what the fuck is going on? This is the 3rd time today that this -3db figure has come up today as "the standard for final mix levels". IT IS NOT TRUE, It's bullshit and echosystem is exactly right. Mastering engineers do like a tiny bit of headroom because they can't do anything with clipped audio, but -3dbfs?

Do people understand what 3dbfs in terms of actual perceived loudness?

Oh, and +1 to keeping it as high quality as possible wothout dithering, so if you're working in 24bit 96k export it to that then convert to other formats using the best possible encoders (to mp3 etc.).

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 While mastering you dont want to bring the main level down furthur

why?

if you export at a -3db peak, you need to boost it at least +3db (it would obviously be more like +6db or more once it is compressed). this will just bring up the noise floor. why wouldn't you export as close to zero as possible? then you don't have to raise the noise floor as much. this does not make any sense.

also, what you you mean that you must "leave room for compression"? a compressor turns DOWN the peaks, not bring UP the sound below the threshold lol. a signal peaking at -3db would be like -6db peaking after it is compressed, before you add gain.

Last edited by echosystm on Mar-12-2009 at 02:12

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN what the fuck is going on? This is the 3rd time today that this -3db figure has come up today as "the standard for final mix levels". IT IS NOT TRUE, It's bullshit and echosystem is exactly right. Mastering engineers do like a tiny bit of headroom because they can't do anything with clipped audio, but -3dbfs? Do people understand what 3dbfs in terms of actual perceived loudness? Oh, and +1 to keeping it as high quality as possible wothout dithering, so if you're working in 24bit 96k export it to that then convert to other formats using the best possible encoders (to mp3 etc.).

are you sure you read what echosystem has been saying? Hes saying that leaving headroom is pointless, why not just mix down to 0dbfs and then master. haha. hes asking why leave any headroom, why not just bring down the levels while mastering.

Mastering Engineers like -6dbfs up to -18dbfs of headroom.

___________________
_____________________________________
commercial and underground electronic music (house/techno/trance/other) will surpass today's hip hop/pop/rock/country in worldwide interest...if it has'nt already.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm why? if you export at a -3db peak, you need to boost it at least +3db (it would obviously be more like +6db or more once it is compressed). this will just bring up the noise floor. why wouldn't you export as close to zero as possible? then you don't have to raise the noise floor as much. this does not make any sense. also, what you you mean that you must "leave room for compression"? a compressor turns DOWN the peaks, not bring UP the sound below the threshold lol. a signal peaking at -3db would be like -6db peaking after it is compressed, before you add gain.

I dont know if it matters, the point remains that ME's want headroom to do their work properly. The question is why would you not mix with a lot of headroom if that is what they usually ask for? Your track wont come out louder or better if you mix closer to 0dbfs than if you mix to -12dbfs, but at -12dbfs a master engineer has more room to make the necessary changes to the mix.

A mastering compressors purpose is not what you describe. Its not simply to tame the peaks down or to bring the volume down, its to make everything more evenly loud and pop out in the mix. So while peaks are being tamed, the lower volumed dynamics are being brought up into the mix. This is done by compression through the threshold point at a chosen ratio, and makeup volume fed through the gain. So you might be taming peaks, but the actual volume sounds louder on average. Having headroom allows ME's to add gain and compression through the compressor more easily, and the rest through the mixing console or summing mixer master bus.

___________________
_____________________________________
commercial and underground electronic music (house/techno/trance/other) will surpass today's hip hop/pop/rock/country in worldwide interest...if it has'nt already.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Your track wont come out louder or better if you mix closer to 0dbfs than if you mix to -12dbfs

this is my point - why WOULDN'T it sound better if you bounce closer to 0db? if you export close to 0db, you don't have to bring the signal up as high when you are mastering it. therefore, the noise floor will be lower, therefore the mix will be cleaner, therefore it will sound better.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 A mastering compressors purpose is not what you describe. Its not simply to tame the peaks down or to bring the volume down, its to make everything more evenly loud and pop out in the mix. So while peaks are being tamed, the lower volumed dynamics are being brought up into the mix. This is done by compression through the threshold point at a chosen ratio, and makeup volume fed through the gain. So you might be taming peaks, but the actual volume sounds louder on average. Having headroom allows ME's to add gain and compression through the compressor more easily, and the rest through the mixing console or summing mixer master bus.

i know how a compressor works. i know a compressor IS what i describe, because you just repeated the exact same thing as i said back to me. do you even read posts before you reply?

how do you think "the lower volumed dynamics are being brought up into the mix"? They are brought up by amplifying the signal after the peaks are compressed. the more headroom the source signal has, the more you are going to have to amplify it. the more you have to amplify it, the more you are going to raise the noise floor. the more you have to raise the noise floor, the more noise will be in the signal.

so, why would you want to amplify the signal so much when it could have just been exported at a higher volume?

for example, lets say we have a song which has peaks that need to be compressed by 3db...

scenario 1: we mixed so it peaks at -1db. therefore we need to add gain on the compressor of 4db to bring it to 0, when we are mastering. we have raised the noise floor 4db.

scenario 2: we mixed so it peaks at -3db. therefore we need to add gain on the compressor of 9db to bring it to 0, when we are mastering. we have raised the noise floor 6db.

why would we want to do scenario 2 and raise the noise floor more than we have to? you don't seem to be understanding the question at all. if you lack the knowledge to comprehend what i am saying, then don't bother replying. saying "because a mastering engineer said so" doesn't answer the question.

