Classical program ff = ?dbFS

[WillStG]

Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear, and the
loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. ) Is that where ff
usually is on this kind of program? Should I move things up and use the
headroom if it is globally available on the project or just leave it where it
is?

Or should I leave 6dbFS peak headroom to avoid crapping out the cheap
gear? It sounds fine through most CD players and my powerbook even, but on my
RCA DVD player through my ancient Fisher amp all the ff volume parts totally
crap out the system. Yow, the lowest common denominator is my home stereo...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Arny Krueger]

"WillStG" > wrote in message


> Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear,
> and the loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. )
> Is that where ff usually is on this kind of program?

IME commercial recordings "top out" some place between -3 dB FS and FS.

> Should I move
> things up and use the headroom if it is globally available on the
> project or just leave it where it is?

That's really an artistic question. How do you want this recording to be
perceived by the listeners? Is it supposed to sound delicate or forceful?

> Or should I leave 6dbFS peak headroom to avoid crapping out the
> cheap gear?

Only a dB or so is required for that purpose.

> It sounds fine through most CD players and my powerbook
> even, but on my RCA DVD player through my ancient Fisher amp all the
> ff volume parts totally crap out the system. Yow, the lowest common
> denominator is my home stereo...

Is this recording going to be played frequently in a mobile environment? If
so, then there's a good argument for moving the levels up maybe 4-5 dB.

[Richard Crowley]

> "WillStG" wrote ...
> > Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear,
> > and the loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. )
> > Is that where ff usually is on this kind of program?

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> IME commercial recordings "top out" some place between -3 dB FS and FS.
>
> > Should I move
> > things up and use the headroom if it is globally available on the
> > project or just leave it where it is?
>
> That's really an artistic question. How do you want this recording to be
> perceived by the listeners? Is it supposed to sound delicate or forceful?

Isn't it also a tracking vs. mastering question?

If you REALLY have complete confidence that the level of the FF
is reliable, you could get away with slimmer headroom when
recording the performance.

I agree that commercial recordings appear to top out at -3dBfs
(or above), but that is with the benefit of mastering hindsight, isn't it?

[Benjamin Maas]

I usually record most ensembles to have 4-6 dB of headroom in the
performance. When I bring it back home to do post, I rarely do much dynamic
control to it, but I do "normalize" the levels to a certain extent- usually
bringing the loudest part of the concert to -0.5.

Problem is with classical music, many of the performers have such a large
dynamic range that the lower end becomes almost inaudible on lower-end
setups (including cars). To have a fighting chance, I bump the levels up so
they don't have to strain as much to hear the soft stuff...

I had a recording that I made of a choir and orchestra come back to me last
week. It was a performance of the Durufle Requiem and the director was
complaining that the loud parts distorted on his stereo system (car and
boombox), but not on his good Mackie monitors... Turns out the performance
had a 40+ dB dynamic range and to hear the soft, he turned his system all
the way up. When it got loud, the stereo distorted. For one of the first
times in my classical recording life, I worked really hard to remove
dynamics. I manually lowered the volume of the loud passages and
significantly raised the soft passages. Slapped on an L2 with about 3-4 dB
of peak reduction in the loud parts and he was happy. I guess he really
didn't need that extra 10-15dB of dynamic range the original recording
had....

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear, and the
> loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. ) Is that where
ff
> usually is on this kind of program? Should I move things up and use the
> headroom if it is globally available on the project or just leave it where
it
> is?
>
> Or should I leave 6dbFS peak headroom to avoid crapping out the cheap
> gear? It sounds fine through most CD players and my powerbook even, but
on my
> RCA DVD player through my ancient Fisher amp all the ff volume parts
totally
> crap out the system. Yow, the lowest common denominator is my home
stereo...
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[Peter Larsen]

WillStG wrote:

> Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear, and the
> loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. ) Is that where ff
> usually is on this kind of program? Should I move things up and use the
> headroom if it is globally available on the project or just leave it where it
> is?

You should not leave it as it is, your average recorded level will be
around -32 dB ref full scale, and your listeners will expect more and
have to either reach for the remote or take the looong walk across the
living room to adjust playback level.

> Or should I leave 6dbFS peak headroom to avoid crapping out the cheap
> gear? It sounds fine through most CD players and my powerbook even,

Arny's suggestion of leaving a single dB makes more sense.

> but on my
> RCA DVD player through my ancient Fisher amp all the ff volume parts totally
> crap out the system. Yow, the lowest common denominator is my home stereo...

Input clipping?

> Will Miho


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message


>> "WillStG" wrote ...

>>> Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear,
>>> and the loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. )
>>> Is that where ff usually is on this kind of program?

> "Arny Krueger" wrote ...
>> IME commercial recordings "top out" some place between -3 dB FS and
>> FS.

>>> Should I move
>>> things up and use the headroom if it is globally available on the
>>> project or just leave it where it is?

>> That's really an artistic question. How do you want this recording
>> to be perceived by the listeners? Is it supposed to sound delicate
>> or forceful?

> Isn't it also a tracking vs. mastering question?

I interpreted the question as being a mastering question.

> If you REALLY have complete confidence that the level of the FF
> is reliable, you could get away with slimmer headroom when
> recording the performance.

In a tracking environment, my target for headroom is more like 10 dB.

> I agree that commercial recordings appear to top out at -3dBfs
> (or above), but that is with the benefit of mastering hindsight, isn't
it?

I do think so!

[Matthew Champagne]

(WillStG) wrote in message >...
> Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear, and the
> loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. ) Is that where ff
> usually is on this kind of program? Should I move things up and use the
> headroom if it is globally available on the project or just leave it where it
> is?


Dynamic markings in music are subjectively interpreted by the
performer according to a number of criteria, including (but not
limited to) the instrument, the space, the reaction of the audience,
how they're feeling, how tight their shoes are, etc., etc.
Accordingly, it's folly to expect a fortissimo to correspond to a
particular SPL at your microphones' position.

Not to mention the fact that, of two notes sounded with exactly the
same loudness, room resonance could reinforce one while dampening the
other. There are so many variables that the best you can really do is
ask the performer to play some loud passages, leave some headroom at
the top of the meter, and hope they don't go over or that they didn't
leave out any particularly resonant pitches during the soundcheck.

-Matt

[ScotFraser]

<< Ok, I set levels recording this classical piano project by ear, and the
loudest passages hit -5.6 dbFS ( all double forte parts. ) Is that where ff
usually is on this kind of program? Should I move things up and use the
headroom if it is globally available on the project or just leave it where it
is? >>

If nothing peaks above a mezzo-piano or even pianissimo, I will put that up
close to 0 dbfs. I see no point in making everything on a CD 6 db below the
top. If it seems overly loud on quiet material, the listener can turn it down.

<< Or should I leave 6dbFS peak headroom to avoid crapping out the cheap
gear?>>

I don't think we should cater to any gear so crappy it will clip at -6 below
full scale.

<< It sounds fine through most CD players and my powerbook even, but on my
RCA DVD player through my ancient Fisher amp all the ff volume parts totally
crap out the system. Yow, the lowest common denominator is my home
stereo...>>

Nothing a bunch of money can't fix.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>>



Scott Fraser

[Matthew Champagne]

"Benjamin Maas" > wrote in message news:<T3usb.182718$Fm2.165773@attbi_s04>...

[snip]

> I had a recording that I made of a choir and orchestra come back to me last
> week. It was a performance of the Durufle Requiem and the director was
> complaining that the loud parts distorted on his stereo system (car and
> boombox), but not on his good Mackie monitors... Turns out the performance
> had a 40+ dB dynamic range and to hear the soft, he turned his system all
> the way up. When it got loud, the stereo distorted. For one of the first
> times in my classical recording life, I worked really hard to remove
> dynamics. I manually lowered the volume of the loud passages and
[another snip]


Jeez... I hope the guy wasn't ****ed that your recording captured the
performance's dynamic range. It seems odd for a conductor to rely on
playback from a boom box and car stereo to make the decision to trump
his own conducting with technological artifice. Assuming, that is,
that the purpose of the recording is to represent the performance
faithfully (whatever that means)...

