My Quiet Recordings

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:33 pm

haha, thats what i figured. i was just curious. thanks guys

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:14 am

Perhaps a creative explanation would help.
Music is filled with Dynamics, ups and downs. It is an aesthetic choice on what to do with dynamics in your mix. Do you want the quiet parts to have signifigance?
The type of music also makes a difference. What is yours?
A Guitar Center Pro audio associate told me he uses The Finalizer.
Additionally, the Bit Depth is important here so record in 32 Bit Float.

Link for Finalizer, http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Finalizer96/ with a $2,500 tag,
though it is only 96khz so it may not be best for those who use 192khz and want to put the audio on a DVD.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Finalizer96/

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:24 pm

filmmusic2008 wrote:

Perhaps a creative explanation would help.
Music is filled with Dynamics, ups and downs. It is an aesthetic choice on what to do with dynamics in your mix. Do you want the quiet parts to have signifigance?
The type of music also makes a difference. What is yours?
A Guitar Center Pro audio associate told me he uses The Finalizer.
Additionally, the Bit Depth is important here so record in 32 Bit Float.

Link for Finalizer, http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Finalizer96/ with a $2,500 tag,
though it is only 96khz so it may not be best for those who use 192khz and want to put the audio on a DVD.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Finalizer96/

Dude - SERIOUSLY!

What is your deal? Everyone here slaps you around for your mis-statements and you just keep plugging away. Either you're a troll, or you're really mis-informed and obtuse!

First -
The finalizer is a device which makes the vast majority of mastering engineers CRINGE. Not because of what it can do (actually, it's a relatively powerful box in the right hands) but because what it USUALLY does. That is to say, in most peoples' hands, the finalizer is guilty for ruining MANY a mix by squashing the hell out of it and draining it of all its life.

Then - the whole DVD with 192kHz audio thing. Please pay attention to the following:

192kHz DOES NOT BELONG ON DVD. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS STRICTLY FOR 2-CHANNEL DVD-A. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO DVD VIDEO OR ANY OTHER DVD FORMAT. ALSO, DVD-A REQUIRES A SPECIAL PLAYER TO PLAY BACK THE DATA STREAM AND IS A NICHE FORMAT AT BEST. YOUR MOM'S DVD PLAYER CAN'T PLAY DVD-A, NOR CAN MY MOM'S.

Now seriously, I don't care if the Tascam DVD-RA1000 can record in this format - it can also record in DSD. Are you proposing that everyone should/can work within this format as well?

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:42 pm

Filmmusic, again with the nonsensical posts...

Knock it off, bring something useful to the table, or leave.

Thanks!

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:17 pm

There's so much more wrong with the statements... But it's almost for another thread... Laughing

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:36 pm

I’m hoping that I don’t get flogged for adding my two cents here.

If you’re just working in a home set up and you want to add a little more “Umph” to your tracks, here are a few ideas you might want to use.

One thing I use quite a lot is something called “Ruby Tube” it’s available as a free .vst download from Silverspike.

http://www.silverspike.com/?Products:RubyTube

Just add a little “Medium Sparkle” to your mix and it warms it up nicely.

Also, have you normalized your mixdown track to its max peak value? I think a lot of DAW software has the option to do that.

Finally, you could add a very soft limiter to your mixdown track. Try compressing at a 1:infinite ratio above -3db and a 1:1 ratio below -3db with a 1db boost. I generally do this after normalizing a track. I have found that this adds the volume I want without sacrificing the overall dynamics of the track.

Keep in mind that these are things you want to use when you’re messing around at home or just making a simple demo. If you’re looking for a professional quality sound then there is no question that you should have a COMPETENT mastering engineer master your tracks. I farm out all my mastering to a guy I found in Miami who is in his late 70s and has forgotten more about audio engineering and mastering that most of us will ever know. I love how he is able to incorporate his “old school” knowledge and experience into modern technology.

Good luck!

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:49 am

Uh, it's not that difficult... you simply slap a brickwall limiter 3db's above your RMS level and keep adding gain plug ins til you crank that bad boy up to -.001 Dd FS!!!!!!!!

*:sarcasm:*

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:45 pm

xX5thQuarterXx wrote:

Hey guys.

Im not part of a pro studio or anything. Im just trying to get the best recording i can out of my home setup.

So this little irritation of mine is when i record and get a decent mix, but you play another studio qualiity song and the volume levels are way up its just really in your face compared to mine.

