Cool track - certainly a great classic rock vibe.

It's a bit too compressed for my tastes, but the song has power and energy.

Although, I'm hearing some lossy-type artifacts in this mix... did you do any type of post conversion, or down-sampling at some point? Or re-sampling of individual tracks - such as different tracks being originally recorded at different sampling rates and then converted in the project file?

When you converted this from .wav to mp3, what were your conversion settings?

Thx, Donny. I did indeed use a low bps of 192, but uped it to 320 on this track. The lead vox was imported from a different daw and session, and has been run through some pitch correction, if that explains some artifacts.
Here is another mix of Damned If I Do (Don't) with a higher quality conversion, and more beef in the middle frequencies. I took 1/2 snare out of the 2-bus compressor so it would be less "squashed".

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 9-17 Mix 30.mp3 (7.1 MB) 

Here are the lyrics for the song on this thread, Damned If I Do (Don't). Please listen the song first, to find out if the lead vocal is riding above the mix with enough clarity, then read the lyrics here. thx

Damned If I Do (Don't)
Sunday morning, chauffeured limousines
But I’ll taste the dirt of the streets although it ain’t my scene
Nymphomaniac woman is in heat tonight
She stays high all the time on that cocaine flight, Well, I’m

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t
She's flying miles of the ground
We’ll, she said that she will, but I know that she won’t
When will she ever come down?

Monday morning we've got bills to sign
First term congressman, district 49
Half wants it illegalized, and one half wants to choose
Might as well flip a coin ‘cause either way I loose

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t
Still flying miles of the ground
Said that she will, but I know that she won’t
When will she ever come down?

(Spoken) “Down on me”

With my intern at the roulette wheel
Lost all lobby cash on every deal
Congress say’s this is no place for me
But I’ll win my campaign money back, you just wait and see

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t
We’re flying miles of the ground
Well, we say that we will, but I know that we won’t
When will we ever come down?

Bye!

Lyrical intelligibility floats in and out - I had to go to the lyrics several times to get what you were singing, although the hook is understandable, which is a good thing.
The argument there is that there are many classic rock songs where you can't decipher every single word; and many times the energy of the song trumped the ability to hear the lyrics.
Personally, I prefer to be able to hear what the words are without having to go to a lyric sheet, but that's just me.

I'm hearing intermittent distortion on the kick and snare, the first time it occurs is on the very first note of the song; I don't know if this was intentional or not.
When you reduced the amount of reduction did you also lower the MU gain a bit? It sounds like maybe you didn't, which would account for the distortion on those transients.

The lossy-type thing I'm hearing isn't really on the LV, it seems to be most prevalent on the drums - not sure why, unless these were converted from another SR or something, only you would know what you did.

And I still think it's a solid classic rock song.

Yes, the first note is a problem. and it's probably due to the fact that I'm using a limiter on the 2-bus that doesn't have a "look-ahead" feature, and thus, doesn't kick in right away. Since I have bass, kick, floor tom and snare all on one, I will have to automate, and soften that intro. yet still keeping that abrupt "wake up" feeling at the start.

What DAW program and limiter are you using?

Nuendo 4

DonnyThompson, post: 432558, member: 46114 wrote: What DAW program and limiter are you using?

DonnyThompson, post: 432558, member: 46114 wrote: What DAW program and limiter are you using?

And a free vst limiter called Limiter 6

I'm familiar with Limiter 6. It's intention is to emulate a more classic analog vibe. Not that this is bad, but I think you're overdoing it; either because you're over-limiting, or because your input gain to the limiter is too hot at that section...

If it were me, I'd get into that first note and pull the gain back; start with a 1db increment and see if that does the trick ( gets rid of the distortion). You could also pull your amount of reduction back a bit as well.

If it were me. ;)

I here distortion and even 0db crossing at some places (in the guitar intro it's pretty obvious)

Distortions may have been introduced at the tracking level. If so, nothing could be done. If while mixing the signal is overdriven, this could be adjusted.

Limiters have Attacks and ratio settings as any other dynamic processor. At some point the levels can go too high if the settings ain't right.
You can setup the limiter as a brick wall or to retain a part of the transients. The tip here is to find a good balance to fit the song and style.
Now a day more and more engineer admit, high volume isn't a priority. By keeping the levels down, the sound retain is purity and dynamics that were captured when tracking.

pcrecord, post: 432580, member: 46460 wrote: Limiters have Attacks and ratio settings as any other dynamic processor

True. But we also know that VST limiters aren't all the same in the way they effect the sound. Many are meant to add coloration while compressing, others are designed to be cleaner and more transparent.

As a follow-up to that statement, and having used Limiter 6 several times in the past, I can say that personally, I wouldn't be reaching for Limiter 6 for use as a master bus/program limiter.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's designed an intended as more of a "mojo" type of GR, modeled after various Tube and Opto model limiters of the past, ( but really not emulating any one in particular ) and is better for adding a certain type of coloration/character, than it is an actual DAW program/bus limiter. I'm not saying it's bad, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't ever use it, either. But you may want to reserve it for certain independent tracks or sub groups on those parts where you'd like to add some "unique" analog-type character; and instead, use something more modern, more precise, and more transparent for digital master bus gain reduction.

Solid choices for this would be VST's such as FabFilter's Pro L, Izotope Ozone, or, you could even use the L1/L2 or L3 from Waves - any of these would be a better choice than Limiter 6.

Remember... Limiter 6 is freeware - so, you're kinda "getting what you pay for" - and while it can occasionally be an interesting choice for those special circumstances where its somewhat "odd" character can sound cool and "vibey", it's really not the best choice for accurate, transparent, master bus limiting in today's digital realm.

And, I'll mention it one more time .... don't ignore the possibility that the input gain to the limiter on those offending tracks may be too hot, ( and this is possible on any limiter) and that you might want to pull it/them down in -.5 db increments until the distortion disappears.

IMHO of course.

d.

Overall there's a bit of sharpness in the 2.5kHz zone, mostly from the vocals, and it seems light in the lows or low mids, perhaps centered on 200Hz or so. And it's really, really loud.

yea, -5.8 RMS is ungodly hot. I also notice by the meter that Boulder posted that you've got overs as well.

It's possible the overs are from the conversion to mp3. Peaks can shift around with such processing. Also, I think this tool uses 0dB peak sine wave reference which makes levels look higher than measurement using square wave reference. But that's still very loud.

bouldersound, post: 432587, member: 38959 wrote: It's possible the overs are from the conversion to mp3. Peaks can shift around with such processing. Also, I think this tool uses 0dB peak sine wave reference which makes levels look higher than measurement using square wave reference. But that's still very loud.

I don't disagree. I just don't think that a song needs to be that hot, and that close to the potential clipping range to begin with.

It's even possible that the song, as it stands now, and based on current EBU R128 Broadcast Standards, might not even be allowed to be played on some stations/broadcast outlets, because of its Overs and its very hot RMS/LUFS level.

Based on what I read a few months ago in the EBU Journal, the song, as it is now at its current -5db RMS, far exceeds acceptable standards ...by at least 10db, maybe even more, depending on the criteria of the broadcaster.
There are some broadcasters who go as far as to not allow anything above -23 db LUFS.

The result is, that if it was played, it would most likely be turned down by the station ... way down... To the point where it would end up sounding a lot less "powerful" than those songs that are currently meeting the newer broadcast db criteria.

I could be wrong - I haven't checked in awhile, and things are changing fast out there - but based on the song's current RMS measurement, I don't think that iTunes would accept it, and maybe not YouTube, either.
The last time I researched it, they were after an RMS/ LUFS of "around -12db" .... with -10db being the max. This may have changed - but if it hasn't, the song would have to be re-mastered to a lower RMS, and, there could be no clipping/overs, either.

FWIW

d.

I think the way things are going loud songs will just get automatically lowered to match the LUFS standard of the broadcaster. And I agree that leaving more of the dynamics and some headroom in the master would sound better.

Otherwise it's a good song. It takes me back to the 80s hair bands but with a late 70s proto-hair vibe as well.

DonnyThompson, post: 432582, member: 46114 wrote: Solid choices for this would be VST's such as FabFilter's Pro L, [="http://www.izotope.com/"]Izotope[/]="http://www.izotope…"]Izotope[/] [[url=http://="http://www.izotope…"]Ozone[/]="http://www.izotope…"]Ozone[/],

I use Fabfilter's on every projects now.. Ozone is good for getting the right frequency balance, M/S processing etc.. but as for getting it loud, I don't like its limiter. It give saturation too easy. I usually use ozone then Pro L for that reason...

Here is a new version of the song with the following adjustments
1: It hits the 2-bus comp with less volume
2: Backed off on the harshness of the snare - more "twack", less "schhhh"
3" Reduced the lead vox volume - he's back in the mix
4: Low-passed the guitar to reduce harsness
5; Automated the intro - less abrupt

lmk if it's better

Here is the newest version of Damned If I Do (Don't)
BTW, I think I fixed the overs - the older version didn't have the snare hit the limiter.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 9-17 Mix 31.mp3 (7.1 MB)  Damned If I Do 9-17 Mix 31.mp3 (7.1 MB) 

It's still damned hot, Luke. I'm measuring an RMS/LUFS of -6.5 with peaks at 0db several times. There's not much dynamic range to this. Then again, maybe that's what you're after.

It's still way hot but better. I'm not really liking the guitar LPF even though it helps keep it from stepping on the vocals. With the vocals down and the guitar LPF it's starting to sound like a snare recording with vocal and instrumental accompaniment. But I have to admit the snare does sound pretty good. In this mix I'm hearing less of the 2.5kHz brightness but it still sounds scooped in the lows.

The TT DR Meter shows the RMS level as -6.3dB. Sound Forge 6 shows it as -9.3dB. That's the difference between sine and square wave 0dB RMS references. The TT DR Meter indicates overs and Sound Forge shows the peak level as 0dBFS. As I understand it some converters can distort even when the signal never goes above 0dBFS due to the fact that the reconstructed waveform can potentially peak higher, so it's good to leave a bit of headroom. Some leave 0.1dB, some leave 0.3dB. I could be wrong about this, but I think some limiters can estimate when analog overs will happen and compensate. I keep my peaks at -0.3dB.

Ok, Boulder, PCRecord, and Donny - I've got the song closer to broadcast standards, and more listenable with -12 RMS, and nothing over -0.40 FS. Used a Massey CT5 for light comp, and didn't use Limiter 6, but another free one called "Lookahead Limiter", which is a no frills VST plugin - both seemed to work nicely on the 2-bus (no "brick wall").
Thanks, Boulder for letting me know that it was light in the 200 Hz range; I added some body to the bass by boosting that frequency.
I would like to know what needs to come up or down re: vox, instruments,solos etc.
thx 4 yr help, guys!

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 9-17 Mix 32 .mp3 (7.1 MB) 

Here are a couple of (in my opinion) better mixes of Damned If I Do (Don't). The first one can be used as track on a CD, while the 2nd leans toward an LUFS standards mix for upload to iTunes.
1st: Dynamic Range (6), Peak (-.3) RMS (-7)
2nd: DR (10.5) Peak (-.4) RMS -12

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 9-24-15 -12dB.mp3 (7.1 MB)  Damned If I Do 9-24-15 Mix 39.mp3 (7.1 MB) 

At this point I feel that there is much to do about MIXING before talking about levels that are more the mastering part.
I hear the mix is a bit too hot in the 2 to 3.5k
Another thing that bothers me is that it is very small and narrow sounding. Might be do to poor tracking or overmixing.
I'd be very curious to hear a version with just levels and panning and no other processing OR if someone is mixing with headphones...

Here is an attemp to give a wider stereo spectrum. Nothing near what could be done in the mix :

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Please try to listen at similar volumes.

Attached files Damned If I Do pcrecord.mp3 (2 MB) 

In response to PCRecord, this latest mix includes more stereo spread, and an increase in volume on, the drum room mics. Also, from now on, I will include two versions of each mix - EM (Electronic Media), which would be comply with an iTunes type upload loudness compression, and be ready for online distribution -- and a CD mix, somewhat mastered, and ready for CD distribution.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 9-25 CD Mix 40.mp3 (7.1 MB)  Damned If I Do 9-25 EM Mix 40.mp3 (7.1 MB) 

Much less abrasive on the eardrums...I like this mix as it is more balanced and you can hear each instrument more clearer and cleaner.

bouldersound, post: 432593, member: 38959 wrote: It takes me back to the 80s hair bands but with a late 70s proto-hair vibe as well.

Ahhh...those were the days, all leather & spandex, bandanas and flammable hair spray

Here's what I think is a better mix, which includes a scooping of the "pain" frequency at around 2.3kH. I fattened up the drums a bit, and brought down the solos. lmkwyt.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 9-24 CD Mix 42.mp3 (7.1 MB) 

Too late to listen, but I took a look at it. Still way loud. It would be nice to hear a mix with some actual headroom, before it's slammed with the limiter.

Still clipping here and there (second big drum hit in the intro, on the word "Monday"), and limited to death overall. Mix sounds okay but I'm losing my reference point with all the changes. The mix seems to be losing conceptual focus as you incorporate suggestions from many sources. My suggestions are more general: don't clip anything, ease up on the limiting (and let us hear the mix without it), ignore specific suggestions that don't come from more than one source.

I'm finding that I have to run my system 5-10dB lower than normal with your mixes. If this song came up in a playlist I'd have to do something about the volume, and the skip button is easier to use than the volume control.

Thanks for everyone's input so far. Here is the latest mix that (I think) has more punch, but also has more presence on the guitars.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 10-1 Mix 53.mp3 (7.2 MB) 

bouldersound, post: 432752, member: 38959 wrote: Still clipping here and there (second big drum hit in the intro, on the word "Monday"), and limited to death overall. Mix sounds okay but I'm losing my reference point with all the changes. The mix seems to be losing conceptual focus as you incorporate suggestions from many sources. My suggestions are more general: don't clip anything, ease up on the limiting (and let us hear the mix without it), ignore specific suggestions that don't come from more than one source.

I'm finding that I have to run my system 5-10dB lower than normal with your mixes. If this song came up in a playlist I'd have to do something about the volume, and the skip button is easier to use than the volume control.

My mixes are going straight on to a demo CD, so I AM using a limiter, but not hitting it to hard. My mixes are comparable to what fellow member Thomas T is doing here.....

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Recording.Org Member ThomasT mix_2a.mp3 (262.7 KB) 

Yep, that's about the same measured level as your sample, and there's lots of clipping. Your latest mix isn't clipping quite as much as that sample.

Saying your mix is loud is just my opinion. It may be appropriate for the genre, though when LUFS based systems get going the loudness may work against you. Clipping is less subjective. There are technical reasons to avoid clipping and have some headroom on the final master.

I've gotten a couple of complaints about my mixes being too loud, but like I said, I am submitting mixes for members here to critique that will be burned onto a Demo CD for distribution, so my mixes are in the same Peak, RMS, and DR realm as these other products - one is a fellow member's metal mix, and the other is a current Black Sabbath song that I ripped from a purchased CD, and am using as a reference mix. You can see by the screen shots, that the numbers come in about the same.
What I will do in the future, is submit two examples of my mixes, with one having a simple gain reduction process, but don't worry - all the clipping, slamming, and lopsided instrument volumes will still be there for you to help me correct - it's just that you won't have to run to you volume knob each time you review my stuff.
Thx to everyone who is helping me out, and sorry about that ringing in your ears :)
Also, mods, let me know if putting up a very small portion of a copy written song was ok for demo purps. If not, I will take it down.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Black Sabbath 13 - Loner (Ref Mix).mp3 (802.4 KB)  Damned If I Do 10-1 Mix 53.mp3 (7.2 MB) 

It's not so much your final RMS level that concerns me, that's your call. It's how you're getting that level. It looks to me like you're going from the mix project straight to CD without a proper mastering process. Not that you absolutely have to master as a separate step, but it is standard practice for a reason. That's why I asked to hear how the mix sounds without the limiter.

It's not simply that the audio is clipping, it's that there's no headroom left to allow for the fact that some converters will distort on some 0dB peaks. Look up "intersample peaks" for more about that. Here's a meter that shows when you're likely to be getting intersample peaks.

But it's true, there are lots of hard rock/metal albums that are loud and clipped. If that's where you want to go you certainly have precedent, but that trend may be why some of us drifted away from those genres.

Right, boulder. There's the infamous Death Magnetic album by Metallica, where most tracks came in at un unprecedented -.5 RMS, and was universally scorned by audio engineers. I am working on getting a happy medium of straight to CD mixes and mixes that take into consideration conversion protocols of song-download companies.
Here is a mix with the gain reduced

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files Damned If I Do 10-2 Mix 53 GR.mp3 (7.1 MB) 

That's not what I meant.

The first thing I did when I played your mp3 was turn it down. Not sure if that's what you want.

The Black Sabbath is much easier to listen to. It's Rms is lower and it also has less shred in the mids. Also remember that 3 db is twice the perceived loudness. If you're 5 and they are 6 you are approximate 33% louder than they are.

Personally if I was trying to compete I'd want to be the same or a bit lower than the competition. Being turned down instead of up isn't good. Lower volumes will also translate better for radio airplay if that's a concern as well.

As I understand it 3dB is a noticeable difference to most people in most situations while 10dB is twice the perceived loudness. A dB or so difference isn't much, certainly not 33%, but the arrangement and tonal qualities can make things sound more or less loud.

I would also bet that an over compressed mix would suffer less from the loudness processing used by broadcasters. But in the future it's going the other way: instead of pushing levels up to be equally loud digital streaming will be pulling loud mixes down to the same average level as quieter mixes so your loud mix will not be loud it will just have less dynamics than other mixes.

But so far I see no indication any of this info is getting through to the OP so I don't know why I bother. By the way, OP, what I meant a couple of posts back was to post something that didn't have all your master bus processing, not just a reduced gain version of the over compressed mix.