Then this is not really mastering then man.

Your basiccally asking what we think of your applied compression during the mix.

I usually don't like to comment this way but your mix is a mess. Much too much clipping/over modulation. The opening sounds nice but that's about it. You are trying to make things louder than loud. STOP IT! Try creating a good mix first. And what is all this stuff about all of your compression and limiting in a side chain??? You are either limiting or compressing a signal, period! This side chain on a compressor or limiter is generally used with an equalizer to make the " detector" more or less sensitive to certain frequencies. For example: adding a substantial peak at around 5kHz with an equalizer on the side chain of a compressor/limiter, will make the compressor/limiter work harder around the 5kHz peak creating a basic "De-esser". You have tried to make everything so loud that I really cannot even enjoy the song. YOU ARE FAR FROM BEING A MASTERING ENGINEER BUT PERHAPS MORE LIKE A MASTURBATING ENGINEER?

I think I will play with my vibrating microphone now
Ms. Remy Ann David

(My Electo-Voice 636 slimaire, gotta' love it)

It doesn't sound dynamic at all. Everything is at one far too loud level. It doesn't work.

This begs the question, Why did you use compression? Did you use it because you needed to tame some transients? Did you use it to enhance the sound or did you use it because you think you should for some reason?

What I'm getting at here is that you should have a reason for using compression and only use it where it's needed. You mention that you are trying to get a very dynamic sound. Compression kills dynamics. That's what it is designed to do. Sure, a bit here and there may be needed but the purpose of compression is to retard the dynamic range. So, if you are looking for a very dynamic recording, you probably only want to use a very small amount of compression.

I would recommend that you mix the song without any compression and try to get the best mix and balance of sounds that you can.
Then, if you have parts that are too loud or too soft, work in some fader automation before going to a compressor.

Cool, comments taken into acount. I'm definitely still working on the mix, and I'm waiting for a friend to send me some real drums and a real guitar part, to replace the computer versions. That said...

pr0gr4m: I used compression because every rock song I hear has ridiculous compression on it. In these songs, every time a bass drum hits, my eardrums get sucked out of my ears. So I know the big dogs of mastering always use compression, and a lot of it. I'm only trying to emulate their sound, even though I think it sounds horrid. They're the best for a reason, right? However, I'm trying to acheive their level of volume without sucking my eardrums out, and I'm experimenting with alternative methods. Your advice is good, and I'll try something like it.

My idea was to use sidechain compressors in the mix as a replacement for compressors on the master. For example, when the bass drum hits, the bass guitar is dipped in volume. The vocals use a multiband sidechain on the rest of the mix. When vocals are heavy in certain frequencies, those same frequencies are dipped in the rest of the mix before the vocals are addded on top. All an automatic process, of course. No fixed frequency dips.

pingu: I know this isn't the usual way of making a mix, but I thought it might be a viable alternative. I'm discussing it in the mastering forums because I feel it blurs the line between mastering and mixing. I'm not yet convinced the traditional way is better (I know it's certainly not worse - I'm just experimenting). If dynamic range is to be reduced, I would think my proposed method would yield less pumping because it is not applied to the entire signal.

I'm going to turn off all my mastering / sidechain stuff, and export this file as my full dynamics control. Then I will add my sidechain devices back, and tweak them until the dynamics sound similar to the control file - obviously with less overall dynamics, though. Then I'll add the mastering devices back, but I'll keep the volume fairly low and post the updated file here.

RemyRAD: I'm not a ME in either sense of the abbreviation. First, I have a girlfriend, and second, real mastering engineers have to patrol forums as a way of flexing their egos. I'm just a guy trying to push the envelope and weed through all the self-righteous don't-even-try,-get-a-real-ME-to-do-it "helpfulness."

I'm not trying to step on toes - just making that observation. I appreciate all the comments, and if I ever invent a new technique, you all will be the first to hear about it. Thanks for helping me experiment.

Ok, everyone. lets be civil.

As far as compression for rock. you'd be surprised how little the ME compresses a rock mix, if at all.

While you are correct that compression can and is used to give sounds punch, I think you're going about it in the wrong way.

I've never heard of anyone using "side chain" compression to the extent that you are using it...unless you are doing dance music where the kick drowns out the music.

You don't want to do that sort of thing because then you'll just have all these sounds pumping up and down and it'll sound terrible.

There are lots of discussions here regarding drums and compression and the different techniques used to get them to punch through a mix. But that compression is just applied to the drums. No side chaining. Look for those threads and try applying those techniques.
For vocals, compression is normally used to level out the sound. You want it to blend in with the music...not have the music duck down around the vox.

It sounds pretty wrong,absolutely no dynamics at all,try using slower attack times too so at least some transients get through to add punch. Loudness does'nt necessarilly come from squishing the crap out of everything, think of it like constipation the harder you squeeze the worse it feels. Loudness is achieced by mixing a song so the frequncy content is full range with every instrument placed into its spot also using correct compressor timings and ratios for the audio material being worked on.
Some program material is just naturally loud and some isnt,I prefer to use automated gain riding when mixing as well as mild comp,using automation will help fill up a mix and keep your dynamics intact. Also keep your final mixes around no more than -5 dbfs peak -18 rms,this is the target.Take a mix like this to an ME and more often than not it will come back sounding superb. Mixes kept within this range with a good average program level Ie:mixed properly allows ME's to use eq and comp to boost levels significantly without compromising on dynamic loss. Once its overcompressed there is no going back.
The main reason you hire an ME is for an objective opinion as they have never heard the mix before,where as you have hundreds of times,almost instanly they should be able to tell what is needed. Also they have the right tools,ie: each eq and comp will be at least $5000 worth of box,not $400 worth of softwarez.
I could go on but you get the picture,back to the "old drawing board". I think you need to improve your mixing skills and audio theory before you even attempt mastering. Remember too most mastering engineers have produced mixed and recorded a lot of albums before learning to master.

Im not trying too be rude its just I think your starting to make the same mistakes all of us have made and you will learn from them. Save this mix you posted and listen to it in 5 years time,you'll look back and have a laugh,I could post my earliest mixes but id be too embarassed.

Heath

Good advice everyone! I took all the crazy side chain stuff off and it sounds a lot better now. And it's still fairly loud. I was skipping the mixing part, and trying to do everything in the mastering. Perhaps a negative side efffect of using Reason, is that I can mix while hearing the mastering. I usually have the mastering devices on while mixing, so maybe that's hindering a good mix.

heathen22: When you suggest automated gain riding, do you mean for the entire mix, or for individual instruments in the various parts of a song? Also, I assume that "mixing a song so the frequency content is full range" just takes practice? Do you use any tools like a frequency analyzer to look for frequency gaps, and fill them in with EQ or gain adjustments of instruments in that frequency range?

Can someone tell me some good rock mixes / masters to look into. Especially songs that don't use much master compression like Michael said. As always, thanks, and sorry about the ME jabs. The old playground comeback line...

I don't have much to add, but I will add

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C

to challenge the assumption that

So I know the big dogs of mastering always use compression, and a lot of it. I'm only trying to emulate their sound, even though I think it sounds horrid. They're the best for a reason, right?

If you havent read that thread (it is right at the top of the page), do it. It discusses, in no uncertain terms, how current mastering trends suck.

I know you're all about experimenting, but I would advise you to turn off your main-bus mastering devices while you are trying you sort out your mix. If you have to master your own stuff, I find it works much better to get things sounding as good as you can first by manipulating the individual channels or groups, with nothing on the main stereo bus. Print this to a stereo track and come back to it another day. On this other day, you just open up this stereo track into your program or whatever, and do your best to make it sound good how it is with whatever tools you have. Keeps you from working against yourself a bit I think, trying to mix into a bunch of mastering stuff that may or may not really be needed yet.

Ok, round 2! However, the original song needs a remix / re-recording so badly that I'm retiring it from this thread.

The goal of this experiment is to get lots of perceived spikes while actually being horribly too loud to have spikes...

My idea is as follows: instead of acheiving dynamics through spikes in volume, what about dips in volume right before a spike? I programmed a device in Reason that will dip volume 2-4 dB roughly 20 ms before a peak in either the snare or bass drum. It's a dual-band effect, too, so 20 ms before the bass drum hits, volume is reduced a few decibles only in the bass frequencies, and vice versa with the snare peak in the trebles.

I got the idea thinking about audio masking, and how peaks in volume can actually mask sounds that occur before the peak because of the way our brain processes sound. So I thought that the brief dips in volume would add to a perceived dynamic change while not really being noticable as dips.

So here it is, at -8.8 dB RMS, just shy of the RMS value of the chorus of Green Day's Boulevard Of Broken Dreams single... Note, for some reason this mp3 doesn't leave the .55 dB headroom that I have in the aif file. This hasn't affected sound quality as far as I can tell.

http://www.headchemists.com/ro/trip_hop_clip.mp3
1.1 Mb, 48 kHz, 0:51

Questions:

1. Is it dynamic?
2. Is it loud?
3. If it is dynamic, is it due to the "dip" idea, or is it just the program material?

It's somewhat interesting but it's not dynamic but the mix is improving. You need to stop worrying about trying to get it louder than loud. It's nonproductive. Get a good mix going and then go to mastering, not the other way around.

Inside out
Ms. Remy Ann David

It would sound much better if it were lower.

Kind of dull sounding. Low end is pushing all of the detail out of the mix by way of compression and limiting.

Not sure why you are going for volume. Why not make it good sounding and leave it at that?

This is a classic case of looking at meters and not listening to what you are doing. While the RMS is up there, it's not sounding very good.

You're missing the whole idea of mastering and going straight to breaking the rules. First your mix is out of balance and then it's getting slammed. Try leaving level out of the equation and post something that sounds exactly as you like it. No flat tops, no compression for level, zero limiting. Lets just get it good sounding first.

That first song was probably the worst mix I've ever done, but it was the most "rock" so I thought I'd use it for this loudness stuff. I know it's impossible to be dynamic at these volumes, but the whole point is to try to fake these dynamics while maintaining the "radio" volume the powers that be demand.

Sure I'm interested in making good music, but that's for the other forums... I'm on a mastering kick, and if I'm aiming for the top, I already have some basic limits set for me: very loud, maintain dynamics if possible.

Forget the mixes - I'll leave that for someone not so intimate with the song - my real question is: Is this dip idea worth pursuing as a way of mitigating the negative effects of too loud mastering? Does anyone hear anything useful in it? It can certainly be used at lower volumes, but I've been pushing the limits to see what it can do.

Absolutely not worth it. Not effective. You are hearing what you want to hear and nothing that is actually working well.

Let listener fatigue roll
Ms. Remy Ann David

Do you all consider top 40 rock to be very dynamic? I mean, would you say it's significanntly more dynamic than the last clip I posted? I'm guessing the answer is yes, and it looks like I'm still searching for their secrets...

What keeps me going is that the expensive equipment they use was designed by an electrical engineer - basically a computer programmer perhaps with instructions from a big dog ME - and with Reason and cSound, I don't see why I don't have all the tools necesary to emulte whatever they're programming.

You do have the tools you need. You just haven't done enough mixing yet to really know what's going on. You need to listen to a lot more stuff and then try to start imitating the sound of the mixes you're hearing without worrying about loudness. It's like knowing the directions to Carnegie hall? Practice Practice Practice and then you might find a place? First you go for the sound in the mix. Only after that you start to optimize levels, downstream.

Still practicing after all these years
Ms. Remy Ann David

The problem is knowing a good mix from a good master. If only we could buy albums in their pre-master stage, learning how to mix would be easier. However, we're stuck reverse engineering a good mix through the mastering layer. Can you point me toward a thread or book or anything?

I have an idea.
Try mixing with your ears rather than with numbers.
Stop looking at dB levels and LISTEN to what you are doing.
It's very easy to get distracted by all the numbers and gizmo gadgetry on the screen.

I have my control surface away from my computer monitors so I am less likely to look at the screen when I'm making adjustments.

And STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT LOUD.
Make it good, first. Louder will come later.

Karl and I can't be wrong, because we know what we're talking about.

Right on Karl!
Ms. Remy Ann David

Yes yes, I got the hint. Loudness makes MEs shrivel up and die. My mixes suck etc. However, this isn't the mixing forum, and I needed some music to play around with some mastering ideas.

Ok, so let's assume I had a song mixed by Jesus... Would you all still say this dip in volume idea has no possitive impact on the perceived dynamic feeling of the song? Perhaps at lower levels?

I have to hit the hay, but next time I'm online I'll try to post some quieter alternatives with the mixing suggestions in them.

IMHO, a perfect mix needs no mastering.
Don't worry about mastering right now, master mixing.

I'm looking forward to hearing your newer mixes

Now I need some chemistry for my head
Ms. Remy Ann David

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that computer programers are making special software algo's for ME's.

Not every mix can be loud. The key to making a mix loud is to have a balanced mix. you can still hear a good mix through the "mastering layer". it's the same mix, just enhanced, or not. nothing is being replaced or replayed.

There is no secret weapon to getting a mix loud. It's just good ole' experience. And a good mix will stand up even if the volume isn't screaming.

Looking at a RMS reading is tricky, because it's not telling you much. All it's really telling you is how much energy just went by, but not what kind. A kick drum has lots more energy behind it than say a HH. Once you balance a mix sonically, then a RMS meter is helpful in matching the energy to the other mixes, but the best way is to know how to set your volume pot and listen for other cues. when you hear a killer mix and it's loud, a lot of things fell into place long before they even thought about mastering. Mastering can do lots of things as long as the foundation is there.

I don't remember where I read it, but I saw somewhere that the top MEs often get specially designed hardware that they and only they have. I thought maybe they sent their function specifications to an engineer to design or something.

Ok, this is my updated mix, with very little master compression, and it's fairly quiet.

http://www.headchemists.com/ro/trip_hop_clip_quiet.mp3

I'm not givinng up on trying to get loud and dynamic masters, though... Green Day's latest album sounds dynamic enough for me, and I want to emulte that sound.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Let's take a look at your monitor situation. What monitors are you using? how far are they to your head, both distance and height. How far are they apart? Also, how loud are you listening?

I understand you want a loud master, but first we have to address how you listen. if you don't mind, you'll be my guinea pig.

OK now, that has some perceptible dynamics to it and it's not soft. Only your brain is soft.perhaps you have a hearing loss? I said,perhaps you have a hearing loss?

I want to bury my head in a pillow
Ms. Remy Ann David

Well, here's the monitoring situation... I'm in Costa Rica staying with a host family, and the only monitors I have are my default iPod earbuds, and some bigger Koss headphones, not to mention my build-in laptop speakers. Not ideal, but that's all I have and will have for the next few months. I listen at fairly low levels, but I occassionally listen really loud to hear how the bass changes etc...[/img]

Ahh, well that's your problem right there. It's pretty darn hard to record with headphones. Near impossible to mix with them. And definately not to be used as your main source for mastering.

NOTE: This is in no way meant to be a rip or slight on headchem personally. I, as well as anyone, know that we all have situational and financial limitations with respect to our equipment and location sometimes.

That being said....

headchem, I don't quite know how to say this, but the fact that you are asking mixing questions (not to mention MASTERING questions) based on mixes done on ipod earbuds or computer speakers tells us that you are really putting the cart before the horse. It is flat-out impossible to mix using any type of headphones, much less earbuds, or computer speakers. This is because these have neither the sonic range nor the response to do anything but confuse you. How would you know what to listen for or what to adjust when most of the sound you are hearing is heavily colored at best or missing at worst?

Further, the suggestions that the experts here are making assume a basic level of monitoring, so that you can actually hear the suggestions that they are making. With earbuds or computer speakers, most likely you can't even hear the sounds/mix/balance they are talking about.

Even if you had the best engineer mixing your tracks, they most likely couldn't get it to sound good, because of your setup. Conversely, even if you did get it sounding good on your setup, it won't sound good anywhere else, because of your equipment limitations.

You are going to be spinning your wheels for a long time if you keep working with what you have. It is unfortunate, and probably not what you want to hear, but it is the truth.

chance144 wrote: NOTE: This is in no way meant to be a rip or slight on headchem personally.
You are going to be spinning your wheels for a long time if you keep working with what you have. It is unfortunate, and probably not what you want to hear, but it is the truth.

Yeah - what he said. I do some mixing with headphones - while others in the house are sleeping and such - and lately my favorites are Future Soncs E3 in-ears with custom molded inserts, but I also have AKG 240s handy and some low-end Grados as well. I'll set levels and work on EQ with the in-ears and headphones - but some stuff just needs decent monitors in a decent space.

Yeah, I know the saying "you can't fix what you can't hear..." I keep hoping that by listening with several different pairs of headphones I can eventually hear all the details a decent set of monitors would reveal at one go. Also, if 99% of my listeners are listening on consmer devices, the only people who will hear problems in the mix or master are people who have Genelecs mounted on their car dashboard... Are you all sure that with enough consumer headphones I won't be able to at least get close to decent in my mix / master?

I'm not one to say "this" or "that" can't be done. What I can offer up is that in my past work space, putting up some carefully placed acoustic treatments (based on computer analysis of my room) and moving my old stereo speakers by just a few inches made a huge difference in what I heard.

Replacing my old speakers with powered monitors (Event 20/20bas) was another eye opening experience. What I found what that I was doing stuff with effects in the mix to try to compensate for my speakers. Once I got all that crap out of the mix (which I thought I needed when monitoring on lesser gear) my mixes sounded better everywhere.

headchem wrote: Also, if 99% of my listeners are listening on consmer devices, the only people who will hear problems in the mix or master are people who have Genelecs mounted on their car dashboard... Are you all sure that with enough consumer headphones I won't be able to at least get close to decent in my mix / master?

Haha if only, dude. The problem is that all consumer stereos sound different and are tuned different and have very different frequency response from eachother. They are usually more concerned with representing some lows, some mids, and some highs; but not necessarily all the frequencies. So doing your mix to sound good on one consumer system might end up sounding boomy or thin or honky on any number of other consumer systems. Of course if you are really good with using references back to commercial CD releases, it will help; but it would be a bit of random chance to get a good mix out of using consumer headphones. Get a bunch of cheap CDRs for many test mixes and take your mixes to an electronics store and take notes on how things sound as best you can. Hope you have some hair to pull out.
Since you use mostly samples, you will have it a lot easier though. Most of the sounds shouldn't need a ton of adjustment, right? Just get balances as good as you can, and little EQ cuts to make room for different things.
And of course, smash it up into a multi-band compressor and a limiter and pretend no one will know the difference.... :wink:

headchem wrote: Yeah, I know the saying "you can't fix what you can't hear..." I keep hoping that by listening with several different pairs of headphones I can eventually hear all the details a decent set of monitors would reveal at one go. Also, if 99% of my listeners are listening on consmer devices, the only people who will hear problems in the mix or master are people who have Genelecs mounted on their car dashboard... Are you all sure that with enough consumer headphones I won't be able to at least get close to decent in my mix / master?

No, you can't get a good product by doing this. If you do, it will be 100% luck. It's like asking a sharp shooter to hit a quarter 2 miles away with a pistol. Except your not yet a sharp shooter. So it's more like asking a boyscout to hit a quarter 2 miles away with a pellet gun.

good monitor make a big difference!

until recently i was mixing on a pair of computer speakers, which did sound good, but weren't linear. i also did some stuff using headphones, cause my setup is in the living room, and my girl friend wanted to watch tv.
with consumer speakers you don't get what you hear. while it sounded almost boomy on the headphones, it often sounded thin on my stereo or vice versa.
on my last project i spent over 2 weeks only burning, listening to it on different stereos, readjusting, burning, listening on different stereos, readjusting, burning, listening... you get the point.

now i got me some good monitors and i must say, i hear the difference!
i never thought it would be this huge. with my old speakers i compared my mixes with commercial releases and got it really close to what i heard. then listening with my new ones, i realized how far away i was.

when the people in this forum said, get good monitors, i too thought it won't make that much difference. i can do it with my cheap ones.
but i'm a believer now! ;-)

good monitors will get you where you want to go faster and easier!

i will still have to use the headphones, due to the problem mentioned above, but only for rough mixes. i think we'll have to move to a bigger place! :D

My, how this thread has changed, but I guess that's the way conversations go... Ok, I'm convinced that good monitors are very important. However, monitors are not currently an option, and I know you all understand there's nothing I can do about it.

I do use reference songs very frequently when mixing, and I alway have hundreds blank CDs for burning and listening to on other systems. I've been around long enough to know that's what I have to do to get as close as possible with monitors.

Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. I'm now mastering much quieter, and it all sounds better. No compression at all usually sounds the best... Which raises another question for me.

If no compression is best, and assuming a perfect mix, no EQ is needed either, what's the point of mastering? If I'm going for great dynamics, I know I shouldn't use any master compression or limiting. If my stereo image is good in the mix, I shouldn't need any stereo imaging. If my instruments fit well together, I shouldn't have a need for master reverb. If my mix already has enough clarity, I shouldn't need any harmonic enhancement.

So, my question is what would a ME do with a perfect mix? I've heard from someone on these forums (I forgot who) that a perfect mix doesn't need mastering. Is this true? What about the major artists with their million-dollar setups and recording / mixing engineers? Is the only purpose of a ME in these cases to raise the volume and try to hide the consequences? Can a ME ever make a perfect recording even more perfect?

I'm the guy who said a perfect mix needs no mastering, but I'll also say that I don't believe in "perfect". The "Perfect Mix" is totally subjective, and if you give a good mix to 10 mastering engineering, you'll get 10 different results back. Each engineer will feel their work improved the mix, even if the mix engineer felt their mix needed no mastering.

I've only had one instance in where a mix did not benefit from something. whether it's a tuck here or a slight boost there. The point is, if you are listening on something that only reveales a portion of what is there, and you have limited knowledge of what will and will not translate, and you have limited tools to deal with it, then what's the point of doing it?