I'm with that.
If you want something to check on, you can stay relatively inexpensive with Grado 125's (but I'd upgrade to the "G" series cushions). That'll change your perspective on headphones. Still won't make them ideal for mixing (because they're headphones, but it's hard to change that...
Probably not exactly the right forum.... But long story short, it reduces the dynamic range by making loud things quieter (an expander on the other hand makes quiet things quieter).
Answering would take more time than I have --
Master fader -- Put it at unity and ignore it.
Peak -- Less than clipping. If you're working in PCM and going to go to something lossy and goofy (MP3, etc.) somewhere in the -1dBFS area is a pretty decent place to be usually.
Numbers --...
The best possible monitoring chain you can put into the best possible space you can put together. Everything else is secondary (by far). Everything else is sort of up to what you feel you need.
I'm not hearing any "distant" anything. Sounds a bit thin (if you're sucking out all that mid 100's area, maybe don't?). Adding a bunch of 3.5kHz when you're not competing with other things in that area tend to make it sound thin in the top end also.
And the "-3.6dB" means nothing without...
No - I'm just saying that you need to think through the signal. You wouldn't want to add delay (echo) to a reverb return. You'd almost always add reverb to a delay return. (just as an example)
Think it through.
Adding delay to a reverb signal *most of the time* makes no sense. Adding reverb to a delay return is as normal as the light turning on when you open the fridge (side-note: It drives me nuts to this day when I hear a delay return that doesn't have the same verb as the...
If you need a spectrum analyzer, then probably yes. But if you need a spectrum analyzer, I'd argue that it's best to figure out why.
That said - if you don't have a decent spectrum analyzer, you certainly should -- If for nothing else than calibration.
I wouldn't even put any drywall on the inside. I'd fill the studs with OC703 or 705 and cover it with heavy cotton duck. That space is going to be an acoustical nightmare otherwise. Might still be actually. Relatively insane modes all over the vocal spectrum. And 95% of the energy far...
I'm not trying to come in sideways here, but I get projects in all the time where [these tracks were done at this studio] and [these other tracks were done at this other studio]. Happens all the time. There are layers of things that make a cohesive sound. Heck, there are some rather big-time...
Cambridge has some nice stuff to mess with and most of it has *some* sort of issues to get past. Telefunken Labs also... Only those can get you spoiled right quick.
I run digital sources through analog gear all day. But I'm with Miroslav. Just "going analog" means nothing unless (1) the gear is up to the task (2) you know what you're looking for (3) you have the gear that will give you what you're looking for.
Analog gear can certainly be "magical" -...
I am biased (but I'm biased partially by 35 years of experience). No doubt - You're always compromising by mixing and mastering in the same space (which is why you'll rarely ever find a mastering engineer that will work on their own mixes). Any issue in the mixing space that's the same as in...
No problem - I think that's what we assumed (well, I did...).
Not sure what you have lying around meter-wise, but same thing stands. Assuming you have something that will give you RMS readings, you're good. You probably won't even need a limiter unless the material is extremely dynamic...