M-10 levels......

[aaronji]

I think those posts you linked support both our positions, actually.  DSatz makes the position that -12 or whatever is useless when there is no risk of going higher.  That makes sense, but in my experience there usually is a risk of going higher, and it has happened to me many, many times like the example from last night I mentioned above.  When I set levels, I don't know for sure if the levels are going to peak higher, and in practice they often do.  I suppose if I really know for sure what the highest level will be then I can safely go higher, but I very rarely have the opportunity for that kind of controlled sound check, and I've been burned too many times.

EDIT: Also, if you read through the entire threads you linked, there seems to be quite a bit of support for recording with a bit more headroom because of the unpredictability of live music recording.

My "position", as clearly stated in my first post in this thread, is, "Personally, I think -12 dB as a target is a bit too low, but whatever makes you comfortable and doesn't compromise the quality..."  Not a particularly bold statement, I think, and one shared by several other posters.  If you want to target -12, go for it.  Personally, I think there is no need to leave headroom in the expectation that sound pressure levels will quadruple.  And, again personally, I think that my recordings sound better when I run them hotter.  Maybe that has something to do with the gain from my pre compared to my software, or low-level signals, or maybe it's all in my imagination.  No matter, really, if I prefer it, then that's how I will do it...

If you read DSatz's posts as supporting a -12 dB target, I suggest you re-read this one.

As a long-time audio professional I'm appalled at the number of people on this forum who advocate peak recorded levels of -12 dB or even lower. Peaks on digital recordings should go as high as possible without quite reaching 0 dB. If you're not sure you can judge the maximum sound levels that will occur, you might choose to aim initially for peaks at (say) -6 dB on the theory that louder moments might occur after that. But if so, the point is still to get peak levels of at least -6 dB and hopefully somewhat higher.

Or if you have a recorder whose meters aren't peak-responding (examples: the old Sony portable DAT recorders TCD-D7 and -D8), then sure, compensate by aiming for lower maximum levels (about -4 or -5 dB for those Sony models)--but again the point is that if you get -4 or -5 dB maximum levels on those crummy meters, without triggering the "PEAK" indicators, you very likely were recording peaks of about -1 dB in reality, which is damn near perfect.

Even in cases of great uncertainty, if your only way of being sure not to hit 0 dB is to aim for -12 instead, then let's please not deceive ourselves or one another; that's a tactic, and the real hope is still to get the highest possible maximum levels below 0 dB as the result of that tactic.

A recording that actually peaks at -12 dB isn't better than one that peaks at, say, -3 or -2 dB. There's no virtue or advantage in maintaining substantial headroom and never using it. Then it's not headroom any more, but wasted dynamic range. Headroom is useful only if it's a potentially available part of the dynamic range, i.e. if there's at least some chance of using some of it sometimes.

--best regards

[MakersMarc]

I'm going to take some shit for this, but I always run pretty hot, I aim for consistent -6 and don't mind banging -2 and an occasional peak soft zero. I feel that what you don't capture live is left behind, and artificially boosting levels doesn't restore that dynamic range. Yes it takes some vigilance but it's worth it IMO.

[voltronic]

I think those posts you linked support both our positions, actually.  DSatz makes the position that -12 or whatever is useless when there is no risk of going higher.  That makes sense, but in my experience there usually is a risk of going higher, and it has happened to me many, many times like the example from last night I mentioned above.  When I set levels, I don't know for sure if the levels are going to peak higher, and in practice they often do.  I suppose if I really know for sure what the highest level will be then I can safely go higher, but I very rarely have the opportunity for that kind of controlled sound check, and I've been burned too many times.

EDIT: Also, if you read through the entire threads you linked, there seems to be quite a bit of support for recording with a bit more headroom because of the unpredictability of live music recording.

My "position", as clearly stated in my first post in this thread, is, "Personally, I think -12 dB as a target is a bit too low, but whatever makes you comfortable and doesn't compromise the quality..."  Not a particularly bold statement, I think, and one shared by several other posters.  If you want to target -12, go for it.  Personally, I think there is no need to leave headroom in the expectation that sound pressure levels will quadruple.  And, again personally, I think that my recordings sound better when I run them hotter.  Maybe that has something to do with the gain from my pre compared to my software, or low-level signals, or maybe it's all in my imagination.  No matter, really, if I prefer it, then that's how I will do it...

If you read DSatz's posts as supporting a -12 dB target, I suggest you re-read this one.

As a long-time audio professional I'm appalled at the number of people on this forum who advocate peak recorded levels of -12 dB or even lower. Peaks on digital recordings should go as high as possible without quite reaching 0 dB. If you're not sure you can judge the maximum sound levels that will occur, you might choose to aim initially for peaks at (say) -6 dB on the theory that louder moments might occur after that. But if so, the point is still to get peak levels of at least -6 dB and hopefully somewhat higher.

Or if you have a recorder whose meters aren't peak-responding (examples: the old Sony portable DAT recorders TCD-D7 and -D8), then sure, compensate by aiming for lower maximum levels (about -4 or -5 dB for those Sony models)--but again the point is that if you get -4 or -5 dB maximum levels on those crummy meters, without triggering the "PEAK" indicators, you very likely were recording peaks of about -1 dB in reality, which is damn near perfect.

Even in cases of great uncertainty, if your only way of being sure not to hit 0 dB is to aim for -12 instead, then let's please not deceive ourselves or one another; that's a tactic, and the real hope is still to get the highest possible maximum levels below 0 dB as the result of that tactic.

A recording that actually peaks at -12 dB isn't better than one that peaks at, say, -3 or -2 dB. There's no virtue or advantage in maintaining substantial headroom and never using it. Then it's not headroom any more, but wasted dynamic range. Headroom is useful only if it's a potentially available part of the dynamic range, i.e. if there's at least some chance of using some of it sometimes.

--best regards

I was speaking more about the threads overall where those posts come from, but yes, I definitely read the one you're quoting here.  See highlighted portion.  That's exactly my strategy, and it has worked out well for me, ensuring I'm not getting any clipping.

Again I go back to the recording I made last night: If I had set my level higher, I would have been at or near clipping in some places.  Setting the level a safe bit lower is the only thing that prevented that from happening, period.  It doesn't matter if you think that -12 level is arbitrary or too "safe"; it's quite simply what works for the situations I'm recording in.

[aaronji]

^ You're tilting at windmills.  I could care less at what levels people choose to record, and said as much.  Twice.

For the vast majority of taping situations, however, there will not be the sudden quadrupling of levels implied by needing 12 dB headroom.  If you encounter them, then, by all means, aim for -12 dB.  To each his own.

[dabbler]

Keep in mind the M10 does not even have 16 bits of dynamic range (96dB).  From reading other posts and specs here (sorry, didn't bookmark), using 24-bits on the M10 does increase dynamic range over the 16-bit mode, but the dynamic range of the unit still remains below 90dB.
As far as I know, the D-100 is the only handheld recorder that has over 16-bits of dynamic range at 100dB.

I try to run closer to -6dBFS, but it won't help if you're recording most amplified music.
Running hotter has benefits when I'm close enough to pick up stuff that isn't mic-ed for the PA: chatter between members, foot tapping, etc.  It also helps when playing directly off the M10 on the ride home without extra amplification; or if I have to record an acoustic show immediately after an electric set...

Here's an anecdote from a less-experienced version of me:

  I once recorded a band play an electric set from the front row at -9 dBFS (not bad); but that same night (at 1am) they played an acoustic show at a record store where I peaked at -28.9 dBFS (from crowd noise) with the same settings   Obviously I should've cranked the levels before the acoustic set, but I was tired and also in super-excited fanboy mode; so not exactly thinking about levels at the time :x

  If I had been able to dial in to -3dBFS for the electric set, I would have an acoustic set 22.9 dBFS which would be significantly less noisy than my 28.9 dBFS recording while I, the taper, could still remain in tired-super-excited-forgot-to-change-levels-fanboy-mode

Fwiw, normally when I listen to music, I probably wouldn't be able to tell beyond 12-bits of dynamic range (72dB) from 16 bits (96dB) because I don't listen super-loudly, and my listening environment has a 20-30dB background noise.

[Cheesecadet]

I'm going to take some shit for this, but I always run pretty hot, I aim for consistent -6 and don't mind banging -2 and an occasional peak soft zero. I feel that what you don't capture live is left behind, and artificially boosting levels doesn't restore that dynamic range. Yes it takes some vigilance but it's worth it IMO.

I do the same. Recordings that hover around -12 for the peaks for me doesn't cut it.  Volume is too low and I feel like I miss the "punchy-ness" of the drums and bass when recording that low. YMMV

[bombdiggity]

If you want to target -12, go for it.  Personally, I think there is no need to leave headroom in the expectation that sound pressure levels will quadruple. 

I think there is some fallacy in the math but I haven't studied this enough.  I've got piles of evidence that sets recorded at a peak of mostly -12 or lower can still have multiple points that approach or hit 0 db.

I think it all depends on what and where you record. 

A loud amplified band from mid to back of a large room will be a fairly even wash and the peak level read will be pretty consistent.  Unamplified music is far more diverse.  Recording close adds another highly variable dynamic.  The mics are also a factor... 

All that said I usually try to record at levels as high as I can without hitting 0.  I can live with an occasional transient redlining as that's not really perceptible, especially with a little Izotope clip repair if it actually clipped.  I'd rather save myself the effort but have found I'm more willing to spend an extra few minutes of that editing than to record at what I consider excessively low levels (also as an editing tactic it makes sense and a better listen to duck those couple of major transients to achieve a higher overall output than to set final levels to preserve those couple of spikes).  Often it's applause or a drum shot that drives the level.  I don't like to set the levels to not clip the applause then have all the musical content 10dB lower than it needs to be (assuming the crowd doesn't loudly applaud during the songs). 

Consistent brickwalling is of course a major problem to be studiously avoided. 

On the M-10 I'm usually occasionally (but not regularly) blinking the green light but still often have transient peaks that may blink the red.  OTOH I've recorded some rock shows even up close where I've had the green light essentially continuously lit but never a red.  If the band plays loud nearly all the way it is very easy to narrow the margin. 

I'm not a fan of hovering over the meters or continually adjusting during the performance.  That does impact the accuracy of the document and the real dynamic range.  I'm willing to smooth obvious things out in post but don't necessarily think smoothing it all out on the fly is the best approach.  It is detrimental to my personal experience of the show and can be distracting to the crowd, crew and especially the band if you're near or on stage (so a big no-no there). 

As a long-time audio professional I'm appalled at the number of people on this forum who advocate peak recorded levels of -12 dB or even lower. Peaks on digital recordings should go as high as possible without quite reaching 0 dB. If you're not sure you can judge the maximum sound levels that will occur, you might choose to aim initially for peaks at (say) -6 dB on the theory that louder moments might occur after that. But if so, the point is still to get peak levels of at least -6 dB and hopefully somewhat higher.

^ My goal. 

It's an art, not a science.  If we could reliably predict the outcome we wouldn't need to discuss the strategies. 

The amount of safety margin will vary a lot based on factors above, and others.  I think the best course is not to continually overestimate the required margin, but others may feel more conservative. 

In practice I've found the noise floor that matters is the mics.  You'll have more noise from the mics and ambient atmosphere at the show than you'll ever introduce from a decent recorder/pre-amp (as long as they're not driven beyond their capacity).  The inherent noise in really quiet material is from the room and the mics.  Recorded at -2 or -20 really quiet material will still be a little noisy when the editing is done.  Loud music will never be noisy unless subpar equipment is involved. 

As to setting levels during soundcheck that is never an accurate gauge.  I learned quickly on the R-44 that whatever I thought a safe margin from a soundcheck needed to be reduced one full clickstop (and often two) for a performance with audience (so 6 to 12 db lower as it measures). 

[aaronji]

I think there is some fallacy in the math but I haven't studied this enough. 

Well, I would never underestimate my ability to make a math error, but this one is pretty simple.  A doubling in sound pressure level (or voltage coming out of your mic, if you prefer) is a 6 dB increase.  Two doublings is a quadrupling...

[voltronic]

If you want to target -12, go for it.  Personally, I think there is no need to leave headroom in the expectation that sound pressure levels will quadruple. 

I think there is some fallacy in the math but I haven't studied this enough.  I've got piles of evidence that sets recorded at a peak of mostly -12 or lower can still have multiple points that approach or hit 0 db.

The math is correct and I'd agree with you for average SPL, but you need to consider that the transient peaks could easily quadruple your SPLs, even if only momentarily. 

I think it all depends on what and where you record. 

A loud amplified band from mid to back of a large room will be a fairly even wash and the peak level read will be pretty consistent.  Unamplified music is far more diverse.  Recording close adds another highly variable dynamic.  The mics are also a factor... 

Exactly.  Here's a link to the marching band samples I mentioned earlier - all clips have about a 15dB dynamic range.
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=169429.msg2164348#msg2164348

[aaronji]

The math is correct and I'd agree with you for average SPL, but you need to consider that the transient peaks could easily quadruple your SPLs, even if only momentarily. 

Not really.  If you are setting it so peak levels are -12 dB, which are, well, the peaks, it is unlikely that you exceed those peaks by a factor of four.  You don't set your gain for average SPL...

