i thought it is best to record around -18dbfs

[Ironklad Audio]

Isn't it odd though that while we MEs preach about not recording hot, keeping peaks below 0 dBFS, and not clipping, we make CDs that are hot, peak as close to 0dBFS as possible, and clip converters for certain types of music?

that is sort of funny

of course, you can get away with clipping converters and making super-hot masters when people give you a clean, non-clipping, distortion-free mix to start with. i would imagine that a mix with multiple tracks of ear-grating clipped audio would have no business being rammed hard through limiters and converters and such.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Let me get this straight. So for these home recordists, even though they might be using a PT TDM , or any one of "a lot" of others for which "ensure that you get the highest level without clipping" is (in your words) perfectly good advice, it's actually wrong advice...

You really are getting quite good at asking questions after they have been answered. It usually goes the other way around, doesn't it?

What I'm particularly interested in, and I'd bet the majority of this board, Tim, is your detailed response to the situational question I posed in post #54. I invite you to actually describe and explain how you would set up the gain structure in the typical inexpensive home recording chain described to get the results desired using the gain philosophy you have been defending in this thread. Tell us just how the advice in the PT manual would be applied in that situation using any hardware or software makes/models you wish to insert in place of the generic devices I described. This is your chance, Tim, the (gain) stage is yours.

G.

 

[Tim Gillett]

You really are getting quite good at asking questions after they have been answered. It usually goes the other way around, doesn't it?

What I'm particularly interested in, and I'd bet the majority of this board, Tim, is your detailed response to the situational question I posed in post #54. I invite you to actually describe and explain how you would set up the gain structure in the typical inexpensive home recording chain described to get the results desired using the gain philosophy you have been defending in this thread. Tell us just how the advice in the PT manual would be applied in that situation using any hardware or software makes/models you wish to insert in place of the generic devidces I described. this is your chance, time, the (gain) stage is yours.

G.

I wouldnt think of it Glen. You are the expert who has no "secrets". Tell us the answer yourself. I mean we "whole generation of home recordists". Now that's a stage for you.
Tim

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I wouldnt think of it Glen. You are the expert who has no "secrets". Tell us the answer yourself.

I can't. If you actually were to read post 54, you'd know that it was asking those who advicate the mo' hotter, mo' better tracking level philospohy to explain how it actually works best. Not only am I not one of those folks, but I have no idea how it would actually work best at all.

That's why I'm asking you to explain it for me. If you are such an adamant defender and supporter of it, and are so sure that I (and Farview, and xstatic, and Pipeline, and Massive, all of whom I consider more experienced than I in many different ways) are wrong about all this, please set us straight by giving us a common real-world description of how you would approach that common, real-word situation.

G.

 

[NL5]

1. set the gain on the preamp until it's 3-4db below clipping on the highest peaks. maybe a couple db hotter if i want to add more of the preamp's particular sonic characteristics.

2. let the converters do the rest. if i'm using an outboard pre, i set the gain on my board to the line-in "U" mark.

3. watch the input meters on my screen hover around -16, jumping to around -10 on the peaks - not once ever touching a digital fader.

i really don't see why gain staging seems to be such a difficult concept...or why people go around and around in circles arguing/discussing it

That sure wouldn't work for me. I'd have horribly distorted and fully overloaded converters. Do you run the outboard pre's through your board? How are you keeping your peaks to -10 with your pre's cranked?

 

[Ironklad Audio]

That sure wouldn't work for me. I'd have horribly distorted and fully overloaded converters. Do you run the outboard pre's through your board? How are you keeping your peaks to -10 with your pre's cranked?

yea, my outboard pres have to go to the board. i'm using a mackie onyx 1640 with the firewire card, so the converters were already calibrated to work with the mixer. i just set the gain on the outboard preamp to a healthy level...then i insert into the line-in on the mackie, and turn the gain on the onyx up to the "U" mark. at this point, the metering on the outboard pre always seems to roughly match the input meter on the onyx

maybe i screwed up in the previous post when describing my gain-staging...all i know is that i make sure that my outboard pres don't hit the red, the onyx doesn't hit the red(whether i use its preamps or not), and the peaks in my DAW get nowhere near 0.

