[geoff]

On 24/12/2014 11:45 p.m., wrote:
Dave Plowman (News):


This interest in VU meters is the best thing that could happen in digital audio! No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it wrought since its inception.



You again demonstrate you lack of understanding.

geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Not really. Given that dBs are logarithmic, 0 is an easily
understood reference for maximum input level..

Depends on your training. To someone with no training 0 would mean
nothing?

Oh, I do so want to make a wisecrack about recording engineers. But I
won't.


With 0 level referring to 18dBFS. ie, 10dB of headroom for any errors.

When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
during the actual performance.


That's an incredibly narrow margin to set ! If they play what you
notice to be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "You again demonstrate you lack of understanding. "

Read my reply to Peter Larsen, mid-thread, and tell me what I "don't understand".

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote

When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
during the actual performance.

That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you notice to
be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
geoff wrote: "You again demonstrate you lack of understanding. "

Read my reply to Peter Larsen, mid-thread, and tell me what I "don't understand".

For one thing, you don't understand the basic metering theory.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote

When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
during the actual performance.

That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you notice to
be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.


My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
- show quoted text -"

Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.

Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
heres a good idea for an invention...

video cameras have a mode called ZEBRA STRIPES which casue any area that is=
oversaturated white to have ugly obvious stripes through it. This appears=
only in the view finder and does not go on the recording and is meant to a=
lert the videographer that the white is being clipped.

A simialr device would be interesting in an audio monitor. If you go over =
clipping, it makes a loud obvious obnoxious noise to alert you...well some =
op amps already do that.... :-)

Some first generation converters would roll over when you hit full scale,
that is the next sample after FS would be -FS. This would create a deafening,
sometimes speaker-damaging pop when you overloaded.

I am surprised to discover the Cymatic recorder's monitoring D/A still does
this, and honestly it can be a useful diagnostic if proper protection is
employed.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
- show quoted text -"

Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.

The majority does, I suspect. But this is tracking.

Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.

I've already gone over the whole thing too many times. At this point I
have pretty much given up trying to explain how metering works to you,
and why reference levels and final product loudness are unrelated.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS.
Because when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder
than they said it would be in performance, and then add 12dB
worth of safety margin for something else louder that wasn't
forseen.

It only once went past what I expected -- and only by 1dB.

Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi DMP-100, nee Sony
PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away discarding three bits.

[[email protected]]

Scott Dorsey wrote: "I've already gone over the whole thing too many times. At this point I "

No you didn't - else I would have remembered it. All you stated was that VU and digital full scale meters measured different things. That I've already figured out.

What I'm trying to emphasize here is the psychological, the perception of Zero, regardless of what type of meter and type of measurement it does. Even without much instruction, on a cheap Gemini mixer in college radio I "aimed for zero" VU and allowed for only occasional 1-2dB excursions over zero..

If, in that day long ago I had been presented with a meter with zero at the top, I'd probably have been aiming for just below zero. That is what I think has also been going on at the recording, mixing, and mastering stages of an album project.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

At this point I have pretty much given up trying to explain
how metering works to you, and why reference levels and
final product loudness are unrelated.

Shall I?

If all you're worried about is getting the best S/N ratio, you want the
highest instantaneous peak level of the signal to just barely kiss the MSB.

This recording level has nothing whatever to do with the loudness of the
recording, because the instantaneous peak level can be anywhere from a couple
of dB to 30 dB above the average level of the rest of the music.

"Is that right?"

"Yes. Now the gain control will take you to any level you want."

"I should have thought that with my brain."

"I should have felt it in my heart."

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi DMP-100, nee Sony
PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away discarding three bits. "


You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is, unless this recording was 'in the field'.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi
DMP-100, nee Sony PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away
discarding three bits. "

You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to
keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is, unless
this recording was 'in the field'.

These were field recordings, and of classical music! No compression!

When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording level
to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote

When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
during the actual performance.

That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you notice to
be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.


My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
--scott

+1. My experience as well, particularly with percussion. When those folks get excited during the performance and
the mallets really fly, they can easily add 6, 9 even 12 dB to what was "played loudest" during the rehearsal.
(Trained voices and brass routinely add 4-6 dB during the excitement of the performance.)

One small saving grace is that slight percussion clips with modern converters are hard to hear, but why risk it
when we have so much headroom these days?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[John Williamson]

On 24/12/2014 22:31, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "I've already gone over the whole thing too many times. At this point I "

No you didn't - else I would have remembered it. All you stated was that VU and digital full scale meters measured different things. That I've already figured out.

You seem to have a memory problem. At reasonably short intervals, you
post about metering or another loudness related topic, and the theory
and practice are explained to you. Then, a few days or weeks later, you
post almost exactly same "problem", and it is explained to you again...



--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 9:47 a.m., wrote:
geoff wrote: "You again demonstrate you lack of understanding. "

Read my reply to Peter Larsen, mid-thread, and tell me what I "don't understand".



"No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it wrought since
its inception"

The whole concept of metering and the nature of linear PCM digital
recording, it seems.


geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 10:11 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote

When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
during the actual performance.

That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you
notice to be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.


If they play a loud passage, you set a 1dB margin, and in the heat of
performance they go louder again, you've overcooked your 'safety margin".

geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 10:53 a.m., wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
- show quoted text -"

Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.

" Doesnt " they ? Of course they do, or something similar.


Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.


A peak reading meter is the ONLY way you can accurately set levels.

It also has nothing to do with replay volume or compression. It simply
makes sure you don't get nastiness from clipping. Do you imagine that
hyper-compression (etc) is something applied at the recording stage ?


geoff

[geoff]

On 25/12/2014 11:27 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS.
Because when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder
than they said it would be in performance, and then add 12dB
worth of safety margin for something else louder that wasn't
forseen.

It only once went past what I expected -- and only by 1dB.


You do realise that 1dB is barely perceivable change in level. So they
really didn't play any louder. I would expect a likely increase of
maybe 6dB in the the heat of a typical real performance.


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 25/12/2014 10:11 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 25/12/2014 9:28 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote

When I made live recordings, I'd ask the orchestra to play the loudest
passage from the works they were performing, then set the level about
1dB below that. My experience was that orchestras play a bit louder
during the actual performance.

That's an incredibly narrow margin to set! If they play what you
notice to be "a bit louder", then they are well over the 1dB.

I'm talking about what the meters showed, not what I heard.


If they play a loud passage, you set a 1dB margin, and in the heat of
performance they go louder again, you've overcooked your 'safety margin".

geoff


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

Not to change the subject, but many years ago I regularly worked with a TV host who always spoke about 3 dB more quietly when on-air or tape was rolling than he did during the pre-show voice check. Freaked me out the first few times.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Peace,
Paul

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

skrev i en meddelelse
...

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi
DMP-100, nee Sony PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away
discarding three bits. "

With my SV3800 sound would be cleanest if the upper bit was not left unused
and the inaudibility of short clipping relied on, if there actually was some
I unclipped the recording.

With that gamble it gets required to allow for musical genre. Very good
singing wimmen can be trusted when recording, I know of ONE (1) who sings
with so much precision and control that a compressor need not be deployed in
post, the rest of them can be trusted to always have an extra 10 dB of
loudness they come up with with or without relevance in the musical context.

Even then I ran out of downward bits at an avant-garde event. Usually it is
just a pair of eq and stereo tricks to lift musicians commentary and make it
audible in post, but with that recording I couldn't lift those passages as
much as had been relevant, the voice got robotic in character. Not totally
out of place in the musical context, even if purely by natural instruments,
but there also was no real room ambience left.

You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to
keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is,
unless this recording was 'in the field'.

Do you read what people post? - William refers to making live recordings.
Also William is into hifi and possibly knows just how much mess a compressor
makes with the sound and what the cost is in clarity.

You can not add clarity, you have to have it and preserve it. Which is why
risking a couple of dB of clipping on the (modded) SV3800 worked to the
recordings advantage. Sadly replacing opamps and capacitor in it was only
about 1/3 the required rebuild O:-) - it actually became OK as long as the
uppermost bit was used, but moving to 24 bit recording was an ambience
revelation.

Take some days off from teaching the populace here to "do sound" and learn
to listen for the sound of single electronic components and the improvements
in clarity that can be gained by minimizing their number. Or borrow a
compressor and try inserting it in the tape monitor loop of your home hifi
and listen for the mess it makes with clarity, perspective and ambience.

You can add anything in post but clarity - that you can only loose and sound
recording and the entire post-processing until release is about loosing as
little as possible.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

On 24/12/2014 10:13 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 24/12/2014 10:45, wrote:
This interest in VU meters is the best thing that could happen in
digital audio! No more peak-based metering and all the 'nastiness' it
wrought since its inception.

The purpose of VU meters was to give an indication of levels in a way
useful when recording on tape, which could safely be overdriven to a
certain extent without sounding too nasty. The purpose of peak meters is
to give an accurate indication of the maximum levels going into
transmitters or a digital chain, where peaks that are even slightly too
high can give very unpleasant sounding clipping.

If anything, peak metering *prevents* nastiness when recording digitally
or driving a transmitter, while using VU metering in these cases can
give rise to clipped peaks unless the engineer leaves a large margin for
error.

In either case, metering is a tool to help the engineer or mixer set
levels for the best performance of the equipment in use at the time, so
it makes sense to use the right meter for the job, so VU for analogue
tape, and peak for digital and transmissions.


I disagree, with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide
both VU and peak metering, which tell you different things about your
signal. No need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 25/12/2014 1:22 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/24/2014 1:51 PM, John Williamson wrote:
The metering I use has green bars up to a certain point, then yellow,
then the top few are red.

Green is on the quiet side, yellow is okay, red is dead. It works for
me...

What I'd like to see on every digital meter is greater resolution close
to full scale. All too often the last step on the meter before red is
-10 dBFS or so. Same goes for digital meters showing analog levels. For
example, the meter on my Mackie Onyx mixer is stepped like this:

+20 (clip)
+10
+7
+4
+2
0
with the same steps below 0

So what you have is the rough equivalent of a mechanical VU meter that
has good resolution around 0, but if you're feeding an A/D converter
from the mixer that's calibrated so that +20 on the mixer's meter is 0
dBFS, you have 10 dB of ambiguity between the last indicator before you
reach clipping. When the +10 LED is on, your record level could be
anywhere between -10 dBFS or just a hair under 0 dBFS.

While it's good advice to keep the level such that the +10 LED only
blinks occasionally, try to tell that to someone who wants slamming
drums, slamming guitars, slamming bass, and slamming vocals.


Firstly what converter/recorder/software are you using that doesn't have
it's own metering, and that you *only* have the Mackie to go by?

Secondly what on earth has the amount of headroom in your recorder got
to do with how "slamming" you can make the drums, bass, guitars, vocals
etc. in the final mix?

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" skrev i en meddelelse
...

wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Back then, I was recording with a 16-bit system (Nakamichi
DMP-100, nee Sony PCM-F1), and didn't feel I could get away
discarding three bits. "

You could have put a compressor in-line and makeup gain to
keep the level up to within one bit of full-scale, that is, unless
this recording was 'in the field'.

These were field recordings, and of classical music! No compression!

When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording
level to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

-35 dB peakmetered tends to work for me with a string quartet and
corresponding audience. Just what genre did you record? - was such a rowdy
audience really safe to be in or did you have protection, guards perhaps?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

On 25/12/2014 8:53 AM, wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: "- show quoted text -
My inclination is to set it to "the loudest passage" is at -18dBFS. Because
when they actually play it for real, it will be 6dB louder than they said it
would be in performance, and then add 12dB worth of safety margin for
something else louder that wasn't forseen.
- show quoted text -"

Excellent practice. Too bad the majority doesnt do it that way.

Now tell me what I "don't get" about metering theory.

For a start you don't get the majority *DO* do it that way these days.
It's usually in post the decisions are made to compress and clip the
hell out of it to maximise the apparent loudness and match what all the
other idiots are doing.

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

In either case, metering is a tool to help the engineer or mixer set
levels for the best performance of the equipment in use at the time, so
it makes sense to use the right meter for the job, so VU for analogue
tape, and peak for digital and transmissions.

I disagree, with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide both
VU and peak metering, which tell you different things about your signal.
No need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.

What matters is not what meter, but that the equipment operator knows the
properties of the meter, lead included, and of the programme recorded and
the overload behavior of the system recorded on.

Trevor

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

On 25/12/2014 7:14 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
In either case, metering is a tool to help the engineer or mixer set
levels for the best performance of the equipment in use at the time, so
it makes sense to use the right meter for the job, so VU for analogue
tape, and peak for digital and transmissions.

I disagree, with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide both
VU and peak metering, which tell you different things about your signal.
No need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.

What matters is not what meter, but that the equipment operator knows the
properties of the meter, lead included, and of the programme recorded and
the overload behavior of the system recorded on.

And any operator who knows that, will also know the advantages of both
types of metering and not seek to limit himself when there is no reason
to. But *IF* you are only interested in "overload behavior" the choice
is clear cut these days with digital, simply use peak metering.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording level
to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

-35 dB peakmetered tends to work for me with a string quartet and
corresponding audience. Just what genre did you record? -- was such
a rowdy audience really safe to be in or did you have protection,
guards perhaps?

Classical orchestral.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

When I started out, I used dbx II. I found that setting the recording
level to -10dB for pre-concert audience noise worked perfectly.

-35 dB peakmetered tends to work for me with a string quartet and
corresponding audience. Just what genre did you record? -- was such
a rowdy audience really safe to be in or did you have protection,
guards perhaps?

