D
daveblue222
New member
i was told that maybe i need to record my track a little more hot, what does this mean?
thanks
thanks
zed32
Re-Attached Member
means louder.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
And whoever said it is probably wrong.
D
Dani Pace
New member
Simply put, when most people say something needs to be "hotter," they mean turn up the gain (or volume lvl.) Other ways are to increase the attack (shorten) on a compressor or increase the presence (brightness.) While recording hotter may help to pick up more of the sound it can also cause problems, such as clipping and distortion. A simple EQ adjustment may be all you need to do, or a mic which is more sensitive to the frequencies you are trying to record.
gtrman_66
New member
Massive Master said:
I'll second that. Unless your track levels are peaking somewhere south of -40 or you're recording analog, recording "hotter" is probably not good advice.
If the person giving the advice is referring to your final mix not being "loud enough" , tracking hotter is certainly not the proper way to address that situation.
M
Micter
No Title
There is a balance that needs to be found. Tracking too conservative leaves bits unused and will yield a lesser quality of recording. Tracking too hot will yield the dreaded digital distortion/clipping. I try to keep things around the
-6db range if you are tracking much lower than that it would not hurt to bump it up a bit.
-6db range if you are tracking much lower than that it would not hurt to bump it up a bit.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Oh geez, the "bits" argument is so... "Marketing hype" -
Don't get me wrong - Resolution is good. Bits are good. Those bits are there so you don't have to use them. - They're there so you can run your gear as it was intended - So you don't have to overdrive it to get a good signal.
16-bit - Sure. A little hotter. Most 0dBVU signals would hit around -12dBFS (mostly because the converters back then sucked horribly compared to modern models). It's not like that anymore. It really wasn't like that "back then" either for that matter.
But so many people are doing FAR more damage to their signals by trying to get those "last few bits" of resolution... They're shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly every time they hit the "RECORD" button.
Signal levels haven't changed -- 0dBVU has been 0dBVU since the 1940's. Digital didn't change that - It was designed to work with it.
Personally, the biggest advantage to 24 bit to me is that I can record considerably *quieter* than 0dBVU and get a signal that's even MORE clean and MORE focused and MORE clear and airy without having to worry about "using all the bits." The big reason for whacking 0dBVU was to make sure you were getting a good S/N in relation to the *tape* noise.
Digital HAS NO noise. You can use -24dBRMS as a reference level and have occasional peaks at -12 or -14 and not worry about it. And all but guaranteed, you'll have better sounding recordings (all things considered), more focused recordings - Even LOUDER finished products than the "bit hoarders."
But in short, leaving "unused bits" almost always results in much HIGHER quality recordings - Because the gear utilized is working as it was designed to work. Headroom is king - Always was, always will be.
Everybody always wants "pro" sounding tracks - This is how the "pros do it" every day. They do NOT try to "use all the bits." They work where the gear wants to work. ESPECIALLY with "less than stellar quality" gear, where spec'd headroom is often not exactly in tune with reality.
I'd certainly never say that if you're recording much lower than -6 you ought to bump it up a bit... -30, -40, yes. Go ahead and bump it up a bit. Anywhere between -24 ad -12, leave it alone. You're right where you need to be.
Don't get me wrong - Resolution is good. Bits are good. Those bits are there so you don't have to use them. - They're there so you can run your gear as it was intended - So you don't have to overdrive it to get a good signal.
16-bit - Sure. A little hotter. Most 0dBVU signals would hit around -12dBFS (mostly because the converters back then sucked horribly compared to modern models). It's not like that anymore. It really wasn't like that "back then" either for that matter.
But so many people are doing FAR more damage to their signals by trying to get those "last few bits" of resolution... They're shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly every time they hit the "RECORD" button.
Signal levels haven't changed -- 0dBVU has been 0dBVU since the 1940's. Digital didn't change that - It was designed to work with it.
Personally, the biggest advantage to 24 bit to me is that I can record considerably *quieter* than 0dBVU and get a signal that's even MORE clean and MORE focused and MORE clear and airy without having to worry about "using all the bits." The big reason for whacking 0dBVU was to make sure you were getting a good S/N in relation to the *tape* noise.
Digital HAS NO noise. You can use -24dBRMS as a reference level and have occasional peaks at -12 or -14 and not worry about it. And all but guaranteed, you'll have better sounding recordings (all things considered), more focused recordings - Even LOUDER finished products than the "bit hoarders."
But in short, leaving "unused bits" almost always results in much HIGHER quality recordings - Because the gear utilized is working as it was designed to work. Headroom is king - Always was, always will be.
Everybody always wants "pro" sounding tracks - This is how the "pros do it" every day. They do NOT try to "use all the bits." They work where the gear wants to work. ESPECIALLY with "less than stellar quality" gear, where spec'd headroom is often not exactly in tune with reality.
I'd certainly never say that if you're recording much lower than -6 you ought to bump it up a bit... -30, -40, yes. Go ahead and bump it up a bit. Anywhere between -24 ad -12, leave it alone. You're right where you need to be.
Last edited:
M
Micter
No Title
Dude did you even bother to try and understand my post? There is such a thing as tracking TOO conservative as well as tracking TOO hot. There is a happy medium that is very forgiving and will always work in the scheme of things. Leaving bits unused will at some point of conservative tracking have a negative effect on the recording. It's pretty simple actually shoot for -6db and if you'll be in that sweet spot.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
As usual, John is spot on.
What keeps getting lost when talking about recording levels or tracking levels is gain staging; especially in today's world of analog/digital hybrid signal chains.
If one is really talking about tracking hotter or louder - and they are really giving you a correct answer and good advice - they really need to be talking about what's happening on the analog side of the equation. If the tracking is not "hot enough" there, that means that the signal is riding too low below the nominal designed operating levels (averaging somehwere around 0dBVU on the analog scale) for one or more links in the analog side of the chain, and you are therefore robbing yourself of signal to noise ratio and therefore usable dynamic range.
It can even possibly refer to the idea that maybe this piece or that piece of analog gear could perhaps stand to be overdriven a little - i.e. pushed a tad bit past nominal inside the box beofre adjusting the output gain back to nominal for the next link in the chain - in order to take advantage of some "analog-sounding" distortion effect.
But coming out of the end of the analog side into the converters, one should usually be sending a nominal level of somewhere around 0VU into the digital conversion circuitry. When doing so the converters will do their job properly and convert that 0VU average to a digital signal that typically will average somwhere in the -12 to -20dBFS digital range, with peaks as high as perhaps -8 to -6dBFS digital.
There is no advantage whatsoever to cranking the gain on the digital side beyond what the converters are spitting out. As John said, there is no "noise" in digital*, other than any digital representation of any analog noise that was fed into the converter; cranking the gain on a single track after conversion to digital is not going to improve the quality or the sound of the signal in any manner whatsoever. In fact, it can make it worse by boosting the audible level of any converted analog noise. Any boosting or cutting of the digital signal should be reserved for the mixing process itself and not be any part of the recording process.
So, if someone tells you if you are not recording hot enough, look at the signal levels in your signal chain. If you still have room to maneuver before completly shattering the 0VU mark on your analog gear, then yeah, maybe perhaps you could stand to bring the levels up in that gear where it's riding low. But if your levels through the analog side all look fine, including the gain on the input of your converter (if any), and they are simply saying that your digital track itself is too quiet, then politely tell them that they are mistaken, that your tracking levels are just dandy.
*Technically, digital does add "noise" to the signal, but it is noise in the definition of a level of inaccuracy of the sound reproduction due to digitization, not in the definition of things like tape and curcuit hiss that reduces the usable dynamic range of the signal path, as we are used to thinking of noise in the analog world.
G.
What keeps getting lost when talking about recording levels or tracking levels is gain staging; especially in today's world of analog/digital hybrid signal chains.
If one is really talking about tracking hotter or louder - and they are really giving you a correct answer and good advice - they really need to be talking about what's happening on the analog side of the equation. If the tracking is not "hot enough" there, that means that the signal is riding too low below the nominal designed operating levels (averaging somehwere around 0dBVU on the analog scale) for one or more links in the analog side of the chain, and you are therefore robbing yourself of signal to noise ratio and therefore usable dynamic range.
It can even possibly refer to the idea that maybe this piece or that piece of analog gear could perhaps stand to be overdriven a little - i.e. pushed a tad bit past nominal inside the box beofre adjusting the output gain back to nominal for the next link in the chain - in order to take advantage of some "analog-sounding" distortion effect.
But coming out of the end of the analog side into the converters, one should usually be sending a nominal level of somewhere around 0VU into the digital conversion circuitry. When doing so the converters will do their job properly and convert that 0VU average to a digital signal that typically will average somwhere in the -12 to -20dBFS digital range, with peaks as high as perhaps -8 to -6dBFS digital.
There is no advantage whatsoever to cranking the gain on the digital side beyond what the converters are spitting out. As John said, there is no "noise" in digital*, other than any digital representation of any analog noise that was fed into the converter; cranking the gain on a single track after conversion to digital is not going to improve the quality or the sound of the signal in any manner whatsoever. In fact, it can make it worse by boosting the audible level of any converted analog noise. Any boosting or cutting of the digital signal should be reserved for the mixing process itself and not be any part of the recording process.
So, if someone tells you if you are not recording hot enough, look at the signal levels in your signal chain. If you still have room to maneuver before completly shattering the 0VU mark on your analog gear, then yeah, maybe perhaps you could stand to bring the levels up in that gear where it's riding low. But if your levels through the analog side all look fine, including the gain on the input of your converter (if any), and they are simply saying that your digital track itself is too quiet, then politely tell them that they are mistaken, that your tracking levels are just dandy.
*Technically, digital does add "noise" to the signal, but it is noise in the definition of a level of inaccuracy of the sound reproduction due to digitization, not in the definition of things like tape and curcuit hiss that reduces the usable dynamic range of the signal path, as we are used to thinking of noise in the analog world.
G.
S
soundchaser59
Reluctant Commander
Well, I certainly cant explain it in technical terms as well as Massive can, but I just swallowed my pride and decided to take his word for it and just try it.........just TRY it.......
And I am glad I did. I dont know why, I understand his explanation well enough, but when I started recording with averages around -20 and transient peaks around -10, never any instantaneous max peaks over -6, my mixes started sounding waaaaaaaayyyyyyy better! Much easier to work with.
Sometimes you just hire somebody who knows and you put your faith in their work and just try it. I tried it. It works! Massive is giving you the straight poop....
And I am glad I did. I dont know why, I understand his explanation well enough, but when I started recording with averages around -20 and transient peaks around -10, never any instantaneous max peaks over -6, my mixes started sounding waaaaaaaayyyyyyy better! Much easier to work with.
Sometimes you just hire somebody who knows and you put your faith in their work and just try it. I tried it. It works! Massive is giving you the straight poop....
Jamz0r
New member
There was no doubt.
Massive explained it perfectly.
*tape* noise is no longer...
Massive explained it perfectly.
*tape* noise is no longer...
iqi616
Yet another Mike
True! And there are benefits beyond that too. It's so much less stressful when you're not constantly checking how hot you're recording. I made the mindset switch just over a year ago and now I can concentrate on what's happening in front of the mic rather than watching the meters for overs. The risk of losing perfectly good takes due to overs is almost eliminated. Also, the headroom is no longer dependent on what you are tracking - everything gets the same headroom whether it uses it or not and that means you know that all the tracks are at a comparable level and that makes life easier too.soundchaser59 said:
I think this is an issue for recordists coming from a narrow-track analogue and 16-bit background. It gets so ingrained to have to keep everything bumping up against the ceiling to get acceptable quality. With 24-bit that's no longer necessary, the panic is over but it takes a while to sink in (at least it did for me).
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
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.
gtrman_66
New member
'Massive Master said:
Spot on. When I started into digital recording back in '96, it was with a couple used blackface adats, probably not much newer than 1990. I had been out of recording for several years and the last thing I had used was an 80-8, so needless to say, I wasn't too hip on how this new-fangled digital recording thing worked.
So, relying on the really bogus advice on level setting in the adat manual, I tracked a whole bunch of stuff at those kinds of levels. And yes, I was overdriving the crap out of my input chain. Fortunately, 16 bit didn't capture it with the horrifying amount of detail that 24 bit does
As I migrated to 24 bit, I began to see the light and get my levels under control. It's a whole lot easier to mix tracks with a decent amount of headroom than it is to get a bunch of too-hot, grainy monsters under control.
I think the problem is the manufacturers. They have green meter segments all the way to the too hot zone, a couple yellows then red only when you have completely screwed the pooch. They ought to start the red at anything above 0vu, that might put it more in perspective.
mrT
New member
Massive Master said:
I used to up until it burned to a crispy metal shell... I think I'm gonna get an RME to replace it though.
And not to put a wet blanket on this little chat but if our man doesn't know what "too hot" means I think 90% of this just went over his head.
iqi616
Yet another Mike
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.gtrman_66 said:
L
lomky
New member
iqi616 said:
http://www.pspaudioware.com/indexen.html?url=http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/vmeter.html
Haven't used it yet, and I have no idea if it works on input
I also "learned" on old 16bit ADAT's and we were allways told to make it as hot as possible w/out distorting. And I know for a fact that "instructors" are still perpetuating this. The madness has to stop. I've been tracking with my gain staging set up properly, and it truly is a world of difference.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
The problem is the operating levels of the digital gear -
16-bit ADAT converters used to ride around -10dBRMS with a 0dBVU signal. Almost any off the shelf modern converter is going to be display around -18dBRMS with that same 0dBVU signal.
The input signal level never changed - The converters did. Once they started making converters that sounded better / worked at 24-bit / could handle a little headroom (18dB is NOT a "lot" of headroom - Let's get that out of the way) and very smartly calibrated them to -18 (I like -24 myself) it's like everyone was afraid to record that same signal. Ironically, when most of the gear on the front end has *less* usable headroom.
Or they simply forgot to send that memo out...
16-bit ADAT converters used to ride around -10dBRMS with a 0dBVU signal. Almost any off the shelf modern converter is going to be display around -18dBRMS with that same 0dBVU signal.
The input signal level never changed - The converters did. Once they started making converters that sounded better / worked at 24-bit / could handle a little headroom (18dB is NOT a "lot" of headroom - Let's get that out of the way) and very smartly calibrated them to -18 (I like -24 myself) it's like everyone was afraid to record that same signal. Ironically, when most of the gear on the front end has *less* usable headroom.
Or they simply forgot to send that memo out...
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Implied in all of this, I think, is that the converter should not be viewed of as a digital fader control.
The analog signal going into the converter should be riding right around 0VU, and the converter will translate that into digital levels naturally. What cones out the digital side is what comes out the digital side, and as John said, that usually translates as 0VU ~= -18dBFS in today's 24-bit studio.
There's no reason to boost the analog input signal going into the converter any hotter than the nominal line level of 0VU. (A few peaks above that won't hurt if they're there, but that's not the point. As long as one is riding close to the nominal analog line level around 0VU is the main thrust) The converter is built to expect that kind of analog level on it's inputs, just as all other devices in the analog signal chain are.
And has been stated a couple of times, there is neither a need or a reason to boost the digital signal that comes out the other end of the converter. In a 24-bit signal, there is plenty of room to accomodate the dynamic range, even at -18dBFS. One can play with relative track levels in the mixing stage, but there's no need to further adulterate the digital signal level during tracking.
Keep the gain staging along the signal path in line and let the converters do their thang naturally, and the resulting digital tracking levels will be just fine.
G.
The analog signal going into the converter should be riding right around 0VU, and the converter will translate that into digital levels naturally. What cones out the digital side is what comes out the digital side, and as John said, that usually translates as 0VU ~= -18dBFS in today's 24-bit studio.
There's no reason to boost the analog input signal going into the converter any hotter than the nominal line level of 0VU. (A few peaks above that won't hurt if they're there, but that's not the point. As long as one is riding close to the nominal analog line level around 0VU is the main thrust) The converter is built to expect that kind of analog level on it's inputs, just as all other devices in the analog signal chain are.
And has been stated a couple of times, there is neither a need or a reason to boost the digital signal that comes out the other end of the converter. In a 24-bit signal, there is plenty of room to accomodate the dynamic range, even at -18dBFS. One can play with relative track levels in the mixing stage, but there's no need to further adulterate the digital signal level during tracking.
Keep the gain staging along the signal path in line and let the converters do their thang naturally, and the resulting digital tracking levels will be just fine.
G.
R
rgraves
New member
Micter said:
Hey, a lot of pro studios nowadays track all the way up to +2 or 3dBFS to get that sweet sounding digital distortion. You don't even need a marshall anymore when you track this way, the sweet warm digital distortion works it's magic. Also, you don't have to worry about losing any of those precious bits either. I do it this way every time.
