Blue Bear Sound
New member
Dru.... Tex is right - that's compression, NOT normalizing.
T
The Garage
New member
wait a sec. say i record a drum kit and everything sounds good except the snare and overheads are -5 db at the highest peak. if i normalize, that will boost everything 5dbs right? which would be the same as pushing the fader up 5 dbs.....? i've found normalize most effective because it tells me that at the fader's default setting, the signal will not clip. so i can bring the fader down, but not above the 0 db setting, unless i use compression/limiting, whatever. tell me if my reasoning is wrong.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
It's not quite so simple....
While you're description is correct in that single instance, you still have a finite level of headroom available (whether digital or analog) on your mixdown buss.
In digital mixing it's a finite number of bits in which you can merge/sum digital data, and in the analog world, there's the db limit of signal strength you have to work with.
If you normalize all your tracks so that they ALL peak at 0 dbFS, then you could potentially run out-of-steam at mixdown time by having to blend on these hot signals together. Of course, the more tracks you have, the worse the situation can be.
No problem, you say, you'll just cut down the fader level.... yeah - EXCEPT - faders are linear in terms of frequency response only at a certain range of operating level (typically around the 0db mark) -- you drop the faders too low and you lose linearity, too high (if accommodating a low signal) and you can eat away at headroom and lose linearity.
So... this means you are far better recording your tracks at reasonable levels RELATIVE TO THE CONTEXT OF THE OTHER TRACKS, than blindly normalizing everything to it's peak.
And of course, you have to balance THAT consideration with making optimal use of your word size while recording!
...and you all thought recording was straight-forward, eh?!!!!
Bruce
While you're description is correct in that single instance, you still have a finite level of headroom available (whether digital or analog) on your mixdown buss.
In digital mixing it's a finite number of bits in which you can merge/sum digital data, and in the analog world, there's the db limit of signal strength you have to work with.
If you normalize all your tracks so that they ALL peak at 0 dbFS, then you could potentially run out-of-steam at mixdown time by having to blend on these hot signals together. Of course, the more tracks you have, the worse the situation can be.
No problem, you say, you'll just cut down the fader level.... yeah - EXCEPT - faders are linear in terms of frequency response only at a certain range of operating level (typically around the 0db mark) -- you drop the faders too low and you lose linearity, too high (if accommodating a low signal) and you can eat away at headroom and lose linearity.
So... this means you are far better recording your tracks at reasonable levels RELATIVE TO THE CONTEXT OF THE OTHER TRACKS, than blindly normalizing everything to it's peak.
And of course, you have to balance THAT consideration with making optimal use of your word size while recording!
...and you all thought recording was straight-forward, eh?!!!!
Bruce
Downside Studio
New member
Bruce, you tell them! 
T
The Garage
New member
i don't think i'm following ya. i'm sure your explanation makes sense, but i'm still having trouble understanding why any of this would be a problem for me. lemme explain to you how i've been mixing and you tell me if there is a better way. i record the instruments as hot as i can. then i normalize all my tracks so that i know that at the faders' default setting, the signal will be 0db at its loudest peak. i then bring down all the faders. i begin to mix, bringing the faders of those instruments i want the loudest towards the 0 db mark and everything else falling underneath. of course this all changes when i add compressors/limiters/eq, etc. but it helps give me an idea of how much headroom i have. in other words, i use it as an indicator rather than a tool to change my sound.
so i guess my first question would be -- does my logic make sense (not whether or not you agree)? i just wanna know if you follow my reasoning. and secondly and more importantly, why (if at all) is this faulty logic? thanks so much.
-teddy
so i guess my first question would be -- does my logic make sense (not whether or not you agree)? i just wanna know if you follow my reasoning. and secondly and more importantly, why (if at all) is this faulty logic? thanks so much.
-teddy
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, the problem I see is the one where the linearity of the fader may be in question... not to mention that you say you make all tracks peak at 0....
The problem is in real life, a flute is NOT as loud as a snare, so you're throwing natural balances out the window by bring the flute track UP to peak at 0dbFS.
Now for digital mixing, fader linearity translates into bit-usage much like it does for recording, so again the optimum range of use for digital faders is the region centered around the 0 mark.
Re-read the last couple of lines from my last post again -- they seem to cover what I'm getting at -- to be honest, I really don't know how to describe this any differently!
Bruce
The problem is in real life, a flute is NOT as loud as a snare, so you're throwing natural balances out the window by bring the flute track UP to peak at 0dbFS.
Now for digital mixing, fader linearity translates into bit-usage much like it does for recording, so again the optimum range of use for digital faders is the region centered around the 0 mark.
Re-read the last couple of lines from my last post again -- they seem to cover what I'm getting at -- to be honest, I really don't know how to describe this any differently!
Bruce
A
atomictoyz
New member
Blue Bear Sound said:
ooohhhh, does this mean truncation during a "bit sum" on the master buss? I think I read this somewhere else on the bbs, Shailat ,Sonuman and Bruce I think touched on the summing issue...but I can't remember if digital mixers were covered! Dab nabbit Im getting grey hair everywhere
Peace,
Dennis
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
RecTech- The bottom line here is that with a 24bit system you can safely record at -10db with very little ill effects. By normalizing and then cutting the fader levels you are adding 2 levels of DSP that depending on your hardware/software could and probably is compromising the quality of your tracks too a much worse degree than leaving them at the original lower levels. You are actually compounding any quality lost due to the original lower levels.
Just keep your wav files at their original levels and do the mix. If you just cant get a track loud enough THAN you can use normalizing as a tool to bring up the level.
Think of it as a tool for when you need it. Not standard operating procedure.
Just keep your wav files at their original levels and do the mix. If you just cant get a track loud enough THAN you can use normalizing as a tool to bring up the level.
Think of it as a tool for when you need it. Not standard operating procedure.
T
The Garage
New member
i think i follow ya. thanks.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Yes...atomictoyz said:
Yes...
Bruce
N
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
Blue Bear Sound said:
I was recording a singer once who spilt some beer on my wife's new rug and she smacked him upside the head with the flute and I swear it was as loud as a snare!
I'm thinking that using compression has the same effect on the natural balances of instruments. Would you share some tips on how to keep these balances in line?
Does compressing groups of tracks together add or detract from this problem?
Are there certain groups that compress well together?
How do you judge the trade off in using compression to get your signal hotter vs. throwing off the balances?
Do you ever use the musicians to judge the volumes in the mixes for artistic value or is the engineer the better artist in judging this balancing act? Geez, I'm thinking you could write a book on this, hehe.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Yeah.... that MIGHT do it!NYMorningstar said:
I don't think to the same degree, unless you really overdo it. What I'm really talking about is tracking for natural balances as opposed to tracking to make sure everything is peaking at 0dbFS... it's more of a work methodology than a rule or even a guideline. And I don't even follow it all the time - it varys based on the song -- if it's a real upbeat type of song, I tend to track everything slightly hotter -- if it's a more ambient type of track with lots of air in the arrangement, I won't worry about peak levels so much. For me, I just find it makes it easier to mix depending on the song.
I never use compression that way, except on rhythm beds (bass/drums) to get a punchier feel -- that's more of an effect though.
Yup, bass and drums, for "punch" -- according to Bobby Owsinski (Mixing Engineer's Handbook) - it's characteristic of New York-style mixes.
I never worry about using compression to track "hotter" -- I generally only use it minimally during tracking, if at all!
The easiest way to go for natural balance is recording a group in one shot instead of multiple overdubs... you then get them to sound right acoustically, then it becomes a matter of isolation and mic placement -- but the natural balances get built right in.
Actually - you should read sonusman's "tips about mixing" post - it IS essentially a book and he packed a lot of great info in that post!
Bruce