Why do I need to be so close to 0db?
- Thread starter PhilM
- Start date
Chris Shaeffer
Peavey ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whoever dies with their tracks closest to 0dBFS wins? 
Actually, its to make the most use of your convertors' resolution. The lower the volume is the less steps there are to quantify it, so quiet passages with levels set too low and be greatly reduced in quality.
This is a bigger deal if you are recording at 16 bit. With 24 bit I don't generally worry about it that much. I try to get a healthy level and not peak. (shrug) Its not rocket science. 1-2 dB below, at any rate, is pretty darned good.
-Chris
Actually, its to make the most use of your convertors' resolution. The lower the volume is the less steps there are to quantify it, so quiet passages with levels set too low and be greatly reduced in quality.
This is a bigger deal if you are recording at 16 bit. With 24 bit I don't generally worry about it that much. I try to get a healthy level and not peak. (shrug) Its not rocket science. 1-2 dB below, at any rate, is pretty darned good.
-Chris
scrubs
Not of sound mind
Cubasis VST that comes with the US-122 is a 16-bit only program. You should try to get a solid signal, but don't clip. Clipping will sound worse than any lost resolution from not using every bit. You might try downloading Krystal Audio Engine. It's free, and I think it is 24-bit.
northsiderap
New member
How about noise floor?
All equipment has a noise floor....
What I'm looking for is dynamic range above the noise floor.
Say my noise floor is at @-100+dB. That's the level that all the noise from the transistors and the power and RF interference etc. is at in this theoretical recording chain.
For Example:
Say I have a instrument that has dynamic range of 70dB. If I set it to peak at -1dB, then the quietest part is at -71dB, which is still 29dB above the noise floor. Noise not very noticible right now.
But.... If I am peaking at only -20dB then my instrument during the quietest passage would be mixed with all of the noise just to be audible.
In fact, the ratio of the noise in the entire mix would be up to 20dB higher if I wanted this instrument to be clear in the mix because I'd have to then amplify that recorded signal (including the noise) another 20-30dB. That brings my noise level up to -70dB to -80dB. Now you start to hear the noise....
I personally hate the sound of my converter's noise floor too. I can actually hear my hard drive scanning. Yuk.
Basically, when I record I'm trying to put as much distance between my quietest passages and that equipment noise as possible!
All equipment has a noise floor....
What I'm looking for is dynamic range above the noise floor.
Say my noise floor is at @-100+dB. That's the level that all the noise from the transistors and the power and RF interference etc. is at in this theoretical recording chain.
For Example:
Say I have a instrument that has dynamic range of 70dB. If I set it to peak at -1dB, then the quietest part is at -71dB, which is still 29dB above the noise floor. Noise not very noticible right now.
But.... If I am peaking at only -20dB then my instrument during the quietest passage would be mixed with all of the noise just to be audible.
In fact, the ratio of the noise in the entire mix would be up to 20dB higher if I wanted this instrument to be clear in the mix because I'd have to then amplify that recorded signal (including the noise) another 20-30dB. That brings my noise level up to -70dB to -80dB. Now you start to hear the noise....
I personally hate the sound of my converter's noise floor too. I can actually hear my hard drive scanning. Yuk.
Basically, when I record I'm trying to put as much distance between my quietest passages and that equipment noise as possible!
Personally I'd still record around -12 dbfs on a 16 bit machine. Screw the resolution, because it will get yanked down when you have to set your faders low as hell to not clip the mix buss.
IMHO the fastest way to a thin sound is recording as close to 0 dbfs as you can.
IMHO the fastest way to a thin sound is recording as close to 0 dbfs as you can.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
There's something to be said for headroom. I'd experiment with lower levels to see if you can find a sweet spot where the sound gels together better.
The noise floor and resolution arguments are correct, but headroom is often left out of the discussion. It's critical.
sl
The noise floor and resolution arguments are correct, but headroom is often left out of the discussion. It's critical.
sl
northsiderap
New member
Thats Right - -
A high noise floor is bad... But digital clipping is much much much much worse.
A high noise floor is bad... But digital clipping is much much much much worse.
Thanks folks, some real revealing facts there.
Yeah scrubs, I am going to try Cool Edit Pro 2.1 for my
next song.
Is it possible for me to find out what my floor noise and
Instrument/Guitar dynamic range is.?
The US-122 is as quite as a mouse. I here absolutely
nothing from it with headphones on.
Where as my SB Live card, huh!! heaps of shit to listen
to there with the phones on. I can see it on the Cool Edit
pro record volume meters.
Also, would someone be able to tell me why the link in my signature is not a link but just plain text.
I sent the BBS an email but no reply as yet.
Yeah scrubs, I am going to try Cool Edit Pro 2.1 for my
next song.
Is it possible for me to find out what my floor noise and
Instrument/Guitar dynamic range is.?
The US-122 is as quite as a mouse. I here absolutely
nothing from it with headphones on.
Where as my SB Live card, huh!! heaps of shit to listen
to there with the phones on. I can see it on the Cool Edit
pro record volume meters.
Also, would someone be able to tell me why the link in my signature is not a link but just plain text.
I sent the BBS an email but no reply as yet.