|
Exporting from Ableton (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kismet7 |
| Giving the Mastering Engineer what they want is the thing to do for best results. You can probably mix to a few fractions below 0dbfs, but why would you when your ME wants -6dbfs peaks? And Bob Katz wants -3dbfs. So who exactly wants 0dbfs that is mastering DAW mixes? I dont think it has to do with the ME's preconception "o this guy is a noob, so ill tell him give me -6dbfs." They probably simply work better with -3dbfs -6dbfs or -12dbfs than they can at 0dbfs. Whether that is avoiding the digital distortion, ability to add master compression, or eq'n. I really dont think it should be questioned much, even if theoretically 0dbfs mixes prior to mastering can be achieved on DAW's and still be turned into good masters, perhaps better masters can be made at lower leveled mixes. Not entirely because a -6dbfs mix is technically better than a well mixed 0dbfs, but because the application of the mastering by the engineer turns out better working on a -6dbfs mix. With that said, for good music, less rules more abstract please. I'll stick to the not so perfect according to TA -6dbfs peak that a veteran like Babicz asks for. You guys can mix to 0dbfs, its your perrogative. |
|
|
| Beyer |
Itīs because, like itīs been said a few times already, the ME needs headroom to work with.
There might be need for some eq work, and we all know that can create peaks, even with
narrow cuts. He could of course normalize the track to the level he needs, but that will degrade the sound slightly, when he boosts the level again after the processing is done.
Does it really hurt the sound? Well, they are there to give you the best mix possible.
Even if the quality difference is ever so small.
my opinion at least.
You can try for yourself. Take a track, normalize it to -4dBFS, take a gain plugin or whatever,
and make up that loss. Render. Repeat this a few times, and compare it to the original. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
Giving the Mastering Engineer what they want is the thing to do for best results. You can probably mix to a few fractions below 0dbfs, but why would you when your ME wants -6dbfs peaks? And Bob Katz wants -3dbfs. So who exactly wants 0dbfs that is mastering DAW mixes? I dont think it has to do with the ME's preconception "o this guy is a noob, so ill tell him give me -6dbfs." They probably simply work better with -3dbfs -6dbfs or -12dbfs than they can at 0dbfs. Whether that is avoiding the digital distortion, ability to add master compression, or eq'n. I really dont think it should be questioned much, even if theoretically 0dbfs mixes prior to mastering can be achieved on DAW's and still be turned into good masters, perhaps better masters can be made at lower leveled mixes. Not entirely because a -6dbfs mix is technically better than a well mixed 0dbfs, but because the application of the mastering by the engineer turns out better working on a -6dbfs mix. With that said, for good music, less rules more abstract please. I'll stick to the not so perfect according to TA -6dbfs peak that a veteran like Babicz asks for. You guys can mix to 0dbfs, its your perrogative. |
My post is full of exact scientific explanations as to why I mix to 0dbfs and even the theory why Bob Katz likes -3dbfs.
You post here is full of "I think" and guesses, mainly because you've seen a 1 line email from Babicz. No one can tell us a solid reason for -6dbfs apart from it "might" be better for him to do his thing or "perhaps" it gets better results.
Just for a second, think about it:
What is -6dbfs in terms of perceived loudness?
it's actually 50% of it's possible potential loudness (0dbfs).
So what you're saying is you're happy to mix your tracks at 50% of their total volume capability to then be mastered?
A mix system should be calibrated to a standard (in most cases the k20 standard or k18 or k14 depending what you're doing) in an effort to maximize the accuracy of the monitoring system, especially with 0dbfs in mind, so why on earth would you mix to to only 50% of it?
You're not going to be able to raise the overall gain by 6dbfs by eq'ing - it's going to sound terrible, and by doing it with make up gain on a compressor you are, whether you want to admit it nor not, going to increase the noise within the signal, especially at -6dbfs.
The only thing I can think of with Babicz -6dbfs is because maybe he has several $100K's worth of analogue gear that he uses to raise the volume with so he can get away with such a low level.....
But we don't do that or own that equipment and probably will never have a track mastered by the likes of Babicz or Katz - most of us do everything in the box and through software, maybe a bit of mid / high end outboard to master but nothing that we could compare to what he's using so you might as well accept that for your situation the mixes should be fraction below 0dbfs, otherwise you're not making the most of system, your available dynamic range or signal to noise ratio.
Echosystem - it's not really a problem but having said that it does depend on the metering standard. For instance, Euphonix set their meters so that a full scale square wave has an rms of -3dbfs so if there were an exact 45 degree out of phase scenario with a pure sine wave it would never go above 0dbfs and therefore not clip either. Many other manufacturers have also adopted this, so basically you're safe. The actual AES standard is a square wave peaking at 0dbfs (meaning a pure sine could peak at +3dbfs) but most audio manfucaturers follow the former calibration.
Also, high end dac's are better at signal reconstruction (and this is where factors like jitter and conversion chips come in to play) so they would avoid having this problem in the first place.
Bear in mind that DBfs only related to digtal systems and in most cases (it varies between continents) that 0dbfs is actually +18dbfs or 24dbfs in the US), so inversely -18dbfs (or 24dbfs) is the alignment of 0dbu Analogue. |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
You post here is full of "I think" and guesses, mainly because you've seen a 1 line email from Babicz. No one can tell us a solid reason for -6dbfs apart from it "might" be better for him to do his thing or "perhaps" it gets better results.
|
dude every post he makes is like this, go look at the vst vs. hardware thread and every other post he's made in this thread lol. trust me man, this guy is way too retarded to bother wasting your time on - you can never win against stupidity. he just doesn't "get it".
if we were all non-inquisitive sheep like him, we would still think the earth is flat. :haha: |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| lol :tongue2...it seemed more superstition than science. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
My post is full of exact scientific explanations as to why I mix to 0dbfs and even the theory why Bob Katz likes -3dbfs.
You post here is full of "I think" and guesses, mainly because you've seen a 1 line email from Babicz. No one can tell us a solid reason for -6dbfs apart from it "might" be better for him to do his thing or "perhaps" it gets better results.
Just for a second, think about it:
What is -6dbfs in terms of perceived loudness?
it's actually 50% of it's possible potential loudness (0dbfs).
So what you're saying is you're happy to mix your tracks at 50% of their total volume capability to then be mastered?
A mix system should be calibrated to a standard (in most cases the k20 standard or k18 or k14 depending what you're doing) in an effort to maximize the accuracy of the monitoring system, especially with 0dbfs in mind, so why on earth would you mix to to only 50% of it?
You're not going to be able to raise the overall gain by 6dbfs by eq'ing - it's going to sound terrible, and by doing it with make up gain on a compressor you are, whether you want to admit it nor not, going to increase the noise within the signal, especially at -6dbfs.
The only thing I can think of with Babicz -6dbfs is because maybe he has several $100K's worth of analogue gear that he uses to raise the volume with so he can get away with such a low level.....
But we don't do that or own that equipment and probably will never have a track mastered by the likes of Babicz or Katz - most of us do everything in the box and through software, maybe a bit of mid / high end outboard to master but nothing that we could compare to what he's using so you might as well accept that for your situation the mixes should be fraction below 0dbfs, otherwise you're not making the most of system, your available dynamic range or signal to noise ratio.
Echosystem - it's not really a problem but having said that it does depend on the metering standard. For instance, Euphonix set their meters so that a full scale square wave has an rms of -3dbfs so if there were an exact 45 degree out of phase scenario with a pure sine wave it would never go above 0dbfs and therefore not clip either. Many other manufacturers have also adopted this, so basically you're safe. The actual AES standard is a square wave peaking at 0dbfs (meaning a pure sine could peak at +3dbfs) but most audio manfucaturers follow the former calibration.
Also, high end dac's are better at signal reconstruction (and this is where factors like jitter and conversion chips come in to play) so they would avoid having this problem in the first place.
Bear in mind that DBfs only related to digtal systems and in most cases (it varies between continents) that 0dbfs is actually +18dbfs or 24dbfs in the US), so inversely -18dbfs (or 24dbfs) is the alignment of 0dbu Analogue. |
Your missing the whole point. Here are the points and reasons to my argument, so you understand what i've been saying here. I think its been nailed a few times, that mixing is an art form as much as it is something technical. If Robert Babicz wants -6dbfs or Katz wants -3dbfs, then I rather go with that, than to listen to some book or theoretical potential that no one credible actually folllows. Repeat that. Another point you guys are missing is that what is practiced and used is more important than what are technical specs or limits. And those explanations im giving are explanations that professional producers and mastering engineers with much more success and knowledge than any of you have given me. I acknowlege its not scientific perfection, I dont think I ever said it was, you can have that and use the book its written on as a pillow, my argument has been consistently about the real world and actual pratice of mixing and giving the ME the best mix to do his job. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
lol :tongue2...it seemed more superstition than science. |
More art than science ;p |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
Your missing the whole point. Here are the points and reasons to my argument, so you understand what i've been saying here. I think its been nailed a few times, that mixing is an art form as much as it is something technical. If Robert Babicz wants -6dbfs or Katz wants -3dbfs, then I rather go with that, than to listen to some book or theoretical potential that no one credible actually folllows. Repeat that. Another point you guys are missing is that what is practiced and used is more important than what are technical specs or limits. And those explanations im giving are explanations that professional producers and mastering engineers with much more success and knowledge than any of you have given me. I acknowlege its not scientific perfection, I dont think I ever said it was, you can have that and use the book its written on as a pillow, my argument has been consistently about the real world and actual pratice of mixing and giving the ME the best mix to do his job. |
Make your mind up - is it Robs -6db or Bobs -3db?
