Dealing w/ just-below-clipping peak levels
- giuseppe_fl
- alignin' 24-trk
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:58 am
Dealing w/ just-below-clipping peak levels
I've been handed basic tracks that were recorded just below digital clipping.
The sound sound and performance is very good but the levels are like -.02.
What is the best way to deal with this?
I normally prefer tracking in the -18dbfs to -12dbfs peak levels range.
Is there a smart way to reduce the dbfs on these tracks? Should subsequent tracks be recorded in the -18/-12 range, and the difference compensated with faders during mixing? Or is there some other solution I'm not aware of?
The sound sound and performance is very good but the levels are like -.02.
What is the best way to deal with this?
I normally prefer tracking in the -18dbfs to -12dbfs peak levels range.
Is there a smart way to reduce the dbfs on these tracks? Should subsequent tracks be recorded in the -18/-12 range, and the difference compensated with faders during mixing? Or is there some other solution I'm not aware of?
- A.David.MacKinnon
- ears didn't survive the freeze
- Posts: 3830
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 5:57 am
- Location: Hamilton ON, Canada
- Contact:
- giuseppe_fl
- alignin' 24-trk
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:58 am
- A.David.MacKinnon
- ears didn't survive the freeze
- Posts: 3830
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 5:57 am
- Location: Hamilton ON, Canada
- Contact:
- GarryJ
- gimme a little kick & snare
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:09 am
- Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
I'd stick to compensating with faders and recording subsequent tracks at a level you're more comfortable with. If there isn't any clipping, there's no need to touch the files: a little volume compensation is all you need, it's better to do it with the faders (which will be processing the signal anyway during the mix) than apply any prior processing such as normalisation. Arguably the outcome will be the same, but any digital gain manipulation (dithered or not) introduces small errors - the less processing, the better.
- farview
- tinnitus
- Posts: 1204
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:42 pm
- Location: St. Charles (chicago) IL
- Contact:
Re: Dealing w/ just-below-clipping peak levels
This is unnecessarily low. You should be hitting around -18dbfs RMS, not peak. The average level needs to be around line level, the peaks can be where ever they land. (as long as they don't clip)giuseppe_fl wrote:
I normally prefer tracking in the -18dbfs to -12dbfs peak levels range.
As for your question: In Nuendo and cubase, there is a trim control on each mixer channel, I just turn the trim down to where I want it.
- JohnDavisNYC
- ghost haunting audio students
- Posts: 3035
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:43 pm
- Location: crooklyn, ny
- Contact:
thanks farview, i was just going to say the exact same thing. peak should be probably like -12 to -3, depending on the crest factor of the source... RMS should be -18 ish... -18 (ish) is 0vu (ish)... and vu's measure RMS, not peak.
recording peaks at -18 is equally poor gain staging as peaking at -.02 the whole time.
john
recording peaks at -18 is equally poor gain staging as peaking at -.02 the whole time.
john
- lotusstudio
- pushin' record
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:57 am
- Location: Charlotte/Boone, NC
- Contact:
I;ve heard a lot lately about using a TRIM plug-in for this (??)
You just got to keep puttin' the good stuff out there
http://www.myspace.com/jimlotusstudio
http://www.myspace.com/vangoghsear500
http://www.myspace.com/jimlotusstudio
http://www.myspace.com/vangoghsear500
- giuseppe_fl
- alignin' 24-trk
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:58 am
ProTools, 002R.farview wrote:Nuendo/Cubase also has a volume handle on the clip itself that you can use to turn the level down. I'm not sure which program you are using, but you might have something similar.
Interesting. There seems to be alot of conflicting info on this. I usually try to keep things from peaking above -10 or -8, and averaging between the -18/-12 ballpark. I tend to crank stuff, so it's a self-control thing and I don't always stick to it. At any rate, it's good to know that peaks above that range aren't lethal.toaster3000 wrote:peak should be probably like -12 to -3, depending on the crest factor of the source... RMS should be -18 ish... -18 (ish) is 0vu (ish)... and vu's measure RMS, not peak.
recording peaks at -18 is equally poor gain staging as peaking at -.02 the whole time.
At any rate, the tracks I've got sound very good. If the songs sound as good once tracking is done, we're going to be in good shape.
At the same time, it looks like I need to find a way to monitor RMS in ProTools.
Thanks for all this info.
- farview
- tinnitus
- Posts: 1204
- Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:42 pm
- Location: St. Charles (chicago) IL
- Contact:
The point of the -18dbfs is that you are supposed to run the analog side of the signal chain at line level (0dbVU). Most converters are calibrated so that line level is equal to somewhere around -18dbfs.
VU meters don't register peaks, they are slow and just show you the average level (RMS level). So to keep the analog side of the signal chain working the way that it should, you need to be averaging at around -18dbfs.
The peak level doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't clip, the average level is the most important.
VU meters don't register peaks, they are slow and just show you the average level (RMS level). So to keep the analog side of the signal chain working the way that it should, you need to be averaging at around -18dbfs.
The peak level doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't clip, the average level is the most important.
- Waltz Mastering
- steve albini likes it
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:22 am
- Location: Third Stone From The Sun
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests