Simple question: How many dB to record at?

[Old Music Guy]

I think @Dusty Ol' Bones is spot on. We have not only lost the OP's question, but have descended into a very bad, ugly place.
It would be nice if we were to reset, back off the ad hominem attacks, and answer Dusty's question.
We can start another thread where we can all beat the crap out of ourselves, and argue physics until the resurrection of Einstein and Hawking, but this thread is not the place for it.
Let's respect the OP.

 

[Steenamaroo]

For what it's worth when I mentioned physics I meant it more in the Scottie way than a Brian Cox way.

Especially fitting considering Dave's opening line cause me to hear his entire post in the voice of Kirk!

Well I am sorry you feel that way 'Bones.

A nice way to think about it, maybe, is like having a one to one conversation but in a crowded noisy room.

You're the voice/guitar. The other person is the mic.
The crowded noisy room is the computer fans (or whatever).

The person is struggling to hear you clearly so instinctively
1: You speak louder
2: You move closer to the person, or
3: You move yourself and the person farther from the noisy people.
Those are the easy things to do ^.

The only other option, the harder one, is
4: Make the noisy room be quiet.


Turning up, or down, the gain will just turn up, or down, all noise, wanted or unwanted, equally, so that's no help.

Anyway, sound like you've got a result so I'm glad to hear that.
Thanks for updating us here.

 

[ecc83]

I think @Dusty Ol' Bones is spot on. We have not only lost the OP's question, but have descended into a very bad, ugly place.
It would be nice if we were to reset, back off the ad hominem attacks, and answer Dusty's question.
We can start another thread where we can all beat the crap out of ourselves, and argue physics until the resurrection of Einstein and Hawking, but this thread is not the place for it.
Let's respect the OP.

Works for me!

 

[Old Music Guy]

I normally record acoustic guitar (mostly fingerpicking) where the loudest peaks land somewhere between -9 to -6 dB. I aim for a similar target window with vocals, so as to leave headroom for later things.

Let's parse this out.
Recording the finger picking acoustic requires a large dynamic range. Forgetting compression (which can come later) think of your recording in terms of "average" rather than peak. Peaks can be dialed back, but if your losing the "meat" of your picking, you will be hard pressed to get that back. So, I would record a little hot, between -6 to 0. You should be able to set your meters to give you a slower response (RMS) rather than peaks and peak hold. Also, monitor the output, not input to assure there is no clipping.
If you are recording both your vocals and guitar at the same time, make sure that there is enough isolation between the two. I don't see whether you are recording both simultaneously or not. IMHO, recording guitar and vocals should be done separately. Try recording a "reference" track with your vocals and guitar together. Then, overdub your guitar on another track, and repeat for your vocal track on yet another track.
This actually has several benefits. If you listen to 60s Beatles or Motown records, you can hear that the vocal tracks are doubled. Makes for a nice mix. AND the details are in the mix.

 

[Dusty Ol' Bones]

But you are not a caveman, you are in THIS TECHNOLOGICAL world. My point was that over centuries ways of producing pleasant sounds were developed and 'perfected'. As society changed people wanted to listen to music en masse and that meant louder instruments so the iron frame for the piano was developed for instance. Wind instrument bores got bigger. They understood the science of sound and applied it.

Just post WWll almost nobody could afford any kind of recording gear and studios were very rigidly structured places. There were the musician and there were the recording engineers. Between the two was the producer who, (the good ones) had a foot in both camps. The musicians mainly did as they were told! This arrangement obtained more or less up to the '60 when the Beatles broke it.

But you my friend are doubly buggered! You can't afford weeks at Abbey road but neither are you a recording engineer. What is great is that almost everyone today can afford a basic recording setup that knocks chunks off the sound quality the Beatles could achieve...YOU can record for hours for free (look the price of a NAB reel of tape!) you can do infinite overdubs, undos.

Worth learning just a teensy bit of physics?

Dave.

I do believe the undo button is one of the greatest, most underrated inventions of the past half century.

You're right. You know you're right and I know you're right. I realize that the biggest issue I have is not whether I believe physics would make my task easier. I know it would. I just don't like feeling pressured, ridiculed, or otherwise bullied into doing something that I don't feel is 100% necessary.

I am conceding that physics works and would make my recording go smoother, I know this now. However I also believe that I can accomplish a satisfactory recording without the physics book knowledge that the Beatles' engineers required. How is this possible? Well you said yourself that unlike the Beatles, someone like me has infinite tracks and overdubs to work with, and the undo button. I would argue that moving the mics around with trial and error, albeit more time consuming and more laborious, can achieve good enough results that a mixing engineer can punch it through the end zone in post production. If not, the mixing engineer can steer me in the right direction for what he wants and I can make the adjustments and try again. Still cheaper than reel tape.

Yes it would be more difficult. Yes it would take longer. Yes it may not sound as polished as Brittany Spears. But with minimal physics knowledge, I still think it can be done. I mean knowing the target dB ranges and how to prevent clipping is physics, but I don't need to know all the sines, cosines, and tangents of the angle of the dangle in order to know that maybe I should adjust the input knob one direction or the other. And if I need a reference, I can look in a recording or physics textbook to find the answer, but I don't think I need this knowledge on hand, off the top of my head.

So yes, a teensy bit of physics would be helpful.

 

[Dusty Ol' Bones]

Let's parse this out.
Recording the finger picking acoustic requires a large dynamic range. Forgetting compression (which can come later) think of your recording in terms of "average" rather than peak. Peaks can be dialed back, but if your losing the "meat" of your picking, you will be hard pressed to get that back. So, I would record a little hot, between -6 to 0. You should be able to set your meters to give you a slower response (RMS) rather than peaks and peak hold. Also, monitor the output, not input to assure there is no clipping.
If you are recording both your vocals and guitar at the same time, make sure that there is enough isolation between the two. I don't see whether you are recording both simultaneously or not. IMHO, recording guitar and vocals should be done separately. Try recording a "reference" track with your vocals and guitar together. Then, overdub your guitar on another track, and repeat for your vocal track on yet another track.
This actually has several benefits. If you listen to 60s Beatles or Motown records, you can hear that the vocal tracks are doubled. Makes for a nice mix. AND the details are in the mix.

Thank you for the advice!

Historically I have been recording myself playing and singing live. However, my guitar player and I were brainstorming and have been planning to do something similar to what you are saying. He suggested recording my guitar with the instrument line while singing unmiked, so it has no vocal bleed. Then singing again and overdubbing the vocals on top of my guitar track. And later adding lead guitar overdubs.

I had not considered doubling the vocals. Very cool idea, thanks.

 

[TalismanRich]

Singing unmiked doesn't mean that a guitar mic won't pick up some of the vocal. If you're in the same room, it's going to show up. It will be low in level, but unless you are REALLY precise when you redo the vocal, it may become apparent in the mix.

When I record a guitar track, I have the lyrics in front of me and while I don't "sing" along, I'll generally mouth the words, basically hearing them only in my head. That way I keep track of where I am in the song. Then when singing the song if I screw up, I can just back up and start over, or just start from the previous verse or chorus.

 

[ecc83]

I do believe the undo button is one of the greatest, most underrated inventions of the past half century.

You're right. You know you're right and I know you're right. I realize that the biggest issue I have is not whether I believe physics would make my task easier. I know it would. I just don't like feeling pressured, ridiculed, or otherwise bullied into doing something that I don't feel is 100% necessary.

I am conceding that physics works and would make my recording go smoother, I know this now. However I also believe that I can accomplish a satisfactory recording without the physics book knowledge that the Beatles' engineers required. How is this possible? Well you said yourself that unlike the Beatles, someone like me has infinite tracks and overdubs to work with, and the undo button. I would argue that moving the mics around with trial and error, albeit more time consuming and more laborious, can achieve good enough results that a mixing engineer can punch it through the end zone in post production. If not, the mixing engineer can steer me in the right direction for what he wants and I can make the adjustments and try again. Still cheaper than reel tape.

Yes it would be more difficult. Yes it would take longer. Yes it may not sound as polished as Brittany Spears. But with minimal physics knowledge, I still think it can be done. I mean knowing the target dB ranges and how to prevent clipping is physics, but I don't need to know all the sines, cosines, and tangents of the angle of the dangle in order to know that maybe I should adjust the input knob one direction or the other. And if I need a reference, I can look in a recording or physics textbook to find the answer, but I don't think I need this knowledge on hand, off the top of my head.

So yes, a teensy bit of physics would be helpful.

What you propose IS "sciencey"! You can make the process even "sciencier" by making careful notes and logs of what you do.
I don't know if you did "experiments" at school but the first part of the process was to draw a diagram of the "apparatus" and show what each part did...so, "guitar mic"..."AI" di dah!

As Poirot says "Order and method". A good garden can be beautiful and LOOK random but it is much more likely the result of careful planning, a ****k lot of hard work and the application of good botanical science.

Dave.

 

[Dusty Ol' Bones]

Singing unmiked doesn't mean that a guitar mic won't pick up some of the vocal. If you're in the same room, it's going to show up. It will be low in level, but unless you are REALLY precise when you redo the vocal, it may become apparent in the mix.

When I record a guitar track, I have the lyrics in front of me and while I don't "sing" along, I'll generally mouth the words, basically hearing them only in my head. That way I keep track of where I am in the song. Then when singing the song if I screw up, I can just back up and start over, or just start from the previous verse or chorus.

Thank you. My apologies, I said "instrument line" but meant guitar DI channel. My acoustic guitar has a pickup and I referred to the DI as instrument line. I know the sound won't be as full with only a DI being tracked but my guitar player will make it full with overdubs.

 

[Dusty Ol' Bones]

What you propose IS "sciencey"! You can make the process even "sciencier" by making careful notes and logs of what you do.
I don't know if you did "experiments" at school but the first part of the process was to draw a diagram of the "apparatus" and show what each part did...so, "guitar mic"..."AI" di dah!

As Poirot says "Order and method". A good garden can be beautiful and LOOK random but it is much more likely the result of careful planning, a ****k lot of hard work and the application of good botanical science.

Dave.

I had to step back for a couple of days but I'm not mad.

I have had a lot of sales jobs in my life. When you think about it, every company is happy to hire commission salespeople because without paying a salary, the company has not much to lose. Then I started working for a friend who owns a company that installs a crucial component of every new construction home, as well as servicing pre-existing installations. Once again I found myself in sales. At that time I was in my mid 30s and realized I was competing with the other salesmen, who were all under 25 and hungry and aggressive. I didn't do as well this time. So I transitioned into a production role, which meant more management and not any sales. But in that position I found myself dealing with irate customers on the phone who were promised the world by the sales guy who only wanted to close the deal and had no idea how the product worked; he sold them something impossible to install. Whether it was a high dollar construction superintendent or a single mom, anytime my department got a call from an angry client, it was nearly always the salesman's fault.

Over the years I've grown jaded and now have a general disdain for most professional salespeople. Not because they are bad humans or even doing anything unethical. I just don't like the feeling of telling a person over and over again that I'm an Eskimo and I don't need his freaking ice cubes. Remember, I used to be in sales, so I understand their tactics of overcoming objections and their attempts at persuading, manipulating, and eventually lying... just to close the sale. I don't blame them. We all do what we have to do to put food on the table.

It's not the product or service that bothers me, it's the act of being sold to. No one in this thread is lying just like no one in this thread is making money off of anyone else. The sales story was just a recap of my own hangups. Thank you all for obliging.

You're right @ecc83 I am doing science without even realizing it. I guess all the science teachers thumping my head with their text books really did pay off. I'm sitting here doing science yet I still feel as if someone is sitting next to me in the lab with a megaphone, yelling at me to, "DO SCIENCE MORE!!... DO SCIENCE MORE!!!.."

 

[rob aylestone]

When I was a teen - I ducked out of working in the workshop and started selling high tec video and audio gear. Sony U-matic, then others. They cost the price of a house and as a youngster I did well because I knew how they worked and how businesses could use them. Same with the video cameras of the day and sound and lighting gear. Then the owner started renting and selling to the public and it all changed. Instead of doing a great presentation in a boardroom, I was dealing with real people and my boss heard of this American thing called Dale Carnegie. Selling people things they didn't need or want ... or could afford. So we then started offering poor people finance they couldn't pay. I got out. When I go to the local store it is painful to hear the sales people talking complete nonsense. The real skill is to take the science and present it in an understandable way. I was pretty good, but getting qualified to teach properly taught me loads of useful stuff. The critical thing with science based subjects is to evaluate what the listener needs to know and not going further.

 

[Dusty Ol' Bones]

When I was a teen - I ducked out of working in the workshop and started selling high tec video and audio gear. Sony U-matic, then others. They cost the price of a house and as a youngster I did well because I knew how they worked and how businesses could use them. Same with the video cameras of the day and sound and lighting gear. Then the owner started renting and selling to the public and it all changed. Instead of doing a great presentation in a boardroom, I was dealing with real people and my boss heard of this American thing called Dale Carnegie. Selling people things they didn't need or want ... or could afford. So we then started offering poor people finance they couldn't pay. I got out. When I go to the local store it is painful to hear the sales people talking complete nonsense. The real skill is to take the science and present it in an understandable way. I was pretty good, but getting qualified to teach properly taught me loads of useful stuff. The critical thing with science based subjects is to evaluate what the listener needs to know and not going further.

You hit the nail on the head. When I innocently started down the path of sales, I was motivated by helping people. I enjoyed talking with them and assisting them in making an informed decision. But later on when managers and co-workers began telling me to read Dale Carnegie and Napoleon Hill, it signaled the beginning of the end for my career in sales. I read and studied those books, attempted to apply their principles, but the harder I tried the worse I did. When you remove the whole "leading a customer to an informed decision" part of the process, it becomes a game of fleecing them for all the money they can afford. I can't do that.

 

[rob aylestone]

I got sent on a course led by a dale carnegie company guy, an American in England. It was clever, but so un-british. I liked to be honest. If a product was not suitable for somebodies needs, then tell them and suggest something that is. Nope, maximise sales was the driver. Not for me. Ever since i have become wary, and now quite sceptical.

I had a show at 7.30. At 3pm somebody lowered a lighting bar onto the screen of my macbook running the show Qlab file! I ran to the local Currys. Had to queue up behind the one computer guy selling one to a couple. They asked a question. He said no. I said, to hurry them along, actually it does do that, but you have to do this, and showed them all. Three times i had to jump in and correct him. When he eventually got to me he said thanks, he didnt know anything about macs as he had not ye5 been on the training! If you sell the damn things, surely professional personal standards mean you damn well learn!

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

That's interesting to me. What you two are discussing, pointing out. I can relate. Heavily. In this sense....

I've always done what I do for a living. Professionally- I'm a blue collar tradesman who went to school and got my first job doing what I do right after my 19th bday. Because of the types of outfits I worked for in those early years - the work was very straightforward and satisfying. I was learning a lot and it was stimulating work because at the end of the day you had something to show for your time spent everyday.

So the years went on and I got better doing what I do in a technical sense. Then - in the mid to late 90's there was a shift in my line of work. Larger venture capital type companies started swallowing local companies. And more or less ruining them. The biggest most obvious perversion was a shift towards a heavy emphasis on *sales*. A doctrine began to be pushed hard of maximizing the opportunity you had when you entered someone's home or business. They would fly us - service technicians - across the country (multiple times) to attend these intensive sales training classes to indoctrinate us into being salesmen. That's what it felt like - because that's what it was. I didnt get it at first - why they were ruining these smaller companies with this nonsense. Then I began to understand (I was much younger and figuring this out for myself at the time) that they didn't care. It was all about short term gain. Profit at the expense of doing the right thing.

That was the beginning of the end for me. I wasn't going to be a part of that. It wasn't who I was as a person. I have to be able to look myself in the eye and feel good about what I'm doing. And I had/have choices. So I went in to commercial refrigeration and commercial kitchen equipment and went on to spend 6 years at Underwriters Laboratories test lab. That was very satisfying work. Got my state license along the way and finally built a business of my own with my own philosophy as the driving force: treating people like you want to be treated. Turns out - that's a successful business model.