question about tracking too hot......

[Zeppe]

Drew-

I think you argue with me for the sake of arguing.

My points is,
Recording to low and compensating later is like turning your guitar amp up to compensate for the guitar volume knob being low. I agree with the benefits of not maxing out your system but not at the expense of getting good solid sounds.

 

[Farview]

…not to mention that whatever analog front-end you are using is probably struggling to give you that much level without creating its own distortion.
But most decent analog gear should allow you a bit more than *-18dBFS* without shitting the bed…and I certainly don’t see that -18dBFS is some line you should avoid crossing when going in (though no one really said that specifically) or as the *correct* average level to use.

A lot of this gets simplified down to the point of uselessness. -18dbfs was never supposed to be a peak level, it was supposed to be an average level analagous to 0dbVU. -18dbfs is only accurate if your converters happen to be calibrated to line level = -18dbfs. My Motu interfaces are calibrated to -15dbfs, so that's what I tend to do when using preamps without an analog meter.

-18dbfs, just took off as the defacto standard in these discussions mainly because it is a safe bet and probably no more than 3db off from what ever your converters are actually calibrated to.

You dumping tape to digital means that you don't have to really deal with worrying about digital levels very much because you would be hard pressed to be pushing +18dbVU onto your tape. So the signal coming off would have a hard time reaching 0dbFS...

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Recording to low and compensating later is like turning your guitar amp up to compensate for the guitar volume knob being low.

What most home guys don't know is that tracking at -18 generally is not too low and does not have to be compensated for later.

Turn your monitors up. -18 is plenty loud.


If it is a question of a -18 guitar not coming through a mix... Well then everything else in that mix was tracked too hot. By that time might as well track the guitar hot as well I guess.

But volume is all relative. -18 is only quiet if everything else in the song is -2.

 

[miroslav]

-18dbfs, just took off as the defacto standard in these discussions mainly because it is a safe bet and probably no more than 3db off from what ever your converters are actually calibrated to.

You dumping tape to digital means that you don't have to really deal with worrying about digital levels very much because you would be hard pressed to be pushing +18dbVU onto your tape. So the signal coming off would have a hard time reaching 0dbFS...

Yeah...that's what I was saying about my SOP.

My point was that there's no need to really get too hung up about -18dBFS.
You are still OK hitting higher if your front-end is handling it well.

What most home guys don't know is that tracking at -18 generally is not too low and does not have to be compensated for later.

Turn your monitors up. -18 is plenty loud.

True...it's plenty loud and yeah, just turn up your monitors...BUT...I think the target most guys end up aiming for is the final CD level....and if you leave stuff in that -18 dBFS range...your CDs will not be competitively loud.

Mind you...I'm not into the whole loudness crap...but again, try telling people to put out a low-level CD when their peers are churning out shit that is SMASHING LOUD!!!

So I think THAT is where all the concern stems from...and then the questions about levels get kicked up. Most young guys have no clue about gain staging or the need for it...they just think about LOUD end-results.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

True...it's plenty loud and yeah, just turn up your monitors...BUT...I think the target most guys end up aiming for is the final CD level....and if you leave stuff in that -18 dBFS range...your CDs will not be competitively loud.

???
Tracking volume has zero to do with the final limited/mastered level. Sounds like another misconception to iron out.






And don't even get me started on "competitively loud". There isn't even a competition in the first place!
Seriously, stand at the checkout counter at any record store and ask customers why they just bought the CD they did. Ask them to list as many reasons as they can possibly think of. Let me know when a single one of them says "because it was mastered hot" or any variation thereof. Anything along the lines of "I specifically bought this CD because it comes on a bit louder than everything else in my collection. Yup. That is really a reason I went out of my way to seek this CD and buy it".


And like I said, it doesn't matter anyway because you can track at -20 and still end up with an album that out-louds the latest Metallica.

 

[miroslav]

???
Tracking volume has zero to do with the final limited/mastered level. Sounds like another misconception to iron out.

?????

Summing lower levels will yield a lower total level than summing higher levels...won't it?
Granted…you can just raise your fader to get there in the DAW and it’s the same shit….but going back to the old-school analog way of thinking…higher individual track level = higher final level.

