Yet again, DAW techniques misinformation- EQ Mag

[Mt.Everest]

I just have to point out yet another bit of wrong info magazines are letting slide in their interviews. Alot of young engineers, and the new producers-who-do-it-at-home-cuz-its-cheaper-but-arent-educated-engineers take this stuff as the holy bible and then we wonder why we get not so good sounding Protools sessions, and then the clients blame the "harsh sound of digital".

I really dont want to take shots at any of the people I respect on this forum and as engineers, and thats not my agenda at all. But its really hard to still see things like this in print. --EQ Mag quote from an article talking about recording/mixing techniques in DAW's:

"The hotter a signal is being sampled, the greater the binary resolution it generates, and ends up sounding better as a digital source"

This is not true, especially if your DAW is cal'd (normally by default) to where 0VU= -18dBfs (or somewhere in that area). And, I think I know what hes trying to say, but even still. When are people going to realize that bits dont equal resolution and that SLAMMING YOUR PT LEVELS MEAN YOU (as in vous, one, SOMEONE, heh) ARE DISTORTING YOUR PREAMPS ON THE WAY IN!?!

And if said interviewee reads this post ( I know he frequents this forum) I apologize ahead of time. I really dont mean to be singling you out-- Its just that Ive been really stuggling with said young XYZ recording school grads, working as full time assistant and part time engineers sending me protools files with every track averaging at -0.3 dBfs, becasue they wanna 'use all the bits" to " capture all that low end"... What they are really capturing is the sound of distorted, tweaked out 1073s that have no VU meters, and therefore no indication that they are being driven WAY too hard.

I wont even get into the other mixing veteran talking about the downfalls of digital recording. When will the madness stop? When will EQ mag or Mix mag actually try to maybe politely rebutt, or clarify some of this misinfo before setting in to print? Its only further corrupting a new generation of young engineers..

MT

--Edited for a more general topic start and less of a seemingly personal attack of sorts--

[clutchwingbat]

YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!

[sleadley]

I so agree with you on this. Do they not realise that in a 24 bit system a FSD signal in 16 bit is 48db below FSD on the 24 bit system. It allows more HEADROOM without clipping. There is no need to slam the levels. Maybe they will never get this distinction. And those of us that do it sensibly will get more gigs because our work sounds better!!

Simon L.

[MAXIMUSIC]

Well said Mt. Everest!!!!
Now, where can I get some good DAW information to pass on to my assistants?
They come everyday to the studio with a new bombshell discovery (scary) some of the "new DAW technics" are just a bunch of bull.... that a "teacher" or a "friendly" engineer gave them.
I'm not an engineer, nor I pretend to be one, I produce records and wright songs since the 2'' tape days ... but I'd like to offer them the best info available..... sometimes not so easy to find.....
Thanks

[mixer]

digital recording standard used to be called saturation recording..where you would always want to be as close to the limit as possible without going into cliping . now with 24 bit resolution it really is not that critical.you have quite a bit of headrom in modern recording systems. but to my knowlege bit resolution is a factor .

GARY M.VANDY AUDIO PRODUCTIONS

[Mt.Everest]

YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!

Zing! ha..
man, did I deserve that!
MT

[tal herzberg]

Mt.Everest wrote: "SLAMMING YOUR PT LEVELS MEAN YOU ARE DISTORTING YOUR PREAMPS ON THE WAY IN!?!"

And how the hell do you know what is the input trims level on my 192 i/o box?! I set them high enough so even low signals are sampled "hot", hence - no preamps distortion!

I've been doing a lot of pro audio writing during the last 4 years (including on this website - DiSK>DiSKussion), never make money doing that, just happy to share my knowledge and experience with our community (I've been nominated to 4 x Grammy awards, 5 x TEC awards, worked on 6 x #1 Billboard hits, doznes of top 10 hits, over 30 million albums I've worked on sold, etc). I've received hundreds of emails from greatful readers who've all said they've learned a lot from my published articles.

Why won't you tell us all a bit about yourself? You sound confident enough to go by your real name, and share a few of your credits, achievments, and views.

[Dan Pinder]

I don't have an EQ mag around. Can we name names here?

It doesn't surprise me that when technology becomes cheap enough and easy enough to use that all the knowledge about the art and craft that used to be passed down gets lost, as it is deemed unnecessary. It's sad, but it's these people who have contributed so much to the downfall of sonic ideals.

[tal herzberg]

It's me Dan, and just like MtEverest, your "compliments" are highly appreciated.

[tribase]

I'm with Tal on this.
I do align my 192 -14 to give me a better level.
But either way, you're not necessarily hitting your preamps too hot, there are too many factors to consider (VU vs. Peak, type of signal recorded, alignment of all stages etc.)

This thread has already been discussed in "How hot to record for optimum sound quality" in the Tips and Tricks section. Read my post there, I think it explains the real life approach and the concerns mentioned above fairly well if I might say so.

Let me know what you think