The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Gain Staging - Am I Doing It Wrong? Channel Strip Plugins
Old 21st December 2016
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevon View Post
you just kinda contradicted yourself and proved my point at the same time. some listening devices get harsh when pushed. meaning a novice would probably try eqing that harshness out instead of turning down the volume where things are smooth again. i have some JBL headphones when pushed things seem really harsh but when turned down they are very smooth.
I don't disagree, and I didn't contradict myself. The point was that the way you wrote it - to me - seemed to imply that the correct place to turn down the volume would be in the mixing-part of the system rather than in the monitoring path.

When I work I have my monitor path set to a reference level where things sound fine when my mix hits certain levels. But if I (ears) feel tired for example I'll turn down the levels in the monitoring chain, not the mix chain. So when leaving that out, or at least not making it crystal clear, I think a relatively new person could get the wrong idea about where to adjust what for what reason.
Old 21st December 2016
  #32
Lives for gear
 

oh okay i understand yeah i should of made it more clear. not mixing, but monitoring things.
Old 21st December 2016
  #33
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Sorry to nit-pick, but I don't think the above is really true, or it is at least misleading. The meters are perfectly fine when measuring peak, it's just that you have to understand that they measure 'sample peak' and not "true peak".

And there is no massive delay on them either which I think I read somewhere in the thread.

As for leaving headroom for the mastering engineer: I really don't see why people fret over this so much. I understand that it's easier to just toss a track into a workstation and it sits roughly where you want it to be when you begin, but the issue really can't be the absolute level being too high, because it's so insanely simple to reduce the level to get back that "headroom". Instead the issue must surely be a reduced dynamic range in the music, and that's something I almost never see people mention in this context.

In other words: If you have a perfectly dynamic mix and the output happens to peak at -2dBFS it really shouldn't be a big deal - the mastering engineer can just pull down the level of it. But if you follow the advice given so frequently and squash the hell out of the mix but leave 6 to 10dB of "headroom" between peaks and 0dBFS it won't help the mastering engineer one bit, because the dynamic range is already destroyed. Where it "lives" on the digital scale has nothing to do with that.

I do however agree that with a calibrated playback system you can mix by ear to a large degree and simply end up with both dynamic range and at the same time comfortably staying away form 0dBFS.
I should have explained a bit. The meters (at least in Pro Tools) don't show inter-sample peaks and will only show you that you have clipped the signal after three consecutive samples peak. This can cause issue not only with playback but with plugin processing. But I would agree there is no major delay in what the meters are telling you.

And most commercially released music still had a dynamic range of less than 9db. It may seem hard to believe but the Loudness War is still raging. Check out Album list - Dynamic Range Database for a list of albums from 2016 and their dynamic range, some are as low as 2 and 3 db(totally crazy). It'll probably surprise you, I know it shocked me.

I think it's also important to note that with some very specific exceptions, there are no rules to any of this stuff and what may work for some, may not work for others, as long as we're all making great tunes and having fun right? Oh and I absolutely agree with your last statement about a calibrated system, as someone else said one of the best ways to get better at mixing is cover your meters and use the only tool you're guaranteed to always have with you, your ears!
Old 21st December 2016
  #34
Lives for gear
 

I'm absolutely not surprised by the loudness of contemporary music. When I mentioned the dynamic range all I really meant was that if the tracks are going to a mastering engineer then squashing it to less than 9dB requires more than that in dynamic range specifically, not headroom from average to zero dBFS. that was my only point really.

I think we mostly agree with each other.
Old 21st December 2016
  #35
Gear Head
 

Probably depends a lot on the consistency of the tracks themselves.if you're using samples or patches they'll probably be blaring. Start at the sources and turn them down if too loud.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #36
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I think we mostly agree with each other.
Indeed I believe we do!
Old 22nd December 2016
  #37
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumbergh View Post
V
If your DAW and hardware VUs dont match up one/both of them is out of spec (probably the hardware )
your graphics card is never in sync with respect to your DAW never mind your analog recording hardware.

video latency, audio latency are all problematic with respect to synchronization. Your sound card with direct monitoring is not even capable of real-time performance. Add in slow plugins, large amounts of audio data and forget it.

FYI there is no spec with regards to DAW audio, analog hardware and video hardware. It's a free for all. They are not related in any aspect. If you want to know what your levels are on playback in your DAW you watch your meters on your converters.

?
Old 22nd December 2016
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
your graphics card is never in sync with respect to your DAW never mind your analog recording hardware.

video latency, audio latency are all problematic with respect to synchronization. Your sound card with direct monitoring is not even capable of real-time performance. Add in slow plugins, large amounts of audio data and forget it.

FYI there is no spec with regards to DAW audio, analog hardware and video hardware. It's a free for all. They are not related in any aspect. If you want to know what your levels are on playback in your DAW you watch your meters on your converters.

?
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really think you know what you're talking about now, or you're expressing yourself unclearly (or I'm missing something).

First of all, the meters on like a gazillion of converters are incredibly coarse. Pretty much the only use you can make of them is ballparking a signal and seeing if there's a clip, but that's it.

Secondly, we're not talking meters being seconds behind the signal. That's just pure nonsense. Even if the meters are behind however, it hardly matters; the timing error is so small that any moderately talented musician or engineer will understand roughly where an over occurred.

Thirdly, I measure the level in the DAW all the time, like every day I work on audio, because it's part of specifications for delivery to TV networks. If metering was so inferior my mixes would fail QC all the time (they don't).

So I think some clarity is warranted when making these statements because a meter isn't a meter isn't a meter. There are differences. And they have different benefits and drawbacks etc.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #39
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Noob question time - room calibration. I bought an SPL meter (more so for A/B comparing DACs and whatnot) but decided to see what dB I prefer to produce/mix.

60-70 dB was the answer. 75dB was FAR too loud, even for a minute or so. I sit about 1.5m from my monitors.

So whats the crack with this 77-85 dB calibration malarkey? Surely everyone would be deafened if that were the SPL at listening position for 8+ hours a day?

I find 70 too loud after a short while.

Can I ignore all that and just keep an eye on meters/peaking/headroom?
Old 22nd December 2016
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Monitor Wizard | Sound On Sound

83dB is for big dolby film score mix rooms, smaller rooms are recommended to go lower. I'm with you though: 60-70 in a small room is enough for me, Ive always listened on the quieter end (probably why I can still hear 13k!) It does depend on the source though - clean, well recorded/mixed/mastered material through my monitors can be comfortable at 75, clipping/distorted/low bitrate stuff on cheap speakers can be unbearable over 60.

I reckon calibrate your monitoring chain then mix with your ears, just use metering for technical duties.


Edit: BTW Its great that you bothered to measure the SPL, most dont! Maybe set it up for 65dB SPL and see how you go. And remember that its your reference level - the highest you are comfortable with - not the level you should always work at.

Last edited by Lumbergh; 22nd December 2016 at 06:23 PM..
Old 22nd December 2016
  #41
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumbergh View Post
Monitor Wizard | Sound On Sound

83dB is for big dolby film score mix rooms, smaller rooms are recommended to go lower. I'm with you though: 60-70 in a small room is enough for me, Ive always listened on the quieter end (probably why I can still hear 13k!) It does depend on the source though - clean, well recorded/mixed/mastered material through my monitors can be comfortable at 75, clipping/distorted/low bitrate stuff on cheap speakers can be unbearable over 60.

I reckon calibrate your monitoring chain then mix with your ears, just use metering for technical duties.


Edit: BTW Its great that you bothered to measure the SPL, most dont! Maybe set it up for 65dB SPL and see how you go. And remember that its your reference level - the highest you are comfortable with - not the level you should always work at.
Thanks, I'll give that a full read (I'd been watching various things on YT).

If you don't mind—since you know about your hearing levels—is this test accurate?

Extended High Frequency Online Hearing Test | 8-22 kHz

I can hear 17k on that but 14k on another :¬)
Old 22nd December 2016
  #42
Lives for gear
 

I just used the signal generator plug in PT

17k? I'm guessing you're not in your 40s


Edit: That 14k might be the limit of the streaming codec if its on a website.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #43
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumbergh View Post
I just used the signal generator plug in PT

17k? I'm guessing you're not in your 40s

Edit: That 14k might be the limit of the streaming codec if its on a website.
Ah good point. Found another site:

Online Tone Generator - generate pure tones of any frequency

Could hear up to 17.5k.

37 Solar orbits thus far
Old 23rd December 2016
  #44
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumbergh View Post
I just used the signal generator plug in PT

17k? I'm guessing you're not in your 40s


Edit: That 14k might be the limit of the streaming codec if its on a website.
17.9 and in the 40s
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump