Louder tracks?

FSTZ1 · Post by **FSTZ1** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:34 pm

great topic

I really struggle in this department as well

for me I see the solution being...

sub grouping and then compression on the sub groups

comp on the master as well

legend4ry · Post by **legend4ry** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:42 pm

I have started building with a multiband (Fretblaster 2.2 on reaktor on a setting ive made myself) on the master, build like its not on there and get the tune peaking at -6, then bounce then just amplify on audacity by +5.5 .. it usually works.. I could be doing it all wrong but my tunes seem to be pretty loud ...

If they're being released I take everything off the master and then turn up the master fader so its peaking at -8 then give to the ME.

I do tell you GK - come to my yard and we'll get your tracks loud but do you come, noooooooooo

lowpass · Post by **lowpass** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:57 pm

Paradigm X wrote: give me an example of a decent tune with digital clipping on the master. the new metallica album is a prime example, digital clipping all over it, even the 45 year old half deaf metal heads (:6:) could tell it sounds shite.

sorry dude, did say no offence, but there are much better ways of getting loudness than digital clipping, and TBH cant think of a worse one at the mo.

peace.

It was compressed to within an inch of its life too, I didn't know about the clipping until I read that, somebody really fucked up on that album

beerz · Post by **beerz** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:28 pm

i juss mix down to about -3dB (max peak) and in soundforge i use the wave editor threshoold at like 2.5 n turn up gain like 3/4 db's. keep an eye on the level meter obv..

martello · Post by **martello** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:54 pm

Lowpass wrote:
Paradigm X wrote: give me an example of a decent tune with digital clipping on the master. the new metallica album is a prime example, digital clipping all over it, even the 45 year old half deaf metal heads (:6:) could tell it sounds shite.

sorry dude, did say no offence, but there are much better ways of getting loudness than digital clipping, and TBH cant think of a worse one at the mo.

peace.
It was compressed to within an inch of its life too, I didn't know about the clipping until I read that, somebody really fucked up on that album

There is a good topic about Metallica's album in SOS forum. Some exclusive thoughts and information about how it was mixed and mastered. This clipping is horrible. Maybe you cant hear it at once, but after longer listening you feel your ears are hurting. Not sure, but there is probably different mastering versions also - radio version, album, ipod etc....

But as to the loudness - I have no idea how to achieve it. My tracks also sound very....homemade. Well, they are homemade:)

I can only suppose how to achieve it and tell what I do. Following this is not probably a good idea - I always try first to use good samples, so that they fit together. They have to have "potential" - if they don't have enough pounch or certain freqs, or sound thin then hard boosting does not solve the problem. Listen every channel, EQ every channel, avoid clashing, clipping, interfering, choose your levels carefully. Think what you leave mono, what you pan left/right, what in center, think about stereo panorama. Use groups, compress them. Check analyzer to detect unwanted peaks. Just listen, be critical. Before you do anything - think why. But in the same time - experiment. If you just think ouch, I have to add compressor to my kick because everybody do but it still does not affect the sound, then leave it, or choose another sample. Layer stuff. Less is more. A/B your tracks. Choose correct arrangement.

Random tips and thoughts

paradigm_x · Post by **paradigm_x** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:23 am

alvin18 wrote:I can only suppose how to achieve it and tell what I do. Following this is not probably a good idea - I always try first to use good samples, so that they fit together. They have to have "potential" - if they don't have enough pounch or certain freqs, or sound thin then hard boosting does not solve the problem. Listen every channel, EQ every channel, avoid clashing, clipping, interfering, choose your levels carefully. Think what you leave mono, what you pan left/right, what in center, think about stereo panorama. Use groups, compress them. Check analyzer to detect unwanted peaks. Just listen, be critical. Before you do anything - think why. But in the same time - experiment. If you just think ouch, I have to add compressor to my kick because everybody do but it still does not affect the sound, then leave it, or choose another sample. Layer stuff. Less is more. A/B your tracks. Choose correct arrangement.

Some good advice here.

macc · Post by **macc** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:36 pm

A note here on the compression thing...

While compression can be used for loudness sake, it's not the only means by which to achieve it. Compressing for vibe/tone/oomph and getting your tune's eq balance right will lead to loudness. Mashing shit with compression is fun and can sound great, but as soon as your doing things in the mix for the final loudness' sake, you're on a bit of a wrong'un. Ending up with a load of squished groups can rob the mix of punch and space, and that is a part of loudness perception.

