Any Caveats about In-The-Box mixing?

NealF · Post by **NealF** » Thu May 17, 2007 10:24 am

Lots of good advice here. I'm an oldtimer, too.

Takes a while to change 30 years of habbit.

Phil O · Post by **Phil O** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:39 pm

ryst wrote:Before this thread turns into another 12 page epic, I thought it would be a good idea to provide you with links to most, if not all, of the other threads from various websites that discuss this very topic.

Gee, I thought some of those 12 page epics were pretty darn good discussions.

Except for the "right" one which was utterly ridiculous.

Phil

...or should that have been gee sharp?

Phil O · Post by **Phil O** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:47 pm

NealF wrote:Lots of good advice here. I'm an oldtimer, too.

Takes a while to change 30 years of habbit.

Hey! I've been doing this for 30 years too. I'm just getting started. Welcome aboard young man!

Phil

ryst · Post by **ryst** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:19 pm

Phil O wrote:
ryst wrote:Before this thread turns into another 12 page epic, I thought it would be a good idea to provide you with links to most, if not all, of the other threads from various websites that discuss this very topic.
Gee, I thought some of those 12 page epics were pretty darn good discussions.
Except for the "right" one which was utterly ridiculous.

Phil

...or should that have been gee sharp?

Oh yeah! Most of them were good. I just figured we could spare the original poster some time. Instead of waiting for the posts to pile up he could start reading the threads where the posts are already piled up.

NealF · Post by **NealF** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:24 pm

Phil O wrote:
NealF wrote:Lots of good advice here. I'm an oldtimer, too.

Takes a while to change 30 years of habbit.
Hey! I've been doing this for 30 years too. I'm just getting started. Welcome aboard young man!

Phil

First time I've been called "young" all day.

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:44 pm

Polich and Gearboy's advice is good.

Of course, feel free to push levels going through an analog pre. All those tube and/or transformer harmonics are what make them great to use. Just make sure you attenuate the signal prior to A/D into the DP.

To add to what P and G suggested, digital recording is much less forgiving when it comes to dB spiking than analog gear. In fact, inaudible spikes sneak through all the time (you can catch sight of them with fast metering plug-ins like Inspector XL). They can affect dynamic plug-ins (if also digital) and may minimize mix overhead when compounded. So, healthy tracking level overhead is prudent.

That aside, digital recording has far more assets than deficits in my opinion. It's certainly more flexible and editorial-friendly.

In any case, welcome to the fray. Make some music!

denne · Post by **denne** » Thu May 17, 2007 2:06 pm

jlaudon wrote: Just a handy tip you might know about - press 'w' and lower the master fader, and it will bring all the seperate track levels down the same amount (obviously only before having volume automation enabled on various tracks).

sheeesh ... missed that one. thanks jlaudon.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:24 am

chrispick wrote:... In fact, inaudible spikes sneak through all the time (you can catch sight of them with fast metering plug-ins like Inspector XL). They can affect dynamic plug-ins (if also digital) and may minimize mix overhead when compounded. So, healthy tracking level overhead is prudent.

Chrispick's referring to "inter-sample peaks".
Think of any frequency above half the sample rate you're using, and you'll be able to visualise this.
Peaks can literally "spike up" between sample representations.
It's obvious, but I'd say cymbals are far more likely candidates than bass guitar as culprits here.
The cumulative effect of having multiple tracks contributing these peaks might in and of themselves well explain what we're talking about.

denne wrote:
jlaudon wrote: Just a handy tip you might know about - press 'w' and lower the master fader, and it will bring all the seperate track levels down the same amount (obviously only before having volume automation enabled on various tracks).
sheeesh ... missed that one. thanks jlaudon.

Easy to do; I'd never heard of this one or seen it in the manual before encountering it on this board last year.

kenoflife · Post by **kenoflife** » Sat May 19, 2007 9:17 am

[quote="denne"][quote="jlaudon"] Just a handy tip you might know about - press 'w' and lower the master fader, and it will bring all the seperate track levels down the same amount (obviously only before having volume automation enabled on various tracks).[/quote]

Is there a method to move all the volume automation as well?

I'd like to figure that out - as I have put a master volume set for between -4 to -8dB on all the mixes before sending them out for re-mastering - and there's a lot of automation going on...seems better to skip the master volume entirely (or does it even matter?)

daniel.sneed · Post by **daniel.sneed** » Sat May 19, 2007 2:30 pm

kenoflife, you could just insert a trim plug on masterfader, prefader but post all your other master fader inserts, if any, and set it to your taste : -4 to -8dB.

It would be a conservative change, just enable or disable this trim.

kenoflife · Post by **kenoflife** » Sat May 19, 2007 7:05 pm

D'ya think there'd be any difference in quality of output (SD2 files) between putting a trim on an insert, and keeping the fader for Zero.....

vs.

just setting the fader for negative dB (and not adding the trim as an insert)?

I'm not using any other inserts on the master faders...

daniel.sneed · Post by **daniel.sneed** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:15 am

Because of it's 32 bits floating architecture, I can assume there would be no difference at all.

To achieve complete confidence, avoid any non-floating plugin between this trim plug and your master fader.

bayswater · Post by **bayswater** » Sun May 20, 2007 9:27 am

Maybe someone could clarify the distinction between "not necessary" and "don't do it" when it comes to recording the tracks as hot as possible. The arguments on why is it not necessary in most cases are well understood. But I'm confused by those who say it should not be done.

As long as the tracks don't clip during recording, why is there an advantage to having fewer bits filled? If you record 30 tracks, all as hot as possible, but with no clipping, and then need headroom for the mix and plugs, you can pull the faders down on the original tracks. It may be unlikely that you really need the extra resolution, but it's there if you do.

Phil O · Post by **Phil O** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:29 am

bayswater wrote:As long as the tracks don't clip during recording, why is there an advantage to having fewer bits filled?

That's a really good question. One to which I have yet to hear a really good answer.

Certainly your front end needs to be taken into consideration. For example, if your system sounds best when DP's meters are peaking at -12db, is that because of something going on at the DAW or something going on at the analog end of things? Which brings up the whole issue of calibration.

Lots of questions, not too many answers. Sorry.

See my previous post in this thread.

Phil

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Sun May 20, 2007 11:17 am

Phil O wrote:
bayswater wrote:As long as the tracks don't clip during recording, why is there an advantage to having fewer bits filled?
That's a really good question. One to which I have yet to hear a really good answer.

I supplied an answer above in this thread.