avatar

justpushplay

Silverado

Posts: 245 Member Since:02/02/2011

#21 [url]

May 10 16 12:05 AM

compasspnt wrote:
Also people now recording and mixing at lowered levels may be helping.

'Yellow is the new red' was an eye opener in PT7.

(Yeah, I'm still on 7.2 HD. Stable as a rock. Upgrade coming soon, however.)

Quote    Reply   
avatar

fenris

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,450 Member Since:26/01/2011

#22 [url]

May 10 16 1:49 AM

I have a lot of reasons for mixing on an analog console. "Summing" is not one of them. If I record the direct outs into the computer and sum the channels digitally, it sounds exactly the same. I routinely do this to facilitate automation and recalls. The Dangerous products are hilarious. If I want a piece of outboard gear that doesn't do anything, I'll buy one of those Funk Logic panels.

Funny that DigitalFishPhones came up, I recently re-discovered Dominion and I think it might sound better than a Transient Designer!

I've said before that plug-ins would be a bad investment even if they sounded like the real thing. I just spent a total of fifty bucks upgrading the RAM, CPU, and video card in my 13-year-old PC. I'm running Reaper with some old PCI ADAT cards hooked up to some old Merging converters that are about as good as anything made today. I should be fine for another 10 years. Ironically, you need more power to surf the Internet than you need for Reaper. The Internet has gotten REALLY bloated and inefficient in recent years, you need 4x the RAM and CPU power to load the same content.

We have a nice live room, and I wouldn't mind having a basic PT system for outside engineers. But Avid seems determined to make the buy-in cost as high as possible.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

extrememixing

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,277 Member Since:02/02/2011

#23 [url]

May 10 16 2:02 AM

Pro tools is not very expensive today, unless you go HD.  I's assuming that you won't be doing that since you seem very frugal. 


 I just spent a total of fifty bucks upgrading the RAM, CPU, and video card in my 13-year-old PC. I'm running Reaper with some old PCI ADAT cards hooked up to some old Merging converters that are about as good as anything made today. I should be fine for another 10 years.

Compared to that everything is expensive.  But some of us find value in new things.

Steve

Quote    Reply   
avatar

morespaceecho

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,189 Member Since:29/01/2011

#24 [url]

May 10 16 12:11 PM

fenris wrote:
 I just spent a total of fifty bucks upgrading the RAM, CPU, and video card in my 13-year-old PC.
 

how's this possible? i spent more than that on ram for my new computer.

anyway, not to stray too far off topic, but i was just thinking about this the other day and wanted to ask the groop: does everyone mix as they go now? 

www.oldcolonymastering.com

morespaceecho.bandcamp.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

thecosmicshow242

Tin Man

Posts: 20 Member Since:17/02/2014

#25 [url]

May 10 16 1:05 PM

fenris wrote:
I have a lot of reasons for mixing on an analog console. "Summing" is not one of them. If I record the direct outs into the computer and sum the channels digitally, it sounds exactly the same. I routinely do this to facilitate automation and recalls. The Dangerous products are hilarious. If I want a piece of outboard gear that doesn't do anything, I'll buy one of those Funk Logic panels.

Funny that DigitalFishPhones came up, I recently re-discovered Dominion and I think it might sound better than a Transient Designer!

I've said before that plug-ins would be a bad investment even if they sounded like the real thing. I just spent a total of fifty bucks upgrading the RAM, CPU, and video card in my 13-year-old PC. I'm running Reaper with some old PCI ADAT cards hooked up to some old Merging converters that are about as good as anything made today. I should be fine for another 10 years. Ironically, you need more power to surf the Internet than you need for Reaper. The Internet has gotten REALLY bloated and inefficient in recent years, you need 4x the RAM and CPU power to load the same content.

We have a nice live room, and I wouldn't mind having a basic PT system for outside engineers. But Avid seems determined to make the buy-in cost as high as possible.

Not really sure what's with all the hate towards the Dangerous summing boxes I'm seeing so frequently. I picked one up about a year ago and noticed the difference instantly... I had to re-calibrate my brain a bit while mixing because of it.

The way it responds to what I can only call "pressure" is excellent. If I could compare a fader adjustment to a bump in the road, I would describe it as adding shocks to my tires (where I previously had none). It was reminiscent of the first time I mixed on an SSL having been completely ITB until that point; gain changes more drastically effected other channels at the summing point, as opposed to PT summing that just sounds like a channel getting louder or softer in a vacuum on top of a bunch of other channels. Then again, that directly contradicts your experience with your analog console.

That said, summing units are essentially built around electronic transformers whereas digital summing which works much differently. This is why you can red the shit out of an individual track post-fader in pro tools and not necessarily clip your master...the amount of headroom "inside" the pro tools mix bus is so astronomically large you essentially can't clip PT in the box, only on the master fader/output stage where it must conform to -18dBfs being analog zero in order to be handled properly by D/A converters and not go rambo on your monitors. Sorry for being so nerdy, but an old professor of mine was one of a handful of Pro Tools experts acknowledged by AVID and he never once hesitated to overshare on all of the things he had to stay current on.

Maybe it's because I still use PT10, but to hear those boxes called "hilarious" or "useless" is...well...in defiance of my enthusiastic understanding of physics.

But I'm young, and only have 9 years under my belt...which in this field basically means no one places any value in my opinion.

Liam Alexander -- --  Team A

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,042 Member Since:04/02/2011

#26 [url]

May 10 16 1:07 PM

morespaceecho wrote:
anyway, not to stray too far off topic, but i was just thinking about this the other day and wanted to ask the groop: does everyone mix as they go now? 

The quick answer would probably be "no."

But what I DO do-- 

The entire time I'm working on a record, I'm working toward an end result. I don't leave things to fix for later. I want a clear concept of how every part works with every other part, and how every sound works with every other sound, as I/we are crafting those parts and sounds. I don't use "mix day" as an ex-post-facto "arranging day." I don't tend to radically alter sounds and concepts in the mix.

Sometimes along the process, for the purpose of illustrating an arrangement idea or a comp to someone who needs convincing (particularly if it's someone whom I suspect might lack the imagination to see the "potential" in a good idea, and must be hit over the head with fully-formed greatness), I'll take extra time to make a "rough deluxe." 

But I still prefer to strip out all plugins and take it to an analog console, pull everything down to zero, then up to unity, and start from there. I like this part of the process, because it allows me to "perform" the mix of the song. It guards against "processing bloat," or things inserted at some point for dubious reason and then just left there out of inertia. 

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

morespaceecho

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,189 Member Since:29/01/2011

#27 [url]

May 10 16 1:42 PM

soapfoot wrote:

The entire time I'm working on a record, I'm working toward an end result. I don't leave things to fix for later. I want a clear concept of how every part works with every other part, and how every sound works with every other sound, as I/we are crafting those parts and sounds. 

yeah. that's what i do too. i'm pretty much only ever working on my own stuff (and don't have a nice fancy analog board at my disposal) so i know my process is gonna be different than if i were working with outside clients. 

but i'm always bouncing stuff to stereo submixes and committing to sounds as i go, the compressor's on the drums from the first playback, etc etc. so for me lately, "mixing" is basically an hour of turning it up loud and making a few level and eq tweaks, just doing whatever i need to do in the mix so that i can then just do a routine mastering on it and call it done.

www.oldcolonymastering.com

morespaceecho.bandcamp.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

wireline

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,114 Member Since:24/01/2011

#28 [url]

May 10 16 1:48 PM

With things as they are, the lines between the various stages of all this seem to blur quite a bit with the tools we have now, and it would be almost silly NOT to take advantage of many of them. Deleting passages that contain no audio, lowering the volume of obvious quiet passages, quick removal of blips, boops, spikes, etc...all while something else is being tracked or between takes - all this and millions more little things were unheard of just a few years ago...

Have a bazillion tracks also changes the way we do things. To answer your question, I tend to set levels, clean up, and assign initial ideas for panning while tracking, especially in the headphones for overdubs. Any submix/bouncing to conserve tracks, no chance.

Ken Morgan

Please...Give It A Rest

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,042 Member Since:04/02/2011

#29 [url]

May 10 16 2:25 PM

For some people it is ALL one amorphous process, from writing through demoing, arranging, recording, editing, mixing).

I just don't tend to work that way as much, most of the time. I like to draw a hard (if artificial) line between "time to record" and "time to mix" and "time to send it to mastering." Otherwise, it seems like nothing is ever "finished" and I hate that.

