All:

My feeble brain has been trying to reconcile what it considers two
pieces of contradicting information the past few weeks. And I've
decided it's time to seek profesional help.

1) Many times over in this group I have seen mixing engineers state that
it took them a great while when they were first starting to realize that
the "faders go both directions." In other words, it is often one's
tendency to raise level rather than lower it while mixing. And, often,
lowering level to achieve the proper balance between all
voices/instruments is the better option.

2) Lately, I've seen some posts regarding DAW-based mixing and the
concern/speculation/conclusion that lowering level during mixing in some
DAWs reduces resolution and degrades quality. The assertion was that
this is somehow different than what occurs with an analog console.

So the big question is: how do I reconcile these two pieces of
information while mixing on a DAW? If I am using Nuendo, should I avoid
pulling faders down in mixing, when possible, and opt, instead, to raise
levels to achieve balance whenever possible? Or should I lower levels
when it makes more sense to do so, regardless of the information in
assertion #2.

Thoughts?

Tim

"Tim Ferrell" wrote in message
...
So the big question is: how do I reconcile these two pieces of
information while mixing on a DAW?

Buy good enough monitors and converters that you can HEAR and correct any
problems!

People do remarkable sounding mixes with them every day but you've really
got to be able to hear what not to do with each particular version of each
application. DAWs are moving minefields of bad sounding settings.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

Bob Olhsson wrote:

Buy good enough monitors and converters that you can HEAR and correct any
problems!

Thanks, Bob. I have Mackie HR 824s, which should be adequate. I've been
recording for a long time, but only recently began mixing multitrack
recordings. It sounds like you are saying that there is no hard and fast rule
for this issue. As I suspected some might say, try both and pick what sounds
best!

Sound advice...

Tim

Tim Ferrell wrote:

All:

My feeble brain has been trying to reconcile what it considers two
pieces of contradicting information the past few weeks. And I've
decided it's time to seek profesional help.

1) Many times over in this group I have seen mixing engineers state that
it took them a great while when they were first starting to realize that
the "faders go both directions." In other words, it is often one's
tendency to raise level rather than lower it while mixing. And, often,
lowering level to achieve the proper balance between all
voices/instruments is the better option.

2) Lately, I've seen some posts regarding DAW-based mixing and the
concern/speculation/conclusion that lowering level during mixing in some
DAWs reduces resolution and degrades quality. The assertion was that
this is somehow different than what occurs with an analog console.

So the big question is: how do I reconcile these two pieces of
information while mixing on a DAW? If I am using Nuendo, should I avoid
pulling faders down in mixing, when possible, and opt, instead, to raise
levels to achieve balance whenever possible? Or should I lower levels
when it makes more sense to do so, regardless of the information in
assertion #2.

Thoughts?

Tim

What the "faders go both ways" thing means is that you
have plenty of dynamic range in a DAW. I think this is
probably best expressed in tracking - make sure you don't
bounce the top of the range on the meters while tracking.

Even having nothing peak above -10dBFS is not out of the
question. For a while, I'd renormalize all source tracks
to -25dB RMS, then start off mixing at about 0.0 dB on
each strip - usually moving down from that.

I'm not sure the renormalize is appropriate, but I still
do that, when I make mistakes tracking and get 'em too hot.
This is beacuse I have lousy metering, and I'm usually
tracking myself. The meters I track with have approximately
3/8"-1/2" in travel between minus infinity and -10dBFS. Ick.

Initially print mixes cold. You can then use the difference
between the peak in the mix and 0dBFS to adjust the master
fader on the mix. Once the mix gels, you might consider
applying that much gain to all the tracks, but I do not
hear a vast and obvious difference between adjusting the
master and adjusting the channel strips, except for the
effect on effects in aux busses.

I also have lousy D/A, so I might be missing something.

As a matter of discretion, once and only once you have
a reasonable mix with no dynamics processing on the
master channel, add some limiting or gentle compression,
as an effect. What works for me is reviewing these gain
managed mixes later on. I will also use a standalone
package I wrote to do a final limiting pass, but
that is not typical. It's usually overdone at first.

If that isn't happening, think about subgrouping
things and compressing 'em together. Being extremely
skeptical of the effect, of course. There was a nice,
detailed article in TapeOp about this, recently.

There are of course a couple instances where pumping
the holy heck out of the gain sounds better than not,
but this is an aesthetic effect, not an engineering
choice. It's mainly about having reverb smack against
the dashboard as the gain reduction slams the brakes,
or adjusting the note envelope of the instrument.

And when using a DAW, when in doubt, leave it out.
Most mixes I've revisited after months, or even a
year get reworked in the direction of yanking plugins
out. Better EQ than delay, better delay than chorus,
better chorus than compression, better compression
than verb, better nothing than EQ. YMMV. But
most plugins will cheerfully do much, much more
damage than good.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:

What the "faders go both ways" thing means is that you
have plenty of dynamic range in a DAW. I think this is
probably best expressed in tracking - make sure you don't
bounce the top of the range on the meters while tracking.

Even having nothing peak above -10dBFS is not out of the
question. For a while, I'd renormalize all source tracks
to -25dB RMS, then start off mixing at about 0.0 dB on
each strip - usually moving down from that.

A friend of mine that I record with insists on running levels peaking
around
-2 to -1 db. I keep telling him he is flirting with disaster and that 1
over
is not worth what he thinks he is gaining running hot. It sounds as if
there
are more disadvantages to running this close to max than just potential
overs. Can anyone help me to understand why running close to the top is
a bad
idea in terms of flexibility in mixing later? Of course, his idea of
mixing
is spending 30 minutes adjusting the faders, using default compression
settings for vocals in the Nuendo compressor, and then dumping reverb
across
the two-track bus. He tells me that he is a minimalist...so was Paul
Bunyan.

He won't listen to me. Maybe he'll listen to you.

Tim

Tim Ferrell wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

What the "faders go both ways" thing means is that you
have plenty of dynamic range in a DAW. I think this is
probably best expressed in tracking - make sure you don't
bounce the top of the range on the meters while tracking.

Even having nothing peak above -10dBFS is not out of the
question. For a while, I'd renormalize all source tracks
to -25dB RMS, then start off mixing at about 0.0 dB on
each strip - usually moving down from that.

A friend of mine that I record with insists on running levels peaking
around
-2 to -1 db. I keep telling him he is flirting with disaster and that 1
over
is not worth what he thinks he is gaining running hot. It sounds as if
there
are more disadvantages to running this close to max than just potential
overs. Can anyone help me to understand why running close to the top is
a bad
idea in terms of flexibility in mixing later? Of course, his idea of
mixing
is spending 30 minutes adjusting the faders, using default compression
settings for vocals in the Nuendo compressor, and then dumping reverb
across
the two-track bus. He tells me that he is a minimalist...so was Paul
Bunyan.

He won't listen to me. Maybe he'll listen to you.

Tim

For one thing, if you gain stage into A/D converters hot,
you run the risk of exposing limitations in the A/D
converters - and many do not have a whole lot of
headroom.

For another, when you mix 12 or more mono tracks ( where
a stereo pair counts as 2 tracks ), alll you do is fade
'em down. 12-16 is in the range of 12 dB collected gain,
so 12ish tracks will end up being padded down that much
per track.

But the main reason is that tracking colder simply lessens
the probability that you'll record any 0dBFS samples. You
have beacoup noise floor in the recording media itself;
use it.

Tell yer buddy he'll win no prizes for turning all the
bits on; quite the opposite. Real world 16 bit recorders
routinely exhibit -80dBFS noise floors - that's plenty.
You can treat -20dB as you once would 0dB on analog
equipment and still have more floor than you would
have in analog.

--
Les Cargill

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure the renormalize is appropriate,

I don't think normalizing buys anything but more distortion or, if you're
lucky, dither.

And when using a DAW, when in doubt, leave it out.

This is true of analog too. The tricky part of DAWs is that I'm finding DACs
can change balances much like using different speakers can. Some definitely
seem to translate lots better than others.


--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure the renormalize is appropriate,

I don't think normalizing buys anything but more distortion or, if you're
lucky, dither.

And when using a DAW, when in doubt, leave it out.

This is true of analog too. The tricky part of DAWs is that I'm finding DACs
can change balances much like using different speakers can. Some definitely
seem to translate lots better than others.


--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

Ignore absolute resolution and go for sound quality. If the mix can't cut
it because it has no dynamics, you're not mixing, you're slamming. Again
I'll bring up the statement George Massenberg said here, which is, even a
part that's 60 dB down can be heard. And I'll expound on that a little.
Perhaps that's the exact place it should be. Whether that's the case or not
is what makes a person capable of mixing and one that can't make that
decision not capable of mixing. It's not always that you CAN hear
everything, but HOW you hear them. The first step towards being able to mix
is to make everything evident. The second step is to make it fit.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Tim Ferrell" wrote in message
...
All:

My feeble brain has been trying to reconcile what it considers two
pieces of contradicting information the past few weeks. And I've
decided it's time to seek profesional help.

1) Many times over in this group I have seen mixing engineers state that
it took them a great while when they were first starting to realize that
the "faders go both directions." In other words, it is often one's
tendency to raise level rather than lower it while mixing. And, often,
lowering level to achieve the proper balance between all
voices/instruments is the better option.

2) Lately, I've seen some posts regarding DAW-based mixing and the
concern/speculation/conclusion that lowering level during mixing in some
DAWs reduces resolution and degrades quality. The assertion was that
this is somehow different than what occurs with an analog console.

So the big question is: how do I reconcile these two pieces of
information while mixing on a DAW? If I am using Nuendo, should I avoid
pulling faders down in mixing, when possible, and opt, instead, to raise
levels to achieve balance whenever possible? Or should I lower levels
when it makes more sense to do so, regardless of the information in
assertion #2.

Thoughts?

Tim

"Tim Ferrell" wrote in message
...
Thanks, Bob. I have Mackie HR 824s, which should be adequate. I've been
recording for a long time, but only recently began mixing multitrack
recordings. It sounds like you are saying that there is no hard and fast
rule
for this issue. As I suspected some might say, try both and pick what
sounds
best!

It's never the equipment that's inadequate. Figure that out and you've made
yor first step towards mixing.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Let's examine that for a moment. Assuming that all tracks are recorded at
the max minus a dB or two, then when you mix, you've left no room for any
dynamics in the first place, and secondaly, you've left no room for a
mastering engineer to do their jobs. Where the hell do people come up with
thinking that .1 dB is a good mix and send it off to a mastering engineer?
First, he has to bring it down to work with it, which means major changes in
the digital representation, and second, he's going to **** with it even more
as he tries to apply his own craft.

Novices track everything a -1 or -2 dB and you can tell your friend that I
said so. If all I have is tracks that are maxxed then all you would get
back is ****. Now maybe Bob Olhsson can do a better job, but I'm certain
that even he would suggest you just mix the song and leave him so room to
work.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Tim Ferrell" wrote in message
...
Les Cargill wrote:

What the "faders go both ways" thing means is that you
have plenty of dynamic range in a DAW. I think this is
probably best expressed in tracking - make sure you don't
bounce the top of the range on the meters while tracking.

Even having nothing peak above -10dBFS is not out of the
question. For a while, I'd renormalize all source tracks
to -25dB RMS, then start off mixing at about 0.0 dB on
each strip - usually moving down from that.

A friend of mine that I record with insists on running levels peaking
around
-2 to -1 db. I keep telling him he is flirting with disaster and that 1
over
is not worth what he thinks he is gaining running hot. It sounds as if
there
are more disadvantages to running this close to max than just potential
overs. Can anyone help me to understand why running close to the top is
a bad
idea in terms of flexibility in mixing later? Of course, his idea of
mixing
is spending 30 minutes adjusting the faders, using default compression
settings for vocals in the Nuendo compressor, and then dumping reverb
across
the two-track bus. He tells me that he is a minimalist...so was Paul
Bunyan.

He won't listen to me. Maybe he'll listen to you.

Tim

Bob Olhsson wrote:

"Tim Ferrell" wrote...

So the big question is: how do I reconcile these two pieces of
information while mixing on a DAW?

Buy good enough monitors and converters that you can HEAR and correct any
problems!

My system seems good enough to hear at least _some_ of the problems...

People do remarkable sounding mixes with them every day but you've really
got to be able to hear what not to do with each particular version of each
application. DAWs are moving minefields of bad sounding settings.

....and what I'm hearing is leading me to wonder if Logic will play back
the same way twice even without any MIDI involved. A file sounds one way
playing live, and another way bounced to disk, and in theory I'm
supposed to be hearing the same thing.

I keep my mantra running in the background: "This will get me to a
Radar...:" g

--
ha

Roger W. Norman wrote:

It's never the equipment that's inadequate. Figure that out and you've made
yor first step towards mixing.

I think that's right very, very often (the "never" thing makes me
nervous g); but when it isn't right I think it's important to figure
out what's wrong in the gear or you'll be mixing forever without
satisfaction.

--
ha

The replies to this post have all been good advice, so I won't go back over that
ground. But on the actual subject of degradation when you fade down into a mix,
the answer is yes, you do lose resolution. But the point of mixing is to get a
final mix that's up there, not too far below 0dB, with all the instruments
sitting in the right place. If that means some tracks are subtle and only peak
at -30dB, then so be it - whatever resolution they've lost in the fade-down,
they didn't need in the first place.

In other words, as long as the tracking is OK (-10dB is good), there shouldn't
be any issues with lost resolution during mixing. If you mix down to a total mix
level under -10dB, then bring it back up say 20dB with any of the "maximizing"
mastering compressors, you MAY lose a little bit of resolution IF you're running
older 16 bit DAW software. But with newer 24/32 bit software, even this should
not be an issue.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:37:56 GMT, Tim Ferrell wrote:
All:

My feeble brain has been trying to reconcile what it considers two
pieces of contradicting information the past few weeks. And I've
decided it's time to seek profesional help.

1) Many times over in this group I have seen mixing engineers state that
it took them a great while when they were first starting to realize that
the "faders go both directions." In other words, it is often one's
tendency to raise level rather than lower it while mixing. And, often,
lowering level to achieve the proper balance between all
voices/instruments is the better option.

2) Lately, I've seen some posts regarding DAW-based mixing and the
concern/speculation/conclusion that lowering level during mixing in some
DAWs reduces resolution and degrades quality. The assertion was that
this is somehow different than what occurs with an analog console.

So the big question is: how do I reconcile these two pieces of
information while mixing on a DAW? If I am using Nuendo, should I avoid
pulling faders down in mixing, when possible, and opt, instead, to raise
levels to achieve balance whenever possible? Or should I lower levels
when it makes more sense to do so, regardless of the information in
assertion #2.

Thoughts?

Tim

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..

I think that's right very, very often (the "never" thing makes me
nervous g); but when it isn't right I think it's important to figure
out what's wrong in the gear or you'll be mixing forever without
satisfaction.

OK, you win. But if I can just point to Tonebarge's work with standard, off
the shelf Mackie 1604 and ADATs, then I have to believe that, IN MOST CASES,
it's not the equipment that is inadequate. Admittedly, even in Tonebarge's
case he uses external pres, so the tracks are more than adequate, but still,
a 1604 isn't my idea of a real good mixer. I guess I've shown that by not
buying one even though I've bought three mixers.

