Topic: Pros and Cons of Adding Volume in Post

[jdhriver]

I have generally taken the road of leaving my recordings alone except for the tracking.   Last night in messing around with Soundforge I ran the volume up on a recent recording...What are the pros and cons of doing this and what should I watch out for.   I generally run my recordings fairly low cause I suck with the meters on the JB3 and need a SVU and would rather have a quiet than clipped out recording......cause there is always the volume knob or volume in post......

Thanks for the help.  PEACE

JD

[svenkid]

back when I ran dat, for most all my transfers on the standalone, I bumped up the levels, because with dat, I always ran the levels low in analog recording to avoid clipping.

With the v3, I run the levels hot and usually dont need to boost levels in SF, but sometimes I do bc, Id rather change levels to the whol;e set/show rather than doing it during the show.

[T.J.]

back when I ran dat, for most all my transfers on the standalone, I bumped up the levels, because with dat, I always ran the levels low in analog recording to avoid clipping.

With the v3, I run the levels hot and usually dont need to boost levels in SF, but sometimes I do bc, Id rather change levels to the whol;e set/show rather than doing it during the show.

funny, i was just thinking/doing this the other night. i ran the V3 but and went to track out the show cdwave. the levels seemed  a little low. so, in wavlab i added 2db of gain. then when i pulled up the file in cdwave it looked about right. i had a total of 6 clipped sections according to cdwave, which i feel is okay.

i have heard it is best to change gain as opposed to normalize. i'm not sure if this is 100% true but do it b/c it doesn't seem to change much about the recording except boost lower levels. YMMV

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

Off the top of my head, I'd say the big disadvantage of boosting volume post is that you boost the entire spectrum (though, I'm sure you could tweak this with some programs).  By boosting the entire spectrum, you are increasing your floor noise:

You rig has a floor noise of -60dB, and you record with a max. of -16dB.  Later you boost the -16dB to 0.00dB, that also brings your floor noise up to -44dB...  Not a big deal on the loud sections, but on the quiet sections, you may hear a little more hiss than usual...

Of course, the main adavantage is that its louder...  But louder doesn't mean better sound...

Terry

[T.J.]

AS SURE AS YOU SAVE THE MASTERS...GO NUTS 

[OFOTD]

AS SURE AS YOU SAVE THE MASTERS...GO NUTS 

A friend on this board gave me a good suggestion regarding the volume.  Instructions are for SoundForge

First do a scan in the normalize oiption for the peak level.   I'll usually get somewhere between -6 and -4.   I do a seperate scan on each channel.  Write down the values and then go into the volume option and increase the negative values by the exact positive amount to get both channels peak level to 0.00 dB  So if I have a -4 on the right channel I will add +4 to it to bring it to 0

[cshepherd]

I recorded an acoustic tweener set at -18 db this summer.  I tried normalizing but scrapped it after a few seconds of listening.  The ambient information seemed completely out of whack.  I didn't like it at all.

Chris

[Digital Quality]

Pros:
  Makes it louder.

Cons:
  Doesn't increase dynamic range.
  Adds requantization errors. Requantization noise can be reduced via another round of dithering but it is still a problem.

[jdhriver]

Thanks. 

[terrapinj]

AS SURE AS YOU SAVE THE MASTERS...GO NUTS 

A friend on this board gave me a good suggestion regarding the volume.  Instructions are for SoundForge

First do a scan in the normalize oiption for the peak level.   I'll usually get somewhere between -6 and -4.   I do a seperate scan on each channel.  Write down the values and then go into the volume option and increase the negative values by the exact positive amount to get both channels peak level to 0.00 dB  So if I have a -4 on the right channel I will add +4 to it to bring it to 0

isn't this exactly what normalizing does? you can normalize each channel individually, which is nice if you didn't run your levels even, but i have found a clap or other noise in one channel will end up screwing up the balance of the levels when you normalize each one individually.

i think  the main concern is what terry addressed with bumping up the noise floor, which is why you want to run as hot as possible without clipping when doing 16bit. i normalize all my 24bit recordings prior to dither/resample since I run my levels much more conservatively, I have yet to discover any cons of doing so.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Proper gain changes are non-destructive and can be reversed. 

I rarely mess with the channel balance unless I was setup non-dfc.. And even then, I produce a number of different balance tweaked versions and evaluate them before messing with it.  I generally evaluate the RMS and peak levels of various sections to arrive at the amount of correction.

[terrapinj]

this is a great VST plugin that Teddy pointed out before. really great for getting an idea of how well the 2 channels are balanced

http://www.rogernicholsdigital.com/inspector.htm

[RebelRebel]

you are doing a good thing by running conservatively...keep up the good work.

FYI..check outthis post for some insight on level setting..

[manamana]

so here's something I've been thinking about. I've been out of the loop for a while now, so if this has been covered, I apologize.

One of the hardest situations I encountered in the 16 bit days was quiet acoustic shows with very loud, enthusiastic crowds (not that that's a bad thing). You'd have the music peaking at -18 or -20 on the DAT deck, and the crowd would still clip wretchedly right at the ends (and sometimes beginings) of songs. it's kind of unpleasant to listen to tapes like that.

so with 24 bit, obviously you get the added headroom, and can get the full range of the music and <most> of the crowd. but difference in levels is still quite unpleasant, and I've been thinking about what the best method of evening them out would be. I assume a normal compression pluggin would have an advers effect on the music as well. something like a "soft limit"  that would only effect those top 7 or 8 samples, though I imagine that may effect the music as well.  ideas? how do people engage this these days?

[RebelRebel]

difference in level, or dynamic range,,,is a good thing..but if you want it so you dont have to use your volume knob  use something like voxengo elephant or the waves L2 to even things out. Personally, I leave the dynamics intact..

so here's something I've been thinking about. I've been out of the loop for a while now, so if this has been covered, I apologize.

One of the hardest situations I encountered in the 16 bit days was quiet acoustic shows with very loud, enthusiastic crowds (not that that's a bad thing). You'd have the music peaking at -18 or -20 on the DAT deck, and the crowd would still clip wretchedly right at the ends (and sometimes beginings) of songs. it's kind of unpleasant to listen to tapes like that.

so with 24 bit, obviously you get the added headroom, and can get the full range of the music and <most> of the crowd. but difference in levels is still quite unpleasant, and I've been thinking about what the best method of evening them out would be. I assume a normal compression pluggin would have an advers effect on the music as well. something like a "soft limit"  that would only effect those top 7 or 8 samples, though I imagine that may effect the music as well.  ideas? how do people engage this these days?