Am I Crazy, LIve has Huge Headroom??

[SubFunk]

we didnt actually test that at your place, I just told you that. its a matter of training I guess.

yes indeed, everyone can learn to listen more sensitive. it's not a dark art.

and i don't mean bad, i just say that to avoid you (and everyone else, who doesn't know) the experience of an ugly surprise, once it's on a CD and being played elsewhere or real loud (distortion comes out way more through volume) or real simple, just make a track render one just under 0db and one in the red... take that to several places and PAs that really blast (but obviously good sounding ones, not PAs that already distort itself) or even listen on an iPod to it, with good phones... etc, A-B shows pretty fast what is going on... and that is an issue where digital just doesn't cut it.

besides, why want you clip the master anyway? to gain volume?, there are other tools for it!, or to gain nice saturation?, well that is with digital DAWs not possible this way... for that a real nice desk is needed, or a tape, or within digital other tools then pushing the levels or master into the red.

so, stay under 0db, while rendering, let it master properly (for that you need a good amount of headroom anyways), or push the volume yourself... and render just under 0db again... done.

[Grappadura]

I´d still go with trusting my ear, but as I said before, its not me but a friend who does this, and his tracks sound pretty good, also on big speakers. I argued with him saying its clipping, but he said its a form of limiting that takes place here. thats why I´m asking.

[SubFunk]

I´d still go with trusting my ear, but as I said before, its not me but a friend who does this, and his tracks sound pretty good, also on big speakers. I argued with him saying its clipping, but he said its a form of limiting that takes place here. thats why I´m asking.

well, everyone can do what he desires.

and then again about sound we can discuss endless, there are people that seriously believe pioneer DJM 800s sound good
just mentioned as an example... and they will jump in and argue the opposite...

as long as yourself and the customer is satisfied...

but a good CD/Vinyl plant or label will pretty surely reject a digitally clipped track.

[dom]

but a good CD/Vinyl plant or label will pretty surely reject a digitally clipped track.

In a perfect audiophile world, maybe this would be the case.
But due to the loudness wars it's often used as one of the tools in the whole weapon arsenal since digital media is around (note: not talking about vinyl here, whole different game) - and if you think about it: music is art, and if i want to use this technical characteristic in my work of art, why should they reject it?
So, the answer is somewhere in the middle: If the signal looks too squashed, they'll might get back to you and ask if this is intentional - but in the end they'll put the ones and zeroes on the disc for you just in the order you tell them to.

As an example check some big name RnB/PoP/HipHop stuff in an editor, sometimes it looks frightening but achieves exactly the sound they wanted to produce.

Good or bad? Discuss! :)

I think it's just hacking the digital dynamic range. People will always try to get the most out of the given technical boundaries, even by stretching them where it is possible. It's the old rule of "because we can".
Turntables also were not built for beatmatching and Live was not initially coded as a DJ tool - but hey! As artists, let's get the most out of the given things and not complain about boundaries we can't change.

There once was a nice answer to those questions in the SOS, one of the magazines i really respect.

"A waveform that has been clipped or overloaded on the way in (as you're doing by raising the level 10dB) will be distorted on playback, but it can't and won't contain any individual samples higher than 0dBFS. A simple digital meter will just report the output as peaking at 0dBFS, which is perfectly 'legal'."

"How noticeable this is on playback depends on how loud the music was to start with, and also on the nature of those peaks — brief transient peaks such as snare hits can often be clipped without too much in the way of obvious distortion. In fact clipping is often used deliberately in hip-hop records to create a really punchy drum sound, so it's not necessarily a no-no."

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan05/a ... 0105-5.htm

At the end of the day, clipping and distortion is the most powerful way to get something LOUD and therefore it will be used.
The latest craze of this rule i was reading about is a mastering plugin that seems to look at the audio material of your final mix in order to select the best "fitting" distortion curve for every transient. Those get applied independently then, in order to make it as loud as possible without degrading it too much sonically to the ear.
Didn't follow up on that, it was still an unreleased project when i was reading about the concept, so i can't comment on how much advantage this gives over normal brickwall limiting.

Best,
Dom

P.S.: if you really want to go crazy with all this, check out how DACs and their reconstruction filters work and what "intersample peaks" are... ;)

[leisuremuffin]

In the real world, people use automation. And it's a well documented fact (see: Robert Henke's comments on this, which you have acknowledged in the past) that each daw handles automation differently.

The 'automation engine' has a bearing on the output. Fact.

sure it does. you may also remember that those differences are in a range so quiet that they are actually less loud than the noise introduced by most monitor speakers.


.lm.

[H20nly]

^ which can seriously aggravate some dogs.

[dum]

In the real world, people use automation. And it's a well documented fact (see: Robert Henke's comments on this, which you have acknowledged in the past) that each daw handles automation differently.

The 'automation engine' has a bearing on the output. Fact.

sure it does. you may also remember that those differences are in a range so quiet that they are actually less loud than the noise introduced by most monitor speakers.


.lm.

if you say so.

you cut out the meat & potatoes of my post. If you took the time to read it, you might have saved yourself a wasted response.

I'm not too interested in the sound quality discussion, but there's always one idiot blithering on about his utterly pointless null tests.

You think the effects of each DAW's unique handling of automation isn't worth discussing ?
It's somewhat ironic then that the aforementioned null-tests don't register on your pointless-o-meter.


It seems to me that your perception of pointlessness is directly related to the conclusions you want to hear.

[3phase]

In the real world, people use automation. And it's a well documented fact (see: Robert Henke's comments on this, which you have acknowledged in the past) that each daw handles automation differently.

The 'automation engine' has a bearing on the output. Fact.

sure it does. you may also remember that those differences are in a range so quiet that they are actually less loud than the noise introduced by most monitor speakers.


.lm.

i think its allways funny when people claim that -120 db is so much under the borders of human perception..
its a good value but its not esoteric.. just boost it 40 db and you easily can hear it...

ANd dont tell me that 40 db boostsare not going to happen in he modern loudness wars.. 12 db here..12 db there ..and a littel punch in the masterig.. and now we are in the club and really turn up the volume..

The thing with noise is actualy how the noise sounds.. if you want toe hear the neve sound pump up the gain.. and the noise actually carrys the sonic signature of the preamp... listen to the noisefloors of your preamps and you will realize that this is matching with theier general charakter..

maybe an intersting test.. a defined test setup .. 8 tracks silent.. but automation.. the result boosted by 120 db.. does that sound the same as in logic..or maybe better .. most certainly it wont be silence anymore...

and also most certainly ..it wont sound as good as the noise of a neve pre in a good grounded studio...

[leedsquietman]

Automation is only affected if you have different automation in the first place - automation is processed by the same engine as regular audio, there is only one audio engin. If you map out automation and recreate it the same it will be the same. I have always stated that automation can cause a difference because very complex automation can be difficult to recreate, different pan laws can cause a difference too, otherwise it's the same.

With Live this can be an issue if you are using bezier curves elsewhere. Stuff like volume automation tends not to be handled like this much of the time, making it easier to recreate.

Dum - you certainly live up to your name sometimes. As far as being a fool, it takes one to know one. I have worked with Logic, Cubase, Protools HD, Live, Reaper, Renoise and done a few sessions in the past with Samp/Sequoia, DP and Sonar. Which DAWS have you worked with and which sounds best to your ears?

The null test whether you like it or not, is still a standard which is embraced by a hell of a lot more experienced and better engineers than either you or I. No mention of the word shill here, which is a disappointment too, I feel left out.

Anyway, if you have something conclusive that we can hear, by all means put it up. Otherwise, get off the pot. Blind test audio files, or it didn't happen...

[filterstein]

There has been a lot of discussion about keeping your levels low within tracks in a DAW,
on the prosoundweb recording forum. (That was mainly about protools).
There seem to be quite a few engineers who suggest keeping your levels low and using lot's of groups to submix.
One argument is that by using plugins you could inadvertently overload them internally.
As far as the master output is concerned, keeping your levels at 0db could actually clip some less well designed cd players or other playback equipment.
This is because when reconstructing the audio in the dac and lowpassfilter sometimes the signal can in reality reach a higher level than 0db.
I suggest you do what sounds good to you.

[H20nly]

In the real world, people use automation. And it's a well documented fact (see: Robert Henke's comments on this, which you have acknowledged in the past) that each daw handles automation differently.

The 'automation engine' has a bearing on the output. Fact.

sure it does. you may also remember that those differences are in a range so quiet that they are actually less loud than the noise introduced by most monitor speakers.


.lm.

if you say so.

you cut out the meat & potatoes of my post. If you took the time to read it, you might have saved yourself a wasted response.

ROAR

[dum]

^^^ drama seeking.

Automation is only affected if you have different automation in the first place - automation is processed by the same engine as regular audio, there is only one audio engin. If you map out automation and recreate it the same it will be the same. I have always stated that automation can cause a difference because very complex automation can be difficult to recreate, different pan laws can cause a difference too, otherwise it's the same.

Null tests are standard for many purposes, I know this of course.

But I've yet to see anyone but you claim a static null test can be used as proof that two different daws 'sound the same'. The null tests should be done with real-world usage in mind, i.e. employing automation. And who knows what the null tests will prove, if anything. Maybe they'll cancel. Maybe the differences will be totally insignificant. Maybe not. But your static null tests are utterly pointless and the way you constantly bring them up when this discussion arises is akin to the misuse of 'godwins law' during political discourse. i.e. it's a conceit designed to put a halt to the furthering of the discussion.

[leedsquietman]

Where's the googled pics today?

Conceit to end discussion. Maybe - although I certainly am not the only one guilty of this on this forum ...

[Tone Deft]

automation is set by the user who reacts to how the DAW behaves. each DAW behaves differently so the automation will be different.

take two different types of flour and bake two cakes. a good baker will always make a tasty cake, dum will always bake crap. which flour is better? neither, blame the baker.

dum no DAW in the world is limiting your mixing experience. what the hell are you bitching about? is this really a problem for you?

[dum]

Where's the googled pics today?

Conceit to end discussion. Maybe - although I certainly am not the only one guilty of this on this forum ...

That's what they said at Nuremberg.

Oh and seeing as you asked nicely...I googled this for you