Where should my levels be?

[q1w2e3r4]

I'm mixing to a Tascam CDRW700 CD burner. I'll be sending the mixes to be mastered. Where should it be peaking so the mastering engineer has something good to work with?

[wayne kerr]

You're goin analog into the CDR I assume? Most mastering guys/gals like to have 2-3 dB to play with. You should just ask your mastering engineer what he/she prefers.

CC
PP

[brent lambert]

I'm mixing to a Tascam CDRW700 CD burner. I'll be sending the mixes to be mastered. Where should it be peaking so the mastering engineer has something good to work with?

As chocolatechickenpotpie eluded to, hopefully you are mixing via analog. If you are mixing from a digital source you would be doing yourself a dis-service to dither-down to 16-bit CDR from a 24-bit source.

As far as levels go, yes 2-3dB of headroom is best for multiple reasons:

1. The meters on these machines are notoriously wrong with respect to 'overs.'

2. The analog circuitry changes character significantly on most of these boxes as they approach 'full-scale' digital - usually harshness.

3. The mastering house can get your material louder with much better results than you can by slamming the converter in the CD recorder or using most outboard processing.

4. If you make it too hot, it really makes it very difficult to work on and creates another level of problems to deal with. For example, any inherent digital distortion typically becomes exaggerated during mastering. I had to send a track back the other day for remixing because this was not 'fixable.'

5. If you keep it 2-3dB down you really are only sacrificing a 1/2-bit of resolution which is a non-issue. Additionally, your s/n ratio will not suffer - 3dB is nothing to lose sleep about.

Hope that this helps.

Regards,

[OinEye]

Great info, thanks!

[@?,*???&?]

I've got 3 different CD players and every one sounds different playing back a CD. The abhorrent laser scatter phenomena is an ugly reality.

I think you're doing yourself a disservice printing mixes that will have to be played back off a CD to get mastered. Not the ideal situation. If you're already in the analog domain, you'll do much better getting those mixes onto tape to be played back and then converted with extremely high quality gear at the mastering facility.

CD burners are toys as far as being a reliable, tangible, truly amazing sounding medium for mix preservation. If you can't take it to mastering on tape, at least send data files in WAV format so that the mastering engineer can use the in-house program to play back your mixes through mega converters.

[q1w2e3r4]

Thanks for the info. Yeah, I'm mixing from analog.

Jeff, so would you suggest that I mix to DAT rather than to the CD burner? I don't have access to a working analog deck nor a computer right now.

[joeysimms]

Can you rent or borrow a Masterlink? That'd be a great solution.

[puls]

Unless you have very high quality analog gear (like a reel-to-reel), you'll probably get better sound quality mixing down to a CD. I mixed down from my four track cassette to stereo cassette for years on what was considered pretty high end gear (Nakamichi & Teac), and was completely amazed at the improvement when I started mixing down to a CD burner. Hands down, no contest, the CD burner was WAY better. Different league better. You can talk about laser scattered & such all you want, but unless you have a reel-to-reel to mix down to, I'd recommend (in my completely unprofessional capacity) going w/the burner, and watch those levels REAL close. You might even consider a bit, just a little, of compression or limiting to help keep those levels in line if it's available.

good luck

JWP

[@?,*???&?]

Thanks for the info. Yeah, I'm mixing from analog.

Jeff, so would you suggest that I mix to DAT rather than to the CD burner? I don't have access to a working analog deck nor a computer right now.

Mediums to mix to rated worst to first:

6. Audio on a CDR- who can take it seriously with laser scatter?

5. Dat Tape- Bad transport charateristics leading to really, really irregular clocking. Unless you can get your hands on a set of Apogee converters to get onto DAT with and ensure an accurate clock rate, I'd disregard 16-bit DAT as an option. In the past, I have experienced a session mixed to DAT to have serious flaws that may only be heard at mastering.

4. 16-bit data files- Not the highest resolution, but better than DAT or CDR.

3. A 24-bit masterlink session will be compatible with most mastering facilities as they will have a masterlink in-house.

2. 24-bit data files

1. Analog tape of the 2-track 1/2" or 1/4" variety.

[joeysimms]

Jeff, I thought number 2 on your list was also capable with the masterlink (a data disc of 24 bit files, no?)

Also, you forgot cassette, the NEW number 1!

[q1w2e3r4]

Thanks for the replies. I don't have many options, as I'm on a deadline, but thought maybe I could mix to both the DAT and CD and let the mastering engineer decide. Do you suppose I could connect the DAT to the CDRW via the digital ins and outs and mix to both simultaneously?

[bobbydj]

Jeff, I thought number 2 on your list was also capable with the masterlink (a data disc of 24 bit files, no?)

Also, you forgot cassette, the NEW number 1!

The reason he forgot cassette is because he's effectively on another planet, Tom. Only joking Jeff. Kind of.

[@?,*???&?]

Jeff, I thought number 2 on your list was also capable with the masterlink (a data disc of 24 bit files, no?)

Also, you forgot cassette, the NEW number 1!

Sorry, should have mentioned the WAV or AIFF file format thing with #2. These files probably from a Pro Tools, Cubase, Nuendo, etc. program.

What format does the Masterlink record it's files as anyway? If it does use WAV, then this is redundant.