Blue Bear Sound

The idea is to maintain your standard analog line levels throughout the signal chain. Analog gear (mics, pres, interfaces) have a standard expected operating line level generally calibrated such that a steady signal at 0VU on an analog meter would come at around-15dBFS on a digital meter. Maintaining this level throughout the chain leaves plenty of headroom (15dB) and you're not pushing the analog electronics (that come before the digital conversion) too hard (and therefore keeping the signal clean going in!) So send signals into your DAW so they ride at an AVERAGE (not peak) of about -15dBFS and you'll be fine... the concept of "more audio data" (ie, using more bits) has always been grossly misunderstood and overstated anyways - and at 24-bit, it's a complete non-issue.

I remember back in the day when studios did not have access to analyzers... sure is nice to move forward where they are available free for everyone to download and use. If I was set in my ways, I'd probably be against it, but NOWDAYS, they fit in with the rest of the helpful tools available to anyone interested. Modern tools or not - you hear with your ears!

Agreed, where I was coming from though is actually learning what is going on in a finished product(mastered and all) vs. what is/isn't going on in one's own mixes in the context of someone who is totally green and doesn't have what many consider an "ideal environment". I learned alot about mixing and mastering from SA's...especially in less than perfect environments where I could check my low frequencies before I I burned a rough mix to listen in my car(and thus waisting the cd when all I heard was mud coming out of the speakers). If your monitoring chain sucks...you can get an SA and use what you see to go against what you hear. Kind of like having another pair of monitors to a/b against. I would never say that you could mix with you speakers off as long as you get an SA:idea: I still maintain that you're over-stating its usefulness - but hey, whatever works for you!

The thing is, mastering is far less about what processes or processors are used, and far more about decisions for what (if any) processes or processors to use, about what has informed those decisions, and about how those decisions improve the final presentation of the production. Bingo!

Now, with cpu screens, you can see what you are not hearing (what the room isn't letting you hear). Uh... no. You can't mix (or master, for that matter) by viewing an SA...... regardless of the monitoring system, you have to use your ears. If your monitoring chain sucks and you can't change it for a more ideal setup, then you have to learn how to translate your mixes with what you've got. But an SA or scope is NOT going to do much to help you........

How much does higher fidelity really matter when listening to music with a $5 pair of ear buds? Well - listen to some lo-fidelity music (just about anything on MySpace is a perfect example) on those $5 ear buds... that will demonstrate exactly how much it DOES matter.

My "crusade" - as you put it - is about good sounding recordings, not DIY'ers per se. However the vast majority of DIYers don't come anywhere CLOSE to the sonic potential they have at their disposal. As to your "feeling threatened" comment... actually the opposite is quite true... the "home recording" ethic has resulted in MORE business for me, as I mix for many of the more serious Indie bands who've realized they can't get a mix sounding right on their own.... As I said, my comments are based more on advocating recorded sound quality than any sort of anti-DIY sentiment. If more DIY'ers actually lived up to their potential, you likely wouldn't hear a peep from me. As it is, however, many have a very long way to go, and even then, I've found that most aren't actually interested in learning proper techniques anyways. There is an actual CRAFT and SKILL to recorded sound, ya know..... and THAT'S what I "crusade" about.

When those guys learned, there was no "home recording." I'm pretty sure that they all apprenticed w/other guys - learning the ropes in a pro studio, from pros, and mastering pro product. They didn't start out working in a home studio. The paradigm has shifted considerably since then, so having to learn to do it yourself, usually under pretty adverse conditions, is an option that wasn't there before. MG True.... And on an aside one could argue that this "home recording" option isn't really learning the craft either -- just novices messing around with what they think recording audio is about. We have the technology with some of the best sonic potential for capturing recorded sound these days and it's pretty much wasted by clueless DIY'ers who think it's as easy as slapping up a $10 mic and hitting the record button (not to mention the fact that budget gear manufacturers try to keep that illusion alive by propagating their marketing nonsense too!) I've never heard so much recorded crap in my life as there is now.... we definitely need more cream rising to the top these days - problem is, the cream is constantly being diluted!

You need to get your head out of your ass! *yawn*

Recording IS easy. Making it sound really good is the hard part. Very good point!

That charm offensive never ends for you, huh? I just tell it like it is - I'm not afraid to provide a reality check as needed!

Well you uttered the words "it sounds like a demo" so I think he hit the mark close enough. He said "good-sounding demo"...... a big difference in meaning and the reason I made my comment.

In what part of the universe would that ever be considered even remotely "good-sounding"?? I mean props to the guy for figuring out how to hit record button but let's be real - it sounds like a demo recorded by a novice......