OTOH, I'm usually staying on top of editing tasks the whole way through, including doing some rides via clip gain to keep it 'sounding like a good rough mix' at all times. And these rides will usually stay, or even get consolidated, during the process. Arranging and tracking are often but not always simultaneous. Sometimes demos morph into masters. So part of it is "what is mixing?" to you.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

morespaceecho

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,189 Member Since:29/01/2011

#30 [url]

May 10 16 2:40 PM

wireline wrote:
Any submix/bouncing to conserve tracks, no chance.

interesting. i hate having loads of tracks to look at/think about, which is why i bounce stuff all the time. the hotshots doing 100-channel mixes....i dunno how they do it.
soapfoot wrote:
For some people it is ALL one amorphous process, from writing through demoing, arranging, recording, editing, mixing).


that's me, more or less. and the last band i was in, their whole process was exactly like that. which seemed a little weird to me from the perspective of A Band (as opposed to a studio rat solo artist), but you couldn't argue with the results.

www.oldcolonymastering.com

morespaceecho.bandcamp.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gtoledo3

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,000 Member Since:23/10/2013

#31 [url]

May 10 16 3:37 PM

thecosmicshow242 wrote:

fenris wrote:
I have a lot of reasons for mixing on an analog console. "Summing" is not one of them. If I record the direct outs into the computer and sum the channels digitally, it sounds exactly the same. I routinely do this to facilitate automation and recalls. The Dangerous products are hilarious. If I want a piece of outboard gear that doesn't do anything, I'll buy one of those Funk Logic panels.

Funny that DigitalFishPhones came up, I recently re-discovered Dominion and I think it might sound better than a Transient Designer!

I've said before that plug-ins would be a bad investment even if they sounded like the real thing. I just spent a total of fifty bucks upgrading the RAM, CPU, and video card in my 13-year-old PC. I'm running Reaper with some old PCI ADAT cards hooked up to some old Merging converters that are about as good as anything made today. I should be fine for another 10 years. Ironically, you need more power to surf the Internet than you need for Reaper. The Internet has gotten REALLY bloated and inefficient in recent years, you need 4x the RAM and CPU power to load the same content.

We have a nice live room, and I wouldn't mind having a basic PT system for outside engineers. But Avid seems determined to make the buy-in cost as high as possible.

Not really sure what's with all the hate towards the Dangerous summing boxes I'm seeing so frequently. I picked one up about a year ago and noticed the difference instantly... I had to re-calibrate my brain a bit while mixing because of it.

The way it responds to what I can only call "pressure" is excellent. If I could compare a fader adjustment to a bump in the road, I would describe it as adding shocks to my tires (where I previously had none). It was reminiscent of the first time I mixed on an SSL having been completely ITB until that point; gain changes more drastically effected other channels at the summing point, as opposed to PT summing that just sounds like a channel getting louder or softer in a vacuum on top of a bunch of other channels. Then again, that directly contradicts your experience with your analog console.

That said, summing units are essentially built around electronic transformers whereas digital summing which works much differently. This is why you can red the shit out of an individual track post-fader in pro tools and not necessarily clip your master...the amount of headroom "inside" the pro tools mix bus is so astronomically large you essentially can't clip PT in the box, only on the master fader/output stage where it must conform to -18dBfs being analog zero in order to be handled properly by D/A converters and not go rambo on your monitors. Sorry for being so nerdy, but an old professor of mine was one of a handful of Pro Tools experts acknowledged by AVID and he never once hesitated to overshare on all of the things he had to stay current on.

Maybe it's because I still use PT10, but to hear those boxes called "hilarious" or "useless" is...well...in defiance of my enthusiastic understanding of physics.

But I'm young, and only have 9 years under my belt...which in this field basically means no one places any value in my opinion.

I think that pressure/tire shocks thing is the effect of the makeup gain preamp you're using with the Dangerous, more than the summing aspect of the Dangerous.

This is just my opinion from using one for awhile, running an entire mix through my the same line amp/preamps vs using them for makeup gain with a Dangerous (tab v672's, summit tpa 200B).

But if I really want that "glue" effect, I feel that I get that result from an SSL compressor (or something better) on the mix, not necessarily the analog summing itself.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

minister

Gold Finger

Posts: 572 Member Since:27/01/2011

#32 [url]

May 11 16 9:31 AM

thecosmicshow242 wrote:
That said, summing units are essentially built around electronic transformers whereas digital summing which works much differently. This is why you can red the shit out of an individual track post-fader in pro tools and not necessarily clip your master...the amount of headroom "inside" the pro tools mix bus is so astronomically large you essentially can't clip PT in the box, only on the master fader/output stage where it must conform to -18dBfs being analog zero in order to be handled properly by D/A converters and not go rambo on your monitors. Sorry for being so nerdy, but an old professor of mine was one of a handful of Pro Tools experts acknowledged by AVID and he never once hesitated to overshare on all of the things he had to stay current on.

