recording hot

[ofajen]

It would help if they actually put VU meters on the gear. Everything has PPMs. The last product I bought with VUs was my Tascam 244. Unfortunately I didn't realize they were revelent at the time.

I started doing some of my recording work in a DAW within the last year or so. Prior to that, it was all wide-track analog tracking and mixing, with VU meters on every channel. I'll get back to that point below.

First, I think there are some key points here that folks who haven't worked with tape tend not to intuitively understand when they start recording in the digital realm. Never one to be afraid to beat a dead horse, let me say a couple of things that John's and Glen's smart and subtle posts didn't beat people over the head with quite hard enough:

1) Instantantaneous peaks have basically nothing to do with perceived loudness. (Read this one out loud at least 10 times, until you actually get the point.)

2) The only reason we care about peaks in digital recording is because digital is fully capable of giving them back, but you must not allow the peaks to exceed 0 dBFS if you want a clean, accurate sound with headroom and full dynamics. We don't care about peaks because they tell us anything about loudness, because they don't.

3) Analog gear uses the concept of a reference level, and, at least in America, that is based upon measurements of some kind of average or RMS level. That kind of measurement does relate to perceived loudness.

4) The same concept should be used with digital gear. A reference level should be used and some sort of averaged measurement of loudness should be referenced a "safe" distance below 0 dBFS. -24 dBFS is definitely safe.

I happen to use -20 dBFS as a reference level (I might be better off at -24). I also happen to use a pair of Modutec VU meters (the kind used in the 3M M-79 series, which is why I had two spares) hanging off my recorder outputs, when no 2-track analog deck is patched in (with its own VU meters to do the job). The stand alone meters are driven by a balanced distribution amp and calibrated so that a -20 dBFS tone from the soundcard gives me my reference deflection on the VU meters.

Those VU meters are a very quick and easy guide to setting levels when tracking and when mixing on the DAW. The key deficiency of the aging VU standard is that the VU frequency response is flat, which means they overreport the apparent loudness of low-end components, since our hearing, even in the flattest part, the 80+ dB SPL range where I calibrate my monitor gain, has about a 10 dB sensitivity fall off below 200 Hz or so. That can be corrected with an EQ in front of the VU, though of course, it will no longer be a standard VU. The beauty of using the calibrated monitor system is that you develop an intuitive sense of the proper loudness of things, and if your bass is reasonably under control in your monitors, you can rely on your ears to assess the bass in the mix.

Don't worry, I don't delude myself that this post will really get the point across any better than the previous posts, but it has been therapeutic for me.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[ofajen]

1) Instantantaneous peaks have basically nothing to do with perceived loudness.

Now there's a cool typo. I think I meant "instantaneous".

Cheers,

Otto

 

[MadAudio]

Don't you just love threads that offer a wealth of information and discussion but where the OP never shows up again?

 

[firby]

And whoever said it is probably wrong.

Word. Thank you smart guy.

Seriously.

 

[firby]

That's the thing - I *did* read the post.

I'll give you that. I don't think I've seen a recording tracked "too conservatively" in around 10 years, but it can happen.

Absolutely. And that happy medium is, and has always been, somewhere short of 0dBVU.

That is absolutely, totally, wholeheartedly untrue. It's completely false, and there is no possible way to argue it otherwise. It's non-factual and just plain wrong. Unless I misunderstood your statement...

If you're using 16-bit converters from 1990 and you were shooting for peaks at -6dBFS, I'd say you're right. Otherwise, I'd say you're probably overdriving your input chain.

Spoken like a true mastering engineer and a true freakin hero as far as I am concerned. Go Massive GO !

 

[iqi616]

I started doing some of my recording work in a DAW within the last year or so. Prior to that, it was all wide-track analog tracking and mixing, with VU meters on every channel. I'll get back to that point below.

First, I think there are some key points here that folks who haven't worked with tape tend not to intuitively understand when they start recording in the digital realm. Never one to be afraid to beat a dead horse, let me say a couple of things that John's and Glen's smart and subtle posts didn't beat people over the head with quite hard enough:

1) Instantantaneous peaks have basically nothing to do with perceived loudness. (Read this one out loud at least 10 times, until you actually get the point.)

2) The only reason we care about peaks in digital recording is because digital is fully capable of giving them back, but you must not allow the peaks to exceed 0 dBFS if you want a clean, accurate sound with headroom and full dynamics. We don't care about peaks because they tell us anything about loudness, because they don't.

3) Analog gear uses the concept of a reference level, and, at least in America, that is based upon measurements of some kind of average or RMS level. That kind of measurement does relate to perceived loudness.

4) The same concept should be used with digital gear. A reference level should be used and some sort of averaged measurement of loudness should be referenced a "safe" distance below 0 dBFS. -24 dBFS is definitely safe.

I happen to use -20 dBFS as a reference level (I might be better off at -24). I also happen to use a pair of Modutec VU meters (the kind used in the 3M M-79 series, which is why I had two spares) hanging off my recorder outputs, when no 2-track analog deck is patched in (with its own VU meters to do the job). The stand alone meters are driven by a balanced distribution amp and calibrated so that a -20 dBFS tone from the soundcard gives me my reference deflection on the VU meters.

Those VU meters are a very quick and easy guide to setting levels when tracking and when mixing on the DAW. The key deficiency of the aging VU standard is that the VU frequency response is flat, which means they overreport the apparent loudness of low-end components, since our hearing, even in the flattest part, the 80+ dB SPL range where I calibrate my monitor gain, has about a 10 dB sensitivity fall off below 200 Hz or so. That can be corrected with an EQ in front of the VU, though of course, it will no longer be a standard VU. The beauty of using the calibrated monitor system is that you develop an intuitive sense of the proper loudness of things, and if your bass is reasonably under control in your monitors, you can rely on your ears to assess the bass in the mix.

Don't worry, I don't delude myself that this post will really get the point across any better than the previous posts, but it has been therapeutic for me.

Cheers,

Otto

I've been using the calibrated monitor system for 2 years now. It was a revelation. I've almost never needed meters since - I set levels by ear and just do a quick visual check. The "average" levels I get are usually just above -24 dB. Average being the place where the meters hover between peaks and dips.

I have a question for you. For a laugh I connected my Tascam 244 and used the trims to calibrate the VUs to 0 using the digido.com pink noise file. So, when I use the meters to set a level, should the needle be tending to swing around 0 VU - say between -3 and +3 - or should it be tending to swing "up to" 0 VU - say between -6 and 0?

I'm not planning on changing my methods but I'd be interested to know the proper way to "read" a VU meter.

 

[mrT]

Sometimes I'll record that hot because I like how it sounds... overdriving the input. So Everything is relative in audio. Too much bitching in this thread. Went somewhere it never should have.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Sometimes I'll record that hot because I like how it sounds... overdriving the input.

"Overdriving the input" and "recording too hot" are two entirely different things unless you're specifically talking about the recorder itself. One can get "that sound" by overdriving the input on a preamp somehwere along the chain (mic pre, tube compression, etc.) and still gain stage back to nominal line levels before hitting the recorder and get the best of both worlds.

IMHO, this thread went exactly where it nedded to go, because only about 10% of home recordists (yest that's just an educated estimate, not a factual number) seem to understand the whole gain staging/recording levels thing and have no idea how it's screwing with their sound.

G.

 

[mrT]

"Overdriving the input" and "recording too hot" are two entirely different things unless you're specifically talking about the recorder itself. One can get "that sound" by overdriving the input on a preamp somehwere along the chain (mic pre, tube compression, etc.) and still gain stage back to nominal line levels before hitting the recorder and get the best of both worlds.

I like the particular dirty sound I get from running it hot into the converter. I know most people think it sounds nasty but... I've only ever done it on vocals. Think early Wu-Tang vocals. You can hear their shit CLIP like crazy. but like I said; It's all subjective.

 

[chadsxe]

I like the particular dirty sound I get from running it hot into the converter. I know most people think it sounds nasty but... I've only ever done it on vocals. Think early Wu-Tang vocals. You can hear their shit CLIP like crazy. but like I said; It's all subjective.

The clip had nothing to do with how hot the signal was going into the convertor (if it was even a covertor at all). It had to do with the gain staging before it got printed. Re-read this thread.

 

[mrT]

The clip had nothing to do with how hot the signal was going into the convertor (if it was even a covertor at all). It had to do with the gain staging before it got printed. Re-read this thread.

I LIKE THE SOUND I GET DOING IT THIS WAY... that was my only point. It's the best way I found to get the sound I was looking for. Yes I know everything that was stated in this thread. I DO record with average of 0VU 95% of the time.

GET OFF MY SHIT ABOUT IT. Recording is not a science it's an art. Get it now? Just because YOU think that is the wrong way to do it doesn't make it so. If I like what I got what is your problem with it? I could have had a nice clean vocal if I would have pulled back. Maybe I could have have just overdriven the input gain (not the sound I wanted) or bumped my gain in the compressor (not the sound I wanted) or maybe I could bump the output gain until I was pushing my converters to get a sound that I DID want. Mainly because I DIDN'T want it to be clean and noise free...

 

[DavidK]

I LIKE THE SOUND I GET DOING IT THIS WAY...