Can anyone point me in the right direction about how to fix this....i have a feeling its in the mastering process but i just dont see how i can get it lounder with out clipping.

thanks =)

i think the problem may be that you are recording too hot into your digital
system; which would leave inadequate headroom for processing;
perhaps your transients are smeared and distorted?

in that case, when you attempt to peak limit, the distortion would get out
of control before the music seems loud enough, because you've
already over-distorted the very signal components that a
peak limiter is going to distort.

as i suggested at the head of the post, do not record hot. leave yourself 12-18db
of headroom going in. every top mix engineer and dsp designer is going
to agree. there's a strong technical foundation for this theory, and it
bears out in practice for those who would know. so i would
suggest to try it and reap the dynamic rewards.

jeff dinces

Moderator Joined: Sep 12, 2002 Posts: 1850 Location: NYC

why leave 12-18 db of headroom? as long as it's got some, there is no rule. the goal is to leave the peaks intact.

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:38 pm

that is what paul frindle and dan lavry had both suggested.
then those who followed that advice reported
positive results in their mixes.

i had argued for a lower noise floor, and greater resolution.
those guys used math to convince me that the analogue
noise floor overwhelms my theoretical qualms. that
which i claimed to value was "bad noise".

i think it is perhaps a similar philosophy as could be applied to amp design;
clean, unfettered headroom; more than one might think,
is king if one desires a "loud" output.

i am not talking about mastering technique. but garbage in... likely you
would agree that if a mix is correct, then it shouldn't take much in
mastering to achieve an appropriate perception of loudness.

jeff dinces

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:55 pm

Sorry if I don't make much sense, I'm attempting to multi-task, but if all you want to do is get it louder... simply compress / limit the entire track and bring your mix as close as possible to 0 dB fs.

Oh, and try not too butcher your tracks too much Smile

Moderator Joined: Sep 12, 2002 Posts: 1850 Location: NYC

Jeff,
I can see their point if one was working in the analog domain, but if say you have a mix captured, what would be the difference if you had 12db or 1 db of headroom? To me, not much as I always adjust the output before sending it out of the box. As long as you leave enough headroom to keep the peaks intact, which also means what the DAC and gear can handle, then why the rule?

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:10 am

michael;
i think it applies to a->d only. one may set d->a output levels by ear.
however it seems with a->d it needs a wider margin to be safe that
distortion will not be amplified later in the chain. iirc, the lower
bits of a 24 bit signal are said to exceed the dynamic range
of the analog stage, so there would be no program
material lost from using one or two fewer bits.

jeff dinces

Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:53 am

Turn the volume up on the player. Thats what its for. Listen to an original recording, then to a "re-mastered" one. They are mainly just squeeshed to hell. Sure some are properly done, but most were done to raise the overall volume to todays distorted values. Crazy !!!.

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:05 pm

Boy, every post on this thread is either incomplete and poorly thought out or arrogant and condescending. Neither of these characteristics are conducive to constructive discussion.

I think what 5th Quarter needs is a thorough definition of what mastering is and then maybe some tips on how to do it in a "project studio" capacity. IE. in Wavelab or something like that.
I don't know what he does and doesn't know already, but maybe he's working with tracks that he hasn't even normalized properly. I'm just saying, this thread lacks exploration of the topic.

Massive Mastering? Maybe you should change your name to Dead Horse Mastering. I get what you're saying and you obviously know what you're talking about, but if you think a question is below you or redundant, then why post a condescending reply? Not tryin to start any arguments, but posts like that make people who may be talented engineers-to-be feel "this big." I don't get it.

I really wish you had explored the question of why so many mixes (masters) are so loud these days. It's an industry trend to be this much louder than the next guy. And all at the expense of the other qualities of the music. You could say much more about this in more depth than I could, but you chose to be vague and a bit pretentious. Why respond at all?

I don't mean to single you out on discussion board ethics, but I see this all the time. Somebody who just wants to know something posts a question and 5 people take the time to flame them and tell them to "search for the threads." Well, that's fine for some things. But the point of discussion boards is continuing discussion. If we just stopped posting because every topic had been addressed and is searchable, well, this site would die.

So, in conclusion. Let's talk nice and be constructive. Tolerate those who know less than you and respect those who want to teach you more.

(Steps off Soapbox)

This topic sponsored by: