before the mix

[RobbieD]

hey just wondering where my output channel should be peaking before mastering, like whats the recommended db??

 

[Mo Facta]

Nowhere near 0 dBfs. Maybe round -6 or -12.

Cheers

 

[RobbieD]

thanks a lot

 

[Massive Master]

I'm a big fan (HUGE fan) of tons of headroom during tracking -- During the MIX, just about anything is acceptable (assuming you're summing digitally). SOME amount of NATURAL headroom (no limiting or excessive compression of the main buss). Could be 1dB, 6, 12, 20... Just something.

If you're going to "shoot for" a particular level, the -6dBFS-ish area is certainly a nice place to be...

 

[Ethan Winer]

hey just wondering where my output channel should be peaking before mastering, like whats the recommended db??

If you're using a typical DAW, track and bus levels are irrelevant as long as the output doesn't clip. Most DAWs process everything at 32 bits floating point, which has a dynamic range exceeding 1,000 dB. So if your mix is the final version that will go on a CD or be converted to an MP3 file, you should aim for the output to peak close to -1 dBFS.

As for the value of keeping record levels low, I busted that myth a few months ago:

The Truth About Record Levels

--Ethan

 

[Dogbreath]

as to tracking levels, leave some headroom. I like to keep mine at -12 to -18.

My mix levels pretty much end up where they end up. But I still like to leave a couple db up top.

 

[Dogbreath]

If you're using a typical DAW, track and bus levels are irrelevant as long as the output doesn't clip.......

As for the value of keeping record levels low, I busted that myth a few months ago

--Ethan

No ya didn't.

Since I CAN HEAR a difference in clarity and punch since I started tracking at lower levels, I say horsefeathers.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Since I CAN HEAR a difference in clarity and punch since I started tracking at lower levels, I say horsefeathers.

Either you don't understand the requirements for a proper listening comparison, or something is wrong in your gain staging (which is not uncommon). Please listen to the files in that article, then email me which one you think is which. I'll tell you here if you're right or not.

I also urge you to do a proper scientific comparison, as I did. This is a big problem IMO. Many people don't understand the right way to do such tests, or they never even bother to test at all.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

...I CAN HEAR a difference in clarity and punch since I started tracking at lower levels...

I'm going to guess it's the analog front end that makes the difference...not the digital level itself.

This debate goes round and round......and apart from doing proper listening tests and scientific measurments...
...I think the real issue in understanding what is going on has always been due the *combination* of the analog front end and the digital back end.
You can't just look at digital levels and know what your front end is doing...well, maybe if you work with the same pres over and over, but the point is, the *digital level* is not the potential problem...it's the analog front end.
How you drive that analog preamp WILL change the sound....how much you increase or decrease your digital level, will not, and should not.

That gets lost in most of these debates, and it seems the focus always falls on the digital levels, since most people are in the digital world these days...and pres are often built into converter boxes, so no way to adjust one without the other.

I've mentioned it a couple of times in the past...I don't bother looking at my digital/converter levels a heck of a lot when tracking...but then I am also using standalone preamps, so I'm setting my level *at the preamp*...not at the digital meters.
Like noted...that may not be possible for folks using many of these combo pre/converter interfaces...so all they got to go by is the digital metering, and then in that case, you have to default to some "safe" zone....but if you could monitor just your preamp, there are often times when they can be driven real hard for a particular sound flavor, and that in turn would push the digital levels up well past the -14 to -18 dBFS safe zone.

Anyway...not trying to stir it all up again...just pointing out that it's not just the digital level one should focus on, if possible in your rig.
Also...the tips some folks give about staying in the safe zone are certainly not bad/wrong at all...I'm just saying they are not absolutes. There are more factors than just what the digital meters are showing.

 

[kip4]

you must spread some rep around before givin to to Miroslav again.

leave some headroom imo.

 

[Bobbsy]

Of course Ethan is right about levels in the digital domain.

However, I think Miroslav is right to focus on what is happening in the analogue world. The problem is likely even worse than he mentions since I'll wager that the majority of people posting here have no method at all of monitoring levels in analogue. This can easily lead to overly high levels going in then being cranked down to match the "track at -18 with peaks at -12" paradigm which is so often quoted. The trouble is, any damage is already done.

And, of course, the same thing can happen in reverse. Your DAW is happy with any level up to 0dBFS but, once you output that level to an analogue device--even your speakers--you're feeding peaks at +18dBu which is not necessarily a good thing.

I fear this isn't something for simple rules. Sometimes you need to actually understand what's going on.

 

[miroslav]

...I'll wager that the majority of people posting here have no method at all of monitoring levels in analogue. This can easily lead to overly high levels going in then being cranked down to match the "track at -18 with peaks at -12" paradigm which is so often quoted. The trouble is, any damage is already done.

Exactly.

I know there is some benefit (mostly cost reduction) in making (and buying) combination pre/converter boxes...but I think it only adds to the gain staging/metering problem. One can assume that the designers already gain-staged things properly...but I would much rather have separate metering for analog and digital...and on the analog side, bot input and output metering so I can see what is coming from the mic and what the pre is doing to the signal.

Yeah...the digital input meters are also telling you where your levels are...but they don't give as much detail about what is going on between the mic (or DI) & preamp.

 

[Ethan Winer]

That gets lost in most of these debates, and it seems the focus always falls on the digital levels, since most people are in the digital world these days...and pres are often built into converter boxes, so no way to adjust one without the other.

Yes, though an interface with built-in preamps should be immune to the problem of overdriving the analog front end. I mean, you plug in a microphone or line level source, then adjust the Trim control for a decent record level. That's how my Focusrite Scarlett works. It's a no-brainer.

I think an even more likely reason people believe they get better quality at low record levels is faulty perception. Sure, it's possible to overdrive a preamp with too much gain, then lower the output level way down to avoid clipping the converter. But you almost have to go out of your way to cause that problem. Much more likely IMO is people are too lazy to do a proper comparison. That's why I made the test files in my article The Truth About Record Levels. I urge others to do their own proper comparison rather than take the word of self-proclaimed "experts" (including me).

--Ethan