Do you print raised track levels before mixdown?

[vvv]

I tend to record at rather low levels, as I don't use compression before my converters and I want to be careful to avoid hitting 0. Sometimes, I find mixing easier if I go ahead and normalize particularly quiet tracks.

And that's exactly sompin' I'm talking about!

And when I'm, say, using different guitars and amps, rhythm-guitar-left might be at -12dB and rhythm-guitar-right at -15 dB and it's just easier for mixdown to have them at more approximately (nominally, anywhat) the same levels.

[Nick Sevilla]

On the surface this may seem correct... but consider a usual mix.

Typically you will have inserts, either hardware or plug ins, on several if not all channels.

These would sometimes be PRE-Fader... and therefore, if you have a normalized audio track with everything in it louder, you are feeding your processors (EQ/comp,fx) a louder, dirtier signal.

IME, doing this with some signals can degrade them into a non-useful state. for example, using a distortion plug in to get some grit, set to minimum distortion, if you normalize the file, you may end up with too much "grit", and no way to get less of it. Likewise, some Chorusing effects, especially hardware ones can also play havoc with your top end. If you have a "hashy" noise floor with too much broadband noise, a chorus could end up displaying some nasty effects during softer passages of the mix, when only that particular track with the Chorusing is playing by itself.

I could go on, but you start to get the picture...

But that's not really the same as increasing the noise floor, is it? I mean, maybe the background noise is more noticeable because the file is louder, but the signal/noise ratio, besides any mangling by plugins, is the same as it was.

So, I don't disagree with you that normalizing a file might cause plugins to get nasty?although in my experience it never has?but I do want to emphasize that normalizing a track, in and of itself, does not change the signal/noise ratio (ignoring any rounding error, which is going to be tiny tiny tiny). There are all sorts of bizarre myths floating around about digital processing, and there's no need to let one sneak by.

If one has already normalized an audio file and a pre-fader plugin, such as the distortion you mention, is clipping, there's a very easy fix: just put a gain plugin at the top of the chain to back the level off before hitting the other processing. A little extra work, but not the end of the world.

I tend to record at rather low levels, as I don't use compression before my converters and I want to be careful to avoid hitting 0. Sometimes, I find mixing easier if I go ahead and normalize particularly quiet tracks. I don't see a big problem with this, so long as one is awake enough to hear if any plugins are farting out.

That is why I use my ears... and not some stranger's opinion... my experience is why I wrote this bit about the processing.
And proceeding to do all this extra gain plug in, etc... my thing is to try hard to get it right the first time.

As an example now, I am having to Re-Amp a DI electric guitar...
The artist playing it simply could not make up his mind.
In order to do it correctly, even though the peaks of the DI guitar were at around -23 dBFS., I did not change the audio file at all, instead opting to use a Radial Reamp box, and then fiddling with that and the amplifier until I got the right sound, and then recording it back to PT, through different mics etc to get a much needed lift to the mixes.

If I had misadvertedly normalized these files, I might end up getting an unusable signal to ReAmp.

And to the OP, vvv, maybe if you cannot see the audio files in your Cool Edit Pro DAW, change to something else. I recommend PT9. that one zooms in and out up and down easily all day long.

Etc...etc...etc... your mileage may vary, et al...

[vvv]

I seldom re-amp, but I 98% only record me and my bands.

As for PT9, I tried PT back when it was offered free on Win98 and thought, "eh, ~~~".

I'm strictly a amateur, and have been using CEP since '02, hence my weird habits, what I was asking to make sure aren't doing me wrong.

But thanks for the interest, and interesting and informative replies!

[JGriffin]

I hope this comes off as a balanced reply, and that no offense is taken. Certainly none is intended.

1) The practice of applying a destructive process to all of your audio to get around a poorly-designed software interface suggests an inversion of priorities.

2) If your mixes sound fine to you, don't worry about what anyone tells you about your workflow.

[vvv]

1) The practice of applying a destructive process to all of your audio to get around a poorly-designed software interface suggests an inversion of priorities.

* Destructive? That was actually my initial query - do it do harm to so raise the track levels? At this point, I'm thinking not.

And yeah, the zoom thing is, at the least, inconvenient IMO. But other than that, I pretty much love the prog, what I've been using nigh unto 9 years.

2) If your mixes sound fine to you, don't worry about what anyone tells you about your workflow.

* My mixes suck, but it's not due to the tools.

[farview]

* Destructive? That was actually my initial query - do it do harm to so raise the track levels? At this point, I'm thinking not.

He is talking about using a destructive process, meaning that you are changing the actual file. As opposed to a non-destructive process, which is when a sound is processed during playback, but the original file remains unchanged.

It's a technical term, not a value judgement.

And yeah, the zoom thing is, at the least, inconvenient IMO. But other than that, I pretty much love the prog, what I've been using nigh unto 9 years.

Isn't there just a zoom slider in the upper right hand corner of the editing window? I'm not sure I get how this is any more inconvienient than zooming into the timeline to find the attack. If all your tracks are low, you should be able to set the zoom and forget it.

[vvv]

Re "destructive", yeah, I knew that - my humor doesn't always work too good on the net. Or in person. Altho' other than the time, which is negligible because I do the level-boost as I do other destructive processing, there is no "inversion of priorities". Need I mention that I rename the tracks as I save them thus creating a new file?

Re CEP's zoom function, there are buttons available to dock near, for example, the transport buttons. I even have my mouse set up to do it with a combo of buttons and the track ball. I just find it easier, and a lot less mouse-clicks in that you have to re-zoom each time you leave and then return to the track ...

[lapsteel]

What I don't get and it might just be how I work is why are you doing what you are doing?

Why do you need to see the waveform better? Use your ears. I hardly look at waveforms unless I clip something. How much are you editing? Practice takes, so there is minimal editing.

Also before ever recording, think about your mix and levels. It isn't necessary to record every thing at the same level. You should be able to get decent mixable levels having a rough idea/mix while recording.

[vvv]

My edits are primarily to vocal tracks, typically clicks, pops through the opto-compressor (Meek VC3Q) I use.

And again, the visual cues in mixing are important to me, also.

I guess I must admit what was said, I am "silly and goofy".

But I can see what I'm doin', today, for example:

[vvv]

Perhaps a better example, from the mixoff.org contest:

[JGriffin]

* Destructive? That was actually my initial query - do it do harm to so raise the track levels? At this point, I'm thinking not.

He is talking about using a destructive process, meaning that you are changing the actual file. As opposed to a non-destructive process, which is when a sound is processed during playback, but the original file remains unchanged.

It's a technical term, not a value judgement.

Yes.

[Snarl 12/8]

You say your mixes suck, but it's not due to your tools. How do you know if you've been using the same tools for 9 years? Yeah, it is an investment in time to learn a new tool, but often, and especially after 9 years in the software realm, it can be worth it. You will never actually know until you spend the time to become as proficient as you are now in CEP with something else.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I like working with you. I enjoy your output. I just want to challenge you a bit on this one notion.

[vvv]

S'cool.

In the last year I worked with Reaper, what I liked, and Cuebase LE, what I didn't.

I could work with either, but I really like CEP's native plug-ins for which I have many custom settings, shortcuts, and other time savers.

I have, in the past, played with Wavelab (a different animal, in some respects) and also Pro Tools back when they had a free version.

I regularly use Wavosaur for certain things, (mostly just file conversion).

As you prob'ly know, I am a prolific writer; I don't look to my equipment - well, not my software - for inspiration.

It's all about getting my (and my collaborator's) tunes recorded and adequately presented.

I'm not a pro musician or recordist, I have a challenging day job, and a family, a reading addiction, a cooking jones, and a nightly craving for dry martoonies. And then there's always the {lack of a} social life ...

But I am serious about getting good results, efficiently, hence my dependence onna out-dated program what nonetheless is a good fit. I even considered updating to Audition, but don't really see a need with respect to the cost and learning-curve.

I was probably being a bit passive-aggressive saying my mixes "suck" - I've actually been hired to mix for others, and am regularly asked to help/do so, and about it, etc. But I'm mixing inna bedroom, monitoring arrangements (other than my speakers, 15 y.o. Tannoys) is shite, and my hardware (other than musician-stuff) is prosumer (interface is a M-Audio Delta 44, cheap mostly Chinese mics, very little outboard other than some cheap pre's and compressors, 4 y.o. XP Pro computer - hell, my monitoring amp is a 80's Technics receiver).

But it is a passion, indulged to some extent onna daily basis, 20 hours + per week.

This thread, BTW, is pretty cool, eh? I was just asking if anyone had my subjectively "bad" habit of boosting track levels, I got same called "silly" and "goofy", reminded of the 3dBu increase when sine waves are combined, and pretty much spread the stink of "rank amateur" all over the place.

[chris harris]

Well, it's because you're approaching something that most of us practice as "art", as if it's making gadgets on an assembly line.

I doubt anyone here means to imply that you're stupid. It's just confusing and peculiar to all of us to see the process treated the way that you do.

[Nick Sevilla]

I was going to reply further...
But, I see, as usual it all gets tanged up into a nice mess.
vvv... just futz with your stuff however you want.
I'll just stop drinking my regular Kool-Aid, and stop responding to questions too.

I am now, and always have been, as Plato. More Ignorant the further I go into the rabbit hole.