And, truth be told, even a Behringer can do an adequate job, so barring very
old noisy systems, or a system with failures in it's circuitry, a good
mixing engineer can mostly use whatever they've got available and come up
with something decent. A little knowledge of the room and monitoring would
be helpful, of course, but I wouldn't look at upgrading equipment if it's my
ears that aren't helping me do mixing. And I don't consider a bad room
"equipment"! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


--
ha

"Tony" wrote in message
...
In other words, as long as the tracking is OK (-10dB is good), there
shouldn't
be any issues with lost resolution during mixing. If you mix down to a
total mix
level under -10dB, then bring it back up say 20dB with any of the
"maximizing"
mastering compressors, you MAY lose a little bit of resolution IF you're
running
older 16 bit DAW software. But with newer 24/32 bit software, even this
should
not be an issue.

I'd go as far as to say with 24 bit systems, one should look at -20 dB being
0 VU. At that point there's enough resolution not to have noise problems
and it's more than enough to make certain one isn't taxing the converters or
the analog input of the converters, which people seem to forget are there.
Since there's no added benefit of tracking hot like there is with a
particular formulation of tape, then there's no reason to push a track and
possibly introduce other problems.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Roger W. Norman wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote...

I think that's right very, very often (the "never" thing makes me
nervous g); but when it isn't right I think it's important to figure
out what's wrong in the gear or you'll be mixing forever without
satisfaction.

OK, you win.

How did this turn into some kind of _contest_?

But if I can just point to Tonebarge's work with standard, off
the shelf Mackie 1604 and ADATs, then I have to believe that, IN MOST CASES,
it's not the equipment that is inadequate. Admittedly, even in Tonebarge's
case he uses external pres, so the tracks are more than adequate, but still,
a 1604 isn't my idea of a real good mixer. I guess I've shown that by not
buying one even though I've bought three mixers.

Right, 'barge has indentified that the Mackie pres are not for tracking.
For his level of skill _that's the part of the machinery that's broken_
so he doesn't use it.

And, truth be told, even a Behringer can do an adequate job, so barring very
old noisy systems, or a system with failures in it's circuitry, a good
mixing engineer can mostly use whatever they've got available and come up
with something decent. A little knowledge of the room and monitoring would
be helpful, of course, but I wouldn't look at upgrading equipment if it's my
ears that aren't helping me do mixing. And I don't consider a bad room
"equipment"! g

I'm agreeing with you right along, Roger.

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
I'm agreeing with you right along, Roger.

Not a contest. You bring up points, like NEVER using a generalization that
make sense. And I NEVER do that! g

Again, when I respond to someone it's often with lurkers in mind that don't
speak up but still garner some information (hopefully). I just want those
people to understand that it's generally not the equipment that is at fault
if one can't get a good mix. Dollars are hard to come by and equipment,
even at today's prices, isn't all that cheap because even if one buys a
cheap mixer they still are going to pay the same amount to get cabling,
etc., so better they understand that upgrades in equipment don't
automatically mean upgrades in output quality. So I try to remind people
that it's in the experience and the knowledge one gains from that experience
that produces better mixes. Once someone has gone as far as they can and
KNOW that's as far as that piece of equipment will take them, then it's time
to figure out what the next step is. If, as in this case, someone is
talking about DAW based mixing and wondering just where things should go,
both in tracking and in mixing, then it's obvious that only more time and
experience will alleviate the concerns and even bringing up a particular
piece of equipment really has no bearing on the subject at hand.

Plus, as you may have noticed, I don't normally take the exact tact everyone
else does when they answer a question directly. I kinda move around a
little thinking about what it is they actually wanted to ask, or how a
statement fits within the question. In this case, it really wasn't the OP
that brought in a point about specific equipment, but in the end, it's not
the equipment as long as it works and one knows what it can do.

I never thought we were at odds on this, Hank. Sorry if I left you with the
impression I did.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Roger W. Norman wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote...

I think that's right very, very often (the "never" thing makes me
nervous g); but when it isn't right I think it's important to figure
out what's wrong in the gear or you'll be mixing forever without
satisfaction.

OK, you win.

How did this turn into some kind of _contest_?

But if I can just point to Tonebarge's work with standard, off
the shelf Mackie 1604 and ADATs, then I have to believe that, IN MOST
CASES,
it's not the equipment that is inadequate. Admittedly, even in
Tonebarge's
case he uses external pres, so the tracks are more than adequate, but
still,
a 1604 isn't my idea of a real good mixer. I guess I've shown that by
not
buying one even though I've bought three mixers.

Right, 'barge has indentified that the Mackie pres are not for tracking.
For his level of skill _that's the part of the machinery that's broken_
so he doesn't use it.

And, truth be told, even a Behringer can do an adequate job, so barring
very
old noisy systems, or a system with failures in it's circuitry, a good
mixing engineer can mostly use whatever they've got available and come
up
with something decent. A little knowledge of the room and monitoring
would
be helpful, of course, but I wouldn't look at upgrading equipment if
it's my
ears that aren't helping me do mixing. And I don't consider a bad room
"equipment"! g


--
ha

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

"It's never the equipment that's inadequate. Figure that out and you've made
yor first step towards mixing.

Perfectly willing to use my ears...just wanted to know what the weaknesses of
the gear might be and reconcile some seemingly contradictory information.
Nothing wrong with combining both academic and experiential learning. And it
saves a hell of a lot of time to inquire of people with experience. That's why
I'm here.

BTW, the above would make for a good fortune cookie. I guess I should just use
a samson mixer and some c1000s. ;-)

Tim

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
The first step towards being able to mix
is to make everything evident. The second step is to make it fit.

Great words from a master.

the technical answer to your question is only applicable to the DAW that you choose. In Nuendo's case, using a 32-bit floating point mix engine means no resolution loss when lowering the fader. Older PT mix engines had some detrimental effect when lowering faders. Go ahead, lower them, raise them whatever it takes to make it sound good.

I always say, "In the end, no one cares how long it took, how much it cost or how you did it. They either like it or they don't."

Hope it helps,
bassman


Link: http://www.picturemusic.com/



----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.net/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:11:19 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message
.. .
In other words, as long as the tracking is OK (-10dB is good), there
shouldn't
be any issues with lost resolution during mixing. If you mix down to a
total mix
level under -10dB, then bring it back up say 20dB with any of the
"maximizing"
mastering compressors, you MAY lose a little bit of resolution IF you're
running
older 16 bit DAW software. But with newer 24/32 bit software, even this
should
not be an issue.

I'd go as far as to say with 24 bit systems, one should look at -20 dB being
0 VU. At that point there's enough resolution not to have noise problems
and it's more than enough to make certain one isn't taxing the converters or
the analog input of the converters, which people seem to forget are there.
Since there's no added benefit of tracking hot like there is with a
particular formulation of tape, then there's no reason to push a track and
possibly introduce other problems.

All agreed, IF it's a "top end" ADC. But 24bit ADCs commonly manage only
100-110dB SNR (=17-18bits), and the best only manage 120dB (=20bits), which is
still a far cry from a "real" 24bits. So it doesn't take much of a drop in input
level to end up worse than a decent 16bit ADC.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

Tim Ferrell wrote:

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

"It's never the equipment that's inadequate. Figure that out and you've
made yor first step towards mixing.

Perfectly willing to use my ears...just wanted to know what the weaknesses
of the gear might be and reconcile some seemingly contradictory
information. Nothing wrong with combining both academic and experiential
learning. And it saves a hell of a lot of time to inquire of people with
experience. That's why I'm here.

I am digging into DAW daily now, and man, I gotta pay attention! While
it's little different conceptually from analog gain staging, the result
of going past the "good" point isn't a just litle more coloration, it's
kitty feces all over the fine points. Your level concerns are justified.