There’s no misconception about that.

That has nothing to do with the limiter you slap on the master bus to raise your levels...assuming you are even going to do that.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

?????

Summing lower levels will yield a lower total level than summing higher levels...won't it?
Granted…you can just raise your fader to get there in the DAW

Exactly. So tracking levels have zero to do with final mastered CD level.

 

[Farview]

The final volume comes at the mastering stage. If your mastering engineer is using analog gear, he will end up turning down a loud mix to get it to hit the outboard gear at the right level. The level will be turned up later in the signal chain. The tracking level or mix level has very little to do with the level after mastering unless the mix is clipped and smashed on its own. Then the mastering engineer won't be able to do anything with it.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Drew-

I think you argue with me for the sake of arguing.

My points is,
Recording to low and compensating later is like turning your guitar amp up to compensate for the guitar volume knob being low. I agree with the benefits of not maxing out your system but not at the expense of getting good solid sounds.

Nothing personal, man - I argue with anyone for the sake of learning, not arguing. Kicking ideas back and forth is a great way to solidify but also find and correct weaknesses in your own thinking.

See, "too" is the pivotal word there. What's too low? I'm tracking lower than I used to, and the result is that I find I have to do way less cutting while mixing than I did before to stop from clipping at the master bus, and that when all's said and done I rarely have to boost a track or two much, either, to get up to about the level a mastering engineer would want a wave to come in at. I still have plenty of headroom, and my signal-to-noise ratio is still good. So is that too low, or just right? I could track hotter, but considering all the headroom I have at my disposal, I'm so far above the theoretical noise floor, that why bother, if I'd just have to turn everything down again?

 

[miroslav]

Exactly. So tracking levels have zero to do with final mastered CD level.

YES THEY DO.

We're not all exclusively working in the DAW...and we all HAVE TO begin with an analog front end, and for those peole who use analog throughout, it's even more relative.

I guess you are only looking at the level AFTER it's in a DAW and ONLY when it's in a DAW.

 

[Zeppe]

Nothing personal, man - I argue with anyone for the sake of learning, not arguing. Kicking ideas back and forth is a great way to solidify but also find and correct weaknesses in your own thinking.

What's too low? I'm tracking lower than I used to, and the result is that I find I have to do way less cutting while mixing than I did before to stop from clipping at the master bus, and that when all's said and done I rarely have to boost a track or two much, either, to get up to about the level a mastering engineer would want a wave to come in at. I still have plenty of headroom, and my signal-to-noise ratio is still good. So is that too low, or just right? I could track hotter, but considering all the headroom I have at my disposal, I'm so far above the theoretical noise floor, that why bother, if I'd just have to turn everything down again?

Too low is when your cranking up your fader way past unity or heavliy processing a signal to get the gain you could have got with proper gain staging. I don't think -18 or -15 is to low, but its not what you should shoot for. You should shoot for what sounds right regardless of what mathematical value is applied.

I think that you have a pretty good handle on it. You must be tracking 'just right' if your getting the results your describing.

My concern was for people like the OP who misunderstood the article.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

and for those peole who use analog throughout, it's even more relative.

This whole discussion is about tracking and mixing digitally.



And no. When you are tracking 24 bit and mastering to 16 bit, as we are discussing here, tracking levels have nothing to do with final product levels. All of that extra headroom in 24 bit means you will loose zero in the final volume raise before the 16 bit conversion.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

See, "too" is the pivotal word there.

Exactly.

Christ, why is so much always one extreme or the other in this forum. Either you track too hot or too cold, noise is everything or noise doesn't exist, EQ has to be either all boost or all cut, yadayadayada.

Gain staging and gain structure is all about selecting levels at each stage in the chain that for each stage, whether it be preamp output or converter input or anything else in-between or beyond, find the sweet-spot level that keeps noise level low and maximizes signal-to-noise without introducing unwanted overdrive distortion from that particular link in the chain.

The exception is when wants specifically desires a particular distortion or noise (not uncommon for experienced gain jockeys), and then dials that particular device to maximize the desired effect while bets minimizing extra unwanted noise.

Sometimes it's as mundane as just knowing when to throttle the output gain on link 3 instead of the input gain on link 4, sometimes it's more complicated than that, but it all requires learning the "personality" and performance character of each piece of gear at each stage.

When it comes to recording to digital levels, it's all about what the converter is designed to expect in the way of analog levels. That's there the 0VU averaging comes into play (note it's averaging, not necessarily peaking) and why the 0VU to __dBFS conversion factor is important.

G.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I think that you have a pretty good handle on it. You must be tracking 'just right' if your getting the results your describing.

That or I'm just too much of an idiot to not notice what's wrong - thank you, but don't be TOO kind.

I've definitely erred on the "too quiet" side before - I don't normally do vocals, but I was recording a vocalist friend of mine with a gorgeous voice, and I think the problem was just that the source sound was so quiet. I had to jack the shit out of the preamp gain even with a fairly hot condenser just to even get up to around -20db, and when I did so I found myself picking up as much rustling around and room noise as vocal (I mean, I'm exaggerating, but...).

I can't say I've ever had that problem with an electric guitar.

 

[Tim Gillett]

Even though you sort of touched on it, the big question would be "What noise?"

The noise (and usually fluctuating SNR) from tracking too hot is much more significant than the non-existent noise at the bottom.

And to simply clarify to the thread - I'm not talking about "low" levels - I'm talking about normal levels. This is how the gear is designed. This is how the system works.

What noise? The noise from the converter, as I said. No converter is 24 bit quiet - or even close - and probably never will be due to the laws of physics. Many if not most consumer level converters have noise levels much closer to 16 bit than the theoretical 24 bit. So THAT noise. It's not non existent. At 24 bit tracking it IS the noise you are dealing with at the bottom end, even before you have connected anything to the converter's input.

Once again, the best regime for maximum headroom is to make sure your preceding analog stages' own self noise just masks this converter noise and no more. That is the proper engineering/ gain staging method. And as a rule it will probably result in tracking levels lower than even you track at!

And thanks Ethan Winer for the supporting clarification about overloading the mastering output. Good to hear someone talking from actual experience.

 

[miroslav]

This whole discussion is about tracking and mixing digitally.

Not really...your front end is always analog.

Besides...I already said what you're now point out... awhile ago:

Granted…you can just raise your fader to get there in the DAW and it’s the same shit….but going back to the old-school analog way of thinking…higher individual track level = higher final level.

I was simply going with Glen's perspective that we were talking about everything (analog and digital) rather than isolated cases.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

This whole discussion is about tracking and mixing digitally.

Just to continue on what miro said, when one tracks "digitally", the only digital part of the tracking is whatever you have downstream from the converter - usually just the driver software for the interface and the DAW recorder itself. Before that you have the microphone, the preamp, and the analog (A) side of the A/D converter, not counting any extra EQ, compression or de-essing you may have inserted in the analog side of the signal chain. One can not - or at least should not - consider digital tracking levels without first considering the analog levels, because they are all interlinked as one signal chain. The analog gain levels literally determine the digital level coming in; the digital side should not independent of that.

This seems to be a very difficult concept for many people to grasp. The easiest way I know of explaining it, but it doesn't seem to get through to many people, is to look at the calibration in the A/D converter as the signpost to follow. If it's set to 0VU=18dBFS (just as one example), then treat -18dBFS on the digital side as if it were 0VU analog. IOW, following that same example, if that is the calibration level, then if you're signal is peaking to +4dBVU on the analog side, then you're just like downtown if you record on the digital side peaking somewhere around -14dBFS.

G.

 

[Massive Master]

What noise? The noise from the converter, as I said. No converter is 24 bit quiet - or even close - and probably never will be due to the laws of physics. Many if not most consumer level converters have noise levels much closer to 16 bit than the theoretical 24 bit. So THAT noise. It's not non existent. At 24 bit tracking it IS the noise you are dealing with at the bottom end, even before you have connected anything to the converter's input.

Once again, the best regime for maximum headroom is to make sure your preceding analog stages' own self noise just masks this converter noise and no more. That is the proper engineering/ gain staging method. And as a rule it will probably result in tracking levels lower than even you track at!

My converters sit at around -110dBFS with the chain connected and individual units bypassed. The converters aren't making noise. The analog gear is making noise. The "noise" of the converters is insignificant at the very worst.

ANYWAY - Let me dumb this down to the dummest-downiest that I can because for some reason, some people aren't even grasping the basic concept here: It's not even apples and oranges anymore. It's apples and things that don't even resemble fruit. Like hubcaps or something.

THIS WILL REQUIRE SOME AMOUNT OF GUITAR AMPLIFIER EXPERIENCE.

A typical Marshall stack. Everything on - pick a number - 7. Except the preamp gain (which is on ZERO at the moment). The noise you hear is the power amp. Let's say for the sake of argument that it's sitting at 50dBSPL at one meter.

Turn the preamp up to TWO - The ambient noise level is now at maybe 52 or 53dBSPL. The guitar sounds open, clear, focused, undistorted, sparkly - Pick an adjective. Play it soft, it's clean and clear. Whack the hell out of it, it's still clean and clear - Dynamics for days. A clean signal going through the preamp without fear of it distorting. It's called headroom. Note that the ambient noise barely rises (if it would even rise the 2 or 3dB that I figured as an example).

Now turn the preamp up to SEVEN - The guitar sounds "tightened" and "crunchy" without the clarity and focus, without the open dynamics. Play it really, really softly, and it might still have a little "sparkle" to it. Whack it hard and it's edgy, distorted, bordering on fuzzy - and the ambient noise is now 70-75dBSPL.

GRANTED - WITH A GUITAR, this might be exactly what you're looking for. With the microphone trying to capture the sound of the amp (or anything else), it's not. GRANTED - this is a relatively 'harsh' example, as guitar amps are actually designed in many cases to distort 'on demand' for creative reasons.

The distortion increased when the preamp gain went up. The NOISE increases (dramatically) when the PREAMP gain goes up. The sound loses clarity and dynamics as the preamp gain goes up.

The AMPLIFIER (for the sake of argument, whatever the next item in the chain may be) is still on "seven" and is making the exact same amount of noise it was before. It's no noisier - The SNR is exactly the same. It's the SIGNAL BEFORE IT - the PREAMP and what's in front of it that's making the difference.

I hope I'm making myself clear (and focused and dynamic) on this...

 

[Tim Gillett]

John,
the original poster asked what would be the difference between tracking at -12 and then adding 10 gain digitally, and tracking at -2. I replied with the correct audio engineering answer that the first example would add 10 db of converter noise, but that quite possibly since the converter noise was still so low it might be inaudible anyway.

You now reply with a post whose every word I agree with. Are we still speaking to the OP's question or are we onto something else. If the latter can you tell me what that extra something else is? Yours is a perfect answer but to which question?

 

[Massive Master]

Oh God, I don't even know anymore...

My point on the OP's question (assuming it's the same as what you just posted) would be that if his front end's self noise is (for the sake of argument) -70 while tracking at -12dBFS, you can bet that it'll be -60 (or higher) at -2dBFS (plus distortion, minus clarity, etc.).

In any case - I'd rather "need to" add 20dB of digital gain than have to reduce it 2dB.

I think it was Ronan - and I think it was in this thread - who makes the same case -- I've had dozens - DOZENS of projects wrecked from the word "go" because of tracking too hot (I'm working on one at his very moment). I've never - NEVER had one come in that seemed compromised in any way by tracking "too quietly."

On a personal side-note, one of the coolest sounding recordings I've ever made peaked at maybe -30dBFS and didn't have one individual track that peaked above -40dBFS. That wasn't by design - That was a "one-shot / take your best guess because you have no second chance to hit RECORD again" recording. There was no noticable 'noise' on it, there were no artifacts of 'not getting enough gain' etc., etc. No doubt - If I'd have had the time, everything would've been peaking at more typical levels (somewhere between -20 and -15dBFS is where I like to be peaking). But it wasn't in the cards and I couldn't change a thing after the recording started.

But I wasn't worried about it either... Not for a second.