I actually agree. I wish we could have all stayed happy at -12dBfs. But the reality is, if my clients get home and they play their new CD back to back with something they bought at the store, they're going to come back and wonder why they didn't get that extra 4 dBVU.

What "backlash" are you talking about? I'm obviously out of the loop.

That stuff sounds like crap. It isnt your job to make loud crap, its your job to make a good sounding mix. Tell them to take their finished mux you made to a mastering lab and destroy it there if they must. Keep a good copy of your version for defense. You have no business trying to make things loud whatsoever.

Like you found one of the major things to keeping it quiet is dynamic bass. Another one is stereo. Make mono mixes with no moving bass and you can make it as loud as nicklecreedback

Try here for starters:

http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html


geoff

Sounds like you're nearing making multiband compression your friend.

Waves C4 (on tracks\busses) sound nice, then check out waves Mastering multiband compression on a main mix.

Use these tools lightly to even out the instrument and main mix...not suck all the dynamic life out of it.
Listen to the others replying...a smashed and loud mix completely blows in my book (especially with the music I prefer to work with).

I suppose with butt-rock, cheesy power ballads it's fine. Go ahead and destroy it...it's butt rock and the music should last about half a year or so before being replaced with the next butt rock song (iow: I could care less cause I won't be listening to it other than for novelties sake).

Let them take it to a mastering house and weasel out a deal as for squash and gain. There's plenty of idiots out there happy to take their cash to run it thru their L2 for ya claiming it's "all fixed".
You just concentrate on a rep for the best (consistent) dynamic mixes you can.

jd

Geoff, I read the article. Too bad the guy didn't take a stand on what the standard should be.

I feel pretty good about my mix if I can bring the final version into Vegas, and the waveform doesn't look like the overhead view of a Snickers bar. To hopefully restore your confidence in me, I remember getting PfR's "Disappear" back in 2001, and thinking for sure my right speaker was blown when I listened to it. I kept hearing a crackling during the loudest vocal parts, though nobody else I talked to could. I remember commenting on their messageboard that it must have been some mastering engineer's chance to experiement with some new NLE tool or plugin, and he blew it. Then one day I pulled some of the songs into CoolEdit, and the waveforms were practically big fat ribbons. No visible dynamics. It shocked my conscience.
I listen to a lot of classical in my car. I do have to reach for the volume knob a lot. I like a good steady rocker like Beethoven's Molto Vivance. I'm not suggesting more compression in classical music! Perish the thought. But I can see the value of compression in CD mastering for the sake of listening in a car. But with rock music, you can really tell the squashing has gotten out of control when three volume knob clicks on my in-dash player is almost too loud. :)
Pipeline, were you commenting that the mixes sounded bad, or that my ideas about using multiband compression for higher levels sounded like they were founded on the wrong premise?

Here's a question for those who have been eager to voice dissent regarding level pushing. What standard level do you adhere to for celing when you mix?

Also, I agree with the notion that musical dynamics shouldn't fall victim in the loudness race. That's why I generally use the final chorus of a song to set my VU ceiling. I let the rest of the song fall to a hush if that's what the artist intended. The A-B I posted was the loudest part of that particular song.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to make an argument by indicating that musical dynamics (occurring over whole measures at the very least) and level dynamics (occurring over 10's of milliseconds) are one in the same. Peak limiters can be used to combat clipping without stealing the quality of the song's musical dynamic.

If you are talking about air play than the last little bit probably doesn’t matter anyway. Bob Katz in his “Mastering Audio” book has a fascinatingly detailed description of what the broadcast processors, like Orban, do to make the stations sound loud. Main points were that the broadcaster is going to make all songs sound loud (station sound) and that if you put an overly compressed song on the air it will sound worse than a moderately compressed one.

Larry

What standard do I mix to? I mix with calibrated monitor levels to PAR20. This is my shorthand for "peak to average ratio of 20dB." Corresponds to K-20 in Bob Katz lingo. And I don't look at the meters, just use my ears. With 20dB one doesn't have to worry about clipping usually.

What standard do I master to? I master at PAR14 to PAR12. PAR14 corresponds to Seargent Pepper. Yes, this is ancient and not loud by today's standards. But it sounds good. PAR6 to PAR8, the loudest stuff today, sounds like crap, usually, and I won't even try to get that hot.

Of course the level varies in the course of the piece, depending on musical styles.

And I do mostly my own projects so I don't have to worry about making the "louder is better" clients happy.

Jim

I'l have to agree with the majority on this when it comes to music mixes. Ultramaximizers and Finalizers have destroyed sound quality to the point that 20 years from now listeners will be asking, "What the hell were they doing back then?" But since I also do a lot of mixing for television and radio commercials, I have to add that judicial use of slower compressors like Waves RCL can do wonders for intelligibilty of broadcast mixes by reducing the constant pumping that a dynamic mix suffers when going through a bradcast limiter.

yeah, RCL is also great on inst\busses. I just suggest using it to reinforce and shape the sound...not blow it up to the nth degree.

jd

Ultramximizer....poops on my mixes at times. I love the C4 though, great multiband compressor. I use a Steinberg Volume Maximizer to pump the level up...I like it best of the ones I've tried.

