batsbrew
people that record their signals too hot,
even if not peaking,
have 'crunchy' sounding mixes, to me.
 
using up all available headroom on each individual track,
is like chasing your tail.
gets you nowhere, quickly.

Exactly! The number one thing that I have learned over the last 15 years is that the better the recorded track, the better the overall mix.  Tracking, is a profession in its own.  

batsbrew
people that record their signals too hot,
even if not peaking,
have 'crunchy' sounding mixes, to me.
 
using up all available headroom on each individual track,
is like chasing your tail.
gets you nowhere, quickly.

Hi Bat I said...watch the signal into the daw if there is any crunch on the above tracks it's because I was a bad tracking engineer 10 years ago...I'm not sure your getting the difference between analogue mixing and digital mixing...although they are both similar...I think the daw has a higher dynamic range 192db is popping into my head...it's pretty hard to fill that much...no matter how hard you try!

Let me know if there is something wrong with the above mixes...I don't have all my monitoring equipment with me at the moment...they the mixes sound fine on ****ty speakers...this tends to tell me I'm close...I might have put too much sheen...this is possible.

Ben.

The issue is not who is right or wrong about using VU meters, it is that fundamentally, they are a tool in the change. If you did not have analog level meters, you can still mix very professionally. You don't need them to get great results. 
What you do need above all else are good ears!
Of course if you compress s signal the VU meters will not jump as much as uncompressed. Gee wiz!

BenMMusTech

Hi Bat I said...watch the signal into the daw if there is any crunch on the above tracks it's because I was a bad tracking engineer 10 years ago...I'm not sure your getting the difference between analogue mixing and digital mixing...although they are both similar...I think the daw has a higher dynamic range 192db is popping into my head...it's pretty hard to fill that much...no matter how hard you try!

yes, mixing old tracks that were not done well,
is almost an exercise in futility.
good to practice on, but if your original track levels were too hot,
it cannot be fixed by ANY level of clownphuckery.
;-)
 
 
 
 
i have found that telling folks when they are first getting into digital tracking,
forget everything you learned about tracking in analog,
doesn't apply anymore, at least for the same reasons as before,
 
and look at PEAKS on your MASTER BUS of no more than -10db.
 
Those settings will get you into the sweet spot of any DAW.
 
ultimately, you figure out 'YOUR' sound, and whether or not you push the CREST FACTOR of your tracks up or down to get more or less dynamics, looking at RMS values vs PEAK values,
and either using limiting or compression at the track level to bring what i call the 'thickness' of a track up, and all the while, still not peaking above around -10db on your master bus.
 
if it seems too soft while monitoring during mixing, TURN YOUR MONITORS UP!!
 
LOL
 
POINT  IS:
 
when you get done with your mix,
you still have plenty of headroom left, to do mastering processing later.
you have nice safe UN crunchy levels, and you have not lost a single thing.
 
 
 

VU neters are not compulsary but if you think of them as an added tool then you have more control over your monitoring.  Everywhere from input tracking to buses and your final stereo buss.
 
VU's are good for showing rms values ballistics aside.  Keeping all your track levels at the desired ref level such as -18 or -20 results in consistent rms VU levels across all your tracks before you even start to mix.  Peaks can survive within the headroom provided. 18 and 20 is enough headroom to handle peaks.
 
Now as you mix often you are just pushing up faders up part of the way in groups and things fall into good balance almost immediately.
 
-14 is a great rms ref level to work at. Still plenty of transient peaks but louder now and much less work to do in mastering. The compression and limiting over a -14 db master can be effective and very transparent.
 
I was watching ballistics again this morning over a master. I saw them swaying too smooth like making me look at the release setting in the main compressor. Speeding it up changed the ballistic again and the mix became more punchy, dynamic and hit a little harder.  Attack settings also effect this a lot.
 

batsbrew

BenMMusTech

Hi Bat I said...watch the signal into the daw if there is any crunch on the above tracks it's because I was a bad tracking engineer 10 years ago...I'm not sure your getting the difference between analogue mixing and digital mixing...although they are both similar...I think the daw has a higher dynamic range 192db is popping into my head...it's pretty hard to fill that much...no matter how hard you try!

yes, mixing old tracks that were not done well,
is almost an exercise in futility.
good to practice on, but if your original track levels were too hot,
it cannot be fixed by ANY level of clownphuckery.
;-)
 
 
 
 
i have found that telling folks when they are first getting into digital tracking,
forget everything you learned about tracking in analog,
doesn't apply anymore, at least for the same reasons as before,
 
and look at PEAKS on your MASTER BUS of no more than -10db.
 
