Cool Gain-Staging Technique

Yes, this is first thing I do.  I play through the song to see what the peak level is on each track and then adjust the gain to get it to -16.  I put all tracks at the same level initially, but I think I usually bump the kick and snare up a little.

I am confused by that comment, since "math" is incredibly generic, and "degrading" a signal would make every VST worthless. Normalization is actually very innocuous in most respects, yet seems to get "blind hate" quite a bit for some reason. I truly do not understand this mindset.

Normalization really helps me when I have a whole bunch of tracks with relatively similar levels.
 
For example, if I record 16 tracks for 3 hours and get 35 songs, I would be likely to use normalization.
 
On the other hand, when tracks vary greatly, I'm much less likely to use normalization. For straight acoustic music where compressors are not used to record the original signal, I would probably not benefit much from the normalization process.
 
This process saves a lot of time. I'd compare this to writing papers with speech recognition software. You can crank it out fast, but it's easy to make different kinds of mistakes. You have to read over your work pretty carefully to find the goofy things you might end up with.

Jeff Evans
You need either real or virtual VU meters to do it this way.  Sonar standard rms meters are not suitable and they also read 3 db lower which does not help.  K sytem is good as it has three ref levels you can work at -12, -14 and -20.  All good for different applications. -18 is another excellent and common reference level.  Apart from very short percussive sounds I find that everything else allows itself to be measured and will respond nicely rms wise giving you meaningful readings.

What do you recommend for metering?

streckfus
David just does a simple peak normalization to -18 or -15.  And it's not like he just sets it and forgets it. 
 
I didn't mean to suggest that normalizing all tracks to -18 or -15 will magically create a great mix. I just know that I used to have a lot of difficulty with gain-staging and trying to judge appropriate levels/balance for all the tracks, and this method turned out to be a real time saver.

Heh, I was just about to clarify what I do thinking you were referencing my post, when I realized that you are referencing David Glenn's article.

I like to think most signals have an attack component which produces a short higher peak value followed on by an rms component.  The distance this peak is above the rms component depends on the nature of the sound.  In my work flow I like to keep all the rms levels the same and let the peak levels sit above that constant rms level at various random levels. eg some sounds might reach -4 dB in my system but the rms component will still be down at say -14 dB FS. And it does not matter because it will still get through your system untouched right to the end stereo mix and sound fine.  Some transient peaks might only be 4 db above rms and reach -10 dB FS at a -14 db FS ref rms level.  Some sounds have no transient edge or peak at the start and they just ease into the rms component.  Other sounds are fast and too fast for the VU.  Keep your eye on peak metering then.
 
Setting all the peaks to a constant value for me still sets the rms levels on each of those sources at various points below and around the ref level.  They will all over the place.  The rms is the meat of the sound and is closely allied to how loud something appears to be.  It is very basic theory.  Why not make it the constant and ensure all your tracks have a matched rms reading.  As long as there is plenty of headroom available for very transient sounds (and the -20 dB FS ref level ensures this) adjusting tracks to match up rms wise just sounds like a good idea.  And it is something we did before in the analog days.  Peak metering was not so big then and we just let the analog mixer/tape systems absorb the peaks the best way it knew.
 
When all your rms levels are correct on tracks then the fader is around unity.  You still have plenty of gain above and lots of control under.  Setting multiple faders to roughly the same position yields almost a perfect balanced mix as well.  Sending multiple tracks to a buss for example only requires all the faders to be around -3 to -4 or so for the correct ref level to be read on the buses.  The more tracks that are being directed to a buss (eg 6 vocal harmonies to a vox harm buss) just means pulling the group down slightly more.  When rms levels are all the same on tracks being assigned to a group, the faders then all end up at the same position eg around -6 dB or so.  Easy to see and move.
 
You can even mix into VU meters and add in various components watching the needle swing build up towards a full mix just hitting 0 dB VU on the output.
 
For metering I have real VU's which are nice for sure and even the best VST's only come very close in terms of needle ballistics.  But the Klanghelm meter is good.  Cheap and very effective.  Adjustable in response a little as well making it easier to line up to a real VU movement.  Studio One can put its meters into rms reading (eg full scale 0 dB VU = the db ref level below eg -12, -14 or -20 dB FS) which is handy and I like using it quite a lot.  But I still like the VST as well because you can insert them where you need them and just see how loud any signal is at that point. 
 
I can get the Klanghelm meter to move in a very similar way to the VU's.  I am a fan of watching how the needle swings over tracks, buses and the main stereo mix.  When everything is perfect the needle moves a certain way.  Poor dynamics control on tracks/buses shows up in the needle movement eg wild!  Compressors even when used lightly alter the movement of the needle very quickly.  Sometimes the wrong way.  Watching the ballistics can keep you setting your compressors better so the tracks still sound dynamic and punchy but the needle is just swinging up to 0 dB VU and not overshooting much at all and falling back real nice too.
 
PSP make a nice VU too called the Triple Meter.
 
As you can see I am fan of rms monitoring and let the peaks look after themselves approach.  It seems to work very well for me and I have been happy using this method for a long time.  It is something we did before and it is easily brought forward into the digital multitrack medium.  The sound is better to me now because there is no noise and the transients sound better to my ears too.
 