BTW, the above would make for a good fortune cookie. I guess I should
just use a samson mixer and some c1000s. ;-)

(Okay, Roger, now look what the hell you've done... g)

--
ha

"Tony" wrote in message


All agreed, IF it's a "top end" ADC. But 24bit ADCs commonly manage
only 100-110dB SNR (=17-18bits), and the best only manage 120dB
(=20bits), which is still a far cry from a "real" 24bits. So it
doesn't take much of a drop in input level to end up worse than a
decent 16bit ADC.

I love my 118 dB dyanuc range converters probably as much as the next guy,
but I think that our quest for technical quality should be balanced by the
realities of dynamic range in the real world.

Most live recordings have dynamic range in the 50-60 dB range. The
commercial recording with the best dynamic range I've ever found had about
75 dB dynamic range. Many of the great recordings of all time had only about
53 dB dynamic range which means that sometimes you can hear a little hiss.

20 dB headroom seems like overkill. I think that if someone can't get your
levels within 10 dB by the time the sound checks are over, there's an issue
with the recorder's level of experience.

If you start out with a common set of converters with about 93 dB worth of
dynamic range, reasonable allowance for headroom gets you down to a noise
floor that is 83 dB down. On the best day of your life your room noise floor
is going to be 10 dB or more below your headroom. This would seem to be
entirely sufficient to produce a subjectively noise-free recording.

I always say, "In the end, no one cares how long it took, how much it cost
or how you did it. They either like it or they don't."

I agree 100%.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"Tim Ferrell" wrote in message
...
Perfectly willing to use my ears...just wanted to know what the weaknesses
of
the gear might be and reconcile some seemingly contradictory information.
Nothing wrong with combining both academic and experiential learning. And
it
saves a hell of a lot of time to inquire of people with experience.
That's why
I'm here.

BTW, the above would make for a good fortune cookie. I guess I should
just use
a samson mixer and some c1000s. ;-)

Hey, give me a Samson and two C1000s and we'll see what we come up with. I
haven't had much very nice to say about the C1000s (something about having
them be the mics underneath that tree that falls in the forest when no one
is around to hear it), but the fact is that other than them being a bit
screechy, they can be used. There are just better mics out there for the
same bucks, or even less. I mean, there are tons of people that have
recorded drum overheads with 414s and, depending on the specific model, they
can be pretty damned screechy themselves. Maybe just not quite as
irritatingly so.

But JohnnyV and I have used both Neumann KM 184s and Crown boundry mics on
an old, totally out of shape Knabe piano from 1912 and it sounded MUCH
better on tape than live. Go figure.

And I'd never thought about a career as a fortune cookie writer, but at
least I'd be back to writing something! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio


Tim

20 dB headroom seems like overkill. I think that if someone can't get your
levels within 10 dB by the time the sound checks are over, there's an
issue
with the recorder's level of experience.

Once you delve into the field of live recording where soundchecks are indeed
used, it makes little difference in that the room is going to be noisier
than any converter problems, so what's the diff? If I read my Tascam 18 bit
meters correctly, running at +4 dBu from my Crest console, then I'm only
hoping for trouble if I try to get the meters to be higher in recording than
what 0 VU (-20 dB) would represent. It's not worth the extra effort over
the range that I work. I have beautifully quiet recordings that have plenty
of dynamics without having to worry about nasty little clips.

In the studio there are a scad of other problems that rear their ugly head,
like room noise (already mentioned) and my recording computer's 24 bit
converters rather than the dithered 18 bit from the Tascam, and overall,
once again, I am unafraid to accept my +4 dBu setting for -20 dB being my 0
VU reference. It works. Like you said, "on the best day of your life your
room noise floor is going to be 10 dB or more below your headroom", but the
fact is that the room noise floor in most rooms these days (sans Lucas's
Skywalker ranch of some insanely costly environment like that) is going to
be more of a consideration than converter noise and lost resolution.

