can anyone explain how to get the highest possible potential volume?

[Blue Bear Sound]

You keep talking about "losing bits" - you're not... what you are losing is "potential" dynamic range, but at 24-bits, it's so wide that you'd never have been able to use it anyways! Factor in the noise floor of amps/pres/guitars/etc, and you scarcely need to even worry about dithering!

 

[Reggie]

you guys kind of went off on a tangent without answering my question. oh well.

yes, but how do you personally do this. just as an example. do you record at very high levels with the mics (as high as you can without distortion)? do you compress certain instruments and not others? do you compress/limit the whole mix?

....

what do YOU do? do use any specific mic techniques for certain instruments? do you put someone record acoustic on a piece of plywood when recording? anything you do to get that mix loud AND clear, without compress/limit at the end I want to know. I'm rambling again.

Sorry 'bout that; but I don't think you are going to find your magic bullet on here. It will take a lot of these 3 things: Practice, Practice, Practice.
Record good sounds using good equipment, EQ out any mud you hear, mix them well, and have it mastered by a pro. Don't worry about losing a bit here or there if you have to adjust the volume on something.

 

[LRosario]

what do YOU do? do use any specific mic techniques for certain instruments? do you put someone record acoustic on a piece of plywood when recording? anything you do to get that mix loud AND clear, without compress/limit at the end I want to know. I'm rambling again.

It's ok man, I see your point. There's never any set rules in the audio industry, but knowing that, I'll get straight to the point:

Keep in mind that clarity plays an important part in perceived loudness. When you can hear things, your brain some how is fooled into thinking it's a louder mix. It's partially for this reason that clarity will always come before volume. Understand that things like reverb and certain modulation FX will take away clarity. High quality mics & low resistance shielded cabling are important on this. Balanced vs unbalanced in's and outs are also something to munch on. Noisy preamps (which cheap ones are) will seriously take away from your dynamic range. So what you think is "loud" may actually not be much louder than your mix. Anyway that said, here's the deal:


Micing technique's are as individual as the engineer who dreams up the configuration to use it in. My personal way of micing things won't mean it's the best thing for you. Loudness won't come just on how you use the mic, but you have to understand that the better the mic, the better you can obtain higher volume without distortion. How hot you record dosn't really apply to this sort of thing. Setting levels is more for obtaining the best recording you can rather than how loud you can get it. For example, I don't usually compress, limit or otherwise tweak my final mixes just cause I expect the master engineer to take care of that aspect. It's only then when he can decide how loud he wants to push it.


The final truth is this: Pro gear operates at way higher db levels than consumer gear. I can assure you that pushing a master fader full blast on something like cakewalk won't be the same as pushing the fader on a Pro Tools TDM system. There are obvious reason's why some things cost more money than others.

It's just a fact of life that will remain the same as long as audio exsists. A multi-million dollar studio will give what a half a million dollar studio can't.

Now despite those facts, the best thing I can say is that experimentation is going to be the only way you can bring your mix as loud as possible. There's only so much you can do with what you may have, so I wouldn't make it a point to make it louder, but rather just make it clearer and more audible. 99% of the time that ends up being the best thing, anyway.

Hope it helps some

 

[boomtap]

Goo Goo Dolls: Big Machine.

Yep, I didn't think it was possible to do but that is definitly louder. I bet the un-mastered version sounds sweet.

 

[JazzMang]

I dont think the mastered version sounds bad, but just gets very busy in the midrange towards the end of the song. Great song though.

 

[grn]

well thanks for those that answered. I don't ever recall asking about bits... just technique. I think I finally got somewhat of a decent answer out of some of you. I wish blue bear would've responded a little more to the question.

basically I have learned this... get the exact sound you want (i.e. take out highs/lows out of an amp rather than with EQ if you can), record it as clearly and as loudly as possible without distortion (don't push it too hard)... and play it evenly and maybe slightly compress vocals on the way in... depending on the singer. mmk. and perhaps experiment with mic placement a bit more. that's all I wanted.

one more question. what do you usually set your compression to for vocals going in?

 

[Massive Master]

Short answer - Wherever it needs to be. Totally dependent on the vocalist. I'm a "fairly" long-attack / long release type on vocals (70ms / 3 sec), but of course, that depends on the arrangement also.

As a sidenote - Here's some "maximum potential volume" for you... This engineer has L2-itis. He wanted to "get it close for the mastering guy." I actually told the client that I refuse to play this on my speakers (at ANY level) for fear of damage. This is a hack job of hack jobs that any bit-hoarder should be envious of... Feast your eyes on the RMS levels and imagine how horrific it sounds...

 

[FALKEN]

the loudest album I have loaded into my machine is system of a down's steal this album. the RMS of this album is -6 db. yet there is more clarity in that 6db of dynamic range than in most albums period. and it sounds EXTREMELY dynamic. I tell you, I don't know how they did it. I just don't know.

oh yeah, try 3:1 and attack and release at like 9 0'clock. try to get about 3-4 db of gain reduction.

 

[Reggie]

As a sidenote - Here's some "maximum potential volume" for you... This engineer has L2-itis. He wanted to "get it close for the mastering guy." I actually told the client that I refuse to play this on my speakers (at ANY level) for fear of damage. This is a hack job of hack jobs that any bit-hoarder should be envious of... Feast your eyes on the RMS levels and imagine how horrific it sounds...

HolyWTF? I can't really imagine how this sounds, it would probably be approaching pink noise or sumpin. I can see why you would turn down this job; I mean, what could you possible do. -3.3db definitely gives me something to shoot for now.

For tracking vocals, I tend to use a medium fast attack, medium release, threshhold around -16 or so, and gain reduction only on loud parts up to around 5db gr. I try to just tame the loud bits, and leave the bulk of it untouched.

 

[estring]

Back to the Bits posts,
what are your thoughts on recording at 32 bits??
With the additonal headroom, how will this effect the "volume," and how does it translate soundwise to 16 bit after dithering?

 

[LRosario]

Short answer - Wherever it needs to be. Totally dependent on the vocalist. I'm a "fairly" long-attack / long release type on vocals (70ms / 3 sec), but of course, that depends on the arrangement also.

As a sidenote - Here's some "maximum potential volume" for you... This engineer has L2-itis. He wanted to "get it close for the mastering guy." I actually told the client that I refuse to play this on my speakers (at ANY level) for fear of damage. This is a hack job of hack jobs that any bit-hoarder should be envious of... Feast your eyes on the RMS levels and imagine how horrific it sounds...

Jesus Christ, and you think they'd have a "what the hell are you thinking" button on the L2

 

[giraffe]

Short answer - Wherever it needs to be. Totally dependent on the vocalist. I'm a "fairly" long-attack / long release type on vocals (70ms / 3 sec), but of course, that depends on the arrangement also.

As a sidenote - Here's some "maximum potential volume" for you... This engineer has L2-itis. He wanted to "get it close for the mastering guy." I actually told the client that I refuse to play this on my speakers (at ANY level) for fear of damage. This is a hack job of hack jobs that any bit-hoarder should be envious of... Feast your eyes on the RMS levels and imagine how horrific it sounds...

..........

 

[FALKEN]

Back to the Bits posts,
what are your thoughts on recording at 32 bits??
With the additonal headroom, how will this effect the "volume," and how does it translate soundwise to 16 bit after dithering?

32 bits would give you 192 db of range which far exceeds the capabilites of any of my equipment. It might serve a purpose in saving a 32 bit file to send to be mastered, but I doubt any mastering house can take that format, and it would allow up to 96 db of gain and still be CD quality, which is ridiculous. I think it might serve a purpose in DVD audio though, and would be equilalivent to recording in 24 bits and mixing down to CD.

Is there a system that does this?

 

[estring]

32 bits would give you 192 db of range which far exceeds the capabilites of any of my equipment. It might serve a purpose in saving a 32 bit file to send to be mastered, but I doubt any mastering house can take that format, and it would allow up to 96 db of gain and still be CD quality, which is ridiculous. I think it might serve a purpose in DVD audio though, and would be equilalivent to recording in 24 bits and mixing down to CD.

Is there a system that does this?

Falken,(or anyone else for that matter) I'm only asking because I dont know ,so...
Please,read this article and tell me what it means to you..only about the 32 bit recording part.

Thanks
http://www.computermusic.co.uk/reviews/cubase5/cubase5.asp

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

There is no such thing as 32-bit recording.... the 32 (and higher in some s/w h/w) represents additional words used for extra precision in mathematical calculations - greatly minimizing any inaccuracies due to round-off error.

32+ bit recordings are really 24-bit data as far as a generic digital data stream goes. They only maintain the additional wordsize in native s/w.

 

[Carter]

Yeah like in Cubase it records with a 32 bit float point but it is actually 24 bit.
good info Blue Bear.

 

[FALKEN]

Falken,(or anyone else for that matter) I'm only asking because I dont know ,so...
Please,read this article and tell me what it means to you..only about the 32 bit recording part.

Thanks
http://www.computermusic.co.uk/reviews/cubase5/cubase5.asp

kick ASS!

24 bits is NOT enough!!!!

hahahahahahahaha.

that seriously, is awesome. they say the difference is night and day, so....

here is what it comes down to.

you might pluck an A-440 on a guitar or on your piano, at the same volume, right? But they both sound different. the reason different instruments sound different is due to the harmonic overtones and their relative volume. While you might slam your guitar really loud, those overtones are very quiet, seemingly inaudible, but make ALL of the difference, and define the sound of that particular instrument. If you cannot capture these lower-volume artifacts accurately, your sound will not be as good. more bits = more lower volume range = more clarity at any volume.

What this article is saying is that while you can't record in 32-bit (yet), the mathematical calculations that occur when you change volume, add eq, etc. etc. etc. can create very long decimals that can extend out to an infinite number of bits. If you could capture those infinite number of bits, there would be zero quality loss from doing any digital mixing. you can't capture an infinite number of bits, but with this product you can capture more of them. Note that they included a wicked dithering funciton to make sure that those extra bits don't go to waste. but basically, these calculations otherwise warp your overtones and the sound of your instruments.

This is also why many people claim that mixing on an outboard mixer sounds better - they avoid any mathematical calculations.

seriously though, I would have to hear it to believe it. it sounds like overkill, but the reviewer *did* say it sounded much better.

 

[LRosario]

This is also why many people claim that mixing on an outboard mixer sounds better - they avoid any mathematical calculations.

seriously though, I would have to hear it to believe it. it sounds like overkill, but the reviewer *did* say it sounded much better.

Well it's far more than just outboard mixing, they probably referenced analog in there somewhere.

Digital sounds like digital while analog tape closely resembles what the human ear can hear.

 

[estring]

Thanks Falken,
Its still grey to me a little but thats just the way my brain works
So if i were to switch my little drop down window from 24 bit to 32 bit, what is actually happening is i am getting more headroom, which means less clipping, isnt that a good thing?
I plan on staying with 16 and 24 but I just like to know how for my own peace of mind.

 

[FALKEN]

Thanks Falken,
Its still grey to me a little but thats just the way my brain works
So if i were to switch my little drop down window from 24 bit to 32 bit, what is actually happening is i am getting more headroom, which means less clipping, isnt that a good thing?
I plan on staying with 16 and 24 but I just like to know how for my own peace of mind.

you can't record 32 bit files becuase your sound card does not support it. you can only record 20 or 24 bit files. the program will probably still let you record 32 bit files, but the last 8 bits will be empty hard disk space. you can mix down to a 32 bit file. which is pretty much pointless. unless you are going to master in that same program.

but hey - if you think it sounds better, maybe it does.