 

[NL5]

yea, my outboard pres have to go to the board. i'm using a mackie onyx 1640 with the firewire card, so the converters were already calibrated to work with the mixer. i just set the gain on the outboard preamp to a healthy level...then i insert into the line-in on the mackie, and turn the gain on the onyx up to the "U" mark. at this point, the metering on the outboard pre always seems to roughly match the input meter on the onyx

maybe i screwed up in the previous post when describing my gain-staging...all i know is that i make sure that my outboard pres don't hit the red, the onyx doesn't hit the red(whether i use its preamps or not), and the peaks in my DAW get nowhere near 0.

The 1640 is a mixer with built in converters then? So you are basically running the pre's into the "converters" I would guess. The reason I am asking is, on most of my pre's, if I run anywhere near clipping, they totally overrun my converters. I went so far as to have a well respected recording engineer (who happens to be an EE as well), come check out my setup, and he said there was no reason to run anywhere near that hot. I do have a output attenuator on one of the pres that will allow me to push it a bit, but that certainly doesn't yield a cleaner sound. Sometimes it's the right sound, but never cleaner. I was just curious if maybe the EE gave me bad advice - especially since your advice seems to be about opposite. But then again, I have pretty high gain pres, maybe yours are not as high gain? I dunno. I do all this by ear, so I may not be doing it right......

 

[Ironklad Audio]

the converters are "sort-of" built-in - the firewire card, which includes the converters, is installed into a slot on the back of the mixer.

and even when i run my preamps pretty hot, i have no problems with clipping/overs...there's been a few times where the meters on the onyx pres have peaked into the red, and upon inspecting the waveform, it didn't look or sound as though anything had clipped - at least not noticeably.

i guess that's one of the hidden advantages in getting converters that are specifically tailored to be used with a certain piece of analog gear.

 

[mixsit]

I think it's 70% (A) and 30% (B), and that it's just not him, but a whole generation of home recordists.

I'm a little surprised though that you'd lay it that heavily just on HR's. Although I'll base this on mostly reading on the Internet and elsewhere, I've gotten the impression that just in the last several years the word' has finally sunk in, and that seems to include a fair amount of folks that are running commercial rigs. I could be wrong too.
The other hot spot in this has nothing to do with the analog stage. That is the specific notion that the upper end of the conversion scale has more resolution than the lower. I ordered 'Nika's book this AM.
I'll be back.

 

[Massive Master]

Isn't it odd though that while we MEs preach about not recording hot, keeping peaks below 0 dBFS, and not clipping, we make CDs that are hot, peak as close to 0dBFS as possible, and clip converters for certain types of music?

I think it's because we (try to) put "raw quality" over "insane volume" in most cases.

No doubt though - I've been there - Wanting a "hot" recording (I was a touring musician for some time). But it didn't take long to figure out how most preamps changed personalities above nominal levels. And it was also apparent how much better they sounded considerably *below* those levels. I've never had a (decent) preamp complain about NOT being pushed too hard.

In any case, the recordings that come out the loudest are the cleanest. The recordings that come out the cleanest are the ones with the least distortion. The ones with the least distortion were almost undoubtedly tracked with reasonably conservative levels (not unlike the levels used to hit tape, but without the additional noise of the tape). The loudest records I've ever made probably didn't have any one individual track ever hit above -12dBFS at any time. And that's hardly conservative...

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to just record a signal through a preamp that's "hot but not clipping" and analyze it... With simple sine waves, the distortion is readily audible *and* VISIBLE in a spectrum analyzer the hotter the signal gets. Some preamps (obviously) distort much less than others. Some distort well BEFORE reaching line level. And that's just a simple sine wave... Something much more complex (like a guitar or a human voice) is another story.