When I refer to tracks all being at a ref rms level I am not talking about the mix in any form.  Or creating any sort of mix by setting groups of faders at the same value etc.. It is all about having all the signal you need to be able to place any sound within a mix from very soft to loud if you want it.  When rms levels on tracks are right then you will have the right amount of range of that sound.  Decent amount at unity, above unity, and lots of softer levels below unity. (for the channel fader that is)
 
Once those tracks are correctly set up with all their rms levels at the ref level, then you are set to do an excellent mix.  The rest is up to you.  How well you balance that mix as the balance engineer.  You will get that balance because you always have the right amount of any level waiting behind a fader (pulled down to silence) ready to come into your mix and establish itself at the perfect level every time.  Set by you of course.  (Other things will improve your balance, cleaning up the arrangement, reducing masking using EQ and other effects etc..This is all good mix techique, nothing to do with track rms levels now!) Except I still involve the VU meter.  What I am aiming for is a real nice mix that is just hitting 0 dB VU nicely and not overshooting or anything like that.
 
I feel getting involved with peak levels first is still a little unnecessary.  And it can be avoided.  Set your rms levels the same instead.  Peaks are only a concern as they get closer and closer to 0 dB FS.  And peaks are very important with those all important fast/percussive sounds that slip past the VU very quickly.
 
If a track or mix had its highest peak at say -12 where is rms level then in relation?  If its 14 dB down for example in the case of that K System ref level, then the rms will sitting down at -26 dB FS.  Which is actually a little low.  Better off having that level at -20 dB FS (K system ref) rms and its peak may reach -6 dB FS instead.
 
The more you think about peaks and keeping them at some arbitrary level the more variable the rms levels will be everywhere.  Because as Dave very well put it, the rms/peak ratios are all different for each sound and track etc..So why not keep rms levels all the same throughout your system and let the peaks vary instead.
 
It is so easy to track and render at a consistent level.  (eg virtual instruments and the levels vary wildly from VST's. They really need to be set at a correct rms level before any rendering takes place) Once everything at track level is at a consistent rms level, there is just less work from that point on now because all your levels are right and ready to go. 
 
People seem to hang onto peak metering and try to meter everything peak-wise when it is actually futile.  They gave us peak metering when the DAW really came to town, they left out rms metering by mistake.  We had it before. It was dumb to leave it out.  Some DAW's have the right idea now.  They are letting you switch the metering into rms mode much more easily.  (eg FSD for 0 dB VU ref levels) You can also easily put it back in and work with it.  It is tried and true and wins every time doing a great mix.
 
The rms way for me is simply the best way.  So give it a go you may just never look back.  It becomes so easy and natural after a while.  I never see a clip light come on anywhere which is telling me all my peaks no matter how high they jump above rms levels on tracks, buses and the final mix are still well clear of 0 dB FS.  The headroom is always built in.  A -20 db or even a -14 db pre mastered mix is a dream to master.  Just so much headroom built in and so much to work with for the EQ, compressor and final limiter too.

cparmerlee

wst3
Normalization takes each data point and moves it up or down to meet some arbitrary level.

Doesn't that argument mean that every time we move a fader, we are degrading the material?

That was my thought too.

I mean we're told often enough that all DAW's sum tracks the same (and that it doesn't matter if levels are hot when summing) because after all it's a simple case of arithmetic to combine waves, so why wouldn't the same thing apply to normalization? 

cparmerlee

wst3
Normalization takes each data point and moves it up or down to meet some arbitrary level.

Doesn't that argument mean that every time we move a fader, we are degrading the material?

Technically, yes. When you move a fader you're multiplying each sample by a floating-point value, resulting in some loss of numerical accuracy. However, it's down at such a low level you'll never notice.
 
But that's not the same as peak normalization, which adds integer values to each sample rather than applying a multiplier. If you subsequently de-normalize it, the final result is identical to what you started with. That is not the case if you add N decibels in one stage and subtract N decibels at another stage.

multiplying. Input with a gain of 2 = input x2.

I THINK it goes without saying,
that when i say IDEAL, that would mean you were paying attention to things like RMS while actually tracking,
and knowing in advance, how you want to mix it.
 
that said, my faders end up all over the place!!
LOL
 
because i almost always end up carving some things up eq wise,
and using raw tracks here, completely limited tracks there,
so the faders go where they have to go.
 
point is, if you are tracking so aggressively that all your faders have to come down to about -14 just to hit -6 peaks on the master,
you're too hot.
 

Hi, I have a tendency to record a bit hot when using my tube preamp, to get the grit I want. I then use the gain (knob) to adjust to desired level when mixing (ProChannel overload etc). But that is just me.
All the best.

Jeff Evans
 
Zargg71 I would imagine any grit you are hearing is coming from your tube preamp and that is the only place where the grit is created.  That is a technique left over from a previous time when we did drive mixers and multitrack tape machines harder in order to add some crunch.  Now though the grit is not related to your digital recording level.
 
So your final output from your preamp can be recorded at any digital ref level eg -20 dB FS or -14 dB FS or even -8 dB FS. It should sound exactly the same.  The only difference here is how loud those tracks will be.  So why not record any preamps at your chosen rms ref level instead.  Then you will have your tracks pretty well ready to go and they will be at the right level before you mix.  No changes to that track level will be required before you proceed any further.
 
 

This was a reference to when I use my tube pre. I use both the tube pre and tube out (LA610) to get where I like it (if I need a bit of harmonic distortion, and I often do), hence the hot recordings On my other pre, I record approx -12dB.
All the best.