MASSIVE Master

Didn't we establish that he wasn't even actually asking about mastering?

Originally posted by JohnnyX Longer indeed! I changed a 128 to a 192 and i'll be damned if i heard a diff, but i noticed the file went from 3 megs to almost 5. I have downloaded a 128 and a 192 and the only diff i heard was NONE... but the file was bigger. i'd stick with the 128! However if you're looking to sell on some sites they insist on 192... i did notice tho that smaller files are louder than the bigger ones... so when i need to d/l a song for learning i want the smallest i can get at 128. one reason being i can get more on a cd. Wait a sec - you *changed* a 128 to 192 and didn't hear a difference? That's like changing an 8-bit file to a 24-bit file. Of COURSE you're not going to hear a difference (except for the re-rendering in the case of a MP3). But seriously - If you render a file (like a 24-bit file of something that sounds nice) to 128kbps and the same to 192kbps and you can't hear a difference, it's either time for new monitors or a hearing test.

Only 300%?!? Something is still wrong then... Well yeah, back in the day with crappy converters, I'd go *a little* hotter - But bringing preamps into the overdrive stage always bugged me... BTW - Love the traps. This place is flat like a freakin' pancake. I shouldn't say that - I haven't had it shot yet. But it is definitely steady - You can go around the entire room and not hear a dramatic change in the sound. Even in the corners.

Let's get ahold of ourselves here - It doesn't matter a rat's ass if you can or can't clip a 32bF file. This isn't about digital levels - This is about *recording* levels. And NO (to a previous post) you're NOT supposed to shoot for -6dB peaks. You're supposed to shoot for a 0dBVU average level and let the peaks fall where they may (which will probably be lower than -6dBFS, which is WELL into the headroom of whatever you're using on the front end). And the post with the interface that has a max level of +20dBu... You should be recording *even lower* - WHICH ISN'T LOW - IT'S FINE. There is nothing wrong with recording at these levels - This is what digital was designed for. This is where 24 bit (and 32bF) comes in handy. +20 is not a lot of headroom on a piece of analog gear. I'd play it safe and shoot for "steady" levels around -20dBFS and go from there. You have everything to gain by recording where your gear is designed to run, and everything to lose by overdriving it.

Originally posted by TBush Yeah- what I meant was that the peaks would be "just under 0 (dBFS)"- digital has great headroom and no need to blow it there... I have to say that the only time I've ever had a peak near -0dBFS while the meat of the signal was riding at 0dBVU was when the microphone fell onto a wood floor. I'm with NPRS... Peaks even *approaching* -0dBFS should be cause for rechecking input levels. But I've been around long enough to know that I'm not going to change everyone's mind on this... Although it still keeps me in almost constant wonderment that I ever had to "change" anyone's mind about proper levels... And you're right to a point - Digital *does* have a phenominal amount of headroom - More than I ever even imagined would ever be possible "back in the day" - So, then question is - Why are you trying to use every single bit of that headroom up? During *tracking* no less (where you have the most to lose from poor gain staging). And here's something else I have an issue with (although I'm sure it's well-intended): If you apply analog reasoning to digital, you screw up. If you properly structure your gain, and you use your gear the way it's designed to work, keep your recording levels around 0dBVU, etc., digital will work exactly as it was designed to work. But it certainly doesn't work the other way around -

The short story - Your gear - Basically all of it, is designed to run optimally at 0dBVU. It's been that way since 1946 (IIRC). Digital was designed around analog - There needed to be a spot where the two would meet. Depending on the gear, that was as high as -12dBFS (normally for older gear with crappy conversion) to -22dBFS or so. It's easy to figure out where your gear is calibrated - Run a tone into anything - A preamp, a console - Something with a VU meter. Set everything at unity except for the first gain control (the pre-gain on a channel strip or preamp for example). Set that so the VU meter reads 0dB. Run that signal into a digital converter. It will read somewhere between -22 and -16dBFS in the vast majority of cases. Notice that doing this the other way around is certain doom for the signal - Running a 0dBFS signal into a preamp set at unity will distort it. Badly in many cases. Even try backing it down. See how far it goes down before the signal is "clean" sounding. Just think about that distortion when you're trying to make a signal that hot with the preamp. The freaky thing is that this has *always* been how it works. This is "how it's been done downtown" since digital was introduced. The whole "get signals really hot" thing just seemed to have come out of nowhere. I've even seen it in product manuals! Unbelieveable! But anyone who's ever owned a guitar amp can tell you - You push the gain past a certain point, and the signal distorts. There's a point where it's not "fuzzy" - but it's still distorted. That's normal. That's what preamps do. But that's what microphone preamps do also... When you have the "meat" of a signal riding above where the preamp is designed to run, the entire signal is being supported by what *was* reserved as headroom for transients. The signal quickly distorts, loses "focus" and the dynamics get all screwy. The highs may get very strident - or almost disappear - the lows can get very smeared sounding ("focus" again)... On one track, it might not be a *huge* issue - depending on the track. But with track after track after track, you wind up with a mix of mud.

You realize that "just under 0 (dBFS)" is around 18dB into the headroom of your front end, right? If you're trying to treat it like analog (which you should) the "meat" of your levels should be around 0dBVU -- Somewhere in the realm of -18dBFS.

I don't think he was arguing for irresponsibility - I think he was saying to get an understanding of what the rest of the chain is doing and then just roll with it. Once I see what a VU meter is doing, I don't really "worry" about what the digital meters are reading - I know darn well that there's no way something is going to approach full-scale without something drastic happening somewhere. I *think* that's what he was getting at...

I can't push the importance of that too much - Never even knew it was an issue until I started hanging out on some forums, but it almost seems that the vast majority of people record WAY too hot... Your gear - Preamps, compressors, EQ's, converters (yes, even converters) are designed to run properly at 0dBVU. The best sound, the best focus, the lowest noise, the most clarity, etc. Pushing a signal beyond that point is allowing the signal to be carried by the headroom (for lack of a better term). It's not fear of clipping that should drive where you set your levels - It's recording the way that the gear was designed to run that should be your guide. The difference is NOT subtle... Especially with some "budget friendly" gear that hardly has any usable headroom in the first place. As far as how far down if you're lacking proper metering - The "safe bet" is around -18 to -22dBFS. If you keep the "meat" of the signal around there, you're golden. And ignore the "might as well be recording in 16 bit" crowd... (A) 16-bit done right sounds quite good. Even today's *crappy* converters sound better than the majority of converters 12 years ago. (B) Doing the math, if the absolute hottest peak of your signal is at -48dBFS, then you might as well be recording in 16 bit. Any higher = higher resolution than a compact disc.

The least they could do is use a balanced apple...