yes. i assume you are using converters that run at +4dB (pro level). of course if you have your converters set for -10dB then you will not be driving your pres hard enough for optimal s/n.

To add to Kurt,

DAW should be at -12 to -20 because this is the safe level so you aren't slamming your 2-bus when you get there, and most importantly! Others may disagree with me but I believe there is information that we can't see above that. I don't trust digital meters 100%.

and to add to what Chis just mentioned, what i found with DAWs is if you slam the levels when tracking, when you get to mixing you run into some real nasty sonic issues .. DAWs are a bottleneck in the first place and it's best to leave them some breathing room. too many bits spoil the soup.

Kurt Foster, post: 401247 wrote: and to add to what Chis just mentioned, what i found with DAWs is if you slam the levels when tracking, when you get to mixing you run into some real nasty sonic issues .. DAWs are a bottleneck in the first place and it's best to leave them some breathing room. too many bits spoil the soup.

So at what levels should I track at?

Kurt Foster, post: 401243 wrote: yes. i assume you are using converters that run at +4dB (pro level). of course if you have your converters set for -10dB then you will not be driving your pres hard enough for optimal s/n.

I wonder how I check what they are set at..

audiokid, post: 401244 wrote: To add to Kurt,

DAW should be at -12 to -20 because this is the safe level so you aren't slamming your 2-bus when you get there, and most importantly! Others may disagree with me but I believe there is information that we can't see above that. I don't trust digital meters 100%.

thumb

ChrisH, post: 401255 wrote: I wonder how I check what they are set at..

start at your function select and function adjust controls on the front panel.

i searched out the Symphony online and it does indeed have -10 and +4 ability for the A to D side. be sure you have the +4 selected for your mic pres ... some other devices like keyboards and semi-pro gear like tascam / fostex tape machines and mixers will want to see the -10 settings. no big deal to switch between levels as you track. it appears the outs are always @ +4dB.

Attached files

Kurt Foster, post: 401258 wrote: start at your function select and function adjust controls on the front panel.

 

i searched out the Symphony online and it does indeed have -10 and +4 ability for the A to D side. be sure you have the +4 selected for your mic pres ... some other devices like keyboards and semi-pro devices will want to see the -10 settings. no big deal to switch between levels as you track. it appears the outs are always @ +4dB.

Thanks Kurt, we were probably looking at that at the same time. So should I track at somewhere between -12db and -20db with my setup when metering with my daw meter at unity?

Also, on a sort of related side note, would it make sense that
there would be less cymbal bleed in a Tom mic when tracked at -20db vs
that same TomTom and mic position recorded at -6db??

i shoot for -16 with -20 being as low as i want to go and -12 at peaks ...

Also, on a sort of related side note, would it make sense that there would be less cymbal bleed in a Tom mic when tracked at -20db vs that same TomTom and mic position recorded at -6db??

no it's just the level you are recording at. relations of direct sound vs. background "bleed" is going to remain the same.

ChrisH, post: 401262 wrote: Also, on a sort of related side note, would it make sense that there would be less cymbal bleed in a Tom mic when tracked at -20db vs that same TomTom and mic position recorded at -6db??

No, that is not the case. The ratio of the amplitudes of tom and cymbal in the mic output is determined by mic type and where you position it. This ratio remains exactly the same whether the mic is tracked peaking at -6dBFS or -20dBFS. You bring the tom up to the level you need at mixdown and the cymbal bleed is in there at the same fraction of that level.

The gist of this thread is whether there is a difference in sonics between tracking at high levels and at lower levels, and also about whether a DAW mix sounds better if it is not having to cope with tracks at a high level. My view is that while individual tracks may show some sonic differences with tracking level due to A-D converter non-linearities, most DAWs will not behave differently with high-level tracks compared with low-level tracks, once the levels are brought to whatever is required for the mix. I remain to be convinced that there is a need for "mix headroom" in a correctly-coded DAW. Caveat: not all DAWs are necessarily correctly coded.

Boswell, post: 401266 wrote:

The gist of this thread is whether there is a difference in sonics between tracking at high levels and at lower levels, and also about whether a DAW mix sounds better if it is not having to cope with tracks at a high level. My view is that while individual tracks may show some sonic differences with tracking level due to A-D converter non-linearities, most DAWs will not behave differently with high-level tracks compared with low-level tracks, once the levels are brought to whatever is required for the mix. I remain to be convinced that there is a need for "mix headroom" in a correctly-coded DAW. Caveat: not all DAWs are necessarily correctly coded.

my experience has proven to me that on my DAW (Cubase) keeping the tracks at -12 or lower results in a more open mix ... i have been told that if i pack the tracks to near peak level, the function of bringing them down to levels the mix bus can deal with causes the cpu to do more math processing which can affect the sound. if you are going to pull the track levels down to less that -12 when you mix, what's the point of tracking them higher in the first place ???

Kurt Foster, post: 401268 wrote: my experience has proven to me that on my DAW (Cubase) keeping the tracks at -12 or lower results in a more open mix ... i have been told that if i pack the tracks to near peak level, the function of bringing them down to levels the mix bus can deal with causes the cpu to do more math processing which can affect the sound...

This may indeed be the case with Cubase, Kurt.

However, I haven't found this to be the case with Sonar, ( or at least in my experience I haven't found there to be an audible difference either way) so perhaps it is relative to the platform and its related method of processing being used. I think it's also relative to the quality of the pre amp and converters that are being used.

I'm not suggesting that yours are inferior, btw. This audible difference you are hearing could simply be the way that Cubase processes the signal. If your method works for you, then that's all that counts.

Now, I don't think Chris has much to worry about in relation to quality of converters, in his case, using the Apogee.

LOL... certainly not nearly as much too be concerned with as someone who is using a Realtek or Soundblaster. ;)

fwiw
-d.

Kurt Foster, post: 401268 wrote: my experience has proven to me that on my DAW (Cubase) keeping the tracks at -12 or lower results in a more open mix ... i have been told that if i pack the tracks to near peak level, the function of bringing them down to levels the mix bus can deal with causes the cpu to do more math processing which can affect the sound. if you are going to pull the track levels down to less that -12 when you mix, what's the point of tracking them higher in the first place ???

Well, this is where it gets interesting.

Firstly, there are several factors involved in the tracking level, just considering the sonic quality of a single track for the moment. I mentioned one of them in the earlier post: any non-linearities present in the ADC conversion range. A level that minimises these commonly gets called a "sweet spot", implying that levels a long way below this can be noisy and grainy, and levels that take the peaks up near FS can exhibit distortions due to slew rate in the ADC drivers and other non-linearities in the conversion process. So most of us track at some way below what could technically be accommodated in the voltage range in order to stay in what we hear to be a sweet spot.

Secondly, there are the unexpected sudden peaks that are the bane of all live recordists, but can also occur in standard studio tracking. These are genuine sounds that produce peaks above what we would anticipate in the type of program material for the recording being made. Tracking near FS may be able to capture the whole performance, but it may not if there are these unexpected peaks, and it's sensible to leave headroom for them to happen if they do.

Thirdly, there are the rogue peaks, some of which are not detected by the level monitoring systems. I don't have a genuine engineering explanation for these, as they should not happen. When I have been asked to include peak measurement in pre-amplifiers that I have designed under contract, I go to great lengths to make sure that the peak detectors do detect the real peak of the input. However, there are some problems, as the crest factors (ratio of peak to r.m.s.) can be extraordinarily large, even for seemingly mundane instruments such as a piano. Despite all these, I see, and others have reported seeing, recorded peaks that hit the 0dBFS limit without the peak detectors flagging an error.

Now all these (and there are more) are concerned only with getting the microphone sounds captured, amplified and digitised on to their own track. The prudent option for tracking level is that which sounds the best for that track, taking into account the sort of things I have mentioned.

When it comes to mixing, there is no processing time difference due to the track levels, although a track at digital zero may process a little faster than one not at digital zero. Equally, the reduction in level needed from track level to mix level is just a multiply, and, provided it's not a 16-bit mix process, there will be no sonic difference due to the level of the source track. Where the differences can come in is at the summation stage, and this is what I hinted at by mentioning correct coding techniques in the previous post. Any DAW that uses floating-point for its summation process will not show any sort of overload at the mix stage unless there are shortcomings in the design to get back to the master mix levels. Fixed-point DAWs have more of a challenge here, and it could be where differences are heard between the manufacturers' offerings.

Heres why I ask about my "More Gain = More Bleed" theory.
In relation to the preamp stage in a tube powered guitar amplifier..
Lets say you have a guitarist "Bob" strumming some chords on an electric guitar with the preamp gain set to 2 giving it the dynamic range of 20db-80db, then his buddy "Fred" comes over and starts tapping their finger on the body of the guitar, but Bob doesn't notice because his strumming is being amplified at 80db and the tapping is at 20db. Bob then turns the gain up to 9 still with a peak of level of 80db but now the dynamic range gap is shortened to 70db-80db. Again Fred comes over and taps on the guitar body but this time Bob noticed it because his strumming is still at 80db but the tapping is now at 70db.
Now there's much less distortion going on in an API preamp than a guitar amp but it makes sense to me that the dynamic range would still change on a preamp with the gain turned up, thus closing the gap between that fat tom sound you worked so hard on and that honky cymbal in the background.

what Boswell said ... the song remains the same ... da da, da da da da daaa, da da, da da da da daaa

Okay, so I have my Analog Level set to +4dbu, and digital reference to -16dbfs, how ever on the digital reference setting you can set it at -20,-18,-16,-14,-12,-10.
What would you guys set it to for drums and basic rock tracking? I'm not sure how to utilize this setting. Does changing it change the digital reference level change the converter input level?

i would set it at -20.

i'm pretty sure this takes a +4dB VU signal to the digital recorder at -20 digital reference.

it's really just an output volume control for calibrating to the input of the daw. that's a pretty cool feature.

Kurt Foster, post: 401321 wrote: i would set it at -20.

i'm pretty sure this takes a +4dB VU signal to the digital recorder at -20 digital reference.

it's really just an input volume control for calibrating the input. that's a pretty cool feature.

Okay I'll set it at +4dbu and -20, now do i still track at -12 to -20 when metering with my daw meters? I use cubase 6 btw.
I wish I could rap my brain around how that feature would be useful.

yes.

this feature accommodates different reference levels. this is as i said, a very cool feature. Apogee really has their shit together.

in Europe they reference +4 to -18 ... in the US we reference it to -20. many pre amps and mixers, keyboards , stereos of the semi pro type use a -10 or even -20 signal to reference 0 VU. so the other settings are to accommodate them. for you it should set it and forget it at +4 to -20. that's all you need to worry about.

Kurt Foster, post: 401328 wrote: yes.

this feature accommodates different reference levels. this is as i said, a very cool feature. Apogee really has their shit together.

in Europe they reference +4 to -18 ... in the US we reference it to -20. many pre amps and mixers, keyboards , stereos of the semi pro type use a -10 or even -20 signal to reference 0 VU. so the other settings are to accommodate them. for you it should set it and forget it at +4 to -20. that's all you need to worry about.

Thanks Kurt!
Ive been tracking with the the settings at +4dbu and the digital reference at -16 and letting my tracking peaks get up to
-6, in what ways has that been hindering my mixes?

this can get confusing.

first do not confuse reference levels with tracking levels.

+4 / -10 VU are analog references ... when we speak of -20 to -12 on the DAW we are talking about digital level. these number correspond to each other but do not refer to the same things.

again, +4 VU (analog) equals -20 digital. a signal off an analog device like a pre amp or tape deck should show as -20 on a DAW / DAT / ADAT meter (digital).

i suggest you experiment with tracking levels. if -6 works for you then i say go for it. i prefer to keep peaks down to -12 thus allowing 12 dB of headroom for errant peaks that fail to show as errors on the meters (they do happen). digital overs can sound pretty ugly ... that's how too high a level could hinder your mix's.

Okay, thank you.
However, doesn't more headroom = more openness and clarity to the mix?

it should ... but after all we are dealing with digital. anything is possible i suppose. it doesn't hurt to experiment a bit and find what works best for you in your situation.

Kurt Foster, post: 401334 wrote: this can get confusing.

first do not confuse reference levels with tracking levels.

+4 / -10 VU are analog references ... when we speak of -20 to -12 on the DAW we are talking about digital level. these number correspond to each other but do not refer to the same things.

again, +4 VU (analog) equals -20 digital. a signal off an analog device like a pre amp or tape deck should show as -20 on a DAW / DAT / ADAT meter (digital).

i suggest you experiment with tracking levels. if -6 works for you then i say go for it. i prefer to keep peaks down to -12 thus allowing 12 dB of headroom for errant peaks that fail to show as errors on the meters (they do happen). digital overs can sound pretty ugly ... that's how too high a level could hinder your mix's.

Exactly,

I use these: ADI-8 QS

Spec:
Input level for 0 dBFS: +24 dBu, +19 dBu, +13 dBu, +4.2 dBu, each adjustable by 6 dB in steps of 0.5 dB via Digital Input Trim
Output level for 0 dBFS: +24 dBu, +19 dBu, +13 dBu, +4.2 dBu, each adjustable by +/- 6 dB in steps of 0.5 dB

and I bought them because I can quickly adjust the digital gains on both input and outputs, giving preference to support analog vibe, always.
I setup my analog chain to sound best I can, while using the gain trims on my converters to support the needed headroom for analog vibe. If I want more analog juice I will turn the input level on the converters down all in the name of keeping the recording level at around -20 with the faders at zero in the DAW. I try not to be one of those guys that is moving faders all the time ITB. I also do very little automation ITB with volumes. I would rather move faders OTB or on an compressor etc OTB.
But, I don't even have a rule. I just do what works for that moment.

Same applies going OTB. I will often adjust the gains on the converters again, because I may be using some tracks sent to me that are really hot, So, I will have to turn the levels on the converters down, then, start cranking the analog juice back up to create vibe.

Basically what I think we're saying here is, When is analog, dial in the best signal there while using your input level on your converters to support it all. Headroom yes.

So tracking with an average of -16db of headroom creates a more analog vibe?
I can definitely already hear a big difference in leaving more headroom, I had a drummer play the same beat twice with the mics in the same positions of course, he is very very consistent, I recorded the first take with peaks at -6db and the second with at -16db, the second take sounded more open and realistic, the cymbal resonance was much more natural as well, toms sounded more dynamic, and overall there was much more dynamics to the overall drum sound. So thank you guys very much for all the help, it made a very big difference.
To me tracking too hot in the digital domain adds almost a compression factor, like a compressor with a slow release, am I crazy?

leaving more headroom makes more room of the signal. There are some who also think this will produce a more full, sweeter sound.
Leaving more headroom also allows more headroom for the 2-bus ( mastering channel). If you find yourself having to pull faders down on the final mix because you are clipping the master track, this is a direct cause of tracking too hot.
Now most people think its cool to move faders but I try very hard to never touch mine. So, my methods is leave room so you don't have to be shifting digital volumes all the time. As you get better in your craft, you will hear why. The more tracks you add, the greater the reason.

Analog is the only thing that will give you analog vibe. Simulators might distort or simulate the sound of an analog product but the space and energy that comes from the analog, comes from analog. Its a fun dream but not for real to my ears. Maybe one day but not anytime soon.

I have always taught that you have to draw a very definite line between tracking and mixing.

When tracking, i.e. recording individual tracks to some multi-track storage device, it's essential not to overload the tracks, as we have all been saying. How much you conserve your channel gain is really a matter of preference, style and the type of material you are recording, but peaks at around -10dBFS would be fine for most conditions using conventional 24-bit recording. That might imply an "average" value of around -20dBFS, but this is very instrument dependent.

For mixing, you ignore whatever headroom you gave the individual tracks and concentrate solely on two different sets of levels: the level you need of that track relative to other tracks in the mix, and the output level of the mix. The first you manipulate using the individual track faders to give you the required amplitude and balance. The second is much more equipment-dependent. In a DAW using floating-point summation, you simply adjust your output level to give you sufficient headroom when converted back to a 24-bit fixed-point 2-track mix. Doing this level adjustment has no effect on the sonics of the mix. With OTB mixes, it's up to the type of mixing box used, and this is where summing mixers can show their advantages. The thing that is little appreciated is that when performing external analog summing mixes from digital tracks, you need to use high-level feeds from the sources to maximise the range of the D-A converter that you use. You are free to reduce the resulting output level as an analog signal at no cost to the sonics.

What you should not do is record a track at a low level based on the premise that this particular track will be low level in the mix. When tracking, think as a tracking engineer. Caress each track separately, giving it the best track representation that you can. When it comes to mixing, think as a mixing engineer. Your job is to create the material for the mastering engineer to work on. Get the relative levels of each track correct, including dynamic changes to this if the programme material demands it. Print the mix to the two-track recorder with dynamics that leave sufficient headroom for the mastering engineer to be confident that there won't be "overs". It's a myth that mastering engineers need their source two-track to have "headroom to work with", as they have level controls on their boxes as well.

Bos, you have the gift to explain things so well!