hookey wrote:Hey sorry to reply to such old message but since u are still around I hope you can answer.
You are talking about your beat peaking at around -8/-10 db range, 6 TOPS. Im guessin this means you essentially leave all that headroom for the mastering engineer to work with and push it louder, doint it properly (we are on a dubstep forum and most people here like it loud after all, I do).
....
So my questions are:
1) How is it possible to master a track that is already peaking at 0db
2) Is it really worth making such quiet mixes when you are aiming for really loud dubstep/dnb type of music? (club music, were the quietest parts are around -3.5db, and the rest is straight 0db peaks). I mean, what do you gain for it? Wouldn't you get a more polished track if you threated every part of your track separately and peaking at around -3db tops, using limiters and whatever is needed individually on the beats/whatever, then let the engineer do minor tweaking? Shouldn't a loud mix be already loud? I mean I don't see a track like "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites" (to mention a really loud famous one) peaking at -8db before somehow the mastering engineer craking it to 0db retaining punchyness and nicely squashing it (squashing it in a way that sounds loud but nice and cool, like on SMANS or just any Skrillex track, not amateur-producer-waves-limiter-on-master-channel squashed, if you get what I mean). Wouldn't going from -8db peaking to real-club-loudness-0db banger somehow mud the mix and not even make it as loud as you wanted? I hope you get what im trying to explain. Maybe it's just feeling but I just don't see any those modern dubstep and dnb tracks being that quiet prior profesional mastering.
1 - You turn it down before starting work. See discussion later on.
2 - This is actually lots of questions
I'll try to answer it all, as it is very important. This may ramble a bit, so I apologise in advance. Also note that I'll use fairly extreme examples to make the point, but
I actually see mixes like mixdown B on a very regular basis. It also doesn't apply to perfect mixes, but I don't see too many of those, even from the more experienced/bigger producers I have worked with.
What you're asking is the key point behind the
entire thread. It's absolutely
imperative that you are able to distinguish between
powerful mixes and
loud mixes. The thing you're missing is that having room for sound to breathe actually allows a good mastering engineer to get a louder, cleaner result.
Key points: It is impossible to remove distortion, and it is extremely difficult to put back punch that has been already removed trying to make things loud.
So, say we have a mix. As you say, care has been taken on every individual channel, to balance the impact of a sound with the fullness, each sound has its own space, each sound has the right balance in itself and also in relation to everything else, the right amount of dynamic control without flattening, transients are well-controlled, but still there. Blah blah, you get the point. This mix peaks around -6dB. Let's call this Mixdown A.
Now we have the same mix, but pushed aggressively. Say clipped by 6-8dB, in an effort to make it as loud as [some other tune]. This is Mixdown B.
Both these two versions of the same mixdown go to mastering. Let's imagine that the engineer (for whatever reason, not important) likes to start with a mix sitting at about -6dB peak level.
Here's the problem: this otherwise good mix has 5dB too much sub at 40Hz.
Mixdown A: already peaks at about -6dB, doesn't have any massive out of control peaks but still has punch/snap/definition. No distortion overall, and no distortion or pumping when the bass hits. Because the bass isn't interacting directly with anything else, making the required 5dB cut in the bass gives you the same overall sound with less bass. Easy. Now a good limiter allows you to keep quite a lot of the punch, as it has already been well-controlled, and put the loudness where you need it. You will have some small amounts of distortion (predominantly intermodulation distortion, essentially inaudible with a good, correctly-set limiter). Overall the final sound remains extremely clean, with space and impact at a big loudness. Easy peasy.
Mixdown B: needs to come down by 6dB (probably a touch more to make it equal loudness). Once that is done, it is clear that compared to mixdown A there is significant distortion, with everything dropping out when the bass hits. It sounds flat, the drums don't snap/hit like drums do in mixdown A. Doing the same 5dB bass cut makes the overall spectral balance right, so far so good. The thing is, now when the bass plays the distortion is still there - you can't get rid of that. To make it worse, because there is less bass, the distortion is even more audible. Great
Now we have the problem of getting some punch into the thing, to stop the drums sounding like someone punching a wet pancake. We have to use some sort of dynamic processing (whatever, not important) to get some impact back into things. So what we have now is 'fake-transients-made-from-previously-squashed-and-distorted-transients'. But it's better than no impact at all, I suppose.
With that done, now we have to get the level back up to where it was before, or louder (cos mastering 'has to make everything louder') right?. So we have to try to keep the impact we just made while limiting all the 'fake-transients-made-from-previously-squashed-and-distorted-transients'. The small amount of intermodulation distortion you get from the good limiter is now being applied to an already-distorted signal, which increases the total amount of distortion even more (google intermodulation distortion and it should become clear why). You're distorting the distortion, you have absolutely no choice. You minimise that as much as you can, but there's no getting around it.
I don't think I need to describe the result. It's better, yes - the tone is correct and it has more impact. But it has higher distortion, sounds flatter, and has much less space than Mixdown A. All we needed was for the thing to be mixed down with headroom.
To try to summarise, this idea:
'Shouldn't a loud mix be already loud?'
is a BIG problem when people with no experience in mixing misunderstand it. In a desperate battle to make their tracks as loud as [whoever], they batter the master buss as hard as they can and end up with an unclear mess. Corrections made in mastering can only have limited success. Of course, it's different if you make perfect mixes all the time. Most people don't. The further from perfect your mix is, the more difficult you make things by spanking it.
So I'd suggest rephrasing it; 'A mix that is intended to go loud should have the ability to go loud'.
There are a lot of ways of checking that your mix can go loud.
Use them. Spank the absolute arse off your tune (at the same subjective level!!!) to make sure it doesn't fall apart. I often use 20dB+ of compression - yes, 20dB+ - on my master buss to see how my mixes behave under extreme pressure. But I
turn that stuff off before giving it to someone else for mastering. FWIW I don't master my own mixes. What if I made a mistake? I've heard the tune 50283093274098 times. Best I don't set stuff in stone, and allow some 'wiggle room' for the person who is going to quality check it. I know I have given the track every chance of going super-duper loud AND clean, I've done the best I possibly can. But I don't try to do the final step before the right time.
6dB headroom, 1dB headroom, 24dB headroom,
it doesn't matter at 24-bit - just don't spank your mix. It's like asking someone to proof-read and edit your new book, then giving them a scanned copy of a printout instead of the Word document.
Let go of your ego. Ignore the feelings of inadequacy and have the courage to submit something that isn't spanked. Make a powerful mix that has the
ability to go loud, and find someone you trust to check/correct/finalise things for you. Your sound will thank you for it.
Anyone interested enough for me to post it up? Won't be done for a while, mind.