Last edited by echosystm on Mar-12-2009 at 09:16

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 I dont know if it matters, the point remains that ME's want headroom to do their work properly. The question is why would you not mix with a lot of headroom if that is what they usually ask for? Your track wont come out louder or better if you mix closer to 0dbfs than if you mix to -12dbfs, but at -12dbfs a master engineer has more room to make the necessary changes to the mix.

ME want only enough headroom because a lot of producers never heard something about clipping. and with enough headroom you can avoid those mixes which are already "louder" than 0dbfs. it's just the easiest way for ME to explain that a mix should never have clipping peaks.

beside that a bit of headroom is sometimes not too bad if you need to boost some frequencies with an EQ in the mastering stage (to fix bad mixing). but it's very easy to lower the input gain on any device anyway.

but especially in the analog world you want to record as hot to 0dbfs as you can to reduce the noise floor. in the digital world you'll loose bit resolution but it's usually less hearable than a analog noisefloor. BUT there's absolutly no reason to mix not as loud as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus BUT there's absolutly no reason to mix not as loud as possible.

and there we have it, an answer.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm this is my point - why WOULDN'T it sound better if you bounce closer to 0db? if you export close to 0db, you don't have to bring the signal up as high when you are mastering it. therefore, the noise floor will be lower, therefore the mix will be cleaner, therefore it will sound better. how do you think "the lower volumed dynamics are being brought up into the mix"? They are brought up by amplifying the signal after the peaks are compressed. the more headroom the source signal has, the more you are going to have to amplify it. the more you have to amplify it, the more you are going to raise the noise floor. the more you have to raise the noise floor, the more noise will be in the signal. so, why would you want to amplify the signal so much when it could have just been exported at a higher volume?

Are you using a lot of analogue gear? For most producers here who are using digital stuff, they shouldn't worry much about noise floor to the point they avoid leaving headroom. Mixing to 0dbfs for the sake of avoiding noise floor is very little gain towards the mix quality and eventual mastering outcome. What you will be doing is tying the Mastering Engineer's hands with no headroom to work the more important aspects of the mix. Its rather simple really. Talk to some mastering engineers and they will tell you the same, leave headroom of at least -6dbfs up to -18dbfs. Maybe you need to hear it from a mastering engineer?

___________________
_____________________________________
commercial and underground electronic music (house/techno/trance/other) will surpass today's hip hop/pop/rock/country in worldwide interest...if it has'nt already.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus ME want only enough headroom because a lot of producers never heard something about clipping. and with enough headroom you can avoid those mixes which are already "louder" than 0dbfs. it's just the easiest way for ME to explain that a mix should never have clipping peaks. beside that a bit of headroom is sometimes not too bad if you need to boost some frequencies with an EQ in the mastering stage (to fix bad mixing). but it's very easy to lower the input gain on any device anyway. but especially in the analog world you want to record as hot to 0dbfs as you can to reduce the noise floor. in the digital world you'll loose bit resolution but it's usually less hearable than a analog noisefloor. BUT there's absolutly no reason to mix not as loud as possible.

Yes this is true, but not everyone here uses analogue mixing platforms, so by default we are talking about DAW production here, and you DONT want to mix anywhere near 0dbfs. Echosystem, do you mix on a console/mixer or through your DAW?

If you do your mixing on an analogue console or summing mixer then sure, you can mix close to 0dbfs to avoid noise floor, but for some reason I thought you were mixing on a DAW.

___________________
_____________________________________
commercial and underground electronic music (house/techno/trance/other) will surpass today's hip hop/pop/rock/country in worldwide interest...if it has'nt already.

Last edited by Kismet7 on Mar-12-2009 at 09:29

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Oh, and +1 to keeping it as high quality as possible wothout dithering, so if you're working in 24bit 96k export it to that then convert to other formats using the best possible encoders (to mp3 etc.).

yes, definately export to whatever you are using in your DAW, however i would reccomend not using 96K , it might sound like its better quality but actually, some guy proved sometime ago that the electronics used in audio does not have the speed to 'buffer' the audio before the next sample is coming through, something along the lines of that. hence 48k is your best bet

use izotope sample rate converters and MBIT+ dither for best results, you can choose shaping which you can suit your musical genre

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 and you DONT want to mix anywhere near 0dbfs.

why, because the bit resolution loss on 32bit float audio is going to be so big?

if we were talking 16bit fixed point, it would be a different case, but such loss is irrelevant here.

that is assuming that the engineer would attenuate the signal digitally... it is more likely the case that the signal would be pushed out the DAC at it's existing volume (hence a lower noise floor out of the computer) and then be attenuated passively.

Last edited by echosystm on Mar-12-2009 at 09:38

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Are you using a lot of analogue gear? For most producers here who are using digital stuff, they shouldn't worry much about noise floor to the point they avoid leaving headroom. Mixing to 0dbfs for the sake of avoiding noise floor is very little gain towards the mix quality and eventual mastering outcome. What you will be doing is tying the Mastering Engineer's hands with no headroom to work the more important aspects of the mix. Its rather simple really. Talk to some mastering engineers and they will tell you the same, leave headroom of at least -6dbfs up to -18dbfs. Maybe you need to hear it from a mastering engineer?

Oh my. When talking about digital signal, this thing you call headroom is just more zeros in the file. As stated earlier, there's no point to not use the accuracy of all available quantizing levels.

And about decibels... You can say your mix peaks at -6 dBFS or that you have 6 dB headroom, but you simply can't say you have -6 dB headroom. -6 dB is a number smaller than 1.