...and there is the whole flaw in what you've been saying all along. You're just going with YOU'VE heard from somewhere and trying to justify it after the fact rather than truly knowing it for yourself. In fact I'd have more respect for you if you said "I've always found that when doing my mixes I need more headroom etc."
Unlike you, I work in a studio for a living. I am an Engineer, working on a daily basis with Engineers of the same caliber as the ones you keep referring to. So I'm not talking from a stand point of only having read it or been told it or learnt it, but also having been shown it, heard it and now doing it to pay my rent.....and I can back it up with the science.
Engineering IS the combination of Science and Maths specifically for the Purpose of creative Art. If you don't know the limitations of the canvas or the clay you're working with then how are you meant to help form the shape or apply the paint? Don;t get me wrong, it's great to break the rules when you can but you got to know them to do that effectively.
Anyway, I'm done with this. I've explained my reasons and backed them both with theory and real world application. Do whatever you want, and follow whetever makes you feel good. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Make your mind up - is it Robs -6db or Bobs -3db?
...and there is the whole flaw in what you've been saying all along. You're just going with YOU'VE heard from somewhere and trying to justify it after the fact rather than truly knowing it for yourself. In fact I'd have more respect for you if you said "I've always found that when doing my mixes I need more headroom etc."
Unlike you, I work in a studio for a living. I am an Engineer, working on a daily basis with Engineers of the same caliber as the ones you keep referring to. So I'm not talking from a stand point of only having read it or been told it or learnt it, but also having been shown it, heard it and now doing it to pay my rent.....and I can back it up with the science.
Engineering IS the combination of Science and Maths specifically for the Purpose of creative Art. If you don't know the limitations of the canvas or the clay you're working with then how are you meant to help form the shape or apply the paint? Don;t get me wrong, it's great to break the rules when you can but you got to know them to do that effectively.
Anyway, I'm done with this. I've explained my reasons and backed them both with theory and real world application. Do whatever you want, and follow whetever makes you feel good. |
::sigh::
-3dbfs and -6dbfs are the same idea in this argument, they are both a few dbfs less than 0dbfs, the idea is the same, leaving headroom and following the mastering engineers guidelines, whether its Babicz or Katz. You might be a engineer but are you anywhere as good as Babicz or Katz? Im glad your done with this because your argument is irrelvant towards DAW mixes when ME's are asking for headroom. Besides, I know the limitations, and have already acknowledged them, but I rather mix to what will net the best results by the professional engineer mastering the track. So again, your argument is the one that is flawed, since its irrelevant in practice. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| This is just such a silly debate. Some of my favourite tracks are clipped to and no one cares. Clipping can even be used as a mastering tool, a little bit of it isn't the end of the world. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
This is just such a silly debate. Some of my favourite tracks are clipped to and no one cares. Clipping can even be used as a mastering tool, a little bit of it isn't the end of the world. |
what the? lol.
Clipping on a DAW summed mix can be used as a mastering tool? No.
When you add something ridiculous like that, it will become a silly debate.
Otherwise, I think this was a good debate. And I think its done, well done. Next topic. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
what the? lol.
Clipping on a DAW summed mix can be used as a mastering tool? No.
When you add something ridiculous like that, it will become a silly debate.
Otherwise, I think this was a good debate. And I think its done, well done. Next topic. |
Not sure why I bothered opening one of your posts. But clipping can be used as an extreme form of brickwall limiting, and its better to have a slightly clipped mix than to have a perfectly normalised mix which is too low. Clipping only becomes a problem when its catching more than just peaks, but ideally 2-3 samples of each beat with a kick drum should be clipping IMO. |
|
|
|
|
