GOLD!!

Interesting post.
 
But even struggling to bring headroom down, I still have problems in the final mastering stage trying to compete with the loudness of commercial recordings.
 
. . . sigh . . . the quest for sonic Nirvana continues . . .

Har-Bal offers a good compromise, IMO. You can match a commercial recording, or just to a specific percentage.

-Susan

DK,

Good post!

I've been applying these techniques for a while and it has definitely improved the sound of my mixes. I'm glad you posted this because many users in here don't know how to mix well at all. Some of which spend more time whining about what features will be in the next version of Sonar when they should be researching articles like this and learning how to apply them.

Thanks - Glad some people are getting something out of it or reconfirming stuff they know... I have been trying to practice this more lately and also trying to be more aggressive (or maybe decisive is a better word) with my panning practices..


As a side note - another interesting thing that came up in that thread - Most people understand the need for HPF (High Pass Filters) to be used in their mixes to clean the bottom end up and remove low frequency mud but something I was not really hip on is  the equally as important use of LPF (Low Pass Filters) to reduce "digititus" or the sometimes  harsh qualities that digital exhibits - ironically because digital captures the entire frequency spectrum much more accurately than analog and has none of the "pleasing" naturally occurring high frequency filters associated with tape and console type mixes ...

good stuff ..:)

drewfx1


Sorry, maybe I missed something, but isn't the 1st article just saying "Don't run out of headroom!" in a really, really roundabout way?

drewfx

No.  The first article is saying MAKE headroom when tracking and mixing.  Most people nowadays track TOO hot and then run out of headroom fast while mixing because of it.  If you track low at around -24dB to -20dB FS RMS (it really depends on what +4dBu equals on your setup), you give yourself headroom when it's time to mix.  That way you don't have to keep turning levels down all the time. 

Let's open up this debate to the more experienced and professional recording people here.
 
Is this the way to do it? Record tracks to -20db?(to leave headroom for plug ins and mixing)

Da=man


Let's open up this debate to the more experienced and professional recording people here.
 
Is this the way to do it? Record tracks to -20db?(to leave headroom for plug ins and mixing)

If you hung out at Gearslutz, you would know that some of the people in that thread are some very top professionals in the industry.

No, the article is wrong. Digital audio is simply not the same as analog. There is no fixed limit to headroom in a digital mix bus. The limitation is determined by the number of bits used to do the internal math; if you clip the mix bus, it's because the programmers didn't provide enough bits. Sonar provides a 64-bit double precision (fp) mix bus. This makes it almost impossible to clip the mix bus. You can clip the output, but if you just reduce output level and there is no clipping.

If you don't believe me, I will be forced to use math to show you. Don't push me! I have a loaded calculator and I'm prepared to use it!

drewfx

I don't know DK....I can't totally agree with what you posted. Here's why. First and foremost to me, the more math that gets placed into this field the more people miss the boat. The number one thing is your ears and what you can hear as well as the knowledge you have to make the right calls. Also, he mentions someone pushing the levels on an analog rig compared to digital etc....the saturation you get with analog is a totally different animal. There are sessions, depending on the board used, tape used and how hot the signal was recorded, that can really sound nice at super hot levels. There is nothing good about a super hot digital level...period. You don't get the pops and clicks in analog that you get in digital and it is not the same sound nor the same artifacts. Sure, at +25 it will sound bad, but the analog will still sound different and I understand that he meant everything will sound bad at that level. But, like I say....it really does depend on what your signal was like when you printed, what tape, what console....it does make a difference.
 
Let me tell you what I think the deal is for what it's worth. People spend too much time polishing turds. If the sound isn't pristine coming out of the gate, it shouldn't get recorded. With analog, people loved it so much because it colored the sound. The tape saturation and natural compression made *most* things acceptable...when in theory, the actual sound wasn't very good. When digital came around and shocked people, they got a chance to hear what they really sounded like and blamed it on digital instead of themselves and their sound sources.
 
When an instrument is recorded properly, you really don't even need to eq it sometimes other than slight tweaks to make it fit in the mix or be a bit more apparent. If a mix takes more than 8 hours to get right because you are constantly messing with something or you just can't get what you're looking for, there comes a time when you have to ask yourself if you are just trying to polish a turd and maybe it would be better to recut the offending pieces.
 
I get really good results running my instrumentation at -6dB. I have plenty of signal yet plenty of headroom with 0 artifacts or clipping. When you record stuff the right way, you don't need the extra headroom for mastering either as most times, a really good mix can be mastered to where you just remove some sub lows, some harsh highs, and take care of the mid range congestion. I sincerely don't understand why people bring in all the math and meters and all this other stuff when all you have to do is have a good ear and record your instrumentation properly from the start.
 
I got a chance to speak with Beau Hill recently, who has become a good friend of mine. He's worked with Alice Cooper, as well as many of my favorites from the 80's like Winger, Europe, Warrant and Dweezil Zappa. I asked him about signal chains, tube mic pre's etc and all the stuff I constantly read that sounds like hype to me. Do a search on Beau sometime...he's got over 50 million sales under his belt as an producer/engineer. He told me you don't even need some of that super fancy gear if you get your sounds right from the start. I've been reading about mic pres and all these other hyped gizmos people use...so I bought into some of them. Drawmer, Focusrite, Manley, Joe Meek...I've had them all here. They destructively edited a sound I could have worked with non-destructively using plugs. Did they make my sounds any better? No actually....not when I can achieve the same stuff internally if need be. My line signals are good...my tones are what I want...that's all there is to it really, wouldn't you think? Sure, you have to have good monitors and some room correction....but above all, your ears have to be good in this field and you need to have the knowledge to make the right calls. If you can't hear the right stuff, you never gain ground. I just don't really understand why people attempt to make this so difficult when in actuality, it's very basic and right in front of all of us. Some of the greatest recordings known to man were done on cheap gear without the stuff we have today. To me, that proves it's all in the sound source really as well as your ears.
 
As for volume oriented material, I have no problems getting "industry standard volume war levels" here. The key is to eq the mix correctly before it's mastered. From there you master it correctly using another set of speakers...not the one's you mixed on. You then eliminate any problem areas and pump up your volume. You don't clip or experience garbage if what you are putting in is good to begin with. It's like a guitar player that wants to play super fast that can't play correctly slow. Garbage in fast, garbage out fast. The more you eliminate problem frequencies, the louder you can go. I use a Waves L-2 on my masters for myself and clients. I keep it at -0.1 and never slam the threshold to where I have this:
 
█████████
 
█████████
 
As a matter of fact, I won't even do that for a client these days as it's my name at stake. Music without dynamics isn't music at all so they can get it mastered somewhere else. I have enough business to keep me busy these days...there is no excuse for the above.
 
Anyway, there are some good points in what you posted...and I did enjoy it and thank you for the read....there were just a few things I felt that were worth sharing from my experience. At the end of the day, if by some stroke of luck where I literally mixed something at +25, who really cares what the numbers say if I get what I want? It's not really about numbers is it? This field is all about your ears, art, making the right calls and extracting the ideas out of your head. It doesn't have to be about math, VU meters, volts or bragging about what nice piece that was purchased for 25k. I've heard guys with all this supposed knowledge and top gear sound like @ss on numerous occasions. There are no rules or limitations other than the ones placed on ourselves in my opinion. :) 

Bravo Danny! I am not too sure that DK's post is all that accurate anyway. There are parts that make absurd declarations. "The answer is simple. DAW meters suck Butt. There should be a meter mode in all DAW's that makes the meter at 3/4 scale equal -20 at 1.23 volts. Just like the old VU. This way, novices will quit corn-holeing their levels." I have no idea what that means.

I do know that VU meters suck and always have,. What I think is true is the writer is used to VU metes and finds it hard to transition over to digital meters.

He has a picture in his head of what a given VU reading really means after years of working on a desk that he can associate what he hears to what he sees.

What he is not saying is that digital is absolute in its meters analog with VU meters is an average of a point in time. VU meters can give false readings because they are tied to a mechanical ballistic curve that can suppress fleeting transients. No such problem is in digital meters. If he is having problem with DAW meters its because he can't really translate what he sees to what he hears.      

Danny, your most important point about its all about what you hear is gospel.

Wiz - Your post just above drewfx's was just excellent...

@drewfx - I believe that you are probably dead on when you state the mathematical realities of mixing with Sonar's 64 bit engine..I am not well versed enough in the coding or technical aspects to even begin to argue with some one like you who probably has a firm understanding of it - having said that (and please don't take this the wrong way - This is not directed at you ) it's more of a general statement.. This thought process that you are articulating is one of the reasons that the majority of mixes coming from the amateur ranks of ITB engineers sounds like crap..and I am most definitely including myself in that group.


If I have not pissed you off too much then hear me out here..

Almost every one of the top mix engineers and mastering houses have complained about the lack of good recording technique used on the files that come across their desk in print articles. What's interesting is when they are pressed for details they don't complain about the songs or the arrangements or the number of tracks or the effects used (some comment and/or complain about all those elements here and there) but the one thing you hear over and over is about clipped tracks recorded way too hot and overly squashed or compressed (read limited) mixes..i.e. No dynamic range, no room for sweetening and/or necessary processing, small sounding, no depth, no width etc.etc. I have heard the top mixers in the world talk about receiving material to work on that is in the condition and it is far more often then not.

Here is what is scary about that - If you even get a mix to be heard by a Chris Lord- Alge or a Manny Marroquin or a Michael Brauer or Jack Joseph Puig you must have something that someone thinks is pretty special - Guys at that level don't listen to demos unless it is fed to them - It better be good because these guys don't have time to waste - feed them to much junk and they will simply seek better "ears" to find material for them.. It's these guys that making the above statements about the quality of the tracking or mixes they are working on..

What does that tell you? What it tells me is that even those who most of us around here would consider to be top of the heap type talents are not getting it right.. They probably know what you know - but they aren't getting it right - They are probably in a lot of instances working with far better gear then you or I are ...but they aren't getting it right. They have better talent to work with, better gear and are probably flat more talented then you or i are ..but they aren't getting it right.

It tells me that there are some very important things that we all need to know about working with DAWS that have nothing to do with math. It tells me that I need to understand THE ENTIRE CHAIN and not just my mic + preamp. I need to really understand how my plugins affect the gain structure of my track and I need to understand (these are big for me)..

A).WHILE I MAY NOT BE CLIPPING THE TRACK'S OR BUS'S METER THAT DOES NOT MEAN I HAVE GAINED STAGED THE CHAIN OR MATERIAL CORRECTLY....  and

B).MY DAWS PEAK METERS TELL ME VERY LITTLE INFORMATION THAT IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH A (and they are not designed too)


I could go on for ever but the evidence that we all have a lot to learn about this new digital world is right in front of us 

WIZ said it great -- digital doesn't make it easy for newbs - or us old farts!!


  

I see there are some subsequent post after I posted this

I am not going to argue with anyone - I cant take credit for the knowledge within the text but i do know this while I respect everyone here's knowledge and experience - were talking about Skip Burrows and Paul freakin Frindle here fellas....

if you don't know who these guys are goggle them - They are advocates if ITB which most of us here do and have been pioneers and teachers of the very things we use every day to make music

..frankly guys - these gentlemen have more then enough "skins on the wall" and the technical acumen to at the very least have their opinions investigated  

like i said - take what you will...

DK:

took you up on your suggestion to google the people your were referencing, and I found this very similar addendum to what you are trying to explain here:

http://www.medwaystudios....3099406999963&

Interesting topic, though from suggestions to an old analog guy I've received on this forum I've made a practice of keeping my levels -6db or less.  I feel I get good results for what I do. 

Wiz

It really is easy to me. Why are digital meters bad and VU meters good?



I just wanted to address this question....I assume you havent used VU's because you asked this....The VU is great at showing you the "volume" of a track.   Peak Meters you can look at once every now and then, cause all you care about is if you clipped.  VU  (or even RMS metering) is sensational, cause if you like, it shows you the "energy" of the signal...the grunt, the volume....

Also, after a while, they are invaluable in mixing, in setting levels of tracks against each other...I am not suggesting mixing with your eyes, but, you can almost do that using VU's.

They are really  really handy when setting compressors.

One other thing....my whole point is, dont overdrive the front end.

You dont have to fill up the digital meter..when tracking...just gain stage correctly, the mic the preamp, doing their thing, operating at their optimum, then check that you aint clipping, who cares if the peak is at -12dbfs, or -8dbfs, as long as its not clipping...and leaves you some leeway so the talent doesnt clip....certainly never turn up a preamp, just to fill the digital meter.....most preamps have a point where their signal to noise ration turns to garbage, you should know this point for each preamp (each one will be slightly different....even on a mixing desk) and you shouldnt hit this noise knee point.

I think people will find, if they set up their path correctly (gain staging) they wont be hitting 0dbfs anyways....

but, of course its just all my opinion...and that and two dollars will get you a cup of coffee.....

you can always, of course listen to the mix of the song(s) in my signature, and decide for yourself if I am full of **** or not...8)....thats what I generally do....8)....have a listen to the music of the opinion makers...see if they cant walk the duck so to speak...8)...

interesting discussion and nice to see it on a pleasurable level...

take care

Wiz

Well put, I think I agree with everything you say here. 

drewfx