how loud to record???

[Seeker of Rock]

AlfredB,

Out of curiosity, what kind of recording device(s) are you using? A computer digital workstation, a 4-track cassette recorder, a digital "studio-in-a-box", or other? If your question has not already been answered, knowing how new you are to this may help us understand the depth or simplicity of the answer you are looking for. I have a premonition the answer you were looking for was to a basic beginner's question (and I mean no offense by that, as I am still new to this myself), but I could be completely off base. One thing I do know...if your question was more on the complex side, you have heard some good input from some guys who have a good bit of knowledge in recording, making this a good site to get your answers. Let us know.

 

[AlfredB]

S.o.Rock.

you are right ... I am pretty much a beginner, wading knee-deep in cubase on a "regular" home computer and recording via the on-board-sound-card (although this might change at some time in the near future).

So, i wasnt looking for the complexity of the issue, rather a simple answer. - however, i have to admit that the discussion has been very helpful and informative -
thx!!!

alfred

 

[Seeker of Rock]

That's what I thought. Sometimes people are so into what they're doing they lose track of the simple things. It's easy to do. I do it all the time in my "day job." That's the cool thing about this forum, though; there is such a wealth of knowledge that even when simple things get complicated, you will always learn something. I can't think of a time when I haven't, though I've only been around the forum for a few months.
Anyway, I better go. Got a hurricane heading this way....AGAIN!!

 

[AaronK]

I say mic a drumset in a huge room, play it loud, pick it up with a pair of ribbons in the back call it a recording...

Probably dont even add any other tracks...

Yeah, clients/"clients" will LOVE it!

im pretty sure the drums for the Flaming lips' "soft bulletin" album were recorded with one mic. and they sound huge as hell sometimes.

 

[Bulls Hit]

-6db is peak, the average signal levels are a lot closer to -9 to -12 db for a target. My main argument is that it is easy to decrease gain and get a good sound than it is to increase gain if you need more signal during mixing.

I read an interview with Frank Filipetti where he recommends recording as hot as possible - particularly if using 16 bit.

His concern is about making use of all the bits.

"Don't be afraid of the red lights" he says, if it sounds OK, it's OK

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I read an interview with Frank Filipetti where he recommends recording as hot as possible - particularly if using 16 bit.

His concern is about making use of all the bits.

That is really relevant ONLY with 16-bit digital... at 24-bits, you don't have to worry about it.

Also - you have to record at levels that suit the rest of your rig too... for example, very few analog consoles are going to like dealing with signals consistently between -6 and 0dBFS.... if you don't overload the multitrack return inputs, you run out of console headroom in no time.

 

[lpdeluxe]

"Don't be afraid of the red lights"

I know him...he drives a pickup around my neighborhood.

 

[heroics321]

that reminds me of "the world according to garp." this guy always runs a stop sign in garp's (robin williams) neighborhood, so he smashes in all his windows. then the drunk tries to run over him and a crossdressing john lithgow. great film.

 

[sile2001]

That is really relevant ONLY with 16-bit digital... at 24-bits, you don't have to worry about it.

I've always wondered about recording in 24-bit when the most common distribution media (CD's) are 16-bit. I understand all the concepts of increased bit depth and such, but don't you run into some of the same limitations when you convert the final mixdown to 16-bit?

Maybe I'm way off...

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I've always wondered about recording in 24-bit when the most common distribution media (CD's) are 16-bit. I understand all the concepts of increased bit depth and such, but don't you run into some of the same limitations when you convert the final mixdown to 16-bit?

Not really... compare it to the process of digital imaging. There's a huge difference in the quality of the final image between processing a high-resolution image at high-res and then rendering down to a lo-res image, than processing a low-res version of the image at low-res and not having to render.

 

[punkin]

Blue Bear

Sorry...Blue Bear...could you clear this up for me a bit. I think I'm still within the context of this thread. I'm a little confused here.

If I record at a higher rate (say 24 bit or higher)...and using as many bits as possible, at maximized volume. Does the conversion after recording this signal down to a lower sampling rate (say 16 bit) equal louder than if it were originally recorded optimally at 16 bits?

On the same idea, I understand that higher bit rate equals better sampling thus theoretical better sound reproduction (I think Nyquist figured that one out). But, is something in terms of audio quality gained by doing this and then converting the song back down to CD rates or would it again be just as well to do all the recording at the 16 bit rate?

Thanks.
BTW...I'm still ok with your signature and site link. No matter what numb nutts says.

 

[Rokket]

I read an interview with Frank Filipetti where he recommends recording as hot as possible - particularly if using 16 bit.

His concern is about making use of all the bits.

"Don't be afraid of the red lights" he says, if it sounds OK, it's OK

Until your $1000.00 digital machine dies on you.....

 

[rocker]

bits are word length, the resolution of the sound. while you have the sample rate which is how many times a second the digital recorder takes a snapshot of the sound the bit depth is how detailed that picture the sample rate took will appear.

for each sample there are different levels associated with each segment ofsound, with 24 bit you have more potential voulme levels within ech sample so you get a more accurate picture of the sampled sound. each bit represents different leves which can be interpreted and stored within each sample. themore levels, the finer the graduations, the clearer and more accurate the sample will appear to the listener.

this also nets you a greater dyanmic range above the potential noise floor. with the greater resolution you no lonnger need to run your levels up to 0dbfs as you have greater available dynamic range and will still get better resolution of yourpicture than with 16 bit.

an example of this might bewith regular tv you have 525 lines going across the screen that hvae red, green and blue in various combnations to create an image that represents what the camera sees with hdtv you have 1050 lines twice theresolution so the picture looks clearer and sharper to the viewer.

you still have 30 frames per second which is like the ssame sample rate but you have more lines which can equate to a greater bit depth

 

[LRosario]

We set fader levels to "Unity Zero".

Every board and piece of audio processing equipment you handle should have a calibration for this stated in the manual.


All this does is tell you that you're getting a true 0db level recording. You use your trim, or gain to adjust your levels and use your faders for fine tunning.


Example,

for some consoles, +10 is unity while others will be at 0db.


For monitoring reference, 85-90db.