gain staging

i57dwun4yb1pt8

gain staging

alot of debate on the web about stagin the analog and the digital to keep the stages in the sweet spot

has anyone any thoughts on this ?

The theroy is that its best to keep the digtital meters on your dac IN THE GREEN - SAY PEAKING AT -12 DB on the DAC meters.

I have external pres ( as most of you do i guess ) into line ins on the DAC .

to do this I find I have to engage the pads on my pres when it comes to drums to avoid going into the oraange / red

but sometimes i think that the higher the gain on the pre - the more detailed the sound - but the DAC is then into the orange / near red.

so whos correct ?

DamagedTrax

DaDumTish wrote: »

so whos correct ?

your ears are correct.










(:) sorry if that sounds smart, not meant to!)

teamdresch

Why not do both, then precisely level match the results and see which you prefer?

PaulBrewer

Just record the shizit and get on with it ... your gear either sounds good or it doesn't .... sweet spot me hole!

Shouldn't that be mic pres into ADCs and Daw into DACs or am I misunderstanding?

i57dwun4yb1pt8

Shouldn't that be mic pres into ADCs and Daw into DACs or am I misunderstanding?

yes thats correct


so the question is - where do we aim the pre level to peak at on the ADC level meters ?


I use my ears , and my ears tell me that having as much gain on the snare and overheads as possible sounds better - even if the ADC is peaking near red . transients sounds better and imaging and detail is better

but in the box , the master is now in the red - due to the high levels of the recorded tracks - and thats before any eq and compression is added.

so - do i just turn down the faders in the DAW then add the eq and compression ?

PaulBrewer

I'd suggest it may be the mic pres sounding better as they're driven and an obvious by product of that is higher level out.

Depending on the brand -14 -16 - 18 or -20 dbFS represents what was the old Odb on the VU meters of consoles tape machines (dBm as I recall, though open to correction)

That's how current levels were arrived at.

I'd suggest that the normalized digital level recorded at various working levels would be sonically identical - that's to say if the mic pres stayed at the same level and it's outputs were adjusted and then the recorded file normalized.

So in conclusion once you're not tipping over Real dbFS (and your ears will most definitely tell you that, and probably your software) rock on.

A more conservative approach might be pull the pres outputs back pre ADC as a spoiled take because of digi distortion is a sore dose.

jtsuited

here's what i think is the problem with DAW metering. It shows full scale. Mixing in the box is completely different from otb because of this.

Also the fact that most faders default at 0 and not at - (where's the infinity sign?), means a lot of people have no headroom whatsoever as they don't really realise what they're doing until it's too late.

I remember reading a good article on this ages ago (can't remember what magazine it was but the dude knew his stuff). The basics of it was to have your master fader peaking at -12.

Jaysus the difference in your mixes is mighty when you mix so close to the bottom. Which brings me to another point. Why can't DAW's (apart from ableton which has this feature) not have er, stretchy faders. there's all that space underneath my faders why can't we use it?

jtsuited

PaulBrewer wrote: »

So in conclusion once you're not tipping over Real dbFS (and your ears will most definitely tell you that, and probably your software) rock on.

.

see this is the thing though, apparently (and by that i mean some high end guys have said it - bob katz is one) software signal metering isn't very accurate at all and many overs will get through without showing on the meter.

And our ears can't exactly tell us when we've got 3 consecutive samples over dbfs.

or something like that.
sure what do they know!

I can tell you one thing though. bands recording their own stuff, should be given a crash course in why you don't need to record hot when working in 24 bit. Jaysus I've received some horribly clipped projects.

trackmixstudio

"Jaysus the difference in your mixes is mighty when you mix so close to the bottom. Which brings me to another point. Why can't DAW's (apart from ableton which has this feature) not have er, stretchy faders. there's all that space underneath my faders why can't we use it?"

If you are using logic, you can (and probably should) change your meters/faders to linear. Ctrl click to the left of the leftmost fader on the scale there and you can select linear or exponential.
Linear makes it much easier to set input levels because the meter is not all squashed and mostly displaying the top 6db.
Hard to explain really but when you do it you will see what I mean.

BTW I very much agree that keeping levels about -12 gives better results.

Michael

jtsuited

trackmixstudio wrote: »

"Jaysus the difference in your mixes is mighty when you mix so close to the bottom. Which brings me to another point. Why can't DAW's (apart from ableton which has this feature) not have er, stretchy faders. there's all that space underneath my faders why can't we use it?"

If you are using logic, you can (and probably should) change your meters/faders to linear. Ctrl click to the left of the leftmost fader on the scale there and you can select linear or exponential.
Linear makes it much easier to set input levels because the meter is not all squashed and mostly displaying the top 6db.
Hard to explain really but when you do it you will see what I mean.

BTW I very much agree that keeping levels about -12 gives better results.

Michael

i did that long ago but thanks anyway.

tweeky

I think the -12 level sounding better is nonsense, with a proper monitor section on your desk and an amp with enough headroom your track should sound as good or even better at levels up to but not over 0dbfs. It is helpful to leave some room to allow for peaks but carefully monitored you should be able to sit between -6 and -3 comfortably and also leave room for the mastering engineer to cast his spell. The -12 to -18 thing stems from a line up to the old VU system so as not to overload some analogue systems as Paul mentioned.

This brings me to the Bob Katz thing, i heard a CD recently which was sent over to the States for an unattended cut.....to be honest there are enough dodgy "mastering" wannabees over here that could have done as poor a job as i heard at a fraction of the cost.

teamdresch

DaDumTish wrote: »

I use my ears , and my ears tell me that having as much gain on the snare and overheads as possible sounds better - even if the ADC is peaking near red . transients sounds better and imaging and detail is better

This translates to me as "I like the sound of a little digital clipping on Snare and OHs".

teamdresch

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I'd suggest that the normalized digital level recorded at various working levels would be sonically identical

They would if the analog stages of the converter didn't operate differently at various input levels.
A cheap analog stage in a cheap converter will crap out at levels way above 0VU like those produced when hitting -3/-2dBfs.

Neurojazz

I think SSL supply a free digital meter plugin you can put on your master buss that shows digi overloads - ah, here's the link.

Probably off topic, but handy

i57dwun4yb1pt8

teamdresch wrote: »

This translates to me as "I like the sound of a little digital clipping on Snare and OHs".

noo, I know what that sounds like

I never let them go into the red , im talking about peaking into the orange , instead of staying all in the green

into the orange ( say around - 3 on the dac meter ) seems to sound better for drums than -12 - the actual pre isnt even close to clipping , just the DAC . it seems to catch the snare transient better- sounds more real .

but is it just me or does a higher gain on the pre translate into higher detail recorded from the mic ? or is it the same detail just less noise floor ?

teamdresch

Are you comparing level matched version of different recording levels?

teamdresch

tweeky wrote: »

I think the -12 level sounding better is nonsense, with a proper monitor section on your desk and an amp with enough headroom your track should sound as good or even better at levels up to but not over 0dbfs. The -12 to -18 thing stems from a line up to the old VU system so as not to overload some analogue systems as Paul mentioned.

For detailed explanation of the origins of the "-12 thing", read this thread.
You'll need a cup of coffee, but it's worth it.

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/15038/0/

There's a link to a bigger and more detailed thread early on.
It's got all you need to know on this subject.

jtsuited

tweeky wrote: »

I think the -12 level sounding better is nonsense, with a proper monitor section on your desk and an amp with enough headroom your track should sound as good or even better at levels up to but not over 0dbfs. It is helpful to leave some room to allow for peaks but carefully monitored you should be able to sit between -6 and -3 comfortably and also leave room for the mastering engineer to cast his spell. The -12 to -18 thing stems from a line up to the old VU system so as not to overload some analogue systems as Paul mentioned.

This brings me to the Bob Katz thing, i heard a CD recently which was sent over to the States for an unattended cut.....to be honest there are enough dodgy "mastering" wannabees over here that could have done as poor a job as i heard at a fraction of the cost.

eh i was referring to the -12 thing in reference to the summing bus. The internal summing algorithms in DAW's work far better when you're down at that level.
Not to mention the plugins.

madtheory

tweeky wrote: »

I think the -12 level sounding better is nonsense, with a proper monitor section on your desk and an amp with enough headroom your track should sound as good or even better at levels up to but not over 0dbfs. It is helpful to leave some room to allow for peaks but carefully monitored you should be able to sit between -6 and -3 comfortably and also leave room for the mastering engineer to cast his spell. The -12 to -18 thing stems from a line up to the old VU system so as not to overload some analogue systems as Paul mentioned.

You have to specifiy which scale you're using, otherwise the numbers are meaningless.

If we're talking about tracking a live performance, then -18dBFS is sensible, it leaves you a good margin to avoid clipping, and you're still using 24 bits. If we're talking about a final mix ITB (and assuming a DAW that is not more than 4 years old), then you can use a meter to get the peak level to 0dBFS, no margin required unless you don't trust your meter. However, if you're using analogue outboard on the main outs, you have to allow for intersample peaks, so -3dBFS would be a sensible peak level on the ITB main outs.

The VU system is not old, it applies to all analogue systems. Unfortunately (!), we have to amplify microphones and get signals into and out of the converters in the analogue domain, so it's still good practice to be aware of how the various scales line up. Setting -18dBFS= 0 on most common analogue meters keeps things sounding sweet and above the noise floor.

I have a good graph on my office machine showing the line up of dBFS, dBu, dBV, dBSPL and VU, very educational so it is! I'll dig it out and post it.

tweeky

You have to specify which scale you're using, otherwise the numbers are meaningless.

Agreed, but If you have been reading the posts from the start it is as read that we are talking about dBFS as it is a DAW topic fro the OP. VU is an old system as it predates the 1980's digital era, that 's not to say it isn't current for anyone who still chooses to use it.
Me i'm a -14dbfs = 0dBVU line up man, this was beaten into me on an old PCM Sony back in the day.

madtheory

tweeky wrote: »

Agreed, but If you have been reading the posts from the start it is as read that we are talking about dBFS as it is a DAW topic fro the OP. VU is an old system as it predates the 1980's digital era, that 's not to say it isn't current for anyone who still chooses to use it.
Me i'm a -14dbfs = 0dBVU line up man, this was beaten into me on an old PCM Sony back in the day.

Cool, thanks. I think with 24 bit one can afford to put in a little more room