-Matt

[ScotFraser]

<< Assuming, that is,
that the purpose of the recording is to represent the performance
faithfully (whatever that means)...
>>

Since representing a performance faithfully is totally out of the question, I'd
say the purpose of the recording is to make a good recording, which is a
different art form than a performance.


Scott Fraser

[Carey Carlan]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in
:

> If you REALLY have complete confidence that the level of the FF
> is reliable, you could get away with slimmer headroom when
> recording the performance.

True statement, but doesn't usually happen in the real world. I find that
all but very seasoned professionals will hold back a bit in rehearsal and
play louder in the concert, thus 6 dB headroom is a dangerously narrow
margin for error.

OTOH, I also never get a full 96 dB of S/N because of room noise, so
lowering the levels won't necessarily cause problems. If you plan to do a
lot of editing to the file, record it in (or convert to) 24 bits before
editing. Then normalize and THEN convert to 16 bit with dither.

[Benjamin Maas]

"Matthew Champagne" > wrote in message
om...
> "Benjamin Maas" > wrote in message
news:<T3usb.182718$Fm2.165773@attbi_s04>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > I had a recording that I made of a choir and orchestra come back to me
last
> > week. It was a performance of the Durufle Requiem and the director was
> > complaining that the loud parts distorted on his stereo system (car and
> > boombox), but not on his good Mackie monitors... Turns out the
performance
> > had a 40+ dB dynamic range and to hear the soft, he turned his system
all
> > the way up. When it got loud, the stereo distorted. For one of the
first
> > times in my classical recording life, I worked really hard to remove
> > dynamics. I manually lowered the volume of the loud passages and
> [another snip]
>
>
> Jeez... I hope the guy wasn't ****ed that your recording captured the
> performance's dynamic range. It seems odd for a conductor to rely on
> playback from a boom box and car stereo to make the decision to trump
> his own conducting with technological artifice. Assuming, that is,
> that the purpose of the recording is to represent the performance
> faithfully (whatever that means)...
>
> -Matt

Nahh... He wasn't ****ed. He just couldn't understand why it was distorting
when it got loud. It wasn't until I started questioning him that I found
that he turned the stereo in his car most of the way up to hear the soft
stuff and then when it got loud, it distorted... He sort of understood that
this problem was caused by a good thing- the fact that there were huge
dynamics in his performance.

Oh well.... So much for trying to maintain dynamic contrast in a
recording.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

[WillStG]

(ScotFraser)
>If nothing peaks above a mezzo-piano or even pianissimo, I will put that up
close to 0 dbfs. I see no point in making everything on a CD 6 db below the
top. If it seems overly loud on quiet material, the listener can turn it down.
>

Thanks for the comments everyone. I have lots of CDs, but most classical
music I have is on LPs! So I was wondering if there is some kind of dynamic
consistency between classical recordings where if you put several CD's in your
CD changer, the dynamic levels match between different CD programs. If that
was the case I thought maybe I should a little room for FFF even though this
program material might never hit that level?

But not only does that not seem to not be the case, but the dynamics wars
are even affecting Benjamin Mass and Scott Fraser now? Ahh, competition!
What's next, digital reverb on everything! Oh wait, that's what those British
DG guys were doing patching that Lex 300 into their Studer...

In any event, the esthetic seems to be not that different in terms of final
levels from putting together any other CD. I think I'm still going to try to
be somewhat purist about it though... Thanks guys.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Arny Krueger]

"Carey Carlan" > wrote in message
. 201
> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in
> :
>
>> If you REALLY have complete confidence that the level of the FF
>> is reliable, you could get away with slimmer headroom when
>> recording the performance.
>
> True statement, but doesn't usually happen in the real world. I find
> that all but very seasoned professionals will hold back a bit in
> rehearsal and play louder in the concert,

Yeah, up to 10 dB louder. This is one very objectively-apparent way that
emotion is present in music.

> thus 6 dB headroom is a dangerously narrow margin for error.

Agreed. I record the same performers in the same room with the same mics
once a week for over a year, and in that context I admit that for the sake
of convenience, I sometimes record with about 6 dB headroom. However, any
changes, and I go close to double that.


> OTOH, I also never get a full 96 dB of S/N because of room noise, so
> lowering the levels won't necessarily cause problems.

In my case an open converter channel might have a noise floor that is 95+ dB
below FS. A terminated mic input might have a noise floor that is something
like 85 dB below FS. Plug in the mic and with a quiet room, the noise floor
is in the high 70's until the people show up. With even a few people present
but not talking loudly, the noise floor is in the low 70's. During a
performance, the noise floor in the high 60s when things are as quiet as
they can get.

Bottom line, the noise level I control by setting headroom is always way,
way above the digital noise floor.

>If you plan to
> do a lot of editing to the file, record it in (or convert to) 24 bits
> before editing. Then normalize and THEN convert to 16 bit with
> dither.

That works. However if you look over my numbers, my use of 24 bits gives me
more peace of mind than anything else.

[Arny Krueger]

"Matthew Champagne" > wrote in message
om
> "Benjamin Maas" > wrote in message
> news:<T3usb.182718$Fm2.165773@attbi_s04>...
>
> [snip]
>
>> I had a recording that I made of a choir and orchestra come back to
>> me last week. It was a performance of the Durufle Requiem and the
>> director was complaining that the loud parts distorted on his stereo
>> system (car and boombox), but not on his good Mackie monitors...
>> Turns out the performance had a 40+ dB dynamic range and to hear the
>> soft, he turned his system all the way up. When it got loud, the
>> stereo distorted. For one of the first times in my classical
>> recording life, I worked really hard to remove dynamics. I manually
>> lowered the volume of the loud passages and
> [another snip]

> Jeez... I hope the guy wasn't ****ed that your recording captured the
> performance's dynamic range.

It's very nice to have a wide dynamic range recording on tap when the time
and place is right for a shot at sonic recreation, but...

>It seems odd for a conductor to rely on
> playback from a boom box and car stereo to make the decision to trump
> his own conducting with technological artifice.

I think he was listening most carefully to other aspects of the performance
than the dynamic range.

> Assuming, that is,
> that the purpose of the recording is to represent the performance
> faithfully (whatever that means)...

I don't think he wanted total faithfulness, he wanted to judge other musical
values than dynamic range when he had the time to evaluate them.

In the modern world, time to sit in a quiet room and JUST listen to music
seems to be getting rarer and rarer.

[Scott Dorsey]

WillStG > wrote:
(ScotFraser)
>>If nothing peaks above a mezzo-piano or even pianissimo, I will put that up
>close to 0 dbfs. I see no point in making everything on a CD 6 db below the
>top. If it seems overly loud on quiet material, the listener can turn it down.
>>
>
> Thanks for the comments everyone. I have lots of CDs, but most classical
>music I have is on LPs! So I was wondering if there is some kind of dynamic
>consistency between classical recordings where if you put several CD's in your
>CD changer, the dynamic levels match between different CD programs. If that
>was the case I thought maybe I should a little room for FFF even though this
>program material might never hit that level?

Not really, but I do know some folks who have issued some clavichord records
(I think on Nonesuch) where the peak level was at about -10 dB, so that if you
played them at the normal listening level you're probably used to, they would
sound about the right (really quiet) level for the instrument.

> But not only does that not seem to not be the case, but the dynamics wars
>are even affecting Benjamin Mass and Scott Fraser now? Ahh, competition!
>What's next, digital reverb on everything! Oh wait, that's what those British
>DG guys were doing patching that Lex 300 into their Studer...

DG seems to have a very different notion of what makes a good recording than
I do. But, they sure sell a lot more than I do also.

> In any event, the esthetic seems to be not that different in terms of final
>levels from putting together any other CD. I think I'm still going to try to
>be somewhat purist about it though... Thanks guys.

Right, although I do think it's important that the difference in levels be
consistent with a performance. I know folks who will normalize each movement
seperately and wind up with one track on the disc noticeably louder than the
others, and I don't like that at all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ScotFraser]

<< > But not only does that not seem to not be the case, but the dynamics
wars
>are even affecting Benjamin Mass and Scott Fraser now? Ahh, competition!>>

Client demands. I'll give a client an uncompressed jazz trio CD with peaks
hitting -1dbfs & average levels around -8 to -10 & they come back with "It
sounds quieter than commercial jazz CDs." So I give them a version with 3 db of
peak limiting, push average levels up accordingly & they're happy as clams.
People don't want the full original dynamic range of a performance on a
recording. They want the APPEARANCE of the original dynamics, which in the
medium of recording means an alteration of the dynamics.

<<Right, although I do think it's important that the difference in levels be
consistent with a performance. I know folks who will normalize each movement
seperately and wind up with one track on the disc noticeably louder than the
others, >>

That's just bad & unmusical mastering.
Scott Fraser

[Mike Rivers]

WillStG > wrote:

> I have lots of CDs, but most classical
>music I have is on LPs! So I was wondering if there is some kind of dynamic
>consistency between classical recordings where if you put several CD's in your
>CD changer, the dynamic levels match between different CD programs.

No. Real classical music fans stopped using changers when they started
putting out LPs and you didn't need to stack up an album's worth of
78's to hear a whole movement of a symphony.

Also, classical music lovers tend to be more audiophiles, where
listening to a record (or a CD) is an event, not just something you
put on and set at a level so that it's not so loud to bother you and
doesn't get so quiet so that you get distracted wondering what you're
missing. I can remember "listening evenings" when a few of us would
get together, each bringing a record or two, and we'd put them on and
just sit and listen (oh, and maybe eat some popcorn or have a beer).

What a concept!


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Hal Laurent]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1068813443k@trad...

>I can remember "listening evenings" when a few of us would
> get together, each bringing a record or two, and we'd put them on and
> just sit and listen (oh, and maybe eat some popcorn or have a beer).

And I can remember staying up way too late 'cause the end of a beer
never coincided with the end of a side of a record. :-)

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

[Roger W. Norman]

Honestly Mike. How can you listen to classical music and eat popcorn? <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1068813443k@trad...
>
> WillStG > wrote:
>
> > I have lots of CDs, but most classical
> >music I have is on LPs! So I was wondering if there is some kind of
dynamic
> >consistency between classical recordings where if you put several CD's in
your
> >CD changer, the dynamic levels match between different CD programs.
>
> No. Real classical music fans stopped using changers when they started
> putting out LPs and you didn't need to stack up an album's worth of
> 78's to hear a whole movement of a symphony.
>
> Also, classical music lovers tend to be more audiophiles, where
> listening to a record (or a CD) is an event, not just something you
> put on and set at a level so that it's not so loud to bother you and
> doesn't get so quiet so that you get distracted wondering what you're
> missing. I can remember "listening evenings" when a few of us would
> get together, each bringing a record or two, and we'd put them on and
> just sit and listen (oh, and maybe eat some popcorn or have a beer).
>
> What a concept!
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Peter Larsen]

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

> Honestly Mike. How can you listen to classical music and eat popcorn? <g>

A comfy chair? - & it probably wasn't avant garde!

> Roger W. Norman


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Honestly Mike. How can you listen to classical music and eat popcorn? <g>

Did you ever hear Pal-Yat-Chee by Homer & Jethro with the Spike Jones
Orchestra?

"This sure is top corn, so we go and buy some popcorn.
"We hate to go back, but we can't get our dough back.
"Ain't no use complainin' 'cause outside it's a-rainin'"




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo