Greg , while you are waiting for my facts. Why not listen to what you recorded , then listen to anything on boulders page. I do not want to drag people into this. Give it an honest listen, you don't think there is something missing? If so okay, but listen.

 

[Greg_L]

Full Of shit?

About what?
.

Everything. Pretty much every post you've made is ass-backwards and shows a huge lack of understanding. That's fine, learn all you can. That's what this site is for. No one is born knowing this stuff. I'm just gonna caution people to not take anything you say seriously.

 

[mark1971a]

No Greg, take a fucking seat.

You have ZERO creditibilty here.

 

[miroslav]

Hearing 200 ms amplitude with human ears? The normalization function made no clipping on 8 trk DAW projects.

Yes....amplitude judgment is compromised with sounds less than 200 ms in duration...the shorter it is the "softer" it may appear to the ear...
....but I don't get what that has to do with normalization and no clipping...?

Let's say you record a bunch of short sounds....like someone playing drums...and the audio quality of that sounds good to you.
To then go into a DAW and take all those less-than-200 ms sounds and normalize them so they are all the same amplitude will most likely make those drums sounds like shit....they will sound robotic.
That goes for other instruments too....like rapid picking of guitar notes....they are NOT supposed to be 100% identical in amplitude, that's what gives the picking its character.

So aside from your general comments about the amplitude judgment of 200 ms sounds or less....what's the real application of that here? You seem to imply that now with the DAW, you can or should, use the DAW and visually fix all of that with normalization....???

 

[Greg_L]

Lol for real. This is what I'm talking about. You're totally clueless. First off, I said nothing about the 200ms thing, so put your book away. It's silly that you even went that far. You're trying like hell to win an argument that isn't even happening. My comments about your cluelessness were more in general in regards to your overall schtick here. Normalizing? Really? You told the OP to normalize his tracks. That shows an egregious lack of understanding, and it's a simple example of why you shouldn't be taken seriously. You know just enough to steer someone wrong. Sharing ideas is a good thing, but they have to be good ideas. You haven't had any yet.

 

[mark1971a]

Mirosla those are two separate ideas you quoted.

The human hearing and other facts brought to attention, are backing up my words with sections of publication. Diss that and Im out of here. Some punk tried to school the teacher and got burned.

I didn't expect normalization to alter anything in the 8 track mix, other than how it looked. In order to anwer the OP's question on how to get them the same. See pic on page 1.

I have more text book pages, but I don't know your absorption rate GREg. Whose laughing now. Whose full of it?

 

[Greg_L]

Yes....amplitude judgment is compromised with sounds less than 200 ms in duration...the shorter it is the "softer" it may appear to the ear...
....but I don't get what that has to do with normalization and no clipping...?

Let's say you record a bunch of short sounds....like someone playing drums...and the audio quality of that sounds good to you.
To then go into a DAW and take all those less-than-200 ms sounds and normalize them so they are all the same amplitude will most likely make those drums sounds like shit....they will sound robotic.
That goes for other instruments too....like rapid picking of guitar notes....they are NOT supposed to be 100% identical in amplitude, that's what give the picking it's character.

So aside from your comments about the amplitude judgment of 200 ms sounds or less, what's the real application of that here? You seem to imply that now with the DAW, you can or should, visually go in and fix all of that with normalization....???

Yes, this ^^^^ Well said, miro.

Even your mentor miroslav sees that you're not really saying anything worthwhile or pertinent to the actual discussion.

 

[miroslav]

When did I become a mentor...?

 

[mark1971a]

Lol for real. This is what I'm talking about. You're totally clueless. First off, I said nothing about the 200ms thing, so put your book away. It's silly that you even went that far. You're trying like hell to win an argument that isn't even happening. My comments about your cluelessness were more in general in regards to your overall schtick here. Normalizing? Really? You told the OP to normalize his tracks. That shows an egregious lack of understanding, and it's a simple example of why you shouldn't be taken seriously. You know just enough to steer someone wrong. Sharing ideas is a good thing, but they have to be good ideas. You haven't had any yet.

What? are you saying something. No you are full of it. You got burned. Playing with fire.

 

[Steenamaroo]

I'm sure B1n4ry can't wait to digest all this irrelevant shite.

Anyone remember him?

 

[Greg_L]

When did I become a mentor...?

I don't know, it just seems as if you're really guiding him along by the hand. He's taken a keen liking to you. It's cute.

 

[mark1971a]

There it is. The classic desperation retort from someone in way over their head.

The fact is you're completely full of shit. Everything you've posted since you got here has been a screwed up cryptic complete lack of understanding. Read more, post less.

Ahh , what now? Everyone sees the page and can read! Fool.

 

[Greg_L]

What? are you saying something. No you are full of it. You got burned. Playing with fire.

Lol. Right. Keep up the stupid, you're doing great!

 

[miroslav]

Mirosla those are two separate ideas you quoted.

The human hearing and other facts brought to attention, are backing up my words with sections of publication. Diss that and Im out of here. Some punk tried to school the teacher and got burned.

I didn't expect normalization to alter anything in the 8 track mix, other than how it looked. In order to anwer the OP's question on how to get them the same. See pic on page 1.

Yes...normalization will "lift" everything proportionally, until the highest peak hits the digital ceiling, and that's as far is all can go.
True.

But again....I'm not seeing that connectoin between that and the fact that you need to zoom into a graphic waveform and check out the amplitude of peaks that are less than 200 ms in duration...?
Why did that even come into the discussion....it confuses the point about normalization of ALL peaks, regardless of their duration.

Again....you should try and make your points/posts more clear and detailed, because that may be the reasons you're not being understond...and not the actual topic of the posts.
The other thing is....you seem to still be over-focused on how the sounds "look"....(see my earlier post #22).

 

[Greg_L]

Ahh , what now? Everyone sees the page and can read! Fool.

Read more, post less.

 

[Greg_L]

Yes...normalization will "lift" everything proportionally, until the highest peak hits the digital ceiling, and that's as far is all can go.
True.

But again....I'm not seeing that connectoin between that and the fact that you need to zoom into a graphic waveform and check out the amplitude of peaks that are less than 200 ms in duration...?
Why did that even come into the discussion....it confuses the point about normalization of ALL peaks, regardless of their duration.

Again....you should try and make your points/posts more clear and detailed, because that may be the reasons you're not being understond...and not the actual topic of the posts.
The other thing is....you seem to still be over-focused on how the sounds "look"....(see my earlier post #22).

Yes, again, this. 100%.

Mark, when I agree with miro 100%, you can rest assured that you are totally in the fucking wrong.

 

[miroslav]

I don't know, it just seems as if you're really guiding him along by the hand. He's taken a keen liking to you. It's cute.

Don't be jealous now....

I'm not trying to mentor him. He's new on the forums (assuming his not an existing member under an alias)....and I don't see that he came here to argue about stuff....he's just trying to transition into the DAW world, so there's going to be some speed bumps....so might as well give him a little room to learn.

Time will tell if he turns all turtle-michael or TASCAM MAN on us....

 

[mark1971a]

A error has occurred. It was said Nothing that I mentioned was correct, and I was completely full of it.

Before I can continue, we need to straightn that out.

I have more textbook pages to back up what I have said. Do you want them? Or just talk stuff?

I have not been on a forum of recording, there was this car site and I had a problem....I am not a fake or clown.