Using modern digital systems, raising low recording levels at the post-processing stage is child's play.Įach production facility or standardization body independently defines a level range as headroom below full-scale level. Even recordings made at a level far below the allowable maximum are not at risk of getting too close to the noise floor. Moreover, this approach presents virtually no drawbacks because modern devices usually have an extensive dynamic range. Therefore, appropriate headroom is a must, in particular, with digital systems. Recorded digital clipping can be fixed afterward only using disproportionate post-processing efforts - if at all. Even an upstream limiter will normally not prevent excessive levels that usually result in extremely unpleasant distortion. Unlike analog recording media, digital systems do not have a smooth transition to clipping. It is obvious what will happen: The first loud clearing of the throat will result in considerable clipping. Right before the recording starts, he quickly checks the recording level and adjusts it with that goal in mind. Let's consider a sample scenario: An audio engineer prepares for an interview. Unfortunately, many producers seek to achieve a similar level near the full-scale threshold already during the recording phase. Modern CDs are purposefully mastered in this way to achieve the highest possible loudness and thus the highest possible attention for the program in question. In fact, the task at hand is quite simple: A standardized digital dBFS-scaled peak meter (PPM) is needed to meet professional requirements.įor example, when examining the level of any commercially available pop-music CD on the digital domain, it almost constantly remains near the digital full-scale level. The same is true for digital audio, although there is a clearly and uniquely defined unit: dBFS (decibels relative to full scale). Unfortunately, only a few of these meters meet professional demands and standards, and are therefore capable of delivering comparable and reliable results. The first stumbling block, in particular, for a professional user who might not exclusively - and not even mainly - have to handle audio is the actual recording to a tape, hard-disk or solid-state medium: All audio devices used in practice have some kind of meter - be it a pointer or bar graph instrument or a GUI element on a PC. In this context, it can be assumed that we mostly deal with digital audio today. The signal level does not only need to be adapted to the technical conditions of the transmission network at the latest, when exchanging programs with other studios or broadcasters over links or recording media, adhering to agreed standard levels as well having internationally different standards becomes critical. At the same time, level meters reveal too-low levels, which make optimum use of the dynamic range between the noise floor and the clipping threshold difficult. A level meter is needed, for example, for visualizing clipping on recorders or transmission lines, or in signal processing. In professional audio, the type of visual display required most often is the level meter used for examining signal levels today, this component is found on every mixing console and countless peripherals and recording devices. Ideally, those units allow for quick and intuitive interpretation of what is being viewed and fast reaction as necessary however, this requires an understanding of at least the most critical technical interrelations and the basics, as well as a reasonable configuration of the available instruments. In the pro audio market, there is an extensive range of specialized tools for any type of audio-signal monitoring - from simple peak meters to highly sophisticated surround analyzers. This is particularly true for complex 5.1 surround mixing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |