What do your waveforms look like?

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:21 pm

So I was wondering if anyone is like me and records oh say drums and in Cubase it ends up looking like its clipping all over the place, but doesnt sound like it...if this is confusing ill post pics later but im at work right now...

anyone have any arguments for or against this practice? basically my preamp is feeding a real hot signal but sounds fine...

just lookin for a baseline consensus or something <shrug>

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:46 pm

There is a slider in Cubase on the bottom right corner of the screen that adjusts the waveform size. Maybe see if that is turned all the way up?

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:59 pm

yeah i know what you're referring to...but no thats definitely not the case...

ive just noticed that i can drive the preamp loud and it sounds fine (at least it doesnt sound like clipping) so i am assuming that cubase just assumes its clipping or something???

i guess maybe a better way to phrase it would be, does it matter if your waveform comes out looking like its going off the wave block? ive always assumed that if it does that its clipping...but you cant hear any clipping so i just am not sure what the basis of setting my mics to is supposed to be....

do i just set them so that they are decently loud, or should i strive to ensure that the biggest peaks never appear to go past the top/bottom of the wave block?

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:18 am

Personally I never worry about the waveform itself. I get levels from the meters when the audio is actually going in. Another thing that might make the wave do that is if you have a compressor or limiter on the signal. If you compress a track like crazy it will look like it's going off the wave block, but won't sound like clipping.

But, I'm not a pro like some around here, so maybe there is a better answer for you out there. Good luck!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:44 am

Yes you are definitely clipping. Be sure to keep an eye on your levels going in as there's really no need for your peaks to be going past around -12dbfs. There's plenty of headroom as long as you're recording at 24 bit. The reason you probably don't hear the clipping is the fact that drums are very transient in nature and drum transients are so fast that you can't tell it's clipping. If your preamp sounds better cranked up look into getting some line level attenuators so you can crank the pre without clipping your a/d conversion.

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:30 am

okay thanks for the explanation....it seemed very illogical to me that i should get away with such a noob tactic as ignoring the fact that my wave blocks look all crazy (at times)...and its always only the drums...

i dont suppose turning the input down in cubase would have the same effect?

here's what im talking about...on the C1 and the sm7...hell even happens on the bass a little i guess
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c173/jprumers/cubase.jpg

so one more thing Al, you are saying that its definately always better to have all your tracks hitting around -12 and then post recording do some compression and what not to get things a bit louder and such? this is something that has always been a big question to me...

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:42 am

I use Cubase, and I usedto record my drum parts really hot and my waveforms looked like you describe. Since I started backing off the input gain and put the faders at -6db, instead of at 0db, the drum tracks sound much more open and immediate. I can actually hear the sound of the room, and I can mix drums much more upfront w/o them sounding choked off. It also makes it much easier to edit individual hits as you can see them better.

Try it and see.

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:12 pm

AlTheBear wrote:

If your preamp sounds better cranked up look into getting some line level attenuators so you can crank the pre without clipping your a/d conversion.

i have a behringer autocom pro that is an expander/gate compressor/limiter, i have hardly ever used it actually...do you think that could be useful as far as what you are talking about?

i originally bought that compressor to serve as a bass guitar direct box into my soundblaster when i was like 17 (im 24 now)....why i thought that was a good idea, i havent the slightest clue.

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:40 pm

orbit,

i'd stay off the autocom for now. i (along with many many others) record a clean track first -- no effects, no compression, no eq, etc.

then, on the computer, i add whatever I need. why limit your options before you even start, ya know?

sell the autocom to some live-sound engineer.

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:48 pm

orbit wrote:

so one more thing Al, you are saying that its definately always better to have all your tracks hitting around -12 and then post recording do some compression and what not to get things a bit louder and such? this is something that has always been a big question to me...

This is something that I try to go by. It allows me to add compression, eq, and many more tracks without worrying about clipping at any stage. If you need things louder just turn up your speakers. During tracking I wouldn't worry about the printed volume of your tracks being low. I believe -18dbFS is actually 0dbVU in the digital world so that's leaving you 18dbFS of headroom for mixing. During the mix process is when you start adding compression and eq, but not necessarily to make it louder. The whole louder thing can be done so easily with amp/speaker volume or by a mastering engineer. If you're doing everything at home, just know to leave yourself some headroom throughout the process. If you're trying to compete with ultra loud modern rock masters, the best thing you can do isn't to try to get it as loud, but make it sound as good as possible with all those evil dynamics intact. If you want to hear it squashed to hell and back, then upload your stuff to myspace and listen to that glorious crushing.

Right now might not be a bad time to research the K-System for metering and monitoring volume. Look http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/level-practices-part-2-includes-the-k-system.html here when you have a chance.

PS: Looks like you have a little dc-offset problem on the bass. Search this forum about dc offset and see what you can do to get that fixed, because that's going to limit your headroom as well. Headroom is a beautiful thing... like fitting a big girl beneath that mixing board at a live show... why not treat yourself?

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:06 pm

oooooooooooooooh so THAT is what that weirdness is...i was always like "looks like my bass track is trippin on acid or something" - thanks for the tip...ive always heard DC offset but had no idea what it was or annnnything...

thanks Al!

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:29 pm

when i use the remove DC offset processing in Cubase the waveform still looks the same?

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:52 am

I love these kinds of discussions.

A certain amount of light clipping can be tolerated on transient drum tracks. Clipping can be artfully used and has been for many, many years. A good example is FM radio. Composite clipping of the baseline signal has been used to keep levels higher for rock stations since the distortion levels can be better tolerated for that kind of program content. But hey, a lot of you guys are really over recording to the point where you have killed all of the snap and punch from your sound. You need headroom for that sound. AND 24-BIT DOES NOT GIVE YOU MORE HEADROOM! LET'S MAKE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR. It's a confusing mockery of the real truth. Your analog portion of all analog electronics, microphone preamps et al. is only equal to approximately 16 to 18 bit word depth. What you get is a greater lower processing extreme for you folks that under record in level.

This is where proper gain staging makes all the difference in the world. I'll cheat with crappy preamps to make more headroom rather than more level. And I am one of those engineers that still believes, when judging your demographics and what your primary playback devices will be, for most popular styles of music, i.e. rock-and-roll, 16-bit, 44.1kHz sampling is more than adequate and outperforms all prior noise reduction-less 24 track analog machines & 2 track analog machines. So I don't have any problem with that. Neither should you. If you have problems with that, you are over recording and overblowing your preamps. No reason or need to do that in digital recording. You're already guaranteed a minimum 96 DB signal to noise ratio at 16-bit. That's 96 DB of dynamic range. Rock-and-roll recordings only have approximately 15 DB of dynamic range on a good day. It only sounds like they have more when engineered properly. The only distortion I get is on purpose. Well most of the time. Because when it's live, it's still on Memorex. Even though I use to prefer Scotch to vodka or Ampex.

Neet Engineer
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:05 pm

thanks again for some great knowledge Ms David Smile

how about this DC offset thing though? when i applied it in cubase there was no discernible change of the waveform

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:49 pm

many input sections will have a capacitor couple
so
most DC offset should not be there anyway

some sounds do have a bias to them
many wood wind and brass instruments seem to have more on one side of the 0 point

don't put all you faith in the screen draws

be aware of DC offset and what it is
and why it can be bad for headroom
but don't get overly hung up on it

This topic sponsored by: