Ford Van said:
1 - Some analog gear, not all. This does NOT take into account that there are many times that running the preamp hot produces a desired sound.
That's very true. I thought I alluded to that when I said " ... get that pleasing analog distortion you like". Running most cheap preamps to +5 is running it hot. Not many cheap (budget) pres will sound good (some will perhaps) at +12 or +15 while a $2000 Class A Tube pre may sound great at at those levels and in fact be designed to tolerate those levels.
We agree. We're on the same page. Most noobs (see thread title) don't use $2000 preamps.
2 - They do not need it! This is erroneous information.
That didn't last long.
Okay. Instead of saying "I disagree with that, can you give me an example of why you think that is true?" you say "erroneous". I'll be polite and give you a *possible* example of needing plugin headroom.
You record a track that peaks at minus -2 and you want to (for example) use eq boosts of +4 and +3 or more on two different frequencies. If your eq plug has an input gain control you turn it down, fine. If it doesn't you *could* get intermittent clipping.
Sure, you can work around that too by turning the track/ segments down with a volume handle or whatever. Absolutely. That still doesn't make it "erroneous information". It *can* happen. I would suggest with noobs (you know, the people the thread was directed to?) it *does* happen... more than you as a professional might realize.
Factor into that all of the many freeware Windows plugs available and being used (and what they may or may not do under the surface, heck are you sure they're all 24-bit / 32-bit float? You sure?) and a generous amount of headroom for insert plugs is a safe bet.
Of course *you* don't require this safety valve as your trained ears and great speakers can hear when something is wrong. But someone else may not, can you at least agree with that? Or is that "erroneous"?
Are you suggesting that no plugin on the market (commercial or free) can be internally clipped without someone (noob? or me) knowing? I'd sure like to see proof of that. That's gonna take testing a lot of plugins in a lot of different formats.
Moral: One less thing to worry about and it doesn't cost you anything.
3 - If you had an analog mixer, you would have a "Gain" control on the Tape Return of the channel so that you can bring the fader to Unity on tracks that were recorded very hot. This was VERY important in the analog world considering that many tape machines were calibrated to ABOVE +4 reference standards! Most every DAW software have a "Gain", or some kind of "pre-fader" volume control so that you can do that same thing. So, basically, this is a non-issue.
In Cubase they're volume handles. You can raise or lower the pre-fader gain by lowering the volume there. Why bother? Record lower, one less thing to do. The entire point was that hotter isn't "better sounding" as is the misconception and for some other reasons that *I believe in* it can be detrimental. Especially to the inexperienced.
4 - I usually don't! I used to do a LOT of live recordings, and used higher than you suggested tracking levels. Let me give you a hint, you can pick -6, -12, -18 as your "highest" point. It doesn't mean squat if the drummer is tip-tapping his snare drum most of the night then decides to BLAST a hit! What are you going to do about that?
Nobody can predict a wild unexpected transient that jumps 18db in gain. It distorted 20 years ago in tape and it will today in your daw. What's your point? Patch limiters across all the tracks and record up to -1?
5 - No, it won't, and neither will tracking hotter.
Here we agree to disagree as many professionals who use daws feel that the more moderate track and master levels make for a better more open final mix. Many disagree on the reasons why, but few have disagree that it is in fact not true that leaving a good amount of digital headroom helped for whatever reason.
Some claim some daws mix bus will start to break up a bit up near full scale. I haven't heard that in Cubase directly (or looked for it) but for whatever reason since I started leaving some headroom in the mix bus I've noticed a difference in mix quality.
6 - Well technically, you lost 1 bit!
True but in practice it's irrelevant and inaudible. The S/N of any analog signals you input will be far smaller than your final working dynamic range. When I say "you don't lose any bits" I mean " the argument among those who don't know think that the closer you get to zero the more accurate the capture of the signal is". That is simply not true in any reasonable range. It's only louder, not "better" or "more true to the source"... again within a reasonable operating range.
Nobody ever gets the full 24-bits anyway unless you strap limiters on everything and track up to -0.1... I think most of our tracks are using an effective 20-21-22 bits? Not sure but certainly not 24.
At least not until you slam the master bus up to .01 with an L2
7 - This actually may not be true depending upon a few things. I am FAR more concerned with the average volume of the track, or the RMS level, than I am with the Peak level. No, I don't want digital overs, but I also don't want a really low RMS level on the tracking either.
Again we disagree. See... nobody gets hurt.
Your final mix RMS level will be determined by the choices you made during the mix and of course by the overall level of the mix.. i.e. the master fader. It's really OK to push it up or pull it down a little which is why I don't freak out if my mix peaks out at -8, I push the master fader up a few db before printing. No big deal.
Many people will use compression (for instance) on groups and tracks (drums & bass or whatever) which can certainly raise the overall RMS level of the mix. My only concerns during mixing are...
1. That the mix sounds good... and...
2. That I leave the mastering engineer some headroom to work.
Frankly I don't care much about mix RMS levels. I only care that it sounds good, if you know what "good" sounds like a lot of that stuff takes care of itself.
#2 is why I target a mix to -5, although it usually ends up a litte over that. I don't participate in the mixing loudness wars. I don't even mix with loudness in mind - unless - it's a demo that I know won't go to mastering and then I will try to make it loud so it won't stand out so much among commercial music. I'll push the master fader up to get a -2 peak then I patch in an L2 and get it louder before printing.
It sounds fine.
I'm new here... and offering my opinions. I don't know you but you seem to be attacking my opinions in a very strong way (stomping your foot at me - ! ) with all of the exclamation points as if I'm just throwing stuff out here that I made up or invented. "Erroneous information" etc...
If you said something I disagree with (which you did a few times in your Mixing Secrets thread) I'd give you the benefit of the doubt of your experience (which I did by not speaking publicly on it). If I disagreed strongly with something (which I did) and wanted to find out your reasons for saying it (which I didn't) I'd politely ask you to explain rather than accuse you of giving out "erroneous information". I'm open minded like that...
For some reason you don't seem to want to give me the same curteosy. Why is that?
I'm going back to lurking for a while now.
