I've read each reply - thanks for the input all.

Just goes to show though that this production lark might be likened to politics - 2 camps with opposing views both of which are CERTAIN they have the right answers.

___________________
https://soundcloud.com/butlerrichard

thats why in most countries except US theres more than two political partys, somewhere in the middle is the right answer.

MadforBrad, I don't really understand your point. RANN pretty much took the words out of my mouth when he pointed out that we hear logarithmically, meters are displayed logarithmically too, so its important to use that top 3 dB of dynamic range well, since its the most sensitive 3 db on the scale.

Whether or not the meters on DAWs are accurate, the fact remains that they ARE MORE accurate between -3 and 0 than between -9 and -3. Its because they're logarithmically scaled, which means that the top 3 dB represents more SPL range (in terms of particle displacement) than does the next 3 dB down.

Further, there is no headache involved in working this way, its easier, thats why we do it. I'm just pointing out that your conventional wisdom that you shouldn't clip channels and plugins, and should mix low to avoid doing so simply doesn't apply in the modern 32/64 bit age.

At the end of the day, my point is that you can work however you like in a 32 bit system, because you have enough resolution that you

1/ won't clip if you go over 0 BEFORE the master
2/ won't lose much resolution if you render 3 dB lower, as long as you render in 32 bit. BUT if you're rendering in 16 bit, you should definately normalise beforehand to make the most out of this slightly sloppy format.

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

i red on gearslutz that normalizing fucks up the render? why is that?

i was putting my kick at -9db and then everything once mixed would usually peak at -4 but ive noticed over the past 6 months ive been getting it lower and lower so now ive been putting my kick -8 or so and its getting everything at less than -4db which is good.
so although theres ppl on here with more experience than me.. id recommend to try that start with your kick and -8db and try and get your final mix to not peak above -4db (without changing the master fader haha)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by davedresden it's a good thing your tits have no bearing on the outcome of my career

JDC
JDC Website
JDC Facebook
JDC Soundcloud
J Cannons Facebook
J Cannons Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips MadforBrad, I don't really understand your point. RANN pretty much took the words out of my mouth when he pointed out that we hear logarithmically, meters are displayed logarithmically too, so its important to use that top 3 dB of dynamic range well, since its the most sensitive 3 db on the scale. .

we hear logarithmically but dB is a log based unit which means, unless you've never done any calculus, operating strictly with dBs is a linear matter. Every 10 dB you add or subtract is widely considered a perceived doubling or halving of loudness.

and djRann is only making his points assuming you all don't have calibrated systems and you all are working in a purely digital world. His advice is really for people that don't know what they are talking about as most of you probably don't.

He still didn't address the fact that 3-6dB of headroom in a 24 bit system is not a big deal. There is no difference in sound quality so why try to make things as hot as possible. People that actually know how to use meters are generally using a large mixing board and would be mixing to the references I posted. The visual meter is not so important that you would needlessly make your mix so hot that you will end up with something that might clip. It is an unnecessary risk and there are no benefits sonically speaking.

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad we hear logarithmically but dB is a log based unit which means, unless you've never done any calculus, operating strictly with dBs is a linear matter. Every 10 dB you add or subtract is widely considered a perceived doubling or halving of loudness. and djRann is only making his points assuming you all don't have calibrated systems and you all are working in a purely digital world. His advice is really for people that don't know what they are talking about as most of you probably don't. He still didn't address the fact that 3-6dB of headroom in a 24 bit system is not a big deal. There is no difference in sound quality so why try to make things as hot as possible. People that actually know how to use meters are generally using a large mixing board and would be mixing to the references I posted. The visual meter is not so important that you would needlessly make your mix so hot that you will end up with something that might clip. It is an unnecessary risk and there are no benefits sonically speaking.

I don't know what your point is about log scales? Its irrelevant IMO. I'm aware of how log scales work. This issue is really about whether its sensible to mix to 0 dB or if there is still a reason to mix to -3. I'm claiming that there is no longer a reason to mix to -3 in modern DAW systems. You're saying that there is, but haven't provided a reason. If we both agree that it doesn't sonically matter, then we have no argument. If you find it easier to mix to -3 then fine, but from the perspective of metering etc, I find it easier to mix to 0. I think we both agree that it doesn't matter for any reason other than conveniance though.

I think we'd both also agree that there are very small quality losses when you export at less than 0, so that its better to export at 0 through normalising, especially when exporting to 16 bit.

Do I understand you correctly?

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

my point is that you should learn the correct way to do things regardless of your current set up as you will might have to work in the analog world someday and it is just a good habit to mix at the appropriate levels.

No there is no difference but why not just learn the right way to do things. Like Rann said, don't touch the master but does it make an audible difference ? no but why not just learn the right way to do things.

Another analogy is orchestration. With the use of sample libraries, the rules of orchestration don't apply as much as the balance can easily be fixed by a fader but I suppose I am someone that prefers to know how to do it the right way from the start and not develop bad habits that will eventually encumber you if you go far enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad my point is that you should learn the correct way to do things regardless of your current set up as you will might have to work in the analog world someday and it is just a good habit to mix at the appropriate levels. No there is no difference but why not just learn the right way to do things. Like Rann said, don't touch the master but does it make an audible difference ? no but why not just learn the right way to do things. Another analogy is orchestration. With the use of sample libraries, the rules of orchestration don't apply as much as the balance can easily be fixed by a fader but I suppose I am someone that prefers to know how to do it the right way from the start and not develop bad habits that will eventually encumber you if you go far enough.

I'm saying the exact same thing and IMO, the right way to do things is to mix to 0dbfs, not -3 or -6.

Why? because if your system should is calibrated to the K system, which already means that at 0dbfs, you are already accounting for the -18db you spoke of earlier. This is what we do at the studio so we aim to get as close to 0dbfs as possible without any clips.

one of the (many) advantages of this is that we mix on real faders, so that means if we were trying to mix to -6db, we would effectively have less space physical to mix with and less resolution in real DB terms.

I also think this is especially important for those reading this that do not have a calibrated system to not mess about with mixing to standards they don't generally understand and just aim for 0dbfs as a way to teach them good practice and to work with levels.

Bob Katz states in his book to stay clear of O dBfs and that is someone who's word I trust. To put it in perspective, A 24 bit mix has 48 more dB headroom than a 16 bit mix. Check out pages 61 where he mentions the practice of safe levels regarding recording and mixing.

Last edited by Looney4Clooney on Sep-06-2010 at 23:24

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad Bob Katz states in his book to stay clear of O dBfs and that is someone who's word I trust. To put it in perspective, A 24 bit mix has 48 more dB headroom than a 16 bit mix. Check out pages 61 where he mentions the practice of safe levels regarding recording and mixing.

But he's advocating staying below 0dbfs. If I have one hit on 0dbfs it's time to revisit the mix. The problem I have with this is that he never actually explains why to stay at -3dbfs, just to stay away from it.

I know you know what projects I've worked on that were mixed to a fraction below 0dbfs and had no problems whatsoever, I just don't get why Katz is asserting this. Don't get me wrong he's the master and that's why the K system is named after him but he's never clarified this point about -3dbfs apart from esoteric opinion, which I'm not buying until he proves otherwise.

But it is possible to hit 0 and your meter doesn't show it clipping. You have to have several samples at 0 although i'm not quite sure what most daw's use as the window length. I think he is just advocating it because it is better to allow a margin of safety.

Last edited by Looney4Clooney on Sep-07-2010 at 04:24