coreytx
New member
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
D
DJElemes
New member
too true coreytx
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Absolutely... 
Wait, what?
Wait, what?
Mr Clean
AKA Teddy Wong
Absolutely...
Wait, what?
Ah....I see. Now that makes more sense!
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
coreytx
New member
Exactly.
J
jaynm26
New member
^ Damn Gotta go with GONZO on this one Ethan hardly ever do I disagree with ya. But I been cursed by hearing tracking thru some AMAZING comp's. More on Jim's side we track at correct levels (-18dB FS) so there is no REAL need to track with a comp to tame peaks so its just color for us and I cant track without it.
J
jaynm26
New member
Absolutely...
Wait, what?
LMAO I was bout to say what, I read that like 10 times and I still couldnt get 2x+5X(4)=2....Blasted einsten
J
jaynm26
New member
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
Absolutely 100% positively. THANK YOU.
I don't understand how people can't see this as the paradoxical truth to what we're all doing or what we're all trying to achieve. On the surface it's easy to think that options are good. Sure, having a few can bring it all together, but infinite time + too many options is a recipe for over-thinking, over-processing, and never moving on. I swear I've said this a thousand times but one of the worst ailments in audio production currently is:
FOREST FOR THE TREES SYNDROME.
I totally 100% agree with philbo's statement and I hope that more people will start taking risks, using their ears from the beginning, and committing sounds to tape/disk/whatever without the neuroses of option paranoia.
As a side thought, this is why having a CHOICE FEW pieces of high quality gear, i.e. mics, preamps, converters, monitors (with a well tuned room) and a few good outboard units can go a HELL of a long way to improving your recordings. Once you take the [bad] gear out of the equation you can actually get on with making good recordings from the get-go instead of getting the best recording you can and then worrying about how to fix the sound in the mix later. The better gear will just sound more musical and give you the confidence to make the right decisions early on.
Cheers
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
It's completely valid and I encourage it 100%. But as bouldersoundguy said in the second post, it's probably better to compress with a quality plugin than a low quality compressor that may do more harm than good. YMMV, however.
I usually record vocals and bass guitar with compression on the way in. If I had a lot of outboard I would probably compress drums while tracking as well, although probably only at the group level, which would negate printing the compression.
Cheers
Farview
Well-known member
I have to agree here. There is just a quality that the input signal gains by going through an analog compressor, before the AD conversion. Though I have not actually tried to send a raw signal out, and do it later, I know what I am after when I track it. Never for controlling signal levels. That would be stupid. The quality that the compression, not to mention the preamp that precedes it, is what I am using on the way in.
Would you track with a stock preamp, then send out to a good preamp to get it's effect? No. It just does not work that way. Not for me anyway.
Best recommendation to those who do not have experience with this, (or something worthy to use) is to record directly, with nothing on the input chain. But you gotta learn somehow....Oh, and buy something worth using.
When I get tracks from other people, I will send the vocals out to that compressor. It's pretty much the same as if I had recorded through it. The main reason I don't do it that way for stuff I record is because it's inconvenient and loses the total recall when you open the session up three months down the road because the guitar player didn't like his solo and wants another shot at it before replication.
Since it's the sound Im going for and I have the equipment to do it on the way in, I just do it.
P
Philbartus
New member
Hey Guys,
Enjoyed reading the comments and found them very interesting...I have been recording Digital for the past 10 years in our home studio & have reecently transition from Hardware Recording Equipment (Tascam DM24 & MX2800) to Sonar X2...So, beining an 'Old Analog Guy', recorded Vocal with Compression on the 'Front' on the projects thinking that was the thing to do' and to keep from going into Digital Clipping... My question now: If you shouldn't use Compression on the 'front end' of the project, What Vu levels do you Guys reccomend with to have a good S/N Ratio without 'Clipping'???
Thanks,
Enjoyed reading the comments and found them very interesting...I have been recording Digital for the past 10 years in our home studio & have reecently transition from Hardware Recording Equipment (Tascam DM24 & MX2800) to Sonar X2...So, beining an 'Old Analog Guy', recorded Vocal with Compression on the 'Front' on the projects thinking that was the thing to do' and to keep from going into Digital Clipping... My question now: If you shouldn't use Compression on the 'front end' of the project, What Vu levels do you Guys reccomend with to have a good S/N Ratio without 'Clipping'???
Thanks,
iqi616
Yet another Mike
I'm happy to record through a compressor of appropriate quality and appropriately adjusted on the occasions I feel it's necessary or useful. Similarly I'll do broad fader rides e.g. up for verse and down for loud chorus. If it can be done at the same time as tracking and doesn't screw up the sound, it saves time and processing power and there can't be much wrong with that.
I'm a fan of making decisions up front and just getting on with it before everyone runs out of enthusiasm. None of this eternal second-guessing.
I'm a fan of making decisions up front and just getting on with it before everyone runs out of enthusiasm. None of this eternal second-guessing.
iqi616
Yet another Mike
I don't use VU meters but on peak meters I watch where the body of the signal is (rather than the transient peaks) and I aim for an average of -18 dBFS in the loud sections unless the signal is so peaky that I have to pick a lower level. Same for 16-bit or 24-bit (a tad controversial but I don't care).
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Well, you can dip back into your analogue days for an answer to this.
On most digital gear/software, things are set up so the 0dB VU point is at -18dBFS. If you think back to analogue, you'd probably be aiming for peaks in the +8VU range, maybe up to +12VU range if you really knew the equipment and were willing to risk your headroom.
Do the same in digital and this gets you to recording at an average -18 with peaks in the -10 to -8 range (all in dbFS scale of course). This still leaves you 8dB or so of headroom.
The trouble is, the graphic display in most DAWs makes these levels look kinda low--but it gives you the direct equivalent to analogue days as well as giving you headroom once you start to mix.
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
With modern digital recording, you can record at nearly any level as long as the peaks never clip. Some people believe that recording softer sounds better, but that was disproved when I did a controlled test:
The Truth About Record Levels
--Ethan
Farview
Well-known member
The problem with the premise if the test is that the person that wrote the article you are debunking didn't understand the article"record at -20dbfs thing in the first place. No one who knows what they are talking about is advocating PEAKING at -20dbfs, they are talking about averaging around there. In other words, creating a situation where 0dbvu on the analog side would equal -20 dbfs on the digital side.
The only reason for that is so that you don't run your analog circuits out of headoom on the way to the converters. The sound difference between recording hot and recording at line level happens on the analog side, not the digital side. You are, of course, correct that the digital side doesn't sound any different at any reasonable (and most unreasonable) level.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
I've not encountered any gear "combining" analogue and digital (for example, audio interfaces) where there was a discernible difference in sound as levels approach 0dBFS. This is not to say that certain individual makes/models might not be exceptions but just that I've never used any. Indeed, if you read the instructions coming with interfaces, many are still advocating recording as close to 0dbFS as you can.
I keep my levels down (as noted above) but that's purely to preserve headroom for the moment the vocalist "lets rip" or the sax player suddenly moves right up to the mic--it's not because of any particular difference in sound noted.
Farview
Well-known member
That's entirely possible in all-in-one units. But outboard mixers and stand alone preamps are certainly prone to this sort of thing, depending on how the converter is calibrated.
A lot of it depends on the signal you are trying to capture. Very dynamic things that have a lot of transients aren't going to have much of a problem peaking close to zero without messing anything up. But signals that have a very small crest can certainly suffer if they are recorded close to zero. That's only because the preamp is sitting at the equivelant of +15dbVU for sustained lengths of time. Some preamps do cool things when you push them hard like that, a lot of them get less cool.