Those settings will get you into the sweet spot of any DAW.
 
ultimately, you figure out 'YOUR' sound, and whether or not you push the CREST FACTOR of your tracks up or down to get more or less dynamics, looking at RMS values vs PEAK values,
and either using limiting or compression at the track level to bring what i call the 'thickness' of a track up, and all the while, still not peaking above around -10db on your master bus.
 
if it seems too soft while monitoring during mixing, TURN YOUR MONITORS UP!!
 
LOL
 
POINT  IS:
 
when you get done with your mix,
you still have plenty of headroom left, to do mastering processing later.
you have nice safe UN crunchy levels, and you have not lost a single thing.
 
 
 

I think your getting mixing and tracking mixed up...if you have -10 peak on the master buss with a 50 track mix then your not doing it right...and I believe there was only a bit of crunch on the vox...man trying to capture that sort of dynamic even for an experienced tracking engineer...let alone a newbie the crunch isnt even digital...digital crunch sounds horrible that's actually tube crunch....so again for those reading this post bat seems to be talking about tracking...not mixing...tracking as I said...be careful with signal levels...but once in the daw it's a different matter.

Ben.

Audio Verite is what we are talking about here...So Bat lets get this straight...there is one small element of crunch...which is on the vox yea??  Because I've tested the mixes on crappy phone speakers and they sound pretty solid to me-you can hear everything clear and dandy...which from my understanding is the key and the point!! Yea??
 
Ben

Jeff Evans
VU neters are not compulsary but if you think of them as an added tool then you have more control over your monitoring.  Everywhere from input tracking to buses and your final stereo buss.
 
VU's are good for showing rms values ballistics aside.  Keeping all your track levels at the desired ref level such as -18 or -20 results in consistent rms VU levels across all your tracks before you even start to mix.  Peaks can survive within the headroom provided. 18 and 20 is enough headroom to handle peaks.
 
Now as you mix often you are just pushing up faders up part of the way in groups and things fall into good balance almost immediately.
 
-14 is a great rms ref level to work at. Still plenty of transient peaks but louder now and much less work to do in mastering. The compression and limiting over a -14 db master can be effective and very transparent.
 
I was watching ballistics again this morning over a master. I saw them swaying too smooth like making me look at the release setting in the main compressor. Speeding it up changed the ballistic again and the mix became more punchy, dynamic and hit a little harder.  Attack settings also effect this a lot.
 

Well at least I've given you a platform to talk about VU meters Jeff :) VU's are nice...even the virtual ones in Sonars Pro Channel Compressor...I bet you will say they are not lol ;)
 
Ben

With digital level meters showing various db levels with different metering types, we have the means necessary to know how our signal is flowing through the channel, buss, and master. Of course you have to use some kind of metering to know these values so that you maintain an efficient signal flow. 
Whether that is an analog VU or digital level meter makes no difference to me as long as you know your levels. Seems like some of the information on this thread is making that much more complicated than it needs to be!
What am I missing hear?

Rimshot
With digital level meters showing various db levels with different metering types, we have the means necessary to know how our signal is flowing through the channel, buss, and master. Of course you have to use some kind of metering to know these values so that you maintain an efficient signal flow. 
Whether that is an analog VU or digital level meter makes no difference to me as long as you know your levels. Seems like some of the information on this thread is making that much more complicated than it needs to be!
What am I missing hear?

Nothing Jimmy...I was giving kudos to Jeff...and giving him a mea culpa...I was also giving the results of my latest experiments with mixing and mastering...I think the results speak for themselves...so that is why I was giving the results...maybe to help those are still starting out...Bat came in and pointed out a small amount of crunch on the vocal...which confuses the issue...tracking and mixing are two entirely different things...I've got a little arky because I've done good work and the OC crowd have complained about a minor detail...thats when I mentioned Audio Verite...which in audio terms means warts and all...Robert Fripp uses the idea and in particular the Islands...it's a great record but there is so much noise...the OC crowd would have a fit!
 
Ben