Ok, i mix in sequoia at school. my question is what level to mix at? things don't start clipping until around +6 dB but i've always heard to mix at -4dB. is this just a sequoia quirk? the reason i ask is because my mixes are always quiet in home stereos if i don't mix them to the fullest.
Sequoia
- Thread starter skaltpunk
- Start date
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Your mixes will sound quieter because they haven't been mastered yet. Do the mixes still sound good when they're cranked up? Then you've got it right. Frolic and rejoice through the garden of audio happiness.
I have no idea where that came from... Maybe it's the meds...
Anyway, I shoot for peaks no higher than -6dBfs from tracking through mixing.
Your overs are being "handled" at this point, but they're still overs - Once you go onto a 16-bit CD, they might not be as forgiving as they are in the DAW.
I'd try mixing with the -6 or -4 target in mind then bring those mixed files into a new VIP and mess with the dynamics - even Samp/Seq's built-in dynamics are more than adequate.
I have no idea where that came from... Maybe it's the meds...
Anyway, I shoot for peaks no higher than -6dBfs from tracking through mixing.
Your overs are being "handled" at this point, but they're still overs - Once you go onto a 16-bit CD, they might not be as forgiving as they are in the DAW.
I'd try mixing with the -6 or -4 target in mind then bring those mixed files into a new VIP and mess with the dynamics - even Samp/Seq's built-in dynamics are more than adequate.
how about mixing up to the point of clipping, like -.1 but not above? is there any danger in that? my mixes do sound good when cranked up but i've been trying to mix at lower levels so as not to become accustomed to that.
so you're saying do a mixdown of the tracks and then bring that into a new vip and mess with dynamics from there?
so you're saying do a mixdown of the tracks and then bring that into a new vip and mess with dynamics from there?
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I'm hardly unbiased, but I try to keep the mastering it's own step. I don't even master my own mixes (but that's for another thread).
However, there are a few schools of thought on mix levels - If you're sure to stay digital, there's nothing wrong with mixing into the "red zone" (without clipping, of course. And without limiting, or compressing for the sake of volume). I try to keep the room level at around 80-85dB (arguably the most accurate level to mix at) *most of* the time.
On mix levels, I assume an analog mastering pass. So, I set mix (and tracking) levels to not exceed -6dBfs at any time. I don't care a whip about RMS levels during tracking or mixing. IMO, many people waste far too much energy trying to get hot mix levels. Inasmuch as the volume becomes paramount and in the front of the mind, the rest of the sound gets compromised. I've caught myself doing it several times back in "16-bit-land," and regretted it almost every time. In 24 bit, you can have your mixes PEAK at -47dBfs and STILL have higher resolution than a 16-bit CD. So you're really not gaining much of anything by pegging needles.
Anyway - The -6dBfs thing is a two-pronged approach... One thing is that it will effectively avoid D-to-A reconstructive distortion during the analog mastering pass, along with leaving the plugs a bit of headroom.
The other, arguably more important part is the efficiency of the monitoring chain - Listening to a mix that's more conservative in the levels makes you turn the volume up a little. What most people forget about is that you're not turning the volume "up" - You're turning it "less down." A volume control attenuates the signal going to the amp (I'm sure you know this, but I'm trying to drive it into the brains of those who may not have thought about it that way). When you crank it a bit more, you're letting the amps run much more efficiently and with a cleaner, more dynamic signal. Which, in a perfect world, would be where it should be *after* mastering.
Anyway, so you've got your excellent, dynamic sounding mix mixed down to a stereo file. THEN I'd open it up as another VIP and start messing with dymanics to get that "sheer volume" thing going.
Um... So, to answer your question, "yes."
However, there are a few schools of thought on mix levels - If you're sure to stay digital, there's nothing wrong with mixing into the "red zone" (without clipping, of course. And without limiting, or compressing for the sake of volume). I try to keep the room level at around 80-85dB (arguably the most accurate level to mix at) *most of* the time.
On mix levels, I assume an analog mastering pass. So, I set mix (and tracking) levels to not exceed -6dBfs at any time. I don't care a whip about RMS levels during tracking or mixing. IMO, many people waste far too much energy trying to get hot mix levels. Inasmuch as the volume becomes paramount and in the front of the mind, the rest of the sound gets compromised. I've caught myself doing it several times back in "16-bit-land," and regretted it almost every time. In 24 bit, you can have your mixes PEAK at -47dBfs and STILL have higher resolution than a 16-bit CD. So you're really not gaining much of anything by pegging needles.
Anyway - The -6dBfs thing is a two-pronged approach... One thing is that it will effectively avoid D-to-A reconstructive distortion during the analog mastering pass, along with leaving the plugs a bit of headroom.
The other, arguably more important part is the efficiency of the monitoring chain - Listening to a mix that's more conservative in the levels makes you turn the volume up a little. What most people forget about is that you're not turning the volume "up" - You're turning it "less down." A volume control attenuates the signal going to the amp (I'm sure you know this, but I'm trying to drive it into the brains of those who may not have thought about it that way). When you crank it a bit more, you're letting the amps run much more efficiently and with a cleaner, more dynamic signal. Which, in a perfect world, would be where it should be *after* mastering.
Anyway, so you've got your excellent, dynamic sounding mix mixed down to a stereo file. THEN I'd open it up as another VIP and start messing with dymanics to get that "sheer volume" thing going.
Um... So, to answer your question, "yes."
tubesrawsom
New member
yea......... what he said.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
You use the peakmeter - DBFS = Decibel, Full Scale.
The vast majority of mastering engineers still rely on analog gear. At least all the M.E.'s that I know. There are rare times where you stay "in the box" for the whole session, but those are pretty few and far between. Of course, you might use digital processing, EQ's, etc. during the session, but analog is still king in most rooms. Especially with digital recordings.
Most of the time if I'm staying in the box, it's because either the mixes are "damaged" enough that an analog pass would do more harm than good, or if they are so stellar sounding that there isn't an advantage to it.
The vast majority of mastering engineers still rely on analog gear. At least all the M.E.'s that I know. There are rare times where you stay "in the box" for the whole session, but those are pretty few and far between. Of course, you might use digital processing, EQ's, etc. during the session, but analog is still king in most rooms. Especially with digital recordings.
Most of the time if I'm staying in the box, it's because either the mixes are "damaged" enough that an analog pass would do more harm than good, or if they are so stellar sounding that there isn't an advantage to it.
ok, i think im starting to understand. the thing i don't get is why going back to analog would be a problem were my mixes not quite reaching 0dB. also, when i send the mixes out for mastering should they be in uncompressed wav format or as separate track mixdowns? and what is a common turnaround for mastering? the guy we are going to use said he could have it done overnight... does this seem realistic?
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
"Normally" yes, uncompressed PCM (wav, aif, etc.) format stereo mix files.
It's basically realistic to have something mastered "overnight" - The actual session might be anywhere between 5 & 8 times the program length (give-or-take). That is, *if* you can book a session that quickly somewhere... There are even a lot of "online" places that do 24-hour turnaround (I can only assume that they're not very busy... The last time I could've turned a project around in 24 hours was the week between Christmas and New Year's Day).
If the place you're using has really nice converters, don't worry about the hot levels too much. Just make sure that the files are MIXED to that level and not LIMITED or clipped to that level. There's a HUGE difference.
The clipping that happens during D-to-A reconstruction is something that I grasp, but it's a physics lesson that I'm not qualified to teach. If anybody has a link to Nika Aldrich's white paper on reconstructive distortion, that's about the best explanation I've ever heard... In short, a digital file, when converted to analog, can easily exceed (sometimes by quite a bit) full scale, causing distortion in the process. Really great converters can handle this with much more style than others, and it's ("nice" levels) something that I try to live by. But I really wouldn't worry about it too much if the place you're going to has a decent set.
It's basically realistic to have something mastered "overnight" - The actual session might be anywhere between 5 & 8 times the program length (give-or-take). That is, *if* you can book a session that quickly somewhere... There are even a lot of "online" places that do 24-hour turnaround (I can only assume that they're not very busy... The last time I could've turned a project around in 24 hours was the week between Christmas and New Year's Day).
If the place you're using has really nice converters, don't worry about the hot levels too much. Just make sure that the files are MIXED to that level and not LIMITED or clipped to that level. There's a HUGE difference.
The clipping that happens during D-to-A reconstruction is something that I grasp, but it's a physics lesson that I'm not qualified to teach. If anybody has a link to Nika Aldrich's white paper on reconstructive distortion, that's about the best explanation I've ever heard... In short, a digital file, when converted to analog, can easily exceed (sometimes by quite a bit) full scale, causing distortion in the process. Really great converters can handle this with much more style than others, and it's ("nice" levels) something that I try to live by. But I really wouldn't worry about it too much if the place you're going to has a decent set.
Last edited:
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Ask? Websites are a good place to start. If you're unfamiliar with the gear, check it out on the internet.
i guess the reason i bring that up is because i am working with a client who is really trying to separate these two tasks. thus; communication between me and the masterer (which i get the impression is just some guy in his house) is nonexistent. so my concern is sending him a mix he can work with. but as my 12 mixes for my client are all mixed at -.1 dB, it would be an arduous task to, essentially, remix everything to your suggested level. i told my client to find out whether the masterer will even be doing an analog pass (as that would eliminate the problem, right?) and even to ask him what dB range he could accept. is there anything else i can do?
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
It really shouldn't be a problem - If he knows what he's doing, it'll be fine. But again, make sure that there's no limiting on the buss. If that's the case, then remix.
masteringhouse
www.masteringhouse.com
Massive Master If anybody has a link to Nika Aldrich's white paper on reconstructive distortion said:John -
Here's a link on the paper:
http://www.cadenzarecording.com/papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
An FWIW I'm in agreement with John's comments, this stuff should be in a FAQ so that when the question comes up the next time there's an easy reference.
Sequoia, Pro Tools, and other DAWs, same rule applies. The reasons given also explain why you don't want to bother normalizing a mix before mastering (another often asked question).
I don't agree with "overnight mastering" though anymore than I would do an overnight mix for anything other than a demo. Personally I like to "live with" a final master for a bit, check it out on a few systems for translation, and check against different references.