|
VU Meters
|
View this Thread in Original format
| dJohn |
Alot of new DJs are asking some good questions regarding equipment, mixing, and techniques, but I see very few posts about using your VU meters, which is very important in harmonizing and maintating a steady level of output during mixing, and especially during your transitions.
You vet DJs out there, lets post some comments and techniques regarding the usage of VU meters and how it affects mixing.
Thanks in advance. |
|
|
| raaven |
I couldn't function without them and are wonderful.
BUT
Don't totally rely on them for loudness. Some tracks can be really powerful but not that loud at all.
Doesn't really make sense I know but it's true. |
|
|
| sebjr |
very good question
i myself am trying to learn how to keep equal levels by using the VU. it makes the mix so much smoother when the level is kept the same. it is a bit harder to do this on an average mixer (i have a vestax pcv 002) but still possible.
what i try and do is this:
- adjust gain on channel so it is sitting mainly at 0db and every so often peaking to +3 db
- when bringing in second channel, make sure combined vu doesnt hit more then +3 db in total. this is much harder then it sounds (for me anyway). so i basically use the volume control to adjust it so this is the case. i dont think it matters if the volume is a bit higher then normal during a mix, but you have to be careful. not sure if this helps :)
any expert have an opinion:) |
|
|
| sebjr |
| quote: | Originally posted by raaven
I couldn't function without them and are wonderful.
BUT
Don't totally rely on them for loudness. Some tracks can be really powerful but not that loud at all.
Doesn't really make sense I know but it's true. |
this is true too. i have one tune (bt - dreaming (sasha remix) which shows up as +6db on the VU but is quiet, which makes it a bitch to mix in with the VU. this is because it peaks all the way up from 0!
others which have heavy bass so sound loud, even though the VU doesnt look that high!
all about knowing your records i guess :) |
|
|
| SgtFoo |
from the production point of view I can say that some tracks are mastered better than others and the maximum dB might be set high, but the rest of the track may be low in volume ...and vice versa. SOme tracks may stay at a steady 0dB no matter what sounds they make and others may scatter. Poorly mastered tracks will most likely scatter. and poor quality recordings will stay even.
When I've mixed the few time I have so far with an actual mixer (@ friend's place) I've used the VUs to keep the master signal no higher than +2 or +3dB.
If your mixer has the feature, you can listen to both signals in your headphones before you transition, so that you can hear and match the VUs before fading. I switch the process sometimes too and use the VUs to match both tracks. sometimes I even cue into the middle of the track quickly so that I know it will match volumes.
Personally I don't guide by dB because it can't always match to actual volume. You may find annoying highs or hurtful lows that burst the VU meter. It's really a game of comparison and good judgement. |
|
|
| bachatu |
| SgtFoo is correct... if you follow the uv meters, they can sometimes show incorrect info, cause of certain frequencies bieng inbalanced in the recording. Sometimes, i may not have time to listen to both tracks long enough to determine and do proper adjustments, so i may use my uv meters to give me a basic guide... then from there as i bring in the track with my crossfader, i can better judge what changes i have to make on the fly.. but it takes a bit of experience and trial and error, but after a while you can master it. |
|
|
| Veldrid |
| I play both channels in my headphones and match loudness like that usually. The VU is great but it isnt accurate enough for me. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
Excellent thread. I agree with everything that's been said here. I usually keep my VUs up a little higher, from +5db, to just BARELY sometimes peaking the +8 light. this is because my mixer has a stupid 6db cut on the outputs that i cannot adjust. if i play at 0db, it sounds weak, no matter how loud i put it.
Also, some records are definitely louder than others, even though the VU won't show it. I have one Art of Trance - Madagascar (Kumara mix) that is so friggin loud, i have to let it peak at about 0db (while the other tracks are at +6) or it's overpowering. I think it has something to do with the frequency range your mixer uses to record VU. anyone know what the standard is? what i'd REALLY like is a VU meter that is wider, so i can see the peaks on individual frequencies.
like this:
even better a 3D display, with X Frequency Y Amplitude Z Time:
kinda like this:
 |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
The fact is there are different sorts of meters. And usually what you see are not VU meters...
Real VU meters are like those you see on old equipment, with the needle moving left and right. They are designed to respond the same way as we hear (our ears need some time to perceive a sound as loud). The reaction time is about 360 ms. You can test this scientifically. If you play two short burts of sound that are of the same volume, but the first peak is VERY short, and the other is longer, you'll have the impression that the second sound is louder. That's because our ear needs to adapt first. They tried to imitate that on a VU meter. So if the needle is high, you'll really perceive it as a loud sound.
Most actual mixers have led meters that respond much faster. So they'll react much more heavily on transients we don't really hear as louder. Yet those meters don't react as fast as professional peakmeters (like RTW's) or digital peakmeters (look at the meters in a recording prog like soundforge and compare with your mixers meters). The only dj mixers I know that have those super fast responding meters are the Dateq mixers (the high end ones).
When you're dealing with VU meters, the ideal soundquality you'll get from your mixer is when the loudest parts of the signal are averaging around 0 VU. So peaks above are accepted.
Those superfast responding peakmeters are designed to give you the transient levels also, and those don't reflect the loudness. It's best to peak them at 0dB (like in broadcast appliances).
The meters you find on your mixer are usually between those extremes. So you will find the best spot is average around the 0dB, but the peaks won't go that high. Max +3dB occasionally I'd say.
It also depends on how much compressed your music is. Very dynamic signal can have louder peaks. On the other hand if the music is squashed to death, you'll lower the volume (because the overall loudness will be higher on the second one).
Why all this scientific mumbojumbo. Just to prove I know my theory :D
Don't trust the meters, trust your ears. Use the meters only to roughly set your initial gain, and then forget about them...
Your ears are MUCH more sensitive when it comes to loudness more than anything else. |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
As for John Smith, the reference in audio is always 1000 Hz. But most meters react according to a specified curve (Fletcher Munson, to reflect how we hear). That's why you see the meters move less when you cut bass etc (if the reference was absolute 1000, you'll only see changes when you affect midrange).
And we had that discussion already about your so called 6 db cut. It's probably because your mixer dulls the sound somehow (that's because of the way they designed the mixer probably). Playing at those high levels will only add distortion. Distortion is nothing more than adding harmonics. That's what makes you think it sounds better.
I know there can be a big difference. When I was starting out I used a crappy budget mixer. That sounded already pretty good I must admit. But once I got my Xone, the difference became clear.
I compared both (with the -10 dBV output, as the budget mixer didn't have a pro +4 dBu output). In a controlled recording, there was no difference between the levels. But when running a frequency analyser it became very clear.
High grade mixers use high grade components. And those don't deteriorate the sound as much (or the just do, but in a good way, like valve mixers adding some warm fuzz). The Xone just has a much cleaner sound, and leaves more in the mid and high frequencies. The budget mixer just loses a lot high frequencies due to mediocre components/layout.
That's what's happening. It has nothing to do with a cut in level. But more in frequencies. Driving the mixer in the high levels will add distortion (and like I said distortion are harmonics). And that makes you think it sounds better.
You'll see there will be a similar effect when you would mix around 0dB with your mixer and insert an aural exciter on your master output. |
|
|
| bachatu |
very interesting Thy... nice piece of information. What is strange though... is how the problem becomes where sometimes the UV meter shows to be lets say at -1.. but then the track is much much louder than another track.. happens with records all the time...i guess its how the track is 'compressed' no the record... as you mentioned.
I use a Rane mixer and its overall accurate with my prog like cool edit and sound forge w UV metering.. only exception is when i have a problem as i mentioned above....
for instance.. if i have record A and its showin on my mixer to be -1db... but lets say the record sounds much more louder than that... and i look at my prog (soundforge or cool edit), usually the prog will be peaking in, while my mixer is not...
just to further prove your theory that the programs are more accurate. |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
| Yup either compression, or there are much transients. Some (most?) of these transients are too fast to be detected by your mixer meters (and by your ears also, but they also have the faculty to add up). The digital peakmeters in programs are much faster (they go as fast as your soundcard allows, buffers and all taken into account). Those meters can detect transients that are only a couple of samples long. Your mixer meters will generally detect peaks that last more than a couple of milliseconds (do a simple calculation, cd quality 44.1 kHz = 44.1 samples in one ms. See the difference?). |
|
|
|
|
