Hey guys.
Im not part of a pro studio or anything. Im just trying to get the best recording i can out of my home setup.
So this little irritation of mine is when i record and get a decent mix, but you play another studio qualiity song and the volume levels are way up its just really in your face compared to mine.
Can anyone point me in the right direction about how to fix this. i have a feeling its in the mastering process but i just dont see how i can get it lounder with out clipping.
thanks =)
Comments
of course he says that you have to have it mastered... he runs a
of course he says that you have to have it mastered... he runs a mastering company
now, he's absolutely right. pro recordings dont just Happen. but the average hobbyist isnt willing to spend hundreds of dollars to be a little bit louder.
what can you do? you'll probably take some of the life out of your tracks, but you could use some compression.
Yeah...reverb... Geez Mike - you don't know how to make your tr
Yeah...reverb...
Geez Mike - you don't know how to make your tracks louder with reverb??
Okay, this is how you do it:
Take your raw tracks and put it in an empty track in your DAW.
Patch the output of the DAW to an Aux Bus. We'll call this bus "Reverb" so as to avoid confusion...
On this reverb bus, put your favorite reverb plug in on and set it with the wet signal at 100% and the dry signal at 0%.
Now, here's the crucial part...Crank the gain on that bad boy up to 40 or 50 and keep your Aux faders at unity.
Now THAT's what I call a lush, full mix!!
xX5thQuarterXx wrote: what exactly do they do at a mastering stu
xX5thQuarterXx wrote: what exactly do they do at a mastering studio to get it loud?
Whatever each individual mix requires - IF it can handle it. Although the tools and experience of the engineer are obviously important, most (how do I put this...) mixes done by "less seasoned" engineers will never attain those sorts of levels no matter who might be at the controls.
For the loud part, can't you just turn it up? If you turn you
For the loud part, can't you just turn it up?
If you turn your mix up so that it's just as loud as the professional mix, is it ok then? If not, then the difference is in the mixing and mastering. Which takes practice.
Compression is some of it but not all of it. Clarity is some of it but not all of it. Separation and non-separation are some if it but not all of it. Recording technique is some of it but not all of it.
Where I'm going with this is it's not just one thing. Sure you could put a compressor on the mix bus and slam it all together. It'll be loud, and may be in your face but it will probably suck the life out of the music and sound like ass.
Roidster wrote: what......you guys dont use a little bit of reve
Roidster wrote: what......you guys dont use a little bit of reverb on your drums :roll:
Certainly. But don't you think that would be better applied during the mixing session instead of washing the whole mix in reverb? Not exactly what would be done during the mastering session (well, the occasional bad edit or cut tail perhaps, but it's pretty rare otherwise).
and im thinking that mastering isn't something that i could just pick up in a few months and do it myself am i right?
I don't think I've ever done this twice in the same thread...
(Dead Link Removed)
But let's make something perfectly clear again -- Mastering is NOT ABOUT MAKING EVERYTHING REALLY LOUD.
Just because it happens to be the stage where this happens to occur, it is NOT the goal. The goal is creating a compliant production master for replication that will translate to the widest possible array of playback options.
The "loud" part is an (unfortunate) afterthought.
As far as "learning it in a few months" -- I'll leave that to the horse.
Perhaps a creative explanation would help. Music is filled with
Perhaps a creative explanation would help.
Music is filled with Dynamics, ups and downs. It is an aesthetic choice on what to do with dynamics in your mix. Do you want the quiet parts to have signifigance?
The type of music also makes a difference. What is yours?
A Guitar Center Pro audio associate told me he uses The Finalizer.
Additionally, the Bit Depth is important here so record in 32 Bit Float.
Link for Finalizer, http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Finalizer96/ with a $2,500 tag,
though it is only 96khz so it may not be best for those who use 192khz and want to put the audio on a DVD.
filmmusic2008 wrote: Perhaps a creative explanation would help.
filmmusic2008 wrote: Perhaps a creative explanation would help.
Music is filled with Dynamics, ups and downs. It is an aesthetic choice on what to do with dynamics in your mix. Do you want the quiet parts to have signifigance?
The type of music also makes a difference. What is yours?
A Guitar Center Pro audio associate told me he uses The Finalizer.
Additionally, the Bit Depth is important here so record in 32 Bit Float.Link for Finalizer, http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Finalizer96/ with a $2,500 tag,
though it is only 96khz so it may not be best for those who use 192khz and want to put the audio on a DVD.
Dude - SERIOUSLY!
What is your deal? Everyone here slaps you around for your mis-statements and you just keep plugging away. Either you're a troll, or you're really mis-informed and obtuse!
First -
The finalizer is a device which makes the vast majority of mastering engineers CRINGE. Not because of what it can do (actually, it's a relatively powerful box in the right hands) but because what it USUALLY does. That is to say, in most peoples' hands, the finalizer is guilty for ruining MANY a mix by squashing the hell out of it and draining it of all its life.
Then - the whole DVD with 192kHz audio thing. Please pay attention to the following:
192kHz DOES NOT BELONG ON DVD. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS STRICTLY FOR 2-CHANNEL DVD-A. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO DVD VIDEO OR ANY OTHER DVD FORMAT. ALSO, DVD-A REQUIRES A SPECIAL PLAYER TO PLAY BACK THE DATA STREAM AND IS A NICHE FORMAT AT BEST. YOUR MOM'S DVD PLAYER CAN'T PLAY DVD-A, NOR CAN MY MOM'S.
Now seriously, I don't care if the Tascam DVD-RA1000 can record in this format - it can also record in DSD. Are you proposing that everyone should/can work within this format as well?
I’m hoping that I don’t get flogged for adding my two cents here
I’m hoping that I don’t get flogged for adding my two cents here.
If you’re just working in a home set up and you want to add a little more “Umph” to your tracks, here are a few ideas you might want to use.
One thing I use quite a lot is something called “Ruby Tube” it’s available as a free .vst download from Silverspike.
http://www.silverspike.com/?Products:RubyTube
Just add a little “Medium Sparkle” to your mix and it warms it up nicely.
Also, have you normalized your mixdown track to its max peak value? I think a lot of DAW software has the option to do that.
Finally, you could add a very soft limiter to your mixdown track. Try compressing at a 1:infinite ratio above -3db and a 1:1 ratio below -3db with a 1db boost. I generally do this after normalizing a track. I have found that this adds the volume I want without sacrificing the overall dynamics of the track.
Keep in mind that these are things you want to use when you’re messing around at home or just making a simple demo. If you’re looking for a professional quality sound then there is no question that you should have a COMPETENT mastering engineer master your tracks. I farm out all my mastering to a guy I found in Miami who is in his late 70s and has forgotten more about audio engineering and mastering that most of us will ever know. I love how he is able to incorporate his “old school” knowledge and experience into modern technology.
Good luck!
xX5thQuarterXx wrote: Hey guys. Im not part of a pro studio or
xX5thQuarterXx wrote: Hey guys.
Im not part of a pro studio or anything. Im just trying to get the best recording i can out of my home setup.
So this little irritation of mine is when i record and get a decent mix, but you play another studio qualiity song and the volume levels are way up its just really in your face compared to mine.
Can anyone point me in the right direction about how to fix this....i have a feeling its in the mastering process but i just dont see how i can get it lounder with out clipping.
thanks =)
i think the problem may be that you are recording too hot into your digital
system; which would leave inadequate headroom for processing;
perhaps your transients are smeared and distorted?
in that case, when you attempt to peak limit, the distortion would get out
of control before the music seems loud enough, because you've
already over-distorted the very signal components that a
peak limiter is going to distort.
as i suggested at the head of the post, do not record hot. leave yourself 12-18db
of headroom going in. every top mix engineer and dsp designer is going
to agree. there's a strong technical foundation for this theory, and it
bears out in practice for those who would know. so i would
suggest to try it and reap the dynamic rewards.
jeff dinces
that is what paul frindle and dan lavry had both suggested. then
that is what paul frindle and dan lavry had both suggested.
then those who followed that advice reported
positive results in their mixes.
i had argued for a lower noise floor, and greater resolution.
those guys used math to convince me that the analog
noise floor overwhelms my theoretical qualms. that
which i claimed to value was "bad noise".
i think it is perhaps a similar philosophy as could be applied to amp design;
clean, unfettered headroom; more than one might think,
is king if one desires a "loud" output.
i am not talking about mastering technique. but garbage in... likely you
would agree that if a mix is correct, then it shouldn't take much in
mastering to achieve an appropriate perception of loudness.
jeff dinces
Jeff, I can see their point if one was working in the analog dom
Jeff,
I can see their point if one was working in the analog domain, but if say you have a mix captured, what would be the difference if you had 12db or 1 db of headroom? To me, not much as I always adjust the output before sending it out of the box. As long as you leave enough headroom to keep the peaks intact, which also means what the DAC and gear can handle, then why the rule?
michael; i think it applies to a->d only. one may set d->a outpu
michael;
i think it applies to a->d only. one may set d->a output levels by ear.
however it seems with a->d it needs a wider margin to be safe that
distortion will not be amplified later in the chain. iirc, the lower
bits of a 24 bit signal are said to exceed the dynamic range
of the analog stage, so there would be no program
material lost from using one or two fewer bits.
jeff dinces
Turn the volume up on the player. Thats what its for. Listen t
Turn the volume up on the player. Thats what its for. Listen to an original recording, then to a "re-mastered" one. They are mainly just squeeshed to hell. Sure some are properly done, but most were done to raise the overall volume to todays distorted values. Crazy !!!.
Boy, every post on this thread is either incomplete and poorly t
Boy, every post on this thread is either incomplete and poorly thought out or arrogant and condescending. Neither of these characteristics are conducive to constructive discussion.
I think what 5th Quarter needs is a thorough definition of what mastering is and then maybe some tips on how to do it in a "project studio" capacity. IE. in Wavelab or something like that.
I don't know what he does and doesn't know already, but maybe he's working with tracks that he hasn't even normalized properly. I'm just saying, this thread lacks exploration of the topic.
Massive Mastering? Maybe you should change your name to Dead Horse Mastering. I get what you're saying and you obviously know what you're talking about, but if you think a question is below you or redundant, then why post a condescending reply? Not tryin to start any arguments, but posts like that make people who may be talented engineers-to-be feel "this big." I don't get it.
I really wish you had explored the question of why so many mixes (masters) are so loud these days. It's an industry trend to be this much louder than the next guy. And all at the expense of the other qualities of the music. You could say much more about this in more depth than I could, but you chose to be vague and a bit pretentious. Why respond at all?
I don't mean to single you out on discussion board ethics, but I see this all the time. Somebody who just wants to know something posts a question and 5 people take the time to flame them and tell them to "search for the threads." Well, that's fine for some things. But the point of discussion boards is continuing discussion. If we just stopped posting because every topic had been addressed and is searchable, well, this site would die.
So, in conclusion. Let's talk nice and be constructive. Tolerate those who know less than you and respect those who want to teach you more.
(Steps off Soapbox)
Discrete- Your point is taken. However, would it not have been
Discrete-
Your point is taken. However, would it not have been wiser to simply search this forum as advised and then revive one of the previous threads rather than to start yet another thread on loudness issues?
This is, in the truest spirit, continuing and furthering discussion afterall. Starting over from ground zero is not.
No offense to the OP at all.
J.
Massive Mastering? Maybe you should change your name to Dead Hor
Massive Mastering? Maybe you should change your name to Dead Horse Mastering. I get what you're saying and you obviously know what you're talking about, but if you think a question is below you or redundant, then why post a condescending reply? Not tryin to start any arguments, but posts like that make people who may be talented engineers-to-be feel "this big." I don't get it.
It's in the stickies, it's in the search engine and it's *still* covered seemingly every other day here.
I'm not trying to make anyone feel - this big - I'm simply graphically expressing the views of many of us here that are tired of the same thing, over and over and over, most of which has little or nothing to do with mastering in general.
I have a very cool one somewhere -- Gotta find it... A stately
I have a very cool one somewhere -- Gotta find it... A stately European gentleman swiftly striking his steed with an English whip as he lay on the ground... Black and white, set back probably mid-1800's or so...
If I find it, maybe I'll just upload it and rename them back and forth every once in a while just to mix things up a bit.
Discrete wrote: Boy, every post on this thread is either incompl
Discrete wrote: Boy, every post on this thread is either incomplete and poorly thought out or arrogant and condescending. Neither of these characteristics are conducive to constructive discussion.
I think what 5th Quarter needs is a thorough definition of what mastering is and then maybe some tips on how to do it in a "project studio" capacity. IE. in Wavelab or something like that.
I don't know what he does and doesn't know already, but maybe he's working with tracks that he hasn't even normalized properly. I'm just saying, this thread lacks exploration of the topic.Massive Mastering? Maybe you should change your name to Dead Horse Mastering. I get what you're saying and you obviously know what you're talking about, but if you think a question is below you or redundant, then why post a condescending reply? Not tryin to start any arguments, but posts like that make people who may be talented engineers-to-be feel "this big." I don't get it.