What transformers are in the Dangerous 2-Bus and 2-Bus LT?

Your old professor recommends you red the shit out of an individual track [sic]?

The master fader must conform to -18dBFS being analog zero? Did you CAL your IO? What about audio post in the US?  What about Mastering facilities?

I think you will find that if you don't red the shit out of your tracks, your ITB summing is pretty darn good.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

extrememixing

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,277 Member Since:02/02/2011

#35 [url]

May 16 16 9:25 PM

Bob,

You didn't notice any difference when they redesigned the mix bus and jumped to 32/64 bit away from 24 bit fixed? And when they lifted the ceiling on dsp limits with the new HDX cards and AAX Native processing? I did.

Steve

Quote    Reply   
avatar

thecosmicshow242

Tin Man

Posts: 20 Member Since:17/02/2014

#36 [url]

May 17 16 1:32 PM

minister wrote:

thecosmicshow242 wrote:
That said, summing units are essentially built around electronic transformers whereas digital summing which works much differently. This is why you can red the shit out of an individual track post-fader in pro tools and not necessarily clip your master...the amount of headroom "inside" the pro tools mix bus is so astronomically large you essentially can't clip PT in the box, only on the master fader/output stage where it must conform to -18dBfs being analog zero in order to be handled properly by D/A converters and not go rambo on your monitors. Sorry for being so nerdy, but an old professor of mine was one of a handful of Pro Tools experts acknowledged by AVID and he never once hesitated to overshare on all of the things he had to stay current on.

What transformers are in the Dangerous 2-Bus and 2-Bus LT?

Your old professor recommends you red the shit out of an individual track [sic]?

The master fader must conform to -18dBFS being analog zero? Did you CAL your IO? What about audio post in the US?  What about Mastering facilities?

I think you will find that if you don't red the shit out of your tracks, your ITB summing is pretty darn good.

AFAIK analog summing circuits are dependant on transformers to some degree.

Let me be a little clearer on the second part. Of course my professor did not reccommend we red the shit out of individual tracks. He merely pointed out from a technical standpoint that the Pro Tools "virtual" mix bus essentially cannot clip internally, only at the master fader level (possibly only PT10 or later). To elaborate further, it was taught to me by more than one source that -18 dBFS is a digital equivalent of "zero" when thinking about digial audio in the context of analog signal. That is why for most plug-ins, processors, and internal summing, operate ideally at that signal level. This is also why there are two numerical gauges on either side of the meter of a given channel in the PT mix window. The one on the right side, you'll notice, is "0" at the top of the meter and moves down from there. That is dBFS, which as I understand is a term to quantify the fact that while analog equipment can have varying degrees of headroom, digital audio cannot pass above that zero point; it can only flatline and square out from there. Due to this principle, a digital audio signal that passes above -18 dBFS can be considered from a logical standpoint to be passing the point at which in the analog realm we would consider 0 dB (the area above which we consider "headroom.") Since plug-ins are nothing but hardware emulations of real circuitry (at least the good ones), the software side of the plug-in needs a way to conform it's analog principles to the digital audio realm. If it used 0 dBFS as it's zero point, it wouldn't function properly due to the lack of headroom from the digital audio, so instead that zero point is typically acknowledged to be -18 dBFS though it is sometimes considered to be -20 or -16. This allows the RMS of a signal to maintain it's position in the proverbial sweet spot while still having room for peaks to operate in that do not introduce distortion.

To bring it all full circle and calrify some of my admittedly bad wording, the virtual mix bus inside of Pro Tools can actually compensate for the limitations introduced by the concept of "0 dBFS" being a brick wall as long as it is a track being fed to a master fader. Since a master fader is, from a software standpoint, assumed to be the point before digital audio is converted back to analog, if it passes that point of 0 dBFS it will distort and clip due to the AD/DA's inability to account for any digital audio higher than 0 dBFS. In the case of the D-Box, the output of my converters/interface/whatever should feed it a signal where -18 dBFS ITB would be hitting the D-Box at it's approximated "analog zero" assuming the line levels are matching. It's a standard that allows interplay between the two realms. Imagine a world where everything that came out of your digital interface would hit your analog equipment where it's loudest point was 0 dB peak level in the analog realm. None of us would be hitting our equipment at favorable voltages without further amplification.