But to the (Tom's) point -- I think that maybe because we deal with gear with "obscene" amounts of available headroom that we just appreciate it more. And working from different recordings made with different amounts of headroom, it's very easy for us to figure out which ones had or didn't have any headroom in the first place. And we see the results of it readily -- We take recordings that were made with generous amounts of headroom at every stage and whack the hell out of them because those are the recordings that can handle that abuse. Where we struggle for hours trying to squeeze an extra dB or two out of recordings that were "pushed" from step one.

A lot of sounds (tracks, mixes, masters, etc.) can be "robbed" of headroom without much damage -- ONE TIME. And if that one time is the last time anything is ever done to it, there you go.

If I had a nickel for every time I got one of those "My recordings don't sound like 'pro' recordings" things... "Well, I track as hot as I can without clipping..." (that's almost always there). I just tell them to record another tune but pretend that -10dBFS is as loud as anything can possibly get at the tracking stage. Do everything else the same. Almost every single time, I get some sort of "OH MY GOD!!!" letter a week later. The only thing they changed were the recording levels and now their mixes sound "open" and focused, airy and "crankable" -- and easily brought up to "commercially acceptable" levels.

Not that "commercially acceptable levels" should be the goal... But in some cases, it's an acceptable side-effect.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Let me get this straight. So for these home recordists, even though they might be using a PT TDM , or any one of "a lot" of others for which "ensure that you get the highest level without clipping" is (in your words) perfectly good advice, it's actually wrong advice...

You're mixing apples and oranges. IF they are using crappy software that smashes you down to 24 bits during your signal's normal routing routines, then yes, running to the rails at all times is a good idea.

Hoever, if, like many home recordists, using one of the better written software apps written between say 1995 and today that dont have to worry about constantly scraping against the "noise" floor during routine operations then i would say that running to the rails is bad avice

 

[Tim Gillett]

Pipeline,
something in your post doesnt sound quite right.

Let's assume there was a noise floor issue with the older gear you mention. But that's at the bottom end of what we we discussed which was distortion from running too close to 0dbFS. Are you saying that the makers of the older gear you cite would be so concerned about getting above the noise floor that they would instruct owners to actually run into distortion at the high end?
Wouldnt it be better to put up with some noise down low in the mix rather than have distorted tracks from the very moment they are written onto the hard drive? Seems to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I know in multi tracking, noise buildup was always an issue, but who whether amateur or pro is going to trade a clean signal for a distorted one, and all for the sake of a couple of db quieter noise floor? Sounds amateurish to me.

Your thoughts?

Tim

 

[pipelineaudio]

Ok in the case of the company we are talking about, then yes, it wouldn't surprise me that they might reccomend their customers to do the wrong thing (see 192khz), but in this *particular* issue, they can rightfully say that they are JUST talking about their end of things

For one thing it might be the case that their converters dont distort till they hit the level that would reach 0dbfs. That may VERY well be the case, I haven't tested personally, but Im sure others have and we'd probably hear more about it if they failed.

For another thing, their only concern is what happens when you enter their system. They can rightfully and logically say that your external gear BETTER run clean up to the levels that print hot into their system.

For the final point though, turn on your radio, listen to a modern mix and then try and claim that distortion would even be an issue when everything is flatlined just short of white noise.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm a little surprised though that you'd lay it that heavily just on HR's. Although I'll base this on mostly reading on the Internet and elsewhere, I've gotten the impression that just in the last several years the word' has finally sunk in, and that seems to include a fair amount of folks that are running commercial rigs.

The reasons I singled out home recordists was because A) that's who this board is geared to, and B) while I agree with you that working in a pro barn is no quarantee of quality of understanding of many of the fundamentals - I think articles like the one that started this thread out where the "experts" discuss the issue in terms of peak values demonstrates (or at least reenforces) a little bit of a fundamental lack of understanding right there - that the problem of lack or loss of the basic fundamentals is far more insideous amongst the new breed to whom the cheaper gear has become accessable and affordable far easier than the knowledge of how to actually use the stuff has.

If there has been an "awakening" regarding gain structure in the Big Boy community lately, I'd have to consider it a "re-awakening", as there's nothing there that your average RCA engineer of the 30s or Capitol Records engineer of the 50s didn't have internalized as second nature. OK, they didn't have ADCs or compressors back then , but the concept of using proper gain structure as a fundamental engineering technique to get the most out one's gear and signal path is as old as recording itself.

G.

 

[Farview]

Let me get this straight. So for these home recordists, even though they might be using a PT TDM , or any one of "a lot" of others for which "ensure that you get the highest level without clipping" is (in your words) perfectly good advice, it's actually wrong advice...

Why is it wrong advice? Because it would be wrong advice if they were using some sort of other equipment, like the equipment you are using, or other "pro's" are using.


Wow, Glen. Just wow.


Tim

That was the same advice the PT had when the state of the art was the mix-plus system. After HD came out, one of it's selling points was that HD's converters didn't start distorting at -6dbfs like on the mix plus system. Oh yea, I trust their advice.

It's still only good advice only once you take the crest factor of the signal into account. If it's transient heavy, it's great advice. If it's not, it's terrible advice.

 

[masteringhouse]

that is sort of funny

of course, you can get away with clipping converters and making super-hot masters when people give you a clean, non-clipping, distortion-free mix to start with. i would imagine that a mix with multiple tracks of ear-grating clipped audio would have no business being rammed hard through limiters and converters and such.

Absolutely, and that's one of the main reasons that it's done this way currrently. All of that distortion in mixing is just going to be magnified even further if the process in done downstream. Also the quality of the converters and skill of the ME in making this abuse as transparent as possible and the fact that it can't be "undone" later if someone decides that dynamic range is more important than a hot CD.

It's kinda like putting cologne on before you go into the shower.

 

[masteringhouse]

I think that maybe because we deal with gear with "obscene" amounts of available headroom that we just appreciate it more. And working from different recordings made with different amounts of headroom, it's very easy for us to figure out which ones had or didn't have any headroom in the first place. And we see the results of it readily -- We take recordings that were made with generous amounts of headroom at every stage and whack the hell out of them because those are the recordings that can handle that abuse. Where we struggle for hours trying to squeeze an extra dB or two out of recordings that were "pushed" from step one.

Absolutely. I was working on a Jazz album this week, recorded beautifully, just needed a few EQ tweaks very mild compression and limiting to only control very stray transients which were few. This CD very easily came up to "commercial standards" without the heavy lifting of mixes that are already compressed/limited to stun. Probably the least amount of work I've ever had to do for levels and one of the best sounding.

 

[Farview]

Let's assume there was a noise floor issue with the older gear you mention. But that's at the bottom end of what we we discussed which was distortion from running too close to 0dbFS. Are you saying that the makers of the older gear you cite would be so concerned about getting above the noise floor that they would instruct owners to actually run into distortion at the high end?

The makers of older gear (16 bit) had line level calibrated to -10db or -12db. With that little headroom, you would be clipping the converters way before you started running out of headroom on the preamp. (with most things)

Now that everything seems to be calibrated 6db to 10db lower, it's easier to run the preamps out of the sweet spot attempting to get as close to 0dbfs as possible.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I've never had a (decent) preamp complain about NOT being pushed too hard.

That REALLY needs to wind up in somebody's sig line. What a great quoue .

[T]he recordings that come out the loudest are the cleanest. The recordings that come out the cleanest are the ones with the least distortion. The ones with the least distortion were almost undoubtedly tracked with reasonably conservative levels

And that should be made into a lithographed poster. The simplicty, the accuracy, and the knee-bone-connected-to-the-thigh-bone-style trail of those three sentences is just plain elegant.

Great post, John!

G.

 

[Tim Gillett]

The makers of older gear (16 bit) had line level calibrated to -10db or -12db. With that little headroom, you would be clipping the converters way before you started running out of headroom on the preamp. (with most things)

Now that everything seems to be calibrated 6db to 10db lower, it's easier to run the preamps out of the sweet spot attempting to get as close to 0dbfs as possible.

OK So are you saying that because the line level reference voltages have been lowered, today's pre's distort and so cannot make full use of the top few db's in the converter where before they could?

Tim