I really wish you had explored the question of why so many mixes (masters) are so loud these days. It's an industry trend to be this much louder than the next guy. And all at the expense of the other qualities of the music. You could say much more about this in more depth than I could, but you chose to be vague and a bit pretentious. Why respond at all?
I don't mean to single you out on discussion board ethics, but I see this all the time. Somebody who just wants to know something posts a question and 5 people take the time to flame them and tell them to "search for the threads." Well, that's fine for some things. But the point of discussion boards is continuing discussion. If we just stopped posting because every topic had been addressed and is searchable, well, this site would die.
So, in conclusion. Let's talk nice and be constructive. Tolerate those who know less than you and respect those who want to teach you more.
(Steps off Soapbox)
discrete;
um.. it is a bit mystical nowadays. the oldest answer had to do
with the media transfer to vinyl. the vinyl could never sound
the same as the master tape. so this was
going to require a completely separate
skillset from mixing.
now with digital...
people who had that old skillset who's purpose is not needed
much anymore found themselves still in demand.
why? that would be a very long history lesson.
i think a combination of several reasons all
centered around the m.e.'s special
abilities to handle music...
and the unfortunately unnatural characteristics
of the digital media, subject to this creeping
digititus... causing all kinds of religious
beliefs to spring up around the
vacuum tube or valve.
some say it is transformers that make tubes "warm",
not the tube; and assuming that things are
working correctly the sound would be
indescernable from solid state.
so some of the questions people might ask a mastering engineer:
"do you use tubes? aren't they warmer? i read
that in a magazine."
and there is a whole other aura around tape. should tape
be part of the mastering process? or is a tape
emulation enough? or needed at all? or what
is it about tape? it is eq, and dynamics?
and what else? would take years to
figure out. has been that way.
ask dave hill or rupert n !
(maybe i should buy one of those boxes, but
i digress!) what i do is not explainable, it
is based all on judgement calls, if i
am not there to man my own
gear, i doubt that my own
mastering techniques
could work.
mastering is not easy. no way for an average home studio musician to
do professional level mastering. that is not like looking down the
nose, it is just the difference between the top m.e.s and
the average m.e... just like with mix engineers.
bernie grundman is a better than me, michael fossenkemper is better
than i am, and so is john scrip... etc. ok? how do they do it?
they are unique people! that is how i think they do it.
what makes something better? it is an opinion. that something is
"loud", or plays back sounding like there was some
engineering snafu is a perception. if your client
is "my bloody valentine", then they should
get what they want. that's the job.
some of the more stylin' garage rock dudes are actually looking for
their mix to sound trashed! sure. yes. no problem.
so the answer to: "why the m.e. did that?" is usually:
because it made the client happy.
jeff dinces
Cucco wrote: Discrete- However, would it not have been wiser to
Cucco wrote: Discrete-
However, would it not have been wiser to simply search this forum as advised and then revive one of the previous threads rather than to start yet another thread on loudness issues?This is, in the truest spirit, continuing and furthering discussion afterall. Starting over from ground zero is not.
J.
You're right. The potential value of searching the wealth of information that has already been posted on forums is something that cannot be understated.
I meant nothing personal towards you Massive Mastering. I like the Dead Horse graphic too. It was just an example in my trying to picture a Utopian version of a discussion forum. The truth is, people will always ask questions that they were too lazy to search for the answers to and this will always get on the nerves of people that consistently answer them.
hey yall im new here and just was looking for a site to help me
hey yall im new here and just was looking for a site to help me in my "recording deal" and finally found it...anyway yeah so you guys are talking about how to make the the entire mix or master track louder, yeah i see how the mix, using reverb ( pretty smart by the way, setting wet all the way to 100%), and compression could play a role in making the signal stronger. But for instance im using protools m powered and you can only do so much to boost the signal with out it peaking and thats the thing to boost it WITH OUT PEAKING, i even have izotope on there that has a supposbably signal booster to amplify the track. but i see that the results are ok. i mean i compare it to other professial recordings and there is a difference. yeah i understand i that im not a professional and i dont have $10,000 equipment... is there any sofware out there specifically for boosting the mix to a significant amount with out peaking that i could get reasonably?
Yes, to a very large extent, it's part of the mastering process.
Yes, to a very large extent, it's part of the mastering process.
So if you go to a studio with a professional staff, track and mix there, then go to a professional mastering facility with a qualified engineer, you can be that loud too. Assuming the arrangements and core sounds allow it.
Making professional recordings doesn't happen by accident.
(Dead Link Removed)