Then again, Arny, one of the reasons I don't want to do any of your ABX
comparisons is the fact that I'd probably not be able to tell the
difference, so what do I know? g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Tony" wrote in message


All agreed, IF it's a "top end" ADC. But 24bit ADCs commonly manage
only 100-110dB SNR (=17-18bits), and the best only manage 120dB
(=20bits), which is still a far cry from a "real" 24bits. So it
doesn't take much of a drop in input level to end up worse than a
decent 16bit ADC.

I love my 118 dB dyanuc range converters probably as much as the next
guy,
but I think that our quest for technical quality should be balanced by the
realities of dynamic range in the real world.

Most live recordings have dynamic range in the 50-60 dB range. The
commercial recording with the best dynamic range I've ever found had about
75 dB dynamic range. Many of the great recordings of all time had only
about
53 dB dynamic range which means that sometimes you can hear a little hiss.


If you start out with a common set of converters with about 93 dB worth of
dynamic range, reasonable allowance for headroom gets you down to a noise
floor that is 83 dB down. On the best day of your life your room noise
floor
is going to be 10 dB or more below your headroom. This would seem to be
entirely sufficient to produce a subjectively noise-free recording.

Hey Roger, do you ever frequent Gearslutz.com? We could use another
logical brain over in them there parts!!! Balance of power and all
G


Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com



"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ...
"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
I'm agreeing with you right along, Roger.

Not a contest. You bring up points, like NEVER using a generalization that
make sense. And I NEVER do that! g

Again, when I respond to someone it's often with lurkers in mind that don't
speak up but still garner some information (hopefully). I just want those
people to understand that it's generally not the equipment that is at fault
if one can't get a good mix. Dollars are hard to come by and equipment,
even at today's prices, isn't all that cheap because even if one buys a
cheap mixer they still are going to pay the same amount to get cabling,
etc., so better they understand that upgrades in equipment don't
automatically mean upgrades in output quality. So I try to remind people
that it's in the experience and the knowledge one gains from that experience
that produces better mixes. Once someone has gone as far as they can and
KNOW that's as far as that piece of equipment will take them, then it's time
to figure out what the next step is. If, as in this case, someone is
talking about DAW based mixing and wondering just where things should go,
both in tracking and in mixing, then it's obvious that only more time and
experience will alleviate the concerns and even bringing up a particular
piece of equipment really has no bearing on the subject at hand.

Plus, as you may have noticed, I don't normally take the exact tact everyone
else does when they answer a question directly. I kinda move around a
little thinking about what it is they actually wanted to ask, or how a
statement fits within the question. In this case, it really wasn't the OP
that brought in a point about specific equipment, but in the end, it's not
the equipment as long as it works and one knows what it can do.

I never thought we were at odds on this, Hank. Sorry if I left you with the
impression I did.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

Roger W. Norman wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote...

I think that's right very, very often (the "never" thing makes me
nervous g); but when it isn't right I think it's important to figure
out what's wrong in the gear or you'll be mixing forever without
satisfaction.

OK, you win.

How did this turn into some kind of _contest_?

But if I can just point to Tonebarge's work with standard, off
the shelf Mackie 1604 and ADATs, then I have to believe that, IN MOST
CASES,
it's not the equipment that is inadequate. Admittedly, even in
Tonebarge's
case he uses external pres, so the tracks are more than adequate, but
still,
a 1604 isn't my idea of a real good mixer. I guess I've shown that by
not
buying one even though I've bought three mixers.

Right, 'barge has indentified that the Mackie pres are not for tracking.
For his level of skill _that's the part of the machinery that's broken_
so he doesn't use it.

And, truth be told, even a Behringer can do an adequate job, so barring
very
old noisy systems, or a system with failures in it's circuitry, a good
mixing engineer can mostly use whatever they've got available and come
up
with something decent. A little knowledge of the room and monitoring
would
be helpful, of course, but I wouldn't look at upgrading equipment if
it's my
ears that aren't helping me do mixing. And I don't consider a bad room
"equipment"! g


--
ha