|
Why do people say things like "I'm mixing at -4db"? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| G-Con |
ok cool. Think from now on I will mix as close to 0 as possible then. Think I'd prefer this as any little spikes in volume would cause my master to clip which I can then fix. Where as now, little spikes can go unnoticed when I'm mixing nearer -6.
I asked about rendering twice, purely so I could render the file near 0. Then if and when I decided to send to a mastering engineer, I can load up the rendered wav and drop the volume down and render which would be much quicker than loading up and rendering the entire project. However, based on your advice, I will just render the original project again if required.
Like you say, its probably all pointless anyway, I'm sure my own production skills will be the cause of any lack of quality to the listener rather than sample rates/dithering/bit-depth etc etc. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
^^^
Its worth the risk because you get more resolution on your meters the higher you mix. There's very little visual difference between -60 and -70, but a whole lot between -3 and -1. |
lol that made no sense. How does your meter help you to mix other than tell you that you went over board which you wouldn't have to worry about if you weren't running things so hot. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
lol that made no sense. How does your meter help you to mix other than tell you that you went over board which you wouldn't have to worry about if you weren't running things so hot. |
So you only ever use meters to tell you when your clipping? Why don't you just get a little light that comes on when your clipping? Theres a reason why there are meters rather than just little lights, and its to help you work out what your levels are doing, not just tell you when you when you're clipping.
| quote: | Originally posted by G-Con
ok cool. Think from now on I will mix as close to 0 as possible then. Think I'd prefer this as any little spikes in volume would cause my master to clip which I can then fix. Where as now, little spikes can go unnoticed when I'm mixing nearer -6.
I asked about rendering twice, purely so I could render the file near 0. Then if and when I decided to send to a mastering engineer, I can load up the rendered wav and drop the volume down and render which would be much quicker than loading up and rendering the entire project. However, based on your advice, I will just render the original project again if required.
Like you say, its probably all pointless anyway, I'm sure my own production skills will be the cause of any lack of quality to the listener rather than sample rates/dithering/bit-depth etc etc. |
Yeah, that was my point above... I find it easier to mix at a higher level because you get more feedback from your meters. It just seems to get me better levels.
So yeah, render your file (with your mastering) at 0 dB, then if a mastering engineer wants something different, just throw a gain plugin on there to get it set right.
I don't honestly think that many mastering engineers ask for -6 dB peak level though, they can set that themselves. What they might ask for is -6 RMS level, which is a very different thing and a bit harder to achieve. Different debate though innit;) |
|
|
| Subtle |
| I mix at everything from +5db to -10db pretty cool eh ? |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
So you only ever use meters to tell you when your clipping? Why don't you just get a little light that comes on when your clipping? Theres a reason why there are meters rather than just little lights, and its to help you work out what your levels are doing, not just tell you when you when you're clipping.
|
pretty much. It is an approximation. They aren't exact and to make your mix hot risking clipping to get more meter resolution is rather retarded. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
What they might ask for is -6 RMS level, which is a very different thing and a bit harder to achieve. |
-6 RMS level is insanely loud. That is louder than Metallica's Death Magnetic, widely considered one of the best (worst) examples of abusive compression. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
^^^
Its worth the risk because you get more resolution on your meters the higher you mix. There's very little visual difference between -60 and -70, but a whole lot between -3 and -1. So it makes sense in terms of being able to see what your mix is doing to just mix at a certain high level and then pull everything down immediately before exporting.
I was going to come in here and say exactly this. How many times do we need to have this same thread??
And honestly, all these debates are a bit ridiculous considering the quality of most of the productions in EDM. I can count on one hand the number of producers out there who actually have the mixing skills to even be worried about these sorts of tiny, highly academic nitpicks. |
Kit is absolutely right. Firstly, it's not just about meter resolution (which is a good point in itself) but about usable dynamic range.
And as kit pointed out, that last 6dbfs is a big difference in perceived loudness because audio is logarithmic, not linear.
So by not mixing to 0db you're effectively not using a lot of available mixing headroom - essentially your usable range is less where it counts most.
Also, if you record anything at all, you're just introducing noisefloor at a lower relative point (all recordings have some inherent noise so by mixing to -6dbfs peaks, when you then later bring up the signal in mastering to 0dbfs, you are increasing the noise floor as well).
I of course don't use the meters alone, but from an engineering standpoint they are pretty vital in a lot of instances to figure out what's going on so why not make the most of them.
Finally, if you're thinking about having mastering done on your track, then you really shouldn't be rendering, you should only be printing your mixes (as in setting a track up to record the final sum of the mixed track). There's many reasons for this (which I won't go in to on here because it's been done before) but the bottom line is that you get a better result.
This means however all you actually need to do is lower that fader on the record track by 6db but I was desperately trying to avoid giving this info as someone will read it "OK great, I can lower the master", which is bad idea for a number reasons and not what i am saying. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
dB's are a logarithmic conversion but they are linear when compared to each other. The difference in energy subtracting 10dB will always be the same so in this regards, it is a form of derivative and is definitely linear. And do you honestly need those 3 dB when your mix is probably so damn loud it won't make one bit of difference. It just isn't worth the headache when working at 24 bit.
And meters might be important but I have yet to meet an engineer that has anything to saw regarding almost every DAW meter. They just aren't accurate. And are they that much accurate from 0 3 dBfs rather than - 6 9 dBfs. That is just pedantic silliness.
And honestly, the notion of noisefloor regarding EDM in itself is kinda worthy of a good laugh. Noisefloor just doesn't matter when you make loud music.
I suppose my end point is that mixing to - 6dBfs makes no difference in sound and anyone that thinks it does is imaging things. So why not ? The AES actually encourages - 18 dBfs. I think they know what they are talking about. And RANN, for video , the convention is it not - 20 dBfs ?
 |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
And honestly, the notion of noisefloor regarding EDM in itself is kinda worthy of a good laugh. Noisefloor just doesn't matter when you make loud music. |
Or highly synthetic music recorded mostly either directly in the computer or though cables, rather than mics in a room. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mad for Brad
dB's are a logarithmic conversion but they are linear when compared to each other. The difference in energy subtracting 10dB will always be the same so in this regards, it is a form of derivative and is definitely linear. And do you honestly need those 3 dB when your mix is probably so damn loud it won't make one bit of difference. It just isn't worth the headache when working at 24 bit.
And meters might be important but I have yet to meet an engineer that has anything to saw regarding almost every DAW meter. They just aren't accurate. And are they that much accurate from 0 3 dBfs rather than - 6 9 dBfs. That is just pedantic silliness.
And honestly, the notion of noisefloor regarding EDM in itself is kinda worthy of a good laugh. Noisefloor just doesn't matter when you make loud music.
I suppose my end point is that mixing to - 6dBfs makes no difference in sound and anyone that thinks it does is imaging things. So why not ? The AES actually encourages - 18 dBfs. I think they know what they are talking about. And RANN, for video , the convention is it not - 20 dBfs ?
|
You're forgetting one very important thing. They are linear when compared to each other but not to our hearing: +3db is twice as loud so guess what 6db is? That range of 6db is therefore what you're losing in a digital system,because that 6db is link directly the relative analogue output of your speakers. Sure you can compensate for it, but really why bother.
And comparing DBVU to DBFS doesn't actually indicate anything about the point at hand: why leave (x)db of headroom on a digital system when you mix?
Bear in mind that calibration to the K system (as shown on the diagram) means that you adjust your signal so that you have available headroom between your RMS and available peak space.
That reference there is only if you calibrate to those marks. 0dbfs is whatever you calibrate to, and that diagram is a reference to the K system.
By this I mean if you calibrate your monitors correctly to the K system, then 0dbfs is 83dbspl with your matrial at -20db RMS average.
I can prove this by the fact that if this were not true (and that diagram is an accurate representation of a production system) then -6dbfs would be +14dbvu which is far too hot. But now think about it....
Do you see that the reason we calibrate with a -14dbfs bias (minimum)?
Anyway, this is all a bit pointless as I can probably count on one hand the number of people on here who actually work a fully +4dbvu system.
Furthermore We're not taking analogue in to the digital world as per that diagram - we're producing in a purely digital system, so our available perceived dynamic range on a calibrated system is zero to 0dbfs. You calibrate a digital system to the k-system (and you're right in that at the studio we work to -18dbfs for score) primarily so that you always have a common point of reference with enough dynamic range and your ears will bleed before you clip.
And this is why I say for those working in a a digital system, you are better off using all that is available to you. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| My is far too small to enter this fight. But it's interesting to watch nevertheless. |
|
|
| nortek |
| i thought all that matters was to avoid clipping/distortion? and to be able to convert the wav into mp3 without that distorting too? -0.2 seems to work for me. |
|
|
|
|