[voltronic]

The math is correct and I'd agree with you for average SPL, but you need to consider that the transient peaks could easily quadruple your SPLs, even if only momentarily. 

Not really.  If you are setting it so peak levels are -12 dB, which are, well, the peaks, it is unlikely that you exceed those peaks by a factor of four.  You don't set your gain for average SPL...

The problem is that average SPL is really hard to judge for acoustic music with a very wide dynamic range unless you're working under relatively controlled circumstances, unlike the concert taper.  My experience has been that when I set peak levels to -12, I can often get peaks later on that are -6 or higher.  Frequently this is with forceful bass drum hits that just weren't happening when I was able to set levels.  Am I doing a poor job setting levels?  I don't think I am - it's just that I sometimes need to set levels with one group, and then use that setting for who I'm really there to record.  Being conservative with my levels makes sure I never have clipping.

[aaronji]

The problem is that average SPL is really hard to judge for acoustic music with a very wide dynamic range unless you're working under relatively controlled circumstances, unlike the concert taper.  My experience has been that when I set peak levels to -12, I can often get peaks later on that are -6 or higher.  Frequently this is with forceful bass drum hits that just weren't happening when I was able to set levels.  Am I doing a poor job setting levels?  I don't think I am - it's just that I sometimes need to set levels with one group, and then use that setting for who I'm really there to record.  Being conservative with my levels makes sure I never have clipping.

I feel like a broken record, but use whatever margin makes you happy... 

For reference, though, I record a lot of music with very wide dynamic range.  From a wooden stick tip rubbed over a damped cymbal, or an Ethan Iverson pianissimo solo, to DAVE FREAKIN' KING.  I very rarely need 12 dB (or even 6 dB) of headroom because I am familiar with the music/performers/venues.  Additionally, for a super fast impulse or two, clipping is easily reparable with no audible impact.

[bombdiggity]

I feel like a broken record, but use whatever margin makes you happy... 

For reference, though, I record a lot of music with very wide dynamic range.  From a wooden stick tip rubbed over a damped cymbal, or an Ethan Iverson pianissimo solo, to DAVE FREAKIN' KING.  I very rarely need 12 dB (or even 6 dB) of headroom because I am familiar with the music/performers/venues.  Additionally, for a super fast impulse or two, clipping is easily reparable with no audible impact.

I think the last exchange summarizes the two most feasible approaches:

1) Attempt to never have a clipped transient OR
2) Attempt not to clip but also not worry about risking an occasional repairable clipped transient

I too land in camp 2. 

The rest is where music/performers/venues/experience comes in... 

[voltronic]

I feel like a broken record, but use whatever margin makes you happy... 

For reference, though, I record a lot of music with very wide dynamic range.  From a wooden stick tip rubbed over a damped cymbal, or an Ethan Iverson pianissimo solo, to DAVE FREAKIN' KING.  I very rarely need 12 dB (or even 6 dB) of headroom because I am familiar with the music/performers/venues.  Additionally, for a super fast impulse or two, clipping is easily reparable with no audible impact.

I think the last exchange summarizes the two most feasible approaches:

1) Attempt to never have a clipped transient OR
2) Attempt not to clip but also not worry about risking an occasional repairable clipped transient

I too land in camp 2. 

The rest is where music/performers/venues/experience comes in...

Yeah, I guess it just depends on what your preferences are.  I fully admit that my approach means I'm probably spending more time in post adjusting levels with de-clicking and/or limiting to knock down applause or audience noises and then amplifying, but I'd rather do that then repair clips.  To each his own, I suppose.

[aaronji]

I think the last exchange summarizes the two most feasible approaches:

1) Attempt to never have a clipped transient OR
2) Attempt not to clip but also not worry about risking an occasional repairable clipped transient

I too land in camp 2. 

The rest is where music/performers/venues/experience comes in...

Yes, option two.  Personally, I don't worry about applause, which is often much louder than the music at shows I see, at all.  If it goes over, so be it.  It's more important to have good levels on the music.  Once I remove applause from the equation, it's pretty easy to avoid having any of the music go over.  Maybe a banging rimshot every once in a while, but that doesn't concern me much either...

As for workload in post, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.  As I mentioned, though, I think a recording made at proper levels sounds better than one amplified considerably in the DAW.  Could be that I prefer the gain from my pre, or that low-level detail is better preserved, or maybe it's just in my head. It really doesn't matter; since I perceive a difference, I will continue to set my gain accordingly.