And I agree about things getting too f'n loud lately. Remember Pantera's Vulgar Display of Power? Undoubtedly a standard in heavy albums. If you open up any track off that disc and look at the wave file side by side with one from Linkin Park's Meteora you'll see a huge difference. I think the Pantera tracks sounds a little cleaner and smoother. That Meteora disc has spots that are just too loud...killing the guitar tone in my opinion.

risenwithhim,
The multiband compressor is your best choice with the most selectable adjustments for making your mixes louder with the least side effects. Obviously you have just learned this for yourself. Your compression ratios are on par too. I use 8:1 on low, 4:1 on mid and 4:1 on highs. The thresholds then become more important on how much compression you actually do for each frequency band. You will find you can highly compress(ie lower threshold) the mid range to achieve a higher level. The low's threshold value should be a good +6dB higher than the mid, with the highs a good +10dB higher. You will most likely find you can get about a -6dB reading on the gain reduction meter with the compression on the mids with little side effects. Compress sparingly on the lows, with the least compression on the highs.

Another thing I'ld like to point out to you, because I wasn't sure by reading your original post. If you are adding multiband compression to your final "mixes" while mixing in Vegas, I would recommend against it. It is best to wait until all the songs of a complete CD are finished. You are doing them a huge disservice otherwise IMHO. Yes, the mixes your clients take home on their CD will not be as loud as anything purchased in the stores. You just need to inform them, that part needs to wait until all the songs are complete and the mix has been through the mastering process. If you add the multiband compression during the mixdown, this will further tie your hands when either you or another mastering engineer goes to master the material. Wait until the mastering process to do all the multiband compression and volume maximizers tricks. It is best to get the mix correct and you can concentrate more on the level maximizing when all the songs are complete, where you will then have the ability to add as much multiband compression as you wish and be able to do level comparisons between all the songs on the final CD. Otherwise, you have a good chance of over compressing one particular song, and then have to work around that song for the entire CD. If you have to give them a song that has been compressed to meet commercial releases, I would recommend giving them 2 mixes. One that is uncompressed to be mastered later, and one that has been premastered for a louder level playback.

I would also recommend getting Sound Forge v7.0 for your mastering process. I have used the PSP VU meter and it is ok, especially for the free price tag. Sound Forge 7.0 now has a VU meter for playback and recording and the functionality is much closer to a true VU meter and works far superior to the PSP VU and has better resolution. I would use sound forge in conjunction with your multiband compressor plugins.

I have a Finalizer and I agree this is one of the reasons we have gotten into the loudness race. The finalizer is a really nice tool, but unfortunately like any tool, you can overuse it. Don't blame the tool though, it's the industry and the user behind the controls to blame for the loudness race.

Rednroll,
I've found that you are a benefit to this community. I appreciate all of your friendly advice.

Hey, for once I'll agree on this red post.

Red wasn't laying any condecending tone to anyone, offered his personal settings, basically a nice quick concise response to a thread.
That's killer, maybe we can get back to being real.

Note: although he mentions his common settings here, you must remember that there is not set "setting" for a MB plugin. it will and should vary from song to song and style to style. the goal being the same though - use it to "shape the sound" more than anything. I'm sure red means the same thing.

jd

Good job red, th

I totally agree that mixing is one thing, and mastering something else.
Don't do the maximize processing while mixing, wait until it's time to do the CD and master the whole thing at a good mastering studio with competent mastering engineers.
And explain this to your customers.
If needed just give them a CD-copy for their listening need with an overall compression to give a little power and punch.

I'm beginning to realize the progression of a greater argument among the music production community at large. I have always viewed mixing and mastering as two separate processes. (In this particular case, it was a turnkey 3 song demo, so I could easily move between the CD layout and the individual mix files to adjust levels from song to song, though granted, that's not the best way to do it.)
But lately I've been reading opinions that "mastering" as it was known in the AAA or AAD world is a thing of the past. The reason given is that the need for it (suppressing bias noise) is no longer is an issue. So having seen this opinion a few times, now I'm not as quick to urge a client to talk to mastering facilities when I hand them the finished mixes. The other reasons for mastering are things that I can do -- setting even levels from one song to the next, assigning silence and cue time between tracks and setting CD track markers.
I'm still in intellectual limbo over the issue. I'm sure I'm not as competent as Bob Ludwig, much less have 1% of the gear he has. But the bands I work with wouldn't send their CD to Bob Ludwig. Just like they found me to be an accommodating, quick turn-around studio for tracking and mixing, they'll find some other guy that will offer them a cheap package rate to "master" their songs. So I'm thinking, "I can do that myself."

I'm on a pursuit for excellence now more than ever. Thanks to everyone for your feedback and thoughts.

Here's an article I found that has lots of good, general information: http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/gman_mastering.htm

And that article links to another at the bottom called "What Happened to Dynamic Range?" The second page of that article has a telling chart about average (not peak) levels in CD's from 1980-2002. VERY interesting. I'm definitely thinking more carefully through all of this.