Setting levels in the real world.

Support and feedback for Acoustica's Mixcraft audio mixing software.

Moderators: Acoustica Greg, Acoustica Eric, Acoustica Dan, rsaintjohn

Post Reply
bigaquarium
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:21 am

Setting levels in the real world.

Post by bigaquarium »

Hi

So I am using the Waves Dorrough meter and MVM meter to set up my gain structure on stem projects for the Mixing with Mike class. I have an instance of panipulator on every track (mono files) set to mono and L+R -3db. I am setting the gain (using the mixer Gain knob) to either max at -18 VU or -6 Peak, whichever comes first. All of my tracks had to come down about 4-5db more than the examples in the class. A test tone shows that all of the meters are calibrated with each other.

After having structured the whole project, the Mixcraft master meter shows plenty of headroom, the Dorrough is right at 0dbfs, and the MVM shows about -10 VU.

I want to tear my hair out.

Any thoughts?
User avatar
Mark Bliss
Posts: 7313
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Out there

Re: Setting levels in the real world.

Post by Mark Bliss »

I think maybe in some ways the question is very specific but yet unclear?

I think I know what your getting at, but not sure.
I use different meters. Yes I know what Dorrough meter is and what it emulates. I am not sure what MVM is or what specifically you are doing with either.
I dont know what is being recommended/discussed in your specific 'Mixing with Mike' tutorial.
I am not sure what you are talking about using Panipulator. Collapsing to mono? Then what is the pan law setting doing?
And we have to be careful to specify standards when speaking metering.
And "mixing with stem projects" is unfortunately possible to interpret as different things, and I am not sure it is wholly relevant to the specific question?

Starting with recording levels/levels going into the inserts:
On your gain structure comments, you might want to reconsider -18dBfs peak.
Generally I set my input gain to something more like -18dBfs average. Which might explain your question, I am not sure.
This is a relative level to 0vu, which carries over from the analog past. We didnt usually target 0vu peak, we usually had the meter dancing around 0vu average.
And this is what SOME plug-ins are emulated or calibrated to respond to. It doesnt always matter. But it is what many recommend targeting.
Throwing the common "or -6dBfs peak" addition in there, IMO allows that some signals are simply too dynamic to work at -18dBfs average.

But... (disclaimer time) This all depends somewhat on genre and style and personal preference... And how much it matters varies depending on what specifically you are doing to the signal.
And again, not knowing what is being recommended in the specific 'Mixing with Mike' tutorial...

One thing to consider though, again IMO- is that developing a consistent practice is key to making templates and user presets most effective.

My current practice (very generalized) is to start with "taming" my individual recorded tracks. This may mean addressing excessively spiky transients, and/or evening out dynamics (where phrases or sections of a recording vary excessively) then setting my level going into the inserts.
Theres multiple ways to address this. Automated gain levels, compressors, limiters, transient shapers, etc.

If i'm looking at cumulative mix levels hitting a sub-mix or the master bus, and considering the level going into sub-mix or master bus inserts, I am again going to consider the same standards.
Solutions could be grouped fader adjustments, gain/trim plug-ins, compressors/limiters, etc. Again, I have my own ever evolving methods that may vary greatly from others recomendations. What works for me may be declared completely wrong by another user.

I have (usually) been targeting hitting the master bus at about -6dBfs (pre mastering mix), but will readily agree with those who suggest its not critical, as long as you arent clipping on mix down.

After saying all that, I will add this caveat.
I usually mix relatively sparse arrangements these days. Harder/heavier rock, metal, EDM etc would almost certainly require a different approach from mine.
I find for what I do, the lower levels described in the original question seem to be a superior way to go.

As I mentioned, consistency is a key component IMO.

Overall point is, IMO, use what works for you. And beware of tutorials that obsess over this when it may not really even apply to your specific needs.

And long story shortened, I've found that slightly lower levels consistently work better for me.
Focus on recording levels if recording. Loops/samples are typically already heavily processed and normalized too loud for mixing. Get your levels in the right range going into inserts and shoot for consistency so that you can create useful user presets and templates.

IMO. Etc. :lol:

Thats all I have for now... Sorry its so long. And sorry if I completely misunderstood the question. 8)
Stay in tune, Mark

My SOUNDCLOUD Page
bigaquarium
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:21 am

Re: Setting levels in the real world.

Post by bigaquarium »

Hi,

The parameters of the mixing exercises are pretty firmly set, so really it's just a technical question about how to reproduce the desired outcome and/or why the desired outcome is not being reproduced.

Michael White, the instructor, is using ProTools which, like a small handful of DAWs, has mono tracks. Mixcraft, like most DAWs, does not have mono tracks. He is also using the Dorrough Meter to read his peak energy, and either the Klanghelm or the Waves VU meter to read the RMS energy. In my case, I am using MVM meter in VU mode to do the same thing.

So yes, the stems are almost all mono, and I am using Panipulator to collapse the track to mono for monitoring purposes.

It has been said on this forum many times that audio is audio, no matter the DAW, so I just want to know why, with the same files, and the same meters, my levels are vastly different than his are?

Nathan
User avatar
Mark Bliss
Posts: 7313
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Out there

Re: Setting levels in the real world.

Post by Mark Bliss »

I am not sure Nathan, there are quite a few potential variables. As you pointed out, and as I have found- duplicating results between DAW's can be tricky. I too have wasted some hours trying to duplicate others results exactly. And I do recall at one point doing something similar to what you describe, and being a little frustrated that Mixcraft doesnt offer a method to vary the pan law.
My honest conclusion was that I was probably getting too technical. And I am very into the technical aspect, though I admit that it can distract from my end goal at getting better at mixing!
Bottom line, I am not sure... But its good to experiment and learn and your notes on this are interesting.

The one thing that keeps jumping out to me when I read your description is that pan law setting.
Maybe try testing with Panipulator set to -6 instead of -3?
And maybe insert a meter before and after Panipulator for comparative reference.

The common technical advice seems to be that -3 is the general desired compromise for mixing, but that in certain situations, (similar to what you are setting up), -6 is more accurate.
Let me know what you learn please?

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advi ... should-use

https://www.fullcompass.com/gearcast/5- ... nning-laws
Stay in tune, Mark

My SOUNDCLOUD Page
bigaquarium
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:21 am

Re: Setting levels in the real world.

Post by bigaquarium »

Will do. I arrived at the same conclusion as you did too, because on that project the Master bus was much hotter on the two plugin meters than on the built in meter which showed plenty of headroom, so I figured that's good enough!
Post Reply