the "-18dbFS"/"don't push a digital input&quo

[fossiltooth]

I hear you Jim. And I definitely respect your design philosophy, although I'm sure you also catch some flack for it from some traditionalist vintage gear enthusiasts. In any event, based on what you're saying here, it still does seem like lowering levels a few dB is advisable for people who are mixing out on Tridents or Soundcrafts and maybe even old Neves and the like.

I can say from experience that inside the DAW domain (where operating levels are even less of a concern from a fidelity standpoint, so long as you avoid 0dbfs) I often gain down files I am sent to mix, significantly. This is for three main reasons:

1) To avoid clipping the master fader (which is all to easy when everything is tracked well over +4dbu all the time)
2) So that don't have to worry about constantly padding down the inputs of plugins and
3) So that I can push things, which is a lot more fun and conducive to good mixing than constantly trying to turn things down.

Granted, these are workflow concerns, more than strict "fidelity" concerns. But they offer meaningful advantages in practice. Knowing this has affected the way I track as well. I like to track so that I can leave all the faders at zero and have a pretty kickass sounding record. That's hard to do when you're tracking everything near +18dbu!!

That's my take on it, anyway. I'll keep doing what works and what seems to make sense for my needs. I appreciate that yours may be different!

(And as a side note: I like a little bit of noise. Noise is glue. On stereo material, it's empirically proven to lend a little bit of perceived width and depth. Nothing wrong with that, in my book.)

[Jim Williams]

Noise is where we part ways. Yes, for decades it was accepted here too, a "given" for the technology we had to work with.

Now days there are transistors with .5 nv noise, opamps with .85 nv noise, about as much noise as a 150 ohm resistor. With great mic preamps and 120 db dynamic range ADC's, digital "black" is obtainable.

These days I pin on any noise as a distraction, a filter, a mask. I'm not tolerate of any if I hear it. There is something to say about a clean, clear dynamic musical performance that has black spaces between the notes, that draws you in further as there is no noise in the way.

Just like a new HDTV, that black background makes everything look sharper. With music, it's never really silent between those notes, natural background noises are part of the live experience, but hiss has no meaningful place.

[Bro Shark]

Jim,

Real interesting points. Anything you've done that we can listen to as an example of the above?

Shark

[dfuruta]

How quiet are the rooms y'all are recording in? The noise floor of my (modest, pro-sumer) gear is way lower than the amount of acoustic noise floating around...

[fossiltooth]

Noise is where we part ways. Yes, for decades it was accepted here too, a "given" for the technology we had to work with.

Cool! So the rest of it sounds pretty on-point then?

Now days there are transistors with .5 nv noise, opamps with .85 nv noise, about as much noise as a 150 ohm resistor. With great mic preamps and 120 db dynamic range ADC's, digital "black" is obtainable.

These days I pin on any noise as a distraction, a filter, a mask. I'm not tolerate of any if I hear it. There is something to say about a clean, clear dynamic musical performance that has black spaces between the notes, that draws you in further as there is no noise in the way.

Just like a new HDTV, that black background makes everything look sharper. With music, it's never really silent between those notes, natural background noises are part of the live experience, but hiss has no meaningful place.

I hear you. And I can appreciate that too. Depends on the aesthetic. For a classical recording? I'm with you. For some weird atmospheric indie rock band, I'm not sure I'd agree. Then again, I know you don't do a lot of those, which is ok too

I like both.

How quiet are the rooms y'all are recording in? The noise floor of my (modest, pro-sumer) gear is way lower than the amount of acoustic noise floating around...

Definitely. If you are recording at home on modern affordable gear, acoustic noise is going to be far more of an issue than circuit noise. No doubt about it.

[Jim Williams]

Jim,

Real interesting points. Anything you've done that we can listen to as an example of the above?

Shark

A nice one is "Blue Chopsticks, a portrait of Herbie Nichols" by the Buell Neidlinger Quintet on the K2B2 label. That one is acoustic jazz, written by a brilliant 1950's New York jazz pianist and arranged and played with a trumpet, baritone sax, violin, viola and cello.

It was done at Studiomasters on Pico in Culver Ciy, the old Woods place that did Pat Boone and stuff. They had a 48 input Neve, a pair of 24 track Studers and stuff, all I used was the outboard desk to hold my stuff and their mic stands.

I had noise problems with their AC, had to shut it off during takes. It's nice to hear players breath on a CD, you know it's not a sample. I used 5 mics, mixed it at my old shop in Van Nuys. Used a little 224 XL reverb, done. It got great reviews in Stereophile (I know).

I do a bit of rock and play it myself too. I don't mind if a bit of noise is part of the source, I just don't like adding any with the recording gear. I did a song last January where the lead guitar overdub went into a wah-wah mode. At the end of the song you hear me press it down, click and the wah hiss is gone, sort of like Hendrix in 1984.

[themagicmanmdt]

perhaps it's a bit odd that (myself included) have noticed that there's gear that sounds best, or, perhaps, only really desirable, when operating at one particular level range?

what about 'euphonic' gear? gear designed and decisions made not because of THD or headroom considerations - but because the tonality, life, dimensionality, etc of it was preferred over a cleaner spec?

it's hard to fit scientifically created things into a heavily artistic field - things happen and are discovered that initial intent wasn't designed for, or even expected, right?



the fender jazzmaster was a 'poor design' (at least for intent), but a very 'euphonic' instrument when discovered out of it's realm...



jim - have you ever made judgement calls against linearity? or, do your ears and your scopes line up - that distortion is removal from perceiving a pure, lively performance?

i definitely admit to asking this question pointed. i hear great tube gear. i hear great solid state gear. i hear bad versions of both. same findings across the board. it all points down to, perhaps, how and what we are looking for in our perceptions when we listen or evaluate anything.

my caveat - currently, i'm still enthralled with an old analog recorder with slightly more limited frequency range because of the 'grain' of the sound of it's electronics. it's not accurate. what is accurate?

conveying emotion, feeling, 'current', which is a deeper reach than simple 'realism' (although the two overlap), blow apart the rest. of course, only when realism conveys emotion the strongest.

i suppose this is why it's somewhat *rare* for me to find gear that sounds good both clean as well as 'pushed'. gear that was designed and thought about for both realism and 'the electric crayon'. anyone agree?


original posts: when i want things to usually stay 'as they are', I most definitely listen with a default to an average RMS level for most music of around -22dbfs (on a -18dbfs = +4 soundcard). i had to dive into engineering (and music-making) without concern for 'tech', then i learned the 'tech', then i (almost) threw it all out the window again.

donovan said it:
first there is a mountain
then there is no mountain
then there is!

[Jim Williams]

jim - have you ever made judgement calls against linearity? or, do your ears and your scopes line up - that distortion is removal from perceiving a pure, lively performance?

donovan said it:
first there is a mountain
then there is no mountain
then there is!

Donovan is a really cool guy. I first met him when I was 18 years old in 1969. I was painting Bob Hite's (Canned Heat) new house in Topanga Canyon with his brother Richard. We also had a tight blues band at that time.

One day this small funny sounding guy came over, we hung out and smoked some joints. Turns out is was Donovan.

I met him again at a special concert in LA a few years ago. I brought up that time in Topanga Canyon and he remembered me.

As to linearity, it's really about proportion and relevance. Everything has a time and a place. With that said, there is a place for an accurate recording of even a rock act. Some like Korn ditched analog tape so their CD's would sound more like their live act. Others embrace euphonics. Everyone also has a preference.

I also went through the learning experience of embracing recording gear that has a set sound. Some times it worked, sometimes you ended up re-cutting tracks (ouch!).

I now practice CYA recording. I track with linearity and no noise. Then I have options, all of them. I can re-amp anything through anything. I can mess up pristene tracks as good as anyone. Or, I can leave them alone.

After a few decades of doing this stuff you get a sense that some stuff works better than other stuff. You learn it's always about the performance, rairly about the sound. In that regard, I usually prefer techniques that bring the listener closer to the performer, most colored recording gear takes me in an opposite direction. I rather hear the players than the gear, it's not that impressive in comparison.

YMMV