10 Apr
2010
10 Apr
'10
4:51 p.m.
Hi
I'm thinking harder and harder about my mixes and have been reading this
(written for renoise, but should apply to every DAW, so any ardour
users/devs, please speak up!):
http://www.renoise.com/indepth/tutorials/avoid-clipping-in-your-final-mix/
I didn't get why it should be better to have the master fader fixed at
0db. Well a tiny bit better, but still, supposed I have 30+ tracks, each
having (at least) a fader, does it really matter that much to have
another fader in there? I mean the alternative would be to pull *every*
channel fader down by say 1.5db if the track is clipping with 1.5db. In
such case I just reach for the master fader and pull it 1.5db, problem
solved.
I raised my doubts on the renoise forum
(http://www.renoise.com/board/index.php?showtopic=24975), and I still
don't get it, really sounds like either voodoo or peanuts to me.
Could all you clever and sensible people with good ears and technical
knowledge please enlighten me :-) Would it really make a difference to
keep the master fader fixed at 0db?
Looking forward to a second opinion on this very baffling issue!
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
10 Apr
10 Apr
5:14 p.m.
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:50:55 +0200
Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
I'm thinking harder and harder about my mixes and have been reading this
(written for renoise, but should apply to every DAW, so any ardour
users/devs, please speak up!):
http://www.renoise.com/indepth/tutorials/avoid-clipping-in-your-final-mix/
I didn't get why it should be better to have the master fader fixed at
0db. Well a tiny bit better, but still, supposed I have 30+ tracks, each
having (at least) a fader, does it really matter that much to have
another fader in there? I mean the alternative would be to pull *every*
channel fader down by say 1.5db if the track is clipping with 1.5db. In
such case I just reach for the master fader and pull it 1.5db, problem
solved.
I raised my doubts on the renoise forum
(http://www.renoise.com/board/index.php?showtopic=24975), and I still
don't get it, really sounds like either voodoo or peanuts to me.
Could all you clever and sensible people with good ears and technical
knowledge please enlighten me :-) Would it really make a difference to
keep the master fader fixed at 0db?
Looking forward to a second opinion on this very baffling issue!
If it's fixed at 0dB it might as well not be there at all. Besides,
until the final mix is laid down and recorded it's all just numbers
(usually floating point).
If you were using *dramatic* level differences I could accept there
might be rounding errors, but a few dB here and there - nonsense!
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
12 Apr
12 Apr
11:41 a.m.
On 04/10/2010 08:50 PM, Atte André Jensen wrote:
I didn't get why it should be better to have the
master fader fixed at
0db.
i guess the reasoning is that any multiplication introduces rounding
errors. i'm a little out of my depth here, so there may be errors, but
my own private reasoning is as follows:
we have 32 bit floats, with 23 bits of mantissa and a sign, which gives
us 24 bits of precision, pretty much regardless of value range, thanks
to floats being floats.
multiplying two floats will introduce a rounding error in the least
significant bit. that means it adds noise. at a level of -144dBFS.
that means people will lose significant imaging clarity of the two
mosquitoes fucking on their mike windscreen during the recording of that
starting space shuttle. end of the world!
bit transparency is all very cool as a tool to validate your signal
chain is behaving, and there is not much reason not to be
bit-transparent when everything is set to "bypass".
in actual practice, it's another "oxygen-free" discussion perpetuated by
people who buy cables with a preferred signal direction and 6k€ cd drives.
if all those cable and bit transparency fetishists knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large parts
of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
best,
jörn
11:50 a.m.
2010/4/12 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>de>:
if all those cable and bit transparency fetishists
knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large parts
of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
from 1981-1983 i worked in the largest record store in europe (HMV on
Oxford St. in London). we used to crack up reading audiophile
magazines that would rave about pressings on virgin, extra-thick vinyl
and all the other things that audiophiles were supposed to look for to
get the very best reproducable sound. why? because between the record
company (no matter who they were) and the consumer who bought the
record from HMV was a 400F oven that we passed every single record
through in order to shrink the shrinkwrap around it. now, it was true
that there were retailers who didn't do this sort of thing, but we
noticed that nobody in the audiophile world ever seemed to be aware of
the existence of this step in their precious signal handling chain.
Even 4mm of virgin vinyl gets pretty, uhm, soft after 15-20 seconds in
that oven, and what that does to the frequency response of the groove
walls would (once) have been an interesting little master's project
perhaps.
--p
12:18 p.m.
On 12/04/2010, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
Even 4mm of virgin vinyl gets pretty, uhm, soft after
15-20 seconds in
that oven, and what that does to the frequency response of the groove
walls would (once) have been an interesting little master's project
perhaps.
If I suggest that it probably made them sound nice and warm, someone
will throw something at me, won't they...? ;)
12:30 p.m.
On 04/12/2010 04:18 PM, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
On 12/04/2010, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
no, i agree. it even added shimmery plastic veil to the sound.
Even 4mm of virgin vinyl gets pretty, uhm, soft
after 15-20 seconds in
that oven, and what that does to the frequency response of the groove
walls would (once) have been an interesting little master's project
perhaps.
If I suggest that it probably made them sound nice and warm, someone
will throw something at me, won't they...? ;) 
12:58 p.m.
On Monday 12 April 2010 10:18:33 Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
On 12/04/2010, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
+1 - exactly my first thought too...
drew
Even 4mm of virgin vinyl gets pretty, uhm, soft
after 15-20 seconds in
that oven, and what that does to the frequency response of the groove
walls would (once) have been an interesting little master's project
perhaps.
If I suggest that it probably made them sound nice and warm, someone
will throw something at me, won't they...? ;) 
1:49 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 03:44:21PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
we have 32 bit floats, with 23 bits of mantissa and a
sign, which gives
us 24 bits of precision, pretty much regardless of value range, thanks
to floats being floats.
multiplying two floats will introduce a rounding error in the least
significant bit. that means it adds noise. at a level of -144dBFS.
Not FS - it's relative to the resulting signal. Which makes
it even more irrelevant.
if all those cable and bit transparency fetishists
knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large parts
of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
For one, I've never seen a gold-plated XLR,
nor any left-twisting-oxygen mic cables.
Some mics are assembled by fair-haired Cheshire
virgins, that of course makes a big difference.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
7:41 p.m.
2010/4/12 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
if all those cable and bit transparency fetishists
knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large parts
of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
I for one am interested in this . . . how *are* those top-end reference
recordings produced? Using an old pair of headphones as mics, with long
coils of electrical extension cord for cabling? :P
9:02 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:41:10PM -0500, micromoog wrote:
There's not 'one way' - production techniques vary
depending on the type of music (string trio...opera)
circumstances (live, studio), and other considerations
such as budget.
Budgets for classical recordings are low these days,
and if a large number of musicians is involved they
tend to be concert recordings (because otherwise
it's too expensive).
Equipment used is an order of magnitude simpler than
for most 'pop', but that doesn't mean direct stereo
only, 8...16 tracks for complex orchestral + choirs
+ solos are not unusual, if video is involved (e.g.
for opera recordings) even more tracks can be used.
Equipment doesn't have to be old. Some people use
tube mics from the 60s and an analog mixer, some use
the latest digital microphones and quite sophisticated
digital mixers, and all of this can be seen together.
Quality of the equipment is usually the best, but of
the no-nonsense kind, you won't see oxygen-free cables,
gold-plated optical connectors, or any of the voodoo
found on the high-end 'audiophile' market.
Monitoring is always on speakers. 'Effects' are out,
EQ is used but will be moderate, compression will be
'manual'.
Things like live opera recording and orchestral studio
recording can involve a lot of editing, in the first
case to combine the best parts of different performances,
in the latter because there's usually no time to repeat
a complete symphony movement each time someone misses
a note.
Audio engineers doing this type of work are expected to
know the music, understand the artistic requirements,
and be able to read an orchestral score and correlate
it to what they hear. The latter can be quite hard
sometimes, e.g. for contemporary classical music.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
2010/4/12 Jörn Nettingsmeier
<nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
if all those
cable and bit transparency fetishists knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large parts
of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
I for one am interested in this . . . how *are* those top-end reference
recordings produced? Using an old pair of headphones as mics, with long
coils of electrical extension cord for cabling? :P 
13 Apr
13 Apr
4:51 a.m.
On Monday 12 April 2010 23:41:10 micromoog wrote:
2010/4/12 Jörn Nettingsmeier
<nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
A pair of coal-mics and a strip of field telephone cable from the army supply
will suffice :-P
Have fun,
Arnold
if all those cable and bit transparency
fetishists knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large parts
of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
I for one am interested in this . . . how *are* those top-end reference
recordings produced? Using an old pair of headphones as mics, with long
coils of electrical extension cord for cabling? :P 
4:59 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:50:56AM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Monday 12 April 2010 23:41:10 micromoog wrote:
Who needs a mic? If you just yell into a cheap guitar cable really loud, it works just
fine.
-ken
2010/4/12 Jörn Nettingsmeier
<nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
A pair of coal-mics and a strip of field telephone cable from the army supply
will suffice :-P
if all those cable and bit transparency
fetishists knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large parts
of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
I for one am interested in this . . . how *are* those top-end reference
recordings produced? Using an old pair of headphones as mics, with long
coils of electrical extension cord for cabling? :P
5:37 a.m.
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 08:58:55 Ken Restivo wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:50:56AM +0200, Arnold
Krille wrote:
Even my two year old knows you need a xlr cable for mic and longer paths to
the mixer...
On Monday 12 April 2010 23:41:10 micromoog
wrote:
Who needs a mic? If you just yell into a cheap guitar
cable really loud, it
works just fine. 2010/4/12 Jörn Nettingsmeier
<nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
A pair of coal-mics and a
strip of field telephone cable from the army
supply will suffice :-P if all those cable and bit transparency
fetishists knew how reference
classical recordings are produced, the whole discussion (and large
parts of the high-end market) would go down in flames.
I for one am interested in
this . . . how *are* those top-end reference
recordings produced? Using an old pair of headphones as mics, with long
coils of electrical extension cord for cabling? :P 
4:11 p.m.
multiplying two floats will introduce a rounding error
in the least
significant bit. that means it adds noise. at a level of -144dBFS.
Yes, depends on the range of the signal. It will be ~ -144dBFS if the
input signal is full range 0dB. It will be considerably less if the
signal is less. Although ears might have a dynamic range of over
120dB, they have considerably less dynamic depth (only 30dB or so in a
critical band, not sure of the full-band figure).
that means people will lose significant imaging
clarity of the two
mosquitoes fucking on their mike windscreen during the recording of that
starting space shuttle. end of the world!
Mosquitos are *considerably* louder than what we're talking about!
Monty
7:27 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 02:11:24PM -0400, Monty Montgomery wrote:
I would like someone to post a sample of two mosquitoes fucking on Freesound.
-ken
multiplying
two floats will introduce a rounding error in the least
significant bit. that means it adds noise. at a level of -144dBFS.
Yes, depends on the range of the signal. It will be ~ -144dBFS if the
input signal is full range 0dB. It will be considerably less if the
signal is less. Although ears might have a dynamic range of over
120dB, they have considerably less dynamic depth (only 30dB or so in a
critical band, not sure of the full-band figure).
that means people will lose significant imaging
clarity of the two
mosquitoes fucking on their mike windscreen during the recording of that
starting space shuttle. end of the world!
Mosquitos are *considerably* louder than what we're talking about!
12 Apr
12 Apr
12:28 p.m.
On 04/10/2010 08:50 PM, Atte André Jensen wrote:
Hi
I'm thinking harder and harder about my mixes and have been reading
this (written for renoise, but should apply to every DAW, so any
ardour users/devs, please speak up!):
i just stumbled upon this quote (which i had missed on my first diagonal
reading):
Whatever method you choose, it will sound better if
you’re adjusting
the playback volume with an analogue fader – digital adjustment isn’t
bit-perfect and can kill representation of dynamics at settings other
than 0dB.
oh yeah. analog summing is soooo all the rage these days.
imnsho, it's utter hogwash. the only thing that's noticeably nicer with
analog summing is that you get to sit at an analog console with an
analog UI, a leather armrest, glowing vu meters and an eq that just
"feels" right.
in short, it's a matter of how the engineer feels and likes to do
his/her job (all very valid). but nobody i repeat nobody would be able
to pick out anything wrong with digital summing in a blind ABX test.
and this leads to all kinds of spin-off voodoo like "killing the
representation of dynamics". problem is, this guy has a partial idea of
what he's talking about. the most dangerous kind, since it makes it
difficult to tell the wisdom from the drivel...
just create an ardour session with 24 busses in a row. one at +6db, next
at -6db, and so on. next to that, a single bus at 0dB. feed them both
the same signal, from a 10k analog record drive if you must.
then have somebody do an ABX test on that guy...
anybody taking bets on the outcome?
4:14 p.m.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 08:50:55PM +0200, Atte André Jensen wrote:
I'm thinking harder and harder about my mixes and
have been reading this
(written for renoise, but should apply to every DAW, so any ardour
users/devs, please speak up!):
http://www.renoise.com/indepth/tutorials/avoid-clipping-in-your-final-mix/
Most of that site is pure nonsense.
While reading some random pages I had an hallucination
about an 'In Depth' DIY-surgery site:
"If after opening the breast, removing some ribs and
pushing aside the lungs (be careful not to make any
holes in them) you notice an organ that seems to be
pulsating all the time, leave it alone for now.
It's the heart, you can read more about it in <this
post>."
It's really all at that sort of level. If that is
called 'in depth' I wonder how deep you need to
dig to find anything interesting.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
13 Apr
13 Apr
11:50 p.m.
There is a lot of mysthicism among sound engineers, guitarist or audio
manufacturers, especially when there is analog gear involved. Sometimes
there is a tiny justification behind this voodoo cult. But most of the
times it comes from a misinterpretation of technical matters. This
misinterpretation is conforted by an analogical reasoning. If it works
with A, then it works with B. It sounds logical but that's a false
reasoning. You can find a lot a smart peoples falling in this kind of
arguments. The internet is full of peoples who thinks they are right.
I read a lot of forum threads arguing about how 192kHz is better or how
vinyl is better than CD. You will find 3 kinds of people there. Peoples
who think they are right, peoples throwing their knwoledge to each
others face and peoples that just want to know the truth. But only a few
among them are actually right. As a computer programmer, i can fall in
any of this categories, but as a musician, i seriously dont care. Why
bother about 144dB of dynamics when recording with a 200$ microphone in
the same room of your noisy computer.
Audio professionals dont want to ask themselves if any piece of gear is
better than the other or if analog is better than digital. They end up
buying expensive material to avoid spending time to question themselves.
That is the price of the tranquility of mind. They can spend time to
actually do their job. As a standard musician i dont want to spend too
much time arguing and i just want to play music.
There is a lot of TV commercial trying to sell you a wider and sharper
screen. It shows a tv screen and make it appears more sharp and wider
than your own, but your tv screen cant reproduce a bigger and sharper
screen but your brain fell for it. Because there is pshychology
involved. This is the same with audio. You can easily prove that a red
cable sounds better than a black one, even if it is unplugged.
The problem is that you dont always have the technical knowledge to keep
apart a real technical issue and a psychoacoustic process.
Audiophile manufacturers are well aware about that. Awkwardly, Sound
Engineers don't.
Further more most of the actual engineers studied using analog gear.
Most of what they been taught sint true anymore. They still use the same
methodology because they still hear the difference, even if there is
none.
You can spend your life time to understand how things realy works. Just
do what you think is best and anything else doesnt matter.
Guillaume Meurisse
5340
days inactive
5343
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
17 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Arnold Krille -
Atte André Jensen -
drew Roberts -
Folderol -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Guillaume Meurisse -
Gwenhwyfaer -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
Ken Restivo -
micromoog -
Monty Montgomery -
Paul Davis