Re: Headroom on DAWs


Chevdo wrote:

> I listen to what I'm doing for reasons other than to prevent clipping - I
> simply analyze the file after it is recorded to see if there was a clip. The
> meters aren't particularly reliable.

And if there's a clip? Do you leave it for the sake of loudness? Fix
it? Listen to it and make a decision?

> I'll take as many bits as I can get in the DAW I mixdown with. As for
> samples, I use 12bit akai s612s, 8bit casio sk1, and various sample rates,
> not to mention romplers of varying sample resolution. When I record them
> into the DAW I set their output volume levels at just under maximum

Not saying this as a put-down, but with gear like that, you're
obviously into a form of music that doesn't have any dynamic range to
begin with. It's easy to set levels accurately when you're using synths
and samplers because they play at the same level every time, and you're
probably sequencing with uniform volume and velocity - essentially it's
compressed and limited when going in, so there's no reason to expect
unexpected peaks. You already know where (and at what level) the peaks
are. If your DAW can properly mix a bunch of tracks at full level,
there's no reason not to do so. But other that volume, which you can
fix by turning up your monitor level, there's no reason to develop this
bad habit. Some day you might find yourself recording a jazz or country
band, or a classical concert. But I won't hold my breath.

> Slam then back off a tiny bit on outputs. Inputs as hot as possible. You
> can waste your bits if you want to, I'm not going to. All converters are
> MOST efficient at the top end.

"Efficiency" is a term that I've never heard used to describe the
performance of an A/D converter. I suspect that you like the grit
that's added by your inaccurate converters because it adds emphasis to
the music you're recording.


> >1. The only thing that you do when reducing the record level is raise
> >the noise floor when you push the level of the recorded signal up in
> >mixing or mastering.
>
> No that's not the only thing you do, you also raise the level of the signal
> in proportion to the noisefloor. You're going to push that noise floor way
> up in the end with L3 or something similar in the end anyway.

Not me. Like I said, what kind of *** are you using? Any modern
converter can stand to have its quiescent (with a shorted input) noise
level boosted by 20 dB without getting the noise level up to the point
where it's audible. If you are finding that your system doesn't allow
you to do this (even if you don't want to) you really should consider
upgrading. But I'm wondering if you actualy are having a noise problem
when you record at conservative levels, or if you're just working on
principle without listening to alternatives.

> I've been doing this long enough to feel confident that I know what works
> best for me.

Fair enough. I've forgotten why we got to this discussion, so I won't
comment on why your preferred system might or might not be best. In
theory it's not the best way to go, but in this business, we often do
things that would be considered mistakes for the sake of getting a
different (and hopefully effective or attractive) sound. Why do you
think people crank their guitar amplifiers to distortion, or why was
the Fuzztone invented? Clearly not to get cleaner sound, but it works
for a lot of people.

We don't compete in the same part of the industry. I guess I should
feel thankful for small favors. ;)

.

Loading