Levels Before Mastering

[dobro]

Which goes to show that you haven't been dealing with engineers like the ones sjoko described above.

 

[Tom Hicks]

When you are tracking drums with an analog board with analog meters,the transients will be too fast to see it clip.Especially on snares.LEDs don't suffer the time lag from moving the mass of the analog needle,so they are more accurate.But if you use analog meters to track drums,give the snare at least -15dB headroom and a little less on the other parts of the kit.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I am recording in cubase in 16bits - 48 kHz via a Guillemot Isis soundcard

If you are recording for a CD (not DVD), I recommend using a 44.1 sample rate. The conversion from 48 to 44.1 will probably sound worse than just recording to 44.1 in the first place. And if at all possible, record in 24 bit. Digital processing loves those extra digits!

 

[sjoko2]

If you are recording for a CD (not DVD), I recommend using a 44.1 sample rate. The conversion from 48 to 44.1 will probably sound worse than just recording to 44.1 in the first place

I'm sorry, but that is not a very good, or correct , recommendation

 

[Doug Quance]

I accidentally brought a 44.1kHz recording into a 48kHz Vegas project.

It sampled the tracks at 48kHz on the capture.

I reset the project settings to 44.1kHz.

The project rendered out just fine.

My 2 cents.

 

[littledog]

I'm sorry, but that is not a very good, or correct , recommendation

Sorry Sjoko, but I'm going to have to disagree with that one, if you are going to stay digital through the whole process. For instance, Bob Ludwig prefers 88.2 to 96k for recordings staying digital all the way to the final 44.1... if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me.

 

[mixmkr]

adding to the questions of mastering....how often would a mastering engineer see a mix that hasn't had a final fade out (or in) applied to the mix yet?

nobody know this answer?.... is this a common procedure to do the fades at mastering?

 

[sjoko2]

Littledog .... If you read the post in question carefully, it was advocated to RECORD a project entirely at 44.1 if it ends up on a CD. As opposed to recording at a higher rate and dithering down to 44.1.

Obviously this is ill advised, as as the benefits of recording at higher rates are unquestionable.

mixmkr ... It completely depends.
1. Some projects arrive with all the fades done, and often they require a little tweek here and there, which is a bummer if they are cut to short, because a mastering engineer can make them shorter, not longer.
2. Some projects arrive without fades and leave it to the mastering engineer (who has done a whole load of fades and should be damn good at setting them).
3. Some projects arrive without fades but with a detailed description of fade preferences for the engineer to work from.

My personal preference would be:
1. Set the fades yourself if they are an integral part of the song.
2. For everything else, don't put fades in but provide a sound description, including exact timing.

 

[pglewis]

As opposed to recording at a higher rate and dithering down to 44.1.

While I hate to be a pedant... okay, no... I love to be a pedant . Going from a higher sample rate to a lower one would be "resampling" or "decimation" (ugly term, eh?). Dithering is only when changing bit-depth. I know that's nitpicking on the terminology, but I think there's a lot of confusion about dither, so I wanted to point this out. Not to run around correcting a pro.

 

[sjoko2]

tank yo!!

 

[TexRoadkill]

Littledog .... If you read the post in question carefully, it was advocated to RECORD a project entirely at 44.1 if it ends up on a CD. As opposed to recording at a higher rate and dithering down to 44.1.

Obviously this is ill advised, as as the benefits of recording at higher rates are unquestionable.

You seem to act like that is a given when both of those points are pretty highly debated by those in the know as far as I have noticed.

There are pretty valid arguments that sample conversion from 48khz down to 44.1khz may leave more artifacts than it's worth.
Some would also argue that the reason higher sampling rates seem to sound better is because the quality of the ADC's is higher on convertors that meet that spec.

My semi educated opinion is that with most home gear and sample conversion software you're probably better off recording in 44.1khz/24bit. But if you have killer hardware and software than why not try to squeeze a little greater fidelity out of the system.

 

[sjoko2]

I'm very sorry, I seem to have committed a sin

and there I thought the 'high debate' regarding 44.1 or 48 finished at least 3 years ago, when the last disk savers were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that there were real benefits in going for 44.1 plus

 

[littledog]

Littledog .... If you read the post in question carefully, it was advocated to RECORD a project entirely at 44.1 if it ends up on a CD. As opposed to recording at a higher rate and dithering down to 44.1.

I understood the debate. My point about 88.2 vs. 96 was that if higher sampling rates were always better, then Bob Ludwig wouldn't have said he preferes 88.2 to 96 for projects that would end up being down-sampled to 44.1. Since higher sampling rates are "always better" (if I understand sjoko's argument) one would want to use 96 over 88.1 given the choice. But if you like Bob Ludwig's recommendation, using that same analogy it would follow that there would be a good argument for staying at 44.1, as opposed to recording at 48 and then converting to 44.1

The usual argument that I always heard (from Bob L. and others) was that the relatively minor gain in quality between 48 vs. 44.1 was offset by the math rounding in the final conversion.

Thye exception, of course, is if you were going to go back to analog somewhere in the process, like to mix, for example. Then you might as well track with as high a sampling rate as you can.

But, I will be the first to admit that my information may not be up to the minute. As a matter of fact, since you mention this debate ended three years ago, it might have been about three years ago when i heard Mr. Ludwig make those statements. So assuming he has access to the most current information, perhaps he no longer believes this to be true.

But I can't say, as I haven't had a chance to ask him...

 

[littledog]

nobody know this answer?.... is this a common procedure to do the fades at mastering?

There are advantages to working both ways. The mastering engineer actually has higher quality tools for fading, in most cases. But often the artist wants to get the fade exactly a certain way before it gets to the mastering engineer. A compromise might be to create a fade on a pre-mastered mix CD, but send a mix to the mastering house without the fade and let the mastering engineer try to match the intended fade by listening to the reference CD.

Occasionally, the fades are more complex, where some instruments are fading out before others. That, of course, would have to be done at the mixing stage.