Classical orchestral.

I'm wondering, also in the context of your peak allowance for the actual
event, are you talking tape recorder meters after dbx?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

I'm wondering, also in the context of your peak allowance
for the actual event, are you talking tape recorder meters
after dbx?

You're confusing my digital recordings with my analog recordings. You don't
use dbx II with digital.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"William Sommerwerck" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

I'm wondering, also in the context of your peak allowance
for the actual event, are you talking tape recorder meters
after dbx?

You're confusing my digital recordings with my analog recordings. You
don't use dbx II with digital.

No, I did not give any thought to it though, what was on my mind is thst it
would mostly reconcile the difference in expected audience noise and actual
event headroom. But you could of course have used a mic setup that I
probably would not consider ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 9:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
Firstly what converter/recorder/software are you using that doesn't have
it's own metering, and that you *only* have the Mackie to go by?

None, if you consider a green and a red LED "metering." I suspect that
all DAW programs have metering, but it may not be in a convenient place
to look. In my dreams, I'd like to set gains once and leave them that
way for the rest of the day. Unfortunately festivals aren't very
conducive to that kind of operation. Everything takes full time attention.

Secondly what on earth has the amount of headroom in your recorder got
to do with how "slamming" you can make the drums, bass, guitars, vocals
etc. in the final mix?

The live mix IS the final mix. Why waste time?


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" writes:

-snips-

You can add anything in post but clarity - that you can only loose and sound
recording and the entire post-processing until release is about loosing as
little as possible.

I think you mean "lose" and "losing", unless things are just kinda rattling around. (Caught those because I
make errors like that.)

Actually, in the clarity department, minor miracles can often be had by thoughtful and careful cuts of varying
degrees in the lower octaves - LF and Lo MF dips, varying shapes of high pass, etc. This could be applied to
troublesome tracks or to the entire mix.

Surprisingly, you can often "infer" clarity by adding HF energy -- not in the form of EQ, but rather with HF-heavy
reverb done to taste (and with the appropriate pre-delay).

Finally, a few processing tools can also aid, such as SPL's Vitalizer or Transient Designer. Neither can create
something from nothing, and both are easily overused, but they can help remove at least one layer of murk.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 3:07 AM, geoff wrote:
A peak reading meter is the ONLY way you can accurately set levels.

What does "accurately set levels" mean to you? How accurate do you want
to be? Do you want to be sure that at some place the level reaches full
scale? Or do you want to be sure that at no place does it ever reach
full scale, at least for content that you want to keep?

I don't consider level setting to be a precise thing that you can (or
should) do with a measurement. It's a thing where a measurement can
guide you in using your good judgment.

Hey, we have to be able to do SOMETHING right for the big bucks that we
make.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 3:12 AM, geoff wrote:
You do realise that 1dB is barely perceivable change in level. So they
really didn't play any louder. I would expect a likely increase of
maybe 6dB in the the heat of a typical real performance.

I always believed that, but then I started reading about mastering
engineers adding a couple of tenths of a dB here and there and made the
client smile.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 8:53 AM, Trevor wrote:
with software based tools it's extremely easy to provide both VU and
peak metering, which tell you different things about your signal. No
need to limit yourself to one any more AFAIC.

I don't always have software based tools at hand when I'm recording. And
I don't always want them. Not all work has a "post" phase, so it's
important to get it as right as possible at the start. This makes any
project, even one where there will be extensive post-recording work,
easier because there are fewer little things that need to be corrected
before fixing the big things.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Trevor wrote: "It's usually in post the decisions are made to compress and clip the hell out of it to maximise the apparent loudness and match what all the other idiots are doing"


At least there doing so ensures all the bits are being used, on a 16 or 24bit level (!)

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/25/2014 9:04 AM, Trevor wrote:
Firstly what converter/recorder/software are you using that doesn't have
it's own metering, and that you *only* have the Mackie to go by?

I should also add that not all level setting is done at the A/D
converter or via the DAW meters. For example, the meter on the DAW track
that you're recording doesn't tell you if you have the gain set too high
on the preamp in the rack and you're clipping its input or output stage?

Also, on the first couple of generations of handheld digital recorders,
the mic input gain was fixed and the record level adjustment (the effect
of which you can see on the meters) is after that fixed gain stage. If
you just watch the meters, you can be making a very clean digital
recording of a clipped mic preamp. What you learn there is that if you
need to turn the record level down below a certain point in order to
keep the meters from hitting full scale, you'd better switch in the
built-in pad if you're using the internal mics or turn down the output
level of your outboard preamp or mixer that's feeding the recorder.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com