Point is it is a matter of doing it so your drums (or whatever) sound fat and nice, and the other things all sound fat and nice, rather than doing it trying to make the tune sound loud. It's a subtle distinction, but worth making. If the elements of the mix are fat punchy and nice, and the mix is fat punchy and nice, the master can probably go loud AND good. If the mix is already squished-sounding, loud won’t be a problem but the punchy and nice bits might not be so easy.

nero - dan · Post by **nero - dan** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:07 pm

Its all pretty circumstantial, depending on what individual elements in your tune are saying. If all the individual tracks have been compressed and limited properly and you keep them well away from the red then it wont make too much difference how far into the red you push the master fader. If the mix of our tune is sounding good and we dont think we're going to need to put a limiter on the master channel we'll just pump it up to around +4-6db and send that out to peeps.

(i wrote something for people to try here earlier but realised i got it arse about face). Try mixing down a song with it peaking in the red by +4db or whatever you want. Then mix down the same song so its not touching the red -3db or whatever. Then put the +4db one back into your daw and turn it down until it sounds roughly the same volume as the -3db one. I really don't think you'll hear a difference.

I wouldnt recommend people mixdown in the red when sending it off for mastering, i'm purely talking about home masters for sending out to peeps here.

Also, getting a mixdown loud isnt just about volume, we analylize our frequencies a lot (especially drums) and having a lot of breathing space in the mix helps everything pump through nice and clearly. Analyzing a master is good as well, we look to get it flat accross the spectrum (especially in the mid-high ranges). We also use a lot of sidechain compression.

edi_x · Post by **edi_x** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:29 pm

try parallel compression on your master channel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_compression

(can't find any decent tutorials right now as at work)

A lot of people use it for solely drums but i find it can give your mix a good kick if you use it right, and the best thing about it is it doesn't effect the dynamic range as much as just sticking a compressor straight on your master channel.

Sharmaji · Post by **Sharmaji** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:54 pm

seconding macc's words on compression.

warning: extreme nerding ahead.

here's the thing: mixing is all about the POLITICS OF LOSS. you mix all these bits together and try to get each to be the best representation of itself so that it fits into the mix. its kind of like you've got all these boards and 2x4s, and by whittling them down, you build the screws and dovetails required to build a house out of them. via the arrangement and mix, you create a context for the sounds.

so basically, you create holes in the sounds in places that aren't that important. it's kind of like an I-beam; a solid rectangle of steel could do the same job, but an ibeam is more efficient since there's no extra steel getting in the way.

hi-passing shakers, low-passing synths, etc-- it's all an effort to remove (or just refocus) things that aren't important to the context... which in this case, is a song. get rid of the junk and your product is more efficient-- and in this case, efficient can mean louder, more present, and generally having more emotional and sonic impact.

so think about what you can get rid of. spikey transients that don't sound big can be compressed, sub in tracks that don't need it can be eq'd, all with the goal of leaving room to focus on something that matters.

gain structure, panning, relative level, plug-ins, etc-- they're all just tools to make those spaces and control focus. aside from the power station records, no one's ever listened to a tune and thought "wow, that parallel compression sounds great." but you definitely do notice a good mix where the sounds fit together perfectly, create varying degrees of fullness/space, tension/release, love/hate, etc.

make those holes and nuts and bolts out of your sounds, and the mix will be there.

didyouchattotheguy? · Post by **didyouchattotheguy?** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:58 pm

It takes considerably MORE juice to push a loud, distorted piece than it does a normal, dynamic piece. The "loudness war" taxes every piece in the chain in a negative way. It's bad for speakers, amplifiers, ears, etc...

Anyway, part of the problem to me is that people in general are thinking in terms of maximum playback volume as an indication of quality sound. What people seem to miss is that the experience of a "loud" moment in music is relative to the volume of every adjacent moment. 0dbFS is 0. There is nothing left to reach for in that direction. We only need to make good use of all of the dynamic range that comes before it.

rob sparx · Post by **rob sparx** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:47 am

I think people are missing the point when producers ask for advice about getting their tunes louder - some peoples mixes are actually ridiculously quiet (everyone has this problem when they start out) and until they learn to balance their frequencies better and use compression and limiting properly they will be unable to get their tunes to a similar level as the tunes they end up mixing their productions into unless they boost their sound which might overcook it horribly if the mix isn't right.

Just because someone asks how to get their mixes louder it doesn't mean they want to get them louder than everyone elses tunes it probably just means they want to get them to the same volume as their favourite producer so that they can mix the tunes into each other more convincingly.

BTW Macc if your about can you explain to me the benefits of mixing down at -3dBFS as opposed to -18dBFS the AES recommendation? It seems to me that many engineers have differing views on what level to mix down at. Some say doesn't matter as long as <0db some say -3db and some say -18db, is there actually any significant difference in these different approaches?

lowpass · Post by **lowpass** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:19 am

alvin18 wrote:
Lowpass wrote:
Paradigm X wrote: give me an example of a decent tune with digital clipping on the master. the new metallica album is a prime example, digital clipping all over it, even the 45 year old half deaf metal heads (:6:) could tell it sounds shite.

sorry dude, did say no offence, but there are much better ways of getting loudness than digital clipping, and TBH cant think of a worse one at the mo.

peace.
It was compressed to within an inch of its life too, I didn't know about the clipping until I read that, somebody really fucked up on that album
There is a good topic about Metallica's album in SOS forum. Some exclusive thoughts and information about how it was mixed and mastered. This clipping is horrible. Maybe you cant hear it at once, but after longer listening you feel your ears are hurting. Not sure, but there is probably different mastering versions also - radio version, album, ipod etc....

Random tips and thoughts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPu0DKyGgZI

I found this when I went over, pretty funny vid

macc · Post by **macc** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:07 pm

Rob Sparx wrote: BTW Macc if your about can you explain to me the benefits of mixing down at -3dBFS as opposed to -18dBFS the AES recommendation? It seems to me that many engineers have differing views on what level to mix down at. Some say doesn't matter as long as <0db some say -3db and some say -18db, is there actually any significant difference in these different approaches?

Isn't the -18dBFS a calibration (ie between digital and analogue) level,
rather than a suggested ITB/digital mixdown level? Not heard of anyone recommending that for ITB mixes...

Either way, at 24-bit it isn't a huge deal. Mixing down with peaks at -18 is rather low but would still mean you're using 21 bits, so still much better than 16 bit resolution. You need to be down at -48 to be equivalent to 16 bit.

The reason I say about -3 being a reasonable level (not cast iron!) as opposed to anywhere under 0dB is due to intersample peaks and analogue headroom. Naturally once you're over -6dBFS any differences are virtually nonexistent between say -2 or -3 peak sample values/levels - big fuckin deal. BUT there is the reconstructed analogue signal to consider.

A tune with a really resonant high hat or something could be clipping your DA almost without you knowing it, if mixed to -1dB. the sample dB values (which your DAW shows you) are not the same as the output/analogue signal values. Watching your outs with an oversampling meter will show you this. When it comes for me to feed the analogue chain, I don't really want it to be clipping before it even hits the first piece! Some ISPs can get to +3dB over 0dB, although that is rare.

So, I want some extra headroom, but still to make the most of the available resolution. Therefore somewhere between -6dB and -3dB is the ideal level to my mind. Of course, I can turn it down when I get it, but it's better to get things as they should be IMO, less messing about for me and for the signal.

Hope this makes sense!

rob sparx · Post by **rob sparx** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:08 pm

Macc wrote:
Rob Sparx wrote: BTW Macc if your about can you explain to me the benefits of mixing down at -3dBFS as opposed to -18dBFS the AES recommendation? It seems to me that many engineers have differing views on what level to mix down at. Some say doesn't matter as long as <0db some say -3db and some say -18db, is there actually any significant difference in these different approaches?
Isn't the -18dBFS a calibration (ie between digital and analogue) level,
rather than a suggested ITB/digital mixdown level? Not heard of anyone recommending that for ITB mixes...

Either way, at 24-bit it isn't a huge deal. Mixing down with peaks at -18 is rather low but would still mean you're using 21 bits, so still much better than 16 bit resolution. You need to be down at -48 to be equivalent to 16 bit.

The reason I say about -3 being a reasonable level (not cast iron!) as opposed to anywhere under 0dB is due to intersample peaks and analogue headroom. Naturally once you're over -6dBFS any differences are virtually nonexistent between say -2 or -3 peak sample values/levels - big fuckin deal. BUT there is the reconstructed analogue signal to consider.

A tune with a really resonant high hat or something could be clipping your DA almost without you knowing it, if mixed to -1dB. the sample dB values (which your DAW shows you) are not the same as the output/analogue signal values. Watching your outs with an oversampling meter will show you this. When it comes for me to feed the analogue chain, I don't really want it to be clipping before it even hits the first piece! Some ISPs can get to +3dB over 0dB, although that is rare.

So, I want some extra headroom, but still to make the most of the available resolution. Therefore somewhere between -6dB and -3dB is the ideal level to my mind. Of course, I can turn it down when I get it, but it's better to get things as they should be IMO, less messing about for me and for the signal.

Hope this makes sense!

Crystal clear mate! I'd read a bit about peaks not being detected but didn't have any idea what level to mix down at the avoid clipping, I'll mixdown at -6 to -3 from now on thats makes sense. I would also have thought that -18dbfs was a calibration level not a recommended mixdown level after reading a bit a about it but no, the guy who recommended this level was talking about digital mixdown level in your DAW! When I said the mastering engineers I use said that it makes little difference how far you go below 0db as long as the mix is good he said they were fobbing me off to make their life more simple as its not their job to tell me how to do a mixdown.

What your saying makes sense and is a lot more helpful than the arrogant and sarky comments I've been getting from experts on some forums! I think I pissed this guy off by trying to justify the way I work (working with clipping/software limiting then backing the volume down for the final premaster mixdown) which isn't how your supposed to do things but work for me for various reasons which he completely failed to understand.

(Edit) I actually misunderstood the advice he was giving me thats since been cleared up

macc · Post by **macc** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:18 pm

Rob Sparx wrote: Crystal clear mate! I'd read a bit about peaks not being detected but didn't have any idea what level to mix down at the avoid clipping, I'll mixdown at -6 to -3 from now on thats makes sense.

Yeah man, the very worst extreme cases I have seen go to +3, but there are specific (ie, highly unlikely to happen in real music) cases where they can go to +6 I believe. It's a natural consequence of 'joining the dots' via lowpass filtering for playback via a DAC.

I would also have thought that -18dbfs was a calibration level not a recommended mixdown level after reading a bit a about it but no, the guy who recommended this level was talking about digital mixdown level in your DAW!

Maybe he meant on an individiual track level? I can see more sense in that. That would give a reasonable result at the output...

When I said the mastering engineers I use said that it makes little difference how far you go below 0db as long as the mix is good he said they were fobbing me off to make their life more simple as its not their job to tell me how to do a mixdown.

But... helping you to do a better mixdown DOES make their life more simple. In fact, it makes everyone's life better

It's the main reason I am such a miserable fucking moaner on this forum

What your saying makes sense and is a lot more helpful than the arrogant and sarky comments I've been getting from so called experts on some forums! I think I pissed this guy off by trying to justify the way I work (working with clipping/software limiting then backing the volume down for the final premaster mixdown) which isn't how your supposed to do things but work for me for various reasons which he completely failed to understand.

I can see the merits of working the way you do - to see how your mix will stand up under pressure - though eventually you might find you don't need to, perhaps. Either way, when I get the chance to do a mix (almost never now

) I use the ridiculously-silly-bastard-compressor-as-mix-magnifying-glass thing a lot.

Anyway - glad to help, any time!

paradigm_x · Post by **paradigm_x** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:40 pm

Macc wrote:the ridiculously-silly-bastard-compressor-as-mix-magnifying-glass thing a lot

Qu'est-ce que c'est?

As in, wtf is that?

cheers

rob sparx · Post by **rob sparx** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:48 pm

Macc wrote: Maybe he meant on an individiual track level? I can see more sense in that. That would give a reasonable result at the output...

(EDIT) Actually spoke some more and there was a bit of confusion he actually was recommending -18db peaks on individual channels and a -18db average (RMS) on the master volume which makes more sense!

I'm glad you see logic of my way of working tho its a lot more important to drum n bass than dubstep altho I notice a lot of other producers coming over from DNB are pumping things very loud so its definately a usefull technique for the heaviest bangers.

The main reason for me working my way tho is for DJing my 'just playable' tunes - by writing them under pressure their volume easily matches mastered tunes which doesn't always happen when u whack a quiet premaster through a limiter. As im often writing my tunes with a limiter on the master volume from near the start of the tune (it does get taken off for the final mixdown) I tailor the mix to suit the character of the limiter which I find can work better then just whacking a premaster though a limiter after its been finished (sounds a bit squashed sometimes).

I think u are right though about not needing to always write tunes this way - as long as the mix is good (ie. everything filtered, EQ'd and compressed/limited properly) theres no reason why a tune shouldn't be able to get a good volume at the mastering stage. Mabeye next time I start a mellow tune ill only occassionally whack the gain up to briefly to check the mix copes under pressure. Thanks for your help mate!

Louder tracks?

Who is online