ITB Levels if mixing OTB

[jayjay]

Is there an ideal level that your individual tracks should be hitting within your DAW.
(If all channels were hitting 0) is that ok?

j

[djui5]

It's not so much an issue of what your DAW is doing, as it is to what your console it doing. Most of the time it's nice to turn down your DAW signal a bit, like -10db, when mixing on a console.

Set all your faders to -10db in your DAW, and start mixing. If you need more signal from the DAW, you got 10db to play with. Give or take a db.

It's also HIGHLY important to make sure your console is properly calibrated.

[jayjay]

ye that makes sense.
Is there a point where resolution is better or worse on the faders within the dig realm or is it all the same, again when mixing OTB.

j

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by djui5

It's not so much an issue of what your DAW is doing, as it is to what your console it doing. Most of the time it's nice to turn down your DAW signal a bit, like -10db, when mixing on a console.

Set all your faders to -10db in your DAW, and start mixing. If you need more signal from the DAW, you got 10db to play with. Give or take a db.

It's also HIGHLY important to make sure your console is properly calibrated.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement about where to put your faders, as it depends on what level you track at. One school of thought says to track so that when you put all your faders at zero you've got a reasonable mix already.

I've actully had just the opposite experience. I track fairly conservatively for mixing ITB, because there's plenty of resolution. Inside the box, even if your individual track levels are low, the 24 bit window slides up and down so your signal is still fully dynamic even if it is low in level. In other words, reducing level doesn't reduce bits. However, if you're sending a low level signal out a D/A then at that point you are losing resultion if the signal is low. So when I go out of the box I usually see a need to boost my track levels. However, you don't want to pinch the headroom of the converter.

Very confusing topic. Maybe somebody knows if there is a standard and if so, what it is.

-R

[djui5]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

I don't think you can make a blanket statement about where to put your faders, as it depends on what level you track at. One school of thought says to track so that when you put all your faders at zero you've got a reasonable mix already.

-R

Yeah. I just made a blanket statement regarding a blanket question. There is no info on what console, tracking levels, calibrations levels, etc.

I'd found it better to turn things down a little when mixing on a console. Not because it affects the DAW, but because it affects the input of the board....

Just a personal observation. Not to be taken too sierously about the 10db thing.

[Steve G]

I think if you know that your track is going to be mixed on an analog console, then you need to take more care with your recording levels (actually you always need to take care with recording levels). If you get the right levels going in, you won't have to adjust levels on the way out. I think a good set of analog meters to see input and output would do us all a world of good. I'm having a set built for me now.

Steve

[espasonico]

I think that the point here is calibration. It depends on the desk. If your desk has a good headroom over 0dbu you should calibrate your AD/DA to the same headroom if tracking in the same room. If you are recording at another place then get the levels you are confrtable with.

I don´t like to track watching the meters in a DAW all the time. Fast transients are a PITA because they take so much headroom and i don´t like limiters or fast attack safety compressors.

Get a good sound with enough headroom for not to worry about overs and that´s it at least for me.

Music is fun!!

[u b k]

to me the more important issue is how hard am i hitting my d/a's? digital sounds better to my ears when i play it conservative, so make sure no plugs are clipping and the d/a's are averaging -18, peaking -10 at most.

otoh analog, at least the analog that i use, likes to be spanked, so i set my console's faders at unity and build a rough mix using the input trims until my mix buss is hovering in the sweet spot. sometimes, i want channel push or possibly distortion on a sound, so i pull back the fader and crank the input until i hear what i want.

it's all gainstaging, and it all matters a great deal. it mattered with the pre->tape->a/d, and it matters daw->d/a->console->mix comp->tape->a/d, and every step in between.


gregoire
del
ubk

[midnightsun]

If all digital tracks are hitting zero during mixdown I wonder if during the initial tracking if there were transients or spikes going over the top. I usually leave my DAW faders at unity and adjust gain from the analog console. I think it sounds better to attenuate the volume of a track from the analog console rather than from the DAW.

[FS0420]

I dont think it would ever be a good idea to turn the all the DAWs faders to -10 for any reason.....It should never have been tracked that hot. There would have to be a calibration error if everything was tracked properly.

[Andreas G]

When mixing tacks OTB I don't change levels ITB, I use the daw like a recorder, meaning what comes in goes out with the same level.
When tracking I leave always some dB for headroom though.

Andreas

[lucey]

this may be the record ... 11 replies, all different.



jayjay 24 bit resolution allows a lot of motion with no degradation, so its a pretty wide open topic as to where to put your digital faders.

i would worry less about digital resolution and more about flow for you and the analog tones/push in the analog mixer.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Andreas G

When mixing tacks OTB I don't change levels ITB, I use the daw like a recorder, meaning what comes in goes out with the same level.
When tracking I leave always some dB for headroom though.

Andreas

This makes the most sense to me. The whole idea of picking a digital reference level for 0, such as -20 or whatever, would seem to be to do just this.

-R

[kats]

Is there an ideal level that your individual tracks should be hitting within your DAW.
(If all channels were hitting 0) is that ok?

Assume your calibrated to -20 dBfs = 0 dBu.

That means if your DAW meters are pinned at 0 you'll be hitting your console at +20 dBu. That's pretty hard if you ask me.

[obostic]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Is there an ideal level that your individual tracks should be hitting within your DAW.
(If all channels were hitting 0) is that ok?

j

Thats pretty hot for mixing OTB. I generally calibrate my A/Ds(Tracking) 0dBu=-16dBFS and D/As(Mixing) -16dBFS=0dBu. I use my DAW as a tape machine and the faders are left at unity gain. The DAW signal levels should be no hotter than -10dBFS to -6dBFS on peaks when mixing OTB. Of course, these are general settings and not the rule. Always listen for a nice open mix and when things start to close down your too hot.

[superjimmer]

I've always been curious about this. Are you messing with the resolution of the original audio files by adjusting your DAW faders? In otherwords would the audio be less compromised if all faders were set to unity and the console faders did all the volume adjjustments?

thanks!

- Jim

[Kiwiburger]

It seems to me that everybody is talking at cross purposes and confusing dbFS with dbVU. Unless you qualify otherwise, I think it's wise to assume that most DAW users are talking peak, dbFS.

There is no industry standard about what 0dBVU should be in dbFS. So you just have to decide for yourself how much headroom you are going to allow. Basing it on your converter makers recommendion might be a good start. Generally you are looking at -18, -15dbFS. Thats for average level - so obviously you peaks are going to be a little higher.

For the typical DAW user who doesn't have VU meters, I think the advice to aim for peaks never exceeding -10dBFS is good. That automatically takes care of your average levels being somewhere below.

Ultimately, the ears have the final say. I used to track as hot as possible, now i'm choosing lower and lower levels.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by FS0420

I dont think it would ever be a good idea to turn the all the DAWs faders to -10 for any reason

Well, if your system is calibrated to -18dbFS=0dbvu, then if you track at levels between -10 and 0 in your DAW (like a lot of people do), then if you turn down all your playback faders by 10 db (to -10) when mixing on a console, then you'll be hitting the consoles line inputs somewhere between -2 and +8dbvu, which is prime range for most consoles line inputs. This also leaves you room to play with in either direction if you desire. That *cough*bullshit*cough* about degrading your converters by turning down the audio a little bit is...well...bullshit.


Do as you wish though...of course.

[kats]

then if you track at levels between -10 and 0 in your DAW (like a lot of people do)

The problem is the damn meters in a DAW. -20dBfs looks so weak on the meter that too many people slam em thinking they're getting more fidelity.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by kats

The problem is the damn meters in a DAW. -20dBfs looks so weak on the meter that too many people slam em thinking they're getting more fidelity.

Yes, then you get Pro-Tools that has no f'n numbers on it....lovely.

I like to keep it right where the green meets yellow in Pro-Tools. Sounds great to me there.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by superjimmer

I've always been curious about this. Are you messing with the resolution of the original audio files by adjusting your DAW faders? In otherwords would the audio be less compromised if all faders were set to unity and the console faders did all the volume adjjustments?

thanks!

- Jim

Yes. Volume changes ITB are a mathematical calculation.

[George Necola]

I dont know who wrote it down, but I think it was Mr. Katz or Lavry that you shouldnt drive your converteors harder then -6dB (if 0dB is reference) because every convertor will add artefacts the more you will reach 0dB.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Yes. Volume changes ITB are a mathematical calculation.

Nobody has ever demonstrated that making volume changes in a DAW degrades the audio. OTOH, the opposite is easy to demonstrate.

-R

[Lagerfeldt]

Sure it does.

Any unnecessary process will introduce more calculations and more potential errors and will in some cases require extra dithering too. if you take a dithered 16 bit file and drop the volume by -0.1 dB in you'll expand to 32 bit float (depending on your DAW) and bouncing directly to 16 bits again gives you a truncated signal. But adding dithering again will give to two layers of dithering on what is essentially still a 16 bit file. Not very nice.

Whether this has any effect on the actual subject of this thread I don't know.

[FS0420]

Originally Posted by djui5

Well, if your system is calibrated to -18dbFS=0dbvu, then if you track at levels between -10 and 0 in your DAW (like a lot of people do), then if you turn down all your playback faders by 10 db (to -10) when mixing on a console, then you'll be hitting the consoles line inputs somewhere between -2 and +8dbvu, which is prime range for most consoles line inputs. This also leaves you room to play with in either direction if you desire. That *cough*bullshit*cough* about degrading your converters by turning down the audio a little bit is...well...bullshit.


Do as you wish though...of course.

I never mentioned anything about degrading your converters. Just doubting I will ever record every track so hot I have to turn it down for any reason at all. Especially since I do EQ cuts in the Nuendo mixer.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Sure it does.

Any unnecessary process will introduce more calculations and more potential errors and will in some cases require extra dithering too. if you take a dithered 16 bit file and drop the volume by -0.1 dB in you'll expand to 32 bit float (depending on your DAW) and bouncing directly to 16 bits again gives you a truncated signal. But adding dithering again will give to two layers of dithering on what is essentially still a 16 bit file. Not very nice.

We're talking 24 bit here, not 16. Like I said, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that moving a fader in a DAW has any detrimental effect whatever.

If it is a problem, it should be easy to demonstrate. Run a file through a bunch of digital faders, move them up and down, then compensate at the end. See if there's a difference. There isn't.

It's one less thing to worry about.

-R