"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1120063521k@trad
In article
writes:

Well *many* is one of those vague words that seems to
mean
something... ;-)

That's why I used "many" rather than "most."

Almost all of the pro interfaces I've used (over 30) have
had at least -10 and +4 as options.

Yes, but what digital level is represented by -10 dBV or
+4
dBu?

Something like 12 to 16 dB below FS.

That's where you need the missing control, so you can set
it
for -20, -18, -14, -12 or whatever you want.

But, we don't have that. What we do have gets us within a
few dB of a standard.

One recent big nasty
surprise was the fact that the AP 24192 lacked the
slectable
input sensitivity feature that graces virtually all of
the
rest of the M-Audio line. But, it does a pretty credible
+4, and that is *the* pro standard, right?

Right. What's its calibration? Put in +4 dBu and how many
dBFS
do you get? Whatever it is, you take it or leave it (or
compensate for it elsewhere). That's my beef.

Nothing's perfect. OTOH, close is fine when it comes to
setting headroom.

The way almost every audio interface stacks up is that
the
the stated sensitivity is way under FS. IOW a -10 input
will
generally put FS someplace around 2 volts, and a +4 input
runs from 2.5 to about 8 volts for FS.

Well, for the "+4 input" that's about a 10 dB range in
calibration - not very standard, is it?

I guess we need to put this on our wish lists for audio
interface vendors.

I don't see a lot of marketing grease in fudging specd
output levels.

No, but they want to make the S/N and noise floor numbers
as
good as they can. One way to do this is to eliminate any
unnecessary gain or gain control element on the input or
output.

Agreed, and that's pretty much how the whole industry went.


If you haven't noticed, I recommend a paradigm for
recording
that really doesn't require a lot of attention during
tracking.

It depends on what you're tracking. You can get away with
that
sometimes. If it works for you, fine. But not everyone
will be
happy with set-it-and-forget-it.


Paradigm shift is pretty well guaranteed to make *someone*
unhappy. Better, easier speaks to me.


It's very hard to do metering right in real time. So, why
make it a critical sucess factor?

Program? Metering? I thought we were talking about real
meters
here.

On top of everything else they do suboptimally, real meters
cost money! Bahhh!

Besides, level setting need only be very approximate
during
tracking - that's one of the things that headroom is for.

No, headroom is so that you can accommodate dynamic range
of
performance, not accommodate unpredictable performance.

There's plenty of evidence that headroom suits both
purposes.

One good example of wanting to ride a fader (or preamp
gain) is when a
performer goes from singing to talking.

Thing is, you can handle that common situation far better
after the fact.

There might be a 20 dB
difference that it's good to make up at the front.

If it could be done as well in real time, but it can't.

It's just good engineering practice.

What constitutes good engineering practice changes with the
state of the art.

Real time adjustments make mixing more confusing and more
work later on. Bad form for tracking except in dire
emergencies.

Good real time adjustments make mixing easier.

Due to the well-known failings of human omnisicence,
real-time mixing is very limited in terms of precision and
accuracy. Because it always has to happen in real time, it
can be far more time-consuming than is necessary.

Due to the well-known superiority of hindsight to foresight,
mixing during the mix is generally the better way to go.

Good tracks practically mix themselves.

The mix is the best time to mix. That's why they call it the
mix. ;-)

I see real time adjustments as a skill I only practice
when
I'm doing live sound.

I'm ALWAYS doing live sound, even when recording in the
studio.

Show me how to make foresight as accurate and reliable as
hindsight, and you've got a deal!