Mixing and 0db.

[SimonT]

Hi All!

What does 0db mean when mixing. I'm a little confused. There is something about -12db on Abelton as well. Can anyone clarify any of this for me. Just tryna get me head round mixing a little bit more Was told recently that how professionals make all there recordings the same level was they mix to 0db?

When you put any CD in a hi-fi and play it or on a computer, or play a track on iTunes, one that has been released officially by any artist, the sound level is usually the same isn't it, or am I wrong here? I know there is on a CD for instance, each CD album will have the same overall volume level on each track. No one particular track will sound louder than the other.

Thanks!

 

[Adrian-MarQ]

0 dBfs is the highest level a digital signal go go before being distorted. On every DAW that I've seen the peak meter turns red when that level is passed (you can also hear the distortion).

Mixing engineers usually finish up there tracks around -6 to -3dBfs. That's to give some headroom for whoever is mastering the song. The mastering engineer will be the one that brings the song to 0 dBfs. In regards to the consistent volume across an album, that is also one of the jobs of the mastering engineer.

 

[DarkRed]

Hi All!

What does 0db mean when mixing. I'm a little confused. There is something about -12db on Abelton as well. Can anyone clarify any of this for me. Just tryna get me head round mixing a little bit more Was told recently that how professionals make all there recordings the same level was they mix to 0db?

When you put any CD in a hi-fi and play it or on a computer, or play a track on iTunes, one that has been released officially by any artist, the sound level is usually the same isn't it, or am I wrong here? I know there is on a CD for instance, each CD album will have the same overall volume level on each track. No one particular track will sound louder than the other.

Thanks!

0 dBFS is the maximum amount of signal the input and output stage of your converter is able to handle before clipping distortion occurs. 0 dBFS in your setup corresponds to a voltage level, higher or lower than another setup, depending on the signal capacity of your converter. This is where engineers get lost in confusion, because they think 0 dBFS is a fixed absolute value and it's not, it's at the headroom capacity of your converter, that's all. When they move the faders on the input tracks, how the audio reacts to that is totally depending on their converter, they might have a low voltage setup, so that when they move the faders, nothing happens so they need to move them much more, hence the dynamic range loss. In a high voltage setup, that's not the case, they can move the faders less, because each step change at those levels impacts on the voltage level much more. Why, because the voltage curve is cumulative, it accelerates so that each step increase gives a bigger voltage increase. Working on a 2 volts setup is not going to sound the same in the end as working on a 22 volts setup and especially not when most of the time the 22 volts setups are also combined with a great monitoring process. The whole debate of having enough headroom at 32 bit float, is a distraction. What you want to ensure is that you have enough headroom in your hardware, so that you do not have to narrow down your productions to almost nothing in order to get a decent sound out of it. The reason why this is news to you, is because it is kind of a business secret, many sell an awful lot of music just because they are using high headroom gear, many don't even know why they end up with the result they do they simply were a bit lucky when they bought their gear, but many times also custom built that way for those who understand how it works. Having a really nice bounce can make even rather poor productions sound nice, especially today when people are using so weak stuff to reproduce the music, anything with dynamic range and perceived loudness will sound great enough to sell, almost...

So yeah, when somebody tells you to record towards say -12 dBFS, it really means nothing, or what it means is that this person gives you a voltage recommendation that he/she is not even aware of and gives you intructions of how to dial in that same voltage so that when you do the same it might just give you a totally different voltage meter reading, and hence what that person tried to make you achieve was never even possible.

Become aware of this stuff, it's incredibly essential in audio engineering.

 

[mitchiemasha]

Songs can be louder or quieter but if a master doesn't hit 0db your wasting signal space and dynamic range. Loudness is a perception heavily associated with time. A quieter song will hit 0 at some point but just not as often as say a loud song.

If a song was mastered to -20 as the peak, the listener would simply turn up the amplifier, increasing the noise floor.

Not mastering to 0 is like an artist with a large canvas but only painting a tiny picture.

 

[rhythmgj]

While it's true that there is an element of "relativity" involved (equipment and converters matter) and also that some people (I believe erroneously) push for hot mixing in digital formats as a means to "use all the bits," I have to say that we have a winner with Adrian-MarQ's answer... Pro mastering engineers are begging you to record decent signal, but to leave them some headroom to work with. If you try to make things too loud on your own, you are working against your mastering engineer.

It's better for you to actually treat 0dBfs as a fixed point, and calibrate all of the meters on your equipment with test tones to make your metering actually meaningful in your personal situation (with your gear). When meters are calibrated, they actually represent meaningful data that can be useful to you (rather than just random movement of needles and lights).

GJ

 

[SimonT]

So from what you're all saying, it's probably best to record my songs to a master output signal of -6dBfs (to give the Mastering Engineer headroom) and then after mixdown (whilst mastering) you bring this level up to 0db then?

So why does the Mastering Engineer need this headroom, for what purpose? seeing as he's just going to maximize it to 0db anyway?

 

[rhythmgj]

The short answer is "He/She is the mastering engineer." You are paying them to make those decisions. If you want a loud/maximized mix (not the only job of the mastering engineer by any stretch), you need to leave them something to work with.

"I want to have my car painted red, by a professional auto body artist. I think I'll pre-paint it 'super maroon red' first, then take my car over to the garage!" Doesn't make sense, does it? Then you might as well do it yourself (and expect the results that will accompany your level of experience and expertise!) But if you are using an ME, you have chosen them for their sound and experience (hopefully not on price alone), and they can't make your mixes any louder (or do much at all) when they are already balls-to-the-wall volume limited...

GJ

 

[DarkRed]

So from what you're all saying, it's probably best to record my songs to a master output signal of -6dBfs (to give the Mastering Engineer headroom) and then after mixdown (whilst mastering) you bring this level up to 0db then?

So why does the Mastering Engineer need this headroom, for what purpose? seeing as he's just going to maximize it to 0db anyway?

No, in fact it's not. The only thing you need to ensure is that it does not clip, not even the inter sample peaks may clip. Because if you overdrive it in mixing, you are really doing mastering work at that point and that's the boundary condition between mixing and mastering. That's your only focus, beyond that you should use every tiny bit of headroom you have available (everywhere in the music creation process), so that your mix balance will be as little off as possible. If you leave 6 dBFS of headroom in the mix, that will likely be a really big challenge for the mastering engineer because your converter is likely not top notch, so it means that in his mastering room it will sound very weak and unbalanced to begin with, unless of course the mastering engineer has equally poor gear as you, then both of you are working towards poor final quality. But if he has better gear than you, and he should have, then if I were to receive that material I would send it back to you and ask you to make it use the full dynamic headroom and make it sound very finished at mixing, but not dynamically pushed to its death. So I would prefer it closer to -10 LUFS than -7 LUFS in the chorus, so that I can during mastering increase it to whatever level that particular production can be at. (the sweet spot of that particular production)

In my opinion, masters can with the right gear and skills, be greater sounding all the way up to -6.2 LUFS, even when a few of the sound sources are sampled, after that most mixes start to break down. Most pro mixing engineers out there use outboard brickwall peak limiters during the post mixing process, to ensure the mix can be handed over to the mastering engineer as close to the final sound as possible. This serves the purpose of letting the mix dictate the dynamic characteristics, what it can and should be at least when it is done. It also serves the purpose of allowing the mixing engineer to remove the gap that otherwise might exist between mixing and mastering, that potentially might allow the mix to become negatively altered during the mastering process. Simply put, gaining impacts the mix balance. The mastering engineer then processes those dynamic ideas and fine tunes those at mastering so that they are perfect on all playback volume levels and systems. His work is also to do the final pushing of it to its power and loudness sweet spot, now overdrive is allowed. His work is not to take the mix apart in order to get the right dynamic ranges on the various sound sources prior to gaining. Many do so, but it should be done in mixing.

Think of the mastering engineer as the provider of a mix insurance service. It's the mastering engineer's main responsibility to determine whether the mix is ready to be mastered or not. Because with his/her gear and skills he/she has within the music creation process the right conditions to do so. He/she can instantly tell how the mix will come across, similarly to a mixing engineer that can tell how a mix will end up based on a particular production and recording. So, when you hand over the content for mastering, he/she might ask you what type of gear you used, why you left so much unused dynamic range in the content and stuff like that. And that's good, that's what mastering engineers are for...

 

[rhythmgj]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the headroom vs. limiting/dynamic range vs. loudness controversy, DR. I'm just going by what I've been told and have read by pro ME's from Boston, Nashville, and Detroit/LA, etc. Folks that have worked on major releases (Country legends to Britney Spears), classic LP's (Motown), and scads of independent records. If I'm reading you correctly, what you are describing sounds a lot like the theory that created the "Loudness Wars" in the first place (which folks are thankfully trying to back-off from). They are literally begging producers and engineers to leave them some headroom and dynamic range, rather than brick-walling everything before it goes to mastering.

But of course, there's lots of approaches and opinions, so you should do what works for you and your chosen ME...

GJ

 

[DarkRed]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the headroom vs. limiting/dynamic range vs. loudness controversy, DR. I'm just going by what I've been told and have read by pro ME's from Boston, Nashville, and Detroit/LA, etc. Folks that have worked on major releases (Country legends to Britney Spears), classic LP's (Motown), and scads of independent records. If I'm reading you correctly, what you are describing sounds a lot like the theory that created the "Loudness Wars" in the first place (which folks are thankfully trying to back-off from). They are literally begging producers and engineers to leave them some headroom and dynamic range, rather than brick-walling everything before it goes to mastering.

But of course, there's lots of approaches and opinions, so you should do what works for you and your chosen ME...

GJ

Hmm... Loudness is kind of like compression to me. There is no such thing as too much of it, only good and bad. Almost. Personally I'm no fan of loudness, because it takes great engineers with great gear to handle it, so therefore it has had a certain damage on music. But I do find that music should not only sound great at loud volume but also at very low volume, it takes great mastering engineers to make it to the top with mixes partly due to that mix quality. IMHO the mixing engineer should not allow the mastering engineer to completely change the gain structure, because that's a different mix. The sooner in the process things are made right, the better. But yeah, a great arrangement in the hands of the right people and gear can thanks to the power and loudness properties sound awesome I must admit... Or let's put it this way. I know lots of mixes that lack those properties and sound like ass.