Not trying to be insulting, but your post #132 isn’t revealing any earth-shattering info…or asking anything very complicated.
That's not insulting at all, miro. That's what I've been trying to say all along. I just don't get why people seem to think that I'm trying to promote some new-age flim-flam or something. This is simple shit...or at least it should be.
If this thread is all about how an inexperience newbie should proceed…then fine
No, no no, you're still missing the point. This as about a systemic approach that makes it easier for EVERYBODY, not *just* the newb.
Ever hear the phrase, "the best mixes are usually the ones that mix themselves"? Virtually all the top engineers in this racket claim the day they had that epiphany as the day they shifted gears on the quality of their work. Now, nobody should take the phrase "mix themselves" that literally, and I surely don't want to be misunderstood as construing that one should track so incredibly specifically as to create self-mixing tracks. But tell me, which tracks are closer to ones that mix themselves, ones that all peak at 0dBFS or ones that leave some room for summing?
Whats the point of cranking the tracking if you're just going to have to turn it down again when mixing, as easy as that may seem to be to do? Doesn't it just make much more sense to keep it at an even keel all the way through the process? In that way the "sweet range" on the analog side does correspond to a "sweet range" on the digital side as well. Less worries, less things to manage, results that require less signal control to achieve and the levels just kind of work themselves out. It's simple, easy and (care I say) organic.
But that doesn’t answer the broader question of why HOT BUT GOOD analog levels should ever be adjusted/turned down if the converter is not clipping…???
I think it was you who asked the question yourself earlier, miro; how did those levels get so hot to begin with? There's no really good reason that I can think of or that anyone else has offered why the levels need to be that hot going into the converter to begin with.
And again, I reiterate: what's the point of sending the levels that high to the converter to begin with, when you know your just going to have to turn them down when it comes time to mix? Isn't it easier to just nip that potential situation in the bud at each track at tracking time than it is to give yourself a mixing project of ten or twenty or more hot tracks that you know you'll just have to turn down at mixing time anyway? It's not unlike letting garbage pile up into a ten foot pile that you have to clean up instead of the much easier task of just throwing away each little piece when you come acoss it.
And yes, this does all make things much "safer" and easier for the newb. It also helps him/her understand the whole confusing mess as one simple integrated signal path. But that's not all. For the pro working a $180/hr room, every little 10 minutes saved is a savings of $30. Over the course of a 10 album CD, that's a good $300 saved. Maybe chump change for Madonna, but for people like you and me that's a lot of bread.
if they are all on the same “hot side”…there no adjustment needed
until you start summing them together and the 2mix starts clipping all over the place. And no, as someone suggested before, just throttling the master bus is not always the solution. Depending upon the mixing desk or DAW, clipping in the mix will not always be alleviated by pulling the master bus down.
that implies that hot levels always = turds…and THAT is certainly NOT the case.
I never said always. But the chances are greater that hot levels will yield more stank at the end for the simple reason that they require more attention and management; i.e. they give a greater chance that an easy oversight or mistake on the part of the operator will be negatively audible than levels that are pre-tamed.
And as far as final mix levels, just ask any mastering engineer here what they would rather receive, an unnecessarily hot mix or a properly mixed on with more "natural" (for lakc of a better word) levels as giving them a better chance for making a better master.
It's a whole bunch of little stuff here and there, but it all adds up right, and adds up to a sum that does make a difference. And since it all involves a very simple and basic way of viewing the entire signal chain that works for all scales of studio size and everyone from the newb to the pro, how can one possibly go wrong with it?
Note that I NEVER said that this is the only way that one can look at it and do it. Just that it is an easy and valid way that, when you understand it, makes a lot of sense and helps both solve and avoid a lot of problems that one might otherwise have. It works. And it works well.
And GOD I am tired of talking about it.
G.
