Tracking levels?

[frist44]

With all the discussion about digital levels and whether lowering the fader actually lowers the bit rate sent to the master buss, let's take a drum kit for example....

how many people would track the levels to sort of pre-mix the drum kit? Like you might not have the overhead and room pres so hot, so with the faders at 0dB in the computer or even on a console, you have a pretty good rough balance of the drum kit. So come mixdown, not many extreme volume adjustments need to be made.

I guess for those who are looking for a certain sweet spot on a pre, might be totally against this thinking as the level you're looking for might be far off from a balanced level in the mix.

any thoughts?

Brandon

[Slaytex]

I would not track like that. I usually try and go for -6db or so. You don't want to go too low but you also want some headroom. If you're looking to mix while tracking do it with the tape returns. I'm having a brain fart at the moment and I'm not by my audio computer but you can also do this in your DAW (post fader levels I believe).

[Slaytex]

I just read my post and realized that didn't make much sense. All I can recall at the moment is that I can have my faders all the way down in my DAW and still get input levels from my preamps coming in. Essentailly just like monitoring from tape. Sorry but I've had an all nighter.

[ProFool]

Originally Posted by Slaytex

I just read my post and realized that didn't make much sense. All I can recall at the moment is that I can have my faders all the way down in my DAW and still get input levels from my preamps coming in. Essentailly just like monitoring from tape. Sorry but I've had an all nighter.

I always use the pre monitoring faders while tracking and I think most pt users do, I dont see why not to use them.

grtz

[frist44]

I know you can change the monitoring levels and still get a healthy signal going into the computer, but there's always been talk of lowering resolution as you lower a fader come mixdown. let's say you need to pull the overheads way down in order to achieve the balance you want in the mix because you tracked them up to -6dB, some would argue that you're losing some resolution because that fader is so far down.

Brandon

[Slaytex]

Originally Posted by frist44

I know you can change the monitoring levels and still get a healthy signal going into the computer, but there's always been talk of lowering resolution as you lower a fader come mixdown. let's say you need to pull the overheads way down in order to achieve the balance you want in the mix because you tracked them up to -6dB, some would argue that you're losing some resolution because that fader is so far down.

Brandon

You'll also have a hell of a noise floor if you record really low. With 32 bit float and all the good stuff it's not that big a problem. Just use your ears and get a good strong level coming in with a bit of headroom left over and you'll be in good shape. thumbsup

[frist44]

yeah I guess there is a sacrifice of noise floor for resolution maybe. The noise floor in the end is probably the more important factor.

What's everyones tracking levels into the computer? -6dB.

I just recently read a bunch of stuff on converter performance and squashing the master buss in the computer and it seems something around -6dB would be ideal. I also saw some stuff about people no exceeding -6dB on any of the software faders (channels, subgroups, and master buss). any thoughts?

Brandon

[Slaytex]

There was a big dfegad match thread a few weeks ago on here about bit resolution, what levels to mix at, oversampling peaks and all that fun stuff. I'll try to find it for you. Also check out the "white papers" under the search option.

[Slaytex]

Here is the link for the "White Paper"
And the summing thread that talkes all about levels and such. It is a bit long but well worth the read. Here!

[doug_hti]

Originally Posted by frist44

yeah I guess there is a sacrifice of noise floor for resolution maybe. The noise floor in the end is probably the more important factor.

What's everyones tracking levels into the computer? -6dB.

I just recently read a bunch of stuff on converter performance and squashing the master buss in the computer and it seems something around -6dB would be ideal. I also saw some stuff about people no exceeding -6dB on any of the software faders (channels, subgroups, and master buss). any thoughts?

Brandon

-6db what....? in reference to what...?

if you are talking about digital, (fs) then what are your converters calibrated to?

Just remember how hard you are pushing your analog gear (preamps/comps/eqs) on the input more so than how hard you are pushing your AD converters. A lot of modern converters can handle it, a lot of preamps cant, or will start to add subtle (or not so subtle) distortion.

[Mike Tholen]

Observe 0dBVU while tracking...proper gain structure is imperative.

[dokushoka]

If you're tracking to digital at 24 bit, the dynamic range of the converters is larger than that of your analog gear, so the converters easily "capture" the noise floor of your analog equipment.

There is no reason to "print hot" to 24 bit digital, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Even if you are only peaking at something like -12 or whatever, you still are well above your analog noise floor.

Printing hotter is dangerous as you may be clipping your converters without even know it (those meters don't move THAT fast) or clipping even the analog electronics in your interface. The first one, especially, is going to destroy your sounds.

Having said all that, sometimes its a compromise. I have so compressors where I like to drive the output pretty hard, so I end up printing kind of hot to disk, I'm still cautious to avoid clips those. I don't want to be anywhere near -0...

[Lawrence]

Ditto.

The noise floor is set by your analog gear, including your A/D converters, synths, preamps etc. There is simply no logical reason to record up near 0. If you hear analog noise in a 24-bit system when recording / mixing then you've got problems outside of the daw / disk recorder.

I never (after setting proper levels) see a red light on any digital meters anywhere in my system and nary a yellow. -6/-8 even -12 is fine. With that said we do live in the age where everybody compresses the hell out of everything so if you record levels too low (and you suffer from over-compression-itis) you will reduce your S/N ratio considerably. If you've got cheap (noisy) analog gear that's something to consider when tracking. That's also why proper gain-staging should be practiced at all times. Unless your analog gear is crappy you should never have a problem with analog noise.

Finally (...again...) most digital meters cannot accurately represent the true peak of the signal that will ultimately be created when it is converted to analog. No matter what you see on your meters it's almost always going to peak a little higher when it turns into an analog waveform.

For those that think a -2 track sounds "better" than a -10 track because "you used more bits"? Try it. Record on two tracks at the same time at those two peak levels. Level match the playback of the two and A/B them to see if you can hear a difference.

Lawrence

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by frist44

yeah I guess there is a sacrifice of noise floor for resolution maybe. The noise floor in the end is probably the more important factor.

What's everyones tracking levels into the computer? -6dB.

I just recently read a bunch of stuff on converter performance and squashing the master buss in the computer and it seems something around -6dB would be ideal. I also saw some stuff about people no exceeding -6dB on any of the software faders (channels, subgroups, and master buss). any thoughts?

Brandon

Read through this: I posted a few examples of "slamming the mix buss".

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...t=master+fader

I would record with peaks hitting between -18dbfs to -12dbfs. These levels seem to interface better with analog than nearly -0dbfs signals.

[blackbox]

most analog gear was meant to operate optimally at 0vu. To me pushing harder than that will result of mushiness as subtley distorted tracks are piled on top of each other. with the abscence of vu meters in todays digital gear it;'s not unusual to see some kid recording elec gtr tracks at around -2 dbfs thinking he's doing great by staying outta the red, but in fact he's cutting a distorted track at like +6 vu...
so, i still use vu meters. outta pro tools into the board. that way i can really see what's going on. peak indicators like the worthless meters in pro tools don't tell you a thing. my ears tell me when i'm clipping most of the time. Usually I glance at the peak meter to check if i'm safe and then off i go. if you cut using 0vu as your reference, you'll end up fine. Be careful on real transient loaded stuff like drums of course. your mixes will end up sounding so much better.

[PlugHead]

Originally Posted by frist44

With all the discussion about digital levels and whether lowering the fader actually lowers the bit rate sent to the master buss, let's take a drum kit for example....

how many people would track the levels to sort of pre-mix the drum kit? Like you might not have the overhead and room pres so hot, so with the faders at 0dB in the computer or even on a console, you have a pretty good rough balance of the drum kit. So come mixdown, not many extreme volume adjustments need to be made.

I guess for those who are looking for a certain sweet spot on a pre, might be totally against this thinking as the level you're looking for might be far off from a balanced level in the mix.

any thoughts?

Brandon

Basically, this is the way I record most often - tho slight adjustments will be made, and mostly if I know what the project entails, I track instruments at their relative "mix" levels - in the drumkit, the snare will usually be the loudest, but is often on par with the kick, overheads are usually -6 to -10 dB quieter (or more) than kik/snare (unless brushes are used), so they're down substantially, and BG things like shakers or tambourine are peaking very low - sometimes -20 dB or less. This method revealed (to me) acoustic instruments sound best with 'air/space' around them, and close micing often presents certain sources wrong (too close for tambourine is a no-no, percussion sounds WAY better from a bit of a distance, etc.). Keep in mind, I'm not recording metal/hard rock and I'm sure for most in that vein, close micing and little (if any) dynamics are sought after (like the rest of the current trends in this industry. ... )

But as a test - if you have some BG tracks to record (shakers, tambourine, conga's, even a rhythm guitar strumming, etc) try both recording with close micing/hot levels to A/D, and from a bit of a distance (even if you don't have the "ultimate"' room acoustically) with lower input to A/D, blending a "quasi-mixed" balance - tell us what you prefer (after making the appropriate fader adjustments to balance the mix)

I tend to prefer the quieter recorded tracks - they might need a bit of attention to 'sit' correctly due to them being a bit more ambient, but most often they tend to mix themselves - moreso with dynamic music - this is also more relevant with 'less' in the mix situations, and if you're into 40+ tracks, it's not really about the music anymore...

YYMV greatly,

[7rojo7]

most don't have VU meters.
0VU is a great rule, but if you track a tamborine at 0VU; you lose.
it really takes a bit of experience to know these things. You can't think that you learn program like Word and then be an Author.
Every type of instrument has its level.
With tape the problem was noise vs distortion and frequency response. You hit tape hard with everything (peak vs VU depending on the material) and used the line trim on the board to get the faders to look right and be usable.
The problem with some early digital was resolution, so you had to get to -2 fs on the peaks to get a good recording. If you compressed something to sound good and printed it to digital, you lost. Has to be done after in analog, don't know why there's no sun up in the sky.
At the same time the "direct to tape" phenomenon was happening, correct mic> good pre (even the console pre that have all been parted out and racked up)> Tape or digital Tape> console return> whatever you can get at after that> monitor.
Now you don't have to worry about noise, resolution problems don't really exist but you can lose yourself there, I do (but I have some really good gear).
My answer would be: Don't worry about it, make some good sounds anyway you can and capture them, make changes when you mix to your satisfaction, correct anything you can when you master and another project is done.
this a discussion that has been adressed many times and as I've seen on the remote forum, there's a sticky with the most dicussed topics at the top of the forum so any one who's loking can continue in the everlasting, never ending threads like these.
I've written the same response at least 5 times now.

[cgarges]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

0VU is a great rule, but if you track a tamborine at 0VU; you lose.
it really takes a bit of experience to know these things.

A-freaking-men!

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[blackbox]

yeah. of course. shakers, tamb etc. i guess bottom line is the oft quoted use your ears. I'm just pointing out that folks have lost the references we used to use and are essentially recording everything way to hot. I remember trying like crazy to get the kick drum to stay at -1dbfs back in the 16 bit dig days. Frustrating days those were.