I'm sure that is why in audio post, as you rightly mentioned, has reference levels that typically correlate to -20 or -18 dBFS. I do believe the FDA standard is 83 dB at -18 dBFS. It is setting a value for the zero point as much as it's providing a standard for calibration. It's why it can be much easier to make things "louder" in the analog realm than the digital realm. By virtue of this principle digital audio is limited to +18 dB of headroom, whereas much mastering equipment can far surpass that due to the more organic nature of electricity. It also backs up your point that ITB summing operates best when your master fader is spitting out a signal that averages out to -18 dBFS. As I'm sure you know, dBFS as a unit is not a unit of volume but a unit of reference and only has a value based on some degree of correspondence. 

Note that I'm only explaining things as I've come to understand them, and am more than welcoming to any questions, debates or disgareements. It's how I/we learn best. :)

Liam Alexander -- --  Team A

Quote    Reply   
avatar

tom eaton

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,334 Member Since:25/01/2011

#37 [url]

May 17 16 3:31 PM

Hi Liam,

You're in a forum of pro users here...we probably understand this stuff better than you think. There are numerous mis-statements above, but I'll leave it to you to research which summing boxes use transformers to do the summing. (hint:none)

I should at least point out that it is not the organic nature of electricity which "allows analog gear to have more headroom than digital," though.
Headroom is the distance between average signal level and clipping and therefore depends entirely on how each user decides to calibrate their system, whether in analog or digital. I recall my RADAR II was quite happy to crank out +24dBu, as is my Apogee Symphony, so 20 over +4, which can easily clip many good bits of analog gear.

You reference 83dB, and I think you're talking about in room monitoring levels (so, 83dBSPL), and again, that is not tied strictly to a dBFS value. If you spent your days mastering in the -12dBFS to 0dBFS range you might be running -14dBFS=+4dBu=0VU.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

minister

Gold Finger

Posts: 572 Member Since:27/01/2011

#39 [url]

May 18 16 9:19 AM

thecosmicshow242 wrote:

minister wrote:

thecosmicshow242 wrote:
That said, summing units are essentially built around electronic transformers whereas digital summing which works much differently. This is why you can red the shit out of an individual track post-fader in pro tools and not necessarily clip your master...the amount of headroom "inside" the pro tools mix bus is so astronomically large you essentially can't clip PT in the box, only on the master fader/output stage where it must conform to -18dBfs being analog zero in order to be handled properly by D/A converters and not go rambo on your monitors. Sorry for being so nerdy, but an old professor of mine was one of a handful of Pro Tools experts acknowledged by AVID and he never once hesitated to overshare on all of the things he had to stay current on.

What transformers are in the Dangerous 2-Bus and 2-Bus LT?

Your old professor recommends you red the shit out of an individual track [sic]?

The master fader must conform to -18dBFS being analog zero? Did you CAL your IO? What about audio post in the US?  What about Mastering facilities?

I think you will find that if you don't red the shit out of your tracks, your ITB summing is pretty darn good.

AFAIK analog summing circuits are dependant on transformers to some degree.

Let me be a little clearer on the second part. Of course my professor did not reccommend we red the shit out of individual tracks. He merely pointed out from a technical standpoint that the Pro Tools "virtual" mix bus essentially cannot clip internally, only at the master fader level (possibly only PT10 or later). To elaborate further, it was taught to me by more than one source that -18 dBFS is a digital equivalent of "zero" when thinking about digial audio in the context of analog signal. That is why for most plug-ins, processors, and internal summing, operate ideally at that signal level. This is also why there are two numerical gauges on either side of the meter of a given channel in the PT mix window. The one on the right side, you'll notice, is "0" at the top of the meter and moves down from there. That is dBFS, which as I understand is a term to quantify the fact that while analog equipment can have varying degrees of headroom, digital audio cannot pass above that zero point; it can only flatline and square out from there. Due to this principle, a digital audio signal that passes above -18 dBFS can be considered from a logical standpoint to be passing the point at which in the analog realm we would consider 0 dB (the area above which we consider "headroom.") Since plug-ins are nothing but hardware emulations of real circuitry (at least the good ones), the software side of the plug-in needs a way to conform it's analog principles to the digital audio realm. If it used 0 dBFS as it's zero point, it wouldn't function properly due to the lack of headroom from the digital audio, so instead that zero point is typically acknowledged to be -18 dBFS though it is sometimes considered to be -20 or -16. This allows the RMS of a signal to maintain it's position in the proverbial sweet spot while still having room for peaks to operate in that do not introduce distortion.

