What would you do?

[pucho812]

Not for movie,
gitar track=2 mic +1 DI/take (Left right, lead gtr, fills), 12 drums track, 3 bass track, 2 mic+1 DI for Acc gtr (LR +fills)), strings about 8 track, lead voc, double, triple...LR...harmony vocal, keyboards,piano.. etc....etc...  ;D ;D ;D ;D happy noise party...

Ah the modern days where you can have all sorts of tracks. What happened to the days of blending 2 mics onto  track for guitar?

 

[pucho812]

I usually work 88.2/24 that way when I down sample to 44.1 it's an even number of samples pulled.

I remember Bob Clearmountain saying the same thing, pretty logical.....

we I have compared 96/24 and 88.2/24 files and down sampling into 44.1.... the 88.2 files sounded better IMO.  Maybe it was psychological but I did think the 88.2 sounded better.

 

[simonsez]

Regarding your picture, you have actually "zoomed out" vertically on all tracks but the red one. See the little rulers to the left of the audio files? Makes it look even worse than it is.

Cheers,

Johan

Johan, you have very good eyes!! Now how to set it to default (normal)size and how to zoom in/out on individual track? ???

 

[pasarski]

The data was 24bit/48khz, and i always mix that way. I heard the benefit of up sampling is that plugins works better. Do you know what different between adding trim plugins and just bring up the faders above unity? or using plugins makeup gain?

I haven't heard that about upsampling.

BTW, was thinking about tracks tracked hot, close to 0 dbfs, when I wrote about the fader resolution and trim plugins, just the opposite what were talking about :-[ In this case advantage using trim plugins is obviously that you can't go more than 6 db over the unity gain with the faders.

I think if the first plugin in the chain plugin has a input gain control iyou can use it as well as a trim plugin. Makeup gain might be a different case, especially with analog modelling plugins where action might be affected by the input gain.

Don't know if this is appropriate but this is such a great thread about digital audio on other forum:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/542885-paul-frindle-truth-myth.html

 

[simonsez]

Thank's for the link...

About that up sampling, i thing bob katz said that...

 

[abbey road d enfer]

I usually work 88.2/24 that way when I down sample to 44.1 it's an even number of samples pulled.

I remember Bob Clearmountain saying the same thing, pretty logical.....

Pretty logical, but nevertheless not true anymore. All DAW's and plug-ins today use polyphase SRC, which doesn't make the difference between nice integer ratios and irrational ratios, so 88.2 to 44.1 is processed exactly like 96 to 44.1.
In fact, the first generation of IC's incorporating polyphase SRC measured better at doing 48k to 44.1 than 44.1 to 44.1 from two unrelated clocks. Measured better but didn't sound different.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

The data was 24bit/48khz, and i always mix that way. I heard the benefit of up sampling is that plugins works better.

Depends onthe type of plug-in.
Normal speed (44.1 or 48k) creates high frequency wrapping, which impairs HF EQ and filtering. Upsampling solves the problem. Dynamics may work a tad better with upsampling, particularly if the signal is transient heavy and short attack times are used.
Processes like gain, delay, normalising, phase inversion do not care.

 

[dandeurloo]

yeah you have the wav files zoomed out. so they probably look much much better then that in reality. 

 

[zayance]

I usually work 88.2/24 that way when I down sample to 44.1 it's an even number of samples pulled.

I remember Bob Clearmountain saying the same thing, pretty logical.....

Pretty logical, but nevertheless not true anymore. All DAW's and plug-ins today use polyphase SRC, which doesn't make the difference between nice integer ratios and irrational ratios, so 88.2 to 44.1 is processed exactly like 96 to 44.1.
In fact, the first generation of IC's incorporating polyphase SRC measured better at doing 48k to 44.1 than 44.1 to 44.1 from two unrelated clocks. Measured better but didn't sound different.

Good to know, thanks for clarifying Monsieur.

 

[simonsez]

I found the secret keys, (after a few years work with protools...) and now they looks like this... embarrassed... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

I learn something..

 

[zayance]

but one thing tough, visual expand acts on the audio as well on PT? I mean on Cubase i have the choice of expanding the looks of the track, and doesn't affect volume.
If it's that, well VU would have given you a "better" overview of the problem no?

 

[simonsez]

but one thing tough, visual expand acts on the audio as well on PT? I mean on Cubase i have the choice of expanding the looks of the track, and doesn't affect volume.
If it's that, well VU would have given you a "better" overview of the problem no?

It just visual zoom, no effect on audio level, and...i don't have VU..

 

[zayance]

I was talking about the DAW Vu's, meaning that if the levels were about -16dbFS or less, first picture was like silence if they were zoomed right, and so could have given you a hint that it's only visual but has nothing to do with the audio.
I have my screen not really in front of me because visual fools the mind and so the ears, i even shut off the screen while listening back...

 

[Sredna]

The VU (or comparable) for each track is directly left to the scale ruler.
As zayance says, a good tool to see the level differencies between the tracks....

 

[simonsez]

Yes, i learn something...thank's guys.  :-[

 

[pucho812]

It's not a vu meter.  VU meters are average meters, the ones in pro tools are not that. They measure dBFS, decibels full scale.  Out of the box pro tools is calibrated so that -18dBFS equals 1.228V,1.23V, +4dBm, 0 Vu. When you hit 0dBFS it's the final point before you hit digital distortion.

 

[zayance]

yes of course, i happen to just use same word for both  :....

 

[simonsez]

It's not a vu meter.  VU meters are average meters, the ones in pro tools are not that. They measure dBFS, decibels full scale.  Out of the box pro tools is calibrated so that -18dBFS equals 1.228V,1.23V, +4dBm, 0 Vu. When you hit 0dBFS it's the final point before you hit digital distortion.

When i send 0dBFS 1khz tone from protools, then what should i read at VU meters?

 

[Matthew Jacobs]

Simonsez, I've often had the same problem with the track view in Pro-Tools. Could you tell me how you sorted it out please?

 

[user 37518]

It's not a vu meter.  VU meters are average meters, the ones in pro tools are not that. They measure dBFS, decibels full scale.  Out of the box pro tools is calibrated so that -18dBFS equals 1.228V,1.23V, +4dBm, 0 Vu. When you hit 0dBFS it's the final point before you hit digital distortion.

When i send 0dBFS 1khz tone from protools, then what should i read at VU meters?

You couldnt be able read anything, because the meters would be stuck at the right!, however if you had more scale, you would be reading something like +18