OK. Do others like it too?? If they don't, then what you like really doesn't matter unless you do not wish to share your music with anybody.

Rules are made to be broken, but only the rules that don't make sense.

 

[chadsxe]

I LIKE THE SOUND I GET DOING IT THIS WAY... that was my only point. It's the best way I found to get the sound I was looking for. Yes I know everything that was stated in this thread. I DO record with average of 0VU 95% of the time.

GET OFF MY SHIT ABOUT IT. Recording is not a science it's an art. Get it now? Just because YOU think that is the wrong way to do it doesn't make it so. If I like what I got what is your problem with it? I could have had a nice clean vocal if I would have pulled back. Maybe I could have have just overdriven the input gain (not the sound I wanted) or bumped my gain in the compressor (not the sound I wanted) or maybe I could bump the output gain until I was pushing my converters to get a sound that I DID want. Mainly because I DIDN'T want it to be clean and noise free...

Hmmm...never said it was "wrong", so rest asure I am not on your "shit". None the less the way you described your situation leads me to belive that you "think" you are clipping your convertors. Is this correct? Is this how your getting your "Wu-Tang" vocal sound? Let me ask you this, what is your chain like before you hit the AD? I am making an educated guess and saying you are coming in to your AD already overdriven via a pre or maybe a comp etc. I for one have never really heard a convertor clipped to be anything pleasing. For christ sakes this whole thread is about headroom and not destroying it by running into the upper's of your bit depth. There are much better ways of getting that raw Wu-Tang sound then that you described.

 

[mrT]

OK. Do others like it too?? If they don't, then what you like really doesn't matter unless you do not wish to share your music with anybody.

I have never and will never base my music off of what "other people" like. I'm not an entertainer at all. I engineer and co-prosuce hip-hop which is a different world from what most of you do. Different tastes, different aesthetic.

Now if their paying me I'll record them shitting on a mic (their own hopefully) and make it aound anyway they want. This was a personal project. Some people actually DO like it when things sound nasty. Even in a way which might look down upon.

 

[chadsxe]

I have never and will never base my music off of what "other people" like. I'm not an entertainer at all. I engineer and co-prosuce hip-hop which is a different world from what most of you do. Different tastes, different aesthetic.

Thats a good thing and I encourage that to the fullest.

Now if their paying me I'll record them shitting on a mic (their own hopefully) and make it aound anyway they want. This was a personal project. Some people actually DO like it when things sound nasty. Even in a way which might look down upon.

My point is there is a better way to do it then you described. Coming in "hot to the convertor" is not the way to do it. But hey if your happy then who am I to say diffrent.

 

[mrT]

Hmmm...never said it was "wrong", so rest asure I am not on your "shit". None the less the way you described your situation leads me to belive that you "think" you are clipping your convertors. Is this correct? Is this how your getting your "Wu-Tang" vocal sound? Let me ask you this, what is your chain like before you hit the AD? I am making an educated guess and saying you are coming in to your AD already overdriven via a pre or maybe a comp etc. I for one have never really heard a convertor clipped to be anything pleasing. For christ sakes this whole thread is about headroom and not destroying it by running into the upper's of your bit depth. There are much better ways of getting that raw Wu-Tang sound then that you described.

I don't have their equipment. This is how I got the similar sound with mine. Pushing the converters adds a little bit of dirt and other characteristics that make it sound like I want. And so you know I was pushing the gain on just about everything in the chain too. I'm not talking about my converter being the sole source of the sound. just a part that makes it better to my ears than without.


EDIT: AND I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT TRACKING THIS HOT AS A RULE IS NOT A GOOD IDEA OR DESIRABLE IN ANY WAY.

 

[chadsxe]

I don't have their equipment.

What type of equipment do you have? It is hard to argue with someone who is making the best out of what he or she has, but I do encourage you to keep experimenting to open up diffrent avenues and methods of producing certain sounds. Besides I am willing to bet that the early Wu-Tang stuff was recording on some pretty basic gear.

 

[Mindset]

hitting 0 on digital isn't good... mastering engineers will then have shit to work with.

 

[rgraves]

I engineer and co-prosuce hip-hop which is a different world from what most of you do. Different tastes, different aesthetic.

I don't think hip-hop production is a different world that other musics. Not sure how you figure that...

 

[Mindset]

I also produce & mix down hip hop, and r&b and rock, and other genre's. The concepts are the same, how much ** you use on ** track will always be different regardless of genre. Different tastes, don't come from genre's, they come from individuals. My taste in hip hop might be different than your taste in hip hop. Maybe I feel like I shouldn't drive the whole track and compress & smash the whole thing and kill the dynamics'., while you feel that it needs to be that way. That's all personal individual tastes.