To bring it all full circle and calrify some of my admittedly bad wording, the virtual mix bus inside of Pro Tools can actually compensate for the limitations introduced by the concept of "0 dBFS" being a brick wall as long as it is a track being fed to a master fader. Since a master fader is, from a software standpoint, assumed to be the point before digital audio is converted back to analog, if it passes that point of 0 dBFS it will distort and clip due to the AD/DA's inability to account for any digital audio higher than 0 dBFS. In the case of the D-Box, the output of my converters/interface/whatever should feed it a signal where -18 dBFS ITB would be hitting the D-Box at it's approximated "analog zero" assuming the line levels are matching. It's a standard that allows interplay between the two realms. Imagine a world where everything that came out of your digital interface would hit your analog equipment where it's loudest point was 0 dB peak level in the analog realm. None of us would be hitting our equipment at favorable voltages without further amplification.

I'm sure that is why in audio post, as you rightly mentioned, has reference levels that typically correlate to -20 or -18 dBFS. I do believe the FDA standard is 83 dB at -18 dBFS. It is setting a value for the zero point as much as it's providing a standard for calibration. It's why it can be much easier to make things "louder" in the analog realm than the digital realm. By virtue of this principle digital audio is limited to +18 dB of headroom, whereas much mastering equipment can far surpass that due to the more organic nature of electricity. It also backs up your point that ITB summing operates best when your master fader is spitting out a signal that averages out to -18 dBFS. As I'm sure you know, dBFS as a unit is not a unit of volume but a unit of reference and only has a value based on some degree of correspondence. 

Note that I'm only explaining things as I've come to understand them, and am more than welcoming to any questions, debates or disgareements. It's how I/we learn best. :)

Lliam,

Perhaps you may want to refresh and clarify what your old professor taught you.
thecosmicshow242
AFAIK analog summing circuits are dependant on transformers to some degree.

You may want to change that to ISTR.....

Summing boxes are not dependent on transformers at all; but they are on resistors.  The answer to what transformers are in the Dangerous 2-Bus and LT is: the null set.  The 2-Bus Plus, however, does use transformers on the output.

I am not sure where to begin about your muddled commentary on levels, although, I do like the idea that the Federal Drug Administration has a recommended Sound Pressure Level dosage for human consumption!  I suspect you are beginning to have a feel for what is going on vis a vis analogue and digital, but the grasp is not there yet.  You know some of the numbers, but you don't quite know what they mean.

A relationship has to be established between digital and analogue by calibration of the Digital to Analogue Convertor. Most manufacturers setup the DAC for you, and most set it for music calibration.  Not all DAC's have accesible trim pots for calibration, but many of the better ones do. First, you have to decide what your claibration levels will be which will be dependent on the kind of work you do. For music, it can be -16, or -18 or -14.  Mastering is anywhere from -14 to -8 depending on how the Engineer wants to work.  For post, in the US it's -20 in Europe it is largely -18. To do this, you need a 1 kHz Sine Wave Generator (either the plugin or a hardware box) and a multimeter. Make sure you use mono channels, not stereo ones. Set your -1kHz sine to, say, -18 then pull out your multimeter to measure at the output.  Turn the trim pots until the meter reads 1.228VRMS. Do this for each channel on the DAC.  Now -18dBFS = 1.228VRMS = +4 dBU = 0 VU.  I suspect that your "analog zero" is intended to mean 0 VU.  Every number in engineering has to relate to something.  Analog Zero could mean 0 dBU, but I suspect you had a vague grasp of nominal VU levels.  Now you have an established relationship between the analogue and digital realms.

I don't have time to get into the "FDA" 83 dB standard. ....  I suspect you heard about this SPL number somewhere, or read it in Bob Katz's book, and just sort of threw it in.... but.... Theatrical Film calibration in the US is -20 dBFS 1k SINE = 1.228VRMS = +4 dBU = 0 VU.  -20dBFS RMS PINK  = 0 VU = 85 SPL across the front screen channels, 82 SPL for EACH of the surrounds and, well, the SUB is +10 in-band above the screen channels when measured by an RTA (which will usually be 91-92 SPL on an SLM). 

I also don't have time to get into digital summing and 48 bit fixed point, or 48 floating or 32 bit floating and how at the summing bus it will ultimately be 24 (or 16) bit fixed to pass through the (now calibrated) DAC analogue outs, but, if you read and study some good literature on how digital works, some more lights may come on.

I should add, it was Paul Frindle in the epic PSW thread that taught many of us about gain staging and real head-room in digital plugins and summing and how important it is to keep the levels down on your digital channels.  After I started doing that, I sold my Dangerous 2-Bus.

Tom


 

Last Edited By: minister May 22 16 9:15 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help